[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 9 (Friday, January 17, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1101-S1122]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     MAKING FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of House Joint Resolution 2, which the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 2) making further continuing 
     appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       Harkin amendment No. 32, to restore funding for 
     nondiscretionary Byrne grants to a level of $500,000,000.
       Schumer Modified amendment No. 31, to provide funds for 
     research and development grants to increase security for 
     United States ports.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham of South Carolina). The Senator 
from Alaska.

[[Page S1102]]

  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Chair please announce what the program is.


                            Amendment No. 32

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 5 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote on or in relation 
to the Harkin amendment No. 32.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, before that starts, I think we should 
wait for the participants. I wish to announce, assuming the Senator 
from New York and I can work out an understanding, there may not be a 
second vote. Members should be aware, there may not be the second vote. 
The first vote will take place as scheduled.
  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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Will the Presiding 
Officer state what is before the body right now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 5 minutes evenly divided on the 
Harkin amendment No. 32.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the omnibus bill that is before us 
virtually eliminates the Byrne law enforcement grant program. This 
amendment restores the funding to $500 million to the fiscal year 2002 
level. There is no increase, but this at least holds it harmless.
  On each Senator's desk is a table of how much each State's law 
enforcement would lose without the Byrne grant. These grants go 
directly to State and local law enforcement. It pays for regional drug 
task forces, technology, forensics, prevention, and other valuable 
antidrug efforts in local communities.
  I have heard from the National Sheriffs Association, the 
International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Association 
of Police Organizations, and the National Governors' Association, who 
have voiced strong support for this amendment.
  At this crucial time in our history, we cannot afford to reduce the 
effectiveness of our Nation's law enforcement agencies.
  I received a letter this morning from the head of the Kansas Bureau 
of Investigation, Mr. Larry Welch. I do not know him personally. He 
said:

       Elimination of Byrne funding would be absolutely 
     devastating to Kansas law enforcement.

  Mr. President, this amendment is needed by local law enforcement all 
over the United States, and I hope we adopt it overwhelmingly.
  I yield to the Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Harkin's 
amendment to restore full funding to the Edward Byrne Memorial State 
and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program, a program which is used 
to fund crime and drug prevention programs in communities nationwide.
  The bill before use today cuts the Byrne grant program by $500 
million, in essence eviscerating it. I have trouble understanding why 
anyone would choose to decrease funding for a program that strives to 
improve the criminal justice system and increase public safety.
  Cutting this program has real consequences in my home State of 
Delaware. There, Byrne grant money goes to fund a wide range of 
significant drug abuse and prevention programs, juvenile crime 
initiatives and other criminal justice projects, including: Delaware's 
Key and Crest programs, which help criminal offenders get off of drugs 
and decrease there chance of re-offending once they are released from 
jail; drug treatment services for criminal offenders in drug court 
programs; drunk driving patrols in Dover, DE; and drug prevention 
programs such as ``Heroin Hurts'' which educates teens about the 
dangers of the deadly pure heroin available in my State.
  The Byrne program is distributed as a block grant to each State, 
based on a State's population. Delaware typically receives almost $2.5 
million per year. It's critical funding, funding that secures the 
hometown and that helps keep our kids safe and drug-free.
  I could go on about the good Byrne has done in Delaware. We have used 
Byrne funds to create eight community-based crime prevention programs 
around my State. In New Castle County and Dover, these programs offered 
training and services to adults and youth in high crime areas. Another 
project identified hate crime hotspots throughout New Castle County and 
increased police services through a specialized hate crime unit to 
those areas.
  We have used Byrne funds to train prison officers, to improve our 
criminal justice records, and to expand the Delaware State Police's 
crime mapping project.
  Byrne is an incredibly flexible law enforcement program. It's amazing 
to me that we would propose to eliminate it in this bill. I will fight 
this cut, and I am pleased to stand with my friend from Iowa in 
offering this amendment to restore Byrne funds.
  Mr. President, I cannot fathom why my colleagues are doing this. This 
is the single most popular, effective program that has existed in 
helping State law enforcement. Everybody on that side knows that. It 
has all the Republican attributes. It is flexible. It is one of those 
programs that the States like very much.
  The Presiding Officer from South Carolina knows how it works in South 
Carolina, and in this rush to be able to make room for these cockamamie 
priorities, what are we doing? We are cutting FBI agents. We eliminate 
the Violent Crimes Task Force. The FBI cannot function in the States on 
ordinary crimes such as bank robbery and interstate car theft. We cut 
another 800 FBI agents, or thereabouts, under this proposal.
  We are cutting the COPS program. I think my colleagues have it 
backwards. I think this is the most cockamamie idea I have heard in a 
long while. This narrow definition of a constitutional national defense 
is going to come back to bite us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent that Senators Jeffords, Murray, 
Edwards, Clinton, Graham, and Schumer be added as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, unfortunately, the Edward Byrne Memorial 
State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program suffered a $500 
million cut in this bill. Hundreds of law enforcement agencies 
throughout Wisconsin depend on this money to fund a variety of crime 
prevention, drug interdiction, domestic violence, and many other 
creative, anti-crime initiatives. In fact, Wisconsin received more than 
$9 million in Byrne formula grant funds last year.
  Eliminating this source of funding will drastically impair local law 
enforcement's ability to combat crime. I am pleased to co-sponsor 
Senator Harkin's amendment to restore the Byrne formula grant program 
to last year's level of $500 million. We cannot leave our State and 
local law enforcement agencies out in the cold, especially at a time 
when we've asked them take on the additional responsibility of being 
the first line of defense and the first to respond in case of a 
terrorist incident. The safety of our communities depends on local law 
enforcement's ability to do their job well. At the very least, we can 
assist them by restoring this funding.
  (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered 
to be printed in the Record.)
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I strongly support the Harkin amendment to 
restore funding for the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law 
Enforcement Assistance Program to its fiscal year 2002 level. I am 
concerned that the omnibus appropriations bill before us eviscerates 
the Byrne program. The Byrne program provides a flexible source of 
funding to State and local law enforcement agencies to help fight crime 
by funding drug enforcement task forces, more cops on the street, 
improved technology, and other anticrime efforts. Massachusetts 
received over $11.5 million in Byrne funding last year. On countless 
occasions I have heard from law enforcement officers from Massachusetts 
about the value of the Byrne program to their crime-fighting efforts.
  The war against terror has placed unprecedented demands on State and

[[Page S1103]]

local law enforcement to prevent terrorist attacks and to respond to an 
attack should one occur. But fighting the war on terror is not the only 
job that we expect police officers to do. We also expect them to combat 
the prevalence of drugs in our cities and rural communities, we expect 
them to keep our homes and families safe from thieves, and we expect 
them to make us feel secure when we walk through our neighborhoods. We 
are well aware that the States are facing a severe fiscal crisis, some 
$75 billion collectively, what priority does it reflect to cut back on 
support to local law enforcement in this budget and security 
environment? A wrong-headed one, in my estimation.
  This amendment is supported by the National Association of Police 
Organizations, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and 
the National Governor's Association. I am proud to stand with these 
organizations in support of the Harkin amendment to restore funding to 
the Byrne amendment.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Harkin's 
amendment to restore full funding to the Edward Byrne Memorial State 
and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program, a program which is used 
to fund crime and drug prevention programs in communities nationwide.
  The bill before us today cuts the Byrne grant program by $500 
million, in essence eviscerating it. I have trouble understanding why 
anyone would choose to decrease funding for a program that strives to 
improve the criminal justice system and increase public safety.
  Cutting this program has real consequences in my home state of 
Delaware. There, Byrne grant money goes to fund a wide range of 
significant drug abuse and prevention programs, juvenile crime 
initiatives and other criminal justice projects, including:
  Delaware's Key and Crest programs, which help criminal offenders get 
off of drugs and decrease their chance of re-offending once they are 
released from jail;
  Drug treatment services for criminal offenders in drug court 
programs;
  Drunk driving patrols in Dover, DE;
  Drug prevention programs such as ``Heroin Hurts'' which educates 
teens about the dangers of the deadly pure heroin available in my 
State.
  The Byrne program is distributed as a block grant to each state, 
based on a State's population. Delaware typically receives almost $2.5 
million per year. It's critical funding--funding that secures the 
hometown and that helps keep our kids safe and drug-free.
  I could go on about the good Byrne has done in Delaware. We have used 
Byrne funds to create eight community-based crime prevention programs 
around my state. In New Castle County and Dover, these programs offered 
training and services to adults and youth in high crime areas. Another 
project identified hate crime hotspots throughout New Castle County and 
increased police services through a specialized hate crime unit to 
those areas.
  We have used Byrne funds to train prison officers, to improve our 
criminal justice records, and to expand the Delaware State Police's 
crime mapping project.
  Byrne is an incredibly flexible law enforcement program. It's amazing 
to me that we would propose to eliminate it in this bill. I will fight 
this cut, and I am pleased to stand with my friend from Iowa in 
offering this amendment to restore Byrne funds.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President: I rise to comment on amendment No. 32, 
which would restore $500 million in funding for the Department of 
Justice's Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement 
Assistance Program, the Byrne Grant Program.
  There is no question we all agree on the importance of maintaining 
adequate funding for the Byrne Grant Program. The Byrne Grant Program 
does much to enhance State and local law enforcement, providing 
critical grants which are needed to fight violent and drug-related 
crime. In the last year alone, over $4 million was awarded to State and 
local law enforcement agencies in Utah to fight violent and drug-
related crime.
  As many of my colleagues, I was extremely disturbed to learn the 
resolution we have before us today contains absolutely no funding for 
the Byrne Grant Program. Obviously, it is not in the interest of 
supporting local law enforcement for that situation to stand.
  Let me discuss another consideration. Appropriation have worked very 
to craft a bill that is fiscally responsible, that will balance the 
need for spending against restraint, and that will help us restore a 
balanced budget which is so vital to our country's economic security. 
The amendment we have before us, offered by my good friend and 
colleague, Senator Harkin, proposes to add $500 million to the bottom 
line of this bill, without an offsetting reduction which will keep the 
resolution within the total funding level acceptable to the President. 
Thus, its passage would vastly exceed the carefully crafted Federal 
discretionary spending level agreed to by President Bush and 
congressional appropriators last year and jeopardize the legislation we 
must pass to ensure continued funding for virtually all of the 
Government except the Department of Defense.
  I am relieved to hear our chairmen, Senator Stevens and Senator 
Gregg, provide assurances that if the Harkin amendment were not 
adopted, they will restore the funds in the conference committee with 
the House of Representatives. Based on those assurances, I will cast my 
vote to table the Harkin amendment.
  Before I close, I wanted to also express my concerns about a 
provision in H.J. Res 2 which dramatically restructures the section 8 
Housing Choice Voucher renewal calculation. The resolution states that 
contracts will be renewed based upon levels used in previous years to 
calculate future housing payments and administrative fees. This formula 
could result in a severe undercounting of the number of families likely 
to be served by vouchers in the upcoming year.
  Housing Authorities are facing an ever-increasing series of 
challenges, including increases in low-income and disabled eligibles 
and rising rental costs in many areas. Many of Utah's agencies who have 
received new voucher awards within the last six to 12 months are 
projecting they will have inadequate funding to meet their needs.
  As I read the resolution, any additional funding needed to support 
increased costs will be a limited amount that is located within a 
central fund allocated by the Secretary. This could force Housing 
Authorities to reduce staff, resulting in lost administrative fees, and 
a reduction in the percentage of vouchers being used. It is my hope 
that the conferees will be able to rectify this problem that could 
serve to undermine the successfulness of the Section 8 program.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am unable to support the amendment by 
my colleague, Senator Harkin, to restore $500 million in non-
discretionary funding to the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law 
Enforcement Assistance Program. I am unable to do so not based on my 
opposition to the program, but rather due to the fact that the chairman 
of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, has outlined a 
separate strategy to restore this funding in conference.
  The Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance 
Program provides funding to State and local governments to help make 
communities safe and improve criminal justice systems. Specifically, 
the Byrne Program emphasizes the reduction of violent and drug-related 
crimes and fosters multi jurisdictional efforts to support national 
drug control priorities.
  Byrne Program funds are awarded through both discretionary and 
formula grant programs. Discretionary funds are awarded directly to 
public and private agencies and private nonprofit organizations, while 
formula funds are awarded to the States, which then award subgrants to 
State and local units of government as well as to agencies and 
organizations.
  Senator Harkin's amendment would add $500 million to the overall cost 
of the Omnibus Appropriations bill, an amount which far exceeds the 
funding cap on the bill which the administration is willing to support. 
Chairman Stevens has explicitly stated that although this program was 
taken out of the bill, additional money was put in its place because he 
is aware that the House of Representatives intends to restore funding 
for this program in conference.
  I have consistently supported the Byrne Program and similar programs

[[Page S1104]]

in the past, and have also worked tirelessly through the annual 
appropriations process to secure funds and grants for both rural and 
metropolitan law enforcement agencies in the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania and throughout the Nation. As the former District Attorney 
of Philadelphia, I understand the importance of Federal funds to local 
and state law enforcement agencies to help reduce crime and have 
consistently supported increased funding for that purpose.
  Based on the comments made by Chairman Stevens, I am confident that 
this program will be restored in conference. Accordingly, I am unable 
to support my colleague's amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, what is the remaining time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. GREGG. If the Chair would advise me when I have reached a minute, 
then I will yield to the chairman of the committee, the President pro 
tempore.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. First off, let's remember we have dramatically increased 
the money in this bill by $2 billion which is going back to the local 
police forces in this country. That is $2 billion. The Byrne program is 
a good program, but it is a program that buys lights and cars. It is a 
program that is used for basically the day-to-day operation of the 
police forces, and that makes sense when we can afford it.
  This bill is structured in a way so that we can stay at the seven-
fifty level. We expect the Byrne money to come back into this out of 
conference. But as a practical matter, to get to the seven-fifty level, 
we thought it was more important to put $2 billion of new money into 
the police agencies where they needed it, which is in the area of 
supporting their efforts to fight terrorism.
  I yield to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this is the time when we ask both sides 
of the aisle to trust us. We took out a program we know is going to go 
back into this bill and put additional money in another place because 
we know the House will help us put it back in. This will help save 
another portion of this bill that we support.
  We have done this for years. The other side has done it, too. We know 
what the House wants. The House wants this back in. We want to convince 
them the other money we have in here also is good.
  I urge the Senate to give us the flexibility to deal with this bill 
in conference the way it is outlined. It is a very flexible bill. There 
are 11 bills in 1 amendment. I guarantee it will survive.
  I pledge it will survive, but also what will survive is another $2 
billion we need for another program. This is part of that program. So 
on the basis of trust, I ask my colleagues to trust us.
  I move to table this amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  At the moment, there is not a sufficient second.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Is there any time remaining on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time remaining on the Democratic 
side.
  Mr. STEVENS. If the Senator wishes a minute, I ask unanimous consent 
that he would have an additional minute.
  Mr. HARKIN. I only need 30 seconds.
  Mr. STEVENS. All right. Thirty seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. I want to add Senator Dorgan as a cosponsor.
  On the $2 billion that is in the bill, that is for first responders. 
That does not go to the same entities we are talking about in the Byrne 
amendment. That is the only point I want to make.
  Mr. STEVENS. I agree it does not, but this money is going back in 
under the negotiations strategy we outlined. I guarantee it is going 
back in, but give us some leeway to deal with this bill. It is an 
enormous bill.
  Again, I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  At the moment, there is not a sufficient second.
  Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Regular order. A voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays on the underlying amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  At the moment, there does not appear to be a sufficient second.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to table, and 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 motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) 
is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``no''.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 46, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 6 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--46

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Hagel
     Kerry
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 31, as modified

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator from New York offered the 
next amendment on which the yeas and nays have been ordered. As I 
promised last night as we wound up, we have reviewed Senator Schumer's 
amendment, and he has drafted a modified amendment which he will offer 
and which we will accept.
  I want to call to the attention of Senators that there are some of 
these

[[Page S1105]]

amendments that can be worked out, if we have a chance to work them 
out. We want to work with both sides of the aisle to try to accommodate 
the desires of Senators with regard to these 11 bills in one amendment.
  I yield to my friend from New York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators 
Hollings, Dorgan, Kennedy, Graham of Florida, Biden, Clinton, and 
Lautenberg be added as cosponsors of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Amendment No. 31, As Further Modified

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to further modify 
my amendment with the changes that I now send to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 31), as further modified, is as follows:

   (Purpose: To provide funds for research and development grants to 
               increase security for United States ports)

       On page 719, strike ``,'' on line 14, and insert the 
     following:
       Provided further, That, of such amounts provided herein, 
     $150,000,000 shall be available for the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security pursuant to the terms and conditions of section 
     70107(i) of Public Law 107-295 to award grants to national 
     laboratories, private nonprofit organizations, institutions 
     of higher education, and other entities for the support of 
     research and development of technologies that can be used to 
     secure the ports of the United States:

