[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 22, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1325-S1359]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    MAKING FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003--
                               Continued


                            Amendment No. 40

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time on the motion to waive?
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, before recognizing my colleague, Senator 
Durbin, let me say the Reed-Durbin amendment would provide up to 1 
million Americans who are long-term unemployed and were not assisted by 
the January 8 amendment we passed. This would be a positive stimulus 
for our economy. These benefits would be paid out until the economy 
came back and then automatically stop. It also recognizes the 
structural changes. The high-tech meltdown and the exodus of 
manufacturing have left many people without jobs. They need our help 
now.
  Our economy is in distress. We have to help these hard-working 
Americans. We cannot wait any longer because as we wait, they invade 
their 401(k)s, they extend their credit cards, they do anything to make 
ends meet. We should help them now.
  I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for yielding. I am 
happy to cosponsor this amendment with him. I am glad it has finally 
come to a vote.
  I listened to the arguments yesterday by the Senators from Oklahoma 
and Iowa and others who suggested this recession is not that bad; we 
really should not be talking about a million people who have exhausted 
their unemployment benefits; things were a lot worse 12 or 13 years 
ago.
  The unemployment rate in the United States of America has increased 
over 50 percent since October of 2000. We now have 6.0 percent or more 
who are unemployed in this country, a million of whom have exhausted 
their unemployment benefits. When the President said he was going to 
help these families, he forgot a million Americans, 53,000 in my State.
  I hope my colleagues in the Senate will understand that the money we 
have collected over the years and we put in the unemployment trust fund 
is money designed specifically for this purpose.
  Previous Presidents, Democrats and Republicans alike, have noted the 
need to help these struggling families. We cannot turn our backs on 
them. We will have a chance today by voting yes on this amendment, and 
I hope my colleagues on both sides will join in that effort.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, how much time is remaining on both 
sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has 2\1/2\ minutes. 
The Senator from Rhode Island has 36 seconds.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the 
motion to waive the budget point of order. I am afraid we are going to 
have to decide this many times, are we going to be waiving the budget 
every time we turn around?
  There is a reason a budget point of order lies against this 
amendment. We are on an appropriations bill. Instead of trying to pass 
appropriations, some people are saying, let's expand entitlements.
  It so happens we did this January 7. The Senate unanimously passed a 
bill to expand unemployment compensation, extend the present law 
through May, and it cost us about $7.2 billion.
  Now our colleagues are coming back and saying: This is a 13-week 
Federal program. Let's make it a 26-week Federal program, except let's 
even do more. The Federal program today is up to 13 weeks. The bill we 
have before us says all States get a mandatory 26 weeks. It is not 
coupled to what the State programs have.
  We have never done that in the history of the United States. We have 
always coupled Federal unemployment extensions with the State program. 
But that is not what this amendment does. The amendment was not drafted 
well and was not thought out well. It is very expensive. It is about 
the fifth iteration we have seen, and it is still not done very well.
  I urge my colleagues, if they want to do it, introduce the bill, have 
it referred to the appropriate committee, have that committee have 
hearings on it and mark it up with professional staff to do a good job. 
This is grossly irresponsible. It would cost $6.3 billion.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a Congressional 
Budget Office letter stating that fact.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                 Washington, DC, January 22, 2003.
     Hon. Don Nickles,
     Chairman, Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: As requested by your staff, CBO has 
     prepared a preliminary estimate of the costs of amendment 
     number 40 to House Joint Resolution 2. This amendment would 
     expand the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act 
     of 2002 (as amended by Public Law 108-1) to provide 
     additional weeks of federal unemployment benefits by 
     increasing the maximum number of additional weeks of benefits 
     available in all states from 13 to 26. The amendment also 
     would change the number of weeks available in states with 
     high unemployment from 13 to 7.
       CBO estimates that enactment of this amendment would 
     increase outlays by between $5.8 billion and $5.9 billion in 
     2003, and by about $500 million in 2004, for a total cost of 
     about $6.3 billion. Under our most current estimates, there 
     would be no significant budgetary effects in subsequent 
     years. Under the March 2002 baseline assumptions, there would 
     be an offsetting increase in revenues in later years because 
     this spending would reduce the amount of Reed Act transfers 
     assumed under the March projections. However, CBO has not yet 
     estimated this effect.
       If you have additional questions about this estimate, we 
     will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is 
     Christi Hawley Sadoti, who may be reached at 226-2820.
           Sincerely,
                                                Barry B. Anderson,
                                                  Acting Director.
  Mr. NICKLES. Colleagues, let's have regular order in the Senate. Why 
have the Finance Committee have jurisdiction over an issue if we are 
just going to skip the committee and consider it on the floor? Are we 
going to do this with every authorizing committee: There is an 
appropriations bill, let's ignore the authorizing committee and come up 
with all kinds of entitlement expansions. That is the reason a budget 
point of order lies against this. That budget point of order is well 
taken.
  This chairman of the Budget Committee plans on enforcing the budget. 
I urge my colleagues to vote no on the motion to waive the Budget Act.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Since President Bush assumed office in January 2001, the 
economic well-being of America's families has significantly 
deteriorated, and a major cause of this crisis for so many families is 
the economic policy of the Bush administration, which has neglected the 
basic needs of working men and women, lavished extravagant tax breaks 
on the wealthiest taxpayers, and allowed corporate abuse and excess to 
go unchecked.
  Today, nearly 8.6 million Americans are unemployed--2.6 million more 
than when President Bush took office. Due to the lack of available 
jobs, the number of long-term unemployed--those out of work for more 
than 6 months, has now soared to nearly 2 million--a 70 percent 
increase from last year. Long-term unemployment has increased in every 
month since March 2001. It is clear that Congress needs to do more for 
these Americans, who have worked hard, played by the rules, and are 
suffering because of the economic downturn.
  The new law enacted earlier this month provided needed assistance for 
many of the unemployed, but it does nothing for the 1 million long-term 
unemployed who have run out of their State and Federal unemployment 
benefits and still have not found jobs. These Americans are struggling 
to make ends meet. Many have depleted their savings

[[Page S1326]]

and refinanced their homes. A tragic number are facing foreclosure.
  In Massachusetts, nearly 170,000 workers are unemployed. Ninety 
thousand of those workers will be helped by the new law. But more than 
30,000 of those hardest hit by the recession have run out of all of 
their State and Federal benefits and are still out of work.
  The unemployment trust fund now contains about $25 billion. It was 
intended for just this kind of situation. We now have an opportunity to 
extend unemployment compensation to families across this country who 
have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, but have not yet 
found a new job. They deserve this lifeline during this difficult time, 
before they are able to get back on their feet.
  The issue is fundamental fairness.
  At other times in recent years, Republicans and Democrats have come 
together to provide this urgently needed support. The first President 
Bush signed into law three benefit extensions for those who had run out 
of their State and Federal benefits. The same is true of the recessions 
of the 1970s and 1980s. Congress recognized each time that benefits 
were insufficient to reach the workers who were hardest hit. We acted 
to give them a safety net. It's time to live up to this standard now 
and provide unemployment benefits for these 1 million workers. These 
benefits are their lifeline, and Congress should act as soon as 
possible to provide the assistance they deserve.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment by 
my colleague from Rhode Island. While I understand his desire to 
address the problem of unemployment, I would suggest this is neither 
the time nor the place to do so.
  First, I would remind my colleagues that this amendment would 
increase mandatory spending in an appropriation bill, and therefore is 
subject to a 60-vote point of order.
  Second, let's remember what we've already done to address this issue. 
Last year, Congress voted to provide more than $11 billion in federally 
funded benefits, and we voted earlier this month to provide an 
additional $7 billion on top of that. That's a total of $18 billion in 
federally funded unemployment benefits.
  Third, I would suggest this amendment is based on a faulty premise. 
On one hand, my colleague seems to suggest unemployment is worse than 
ever before. On the other hand, he suggests this amendment is no more 
than we've done before.
  I would suggest he is mistaken on both counts.
  The truth is this amendment represents the greatest expansion of 
Federal unemployment benefits in history, and it is being proposed at a 
time when unemployment is well below historical recession levels.
  Let's be clear about what this amendment does. It would provide a 
minimum of 26 weeks of federally funded unemployment benefits and a 
maximum of 33 weeks--at an additional cost of more than $6 billion.
  The last--and only time--Congress provided up to 33 weeks of 
unemployment benefits was back in 1992 when the unemployment rate 
reached nearly 8 percent. Today, the unemployment rate is 6 percent.
  Moreover, every other time Congress has provided federally funded 
unemployment benefits, they have been linked to the duration of State 
benefits. This amendment would provide between 26 and 33 weeks of 
Federal benefits without regard to the duration of State benefits. This 
is an unprecedented expansion of the unemployment program.
  It violates the insurance principles inherent in the unemployment 
program by breaking the link between the time someone has worked to the 
time that person can collect unemployment benefits. This amendment 
would allow someone who worked as few as 20 weeks to collect as much as 
33 weeks of federally funded benefits. This is neither the right time, 
the right place, nor the right way to change the unemployment program.
  Unemployment has not risen to the historical level of previous 
recessions. Moreover, a uniform duration of benefits would violate 
every historical precedent.
  I urge my colleagues to sustain the point of order and defeat this 
amendment.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, right now the American people are dealing 
with tough economic times. Over 1 million Americans have exhausted 
their unemployment benefits without finding a job, more than 30,000 of 
those people are from my home State of Massachusetts. Can you imagine 
how hopeless these workers are to be at the end of their benefits with 
no job? I've heard from so many of my constituents recently about the 
great difficulties they're having finding jobs and how scared they are 
about providing for their families when their benefits run out. These 
are people who are desperate to work, but they've found that jobs are 
simply not available right now. In fact, there are 1.5 million fewer 
jobs today than in March 2001 when the current economic downturn began, 
and the number of jobs in the economy has been stagnant for several 
months.
  I am pleased that Senator Reed has offered an amendment to the 
omnibus appropriations bill to provide additional weeks of benefits to 
the long-term unemployed, to those 1 million American workers whose 
benefits have already expired. I am a cosponsor of Senator Reed's 
amendment, although unfortunately I will not be present to vote in 
support of the motion to waive the budget act today. When we passed S. 
23 on the first day of the 108th Congress, we extended benefits for one 
group of the unemployed, but ignored this equally deserving group. It 
is totally unfair to me that we have not provided benefits to the long-
term unemployed, particularly when we know that the current 
unemployment rate of 6.0 percent is the highest rate in nearly 9 years 
and is higher than when the Temporary Emergency Unemployment 
Compensation program was created.
  Twenty percent of America's unemployed have been without work for 
more than twenty-six weeks and that percentage is still growing. We 
must not leave the long-term unemployed and their families with no 
where to turn. I urge my colleagues to support the Reed amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. I yield 10 seconds to the Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I point out that taxes have been paid 
into the unemployment insurance trust fund for the purpose of paying 
unemployment insurance in an economic downturn. That fund has close to 
$25 billion in it. About $7 billion was used in the last legislation we 
passed. The purpose of paying that money in good times is to be able to 
pay it out in bad times. I support this amendment.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, we might be able to wait here for 
procedural niceties, but the million Americans who are desperate for 
jobs and can't find jobs cannot wait. I urge passage.
  I request 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 assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. 
Feinstein), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the Senator from South 
Carolina (Mr. Hollings), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the 
Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) and the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``Aye''.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 45, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 14 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

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

[[Page S1327]]



                                NAYS--49

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

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Kerry
     Lieberman
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 45, the nays are 
49. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained and the amendment falls.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Amendment No. 79

  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 79.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Daschle) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 79.

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

  (Purpose: To provide emergency disaster assistance to agricultural 
                               producers)

       Beginning on page 1032, strike line 21 and all that follows 
     through page 1040, line 25, and insert the following:

          TITLE II--EMERGENCY AGRICULTURAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE

     SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Emergency Agricultural 
     Disaster Assistance Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 202. CROP DISASTER ASSISTANCE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture (referred to 
     in this title as the ``Secretary'') shall use such sums as 
     are necessary of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to 
     make emergency financial assistance authorized under this 
     section available to producers on a farm that have incurred 
     qualifying crop losses for the 2001 or 2002 crop, or both, 
     due to damaging weather or related condition, as determined 
     by the Secretary.
       (b) Administration.--The Secretary shall make assistance 
     available under this section in the same manner as provided 
     under section 815 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food 
     and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
     Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-387; 114 Stat. 1549, 1549A-55), 
     including using the same loss thresholds for the quantity and 
     quality losses as were used in administering that section.
       (c) Crop Insurance.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Secretary shall not discriminate against or penalize 
     producers on a farm that have purchased crop insurance under 
     the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).

