[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for the quorum call be rescinded.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.
____________________