  (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered 
to be printed in the Record.)
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I strongly support Senator Schumer's 
amendment to add $150 million for port security research grants to the 
omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003. I cannot be here for 
the vote, but if I were I would vote in favor of this amendment. We 
passed a comprehensive maritime security bill at the end of the last 
Congress because in the aftermath of September 11 it became apparent 
that our Nation's ports were vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Our bill 
provided for the creation of a port security infrastructure that will 
significantly increase the level of security at ports and maritime 
facilities across the country. However, the bill was not funded through 
the appropriations process and a funding mechanism has yet to be been 
decided. The Schumer amendment would immediately release grant money to 
laboratories and universities for the research and development of 
technologies which will help detect the presence of chemical, 
biological, and nuclear weapons at our Nation's ports, something we 
addressed in the Maritime Security Act but have yet to implement.
  There is no doubt that we will need to develop new technologies and 
improve upon existing detection technology if we are to fully secure 
our ports against the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction. 
There are simply not enough customs inspectors to search every piece of 
cargo that comes into the United States. We will need to have equipment 
that can scan large cargo containers and detect explosives, chemical 
and biological agents, and any other substance that could conceivably 
cause harm. We will also need improved technology that will help 
officials track, and keep track, of cargo containers from their point 
of origin to their point of destination. Calling upon our scientists 
and educators to develop new security technologies is essential if we 
are to effectively wage the war on terrorism. Given the inadequacies 
that we know exist in our port security, I do not believe that we can 
afford to wait around to act. Senator Schumer's amendment is critical 
to the future of maritime security, and I urge my colleagues to vote 
for its passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we are prepared to accept this amendment. 
What it does is it dedicates moneys that are already in the bill to the 
consideration of the process of developing the system of detecting 
items in cargo vans as they come into our country. It is a very vital 
subject, and we are pleased to work with the Senator from New York.
  I urge its adoption.
  I yield back the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first, I thank the Senator from Alaska, 
as well as the Senators from South Carolina, Washington State, and 
Arizona for their help.
  Let me explain it quickly to my colleagues and how it is changed. As 
many of you know, something I have felt very strongly about is the 
ability to detect nuclear devices as they might be smuggled into this 
country by terrorists, either on ships in the large containers or over 
the Mexican or Canadian borders.
  The scientists at our energy labs tell us they can develop or perfect 
detection devices much better than Geiger counters, which is the only 
detection device we have now that can prevent such devices from being 
smuggled in, which could cause an unimaginable tragedy--if a nuclear 
device were smuggled into the country and exploded.
  The original amendment added $150 million for research. Through the 
good work of the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, we have now 
simply said that that money will come out of TSA. He has graciously 
agreed to protect that in conference. I think it is a happy compromise 
that solves the problem I have had getting research for this and the 
problem he has had making sure there are no new allocations.
  It tracks the language that Senator Hollings and Senator McCain put 
in the port security bill and now provides the funding without adding 
any additional funding. So I am glad we have a compromise and look 
forward to seeing this research proceed very quickly. We cannot afford 
to wait.
  Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment, 
as further modified.
  The amendment (No. 31), as further modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.

       Mr. SCHUMER. I move to lay that motion on the table.

  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it is my understanding the Senator from 
West Virginia will offer an amendment. I would like to inquire from my 
good friend if we could put a time limit on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if I may respond to my friend, I am willing 
to enter into a time agreement. I think that is good. I wonder how many 
of my colleagues will want to have 2 or 3 or 5 minutes. I do not want 
to leave my friends out of the equation. As far as I am personally 
concerned, I could do with 45 minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we have an 
hour on the amendment; 45 minutes for the Senator from West Virginia, 
15 minutes for our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. STEVENS. Is this the one on the across-the-board cuts?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. STEVENS. Does the Senator wish to have no second-degree 
amendments?
  Mr. BYRD. That is fine, and an up-or-down vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. We agree, no second-degree amendments and an up-or-down 
vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Amendment No. 36

       (Purpose: to nullify all across-the-board rescissions 
     contained in this joint resolution.)

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
And I send to the desk an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 36:
       Strike title VI of division N.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Alaska has 
been very gracious in proposing that I, as the author of the amendment, 
have 45 minutes and that he, the manager on the other side, have 15 
minutes.

[[Page S1106]]

  My hearing isn't too good at this point. I am trying to clarify.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could ask the Senator from West 
Virginia to yield.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. REID. It is my understanding that on this amendment the Senator 
from West Virginia would control 45 minutes and the Senator from Alaska 
15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, let me thank my friend from Alaska again. He is, in 
Shakespeare's words, ``a man after my own kidney.'' He offers me three 
times as much time as he intends to claim. What does that tell you? 
That tells you he is a very fair man. And it also tells you he is very 
sure of his votes. We saw, yesterday, how well disciplined the 
Republican majority is. Every man, every woman, right down the line--no 
variation, no veering off course--straight to the object, no matter 
what the contents of the amendment, no matter what its attributes, 
votes it down. I say this with all due respect to Senator Stevens. But 
he is sure of his votes, which indicates to me that the other side has 
caucused, they have said they are going to say no to every amendment we 
offer on this side. I respect them and I admire them for their 
discipline.
  Now, Mr. President, to the amendment.
  After the election--remember the election, my friend from Rhode 
Island, who presides this morning over this Chamber with a degree of 
discipline and poise and aplomb that is so rare as a day in June--after 
the election, the President of the United States threw down the 
gauntlet and insisted that total discretionary spending not exceed $751 
billion. He said: That is it. That is the line. That is the mark. No 
more. That far but no further.
  To meet this arbitrary target, Senator Stevens was forced to reduce 
the 11 bills that were approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee 
last July, on bipartisan, unanimous votes, by $9.8 billion. What a 
change. What a change a few months can make.
  These 11 bills were approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee 
last July, when we had 15 Democrats, 14 Republicans, and--to the man 
and to the woman--we had a bipartisan vote, a unanimous vote, in 
support of these 11 bills. And now, because the President has drawn a 
line in the sand and sent the message to the Republican majority: Cut 
it. Cut it--and we see the discipline on the other side of the aisle--
everybody is marching to the tune of the President of the United States 
on that side of the aisle. So what he says goes. He says: That far. It 
will go this far, and no further.
  All right. So to meet this arbitrary target, Senator Stevens was 
forced to reduce the 11 bills that were approved by the Senate 
Appropriations Committee last July, on bipartisan, unanimous votes, by 
$9.8 billion. Let's see how everybody votes today.

  This shortsighted and arbitrary ceiling on spending forced Senator 
Stevens to make dramatic reductions in priority programs designed to 
defend our homeland, educate our children, improve our transportation 
systems, and strengthen our law enforcement programs.
  The legislation before us also includes a 2.9-percent across-the-
board cut in all domestic programs. Get that, an across-the-board cut 
in all, not just some but all domestic programs. This provision, buried 
in 1,052 pages of legislative text, will exacerbate the cuts that are 
already made in the bill. A cut of 2.9 percent now, or $11.4 billion, 
in domestic spending is no technical adjustment.
  The President insisted that there be a vote on going to war with Iraq 
before the election. He insisted that he must have that vote. The 
Republicans insisted that we must have the vote on Iraq before the 
election so that the impending election would affect the outcome of 
that vote. I wonder why they didn't say: Let's vote on the 11 
appropriations bills before the election, with the across-the-board cut 
of 1.6 percent and then with the addition yesterday of 1.3 percent, 
making a total of 2.9 percent across the board. How would that have 
been before the election? How would that have been perceived before the 
election if we had this vote then? If we could have only had the vote 
that is about to come, if we could have had it before the election, 
what a difference that would have made.
  Here we are now. This country is faced with a cut of 2.9 percent, or 
$11.4 billion, in domestic spending. This is no technical adjustment. 
This is a real cut. Nor can it be fairly characterized as capturing the 
savings from agencies operating under a continuing resolution for 4 
months. Don't you believe that. The President's budget for fiscal year 
2003 was simply inadequate when it came to critical domestic programs. 
The President proposed to freeze domestic spending, excluding homeland 
security, and last summer the Senate Appropriations Committee approved, 
on a bipartisan unanimous vote, an allocation that provided just enough 
additional resources, about $11 billion, to cover the cost of inflation 
for domestic programs. Every Republican on the Appropriations Committee 
voted for that. Every Democrat on the Appropriations Committee voted 
for that.
  With those additional funds, the committee was able to restore 
essential funding for programs that the President proposed to cut, such 
as veterans medical care, highway funding for the States, education 
programs, the new No Child Left Behind law, Amtrak, and State and local 
law enforcement.
  Now what a change. Now the President has not only insisted on 
virtually eliminating the $11 billion increase that the committee 
approved last summer, but by including this 2.9-percent cut in domestic 
programs, spending will actually be cut overall by 1 percent. It is 
also deeply troubling that some of this $11.4 billion across-the-board 
cut is being imposed on domestic programs to pay for increases in 
mandatory programs.
  The mandatory side of the Federal budget is going through the roof 
unchecked, going through the ozone layer, while the domestic programs 
that are being funded through the annual appropriations process are 
being squeezed--like I squeezed my grapefruit this morning. The 
domestic programs that are being funded through the annual 
appropriations process are being squeezed.
  Approximately $4 billion of the $11.4 billion across-the-board cut is 
included in the bill to pay for increased mandatory spending in 
Medicare, in assistance for needy families, and for drought relief. 
While these are important programs, should our veterans have to pay for 
them with longer lines at hospitals and clinics? Hear me. I am asking 
you, the people out there who are listening and watching through the 
electronic eye, I am asking you. I am asking my friends on the other 
side of the aisle, while these are important programs, should our 
veterans have to pay for them with longer lines at hospitals and 
clinics? How many pregnant women and infants have fewer meals through 
the WIC program? How about that? The silence is deafening.

  Should we fail to meet our commitment to double the budget for the 
National Institutes of Health over 5 years? I think not. And the 
Senate, based on previous votes, thinks not.
  Once we start down this road of paying for increases in mandatory 
programs by cutting domestic funding, where will it stop?
  When I came to Congress more than 50 years ago, I seem to remember 
that the Appropriations Committees of the two Houses controlled 
something like 90 percent of the domestic spending programs. My memory 
is not infallible, but it was a tremendous figure over today's. We have 
been hearing in recent years that the Appropriations Committees have 
control over about one-third of the total expenditures.
  Now what we are doing, with these mandatory programs, you might refer 
to them as backdoor spending. Congress, and the Appropriations 
Committee, has absolutely no control over that. That change has come 
about in my 50 years in Congress. Now what we are going to do is pay 
for some of those mandatory programs with an across-the-board cut in 
discretionary spending.
  Now, go back and face your constituents. I wish we had this vote 
before the election. This is the vote we should have had before the 
election. Once we start down this road of paying for increases in 
mandatory programs by cutting domestic funding, where will it stop? 
There will be no stopping it.

[[Page S1107]]

There is only $385 billion of domestic funding for fiscal year 2003. We 
are talking about funding that is important to 290 million people in 
this great Nation. Are we going to pay for the new prescription drug 
benefit with cuts in domestic programs? Are we? There simply is not 
enough domestic spending in the entire budget to cover such mandatory 
costs.
  Let's be sensible about this matter. Let's forget politics for a 
moment. An across-the-board cut of 2.9 percent is a real, honest-to-
goodness cut that would change people's lives across this Nation. Where 
do you stand? Go back to your constituents, tell them where you stand.
  What was the first question that was ever asked since the human race 
began? In reading the Book of Genesis, the first chapter, the first 
question ever asked was when God walked through the Garden of Eden in 
the cool of the day, before the shades of night had fallen, and he was 
looking for Adam and Eve. They had eaten of the forbidden fruit.
  I know some people think it is old-fashioned to refer to the Holy 
Bible. I don't. Right there in that first chapter of Genesis you will 
find the greatest scientific treatise that was ever written, giving the 
chronology of creation, and the scientists don't dispute that 
chronology as it is laid down there. But God went through the garden 
and he asked: ``Adam, where art thou?'' Adam was hiding. He and Eve had 
gotten over behind some bushes. They were hiding. Can you hide from 
God? They found they could not. But they were hiding over behind some 
bushes. God went through the garden and said: ``Adam, where art thou?'' 
I say to my friends, you are going to be asked by the people: Where 
were you? Where were you? Where were you when these cuts took place? 
Where were you?
  Mr. REID. May I ask the Senator to yield for a question?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. REID. The Senator is aware, I am sure, that one of the groups 
being affected by these vicious cuts is American veterans. I was on a 
cable TV show today with the Officers' Association and the Veterans of 
Foreign Wars. They talked about the tremendous needs of American 
veterans for health care and other benefits.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. REID. Is the Senator aware that what they have done already is a 
$693 million cut to American veterans' health care benefits?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes. I am getting to that. I want Senators to answer the 
question from their veterans, where were you?
  Mr. REID. Almost $700 million.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, where were you?
  Mr. REID. Is the Senator also aware that in the Washington Post and 
all over the country today there are stories that in addition to these 
cuts, the VA is going to cut veterans' access further? I think it is a 
disgrace to do to American veterans what this bill does, and I say to 
the Senator--I am sure he is aware but I ask this question: Isn't this 
exemplary of the vicious cuts that are taking place in 
this legislation?

  Mr. BYRD. That is just one example, and it is a shameful--not just a 
disgrace, it is a shame, a shame. This across-the-board cut is not a 
careful choice. This cut would result in ham-handed reductions in 
veterans' programs, public health programs, education programs, and 
homeland security programs. Yes, this is a shame.
  Mr. REID. I say to the Senator, the reason I mention this is it is 
descriptive, exemplary of what they are doing to the American people 
under the guise of fiscal conservatism. If this is ``compassionate 
conservatism,'' then I don't want any part of it.
  Mr. BYRD. If this is compassion, the shedding of tears means nothing. 
Where is the compassion when it comes to spending money to send our men 
and women overseas, with all of this big, loose talk that we hear, and 
we are spending money hand over fist. Nobody suggests cutting a nickel 
or a dime when it comes to putting money in the military. There is no 
across-the-board cut there.
  The taxpayers elect us to make careful choices. So I thank the 
distinguished Senator for bringing out this inequity.
  The Women, Infants and Children Program, which provides essential 
sources and nutrition to millions of low-income families, would be cut 
by $138 million. If food costs and program demands continue to climb, 
this cut could mean that 224,689 eligible women, infants, and children 
could be turned away from the WIC program later in the year.
  At a time of heightened concern about the safety of our Nation's food 
supply, the Food Safety Inspection Service would be cut by $22 million, 
eliminating the salaries of 490 food safety inspectors.
  Last fall, at an Intelligence Committee hearing, FBI Director Mueller 
testified. He said:

       I have a hard time telling the country that you should be 
     comfortable--

  This is Mr. Mueller talking. The Director said that the FBI is 
focusing on the threat of terrorists who would use military action 
against Iraq as a pretext to strike America. That is what he said. That 
is not what I am saying. That is what he said. Yet, this across-the-
board cut would result in the FBI losing 1,175 agents, including 188 
agents through attrition, 90 agents through current vacancies, 110 
agents that were requested in the fiscal year 2003 budget request, and 
787 agents from the agency would have to be laid off.
  Yesterday, my friend, Mr. Gregg, the distinguished senior Senator 
from New Hampshire, said in so many words, but I think they all added 
up to this: The FBI is flush with cash. Well, after this across-the-
board cut, the FBI will be scrounging for pennies. How about that song, 
``Pennies from Heaven.'' I don't know where the pennies will be coming 
from, but they are going to be pretty scarce, that is sure.
  At the same Intelligence Committee hearing, FBI Director Mueller, in 
discussing the potential for terrorist attacks in America, focused 
attention on certain high-risk sectors, such as transportation, energy, 
and agriculture. The FBI has sent warnings urging extra precautions in 
those sectors. Yet, this across-the-board cut would reduce funding for 
security at our nuclear powerplants by $18 million. This cut will 
result in a reduction of more than $280 million in funding for the 
Transportation Security Administration and the Coast Guard, two 
critical agencies whose mandates are to protect our airports and our 
ports.
  A reduction of this size will require the Coast Guard to conduct 
fewer port security patrols and further degrade their efforts in the 
areas of drug interdiction, marine safety, and fisheries patrol. Coast 
Guard ships will spend more time sitting at the dock for the lack of 
fuel, money, and operating funds.
  The Customs Service would have to cut 1,600 positions, including 
agents and inspectors, at our Nation's seaports. Now this is serious. 
This is not just play money. This is serious.
  The administration has continually stated that places of national 
interest have specifically been targeted by terrorists for attack, and 
yet this arbitrary cut would reduce funds for the U.S. Park Police, 
resulting in approximately 35 fewer Park Police officers at the very 
same time that the agency is beefing up its antiterrorism efforts at 
our most visible national symbols, such as the Statue of Liberty, the 
Washington Monument, and the Jefferson Memorial.
  With these additional cuts, total funding in the bill for homeland 
security programs would be reduced to less than $24.4 billion. This is 
virtually a freeze at the level for fiscal year 2002. At a time of 
heightened vulnerability at home, the FBI will be losing agents, the 
Customs Service will be losing inspectors at our ports, the Food Safety 
Inspection Service and the Food and Drug Administration will be losing 
food inspectors, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service will be 
losing Border Patrol agents.
  In addition, the resources to help State and local governments train 
and equip first responders for potential terrorist attacks with 
biological, chemical, or nuclear agents will be cut--that is right, 
cut--by 2.9 percent. Is this any way to govern? I think not.
  Environmental cleanup activities would be cut by $203 million. Such a 
cut would delay short-term cleanup milestones at Hanford in Washington 
State, Savannah River in South Carolina, as well as in Idaho, in New 
Mexico, in Nevada, in Ohio, in Kentucky, yes, and even at Rocky Flats 
in Colorado.
  Let's talk about the Head Start Program. The Head Start Program would