     SEC. 203. LIVESTOCK ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall use such sums as are 
     necessary of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation as are 
     necessary to make and administer payments for livestock 
     losses to producers for 2001 or 2002 losses, or both, in a 
     county that has received a corresponding emergency 
     designation by the President or the Secretary, of which an 
     amount determined by the Secretary shall be made available 
     for the American Indian livestock program under section 806 
     of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
     Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 
     (Public Law 106-387; 114 Stat. 1549, 1549A-51).
       (b) Administration.--The Secretary shall make assistance 
     available under this section in the same manner as provided 
     under section 806 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food 
     and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
     Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-387; 114 Stat. 1549, 1549A-51).

     SEC. 204. FUNDING.

       Of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation, the 
     Secretary shall--
       (1) use such sums as are necessary to carry out this title, 
     to remain available until expended; and
       (2) transfer to the fund established by section 32 of the 
     Act of August 24, 1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c), to remain available 
     until expended, an amount equal to the amount of funds under 
     section 32 of that Act that--
       (A) were made available before the date of enactment of 
     this Act to provide assistance to livestock producers under 
     the 2002 Livestock Compensation Program announced by the 
     Secretary on October 10, 2002 (67 Fed. Reg. 63070); and
       (B) were not otherwise reimbursed from another account used 
     by the Secretary or the Commodity Credit Corporation.

     SEC. 205. EMERGENCY DESIGNATION.

       (a) In General.--The entire amount made available under 
     this title shall be available only to the extent that the 
     President submits to Congress an official budget request for 
     a specific dollar amount that includes designation of the 
     entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement for 
     the purposes of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900 et seq.).
       (b) Designation.--The entire amount made available under 
     this section is designated by Congress as an emergency 
     requirement under sections 251(b)(2)(A) and 252(e) of that 
     Act (2 U.S.C. 901(b)(2)(A), 902(e)).

     SEC. 206. BUDGETARY TREATMENT.

       Notwithstanding Rule 3 of the Budget Scorekeeping 
     Guidelines set forth in the Joint Explanatory Statement of 
     the Committee of Conference accompanying Conference Report 
     No. 105-217, the provisions of this title that would have 
     been estimated by the Office of Management and Budget as 
     changing direct spending or receipts under section 252 of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 
     U.S.C. 902) were it included in an Act other than an 
     appropriation Act shall be treated as direct spending or 
     receipts legislation, as appropriate, under section 252 of 
     the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 
     (2 U.S.C. 902).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.


                           Amendment No. 204

             (Purpose: To provide agricultural assistance)

  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I call up Cochran amendment No. 204.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 204.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in the Record of January 21, 2003, under 
``Text of Amendments.'')
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, just for the information of all 
Senators, the order that has been agreed to will accommodate debate on 
both the Cochran amendment and the Democratic amendment simultaneously. 
There will be 70 minutes equally divided to accommodate Senators who 
wish to speak to the amendments. I am sure we will accommodate Senators 
on both sides of the aisle in an attempt to alternate back and forth as 
people wish to speak. So both amendments are pending and both 
amendments are subject to comment by our colleagues.
  I appreciate, as always, the great willingness on the part of the 
chairman of the Agriculture Committee to enter into this agreement and 
to accommodate this debate as we anticipate it.
  It has been 342 days since the effort was first initiated to bring 
about meaningful disaster relief to many parts of the country. During 
those 342 days, I don't know how many hours we spent on the Senate 
floor attempting to inform our colleagues and urging the Senate to act 
as expeditiously as it could to address the concerns of so many farmers 
and ranchers.
  We did it first in the farm bill itself. We attempted to provide 
meaningful disaster assistance within the farm legislation. It passed 
in the Senate. In conference, I had a number of conversations with the 
chair of the Agriculture Committee in the House and with the Speaker, 
and it was the view, almost unanimously expressed in the House, that 
they would not be willing to support disaster assistance on the farm 
bill. They said: We will come back at a later date and address it in a 
sufficient way. So we completed our work on the farm bill and 
anticipated we would have an opportunity to pass meaningful assistance 
later in the year.
  When the Interior appropriations bill came before the Senate, we 
offered an amendment, and it generated 79 votes. That amendment 
provided about $6 billion in direct assistance to farmers and ranchers. 
Forty different farm organizations publicly expressed their support for 
the effort. Over and over again, people said: This must be urgent. You 
have to understand the extraordinary

[[Page S1328]]

urgency of what is happening and the need for this relief as quickly as 
you can get it to us.
  Madam President, just for the record, I note that I will use my 
leader time to make my remarks with regard to the amendment so that I 
can accommodate other Senators who wish to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The leader has that privilege.
  Mr. DASCHLE. So we adopted that amendment with 79 votes, with every 
expectation that we could get help to the farmers and ranchers who need 
it as quickly and as meaningfully as possible.

  Almost from the beginning, the administration's position was that we 
just could not afford it; that the $6 billion was out of line; that it 
was too expensive; that there really was not a way to provide the 
resources to help farmers and ranchers with the magnitude of help we 
proposed in the amendment.
  I must say, I find it deeply troubling that at the very time the 
administration says we cannot afford the $6 billion in disaster 
assistance, they come forth with a $670 billion tax cut, a tax cut that 
helps those at the very top, with very little support for anyone else--
borrowing the money, I might add.
  So, on one hand, the administration is saying to the American people, 
somehow we can afford a tax cut, $20 billion of which will go to 226 
millionaires, at the very time we do not have the resources, we do not 
have the will, we do not have the support for $6 billion for farmers 
and ranchers.
  I have to say, over the course of the last 342 days, time and time 
and time again, people have come to us saying: We don't understand 
either, but we hope that however you ultimately decide to help us, you 
help us soon.
  There are places in South Dakota that have not had rain for months. 
There are places in South Dakota where we had no crop at all last year. 
We have locations in our State where virtually all of the livestock 
population has been sold off.
  In letters, in e-mails, in phone calls, farmers and ranchers--by the 
thousands--have contacted the Senate pleading for help, asking that we 
do so as quickly as possible. So this is our last chance. This is our 
last opportunity, at least for the foreseeable future. I cannot imagine 
when we can come back to the Senate floor and try this again.
  So we are offering the same amendment that generated 79 votes last 
fall. The amendment provides help in the two categories where help is 
most needed--the crop disaster assistance program and the livestock 
assistance program--with one minor exception. Last fall, the 
administration shifted several hundred million dollars to ill-
considered, unresponsive, and underfunded disaster efforts for those 
key or niche areas of livestock producers, a very small number of 
livestock producers, which amounted to about 2 weeks of assistance 
before it expired.
  This amendment replenishes what the administration took from that 
important account, funding for school lunch and funding for hunger 
relief. I must say, I hope everyone will recognize the importance of 
taking this action.
  As I said, the Senate is already on record; 79 Senators in an 
overwhelming bipartisan vote, 40 organizations, including the Farmers 
Union, the Farm Bureau, the National Wheat Growers, the National Cattle 
and Beef Association, the National American Soybean Association, 40 
farm organizations have said: Help us now. Do what you were not able to 
do last year. Join as you did last year. Pass this meaningful 
assistance. We have waited too long.
  I hope people recognize there is a difference between the two 
amendments. I have the utmost respect for the Senator from Mississippi, 
the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee. He will do an 
outstanding job as chair of the committee itself. We don't stipulate a 
dollar figure in this amendment. We leave that to the administration to 
define. We simply say: Let's meet the need that is there, meet the need 
in crop assistance, meet the need in livestock assistance, but meet the 
need that is there.
  The alternative says: We know the need is there, but we are only 
going to provide $3 billion to meet that need. We recognize it may only 
be half but, I suppose they would argue, at least it is something.
  We need more than just something. We need to provide the kind of 
assistance that is so desperately needed in the dead of winter to 
ensure that at long last, those who have waited so long get the help 
they truly deserve.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, let me compliment the distinguished 
Democratic leader for his effort to get an agreement under which we 
could carefully and thoughtfully consider this issue in the Senate. We 
have reached that agreement, and we have two alternatives now pending 
before the Senate: The so-called Daschle amendment and the Cochran 
amendment.
  For the information of Senators, these are not the only efforts that 
have been made up to this point to deal with the disaster facing 
agriculture. In fairness, we have to acknowledge that the 
administration has been working very diligently to use existing 
authority to make payments to producers under the authority of current 
law to deal with the losses being suffered in production agriculture 
and in the livestock industry. Specifically, the Risk Management Agency 
of the Department of Agriculture has been supervising the payment of 
crop insurance benefits and so far $4.1 billion in crop insurance 
indemnities have been paid to producers across the country.
  In addition, the Livestock Compensation Program has been utilized to 
the extent of the payment of $932 million by the Department of 
Agriculture, and for the Livestock Feed Assistance Program, outlays of 
$150 million have been made available. Adding up these three specific 
instances of assistance, we can see that $5.182 billion of benefits 
have been paid to agricultural producers.
  I agree with what the distinguished Senator from South Dakota has 
said: That is not enough. So we come here today trying to define new 
authorities for the Department of Agriculture under which additional 
benefits can be made available to compensate farmers for losses that 
have been sustained because of not only drought, which has been 
devastating in some parts of the country, but also other adverse 
weather conditions--excessive rainfall at the time in the South where 
farmers were trying to get into the fields to harvest cotton, to 
harvest other crops, and were not able to do so because of the 
difficult conditions created by excessive rainfall.

  All of these producers will be eligible for benefits under the 
Cochran amendment. It will be capped however. The CBO, the 
Congressional Budget Office, estimates the outlays under this amendment 
would amount to $3.1 billion. The additional fact to be kept in mind 
is, under our scoring procedures, trying not to add to the deficit with 
this amendment, we have offset the spending under the Appropriations 
Committee bill to which this amendment is added, so that this is not 
going to be new spending under this amendment.
  By comparison with the Daschle amendment, the $6.5 billion that the 
Congressional Budget Office estimates that amendment will cost will be 
added to the deficit. It is not offset. It is declared an emergency. 
And under the Budget Act, that is one way of funding disasters that are 
unanticipated. I am not suggesting it is illegal, but it simply does 
have budget implications in terms of additions to the deficit that the 
Cochran amendment does not.
  We also try to deal with the disaster in terms of defining the areas 
where benefits could be made available. These basically are in disaster 
counties, counties that have been declared a disaster under current law 
by the Department of Agriculture or by the President. Other farmers who 
are located outside of those designated areas, if they can prove a loss 
up to 35 percent, may do that, and they will be eligible for 
compensation just as farmers who are located in the disaster 
declaration areas.
  We are trying to make this applicable to those who have suffered 
disasters. At one point some Senators raised a question about the 
wording of this amendment I offer today because it appeared to make 
available benefits to

[[Page S1329]]