[[Page S1108]]

be cut by $192 million, eliminating services for 2,722 children, adding 
to the 2,800 children that the National Head Start Association claims 
would be displaced by the President's budget. This cut would result in 
the elimination of services to a total of 5,522 children in fiscal year 
2003.
  The budget for the National Institutes of Health would be cut by $778 
million, scuttling the plan to double NIH's budget over 5 years. A 2.9-
percent cut would reduce VA medical care by $692 million. How about 
that? This would result in 230,000 fewer veterans being treated and 1.8 
million fewer visits by veterans to outpatient clinics.
  Go to the veterans the next time you go home; go around your State 
and tell the veterans what you have done. Tell them you have cut the 
money for their clinics. Tell them you have cut the money for VA 
medical care. Tell those veterans, look into their eyes, tell them we 
have cut their money. Yes, I voted to cut it. I voted to cut it.
  Last year, though, I did not vote to cut it. When we reported out 
those bills last year, we supported it. So this would result in 230,000 
fewer veterans--let me say it again, 230,000--being treated and 1.8 
million fewer visits by veterans to outpatient clinics.
  This cut would also result in 236,000 veterans remaining on VA's 
waiting list to see a doctor because the VA would not be able to hire 
additional staff to reduce the backlog of veterans waiting to see a 
doctor. These across-the-board cuts are simply not acceptable. They are 
real cuts.
  If Senators care about health care for our veterans, if you care 
about homeland security, if you care about the National Institutes of 
Health, you should support this amendment regardless of political 
party; you should support this amendment.
  I urge Members to support my amendment to strike this arbitrary and 
ill-considered cut.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. How much time do I 
have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fourteen minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I understand the position of the Senator 
from West Virginia. However, I wish to state the policy of this 
amendment that I have offered is that it does not go below the level of 
the 2002 appropriations that are the basis for the continuing 
resolution is in effect now.
  I took the position if we went below the funding level that is out 
there now based on the 2002 level of appropriated funds, Members would 
say: Wait a minute, we are better off to continue on the 2002 level. 
The Senator's statement about what was cut are cuts from the proposal 
we brought before, and I joined him in bringing that before the 
Congress last year.
  We are not cutting any veterans. We are not cutting out anyone who is 
receiving care now. We are cutting out the increase that would have 
been available under the bills that were pending before the Congress 
last year.
  As a practical matter, there may be some items where the programs had 
been ramped up because of a supplemental. We are working on the basis 
of the appropriated level of funds for 2002. In some instances, the 
continuing resolution does ramp up a little bit, as we found out with 
regard to an item that was before us last night in the amendment we 
dealt with just before we went home.
  I do believe the Senator's amendment, as I understand it, strikes the 
offsets. We are back at the question of whether the Senate wants to 
discipline itself. We had no budget resolution last year. That was not 
the fault of any action of the Appropriations Committee under the 
chairmanship of the Senator from West Virginia or myself. We had no 
budget resolution. Had we had a budget resolution, we would have had a 
level of discipline, and that is the ceiling that had been established 
by the budget resolution.
  The President sent a budget to the Congress, and it was limited to 
$750.5 billion. We have before us a proposal that limits that to $751.3 
billion because the President submitted a subsequent request and 
amended his budget for the fire program of $825 million.
  Lacking any other basis for a level of discipline, after the 
election, Senator Byrd and I, Congressman Young, and Congressman Obey 
got together and agreed we would hold the level of the President's 
$750.5 billion if we could get the bills done at that time. We did not 
get them done, and when we came back, the President asked me to join 
him and asked if I would continue the quest for a limit at that level 
of $750.5 billion. He agreed at that time to give us the $825 million 
for the fire program.
  The offsets listed in title VI, which Senator Byrd would strike, are 
offsets that are necessary to achieve basically two things: One is the 
full funding for the amount that can be spent of the election reform 
bill in the 7\1/2\ to 8 months that are remaining, a bill that is 
absolutely necessary to be funded and put into place if we are to 
avoid, or at least try to avoid the problems of the election in the 
year 2000. This would modernize the election system throughout the 
country. This was a bipartisan bill that was passed, and this is its 
funding.

  Secondly, the tremendous drought disaster areas of the country demand 
help. We faced a problem of how to deal with that, so we added the 
monies for drought and disaster to this bill and we offset it by an 
across-the-board cut in all programs.
  That, again, is dealing with the basic problems of the country in a 
way that we will take these to conference, and we hope to come out of 
the conference with a bill approved by the House, that the President 
will sign, that will not exceed the $751.3 billion level but will take 
care of these and hopefully keep the two basic programs, drought 
disaster and election reform, and hopefully stay within the level we 
have agreed to try to achieve, and that is the $751.3 billion.
  Our goal is to cover these, and we intend to cover them within the 
bill without across-the-board cuts. I do not know if we can get there. 
We know the House disagrees with a series of things that the Senate 
added. The Senate still has basic items above the President's budget 
request in most instances. So the House may want us to come down on a 
series of those. We are going to conference, and for the first time we 
will deal, through the full committee process, with 11 of the 13 bills, 
an enormous undertaking.
  The only way we can get the two critical items to conference, in 
order to stay within our stated goal and demonstrate that we are going 
to stay within that goal to limit our expenditure to $751.3 billion, we 
provide for an across-the-board cut. I personally think it is going to 
end up somewhere around 1 percent by the time we are finished.
  If there is not a 1-percent slush in every item in this budget, then 
I really have not been here 34 years, going on 35. These bills are 
estimates, and we are reducing estimates by 1 percent in order to take 
to the President the final bill at the level he sees fit to set. I 
think it is a legitimate objective.
  Again, if we were not in the process of dealing with the post-9/11 
situation, if we were not in the process of building up to try to 
protect the interests of our country abroad and our allies in terms of 
Iraq, if we were not dealing with the problems in Korea, if we did not 
have the problems we have abroad--they are all military in nature--we 
probably would not have this problem because we have already passed the 
two bills, the military construction bill and the Defense 
appropriations bill.
  Even in this bill we have given the President an additional amount of 
money for intelligence and activities with relationship to the problems 
I have mentioned, and we have emphasized the protection in training and 
equipment for our men and women who are in uniform. There is no 
question about that. That has strained the national budget, and it has 
led the President of the United States to urge us to hold this level to 
$751.3 billion.
  I urge the Senate to defeat the Senator's amendment. I know across 
the Senate, if this becomes final, people are going to say this is 
going to be down, that is going to be down, and that is true. There are 
going to be some accounts that are not as high as we would like to have 
them, and as I would like to have them, but there is going to be a 
budget the President will sign, and we can go on to the work of 2004.
  We are trying to get behind us the problems of the last Congress. I 
really

[[Page S1109]]

feel very uncomfortable about the fact that we are trying to pass 11 
bills that should have been passed by the last Congress, and I have 
been trying to do it in a way that no one says who shot John or why 
would we not pass them. In my opinion, one of the main reasons is we 
did not have a budget resolution. We did not have a budget resolution 
for a lot of reasons.
  In any event, we do not have one now, and the only way I know to get 
this bill to conference is to insist upon maintaining the discipline 
that is required to show we are going to get a bill to the President 
that he will sign.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use my leader time to talk to this 
amendment.
  I compliment the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for his 
amendment. I think this is one of the most important amendments we will 
vote on in this entire debate. He is simply restoring the across-the-
board cut, as he indicated and outlined. We are now at a 2.9-percent 
across-the-board cut. That 2.9 percent represents at least $16 billion, 
over and above the other $5 billion that was cut, a total of $21 
billion from discretionary accounts.
  We have done an analysis of what those cuts actually mean in real-
life terms. Those cuts mean the elimination of 1,175 FBI agents. There 
are 1,175 FBI agents who will lose their jobs if this cut goes into 
effect as it is now proposed.
  The FBI Web site lists 10 priorities. The No. 1 priority is to 
protect the United States from terrorist attack.
  The No. 2 priority is to protect the United States against foreign 
intelligence operations and espionage. The No. 3 priority is to protect 
the United States against cyberspace attacks in high-technology crime; 
No. 4, combat public corruption at all levels; No. 5, protect civil 
rights.
  Which of these priorities will be sacrificed as a result of the loss 
of 1,175 FBI agents? Would we do that to the military? Would we do it 
to the National Guard? Would we do it in any other context as we 
consider the war on terror and the need to fulfill our constitutional 
responsibility to protect and defend this country against all enemies, 
foreign and domestic? I do not think so. Why would we cut 1,175 FBI 
agents at this time?
  We have had serious food safety issues over the course of the last 
decade. I was chairman of a Subcommittee on Agriculture when the whole 
E. coli crisis broke out. I can recall so vividly families talking 
about their children being poisoned as a result of E. coli. Why? In 
part, because we did not have enough food safety inspectors. This 2.9-
percent reduction, this $21 billion, will cut 490 food inspectors from 
our system today. We will have 490 fewer food inspectors. This will cut 
230,000 veterans who are now getting medical services. How ironic it is 
that as we send people to the Persian Gulf to fight for this country 
and we tell those who are already there we are going to cut them off; 
they are not going to have the medical assistance; they are not going 
to get the care.
  I cannot begin to imagine how, in the name of fiscal discipline or 
anything else, so long as that huge tax cut is out there, our 
colleagues on the other side could possibly rationalize advocacy for a 
tax cut of that magnitude, leaving no millionaire behind, while we tell 
veterans they are not going to get medical services, while we tell the 
FBI, with all of its priorities, they are not going to have the kind of 
agent support for 1,175 FBI agents, we are going to eliminate their 
jobs.
  How in the world, with all the dangers there are in food safety, can 
we say we do not need 500 food safety inspectors today?
  That is what we are saying. That is what anybody is saying if they 
vote against Senator Byrd's amendment. I hope people will rethink this. 
As I said, this whole budget business that we are facing now is 
bizarre. We cannot afford $6 billion for education. We cannot afford $5 
billion for homeland defense. We cannot afford the money for 1,175 FBI 
agents. But we can afford an $89,000 tax cut for 226,000 
millionaires. I do not get it. I hope our colleagues will follow the 
wise counsel and leadership of our colleague from West Virginia. Let's 
vote for the Byrd amendment. Let's put some sanity into the budget 
process, into these appropriations bills this year.

  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator from West Virginia yield me time?
  Mr. BYRD. How much time does the Senator want?
  Mr. REID. Six minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I very much appreciate our leadership laying out the 
problem. Yesterday, instead of the FBI losing the number of agents it 
is losing today, 1,175 agents, it was 800. Each day, more FBI agents 
are lost because of this ridiculous procedure we are going through.
  For my friend, and he is my friend, the Senator from Alaska, who I 
care a great deal about--I have served with him all my time in the 
Senate on the Appropriations Committee--for him to say we are funding 
election reform out of this, is that not good? It is money they are 
stealing from other accounts. Next, are they going to take care of 
prescription drugs by cutting off domestic discretionary spending?
  Anyone who votes against Senator Byrd today is voting against the 
FBI, literally; 1,175 FBI agents will be eliminated.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield on my time?
  Mr. REID. For a question?
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes.
  Mr. REID. Sure.
  Mr. STEVENS. Where does the Senator get those figures? The FBI 
received $3.49 billion in fiscal year 2002 and this bill has $3.92 
billion. Beyond that we provided $158 million in the FBI joint task 
force. Not one FBI agent will be fired. We will not increase, but not 
one will be fired. Where does the Senator get those figures?
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Alaska, how he or anyone else can 
with a straight face say you can do an across-the-board cut--``across 
the board'' means across the board, equal in every account in domestic 
discretionary spending--without money being lost, and without people 
losing their jobs, that is what it is all about.
  These budgets, most of them, most every budget we have in the Federal 
Government involves employee personnel.
  Where do the figures come from? They come from our staffs. This comes 
from the staff of the Democratic leader.
  We can dwell on things other than the FBI, but the FBI is being cut. 
Take our word for it. These across-the-board cuts are cutting into the 
very heart of these programs. He talks about food safety inspectors. 
Anyone voting against Senator Byrd is saying food safety is not too 
important; we can do without approximately 500 food inspectors. Anyone 
voting against Senator Byrd's amendment is saying there is going to be 
about half a billion cut with Housing and Urban Development, which will 
mean 79,000 fewer families receive housing assistance.
  To think you can take money from across the board and take care of 
election reform and other programs without these programs being hurt is 
mystical.
  There will be a cut in the Customs Service. Already they are to the 
bare bone. I visited the Customs Service in Las Vegas and I was 
astounded 5 years ago how few people worked in the Customs department 
in Las Vegas. In areas where they should have a lot of Customs agents, 
there will be cutbacks. It will be about 1,600 Customs inspectors being 
cut back. This new cut means fewer agents at borders than prior to 
September 11.
  We worked very hard to ramp up the spending for NIH. Everyone should 
understand when they vote against Senator Byrd's amendment they are 
cutting the NIH by 44 percent, including in biodefense.
  We estimate there will be about 2,800 children deprived of early 
childhood education. This new cut on top of the original cuts in the 
Bush budget leaves a total of 5,522 children without any services.
  This $137 million cut in WIC will mean 225,000 women, infants, and 
children will be left without nutritional and health care services.
  The VA is about $700 million, which will mean about 225,000 veterans 
without medical services.
  I agree with Senator George Voinovich, my friend from the State of

[[Page S1110]]