those who might not have had a disaster or may not have suffered any 
economic losses due to any kind of disaster. We hope we have tightened 
up the definition of eligibility so only those where there have been 
declarations of disaster or where they can prove they suffered damages 
up to 35 percent will be eligible for benefits. We hope we have taken 
care of that difficulty. We appreciate the fact that Senators are not 
bashful normally and they were not in this case either when they 
disagreed with some parts of this amendment as it was earlier drafted 
and brought this to our attention.
  We tried to accommodate those concerns, and we think the amendment 
has been improved to the extent that it merits the support of the 
Senate.
  We hope Senators on both sides of the aisle will look at the 
suggestions we have made carefully. We have tried to cover livestock 
producers as well as row crop producers. Other specialty vegetable 
crops and the like are covered as well. We think this is a generous but 
responsible way to deal with the problem. We hope Senators will vote 
for the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, there are a number of our colleagues 
who have asked to be recognized. I don't want to take a lot of time 
because we have a lot of Senators who wish to be heard.
  There is one difference between the two amendments of which I think 
all of our colleagues ought to be aware. Under the Cochran amendment, 
in disaster counties, counties declared disaster, every producer is 
eligible regardless of loss. In my State, there are counties that were 
declared disaster that had pockets where they had all the rain they 
needed, where there are livestock producers who really don't need any 
assistance.
  What we are doing is taking away from those who need assistance to 
provide resources to those who don't need it by not differentiating, by 
not having some qualification, by not saying they have to meet this 
threshold.
  What our amendment says is, they have to have incurred at least a 35-
percent loss to be eligible for benefits, even in those counties 
declared disaster. There is no discretion in that regard in the Cochran 
amendment.
  I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I rise in support of the amendment being 
offered by Senator Daschle to provide much-needed assistance to our 
Nation's farmers who have been hard hit by a series of natural 
disasters, notably severe drought that has destroyed crops and harmed 
livestock operations in many States. Although my State of Wisconsin has 
not suffered the losses that most other farm States have faced these 
last 2 years, wise, Wisconsin farmers have been hurt by natural 
disasters in the past and probably will be again in the future. And 
until we come up with an agriculture policy that protects farmers from 
ruin when drought, or floods, or tornadoes, or disease strikes, 
Wisconsin will stand by other farm States as they seek disaster 
assistance.
  Before I yield the floor to other Senators who would like to speak on 
this amendment, I would like to take a moment to briefly comment on the 
fiscal year 2003 appropriations bill for Agriculture, Rural Development 
and Related Agencies. First I commend Senator Cochran on the job he has 
done, given the tough fiscal restraints he was facing. It is never easy 
to cut funding and balance multiple priorities, and I believe Senator 
Cochran has done good work, given the circumstances.
  However, there are two items that have been taken out of the bill as 
it was originally written, which I believe warrant mention, and 
reconsideration.
  The bill before us no longer funds an expansion of the Summer Food 
Service Program. This increase would have expanded to all 50 States a 
successful 13 State pilot program to streamline the process of setting 
up a summer feeding site. A report released this summer found that the 
13 pilot States increased their participation in the SFSP by 8.9 
percent between July 2000 and July 2001. Participation in the rest of 
the Nation decreased by approximately 3.3 percent during the same time 
period. I have an amendment to restore the funding for this important 
program.
  I also have an amendment to fund a program authorized in the 2002 
Farm Bill and funded in the Agriculture Appropriations bill passed out 
of committee last July. The program, initiated by the Girl Scouts of 
the USA, Boy Scouts of America, National FFA Organization, and National 
4-H Council, allows these experienced and very successful youth 
organizations to increase their presence in remote rural communities. 
As we pare back on funds for education and other federal initiatives 
for our children, we should not also cripple private efforts to bring 
programs like Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, 4-H and Future Farmers of 
America to our underserved rural youth.
  Again, I thank Senator Cochran and his staff for their hard work. 
Overall, I believe this is a good bill, and I look forward to working 
together to try and restore the items I just mentioned in a fiscally 
responsible manner.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Hagel.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. HAGEL. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, I rise in support of drought disaster aid for 
America's drought-stricken agricultural producers and to support the 
Cochran amendment to the omnibus appropriations bill.
  I wish to also express my thanks to Chairman Stevens, Chairman 
Cochran, and their staffs for their hard work and especially for 
finding the necessary critical funding to offset the spending in the 
bill.
  Those of us in drought-stricken States have known for many months 
that our farmers and ranchers needed assistance. Unfortunately, in a 
year when 80 percent of U.S. counties were declared a disaster, the 
House and Senate adjourned last November with neither Chamber having 
passed 2002 drought aid.
  There is no doubt that disaster relief is justified. In Nebraska, 
only the Dust Bowl years of 1934 and 1936 were dryer than what the 
State experienced last summer. Since autumn, conditions have only 
worsened throughout much of the Plains, as well as most of the West and 
Southwest. This has been one of the driest winters in these regions in 
more than 100 years.
  Nebraska officials are becoming increasingly concerned about 
irrigation resources for the upcoming growing season. The water level 
at Lake McConaughy, Nebraska's largest reservoir, is 60 percent below 
capacity.
  With the Federal budget deficit projected to balloon near $300 
billion in this fiscal year, Congress must demonstrate fiscal 
responsibility. The days of budget surpluses are gone, but at the same 
time we must turn our attention to this much-needed drought assistance.
  Under this proposal, the Cochran amendment, disaster payments would 
get more attention more quickly than under the old crop disaster 
formula, and we would help a larger number of farmers and ranchers.
  Months ago, the President made it clear that any disaster aid for 
agriculture must be offset. Last week, White House agriculture adviser 
Chuck Conner reiterated this requirement, telling farm groups that all 
disaster aid proposals would be judged upon three criteria: One, cost; 
two, available budget offsets; and, three, whether farmers would be 
more self-reliant in the end. The Cochran amendment complies with the 
President's request.
  I urge my colleagues to support the proposal of the chairman of the 
Agriculture Committee. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from 
South Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, I thank Senator Daschle for his 
leadership on this amendment and express my high regard for Senator 
Cochran as well. We now find ourselves in a circumstance where the 
drought has gone on for 2001 and 2002 across much of this country, 
including in South Dakota, and it has been devastating. There has been 
a $2 billion loss to South Dakota's economy alone based on numbers from 
South Dakota State University.

[[Page S1330]]

  There is a need for urgent relief and comprehensive relief. We had 79 
votes in this body for a $6 billion package last year. Now we find 
ourselves in a circumstance where we are being told about fiscal 
constraints and yet the White House and our colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle are telling us they are willing to borrow $674 
billion over the coming decade--$108 billion this next year--for a so-
called tax relief plan, but we do not have the resources for a 
comprehensive $6 billion drought relief bill in rural America.
  If ever there was an initiative that would stimulate the economy of 
rural America, it is the comprehensive $6 billion amendment before us 
today, and it would fit very nicely within the context of the enormous 
stimulus initiative coming to us from the White House and from our 
colleagues.
  While I appreciate the work that has gone into the alternative bill 
presented by the Senator from Mississippi, it is half the money. With 
respect to aid for livestock producers, arguably the hardest hit, $1.5 
billion would be available for livestock under the bill I support and 
Senator Daschle supports as opposed to only $250 million under the 
alternative version.
  By applying the AMTA payments, we wind up with gross inequities in 
the plan offered by the other side. In one of my counties, for 
instance, it is a primary disaster area, but it has been determined 
that just 23 percent of its 1,200 farmers have experienced crop or hay 
losses meeting or exceeding the 30-percent threshold that normally 
triggers disaster relief. That means 77 percent of the farmers in that 
disaster county have not experienced significant crop or hay losses but 
will still get an AMTA payment from the alternative plan.
  Meanwhile, a rancher in a western county in South Dakota with whom I 
spoke this morning said his average AMTA payment is just $250 per year 
because he is primarily a cattle producer. Under the alternative plan, 
he would receive a $250 AMTA payment, which would purchase just a 
couple bales of hay, and be forced to compete with other producers for 
just $250 million annually remaining for livestock producers, and that 
is spread across the entire country.
  On top of that, under the alternative plan, producers must pick 
drought payments from 2001 or 2002, but not from both, and there is 
concern over a $10 million grant for Texas farmers and $50 million 
carved out for cotton as opposed to the comprehensive crop loss 
coverage under the Daschle bill that I am cosponsoring.
  Simply put, the amendment I have cosponsored provides real, 
comprehensive aid to crop farmers and livestock producers who suffered 
actual losses to the drought or other natural disasters. The 
alternative plan provides aid to producers regardless of loss. It 
simply is not fair.
  It ought to be apparent which bill provides the real assistance and 
real relief. We are seeing a hemorrhage of farmers and ranchers off the 
land. It hits the youngest producers worst. Those least capitalized are 
least able to sustain their operations throughout all of this crisis. 
We have rancher after rancher who have liquidated their animals. Young 
people are leaving the land. We are falling below the critical mass of 
population in many of our rural areas to sustain basic rural 
institutions.

  At a time when this body is debating economic stimulus, I can think 
of no other initiative that would do more for rural America than this 
$6 billion drought bill in the context of the $108 billion that has 
been proposed by the White House as economic stimulus for this year 
alone.
  It makes sense for this initiative to pass now. I ask support of the 
Daschle amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, I thank Senator Cochran for all his amendment does 
to deal with the drought and the severe crises in the agricultural 
community in our country.
  I want to specifically speak about a part of this amendment that 
affects my home State and thank him for the support he has given to the 
farmers who live in south Texas and who are suffering because Mexico 
has refused to meet its requirements under the 1944 water treaty with 
the United States.
  Farmers, families, and communities in the Rio Grand Valley of Texas 
have suffered devastating economic losses due to Mexico's refusal to 
comply with this treaty. The treaty obligates Mexico to allow an 
average of 350,000 acre feet of water to flow into the Rio Grande River 
annually for the United States, while obligating the United States to 
allow an average of 1.5 million acre feet of water to flow to Mexico 
from the Colorado River.
  Even during the hardest times, since 1944 America has strictly 
complied with its obligations under the treaty of 1944, but Mexico has 
accrued a deficit of 1.5 million acre feet. Mexico claims that drought 
conditions in Chihuahua prevented it from releasing Rio Conchos water 
into the Rio Grande. However, Mexico's agricultural production in 
Chihuahua has blossomed.
  Recent reports by Texas A&M University's Extension Service, 
accompanied by NASA satellite photographs from the University of Texas, 
document Mexico's increased use of irrigation water to promote high 
value water-dependent crops such as corn, oats, forage, and vegetables 
in the state of Chihuahua. We can see from this satellite photograph 
the Madero Reservoir's water storage is at 14-percent capacity on June 
25 of 2002. Even during the low 14-percent water storage, Mexico 
continued to irrigate its fields. However, two months later, August 28, 
2002, the Madero's water storage has risen to 75 percent of its total 
capacity and we still couldn't get Mexico to comply with the treaty and 
fully deliver its water obligations to South Texas this year.

  We cannot stand by and allow our farmers and ranchers to suffer 
because an international treaty is not being met. This satellite image 
clearly shows Mexico is holding the water it owes the U.S. While its 
reserves are full, Mexico only delivers the bare minimum this year. 
Furthermore, Mexico is making no effort to repay its debt. I find it 
incomprehensible that Mexico would not even comply this year when it 
clearly has the water available.
  Mexico's domestic agricultural production is flourishing with U.S. 
treaty obligated water while the Rio Grande Valley in Texas is 
suffering from a decline of more than 100,000 acres of farmland, nearly 
a $1 billion net loss to the regional economy and 30,000 lost jobs.
  Many agricultural operations have been forced to go out of business 
and many are expected to fail unless the United States can resolve this 
issue immediately. Agricultural production and its allied industries 
are the economic engines of south Texas. It is one of the few weapons 
that south Texas has to combat--unemployment and poverty. The United 
States cannot afford to stand by and allow Mexico's destruction of an 
American industry and the communities and people whose survival depend 
on it.
  Mexico needs to change its water management practices. I have urged 
the President to press Mexico to immediately comply with its 
obligations, and the President has done so. He has repeatedly talked to 
the President of Mexico, as have I, and many others. If Mexico 
continues its refusal to comply with the 1944 water treaty, I think the 
United States must consider renegotiating this treaty with Mexico and 
taking into consideration the 1.5 million acre feet of water that we 
are sending to Mexico every year from the Colorado River.
  Texas has suffered severe losses and the Rio Grande Valley's economic 
viability and livelihood depend on this water. The United States has a 
duty to either force Mexico to deliver the water to South Texas or 
compensate Texas families who are paying the price for this abrogation 
of the treaty.
  Senator Cochran's amendment has $10 million that would be available 
for grants through the Texas Department of Agriculture----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used her 5 minutes.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. To help these farmers stay in business. I thank the 
Senator for helping us get through this hard time while we try to make 
Mexico keep its commitments.