Ohio, quoted as saying just a few days ago ``as far as the eye can see, 
I see red.'' That is what this is all about.
  For my friend, my good friend, from the State of Alaska, to talk 
about this is a difficult job, that is an understatement. That is an 
understatement to try to come up with what they are doing. I heard my 
friend from Alaska promise one of my colleagues: we will take care of 
it in conference. The House is quoted as saying they will have the bill 
less than we have. It is magic that I don't think exists 
congressionally. It is magic that I don't think exists legislatively.
  I say to the Senator from West Virginia, thank you very much. This is 
the vote of this bill. We are asking they do away with the across-the-
board cuts. If they want to spend more money in these programs, get 
real money--not funny money--because they are stealing from the 
American people and trying to come up with a budget that is impossible 
and exists by magic.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator.
  How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has 8\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. BYRD. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator from North 
Dakota, Mr. Dorgan.
  Mr. DORGAN. This across-the-board cut is not a good idea. We need to 
make the right investments in the right agencies, to protect the 
American people, especially with respect to homeland security. These 
across-the-board cuts are not the right thing to do. Everyone knows 
that.
  My colleague talked about the number of veterans that will be 
affected with respect to the diminished veterans health care, as well 
as the FBI. My colleague from Alaska, for whom I have great respect, 
said we will increase that budget. That is true. But if this is a cut, 
it is a cut. It is a cut below the anticipated level of spending in 
these areas.
  It has been said this morning that part of the reason for this is to 
give farmers some help. Providing some money to help farmers who have 
experienced disaster is very important. But we did that last year by a 
wide bipartisan vote in the Senate and proposed a $5.9 billion program 
on an emergency basis. What is being proposed today, apparently--I read 
in the paper--is a $3.1 billion proposition that will send drought aid 
to farmers who never had a drought. I don't understand that. What are 
we thinking about? Let's pass the disaster aid we passed last year for 
family farmers on an emergency basis, and then let's deal with the 
spending needs we have in this country. Yes, for the FBI, for the 
Customs Service, for all of these agencies, especially those engaged in 
homeland security.
  Yesterday my colleague from West Virginia talked about the importance 
of homeland security. I understand what is going on. I understand the 
President has said, here is a marker; you have to meet that marker. So 
he wants to cut spending in the FBI, the Customs, Veterans, Health and 
so on, in order to meet his marker.
  But on the other hand, he says while we are short of money and cannot 
fund what we intended for these funds, let's have a tax cut of $675 
billion over 10 years. I don't understand the priority here. Either we 
have a homeland security issue we need to respond to or we do not.
  My colleague from West Virginia said earlier today the head of the 
FBI told us we are in as much jeopardy today as we were the day before 
September 11 with respect to the potential threat from terrorists. If 
that is the case, how can anyone say we cannot fully fund the needs we 
anticipated earlier with respect to the FBI, the Customs Service, and 
others?
  I understand what is going on. I understand someone had to bring to 
the floor the President's marker with respect to spending, but it is 
not right to do this across-the-board cut in order to meet that 
artificial level, especially at a time when the President says there is 
plenty of money for a $675 billion tax cut over the next 10 years. In 
terms of priorities, that is the wrong priority for this country.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I compliment my friend and colleague from 
Alaska for his leadership on this bill. I have great respect for the 
Senator from West Virginia, and he is very consistent in wanting to 
spend more money in this bill. He tried yesterday and didn't win, so 
now he says, let's eliminate the reductions across the board. The net 
impact of that would be $11.4 billion this year. You might say that 
also would increase the base that we put in the budget, so that would 
be compounded every year, so this amendment would cost at least $120 
billion assuming no inflation--probably closer to $140- or $150 
billion--over those years.
  I have heard my colleague say we are cutting the FBI. The FBI went 
from $3.4 billion to $4.1 if you add the two accounts together.
  I heard my colleague say they are cutting the NIH. That went from 
$27.2 billion and received a $3.8 billion increase.
  I just heard my colleague say we are cutting the VA; we are hurting 
veterans and veterans health care. Veterans care went from $23.9 and 
received a $2.6 billion increase, over a 10-percent increase.
  When people are saying we are having cuts and it is going to cost 
thousands of jobs, it reminds me of somebody saying we are going to 
give you $1,000. Then they say we changed our mind, we are giving you 
$900--you just lost $100. We are talking about big increases, funding 
the priorities. I congratulate my colleague and urge my colleagues to 
vote no on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, fear is a terrible quotient in the 
political spectrum. And the fear that an across-the-board cut might 
reduce the level of spending today, spending under the 2002 
appropriations level, is a great one.
  But I can state to the Senate without equivocation, not one FBI agent 
will be cut, not one will be lost. We have an increase, again, of 
nearly $500 million in the overall FBI level--rounded off a little bit. 
We have another increase of $158 million for the Joint Terrorism Task 
Force. An across-the-board cut to those two increases, $436.5 million 
for the FBI and $158.5 for the Joint Terrorism Task Force, is about $80 
million. That still represents an increase for those two programs. An 
across-the-board cut would not reduce the FBI at all--there would be no 
reduction. The Department of Justice would still receive an increase of 
well over a billion dollars after the across-the-board cut.
  I have respect for my friend with regard to facing the problem of an 
across-the-board cut. It is an indiscriminate cut and that is why I 
don't like it. It goes across the board and says take from each account 
so much money in order to achieve putting all the items you want to 
take to conference into conference. But remember, it is a mechanism to 
get to conference.
  I could eliminate all of the across-the-board cuts if I took out all 
of the add-ons from that side of the aisle, or take out all the add-ons 
from this side of the aisle, the Members' requests. If the Senate wants 
me to do it, I will put them in the Record. They total a considerable 
amount more than 2 percent of the budget.
  Under the circumstances, to accuse me of some strange tactic by 
having an across-the-board cut to accommodate those requests, take them 
to the conference with the House and see how much the House will allow 
us to add, for these Members to add, I think is a little duplicitous.
  So before I am accused of cutting the FBI or cutting milk for babies 
or something such as that, keep in mind, if it keeps up, I will not put 
them in. We could take every one of them out with just one single 
amendment. If the Senate wants to do that, we wouldn't have any across-
the-board cut at all. Take the Members' accounts out of this bill and 
there will be no across-the-board cut.
  I suggest the defeat of the amendment of the Senator from West 
Virginia.
  (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered 
to be printed in the Record.)
  Mr. KERRY. I strongly support the Byrd amendment to strike title VI 
of

[[Page S1111]]

division N from the omnibus appropriations bill. Title VI includes a 
provision which would impose a 1.6 percent across-the-board reduction 
on all domestic spending. These cuts follow an earlier $9.8 billion 
reduction in domestic spending from the Senate Appropriations Committee 
passed spending bills. Together, these cuts will reduce domestic 
spending by more than $20 billion and will force punitive cuts in 
veterans health care, housing, education, homeland security, highway 
funding, Amtrak, the National Institutes of Health, Head Start, WIC and 
other important national priorities.
  Today, we are not meeting our promises to our veterans. The 
Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, has consistently received 
inadequate resources to meet rising medical costs and a growing demand 
for its health services. In November 2001, Secretary of Veterans 
Affairs Principi identified a $400 million funding shortfall for fiscal 
year 2002. As a result of this shortfall, more than 300,000 veterans 
throughout the country are on waiting lists for medical care, and many 
must wait 6 months or longer for an appointment to see medical staff. 
Although Congress provided $417 million for veterans health care as 
part of the fiscal year 2002 emergency supplemental spending bill, 
passed in July 2002, the President agreed to spend only $142 million of 
the approved funds. In addition to the fact that the VA health system 
must now overcome the severely inadequate amount provided in fiscal 
year 2002, the VA has also been operating at last year's funding level 
since the onset of the 2003 fiscal year in October.
  This funding crisis has forced the VA health system to resort to 
short-term fixes, such as discontinuing outreach activities in an 
effort to reduce enrollment and instituting new regulations that 
require the rationing of health care. Moreover, the VA has already 
reduced services at a number of facilities throughout the country and 
has closed some facilities altogether. It is crucial for the VA to 
receive an increase in fiscal year 2003 medical care funding provided 
in both the Senate and House Appropriations Committee bills. Instead, 
the Republican majority has decided to impose an additional 1.6 percent 
reduction to the already inadequate levels of funding for veterans 
services.
  Today, our Nation is facing an affordable housing crisis. For 
thousands upon thousands of low-income families with children, the 
disabled, and the elderly, privately owned affordable housing is simply 
out of reach. Recent changes in the housing market have further limited 
the availability of affordable housing across the country, while the 
growth in our economy in the last decade has dramatically increased the 
cost of the housing that remains.
  The Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, estimates that 
more than 5 million American households have what is considered worst 
case housing needs. Since 1990, the number of families that have worst 
case housing needs has increased by 12 percent, that is 600,000 more 
American families that cannot afford a decent and safe place to live.
  Despite the fact that more families are unable to afford housing, we 
have decreased Federal spending on critical housing programs such as 
the Public Housing Capital Fund, elderly housing, and Public Housing 
Drug Elimination Grants since fiscal year 1995.
  Earlier this month HUD also announced plans to dramatically reduce 
the amount of funding available for the operation of public housing by 
up to 30 percent. This would cost the city of Boston approximately $13 
million in housing funding during fiscal year 2003. This additional 
across-the-board cut would impose even further cuts in the operation of 
public housing. This is simply unacceptable to those who depend upon 
housing assistance.
  These are just two examples of the arbitrary cuts will be imposed on 
every domestic program, many of which already are inadequately funded. 
That is why I strongly support the Byrd amendment and urge my 
colleagues to support it as well.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, as the now ranking member on the Committee 
on Veterans' Affairs, I must make my fellow Senators aware of the 
impact of the proposed across-the-board cut in the appropriations for 
the executive branch for fiscal year 2003 on the Department of Veterans 
Affairs and its ability to provide health care and benefits to our 
Nation's veterans.
  Yesterday morning we were talking about a 1.6 percent cut, of which 
VA's share would be over $424 million. But let me put that in context. 
That would have meant that 125,000 fewer veterans will be seen in VA's 
hospitals, that 250 benefits claims adjudicators would lose their jobs. 
And it would mean that a hiring freeze would be in place across the VA. 
These cuts are being put into place at a time when there are 235,000 
veterans waiting over 6 months for an appointment at VA. It takes an 
average of 200 days for a veterans disability claim to be decided. But 
today we are talking about a 2.9 percent cut across the board. VA has 
not computed what this will mean to America's veterans yet.
  Let me be more specific, so that my colleagues can understand the 
consequence of this decision. The proposed 2.9 percent cut would cost 
the Veterans Health Administration almost $695 million of the $2.4 
billion increase VA health care was slated to receive. The VA-HUD 
Appropriations Committee recognized VA's dire need for health care 
resources, and responded accordingly in a bipartisan effort last year.
  Meanwhile, VA announced just today that in light of rapidly rising 
numbers of veterans coming to VA for health care and prescription 
drugs, they will have to cut off enrollment for a certain category of 
veterans. How can we possibly consider cutting funding now, in the face 
of such sharply rising demand for VA health care? There are over 44,000 
veterans waiting half a year to see a doctor in my home State of 
Florida right now--this is unacceptable. The system clearly needs 
higher increases in funding, not decreases.
  Mr. President, it is also important to point out that a vital segment 
of the VA health system will receive a drastic cut as a result of this 
proposal, VA research. This program is invaluable not only to the 
veteran community, but to the Nation as a whole. VA research is 
responsible for advances such as the CT and MRI scans, the cardiac 
pacemaker, and performing the first kidney transplant. The 
groundbreaking dynamic of the VA research program also serves to 
attract leading researchers and physicians to VA. Reducing funding for 
this program is a true disservice to all Americans.
  On the benefits side, this is a true cut. The original Senate-
reported amount of $992 million will be reduced by $29 million. VA has 
been battling a backlog of claims. It has been making some progress. 
The VA Secretary has set a goal of deciding new claims within 100 days 
by the end of this fiscal year. He will not meet his target with this 
appropriation. As I said, FTE will be cut. There will be a hiring 
freeze. While the Florida office is now doing slightly better than the 
national average, it still takes 155 days to process a claim.
  In addition, the nationwide overtime authorized at various regional 
offices to process disability claims will be severely curtailed. 
Currently, each regional office is averaging 40 overtime hours per 
month. This overtime program has resulted in a reduction in the pending 
claims backlog. An across- the-board reduction in overtime will mean 
that veterans will have to wait longer to have their claims reviewed. 
The accuracy in decisionmaking will drop. We must restore funding 
before the backlog grows again to unmanageable proportions.
  As you all know, the veterans' population is aging rapidly. We are 
losing over 1,200 World War II veterans per day. While the VA is 
attempting to make a special effort to adjudicate claims of veterans 
over the age of 70, every day a veteran dies while his or her claim is 
awaiting a decision.
  I understand that there are many competing demands being placed on 
the executive branch right now. But in a time when the White House can 
afford to offer a tax cut of $640 billion, and in time when we are 
asking the men and women in the military to go back into harm's way, 
can we really afford to turn our backs on them when they return from 
war?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has 5 minutes. 
The Senator from Alaska has 11\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if I may have the attention of the Senator 
from

[[Page S1112]]

Alaska, nobody has accused the Senator from Alaska of anything that is 
wrong, any underhanded tricks, any tactics that are inappropriate. The 
Senator from Alaska is trying to do the bidding of this President. And 
the bidding of the President is we will take an arbitrary figure.
  Here are Senator Hollings and Senator Gregg and the members of their 
committees--they work hard. They determine what is right for the FBI 
and for the other items in their budget. They make that determination 
based on their hearings, based on the testimony that is educed from 
those hearings, based on common sense. These two Senators I have 
mentioned have been in this business for a long time. They know what 
they are doing.
  Then to come along with an arbitrary figure--I am not accusing the 
Senator from Alaska of anything. I would be the last to do that. If he 
wants to cut out the add-ons, let him do it. He can cut out mine if he 
wants and cut out his. We are not going to play blindman's bluff here. 
If you want to, cut those out. Those add-ons are for the people we 
represent, for the installations in our home towns. We can defend those 
add-ons. There is nothing I care about being secret on as to those add-
ons.
  But what I am talking about here is the fact that we are not 
exercising good judgment based on facts. What we are doing is taking an 
arbitrary figure that is set by this administration downtown, and the 
distinguished Senator from Alaska is doing a good soldier's work.
  I would never complain about the Senator from Alaska. But I would say 
to you, Mr. President, these are real cuts. These are real cuts. And it 
is unwise to cut across the board. That is not the way to make cuts. 
That is not the way to reduce spending--across the board. That is 
unfair. It is unwise. That is what we are doing.
  Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, I yield.
  Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield----
  Mr. BYRD. How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has 2 minutes 
50 seconds.
  Mr. HARKIN. I will be brief. I just want to buttress what the Senator 
is saying about real cuts. Listen to this.
  Mr. BYRD. Save me 1 minute, I say to the Chair.
  Mr. HARKIN. The cut to NIH. We have worked hard here on a bipartisan 
basis to double the funding in 5 years. This is the last installment 
this year. The cuts we now have before us will cut $778 million out of 
the NIH. That is more than the entire budget for research on 
Alzheimer's disease.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. HARKIN. It is more than the NIH's entire budget for research on 
breast cancer.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. HARKIN. It is more than the NIH's entire budget, now get this, 
for research on prostate cancer, ovarian cancer, Parkinson's disease, 
and muscular dystrophy all combined.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. HARKIN. That is a real cut. The Senator from West Virginia is 
right, that is big.
  Mr. BYRD. And this amendment impugns the good judgment of the Senator 
who is now speaking to me and his counterpart from Pennsylvania.

  Mr. HARKIN. Senator Specter.
  Mr. BYRD. Those two Senators have chaired that committee and they 
have worked hard. They have used their good judgment based on the 
testimony and based on the facts.
  Mr. HARKIN. Precisely.
  Mr. BYRD. They are saying to these two Senators and the members of 
that subcommittee: Forget your experience, forget your wisdom, forget 
what you say. We are going to have an arbitrary figure. It doesn't mean 
anything; it is just a figure. And you are going to suffer. Your people 
are going to suffer--your people back home, my people.
  It is unwise. It is unfair. It is unjustified. It is unreal. And I 
say every Senator in this body ought to think, ought to look in the 
mirror when he or she casts this vote and be ready to go back home and 
tell his constituents or her constituents: I did it.
  Mr. President, this record is going to follow Senators.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. I reserve my 1 minute.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator is entitled to his last 
minute.
  Let me tell the Senator about NIH. In fiscal year 2002, we had $23.45 
billion. In this bill, we have $27.15 billion. That is an increase of 
almost $4 billion. An across-the-board cut takes out about $300 
million. It does not reduce anything.
  In my chairmanship----
  Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield----
  Mr. STEVENS. I am not yielding. In my chairmanship, when I was 
chairman before, we doubled NIH. I am proud of that. We have not 
reduced that level. We have increased it.
  No Senator on this side need fear we are cutting one FBI agent, 
taking one dollar away from the existing level of NIH, or taking one 
dollar away from anything. The guideline, again, was we kept the level 
of 2002 in every account.
  That is a continuing resolution. To reduce the level that they are 
traveling on now would be wrong. We are increasing every one by passing 
those three bills. That is why we want to pass them.
  Look at them. You can go down these Departments. Every one of them 
gets some kind of increase because of the fact we are going from 2002 
to 2003. An across-the-board cut takes less than 2 percent out of all 
of them, if we have to do that when we come out of conference. We don't 
believe we will have to.
  I really respect my friend from West Virginia. But I am carrying the 
President's torch, which is ``remember the deficits.'' People on this 
side reminded us of the deficits every day this last week. The 
President said: Remember the deficits. Get a guideline. Take my number 
for a guideline. I said: We will do that. We will take your number, we 
will take it to conference, and we will hold it coming out of 
conference and you will have a bill you can sign.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the President says, ``Remember the 
deficits.'' I say remember the $1.6 trillion tax cut that was enacted 
by this body and the other body last year. I say, let us not enact a 
$670 billion tax cut that this President and this administration is 
suggesting Congress pass. Tax cuts will add to the deficit.
  This is where the deficit cuts lie. These are not mere computational 
exercises. These are not mere budgetary exercises. These are real cuts. 
These mean something to the people out there in connection with their 
safety, their health, their welfare, and the security of their 
homeland. I say, Senators, look in the mirror when you cast this vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, 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 
amendment. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) 
is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``Aye''.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are they any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 52, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 7 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--52

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback

[[Page S1113]]


     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Hagel
     Kerry
  The amendment (No. 36) was rejected.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I hope Senators will listen.
  Rarely in recent memory has the United States faced more profoundly 
serious and complicated challenges to our global leadership. We are 
beginning our second year of war in Afghanistan, our second year of 
chasing after Osama bin Laden, and at the same time the Pentagon is 
feverishly mobilizing for possible war in Iraq. Meanwhile, North Korea 
is firing up its nuclear production facilities and warning of a third 
world war in Asia if the United States dares to interfere.
  Suddenly large swathes of both the Middle East and Asia are on the 
brink of open warfare, and the conduct of U.S. foreign policy is facing 
enormous tests. Even our allies are questioning our real intentions and 
our ultimate ambitions. This is certainly not the time for rash words 
or hasty action, but it is most definitely the time to take a long and 
sober look at where the United States has been and where it may be 
headed.
  The administration's doctrine of preemption and the testing of that 
doctrine in Iraq have thrust the United States into a new and 
unflattering posture on the world stage.
  In many corners of the world, America the peacemaker is now seen as 
the bully on the block. I believe it is time for this administration to 
review our national security strategy and its take-no-prisoners 
approach to international relations. In working through the complex 
process of developing strategies to protect the world from terrorists 
and weapons of mass destruction, we must also work to restore the image 
of the United States to that of strong peacekeeper instead of 
belligerent bully.
  Terrorism is a global threat and it demands a global response. We 
must seek cooperation, not confrontation. The contrast between the 
administration's handling of the crisis in Iraq and its handling of the 
crisis in North Korea is a perfect illustration of why a doctrine that 
commits the United States to the use of preemptive force, unilaterally 
if necessary, to prevent unsavory regimes from acquiring weapons of 
mass destruction is a flawed instrument of foreign policy.
  I am relieved that the administration, despite North Korea's alarming 
rhetoric, appears to fully comprehend the folly of a preemptive U.S. 
military strike on a nation which we believe is a nuclear power.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the debate 
has to be germane during the first 3 hours of the consideration of the 
bill under the so-called Pastore rule and that that be enforced.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Pastore rule, as I understand it, has 
run its course. The Senator is talking about the Pastore rule.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask for a ruling from the Chair raising 
a point of order that during the first 3 hours of legislation it has to 
be germane to the pending legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham of South Carolina). The Senator is 
correct that the Pastore rule requires that debate be germane during 
the first 3 hours of consideration of the measure.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this debate is germane. I have not finished 
my speech yet. I hope the Senator will show me the courtesy that I 
would show him.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I raise the point of order that the debate 
is not germane at this time during the first 3 hours of the debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is entitled under precedent to a 
reminder under this rule.
  Mr. BYRD. What is the Chair's ruling?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the rule, Senator, you are entitled to 
one reminder about the germaneness.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, there is $3.9 billion in this bill in 
defense funding for related activities. What I am saying, I think, is 
very germane to what we are talking about. The Senator from Arizona 
hasn't shown me the courtesy of even hearing my speech.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, again I ask for a ruling of the Chair. The 
remarks the Senator from West Virginia is making are in a manager's 
amendment and not included in the present bill.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am speaking about the defense of this 
country. This bill involves the defense of this country. There is $3.9 
billion in this bill for national defense.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia, the Chair has 
ruled, is within the confines of the rule and the topic in question is 
germane.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, let me go back in my speech and pick up where I was 
interrupted. I have been in Congress more than 50 years. There have 
been 11,707 Members of the House and Senate since the Republic began. I 
am the fourth--only three Members, men and women, of all the 11,707 men 
and women elected to both Houses in the Congress exceed me. And here I 
am making a speech on what I consider to be important, and I think it 
is very germane to what we are talking about. We are talking about the 
national defense of this country when we have this appropriation bill 
up. We are talking about the expenditures for the military in this 
bill. We are facing a situation in which we may be spending more and 
more and more money for the military. I thank the Chair for the ruling. 
I am just sorry I was interrupted on this matter. I would not interrupt 
the Senator from Arizona concerning germaneness on a speech he maybe 
making at any time. I would not do that.

  I will back up and then pick up where I was interrupted. I am 
relieved that the administration, despite North Korea's alarming 
rhetoric, appears to fully comprehend the folly of a preemptive 
military strike on a nation which we believe is a nuclear power, and 
has finally agreed to at least talk with the North Korean government 
and to work with other nations in the region toward a diplomatic 
solution to the crisis.
  The situation in Iraq, however, appears to be heading in the opposite 
direction. Iraq, which, by all accounts, does not have nuclear weapons, 
and is presently the subject of scrutiny by U.N. inspectors, is under 
the heavy threat of a preemptive U.S. attack. The airwaves are awash 
with video snapshots of brave young American soldiers bidding tearful 
goodbyes to loved ones. When it comes to Iraq, America's war machine 
seems to be cranked up to a fever pitch. This is going to cost money, 
real money. We have talked about a 2.9 percent across-the-board cut 
here in domestic discretionary spending. Nobody is saying anything 
about a cut in military spending, no. I am not advocating that. I want 
to face up to the situation that confronts us. I want the American 
people to start looking and listening to what is going on.
  Ever since Congress voted last year to hand to the President the 
power to decide--we did that; Congress did that over my obstreperous 
objection, vociferous objection; Congress did that. Twenty-three 
Members of the Senate did not do that. Twenty-three Members decided to 
vote against handing this power over to the President, the power to 
declare war. Ever since Congress voted last year to hand to the 
President the power to decide why, when, how, and where we will wage 
war against Iraq, the question of whether we should wage war has 
largely been overlooked.
  It is past time to remedy that omission. Where is the debate on the 
wisdom of actually resorting to force? Is that going to cost money? 
Where is the debate? How much is it going to cost? How many men and 
women in the Armed Forces are we likely to lose? What may happen here 
at home in the

[[Page S1114]]

war against terrorism? Where is the urgency? Why not let the inspectors 
do their job? Why are our allies backing away?
  Congress made a serious mistake in passing the open-ended use-of-
force authorization last year, but we only compound that mistake by 
sitting idly by while the Pentagon draws up war plans--costly war 
plans--and sends our young men and women abroad.
  Now is the time for informed debate. Here we are about to go out for 
a recess. It is time for us to look at this matter. It is facing us. 
Now is the time for informed debate, and now is the time for a public 
examination of where we are headed and why.
  The President has stated repeatedly that he has not decided whether 
to invade Iraq. We must take him at his word. It is my hope that he 
will not rush to judgment. The situation demands a careful and thorough 
examination of the views of our allies, the costs in money, the costs 
in lives, the risks before any final conclusion that war is the only 
recourse.
  Congress must be part of that debate. The United Nations must be part 
of that debate. A vote taken last fall should not constrain Members of 
Congress from reevaluating the situation in light of recent 
developments. However bad it was--and it was very bad, I think--the 
use-of-force resolution passed by Congress last October did not impose 
an oath of silence on Congress or on the American people. It did not 
prohibit the continued questioning of the administration's decisions 
with regard to Iraq. This may be difficult to do when the war drums are 
beating, but that is sometimes the uncomfortable role of the true 
patriot.
  Mr. President, without so much as a whisper of debate, our Nation is 
actually mobilizing to attack a sovereign state before U.N. weapons 
inspectors have even made serious headway in their work. Is this what 
the policy of preemption means: That we preempt evidence and move to 
attack based on suspicions?
  The administration's new policy of preemption has repercussions far 
beyond Iraq. Other nations are watching what we are doing. North Korea 
is one of those nations. Even Brazil is reported to be contemplating 
the development of nuclear weapons as an insurance policy against 
possible attack.
  Iraq and North Korea are both charter members of the President's 
infamous ``axis of evil,'' and yet at the same time that the President 
is turning the heat up on Iraq, he and his administration have been 
vigorously downplaying the crisis in North Korea.
  Iraq has at least allowed U.N. weapons inspectors into the country. 
North Korea threw them out. Iraq, to the best of our knowledge, does 
not currently have nuclear weapons. North Korea, on the other hand, has 
brazenly admitted that it is working to develop nuclear weapons, and 
there is evidence that it already has some nuclear capability. Iraq at 
least is going through the motions of cooperating with the United 
Nations. Meanwhile, North Korea has announced its withdrawal from the 
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, threatened to resume missile testing, 
and declared that U.N. sanctions will mean war. Yet the United States 
is mobilizing for war with Iraq while politely tiptoeing around the far 
more dangerous situation on the Korean peninsula.

  The President, in the same breath that he assails Saddam Hussein, has 
gone to great lengths to assure the world he has no intention of 
invading North Korea. Is it any wonder that our allies are scrambling 
to make sense of America's foreign policy? Is it any wonder that the 
new image of the United States has caused turmoil and puzzlement even 
among our staunchest allies?
  I am sure many of our friends around the globe wonder why diplomacy 
can remain an option with a regime as treacherous and threatening as 
North Korea and yet can be taken off the table when it comes to a much 
weaker Iraq. I wonder if the administration has calculated enough the 
ramifications of a military solution in Iraq not only in terms of 
dollars, but also in terms of bloodshed and hardship in the Middle East 
and terrorist attacks here at home.
  What is the message we convey to the world if we are eager to apply a 
doctrine of preemption on those countries with limited ability to 
defend or counterattack and yet waffle over a preemptive response to 
dangerous regimes with the firepower to get back? Are we not, in 
effect, saying that nuclear weapons and long-range missiles can provide 
small countries with an insurance policy against a U.S. preemptive 
strike? The unanticipated result of this doctrine of preemption may be 
to unleash a global scramble to acquire the means to deter the United 
States from unprovoked attacks. We could be at the brink of a new type 
of arms race, unleashed by fear of a preemptive U.S. strike.
  There are many risks to an inconsistent foreign policy that, in some 
cases, threatens the use of force as a first response and, in other 
cases, takes military action off the table entirely. Our national 
treasure will be increasingly poured into bullets and bombs at a time 
when homeland security is an equally pressing concern, or even greater 
concern. Our efforts to preach peace and restraint as a solution to the 
Israeli-Palestinian conflict will be sabotaged by our own our own 
foreign policies. American citizens at home will face an increased 
threat at the hands of terrorists lying in wait for the chance to 
cripple our economy and derail our war machine, and we will be 
increasingly hard pressed to prevent terrorist destruction because our 
resources will be sucked up--sucked up--by the war machine that now 
drives our foreign policy.
  Additionally, if we stay the current course, thousands upon thousands 
of American families will face a painful uprooting. Many of the men and 
women who will be sent to Iraq are members of the National Guard and 
Reserve. Military officials have said that the activation of National 
Guard and Reserve troops for a war against Iraq could exceed 100,000.
  The impact of such a large activation will reverberate throughout the 
Nation in communities large and small, in the small community of Sophia 
where I have lived and where I have voted for these many years. On 
January 7, the Charleston, WV, Gazette reported that a speeding 
motorist raced through three tollbooths and drove more than 75 miles on 
the West Virginia Turnpike before any State troopers were available to 
pursue him. The problem? The State Police force is suffering a severe 
shortage of troopers. The fear? The situation will get much worse if 
the 51 West Virginia troopers who are also members of the Guard and 
Reserve are called up for duty.

  This problem is not unique to West Virginia. According to the 
Charleston Gazette, law enforcement agencies across the nation, whose 
members are heavily represented in the Guard and Reserve, are worried 
about the impact of a war on their ability to protect the public. And 
law enforcement will not be the only profession to be affected by a 
Reserve call-up. Members of the Guard and Reserve are not just part-
time soldiers--they are also full-time members of their communities, 
holding key jobs. Policemen, firefighters, paramedics, doctors, nurses, 
teachers--their professions run the gamut, and their absences when on 
active duty leave significant voids for those left behind.
  America will be at great risk of terrorist attack--we are told--if we 
invade Iraq. Shortages among the ranks of health and public safety 
professionals diverted from their civilian jobs to go to war with Iraq 
will leave Americans with a perilously thin margin of protection at 
home just when they are likely to need it most.
  We must not be in a rush to initiate war against Iraq. Saddam Hussein 
is certainly in no position to launch a strike against the United 
States with thousands of our troops massed on his doorstep. Iraq will 
not be able to rebuild its ailing military in the coming months or to 
covertly produce weapons of mass destruction under the watchful gaze of 
the U.S. military and the U.N. weapons inspectors. Today's headlines 
reveal that the UN inspectors discovered a cache of empty chemical 
warheads in an ammunition dump. Who knows what tomorrow's inspections 
may uncover. Where is the urgency that would drive us to preempt the 
inspectors before they have adequate time to fulfill their mission. 
While there is dwindling international support for using the initial 
findings of the U.N. inspectors as a trigger point for

[[Page S1115]]

invasion, there is great support for the overall United Nations arms 
inspection program. Saddam Hussein is politically isolated, and the 
world is virtually unanimous in supporting the disarmament of Iraq. I 
support that disarmament.
  To act precipitously now, however, without the full support of our 
friends and allies, could cost the United States dearly in the long 
run. Already, some of our strongest allies in the region, most notably 
Turkey, must chafe at U.S. pressure to join in the war on Iraq. 
According to a recent survey by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, 83 
percent of Turks oppose allowing U.S. forces to use bases in their 
country to attack Iraq. And yet our war plans call for the stationing 
of as many as 80,000 U.S. troops in Turkey. In Europe, the same poll 
found that large percentages of the population believe that U.S. desire 
to control Iraqi oil is the chief reason that we are considering 
attacking Iraq. These perceptions can only serve to undermine our 
global influence in the years to come. If the U.S. can seize Iraq for 
its oil, what other nation might it decide to conquer? These thoughts 
must be on the minds of those who question our new and belligerent 
foreign policy.
  The possibility exists that the crisis in Iraq can be resolved 
without a shot being fired. With more time and increased diplomatic 
efforts, there is a chance that Saddam Hussein could be peacefully 
forced into exile. But first, the fever pitch of war rhetoric often 
heard from this White House must subside. If we fancy ourselves a 
superpower then we must behave as a superpower, with confidence, with 
wisdom, and with dignity.
  Some very important dates are fast approaching. The first is January 
27, when the United Nations weapons inspectors are due to present to 
the Security Council their first formal assessment of Iraqi compliance 
with U.N. disarmament demands. Their interim report, delivered to the 
Security Council on January 9, confirmed that Iraq's weapons 
declaration was incomplete and insufficient, but the inspectors also 
reported that they have found no ``smoking guns.''
  I was heartened by Secretary of State Colin Powell's statement that, 
despite indications to the contrary, January 27 is ``not necessarily a 
D-Day for decision-making.'' We must give the inspectors adequate time 
to conduct a thorough search. While the White House continues to assert 
that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction, it is 
important to note that the United States has just begun to share key 
intelligence information on the Iraqi weapons program with the U.N. 
inspectors. It will take time to pursue those leads. Even our 
staunchest allies, including Great Britain, are urging the U.S. to slow 
down on Iraq and let the inspectors do their work. The January 27 
report is the first, not the final, step in that process.
  The second important date on the near horizon is January 28, when 
President Bush is due to deliver his State of the Union message. The 
dueling crises in Iraq and North Korea are grim reminders of his last 
State of the Union speech when the President branded those nations and 
Iran an ``axis of evil.''
  The President's rhetoric that evening was colorful, but events have 
proved that it was not wise. I note that the President is now saying 
that he is ``sick and tired'' of Saddam Hussein. That is just the type 
of rhetoric we do not need at this volatile time. It only adds to our 
image of bellicosity. President Bush must resist any urge to 
personalize our foreign policy and tone down the supercharged public 
rhetoric which has been flying around for months. Whether George Bush 
is ``sick and tired'' is not the issue. Whether Robert Byrd is sick and 
tired is not the issue. It must not be perceived as the President's 
reason for sending American men and women to shed their blood in the 
hot sands of Iraq.
  America must not be viewed globally as a reckless power which views 
the world in terms of simply flattening the opposition. We must not 
continue to brandish our awesome military might, walk away from 
treaties and cooperative agreements, and ignore nuances and 
sensitivities.
  We are losing friends all around the world, and that is extremely 
risky business in an age of globalism and terrorism. A great nation 
should not have to rely solely on the force of its armies to inspire 
the world's admiration. A great nation should inspire other nations by 
the example it presents to the world.

  The doctrine of preemption is likely to cause us trouble far into the 
future. Labeling whole countries as ``evil'' invites a response and 
risks arousing hatreds and passions that are best left sleeping.
  Setting the United States up as the ultimate judge of good and evil, 
with the right to preemptively strike any nation which might pose a 
threat in the future, is the fastest way one can imagine to make us not 
only feared but also universally hated.
  When one considers that a single angry person in a crowd with a vial 
of some dreadful, active virus is the equivalent of billions and 
billions of dollars worth of U.S. military might, it becomes clear that 
we are making the wrong choices on the foreign policy front.
  When tensions across the globe are so high, the President would be 
prudent to measure his words carefully and reiterate for all the world 
to hear that he has not yet decided to attack Iraq, that he will fully 
engage in diplomatic solutions to the North Korean crisis, and that the 
United States will seek not to initiate war but to apply the soothing 
balm of patience to an anxious world. I call upon this Administration 
to cool the rhetoric; reevaluate its doctrine of preemption; initiate a 
return to the peace table in the Mideast; and go back to the United 
Nations for a final endorsement before we decide whether to unleash the 
deadly dogs of war.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The galleries will refrain from making any 
outbursts.
  The Senator from Arizona.