[[Page S1331]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Nebraska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I thank the Democratic 
leader for this time to speak about the need for disaster relief, and I 
commend my good friend and colleague from Mississippi, the chair of the 
Senate Agriculture Committee, for bringing forth his proposal.
  The debate today is not simply about disaster relief. It is about 
economic stimulus, and it looks to me as if the debate has already 
begun. Part of the stimulus package will involve tax cuts. Obviously, 
for a State such as Nebraska, tax cuts can be helpful, but to many 
farmers and ranchers who have no taxable income, who are about to lose 
their farms, who are about to lose their ranches and everything they 
have owned and that has been in the family for generations, a tax cut 
simply is not going to be enough.
  That is not an argument against the tax cut. It is an argument real 
stimulus. It is an argument in favor of disaster relief.
  Let's put a face on this problem. Let's go to southwest Nebraska, my 
home area, not far from Saint Francis, KS, where the distinguished 
Democratic leader's wife hails from. Randy Peters, who lives on his 
family farm that has been in the family for generations, when I say, 
look, we are getting you tax cuts, he will say, I appreciate that, 
Senator, that is nice. I then say, maybe part of the package will be 
eliminating the taxes on your dividends, and he says, that is great 
but, Senator, but the problem is that right now I do not have any 
taxable income. I spent all my savings on the farm and so I do not even 
have any dividends to be sheltered, and besides they are raising my 
taxes in Lincoln. What can you do to help me?
  I say to him and I say to my colleagues, the best way we can help 
those who are experiencing the ravages of this drought is to simply 
move forward and pass enough in disaster relief to take care of the 
problem.
  I have heard, and I suspect it will be suggested, that something is 
better than nothing. I agree, something is better than nothing, but in 
this case, something is just not good enough. We ought to be talking 
about how we are going to do something that is good enough to take care 
of those who are having this unfortunate experience we are seeing 
today.
  There seems to be no relief in sight from the drought. Every 
forecast, every suggestion for the future, indicates an indefinite 
drought, but there can be financial relief if we will step forward and 
make sure we provide for enough, not less than what is required.
  As we debate the whole area of economic stimulus, I hope we are not 
going to be in a position where we say to the White House, we know 
something is better than nothing and they know something is better than 
nothing. But we are not going to be able to do everything that is 
necessary because if we are going to require offsets consistently 
whether it is disaster relief or other spending, then I suppose the 
question has to be raised: Where is the offset on the stimulus package? 
If that is the case, maybe there is not enough. Something, of course, 
is better than nothing.
  I do not want to make that argument then, and I do not want to hear 
that argument now, because something is better than nothing, we 
understand that. But when it is not good enough, we ought to strive 
towards making sure we can look Randy Peters and the family farmers and 
ranchers across this Nation who are experiencing these challenges in 
the eye and say we have done what we can do and it is not just a half a 
loaf to feed you for a very short period of time. Let's do enough to 
make sure we take care of our agricultural needs for the future.
  There is not a better way to take care of rural America than to make 
sure our farmers and our ranchers do not lose their farms and ranches 
as an experience of this drought that continues today. It is not over. 
I have termed it ``Drought David'' as one way of getting it some 
attention so it has an identity. What I want to do is make sure we take 
care of those farmers and ranchers whose identity may be a little bit 
unknown in the hallowed Halls of the Capitol but whose pain is being 
felt.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 4 minutes.
  The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Thomas.
  Mr. THOMAS. I rise to support this disaster assistance, one of the 
things that is most important for us to deal with in the area I come 
from.
  I thank the chairman of the committee for putting this bill forward 
and going back and making it fit the need. We have to send relief to 
people who have had real disasters. I thank also the Democrat leader 
for his work. He has worked on it for some time.
  We do need, of course, to have balance in our spending. We need to 
have some control. We know that. We have to be reasonable about how we 
do that.
  In Wyoming, this is probably the third year of drought. Fortunately, 
up until this last year, we generally had runoff and the irrigating 
systems worked reasonably well. This year that is less the case. We do 
not have the kind of storage we have had in the past. We need to deal 
with this issue.
  In Wyoming, livestock is at least equally important as the crops. We 
need to adjust that, which has been done here, to make sure livestock 
is recognized as well.
  We have had natural disasters throughout the country. We have had tax 
relief. That is good. But in many cases tax relief is not sufficient 
because there is no income to tax. We had a farm bill this year which 
changed things. We had an unworkable insurance program. We need to do 
something about that so it does work.
  We also now have a farm program that is based on loans for crops. If 
you do not have a crop, you do not benefit from the farm program. That 
has been difficult.
  I am pleased we do have an option. We did have a year ago the 
opportunity and did vote for a disaster bill at that time. Frankly, it 
seemed at the time and still seems that it is very unlikely to pass. We 
have to have some results as opposed to just talking about it. That is 
what we are talking about, something that we can complete for the 
people throughout the country.
  This bill is a good bill. The Cochran amendment moves the money 
quickly to those who need it. It goes to those who are needy and have 
had losses. That is very important.
  It does include livestock. We need that, certainly. Also, it is the 
kind of budget recognition we need. It has an offset. I urge our 
support of the Cochran amendment.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I hope my colleagues listen to what I 
have to say. We all are talking about the need for disaster assistance. 
That is undisputed. There are provisions in the Cochran amendment which 
do partially address natural disaster, particularly drought disaster, 
in our country. I say partially. That is wonderful. That is fine.
  I am quite confident the provisions that have helped Texas producers 
are needed. I also understand in some parts of the country a natural 
disaster occurred, say, in 2002--not 2001. And the amendment before the 
Senate, the Cochran amendment, provides 1 year, for 2002. I can 
understand why some of my colleagues are in favor of the Cochran 
amendment because it helps them, it helps their producers.
  Madam President, I can understand why there are tobacco provisions in 
the Cochran amendment. I am sure the producers in North Carolina and 
South Carolina will get significant benefit from the tobacco 
provisions. For all I know, it is well intended and deserved and they 
should have it.
  We are talking here about a natural disaster. Mother Nature does not 
pick and choose years--2001 or 2002. Mother Nature does not choose 
which parts of the country it will affect or not affect. Mother Nature 
does not choose which farms in a certain county will be hit by disaster 
and which farms in the county are not hit.
  I start with the good news. Fortunately, the Cochran amendment 
provides assistance to those parts of America that have experienced 
natural disasters. That is good.

[[Page S1332]]

  Unfortunately, the Cochran amendment does not provide assistance to 
those other farmers who have experienced disaster in a different way, 
those who got hit by disaster in 2001. Nebraska is 2002. Kansas is 
2002. My State of Montana is 2002, but it is also 2001. There are 
several years of disaster.
  The amendment offered by the Senator from South Dakota is designed to 
help fairly producers across the country who have experienced natural 
disasters, irrespective of where they are, irrespective of whether they 
are in a certain county which on average may have 35-percent loss or 
not.
  The Cochran amendment is unfair. It helps some producers who have not 
experienced disasters. That is wrong. The Daschle amendment helps 
producers who have experienced disasters. That is fair. That is right.
  I only wish the Senators from Mississippi, North Carolina, and other 
Senators would come to the high plain States and see what a disaster we 
have. It is sad. It is stunning. It is despairing. It is so sad, 
looking in people's eyes. Thousands are leaving their places; they are 
drying up. It is worse this year even than last year, thus far. It may 
rain some more; we do not know.
  We, across America, have a big heart. We help Americans who need 
help. We have helped those who have experienced hurricane losses. We 
helped those with earthquake damage, say, in California or New York in 
the Trade Towers. We knew intuitively that is what you do.
  I say to my colleagues and all those who are helped, remember those 
who are not sufficiently helped.
  To sum up in one sentence, we are talking about a few billion. That 
does not affect the outyear budget deficit. We can always make 
adjustments. We are all concerned about the deficit. Help our people 
who need help. In many parts of our country we need help desperately. I 
urge colleagues to put aside the partisanship and do what is right for 
America and vote for farmers who need the help, help offered in the 
amendment of the Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Kansas, Mr. Roberts.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Senate 
Agriculture Committee for yielding time to me.
  Everyone understands, on a bipartisan basis, I say to the 
distinguished Senator from Montana, that we are not in very good shape 
with regard to farm country. It does not matter if you have been hit by 
hurricane, flood, or record-breaking drought.
  Last spring, I warned this is exactly what would happen because the 
current farm bill was structured to provide assistance to producers 
when they had a crop, but left them dangling in the Kansas, Wyoming, 
Nebraska, and Montana wind when there was no crop to harvest, not to 
mention other parts of the country suffering these kind of weather 
disasters.
  It seems to me, and maybe I took it a little personal, we will not 
get into partisanship because we have to accomplish some degree of 
relief, but I was criticized on the floor of the Senate last spring. 
They said I didn't know anything about agriculture because producers 
with high prices are just fine and need no Government assistance.
  Well, as everyone here knows, with the wheat, sorghum, corn, and 
soybean prices have experienced the highest levels in the last few 
years, but like most of the producers in Kansas or throughout the Great 
Plains or in other sections of the country, it does not do much good if 
all the producer had to harvest was a dust cloud. Prices are high 
because the drought cut production and supply.
  What are we going to do about this? We heard that we have one 
approach that is $6 billion. I question that, really. Not in regard to 
the intent of the distinguished Senators who brought it forward, but if 
my second-degree amendment to the $6 billion bill as of last year was 
$2.9 billion, an amendment that was not allowed because of some 
parliamentary maneuvers, now costs $4.03 billion, I have to assume that 
the $6 billion is probably closer to $7 billion or $8 billion.
  But that is not really the issue. The issue is the chairman of the 
Agriculture Committee really brought forth this amendment and worked 
with many of us to ensure that we are directing the bulk of assistance 
to those areas that have actually experienced the crop losses in recent 
years.
  This past year in Kansas, we have really gone through a very 
difficult time. Kansas State University estimates the crop losses in 
the State at over $1 billion. Thankfully, these have been partially 
offset by $406 million in crop insurance indemnity payments. That is 
the other half of the equation, and yes we had to improve the crop 
insurance program in 2000 but thank goodness for that.
  But the losses are very substantial. Livestock losses total over $300 
million in Kansas; 26 percent of pasture conditions are rated poor to 
very poor. We have seen a winter, in many parts, the driest on record. 
And net farm income is forecast to be approximately $10,000. When all 
is figured in for 2002, this is estimated to represent a shortfall of 
about $35,000 in simply meeting family living expenses.
  On top of all this, the total government payments on the 2002 crop 
were estimated to be 60 percent less than received in 2001.
  That is right. Under this farm bill described by the other side as 
the best farm bill ever--the greatest farm bill ever, pardon me--our 
Kansas producers have seen a drop of 60 percent in government 
assistance because it is a price support program. We have high prices 
but no income support. That is why we are back again, despite the 
predictions that we would not have another disaster bill.
  I heard from many bankers who say there will be no next year for many 
of our producers unless we grant relief. You know, you can't take 
issues and promises to the bank. That is what we have. Issues do not 
pay bills. Promises do not pay bills. Debate will not pay bills. We 
need to give them hope and an assistance package that can actually 
pass.
  Everyone here knows that the House of Representatives will not pass 
the proposal that has been put forth by my good friends on the other 
side of the aisle. It will not pass the House. There are many reasons 
for that: Budget reasons, any other reason you can come up with. Some 
sections of agriculture who do not want to open up the farm bill. It 
will not pass the House. It will not be signed into law by the 
President of the United States. That is a given.
  We can argue the merits of that and the politics of that. We did all 
last year. But now is not the time to keep arguing about that. Put 
politics aside. It is not the best bill that I could possibly write or 
that the distinguished Senator from Mississippi could write, but it is 
a bill that will be passed by the House and signed into law by the 
President.
  As I said, the amendment is not perfect, but it does give them hope. 
It targets assistance to those areas which were actually declared a 
disaster area. It provides vital livestock assistance that will aid 
producers throughout the country. It provides assistance for specialty 
crops. And it does replenish some of the section 22 account so these 
funds can be used for nutrition programs and purchase programs for 
specialty crops and the meat sector.

  It doesn't bust the budget; it is paid for. It doesn't take any money 
out of the agriculture baseline.
  The back of the envelop math is $190 million for Kansas. I don't know 
what it is for the other States that are represented here on the floor. 
But it is substantial. Is it enough? We can argue that all day long. 
But this is a decision whether we have $190 million that goes to 
Kansas, hard-hit Kansas producers and livestock producers, or nothing. 
So that is the issue.
  Coming pretty close to the truth is coming pretty close, but it is 
still not the truth, and that is the truth. We could have an issue or a 
bill. Our farmers are sick and tired of being sick and tired. It may 
well be that if it doesn't rain, we will be back here again later on 
this year to try to fix the farm bill, do some technical correction, or 
come with additional assistance. I don't know. But right now you had 
better pass this $3.1 billion package put together by the distinguished 
Senator from Mississippi and backed by some of us who want something as 
opposed to nothing. That is the way it is.
  I yield the floor.

[[Page S1333]]

  Mr. DASCHLE. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
North Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, this is a very disappointing debate. It 
seems to me, at least, in this Chamber these days, when the big 
interests have something they need to move through, it moves through 
like a greased pig, no problem at all. Today we are talking about 
family farmers. It is a little more difficult.
  It is interesting to me to see people who, last year, with 79 votes, 
many of them participating in the 79 votes to support nearly $6 billion 
in relief for family farmers--help for family farmers to offset the 
disasters they faced--now are saying somehow that is ill advised. They 
say the President wouldn't sign this. I will tell you this. The 
President cannot sign a bill he won't get. The quick way to decide the 
President won't get a bill is to decide he won't support the $6 billion 
that is needed.
  I have heard this ``half a loaf'' nonsense forever--a half a loaf is 
better. The fact is it is only a half a loaf when it comes to the 
little guy. I am talking about people who raise families and raise food 
out on the family farm. They live under the yard light, take all the 
risks and hope it rains, but not too much, hope the insects don't come, 
hope the crop disease doesn't come, hope it doesn't hail, and hope, if 
they get a crop, they are able to sell it at a decent price. They take 
all those risks, and then a disaster happens.
  Let me show this disaster. This chart shows widespread extreme 
drought in a significant part of our country. This poster shows two 
different scenes in my State. This farmer is standing on farmland, but 
of course you can't grow on farmland inundated with water. In the same 
State, this farmer stands on ranchland with not a bit of vegetation. It 
looks like a moonscape.