                            Amendment No. 44

             (Purpose: To strike section 211 of Division B)

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. While I am waiting for the clerk, I mention that I was 
told by the distinguished manager of the bill after the last vote that 
I would be recognized for the next amendment. That did not happen. In 
the aspect of senatorial courtesy, I believe I have been given 
assurances that I would propose the next amendment. It is clear we are 
on Friday at 12:30, and we have additional amendments, some 40 or 50 
amendments, that will require recorded votes. I think it is important 
at this time we move forward.
  I intend to be brief in my description of this amendment and ask for 
the yeas and nays at the appropriate time. I have an amendment at the 
desk and ask for its reading.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 44.
       Beginning with line 12 on page 138, strike through line 14 
     on page 141.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment would strike section 211 of 
division B of the resolution. What section 211 of division B does is 
pretty incredible. It would give the still-to-be created subsidiary of 
the Malaysian-owned ``Norwegian Cruise Lines,'' owned by Malaysia, the 
exclusive right to operate foreign-built cruise vessels in the domestic 
cruise trade.
  Effectively, the provision would allow Norwegian Cruise Lines, which 
bought the pieces and parts of two ``Project America'' cruise vessels 
following the bankruptcy of a company called American Classic Voyages, 
to incorporate these parts into large cruise vessels that would be 
constructed in foreign shipyards. Then, notwithstanding the Passenger 
Vessel Services Act, the provision would allow the Norwegian Cruise 
Lines to flag these vessels as if they were U.S.-built vessels and 
operate them in the domestic trade--guess what--requiring service in 
Hawaii. The provision also allows the Norwegian Cruise Lines to bring 
over a third foreign-built ship to operate in the United States of 
America, in direct violation of existing law.
  As many of my colleagues know, I am no fan of the protectionist laws 
that require domestic cruise ships to be U.S.-owned, U.S.-built, U.S.-
flagged, and U.S.-crewed. However, I strongly object to waiving these 
laws for only one foreign-owned company.

[[Page S1116]]

  These proposed vessels have a long and sordid history. The pieces and 
parts that NCL will build into cruise ships have cost the American 
taxpayers close to $200 million dollars. Again, these parts were bought 
following American Classic Voyages' bankruptcy, which had begun 
construction of two vessels in Ingalls Shipyard in Mississippi after 
securing loan guarantees from the Federal Government through an 
intensive lobbying effort.
  Let me provide some history of American Classic Voyages' ``Project 
America'' for the record: The project, which was to consist of the 
construction of two large cruise ships in the United States, received 
considerable political support over the last several years. This 
political support translated into language being included in the 
Department of Defense Appropriation Bill for FY 1998 that granted a 
legal monopoly for its owner, American Classic Voyages, to operate as 
the only U.S. flagged operator among the Hawaiian islands. In March of 
1999, the contract for Project America was signed with great fanfare in 
the rotunda of this very building.
  Intense lobbying also created the political pressure that helped 
secure a $1.1 billion loan guarantee from the U.S. Maritime 
Administration's (MARAD) Title XI loan guarantee program for the 
construction of these two vessels--which is, by the way, the maximum 
allowable amount.
  Within the first year of construction on the first of these cruise 
ships, the project was a year to a year and a half behind schedule. 
Both American Classic Voyages and Northrop Grumman Corporation--Ingalls 
Shipyard's parent company--were crying foul over construction problems 
and months of non-binding mediation over contract disputes.

  On October 19, 2001, American Classic Voyages filed a bankruptcy 
petition under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The petition 
listed total assets of $37.4 million and total liabilities of $452.8 
million. The cruise line said in its petition that it has more than 
1,000 creditors, including the American taxpayers being represented by 
the Department of Transportation.
  Had the Project America vessels been completed, they would have been 
the largest cruise ships ever built in the United States and could have 
sparked a new phase of commercial shipbuilding in this country.
  Mr. President, none of that occurred. The failed project is one of 
the most costly loan guarantees ever granted under the Maritime Loan 
Guarantee Program. I questioned the merits of the ``Project America'' 
at the time the special legislation was considered and went so far as 
to introduce an amendment to the FY 1998 Department of Defense 
Appropriation Bill to remove the monopoly language. Based on the 
information available at the time, I believed then that the project was 
more likely to fail than to succeed.
  Guess what? The project did fail. Project America resulted in the 
U.S. Maritime Administration paying out over $187.3 million of the 
American taxpayers' money to cover the loan default for this project, 
and recovering only $2 million from the sale of some of the 
construction materials and parts. But now, the provision in the Omnibus 
is built around the scraps of that horribly failed pork project, which 
would now go into the new venture.
  Like ``Project America,'' the provision in this omnibus bill singles 
out one company; this time it is Norwegian Cruise Lines, for 
preferential treatment, and gives that company privileges enjoyed by no 
other. There has been no analysis, no discussion, no hearing, no debate 
on the value of granting an exclusive exemption for this one foreign-
owned company--exclusive exemption from the Passenger Vessel Services 
Act.

  Over the last several years, I have worked with all sectors of the 
maritime industry to look for solutions that would provide for a 
healthy U.S.-flagged cruise ship industry calling on ports nationwide. 
While these efforts have not come to fruition, I am committed to 
continuing this work. But those efforts will be, and should be, taken 
in the committee charged with this responsibility, the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  The author of this language is a member of the Commerce Committee, 
and a valued one. I strongly urge him to bring this issue on the agenda 
of the Commerce Committee and maybe we can work this out, rather than 
tucking it in as a provision, without any debate, without any 
discussion, without any authorization at any time, in direct violation 
of existing law. It is a direct violation, an exemption from existing 
law, the Passenger Vessel Services Act.
  Any proposed legislation from the Commerce Committee will be crafted 
in an open and inclusive manner, not behind closed doors as appears to 
have occurred with section 211.
  Aside from the procedural concerns I have, section 211 is 
fundamentally unfair. I firmly believe what is good for one corporation 
is good for all. Section 211, however, would create an uneven playing 
field for cruise operators and, depending on how the language was 
interpreted, also would create an uneven playing field for States by 
requiring these vessels to operate only in Hawaii, leaving most coastal 
States with no regular U.S.-flagged cruise ship service.
  Following on the heels of the failed attempt by American Classic 
Voyages to build a large cruise ship in a U.S. shipyard--an effort 
driven by lobbyists and special interests--I believe further efforts to 
expand the U.S.-flagged cruise ship fleet should be accomplished 
through the normal legislative process after debate and open 
examination. Any solution should benefit a broad section of the U.S. 
maritime industry and all of our Nation's ports. In order to spur such 
a debate, I offered that amendment to simply strike the special 
interest provisions in the omnibus bill. We can do better than this 
provision.
  Let me just give a couple of quotes from the media, this one from the 
New York Times, June 18, 2002:

      Critics Christen Ship Project as an Off-Course U.S.S. Pork.

       Two years ago, with waving flags and hula dancers swaying, 
     the government announced an ambitious program to build two 
     passenger cruise ships--the first in a United States shipyard 
     since the 1950's--and provided more than $1 billion in loan 
     guarantees to get the program going.
       It did not hurt that the ships were to be built in the 
     Pascagoula, Miss., shipyard where the father of Trent Lott, 
     the Republican Senate minority leader, once worked. As a 
     result, Senator Lott became one of the strongest supporters 
     of the program, which was named Project America.
       Today, the project is being derided as an example of 
     political pork gone wrong. What remains of Project America is 
     an unfinished hull the size of two football fields and pieces 
     for a second ship lying around. The hull is not floatable; it 
     has neither a completed bow or stern; and its future is in 
     doubt. The price to the government for the failed project is 
     $187 million--money the government is trying to recoup by 
     putting the half-finished hull on the market.
  By the way, they did put it on the market. They sold it for $24 
million, of which the American taxpayer got $2 million--1, 2--$2 
million, in return for a $187 million default.
  How can we come to this body and tell them that we ought to do 
anything but leave this issue alone for now? Haven't we done enough 
damage to the American taxpayers? Isn't a $187 million default enough?

       This dismal reality only confirms the worst fears of the 
     project's critics--and is a far cry from the high hopes of 
     those who backed it. Critics, who call Project America 
     corporate welfare, say it shows the dangers lurking behind 
     the tens of billions in loan guarantees the government has 
     extended to an array of businesses, among them airlines, the 
     housing industry and American exporters.
       ``This has turned into a corporate welfare debacle.''

                           *   *   *   *   *

       The Maritime Administration's loan program is intended to 
     support domestic shipyards by guaranteeing the debt issued to 
     finance commercial ship construction. Last year, the agency 
     guaranteed $362 million; in 2000, $885 million.
       When a project fails--as happened after American Classic's 
     bankruptcy filing--the government steps in to pay off the 
     debtholders.
  You know, the interesting thing about this, too, this outfit that 
started this Project America, is there is a billionaire who operates a 
casino--riverboat. He is a billionaire. He didn't lose any money on 
this deal. He didn't lose any money. The American taxpayer did, because 
it was so well crafted, thanks to special interest lobbying, that the 
only exposure was to the American taxpayer--$187 million worth.

[[Page S1117]]

  It will be argued that September 11 was the cause of the downfall of 
this magnificent project.

       Even before Sept. 11, Project America had run into trouble. 
     It had fallen behind schedule and was far over budget. As a 
     result, Northrop Grumman, which owns the shipyard, took a $60 
     million write-off from it and American Classic lost $100 
     million. The yard itself will continue to make and repair 
     Navy vessels.
       ``The project was behind schedule and millions in the 
     hole,'' said John Graykowski, former administrator of the 
     government's shipbuilding program. ``The terrorists' attack 
     masked this reality and perhaps allowed the emperor to 
     maintain his modesty.''

  So any argument that it was September 11 that caused this porkbarrel 
project to fail is simply not in compliance with the facts.
  There have been a lot of articles written. There probably should have 
been more because of the incredible loss to the American taxpayer of 
$187 million--sorry, $185 million; we got $2 million back.
  So now here we go. We take an omnibus appropriations bill of $400 
billion and we stick into it a little amendment that violates existing 
law, protects a Malaysian--gives a special break to a Malaysian-owned 
Norwegian Cruise Lines, and we are supposed to sit back and accept 
that. I don't think so. I don't think so. Didn't we learn a lesson last 
time, when Congress got involved, when there were a few of us who said: 
Wait a minute, wait a minute, this is crazy; this is just crazy?
  How many millions of Americans' taxpayer dollars do we have to spend 
before we stop this kind of activity?
  There are a number of other aspects of this issue. The proposed 
amendment will achieve the completion of Project America. My response 
to that--when Project America's earmark was pushed through in 1998, the 
proponents alleged that the goals were to develop a U.S-built, U.S-
flagged cruise vessel fleet by authorizing the temporary operation of 
foreign-built cruise ships in the domestic trade.
  The provision in today's omnibus appropriations bill totally 
disregards the prior requirement that a company operating foreign-built 
U.S.-flag vessels in Hawaii trade build the U.S. vessels in the United 
States. Now they will be built overseas. Instead, 211 will allow the 
construction of two vessels, using some parts of the failed Project 
America project, but it would not accomplish the objectives of 
promoting U.S. shipbuilding, as was one of the alleged benefits under 
the original project. When the Project America earmark was pushed 
through in 1998, it was limited to one company and two vessels. When 
Project America encountered financial problems and then bankruptcy, all 
of the alleged benefits to the country were lost and cost the taxpayers 
nearly $200 million.
  If the sponsors are now seeking to achieve a new objective--the 
operation of U.S-flagged cruise vessels regardless of where they are 
built--then the amendment should be expanded to allow foreign-built 
cruise vessels to operate under the U.S. flag in all the domestic 
cruise ship markets in order to increase the alleged economic benefits 
that would result from U.S-flagged cruise vessels.
  As far as military preparedness goes, we don't need to even bother to 
discuss that.
  The proposed amendment will benefit the U.S. economy. It has really 
benefited the U.S. economy a great deal so far.
  The proposed amendment does not perpetuate the Project America 
monopoly. As drafted, the provision creates a de facto monopoly for one 
company in the Hawaii cruise trade, arguably in the U.S. coastal cruise 
market. No other company under this proposal, under this legislation, 
can operate foreign-built, U.S.-flagged--can, under this proposal, 
operate U.S.-flagged, foreign-built cruise vessels in the Hawaiian 
market or any other market. It is totally unrealistic to believe 
another company will be able to secure financing to build a vessel in 
the United States for operation in the Hawaii cruise trade in direct 
competition with the foreign-built, U.S.-flagged cruise vessels that 
would be authorized to operate under this provision with far less 
capital investment.
  I will be glad to engage in more debate on this issue. This was a 
terrible thing we did to the U.S. taxpayers back in 1998 under a 
process that I have vehemently and strongly resisted because of these 
very circumstances. Provisions are inserted in appropriations bills 
without hearing, without authorization, without scrutiny.
  Then some of us have to come to the floor and object to them without 
full and certain knowledge of the issue.
  I promise you that if I had known for sure we were going to lose $187 
million of the taxpayers' money, I would have filibustered.
  I knew it was wrong and seriously flawed. I knew that some 
billionaire who operates riverboats probably isn't very good in the 
business of building massive cruise ships.
  But we cannot continue this kind of activity. Just suppose that this 
is a good idea, that it is a great idea. Why are we putting it into an 
omnibus appropriations bill that is supposed to fund the functions of 
Government and not authorize in direct violation of existing law? How 
do we justify that?
  I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, in 1997 Congress, as noted by my colleague 
from Arizona, enacted the U.S.-Flag Cruise Ship Pilot Project in an 
attempt to ``jump start'' the redevelopment of a U.S.-flag cruise 
industry. As some of our colleagues know, the large oceangoing cruise 
ships, so familiar in Miami and other United States ports, all operate 
under foreign flag. This may be a startling fact when one considers 
that after the Second World War, U.S. flag ships carried some 80 
percent of the world's ocean borne cargo and most of America's seagoing 
passengers. Today, in stark contrast, less than 4 percent of all the 
world's international cargo moves on ships flying the U.S. flag, and 
not a single large oceangoing passenger cruise ship in the world 
operates under U.S. registry.
  The enactment of what has become known as the ``Project America'' 
legislation more than 5 years ago was intended to reestablish a U.S.-
flag cruise ship industry. The benefits of creating a U.S.-flag cruise 
ship industry have long been obvious. Such an industry would maintain 
America's preparedness for a national emergency by developing a pool of 
qualified seafarers, help sustain a fleet of U.S.-flag vessels to 
support our military vessels and a maritime industrial base for times 
of national emergency, create tens of thousands of seagoing and 
shoreside American jobs, and stimulate the development of a U.S.-flag 
cruise ship tourism business with commensurate benefits to the U.S. tax 
base, the U.S. economy, and U.S. employment.
  These were among the guiding principles and objectives of our 
legislative efforts to restore a U.S.-flag cruise ship industry through 
the Project America legislation in 1997. Under the terms of that 
legislation, the re-flagging of one foreign-flag cruise ship was 
permitted contingent on the operator contracting for construction of 
two new U.S.-built cruise ships--the first such vessels to be built in 
the U.S. in more than 40 years.
  The project, while proceeding with considerable difficulty, including 
delays and increased costs in construction, ultimately became a victim 
of the September 11 attack on our Nation. The terrorist attacks 
dramatically impacted the U.S. economy, and caused financial 
difficulties for the entire travel industry. In fact, passenger 
bookings for American Classic Voyages Co.--AMCV--the company that 
undertook Project America, decreased by as much as 50 percent, and 
cancellations of bookings increased by as much as 30 percent in the 
weeks after the attacks. Ultimately, as a result, AMCV filed for 
bankruptcy, and construction on the two Project America ships was 
halted. The re-flagged vessel, the m/v Patriot, was transferred out of 
U.S. registry.
  As a result of these events, thousands of seagoing and shoreside jobs 
were lost including more than 1,000 crewmembers and cruise ship service 
providers. Passengers experienced disruptions and lost fares. Yet, the 
U.S. government paid $185 million on a Title XI shipbuilding loan 
guarantee for the two cruise ships under construction at Northrop 
Grumman Ingalls Shipbuilding--

[[Page S1118]]