  Is this a disaster? Half a loaf? We can't afford to do what is 
necessary? Watch the talk here in this Chamber when it comes to tax 
cuts for those at the top of the income ladder. The sky is the limit. 
We don't have to offset that. Borrow the money. Give them more tax 
cuts. When it comes to the families out there trying to make a living, 
hit by a disaster they didn't cause, all of a sudden we hear all this 
refrain: What about an offset? What about an offset?
  I know where this comes from. It comes from the White House. The 
President doesn't want to sign this bill. He came to my State and said 
to family farmers: When you need me, I'll be there. We need him, and he 
is not there. I think we ought to send him a bill that doesn't 
represent the half a loaf.
  We have two choices today. One is the bill the Senate has already 
passed by 79 votes. If the same people who believed disaster relief was 
needed then still feel the same way about family farmers, then we will 
pass this amendment. But if you believe we really can't do that because 
we need to make room for tax cuts for upper income folks--which are not 
offset; we will borrow the money for that--if you feel that way, if 
that is the choice you want to make, then don't vote for this; vote for 
the Cochran amendment. But I tell you, it is disappointing.
  Good enough. You know. Throw somebody drowning under 20 feet of water 
10 feet of rope and say: I am being a good Samaritan here. It is not 
being a good Samaritan, in my judgment, for the policy choice to say 
those economic All-Stars--who live on America's farms, who produce food 
for a hungry world--are not worthy, when it comes to disaster, to get 
the full measure of support from this country for what they do.
  The operative question is, Do we want family farmers in our future? 
Do we care about who farms? Some don't. Some say the agrifactories can 
produce milk--4,000 cows a day 3 times a day--farm the entire county, 
get $25 million from a farm bill that pays the big interests.
  It is not what I want to be doing. I want this Congress to recognize 
that when disaster strikes family farmers, we stand with family 
farmers. We want to help. Why? Because we want a future in which 
families can live on the land in this country and raise food for a 
hungry world.
  I just do not understand at all. There are people watching this 
debate today, who have just spent time with their bankers and their 
lenders, who are not going to be able to go into the field next spring, 
who are going to have to sell their livestock if we don't pass good 
disaster relief, if we don't pass the kind of disaster relief that is 
available in the amendment we have offered.
  They wait, wondering: Will I be able to continue to farm? They call 
our offices, and some weep, saying: We have done this all of our life. 
We are not frivolous in spending money. We have done the best job we 
can, and we are going broke through no fault of our own. The drought 
has devastated our family, devastated our farm, and we need help.
  In previous years, this country has said: In these circumstances, let 
us lend a helping hand. Let us extend our hand to say we care about you 
and we want you to remain on the family farm. The only way that is 
going to happen is if we pass the bill introduced by my colleague, 
Senator Daschle, and others of us, to make this disaster relief work 
for family farmers.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Idaho, Mr. Craig.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I thank the chairman of the 
Appropriations subcommittee, Senator Cochran, for working with all of 
us to reshape the legislation to fit those and to compensate those and 
help those who truly have lost through disaster.
  That is exactly what the Cochran amendment now does. In so shaping 
that, we are also able to fit in those livestock farmers and ranchers 
who lost grazing and need some more assistance for food supplementation 
and hay supplementation for their livestock. We already provided them 
in October with substantial assistance. This is in addition to that.
  I am not a midwesterner. I can't talk about the extent of the drought 
down in the Midwest as my colleague from North Dakota just did. But I 
can tell you that the 44 counties of Idaho which are split by two time 
zones, three air sheds, and three different moisture patterns did 
rather well this year. With commodity prices up, they are doing better 
than they probably had anticipated they would at the beginning of this 
crop season a year ago. But 27 counties did experience extreme drought 
conditions. They do mostly irrigation there. The pastureland and the 
grazing lands there were badly damaged and livestock had to be brought 
in early. High-priced hay had to be purchased to feed the livestock in 
order to sustain or maintain the family operation. That drove up the 
cost of hay for the dairy farmer. While none of this goes to the dairy 
farmer, his costs of operation have gone up substantially.
  What I think we have to recognize is what we do is a balance in the 
first instance. What we ought to be doing is dealing with those who 
truly experienced loss through natural disaster, as the Cochran 
amendment now does. That is what is important. That is what we ought to 
be about.
  We have a farm bill that some of us voted for and some didn't. I can 
tell you it is probably not the farm bill I would have written. But we 
now have it. There are those in the Chamber who will claim it is their 
work product and that we are working to implement it and make it work. 
We ought not just be constantly adding to it and having it become the 
second largest income source for American agriculture. It doesn't work 
very well if we are the ones who they end up depending upon mostly. But 
when a natural disaster strikes--whether it be a drought or a hurricane 
or too much water and a flood--that is what we do best. And that is 
what we ought to be about.
  That is exactly what the Senator from Mississippi and I and others 
are attempting to address in the Cochran amendment. Yes. Money will 
come to Idaho--not as much as to others. But I believe this is a 
balanced and appropriate way to deal with a bill that will get to the 
President's desk and that will be signed.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to express my support for the 
amendment that has been introduced

[[Page S1334]]

by our distinguished Democratic leader. This amendment reflects the 
disaster assistance packages that the Senate passed three times last 
year, but in each of these cases the House of Representatives failed to 
go along with these measures. Most convincingly, this amendment last 
passed the Senate by a vote of 79-16. I cosponsored that amendment as 
well because it provided much needed assistance to our Nation's farmers 
who have suffered significant crop losses during the past 2 crop years. 
Farmers throughout the Nation have suffered great losses, and farmers 
in my home State of Michigan have been among those who have suffered 
most.
  Two years of statewide crop failure have threatened the viability of 
many of Michigan's farmers, and this amendment strives to address the 
losses suffered by growers in the 2001 and 2002 growing years. Over the 
past 2 years, some farmers faced early warm temperatures followed by 
freezing conditions. For others, torrential rains came early in the 
growing season and were followed by long droughts. Still other farmers 
faced drought conditions at the start of the crop year and heavy rains 
at harvest time.
  Last year, USDA Secretary Ann Veneman recognized the atypical weather 
conditions that greatly diminished crop production in Michigan by 
designating all of Michigan's 83 counties as disaster areas. If that 
was not bad enough, Secretary Veneman designated 82 of Michigan's 83 
counties as official disaster areas in 2001.
  Michigan is one of the Nation's most diverse States in terms of the 
sheer breadth and number of crops grown in it, and growers of many 
crops have been affected by adverse weather conditions. Total losses 
for Michigan farmers for both 2001 and 2002 are roughly estimated at 
$314 million. For 2 years, I have met with many farmers who want to 
know if they will receive assistance. Assistance is what farmers in 
Michigan and throughout the Nation need.
  Last year, cherry farmers in Michigan lost upwards of 95 percent of 
their crops, a level that threatens to devastate Michigan and the 
Nation's cherry industry, given that Michigan produces over 70 percent 
of the tart cherries in the Nation. Last summer, I had the opportunity 
to visit with cherry growers in Michigan and listen to them as they 
told me how this year's crop losses were the worst that the industry 
had ever suffered since crop records have been kept. Additionally, 80 
percent of all Michigan apple farmers have lost upwards of 40 percent 
of their crop this year.
  In 2001, farmers in just one area of Michigan, which is one of the 
leading dry bean producing regions in the Nation, lost 85 percent of 
their bean crop. Due to severe drought, bean growers who export every 
other row they grow, lost 85 percent of their crops.
  Across the state, in the southwest corner of Michigan, Labrusca grape 
growers lost 80 percent of their crop and they suffered similar losses 
this year. While the losses suffered by bean and grape growers are 
particularly severe, they are not the only crops to have suffered 
drastic losses.
  Approximately 25 percent of apple growers in Michigan and across the 
Nation are in danger of going out of business in the next 2 years, and 
in Michigan that means that our cherry, peach, and asparagus crops, 
which are often grown on the same orchards as apples, will be greatly 
decreased. Orchard communities around the country have been devastated. 
Orchard operators still have very high operating expenses even if they 
do not harvest a crop. Orchards must be tended to all year long. 
Activities such as pruning and spraying are expensive to conduct, but 
they must be done even when there is no crop.
  As farmers have left the business, small businesses and cooperatives 
that have been around for generations have also gone out of business, 
and local governments have lost significant tax revenue. This 
assistance will allow many growers to reduce debt and get private bank 
or USDA loans for the next growing season. This assistance for will 
give farmers the shot in the arm they need to recover from several 
years of low prices. This aid is the economic stimulus package for 
rural America.
  Our Nation's farmers have not shared in the prosperity which many 
Americans have experienced over the past decade. No one, least of all 
America's farmers, likes the fact that annual emergency agriculture 
supplementals have seemingly become routine.
  Yet, we must provide this assistance if we are to address the 
problems facing farmers throughout the Nation. Several growers have 
told me that the crop losses they suffered this past year were so 
severe that without emergency assistance they will most likely lose 
their farms. This assistance is not the answer to the problems facing 
our farmers and rural America, but it is an important part of an effort 
to keep families on their farms. I thank the Senator for South Dakota 
for his efforts in offering this amendment.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I would like to express my support of 
the amendment introduced by my colleague, Mr. Daschle, because it 
provides emergency disaster relief to farmers. During the past 2 years, 
Mother Nature has not been kind to farmers and bad weather has 
devastated their crops and threatened the survival of family farms.
  New York State experienced statewide drought this past growing 
season. Farmers across the State have struggled with lower crop yields 
and higher feed prices for their livestock. Fifty-five counties in the 
State have been designated as primary disaster counties by the 
Secretary of Agriculture, which includes all of New York's agricultural 
counties.
  But in New York, crop damage has not come solely from drought. 
Unseasonably high temperatures in the spring followed by frost and 
hailstorms have devastated specialty crops such as such as apples, 
peaches, pears, grapes, strawberries, stone fruits, onions, and 
cherries. And the disasters have not just been limited to the 2002 crop 
year--many farmers in New York were also hurt because of adverse 
weather in 2001.
  The unfortunate result of this disastrous weather is that a large 
percentage of these farmers, particularly those that produce specialty 
crops, are bordering on financial ruin. I have met with the farmers and 
growers of New York, and their stories are heartbreaking as they talk 
about bankruptcy and selling off their family's farm. For many 
specialty crops, adequate crop insurance that would cover more than 
catastrophic losses is not available. Crop disaster relief is truly 
needed to keep these farms going as well as the rural economies that 
they support. Time is running short for these hard-working families in 
New York, and they need our help.
  The funding that Senator Cochran has proposed would give our farmers 
in New York and across the Nation the relief they need. While it 
provides a total of $100 million for specialty crops, these funds are 
not focused on those who have incurred weather-related losses. In 2002 
alone, New York's apple growers sustained damage of over $80 million. 
The amount provided by Senator Cochran is not enough to address these 
losses and the tremendous needs of other New York crops--such as 
Labrusca grapes, peaches, pears, strawberries, stone fruits, onions, 
and cherries. And this says nothing to the financial needs of specialty 
crop producers across the entire country.
  In addition, the amendment by Senator Cochran would not fully 
replenish section 32 funds that the administration took last year from 
programs designed to feed impoverished urban, suburban, and rural 
residents. Without fully replenishing these funds, the ability of 
nutrition and food aid programs to assist citizens in need may be 
compromised. New York has many in need of food aid, and I cannot stand 
by while this form of assistance is in jeopardy. The amendment proposed 
by Senator Daschle does address these needs, and that is why I ask my 
colleagues to support this emergency disaster assistance package.
  I have worked with my colleagues in the past to pass legislation that 
would provide financial relief to farmers who have suffered losses due 
to natural disasters in 2001 or 2002. I supported the farm bill last 
year which included disaster aid. I cosponsored S. 2800, a bill that 
would provide emergency disaster assistance to agricultural producers. 
And I cosponsored the crop disaster amendment to the Interior 
Appropriations that passed with 79 votes.
  In the 108th Congress, I have cosponsored S. 21, which would again 
provide emergency disaster assistance to agricultural producers as well 
as restore