Ingalls--in Mississippi. Project America came to an abrupt halt.
  At the time the Senate considered the Project America legislation, 
there were concerns, and in some cases opposition, expressed about 
Federal funds being spent for the construction of these ships and a 
proposed preference in market access for AMCV to serve the coastwise 
trade among the islands that comprise my State. But no one--not one 
member of the Senate--voiced an objection to the goal of further 
developing a U.S. flag cruise industry that would ultimately provide 
thousands of seafarer and shoreside jobs for Americans. Those jobs, 
along with the development of a qualified pool of seafarers that this 
country could rely upon in times of national emergency, should not 
become the permanent victims of the terrorist attacks. As our Nation 
restores the buildings and facilities that bore the brunt of that 
attack, we must also assist in the recovery of economic causalities. 
Since the demise of Project America, I have searched for a solution 
that would permit most of the objectives of the original legislation to 
be accomplished, but without any further expenditure of Federal funds, 
without any Federal loan guarantees, and without the need for the 
market preference in the 1997 law.
  Last year, the U.S. Maritime Administration and Ingalls put the 
partially constructed Project America ships up for sale. While the sale 
was open to any offeror, Norwegian Cruise Line--NCL--the longest 
established of the U.S.-based cruise lines, placed a bid on the Project 
America ships that far exceeded all others. After NCL committed to 
acquiring the hulls, I met with company officials to discuss the 
possibility of completing Project America in a way that would achieve 
most of the main objectives of the original legislation without any 
further expenditure of Federal resources or any Federal loan 
guarantees. It is my hope that over time the United States will reap 
the benefits of its investment.
  In the course of those discussions, completing the vessels at Ingalls 
did not seem possible. NCL asked Ingalls to bid on completing the 
vessels in Mississippi; however, the yard did not bid because it was 
preparing to build new ships for the U.S. Navy. Unfortunately, NCL's 
only option was to complete the ships elsewhere. In the meantime 
however, more than 250 workers in Mississippi worked on the partially 
completed hull over the summer to make it seaworthy for towing overseas 
for completion in another shipyard. It has become apparent that further 
legislation is necessary to reestablish the project to achieve most of 
the Project America goals, and to respond to concerns expressed by my 
colleagues about the original legislation.
  Therefore, this provision in the Omnibus Appropriations bill will 
amend the original Project America authority. This provision, like the 
original Pilot Project, will apply only to cruise ships operating in 
regular Hawaii service. It was done that way because other areas did 
not want to have this competition. My provision would allow for the 
completion of the first hull, with an option to complete the second 
hull, from the material acquired in conjunction with the Project 
America ships that were under construction at Ingalls. Either or both 
of these ships may be completed in a non-U.S. shipyard experienced in 
cruise ship construction for operation under the U.S. flag in regular 
coastwise service. These new U.S.-flagged cruise ships will be required 
to operate with American crews, be subject to all U.S. laws, including 
tax, labor and environmental laws, and be owned by a U.S. corporation 
with United States citizens serving as chief executive officer and 
chairman of the board of directors, and with U.S. citizens controlling 
the board. Like the original Project America legislation, this bill 
permits increased foreign equity involvement in the enterprise. While 
under this new provision, the ultimate beneficial owner need not be a 
U.S. citizen, the requirement that the vessels be owned by an American 
company ensures that the ships' operations will be subject to all U.S. 
laws and that the vessel assets of the U.S. company will be available 
to our Nation in times of national emergency.

  Consistent with the original Project America legislation, the U.S. 
corporate owner would have the right to reflag a modern foreign-built 
vessel under U.S. flag for operation in the coastwise trade to 
facilitate a cost-effective and timely transition to U.S. registry. 
Like the newly built ships, the reflagged vessel must have a U.S. crew 
and be subject to all U.S. laws. Before operating under U.S. registry, 
however, two conditions must be met. First, the reflagged vessel must 
undergo a complete inspection to ensure compliance with all relevant 
Federal safety and public health laws of the United States that are 
applicable to U.S.-flagged cruise ships. Further, any refurbishing or 
remodeling that may be necessary to assure compliance with these 
Federal laws must occur in a United States shipyard. Second, the 
reflagged vessel may commence operating only after the first Project 
America ship enters service. The U.S. Maritime Administration will be 
charged with overseeing the implementation of this bill, but 
reimbursement for costs associated with this oversight shall be 
obtained from those who operate cruise ships under this new authority.
  The result of this provision would be the introduction of multiple 
modern U.S.-flagged cruise ships in regular Hawaii service. The ships 
would employ as many as 3,000 U.S. seamen, and all would be subject to 
U.S. labor, tax, and environmental laws, unlike the major foreign 
cruise lines. In short, these proposed changes to the original Project 
America legislation will still allow many of the original principles 
and objectives to be achieved, without additional cost to the American 
taxpayer.
  While the legislation is limited to Hawaii, at the request of other 
areas, the benefits go far beyond the shores of my home State. In 
addition to the thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars 
in economic activity generated nationwide, this provision will 
strengthen our U.S. Merchant Marine. The ships operating under U.S.-
flag will be assets available to the Department of Defense in time of 
national emergency, and these U.S.-flagged cruise ship operations will 
significantly expand our pool of qualified seafarers that man civilian-
crewed military ships such as the Ready Reserve Fleet, a fleet of 76 
U.S. Government-owned ships used to meet surge sealift.

  The Department of Defense relies heavily on U.S. mariners to crew a 
large number of non-combatant vessels to deliver a wide range of 
supplies to United States and allied forces around the globe. In fact, 
as much as 95 percent of the military's fuel, food, munitions, and 
spare parts would move by these ships in the event of a major war.
  The media have chronicled the concerns of our Nation's military and 
maritime officials about the Nation's ability to crew these non-
combatant ships because of shortages in the numbers of civilian 
American seafarers. Most recently, in Defense Week, VADM David Brewer, 
Commander of Military Sealift Command, expressed ``concern'' that the 
lack of qualified seafarers might ``strain'' activation of the Ready 
Reserve Fleet.
  CAPT Bill Schubert, Administrator of the Maritime Administration, the 
agency charged with ensuring a viable Ready Reserve Fleet, has been 
even more blunt in his assessment of the circumstances last year in a 
Baltimore Sun article entitled, ``Shipping Crew Deficit Called Wartime 
Risk,'' where he said:

       This is a very serious issue that needs to be addressed 
     now--today . . . I'm not comfortable right now that we have 
     the ability to respond to an emergency.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Defense 
Week and Baltimore Sun articles be printed in the Record at the 
conclusion of my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I think we should remind ourselves that 
not too long ago there was a war we have referred to as the Yom Kippur 
war that was fought in the Middle East. It was a war that involved the 
Republic of Egypt and the State of Israel.
  On Yom Kippur Day, a day of very holy significance in Israel, 
Egyptian troops went across the river, got into the Sinai, and were on 
the verge of successfully carrying out the military mission. We 
received frantic calls from Israel to resupply their troops, because 
their troops had a 90-day amount of

[[Page S1119]]

ammo, but because of the intensity of the combat, over half of that had 
already been used.
  We, therefore, called upon every American and American company that 
owned ships on the high seas but under foreign registry. There are 
hundreds upon hundreds of vessels owned by Americans or American 
companies that are registered in Panama, Liberia, or in someplace out 
in the Pacific in the trust territories. They do not pay taxes. They do 
not hire American crews. But we felt that because they were Americans, 
they might come to our aid. We wanted ships to carry these military 
goods to help the Israelis.
  When the word reached them that the Saudis would look upon this as an 
unfriendly act, the response from our fellow Americans, to help 
Americans provide help to their allies, the Israelis, was absolutely 
zero. Not one ship responded. History shows, as a result, we had to 
carry out cargo on C-5 aircraft, huge aircraft. Two of them were buzzed 
by Egyptian fighters. Every time I think of this, I shudder, because if 
any one of them had been shot down, the question arises, would we have 
been involved? In all likelihood, we would have been.
  Therefore, the fact that after the end of World War II we carried 80 
percent of all the cargo, and today less than 4 percent, should be of 
concern to all of us.
  What if the war many are suggesting might happen does happen and it 
becomes not a minor war but a major war? Do we have the vessels to 
carry necessary troops and equipment abroad? I believe that is a good 
question we should ask ourselves.
  I do not suggest the Project America provision solves this problem. 
However, virtually every person engaged in the debate over seafarer 
readiness would agree that a primary way to address the problem is to 
promote a viable U.S.-flag fleet. My provision does just that.
  With international tensions rising, I believe we must do all we can 
to support the Nation's military readiness. My legislation would do 
that by creating desperately needed American seafaring jobs that will 
support a military sealift.
  To summarize, let me be clear what this section does. First, no 
Federal funds may be used to complete the Project America hulls. No 
Federal loan guarantees may be issued by the U.S. Government to perform 
work on these ships. The preference in the original Project America law 
that was criticized as limiting competition among the islands of the 
State of Hawaii does not apply to these ships. At this moment, if any 
American company wishes to build a ship in the United States and carry 
on the business in Hawaii or, for that matter, in any other port of the 
United States, that company may do so. Or if that company has a foreign 
flag vessel and believes that vessel should be reflagged to an American 
flag and would come before us, as we have in the past, it we may do so. 
This does not close that door. It just gives it a jump start.
  We need something to be done. As I pointed out, Federal safety and 
health inspections on the proposed reflagged vessel must occur in the 
United States shipyard, not abroad. All future maintenance on these 
cruise ships and any repairs needed in order to register the vessel in 
the U.S. must occur in our shipyards. The U.S. Coast Guard safety 
regulations will govern ship operations, and U.S. mariners operating 
the vessel will be subject to Coast Guard licensing. The U.S. Maritime 
Administration will oversee the implementation of this legislation and 
recapture that cost from the cruise line operators.
  I want to stress to my colleagues and those in the maritime industry 
that this provision will not adversely impact the Jones Act cargo 
trades where the fleet is vibrant and growing. It is strictly limited 
to the large oceangoing cruise ships and then only those operating in 
the regular Hawaii service where there are no U.S.-flag operations.
  I would also like to stress I continue to support U.S. domestic 
shipping requirements that mandate U.S.-built, operated, and crewed 
vessels. I recognize that in certain circumstances, some degree of 
relaxation of these requirements may be necessary to stimulate growth 
in the United States maritime industrial base. While this particular 
provision is intended to fulfill the completion of Project America, and 
promote the use of large U.S.-flag passenger vessels in Hawaii, I have 
supported legislation that will provide similar flexibility for large 
passenger vessels throughout the United States. This legislation was 
introduced by my distinguished colleague from Arizona. I will continue 
to support such proposals that are crafted to strengthen our U.S. 
maritime industrial base.
  However, I feel we need to move forward expeditiously with this 
proposal to ensure we can realize some of the benefits of the original 
Project America legislation. Planning requirements and operational 
changes necessary to complete this project to allow for the use as a 
U.S.-flag vessel must be made shortly or the vessels will be completed 
for use under a flag of convenience or foreign flag.

  Yes, some $185 million in Federal funds have already been invested in 
this project as a result of the Maritime Administration loan guarantees 
that were called upon when AMCV went bankrupt. A U.S.-based cruise 
company has taken the risk of purchasing the hull and related materials 
from Project America with no assurance that legislation could be 
enacted to obtain coastwise privileges.
  Instead of simply building the ships overseas for operation under a 
foreign flag with foreign crews or seeking product exemptions to the 
Passenger Vessel Services Act to operate these ships, NCL has stepped 
to the plate and is willing to hire American crews, be subject to 
American laws, and achieve some of the original benefits of Project 
America.
  I will be the first to admit that the original Project America 
failed. There is no U.S.-built cruise ship ready for delivery on 
January 23, 2003, which was supposed to have been the delivery date of 
the first Project America ship. There is no work proceeding on a second 
U.S.-built cruise vessel, and the Federal Government is out $185 
million for the title XI loan guarantee. While the economic downturn 
resulting from September 11 was the final nail in the lid of the 
Project America coffin, the troubles, as noted by my colleague from 
Arizona, began well before that catastrophic event.
  No one will dispute that U.S. shipyards are inexperienced in 
constructing large oceangoing cruise ships. We recognized this and, 
through the original Project America, provided the incentive necessary 
for an $880 million fixed price contract to build modern state-of-the-
art cruise ships in the United States.
  Throughout the process, the shipyard experienced significant problems 
in construction of ships. For example, within the first year of 
construction, the yard was experiencing a projected delay in delivery 
of approximately 1 year and an escalation in the price of outfitting 
the interior of the ship by as much as $76 million. Eventually a 
negotiated settlement was reached, extending the delivery dates, 
increasing the price, and requiring additional project equity.
  After the vessel owner's bankruptcy brought the work on Project 
America to a halt, the partially completed vessels were auctioned. The 
successful bidder, NCL, offered the Ingalls shipyard an opportunity to 
bid for completing the vessels, but Ingalls declined. The yard handled 
predominantly military construction and was not interested in 
completing the vessels. Instead, the yard retooled its operation to 
handle an increased order book for Navy ships.
  U.S. shipyards predominantly build Navy ships. Based on past 
experience, the Government is more willing than the private sector to 
absorb increases in the price tag or delays in delivery of the vessel. 
A commercial company requires more stringent pricing and schedule 
discipline to ensure that projects are economical.
  With Project America, that discipline did not exist, and the shipyard 
opted to concentrate its efforts on government contracts. Other 
shipyards were in the same situation, with orderbooks filled with 
government vessels.
  I remain committed to our U.S. shipyards and believe they have an 
important role to play in the future of the U.S. cruise ship industry. 
My provision will give shipyards additional business that they may not 
otherwise get--any conversion work necessary for certification of the 
new cruise ships, and any

[[Page S1120]]

future non-warranty repairs and maintenance must be done in U.S. 
shipyards.
  If Section 211 is not adopted, the Federal Government will lose all 
future benefits from its $185 million investment. My provision gives 
America another opportunity to jump-start a U.S.-flag cruise industry 
that will bring the Government a return on its investment.
  NCL is the only cruise line willing to step up to the plate today and 
commit to a U.S.-flag, U.S. crewed operation.
  We can choose to write off the Project America investment by not 
acting, and watching as these completed hulls are introduced into the 
booming U.S. cruise market under a foreign flag, with foreign crews, 
operated by foreign corporations without direct benefit to the U.S. 
economy or American workers.
  But if we are to make good on any of that investment, we must act now 
to generate real and lasting economic benefit to our economy--and to 
restore pride in the fact that the Stars and Stripes will once again 
fly on modern oceangoing passenger cruise ships.
  By taking action now on Project America, we will begin to recover the 
investment our nation has made in these hulls both through revenues to 
the U.S. Treasury in the form of individual income taxes, Federal and 
State corporate income and payroll taxes, and a broad range of other 
Federal and State taxes paid by the cruise industry--not to mention the 
broader benefits this legislation will bring to our military 
preparedness and to our sagging economy.
  No further Federal funds are required, nor are Government financial 
guarantees permitted. This legislation simply allows for the completion 
of Project America and for this company to set a shining example as a 
proud employer of U.S. seafarers and as a proud operator of U.S. flag 
ships.
  I urge my colleagues to support this effort so that we can revive our 
U.S.-flag cruise industry, increase our military preparedness, 
stimulate the economy, and create thousands of good jobs for Americans.

                             Exhibit No. 1

                   [From Defense Week, Nov. 12, 2002]

         Force Protection Is Top Concern for Sealift Commander

                           (By Nathan Hodge)

       Protecting vulnerable cargo ships has become the main worry 
     for the three-star admiral in charge of the fleet that is 
     moving weapons and materiel in support of a U.S. military 
     buildup in the Middle East.
       In an interview with Defense Week, Vice Adm. David Brewer, 
     commander of Military Sealift Command (MSC), said that force 
     protection is MSC's ``No. 1 priority.''
       At some point, that could possibly mean embarking armed 
     guards aboard foreign-flagged ships that move sensitive U.S. 
     military cargo. Asked if that was the case, he simply said, 
     ``We're still working that issue,'' and declined to 
     elaborate. MSC operates a fleet of 120 noncombatant ships to 
     deliver a wide range of supplies to U.S. and allied forces 
     around the globe. In event of a major war, ships controlled 
     by MSC would move as much as 95 percent of the military's 
     fuel, food, ammunition and spare parts.
       The command augments its own fleet by contracting with 
     commercial shippers. According to U.S. Transportation 
     Command, the United States military relies on commercial 
     ships--many under foreign flag-to meet as much as two-thirds 
     of its sealift requirements.
       In an ideal world, said Brewer, the U.S. military would 
     move all its cargo under U.S.-flagged ships. But he added: 
     ``Right now, we don't have enough. We've seen a steady 
     decline in U.S. flag shipping over the last 10 years. I think 
     . . . there's less than 125 U.S.-flagged [commercial] ships 
     now.''
       That means increased reliance on foreign-owned ships for 
     military sealift, an issue that has prompted concern in 
     policy circles. In a July report, the General Accounting 
     Office said the Defense Department ``relinquishes control'' 
     of sensitive military cargo when it contracts out to foreign 
     ships.
       When the U.S. military hires foreign-flagged vessels, there 
     are no armed U.S. guards on board. When the U.S. military 
     hires U.S.-flagged ships, sometimes there are guards on 
     board. But when GAO reviewed many shipments of weapons on 
     U.S.-flagged vessels, it found them unguarded.
       Brewer stressed that U.S. cargo preference laws favor U.S.-
     flagged shippers, who get the first opportunity to bid on any 
     of MSC's contracts for cargo movement. And he said that MSC 
     very closely scrutinizes all the commercial vessels, 
     including foreign ones, that carry military cargo.
       ``If we cannot find a U.S. flag, we sometimes will embark 
     cargo or equipment on a foreign flag,'' he said. ``But in a 
     perfect world, we want a U.S. flag.''
       When MSC does embark equipment aboard a foreign-flagged 
     ship, Brewer said, ``We watch those ships very closely and in 
     some cases embark our personnel aboard those ships to make 
     sure the cargo is secure.''
       Asked if that included armed cargo supervisors, called 
     supercargoes, Brewer said: ``We're still working that issue. 
     Armed supercargoes is an issue we're still working.''