[[Page S1335]]

section 32 funding. And I support Senator Daschle today, in his 
continued efforts on behalf of this Nation's farmers who have suffered 
disaster, our rural communities who depend upon farm incomes, and those 
in this Nation who are hungry.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to voice my support today for 
Senator Daschle's amendment which provides emergency disaster 
assistance for crop and livestock producers who have suffered losses 
during the 2001 and 2002 agriculture production years due to natural 
disasters.
  For U.S. farmers and ranchers, the current production disaster is 
multifaceted. In many areas, drought has decimated crops and has 
reduced water supplies available for livestock. In other regions, 
farmers are experiencing crop destruction and reduced yields and 
quality due to flooding and an increased incidence of crop pests and 
diseases. Especially hard hit are the specialty crops such as apples, 
cherries, and grapes in the Great Lakes region, the Eastern States and 
the Pacific Northwest that suffered frost, freeze, and drought damage 
this season and adverse weather in 2001.
  The negative economic impact of natural disasters to American 
agriculture and rural communities continues to grow. In my home State 
of Massachusetts, the cranberry industry suffered $10 million loss in 
2002 from drought alone. The situation across the Nation is the same: 
our farmers are in trouble and Congress needs to step in and provide 
assistance.
  It is for those reasons I support the Daschle amendment. Unlike the 
Cochran amendment, it provides equitable disaster assistance to those 
producers--crop and specialty crop alike--who were impacted by 
disasters.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Cochran 
amendment. This package is the result of a concentrated effort to 
provide speedy and targeted assistance to agricultural producers who 
have suffered from drought and other disasters.
  At $3.1 billion, the size of this package is not as large as what I 
have supported in the past. But the time has come to support and pass 
assistance in the Senate that our agricultural producers actually 
receive. The Senate passed drought assistance numerous times in 2001, 
but each time the provisions were stripped by the House.
  Today we have an opportunity to pass desperately needed drought 
assistance that for the first time has a good chance of landing in 
producers' pockets and not in the trash can across the street. The 
President has consistently asked that drought assistance be offset and 
that it be budget neutral. This amendment is budget neutral.
  The Cochran amendment targets assistance to producers in counties 
that have been declared primary disaster areas. It uses a mechanism to 
distribute the assistance that will not burden the FSA with another 
long sign up period and excessive paperwork. It is an improvement over 
what is currently in the omnibus bill because it specifies $250 million 
for the Livestock Assistance Program.
  The Cochran amendment specifically benefits Wyoming producers in a 
number of ways. The amendment reimburses producers in my State that 
grazed their own Conservation Reserve Program acres this fall for the 
25 percent reduction in their CRP payment. The amendment also provides 
$80 million to sugar beet producers who have suffered production losses 
in the 2002 crop year. Many of those sugar beet producers live in my 
State. I know they will be grateful for the assistance that will help 
them maintain a number of sugar beet cooperatives.
  Wyoming's current drought situation is serious. Because the need is 
so great, I will support the Cochran amendment. It is better to provide 
a simple meal to a starving man than promise a feast and not deliver.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Cochran amendment and responsibly 
provide drought assistance to the people who have waited so long.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, last week, I saw that $3.1 billion was 
included for drought assistance in the omnibus funding bill. It was a 
good way to start the day, until I started to dig deeper. Montana 
producers will not receive meaningful relief from these funds.
  I am fighting today for full funding for both 2001 and 2002 for the 
crop disaster program, livestock assistance program, and the American 
Indian livestock feed program that 79 Members of the Senate agreed to 
on September 10, 2002.
  I have spent a lot of time visiting producers on their farms and 
ranches in Montana. And each time I am stunned by the desperation in 
their voices and in their eyes, stunned by the way the winds are 
blowing away their topsoil and their herds are getting smaller and 
smaller.
  I cannot stress how important it is that we quickly pass meaningful 
drought disaster assistance. The unrelenting drought in Montana has 
brought economic hardship to our agriculture producers and our rural 
communities.
  The same way we use emergency funds to rebuild communities hurt by 
tornadoes and hurricanes, we should use emergency funds to rebuild our 
communities hurt by drought. There is no reason that a double standard 
should apply to agriculture.
  And the situation has become even more devastating, since many of 
these regions are suffering their third, fourth, or fifth year of 
consecutive drought conditions.
  According to the New York Times on May 3, 2002, ``In eastern Montana, 
more than a thousand wheat farmers have called it quits rather than 
trying to coax another crop out of the ground that has received less 
rain over the last 12 months than many deserts get in a year.''
  It is anticipated that another 1,300 Montana wheat producers will 
call it quits if disaster assistance is not provided.
  The effects of the drought have gone beyond our farmers and ranchers. 
Businesses are closing their doors, employees are being laid off, and 
main streets are literally drying up.
  According to Dale Schuler, past president of Montana Grain Growers 
and a farmer in Choteau County, MT, nearly 2,000 square miles of crop 
in his area of central Montana have gone unharvested. That is an area 
the size of Delaware. ``Farmers and our families have not had the means 
to repay our operating loans, let alone buy inputs to plant the crop 
for the coming year.''
  Dale added, ``Chouteau County is the largest farming county in 
Montana, and yet our last farm equipment dealer had no choice but to 
close his doors, our local co-op closed its tire shop, one farm fuel 
supplier quit, and the fertilizer dealers and grain elevators are 
laying off workers. I believe that we are set to see a mass exodus from 
Montana that has not been seen since the Great Depression of the 
1930's.
  On September 3, 2002, the Wall Street Journal printed an article that 
stated that, ``the U.S. may be looking at the most expensive drought in 
its history, inflicting economic damage far beyond the Farm Belt.''
  Loans have been made with the understanding that Congress was going 
to provide disaster assistance because as a country and a Government 
that is what we as Americans do. We rush to provide assistance to 
victims of hurricanes and tornadoes. As we all know, that is not what 
has occurred with the drought.
  Now we have bankers who are desperately trying to not call loans due 
and producers who are desperately trying to scrape enough together to 
make the bank hold on just a little longer.
  Producers are considering selling parcels of land or pieces of 
equipment that they have considered vital to their operation. They will 
do it if it means that they can keep the farm or ranch that their 
family has been working for generations. Scraping that money together 
has never been more difficult as most of the potential buyers are in 
similar financial straits.
  The devastation of this drought does not end at the front door of our 
rural homes. The enormous economic toll of this relentless drought on 
our communities will take years to recover.
  However, the toll on our rural families is irreparable. Incidents of 
domestic abuse, suicides, and alcoholism have increased significantly 
in the past 2 years. We must not continue to let our inability to 
uphold our responsibilities cripple rural communities any longer.
  We cannot and must not continue to ignore the impacts of drought and 
the effect it has on our agricultural producers and our rural 
communities. Agricultural producers are every bit as

[[Page S1336]]

deserving of assistance for their suffering from the drought as the 
small business owner in Louisiana suffering from a hurricane.
  I cannot urge more strongly my colleagues in the House and Senate to 
work together to pass full funding for natural disaster assistance for 
both 2001 and 2002. I, again, ask the President to live up to the words 
he spoke almost a year ago when he said that the agriculture economy is 
vital to the national economy. It is vital that we pass agriculture 
disaster assistance immediately to help our producers, to help our 
economy, and to help our Nation.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the agriculture 
disaster assistance funding included in the fiscal year 2003 omnibus 
appropriations bill. The farmers and ranchers in Missouri have suffered 
through bad weather and depressed prices, threatening their ability to 
stay in business. Agriculture is the cornerstone of the Missouri 
economy and I am pleased that the Senate was able to provide much 
needed assistance to these producers.
  Over the past 3 years, the agriculture community has faced droughts, 
flooding and insect infestations that have damaged yields and reduced 
profits. This package provides a responsible level of assistance to 
those who have suffered or continue to suffer substantial losses as a 
result of natural disasters.
  After months of political maneuvering, the Senate finally passed a 
new farm bill last year. This legislation provided increased economic 
resources, certainty, and stability across a wide range of agricultural 
and rural programs. However, the new farm bill is incapable of 
predicting and adequately dealing with natural disasters. The floods 
and droughts have deteriorated Missouri's agriculture production and 
exposed the shortcomings of these new farm programs.
  I have heard from producers around Missouri. Our farmers need this 
additional assistance to secure their operating loans for the 2003 crop 
year. Agriculture producers and lenders can include this assistance in 
cashflow projections. This $3.1 billion will give farmers great 
assistance as they make planting decisions for the upcoming crop year.
  Depressed prices, falling farm income, weather disasters and unstable 
global markets present a host of challenges to production agriculture. 
This assistance, made through direct payments and the additional funds 
for the livestock compensation program, enables farmers in Missouri and 
across the country, to continue to produce the safest, most abundant 
and affordable food in the world.
  I support this targeted disaster assistance measure that would bring 
great equity to Missouri's farmers and ranchers.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the 
amendment offered by the Senator from South Dakota to address the 
critical needs of our Nation's family farmers affected by natural 
disaster.
  Over the past 2 years, farmers throughout the Nation have been 
devastated by periods of prolonged drought and other natural disasters. 
Last year, in my own State of Maryland, the drought was among the most 
destructive in our history. Over the summer, as I traveled through the 
rural areas of my State, I saw firsthand the damage that had been done. 
The fields were dry and the crops withered. According to the Department 
of Agriculture, corn production was down 42 percent from 2001 and both 
the corn crop and yield were the smallest in 14 years. Similarly, 
soybean production was down 46 percent from the previous year and the 
crop and yield were the worst in 15 years.
  At the urging of the Maryland Congressional Delegation, the Secretary 
of Agriculture declared 21 of the State's 23 counties primary natural 
disaster areas. And, as a result, farmers in the disaster areas and the 
two contiguous counties became eligible for emergency loans. 
Unfortunately, for many farmers, taking on additional loans is just not 
possible.
  The Daschle amendment will provide meaningful disaster relief to 
those farmers in Maryland and throughout the Nation. The amendment, 
similar to one that passed the Senate with my support and that of 78 of 
my colleagues in the last Congress, provides approximately $6 billion 
in direct emergency disaster assistance to producers who have been 
directly impacted by drought or natural disaster. This amendment has 
the support of more than 40 farm, ranch, and rural organizations, 
including the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Farmers 
Union.
  In my view, this amendment will provide our farmers with a much 
needed safety net, one not included in the recently passed farm bill, 
that will allow them to maintain their livelihoods and their lands. I 
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting its passage.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
support the Daschle amendment providing emergency assistance to our 
Nation's family farmers suffering weather-related natural disaster 
losses in 2001 and 2002 and to oppose the Republican alternative.
  The Daschle amendment offers several distinct advantages over the 
Republican alternative offered by Senator Cochran.
  Unlike the Daschle amendment, the Republican alternative requires 
deep cuts in discretionary programs. And the cuts will have a dramatic 
impact on many Americans. This across-the-board cut would eliminate: 
1,175 FBI Agents; 490 Food Safety Inspectors; 1,600 Customs inspectors, 
(fewer inspectors than pre 9/11); kick 2,722 children off early 
childhood education, (added to original cuts totals 5,522 children); 
kick 224,689 women, infants and children off WIC; and leave 230,000 
Veterans without medical services.
  Never before has Congress insisted that emergency assistance be 
offset by cuts in other programs. We don't do this for hurricane 
relief. We shouldn't do it for drought relief.
  Unlike the Daschle amendment, the Republican alternative doesn't 
target assistance to those who suffered from a disaster. In fact, it 
pays producers who did not suffer a disaster.
  Historically, producers must show that they personally suffered a 
qualifying loss before receiving federal disaster assistance. But the 
Republican amendment does away with this important requirement.
  So, under their proposal, if a single producer in a county suffers a 
qualifying loss, every producer in the county and every contiguous 
county will be eligible to receive a payment. It's wasteful and fails 
to ensure that those producers who really need the help get it.
  Unlike the Daschle amendment, the Republican alternative fails to 
fully restore food assistance funds to the Section 32 account.
  Back in September, the administration raided money set aside to buy 
food commodities for school lunches and our Nation's food banks to pay 
for the Livestock Compensation Program.
  The payments to drought-stricken farmers were desperately needed, but 
the administration never should have taken these funds, which were 
specifically targeted for the hungry.
  In his amendment, Senator Cochran recognizes the blatant unfairness 
of the administration's move and restored about half of the funds 
needed. But with our weak economy and growing food lines, now is not 
the time for half measures.
  The Daschle amendment will put the food assistance program back on a 
sound financial footing, allowing soup kitchens and food banks to keep 
helping hungry families.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the Daschle 
amendment and to oppose the Republican alternative.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democrat leader has 13 minutes 31 seconds. 
The Senator from Mississippi has 8 minutes 25 seconds.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, following up on what the distinguished 
Senator from Idaho was talking about--operating costs--in a State such 
as Michigan, which has great diversity, we have a very large number of 
fruit and vegetable growers. I remember hearing from Fred Tubbs who has 
40 acres of cherries. He says even

[[Page S1337]]

though he lost his crop and even though he had been devastated this 
year, he has to continue to spray. He has to continue to have 
operational costs as well.
  My grave concern about the Cochran amendment is so many of our 
farmers--particularly family farmers--have been left out of this 
amendment. People such as Fred Tubbs have--with operating costs whether 
or not they have a crop.
  We have two choices in front of us: The Daschle amendment and the 
Cochran amendment. The Cochran amendment is not a disaster package. 
That is very clear. There are farmers who did not have a disaster and 
may have had a bumper crop who will be helped under this amendment. 
States that have seen devastation in crops such as soy beans would be 
helped under this provision. But grape growers, apple growers, cherry 
growers, asparagus, peaches, plums--all of those fruit and vegetable 
growers who have been devastated in my State would not receive 
assistance under this plan.
  There is a small provision in the Cochran amendment that would 
provide $100 million set aside for fruits and vegetables. I will just 
share with my colleagues that in Michigan alone the fruit and vegetable 
losses are $180 million. The amount in this bill is $100 million for 
the entire country. Our farmers deserve better than this. We can do 
better.
  I also indicate that the bill provides a small amount--$250 million 
in the Cochran amendment--for section 32 as it relates to nutrition and 
the purchase of fruits and vegetables. Unfortunately, that is far less 
than the $1 billion that was removed last year for livestock 
assistance.
  Our fruit and vegetable growers were very pleased the first time we 
passed a farm bill last year that included them--that recognized our 
fruit and vegetable growers across the country. Yet we are seeing 
attempts at every turn to eliminate the assistance that was placed into 
the farm bill.
  It is time for the Daschle amendment; it is time to provide needed 
disaster assistance for both losses in 2001 and 2002.
  I urge my colleagues to do the right thing for our farmers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Coleman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, I thank the Senator for yielding the 
time.
  I rise in support of the Cochran amendment. Last year when I was 
running for the U.S. Senate, I promised to get something done in the 
way of relief for Minnesota farmers. The picture the distinguished 
Senator from North Dakota showed is a picture that is close to the 
heart of Minnesotans who suffered disasters. They have suffered 
flooding. They have been hurt. They have suffered losses.
  Last year, the House and the Senate attempted to pass the Daschle 
legislation, but it never became law. Those two bills looked good on 
paper, but they never became law. They never lightened the load of one 
farmer. They never comforted one farm family. They never provided a 
single auction.
  When I ran for the Senate, I promised to get to work to get something 
done for disaster relief for Minnesota farmers. I never promised to 
vote for something that everyone knows is going nowhere, and then shrug 
my shoulders and say: Gee whiz, I tried. I promised to shoot straight 
for the people back home and to be honest about what I think can be 
done and then help it become law. No one believes the alternative 
disaster package now scored by the Congressional Budget Office at 
nearly $7 billion has support to become law. I think it is 
irresponsible to raise hopes and expectations to that level.
  I was elected to get something done. I have some serious concerns 
about the $3.1 billion disaster package in the Cochran amendment. In my 
view, the help provided in this bill needed to be better targeted to 
farmers hit by disaster. I was among a number of Senators who expressed 
concerns to the chairman of the Agriculture Committee. He went back to 
the drawing board. He made some changes to better target the help. 
Although he didn't go as far as I would like, we are going to get 
something done for Minnesota farmers. Farmers can't cashflow on 
promises alone. They need help now. I am told this $3.1 billion relief 
package can get help to our farm families within weeks. I am going to 
support this $3.1 billion package. I was elected to get things done. 
The Cochran amendment gets things done. Let's pass it and let us move 
on.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from North Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I hear over and over from the other side 
that we can't get it done. That is a self-fulfilling prophecy. We have 
gotten it done for 4 years, before last year, every year. When farmers 
suffered a natural disaster, we responded--and we responded with the 
package we are offering today. This isn't some new formulation. This 
isn't something that has never been done before. It was done every year 
before when farmers suffered from a natural disaster. All of a sudden, 
the other side throws up their hands and says they cannot do it. The 
reason they can't do it is they will not vote for it. Vote for it, and 
we will pass it here, and then we will be able to go to the House and 
fight it out with them.

  This notion that we should give in to what the House might agree to, 
I have never heard of that working very well in the Senate. We are the 
masters of our destiny. We represent the people who sent us here. We 
should not abrogate our responsibility to what the House might do or 
might not do. We ought to do what has been done for 4 years in the past 
and reach out and help a part of the country that has been devastated.
  A headline in the Wall Street Journal of today reads: ``Midwest 
Drought Is Threatening Agriculture, Rivers and Tourism.''
  The article begins, ``A severe drought that began in the Great Plains 
is engulfing the Midwest this winter, snarling the Mississippi River, 
crippling snow-dependent businesses, and increasing the likelihood for 
poor crops at a time when the nation's grain supply is precariously 
low.''
  That is the Wall Street Journal.
  The package offered on the other side isn't a disaster package. A 
farmer isn't required to have a farm loss in order to get a payment. 
Let me repeat that. You do not have to have a crop loss to get a 
payment under the plan being offered on the other side.
  No. 2, every eligible farmer--which could be as many as 97 percent of 
the farmers in this country--could get the same level of payment 
regardless of what loss they suffer. Even if they have no loss, if they 
are in a disaster county, they get help.
  Now we see the appearance, in this proposal, of $53 million in direct 
payments to tobacco producers--not tobacco producers that have had a 
disaster but just tobacco producers.
  This is not a disaster bill. I don't know what one would term it, but 
it is not disaster assistance, not the disaster assistance we gave 4 
years in a row before last year.
  The proposal on the other side provides one-half of what was done in 
every previous year--one-half. That does not meet the test of what is 
required. We ought to pass what we know is right, what we have done 
before, what we have provided in assistance every time in the past when 
there was a natural disaster; and that is the Daschle proposal. I hope 
my colleagues will support it.
  The difference is dramatic. In my State, if a farmer suffers a full 
loss, they get $6.50 an acre under the proposal from the other side. 
Under the Daschle proposal, they get $45 an acre. But under the 
Republican proposal, if you did not suffer a loss, you get $6.50 an 
acre. If you did not have any loss--and it does not matter under the 
Republican proposal what level of loss you suffer--you get the same 
payment. We have never designed a disaster package that way.
  I hope colleagues will think very carefully about this vote and 
provide the parts of the country that have suffered natural disaster 
with a natural disaster package.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.

[[Page S1338]]

  The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished Senator from Montana, Mr. Burns.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I thank my friend from Mississippi. And I 
thank my friend from South Dakota for his work.
  I want to make a couple of points because I guess we are all trying 
to say the same thing; it is just that everybody has not had an 
opportunity to say it.
  The farming business is just as competitive as any other business. 
But let's go back and think a little bit. You have 2 years here: 2001 
and 2002. You also have a section in this bill that deals with CRP. But 
I am going to make sure that something gets to the President of the 
United States. That is what I am going to do.
  I may end up supporting both of them. Somewhere in the middle we will 
come up with a disaster package that provides the right kind of 
assistance to the people who have had actual losses. That is what is 
important. It is not one or the other. We were operating under a 
different bill the last 2 or 3 years that the Senator from North Dakota 
was referring to, completely different. There is no question in my mind 
that we are looking at a year now or a Congress now where we are going 
to have to take a look at risk management and how we manage our risk.
  I am pragmatic. I do not want to mislead my people in the State of 
Montana who are going into their 6th year of drought. We know what it 
is all about. So I will probably support both amendments. But I want to 
make sure we get one to conference so we can deal with some of those 
specific areas in order to get the money to the people who have 
actually experienced the impact of this drought.
  I thank the chairman of the committee. I also appreciate the 
leadership of the Democratic leader.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). Who yields time?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, 19 Minnesota counties were declared 
disaster areas last year because of severe flooding. Many of those same 
counties were devastated the year before. In fact, many of the same 
farmers lost their entire crops in both of the last 2 years.
  That is real disaster. Whether it is a record drought in South Dakota 
or flooding in Minnesota, we know the vicissitudes of Mother Nature are 
ones that no farmer can predict and no farmer, in this case, can 
survive.
  Last year the Senate bill contained disaster assistance. We 
understood that it did not make sense to have a bill where if you 
suffered some loss--you were going to get a lower price--you were going 
to get a countercyclical payment, but if you suffered complete loss, 
you would get nothing at all. But the House would not agree to that 
because the administration was opposed to it.
  I was confused for a while about the administration talking about 
``compassionate conservative'' because I thought they meant both the 
words together. But I have concluded they mean one or the other. If it 
is tax breaks for the wealthiest people in this country, then they are 
very compassionate. If they are talking about farmers who are on the 
brink of disaster, they are very conservative.
  For big corporations and, indeed, new tax shelters, they are very 
compassionate. For unemployed workers, they are very conservative.
  In this case, we need more compassion. And we can also be 
conservative because, in fact, this package is eminently affordable.
  The distinguished new chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee 
was quoted as saying that the figure he had received from the 
administration, from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in terms of 
the savings in this year's farm bill, was $5 billion. That is almost 
the entire cost of Senator Daschle's amendment. Certainly, in the 
context of everything else that is being proposed by the 
administration, an additional $1 billion for farmers who are destitute 
would be very much affordable.
  I might also say this is economic stimulus. This is money that will 
go in the pockets of farmers who will go out literally the next day to 
pay for goods and services in their communities. Those dollars multiply 
four times through the communities in Minnesota, twice more through the 
State, and once more at the Federal level.
  This, along with extending unemployment benefits, is the kind of 
economic stimulus that really gets the country moving forward and helps 
people who need a helping hand. It does everything that the Government 
ought to be doing for the people who need it rather than the people who 
do not.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today we have the ability to address a 
problem that has been neglected for the last 18 months. For 18 months 
farmers have been waiting for 2001, and now 2002 disaster assistance, 
but partisanship kept us from providing rural America with relief. 
Today, we will provide the remedy.
  Today the Senate has the opportunity to address the issue of 
significant loss in the agriculture community due to natural disasters. 
In Iowa we have experienced both drought and flood during the last 2 
years. For instance, last year the eastern side of the State--counties 
such as Clayton, Delaware, Jackson, Clinton, and Scott--had a disaster 
in 2002 due to flood. In 2001, the southern two tiers of counties in 
Iowa experienced drought. Turning back to 2002 again, one of Iowa's 
best production years ever, we saw counties such as Harrison, Mills, 
Adams and Cass turn up bone dry during critical states of the growing 
season.
  Iowa had record yields in 2002, but we did not have uniformity in 
state-wide averages of precipitation or production and that has made 
the package we are debating today very important to many family farmers 
in my home State.
  The agriculture assistance package I have worked on with Chairman 
Cochran and other Members provides $3.1 billion of assistance to areas 
and individuals with the greatest need. Our proposal will give 
assistance to farmers who live in ``primary'' designated disaster 
counties and to farmers who have had a 35 percent crop loss outside of 
those primary counties. We will be able to get checks to the farmers in 
the primary designated counties within 4 weeks after the President 
signs the bill. The farmers who can account for a 35 percent crop loss 
will need to go to their local FSA office and sign-up for assistance.
  Our program also contains an additional $250 million for the 
Livestock Assistance Programs--LAP provides direct payments to eligible 
livestock producers who suffered grazing losses due to natural 
disaster--and offers a sense of the Senate that encourages the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture to provide surplus dry milk supplies to pork 
producers to use as feed.
  Some members of the Senate will try to make ``political hay'' out of 
this by opposing our proposal. They will say the need is greater than 
$3.1 billion and our assistance isn't focused, but the fact is the only 
way the House of Representatives and the White House are going to allow 
us to spend more on agriculture, after we have already spent over $180 
billion on the other agriculture disaster we experienced last year, the 
2002 farm bill, is if we ``find'' the money through offsets.
  Those who choose to oppose this proposal will claim that their 
proposal was better for rural America, but what good is a proposal that 
can't pass? We tried it their way; I voted for emergency funding more 
than once, but the Senate leadership was unsuccessful in advancing any 
assistance to rural America. In fact, the last time I voted for 
emergency spending we couldn't even get it off the floor of the Senate. 
Doesn't it seem reasonable that we should actually vote on something 
that can actually pass? Isn't tangible assistance better than empty 
promises?
  The assistance in our proposal will get to farmers months before the 
assistance in the Democratic alternative. Most farmers will get help 
within four weeks after the President signs the legislation, instead of 
waiting up to eight months under the alternative approach. Family 
farmers that carry significant debt, or those that have been

[[Page S1339]]

forced to arrange ``bridge loans'' because of the problems with farm 
bill payments need the assistance now to reduce their debt, not eight 
months from now when the debt has had plenty of time to build due to 
interest.
  Chairman Stevens worked diligently to find an offset that would 
provide funds to address the current need. I appreciate the work of 
Chairman Stevens and thank him for his assistance. I would also like to 
thank Chairman Cochran for working with me and other members to fit 
this proposal to the need in rural America. Without Chairman Cochran's 
dedication to developing the best proposal possible for rural America 
we would not have such broad support.
  Mr. President, family farmers need disaster assistance, not ``pie in 
the sky'' empty promises that can't make it past the House of 
Representatives or the White House. It was important to make sure 
farmers who need assistance receive help as quickly as possible, and 
we've done that. I encourage my colleagues to support family farmers 
and support the Cochran amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I think we have had a good discussion of 
these two amendments that are pending before the Senate. I continue to 
believe the way to get the assistance to the farmers in the most 
expeditious way possible is to vote for the Cochran amendment. The 
reason for that is, the counties that have been declared disaster 
counties are already a matter of record. With these computer programs 
that the Department of Agriculture has, sometimes it takes time to get 
to a point where you can actually send out checks if new information is 
going to be included in that program.
  That is what would happen under the alternative presented by my 
friend from South Dakota. Farmers would have to come in and sign up for 
benefits. The Department of Agriculture, through the Farm Service 
Agency offices around the country, would have to gather that 
information, process it, and submit it to the Department here. I think 
it is not unreasonable to expect there to be months that go by before 
the checks would actually go to the farmers who need the help; whereas, 
in the Cochran amendment the funds would go out much more 
expeditiously--I think in a matter of weeks. That has been the 
experience in the past disaster situations where we have followed this 
kind of benefit program.
  The percentage of the payment is calculated on the basis of the farm 
payment received by farmers in the past. That is a matter of record. 
The identity and the addresses, all of that is already in the 
computers.