                         investing in upgrades

       An attack last month on an oil tanker off the coast of 
     Yemen spotlighted the vulnerability of commercial ships. In 
     an incident reminiscent of the attack on the USS Cole (DDG 
     67) in 2000, a small watercraft laden with explosives struck 
     the French supertanker Limburg, crippling the ship.
       Brewer said MSC takes the threat to merchant vessels as 
     seriously as it takes the threat to military transport ships 
     and said his command would be investing more money over the 
     next several years to upgrade security on board its own 
     ships.
       ``We're dedicating significant resources to, number one, 
     providing . . . force protection in terms of training and 
     equipment to budgeting a significant amount of money actually 
     through fiscal 2009 to make sure not only that we not only 
     install the latest technology in terms of hull-perimeter 
     lighting, intrusion detection systems, things of that sort, 
     but also to make sure that we have aboard ships any 
     technology that may be available in the future,'' he said. 
     ``So we are investing a lot of money.''
       The technology upgrades are particularly important because 
     military transport ships, unlike Navy combatants, have small 
     crews.
       ``MSC ships are `manned to mission,' '' he said. ``So that 
     means they're minimally manned. Therefore there's not extra 
     people on board our ships to be armed.''
       Much of the money that MSC will invest is in equipment and 
     training. And Brewer said he was working closely with the 
     Navy's fleet commanders in terms of developing an across-the-
     board force-protection policy for Navy ships.
       ``So we're investing quite a bit of time and money into 
     force protection and we're working with the fleet in terms of 
     developing and refining force-protection policy,'' he said.


                      beans and bullets to mideast

       Meanwhile, MSC continues to charter vessels regularly to 
     move equipment and supplies. Earlier this month, MSC hired 
     out two commercial ships to move a large shipment (284 
     containers full) of ammunition along with 28,000 square feet 
     of rolling stock (including armored vehicles).
       The ships were headed for unspecified destinations in the 
     Middle East, said Marge Holtz, a spokeswoman for the command.
       Brewer would not comment directly on deployments in support 
     of military operations or the destination of cargoes. But he 
     suggested that his command was keeping pace with the Navy's 
     increased operational tempo, including the recent deployment 
     of carrier battle groups to the Persian Gulf region.
       ``Our workload has increased in the sense that we are 
     operating with the increased operational tempo with the 
     battle groups,'' he said. ``But basically we satisfy the 
     fleet's basic needs.''
       Asked whether he is confident that his command can easily 
     be put on a war footing, Brewer said: ``Ramping up, because 
     of the planning we've put forth, . . . is not a problem.''
       However, he did suggest that a full mobilization might put 
     a strain on the Ready Reserve Force, a fleet of 76 
     government-owned ships kept in reserve by the Maritime 
     Administration to meet surge shipping requirements for the 
     military.
       ``Where that would put a strain on the maritime industry is 
     if we have to activate the Ready Reserve Force ships,'' 
     Brewer said. ``And with the decrease in U.S.-flagged ships, 
     there's a concomitant decrease in U.S. mariners. So we're 
     working with the Maritime Administration and the unions in 
     making sure that if we have to go to war and activate the 
     Ready Reserve Forces, there are enough mariners to man those 
     ships.''
       Most of those ships are kept in a ``reduced operating 
     status,'' with small crews aboard for maintenance.
       ``If we have to take those ships to a full operating 
     status, there is some concern there, but we're working this 
     issue very diligently with the Maritime Administration and 
     the maritime unions and we feel we could satisfy any wartime 
     requirements,'' he said.
       That point, he said, further reinforces the desire of the 
     government, the shipping industry and unions to increase the 
     number of U.S.-flagged ships.
       In general, said Brewer, ``I want to see more U.S.-flagged 
     ships. Period. More U.S.-flagged ships, number one, will be 
     good for the economy. We are a maritime nation. More 
     importantly, it is essential for our national security. 
     Because [it means] the less we have to depend on foreign-
     flagged shipping today.''
                                  ____


                [From the Baltimore Sun, Jan. 13, 2002]

   Shipping Crew Deficit Called Wartime Risk; Bush's Maritime Chief 
Acknowledges Worries on Readiness; ``A Very Top Priority'' New Reserve 
                 Force Among Proposals To Ease Shortage

                           (By Robert Little)

       The Bush administration is acknowledging, after years of 
     government denials, that the nation's ability to fight a 
     large-scale war overseas is in peril because of a

[[Page S1121]]

     crippling shortage of manpower in the U.S. merchant marine.
       William G. Schubert, Bush's maritime administrator, said in 
     an interview that he does not believe the Pentagon could find 
     enough sailors to operate its cargo ships if military forces 
     were deployed for a sustained overseas campaign.
       He plans to pursue several immediate remedies, including 
     pushing for the creation of a new Merchant Marine Reserve, 
     and said solving the manpower crisis will be ``a very top 
     priority'' of his administration.
       ``This is a very serious issue that needs to be addressed 
     right now--today,'' said Schubert, a former merchant seaman 
     who was sworn in just over a month ago. ``We don't have time 
     to postpone this issue any longer, or there could be some 
     very serious consequences. I'm not very comfortable right now 
     that we have the ability to respond to an emergency.'' A 
     series of articles in The Sun last summer showed that a 
     shortage of U.S. merchant sailors, brought on by declines in 
     the nation's commercial shipping fleet, would leave many of 
     the government's cargo ships stranded in port during a 
     crisis.
       A small military force like the one currently in 
     Afghanistan can be deployed and re-supplied with cargo planes 
     and helicopters. But during a large campaign involving tank 
     divisions and heavy machinery, such as the Persian Gulf war, 
     about 95 percent of the equipment, fuel and supplies must 
     move in ships.
       the federal government keeps almost 100 empty cargo ships 
     scattered around the country for use is such an emergency, 
     and it plans to crew them with civilian sailors from the U.S. 
     merchant marine. A complete activation of the 76-ship Ready 
     Reserve Force and about two dozen other dormat sealift 
     vessels would require more than 3,500 mariners, all of them 
     culled from the nation's commercial shipping industry.
       Despite denials of a shortage from government and military 
     officials, the series published in The Sun revealed that the 
     Pentagon recycles crew members, transferring them from ship 
     to ship giving each vessel a full crew just long enough to 
     pass a drill verifying its readiness for war. Some 
     mariners served on as many as five ships a year.
       The series also showed that the federal government is 
     relying on retired sailors to fill in during a crisis, even 
     though it has no idea how many retirees are available, who 
     they are, where they live or what qualifications they have.
       Since the articles were published, leaders from the 
     nation's merchant marine unions have acknowledged the 
     shortages, and two senior members of Congress have introduced 
     legislation to bolster the commercial shipping industry and 
     reverse its decline.


                        ``that's a good start''

       But Schubert's comments represent the first acknowledgement 
     from a federal official responsible for military sealift that 
     the shortage exists--and the first pledge to do something 
     about it.
       ``If he's admitting that this is a big problem, then he's 
     the first one to do so. And that's a good start,'' said 
     retired Navy Capt. Robert W. Kesteloot, a former director of 
     strategic sealift for the Chief of Naval Operations who says 
     a growing manpower shortage was apparent at the Pentagon even 
     in the late 1980s.
       ``It's about time someone over there started taking this 
     seriously,'' Kesteloot said.
       The Navy is ultimately responsible for military sealift, 
     but it has little control over the crew members hired for its 
     dormant cargo ships because they are all temporary civilian 
     contractors, not regular employees. The responsibility to 
     maintain and preserve that work force rests with the U.S. 
     Maritime Administration, a division of the Department of 
     Transportation.
       Previous maritime administrators have acknowledged concerns 
     about manpower but have all claimed that the military's cargo 
     ships can be fully crewed. Schubert's predecessor, Clinton-
     appointee Clyde J. Hart, said in an interview last year: 
     ``It's a problem that should keep us up at nights, but it's 
     not a readiness problem. We can man the ships.''
       But Schubert, who worked for the Maritime Administration 
     during the gulf war and watched it struggle to crew sealift 
     vessels more than 10 years ago, said he discounts even the 
     agency's latest survey, made public late last year, which 
     concludes that a sufficient supply of mariners is available.
       ``I'd hate to put our national defense on the line based on 
     a statistical analysis,'' he said. ``It was a problem 10 
     years ago, and the situation today has only gotten worse.''
       The U.S. military has always relied on civilian merchant 
     mariners for moving supplies by sea. They are cheaper than 
     military personnel, because they are hired only when needed. 
     And Navy sailors aren't trained in the precise skills 
     required to operate cargo ships--and virtually all of them 
     lack the necessary licenses and certifications.
       A typical merchant mariner works four months at sea, then 
     spends four months ashore, and few of them have permanent 
     jobs on the same ship. Jobs are handed out by the unions 
     based on how long a mariner has been ashore looking for his 
     or her next ship. When a mariner has been ashore long enough 
     to qualify for work again, most take whatever ship is 
     available at the time.
       In a crisis, the Pentagon plans to add its ships to the 
     unions' list of commercial vessels looking for crew members, 
     luring sailors back to sea much sooner than normal.
       That strategy worked for decades, when the U.S. merchant 
     marine dominated the globe and the fleet had thousands of 
     vessels. But since 1950, the U.S.-flagged commercial fleet 
     has shrunk from nearly 3,500 vessels to about 220. An 
     industry that once kept more than 160,000 sailors employed 
     now has fewer than 6,500 jobs.
       Schubert said that correcting the manpower shortage will be 
     a top priority in his administration. He plans to appoint a 
     new deputy administrator with expertise in manpower and 
     recruitment, and conduct a new, detailed survey of the 
     merchant marine work force.


                       Expansion of reserve force

       Schubert has already met with Navy officials to discuss 
     creating a new merchant marine arm of the Naval Reserve. The 
     Navy has a Merchant Marine Reserve, but it includes only 
     ships' officers--not unlicensed seafarers that make up the 
     bulk of a cargo ship's crew.
       He is considering making service on Ready Reserve Force 
     cargo ships an element of the service obligation for 
     graduates of the tuition-free U.S. Merchant Marine Academy. 
     And he wants to set up a program at the academy for emergency 
     mariner training, to counter shortages in a crisis. Schubert 
     graduated from the academy in 1974.
       He also plans to oversee creation of a national database 
     listing contact information for anyone--active or retired--
     with the Coast Guard qualifications necessary to work at sea. 
     Today the government relies solely on unions and word of 
     mouth to find mariners when they are needed.
       But those are mostly short-term solutions. Lasting 
     increases in the number of sailors available to the military 
     can be accomplished only by altering the economic outlook for 
     shipping companies that choose to register their vessels in 
     the United States and hire American sailors, he said.
       ``If we don't have programs or initiatives to promote the 
     profitability of the U.S. flag, nothing else will matter,'' 
     he said.
       The Bush administration has not taken a position on a bill 
     before Congress that would lower taxes on American cargo 
     ships in hopes of luring more vessels to the U.S. fleet. That 
     legislation, sponsored by the senior Republican and Democrat 
     on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, is 
     awaiting a nearing in the House of Representatives.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, if this amendment is allowed to stand in 
the appropriations bill without a hearing, without scrutiny, without 
any examination, without any authorization, it will be a violation of 
the Passenger Vessel Services Act, which required that any ship 
operating under these circumstances has to be built in the United 
States of America.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote in 
relation to the McCain amendment occur at 1:30 today, with the time 
equally divided in the usual form and with no amendments in order prior 
to the vote; further, that prior to the vote, Senator Landrieu be 
recognized as in morning business for up to 5 minutes; further, that 
following this vote, Senator Biden be recognized to speak for up to 20 
minutes and Senator Brownback, for up to 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask the 
distinguished manager and chairman, does he anticipate further votes 
following the speaking?
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes, we do expect further votes this afternoon. We have 
the prospect of a Dodd amendment and a further amendment by the Senator 
from Arizona. So we have the prospect of continuing votes on through 
the afternoon.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I do not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for the 
accommodation for me to make a few brief comments about the District of 
Columbia appropriations portion of this appropriations bill.
  I have no amendment to offer, but I will make a few general comments 
about a very small portion of this underlying bill, and I am mindful 
that we are about to vote on Senator McCain's very important amendment.

[[Page S1122]]

  Obviously, there are pros and cons, but I wish to take this moment to 
talk about a $512 million budget out of a $750 billion bill. It is not 
a lot of money--well, obviously, it is a lot of money; $512 million is 
not small change, but it is such a small percentage of the total amount 
of the appropriations bill. But for the 500,000-plus people who are 
residents of the District, for the citizens of our Nation who look to 
the District as truly what it is--their capital, our Nation's capital, 
and for the many hundreds of thousands and millions of people who 
travel to this District every year--adults, senior citizens, children, 
people of all ages, I thought I would take a moment to say a few brief 
words.
  I want to begin by thanking our chairman, now ranking member, of the 
Appropriations Committee for his help in crafting this important 
portion of this bill. The good Senator from West Virginia spent many 
years as chairman of this subcommittee, and he knows well the issues 
about which I am speaking.
  I thank the chairman, Senator Mike DeWine from Ohio, for his 
leadership. We work very closely as chairman and ranking member. I 
thank him and his staff, Mary Dietrich, for all of their hard work in 
pulling this portion of the appropriations bill together.
  First, I wish to speak about a couple of big points. The District's 
budget is in fairly good shape. It has taken effort on the part of 
Congress, Democrats and Republicans, as well as the mayor and his 
partners on the council, a lot of work by the business community and 
civic organizations that have given suggestions and comments, as well 
as a structure that was put in place after the reform board moved on, 
to put in place a financial infrastructure that helps the District stay 
on strong financial footing.
  Are there challenges? Yes. Is every city in America challenged? Yes. 
Every State, as the Senator most certainly knows from his State of 
Tennessee, is challenged with budget constraints. But the District, 
just as every city in America, struggles with chronic problems of 
losing a tax base and having to provide services for hundreds of 
thousands of people who come into the District each day yet do not pay 
that full share of the tax and the political difficulty of finding an 
appropriate political solution.
  Nonetheless, with all those challenges, this mayor and the city 
council have gotten the District close to a balanced budget position, 
and because of that, a lot of the initiatives about which we have 
talked in Congress are going to hopefully be brought to the forefront.
  No. 1, in this budget, there is additional security for the District 
of Columbia. As our Nation's Capital, we should, as Members of 
Congress, along with the mayor and council, make sure we set as much 
money in place as we can to secure the many beautiful monuments and 
buildings. Unfortunately, this is a target-rich district and needs 
extra money for security. Some, not all of what we need, but some of 
that money is in the bill.
  No. 2, the District has put forward a great and ambitious agenda for 
improving their schools. I am proud to say there is $20 million to 
create, not for the first time, to expand a revolving fund for charter 
schools. As the schools improve, we are able to help create the kind of 
physical environment that rewards excellence, and that is in this bill.
  We have also created the first ever family court in the District to 
try to cut down on child abuse and neglect, to help strengthen our 
families and our neighborhoods, to create special judges who will pay 
attention to these very serious challenges and then support them in 
their efforts. I thank Senator Durbin particularly for his work in that 
regard. There are other provisions worth noting.
  I am proud to submit a bill that works with the mayor and with the 
council in a bipartisan way to help this city, which is so special to 
the people who live here and so special to all of us, fulfill the 
dreams of how we want to see this city flourish and grow in the years 
ahead.
  Again, I thank my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for 
putting forth efforts to create this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Dole). The Senator's time has expired.

                          ____________________