  This is no small matter. You cannot disregard the importance of that 
because farmers are hurting now. We have talked about how we don't want 
to put this off. If you vote for the Cochran amendment, you won't be 
putting it off. You will not be putting it off for months before 
farmers get the benefits to which they are entitled.
  I urge Senators to vote for the Cochran alternative. We have had a 
good description of the content of the bill. It is going to be not only 
approved in conference but will be signed by the President and will get 
the benefits to those who need it quickly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished chair of the 
Agriculture Committee if it is his understanding that both amendments 
will be up-or-down amendments as they are offered to the Senate.
  Mr. COCHRAN. That is my understanding of the meaning of the agreement 
we reached.
  Mr. DASCHLE. That is my understanding as well. I appreciate the 
clarification.
  Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader has 3 minutes. The 
Senator from Mississippi has 1 minute 42 seconds.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, in the final 3 minutes, let me quickly 
comment on a few points raised. First, to the point that we need to 
comply with the House prior to the time we vote in the Senate, as the 
distinguished Senator from North Dakota said, that is not usually the 
practice here. The Senate takes its stand, the House takes its stand, 
and we work out whatever differences there are in the two stands in 
conference. We don't say because the House has a position, we have to 
comply with the House position before we even go to conference. I hope 
our colleagues will not set that very dangerous precedent as their 
motivation for voting for the Republican amendment.
  Secondly, we have gone through this many times. The formulation we 
have used as a body, as a government, is the formulation offered in the 
Democratic amendment. We give the administration latitude to administer 
it. We have created these programs, disaster assistance and crop 
assistance, for those relief benefits to be provided. That is what we 
do here. It is the Republican amendment that creates a new 
infrastructure, not the Democratic amendment. The traditional and 
accepted approach we have used in disaster after disaster is the one we 
offer again and the one for which we voted last fall and received 79 
votes.
  Thirdly, what troubles me the most is that the Republican amendment 
is one-half of what is estimated to be the need. Even though it is one-
half of the need, it is written in such a way that everybody, 
regardless of whether they have a loss, is eligible. So what happens is 
you have situations such as the Senator from North Dakota described 
where those who are eligible, who may be entitled to a $45-per-acre 
payment, will get $6. Those who may not need any money at all will get 
$6. There are many of us who do our very best to maximize whatever 
value we get out of whatever dollars we commit in the programs we 
authorize. I just don't see why that nondiscriminating approach is not 
what we want to do especially if you cut in half the benefits to begin 
with. It seems to me you ought to maximize the benefits to those who 
need them. There ought to be some degree of need demonstrated, which is 
why we say that 35-percent threshold has to be realized. To say you are 
entitled to benefits with no loss at a time when you are cutting the 
overall cost to the program by 50 percent turns logic on its head.
  For those reasons, I hope my colleagues will do what they have done 
before. I hope they will support this amendment. I hope we can show the 
same bipartisan support we did last fall, and I hope we can work out 
whatever differences we have with the House in conference as we have 
always done.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Before I yield back the time remaining on this side of 
the aisle, parliamentary inquiry: The schedule under the order is for a 
vote to occur at this time on the Cochran amendment and then, following 
the vote on the Cochran amendment, a vote will occur on the Daschle 
amendment; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The agreement was for the vote on the Cochran 
amendment to be first, followed by the vote on the Daschle amendment.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Chair. I yield back the remainder of my 
time, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, may I ask for the yeas and nays on both 
amendments? I ask unanimous consent that that be in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Is there a sufficient second on both amendments?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 204. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. 
Feinstein), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the Senator from Hawaii 
(Mr. Inouye), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) and the 
Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 35, as follows:

[[Page S1340]]

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 15 Leg.]

                                YEAS--59

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

                                NAYS--35

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Graham (FL)
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Dodd
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kerry
     Lieberman
  The amendment (No. 204) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                        Vote on Amendment No. 79

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on agreeing to the Daschle 
Amendment No. 79. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. 
Feinstein), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the Senator from Hawaii 
(Mr. Inouye), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the 
Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 39, nays 56, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 16 Leg.]

                                YEAS--39

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

                                NAYS--56

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

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kerry
     Lieberman
  The amendment (No. 79) was rejected.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DASCHLE. 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. Madam President, for the information of Senators, we now 
have an amendment to be offered by Senator Nelson of Florida. I am 
going to ask, in a minute, that we have a minute on each side to 
explain this amendment. After that, Senator McCain has an amendment he 
wishes to debate. We believe we will be able to accept that amendment. 
Senators Durbin and DeWine have another amendment, and we believe we 
will accept that one. Following that is the Specter amendment, which 
will take an hour on each side. After that, we have other amendments 
that are going to be offered. We are going to try to get an agreement 
in just a few minutes that the next vote will not be before 7:45, 
something like that.
  Mr. REID. If I may ask my friend from Alaska, the manager of this 
bill, is there any way we could cut the time down on this 2 hours? We 
have not had a 2-hour amendment in 2 days. I cannot understand why the 
amendment would take 2 hours.
  Mr. STEVENS. What amendment?
  Mr. REID. Did I hear the Senator say the Specter amendment will be an 
hour on each side?
  Mr. STEVENS. We do not have an agreement yet. We expect to have an 
agreement of 1 hour total, 30 minutes each side, but we do not have 
that agreement yet.
  Mr. REID. Fine.
  Mr. STEVENS. But we do expect to get that agreement soon.
  I would like to get an understanding that the next vote, after the 
Nelson vote, will not occur before 7:45.
  Mr. REID. I apologize to my friend. I was on the telephone.
  Mr. STEVENS. That is so we can work this out and try to get an idea 
what we can do. Perhaps we can get the amendments so we can argue them 
tonight and vote on them tomorrow morning, but we will not know until 
7:45.
  Mr. REID. I would say to my friend, we have done good work over here. 
We have set an example for the majority. We have about eight or nine 
amendments, and the folks over here have agreed to time limits. And 30 
minutes is the longest we have on any of them.
  Mr. STEVENS. I congratulate my friend. He has always done very good 
work in this regard. The Senator from Nevada does a good job.
  I want to announce that tomorrow morning I hope to be able to call up 
amendments four or five at a time in a block that we have intended to 
agree to, but if people want to object, they can at that time. We will 
have to pull them up and have a vote. But we think we have an agreement 
on a whole series of amendments.
  I would say potentially there are 70 amendments that are technical in 
language and have de minimis amounts of money on small projects in 
States that we can adopt in a process tomorrow morning on a consent 
basis, if we can work that out. But tonight I hope to have, if we can 
do it, at least a couple amendments argued so we can vote on them 
either tonight, after 7:45, or vote tomorrow morning.
  Mr. REID. Will the distinguished manager yield for another comment?
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes.
  Mr. REID. The reason I gave the Senator the outline of what we have 
been able to do is, we are going to try to stick to these times that we 
have. But when you talk to your folks, have them understand that these 
times are contingent on your times also being agreeable.
  Mr. STEVENS. It is a two-way street, Madam President. I agree 100 
percent. We do intend to follow that procedure.
  I would be happy to yield to my colleague from the South.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank my colleague from the North.
  If I am correct, Madam President, we are trying to get some 
amendments on the table. I would be happy to ask unanimous consent to 
offer my amendment following Senator Specter.
  Mr. REID. At this time we cannot do that. I say to my friend from 
Washington, we have a schedule. I have already told Senators what the 
order would be.
  Mr. STEVENS. The projection is the Specter amendment would be voted 
on at 7:45.


                            Amendment No. 97

  Madam President, I now ask unanimous consent that there be a period 
of 1 minute on each side so the distinguished Senator from Florida can 
explain his amendment, and I will take the time on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, this is the African famine 
starvation relief amendment.
  Nearly two decades ago in Africa, my wife Grace held an almost 
lifeless,

[[Page S1341]]

starving child in her arms, and that changed my wife's life forever. 
For two decades she has been at the forefront of trying to get relief.
  There was this famine 15, 17 years ago, and because of drought it is 
back. You have seen it. Everyone has seen it. The world has seen it: 
The spindly legs, the distended bellies, the thatched hair, the begging 
eyes.
  The Senator from Alaska says he cannot accept this amendment because 
it is an emergency. It does not require the President to declare an 
emergency.
  He says he will not accept any emergency amendments. If there is not 
an emergency, then I would ask, what is an emergency for America to 
share its abundance?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the 
amendment offered by Senator Nelson that would provide $600 million in 
emergency food aid to sub-Saharan Africa. I know other Senators are 
waiting to speak so I will make three short points.
  First, there is an enormous humanitarian crisis in sub-Saharan 
Africa. The World Food Program estimates that there are 38 million now 
at risk of starvation. The situation has gone from bad to worse.
  Second, humanitarian organizations with field operations in Africa, 
such as Catholic Relief Services and Save the Children, report that at 
least $600 million is needed to address these immediate needs. What are 
the reasons for this shortfall?
  We are debating a budget request that is almost a year old. When the 
request was submitted last year, this crisis in Africa had not reached 
this magnitude. On top of that, commodity prices have increased 30 
percent.
  Third, the Nelson amendment is carefully tailored to give the 
President the flexibility he needs to deal with the crisis. If the 
President does not want to spend this money, he does not have to 
declare an emergency. However, if he feels, as many of us do, that this 
money is needed now to address this growing crisis, he can declare it 
an emergency and provide this assistance to sub-Saharan Africa.
  This is a bipartisan issue. I know Secretary Powell and Administrator 
Natsios care deeply about Africa. Representative Wolf just came back 
from Ethiopia and Eritrea and issued a compelling report on the dire 
situation there.
  The administration does not currently have the resources to deal with 
this crisis. It is up to Congress to provide the resources to prevent 
mass starvation in Africa. We may not get another chance for months.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I regret deeply that I am faced with 
this dilemma. There is $1.850 billion in Public Law 480 in the 
amendment I have offered. That is $335 million above the 2002 level. 
That money has not been allocated yet, and it is entirely available to 
allocate to the cause to which the Senator from Florida seeks to send 
relief.
  I understand his position, but we have already increased this amount 
in the bill. It is a sizable increase. I urge the Senate to realize 
that and to support my motion to table.
  Mr. President, I move to table the Senator's amendment, and I ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be 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 Ohio (Mr. Voinovich) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. 
Feinstein), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the Senator from Hawaii 
(Mr. Inouye), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the 
Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 17 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

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

                                NAYS--46

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

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kerry
     Lieberman
     Voinovich
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and to 
lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. For the information of Senators, we are now going to 
take up Senator Specter's amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the 
vote on the Specter amendment commence at 20 minutes after 6. That will 
be the last vote tonight.
  We are going to debate it now. Senator Specter wants 25 minutes, and 
we will take the remainder of that time and vote at 6:20.
  Mr. REID. That is going to be fine, but we would like to see the 
amendment. Why don't we start the debate, give us the amendment, and 
let us look at it.
  Mr. STEVENS. The amendment has been filed. It is the Specter 
amendment on the airline.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. What is the number of the amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is numbered 68.
  Mr. STEVENS. That is on or in relation to his amendment at 6:20.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SPECTER. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. I want the record to show I have 25 minutes of the time 
between now and the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes, that is part of the request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I withdraw my reservation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                            Amendment No. 68

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

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 68.

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

 (Purpose: To provide special minimum funding requirements for certain 
 pension plans maintained pursuant to collective bargaining agreements)

       At the appropriate place, insert:

     SEC. ____. MODIFICATION OF FUNDING REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN 
                   PLANS.

       (a) Funding Rules for Certain Plans.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or the Employee Retirement 
     Income Security Act of 1974, the minimum funding rules under 
     paragraph (2) shall apply for any

[[Page S1342]]

     plan year beginning after December 31, 2002, in the case of a 
     defined benefit plan which--
       (A) was established by an air carrier which was granted a 
     conditional loan guarantee by the Air Transport Stabilization 
     Board on July 10, 2002, and which filed for protection under 
     chapter 11 of title 11, United States Code, on August 11, 
     2002, and
       (B) is maintained for the benefit of such carrier's 
     employees pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement.
       (2) Special funding rule.--
       (A) In general.--In the case of a plan described in 
     paragraph (1), the minimum funding requirements under this 
     paragraph shall be the requirements set forth in Treasury 
     Regulation section 1.412(c)(1)-3 (as in effect on the date of 
     the enactment of this section).
       (B) Rules of special application.--In applying the 
     requirements of Treasury Regulation section 1.412(c)(1)-3 for 
     purposes of paragraph (1)--
       (i) the plan shall be treated as having met the 
     requirements of Treasury Regulation section 1.412(c)(1)-
     3(a)(2),
       (ii) the payment schedules shall be determined--

       (I) by using the maximum amortization period permitted 
     under section 1.412(c)(1)-3, and
       (II) on the basis of the actuarial valuation of the accrued 
     liability and the current liability of the plan as of January 
     1, 2003, less the actuarial value of the plan assets on that 
     date,

       (iii) the payments under a restoration payment schedule 
     shall be made in level amounts over the payment period, and
       (iv) the actuarial value of assets shall be the fair market 
     value of such assets as of January 1, 2003, with prospective 
     investment returns in excess of or less than the assumed 
     return phased in over 5 years.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to plan years beginning after December 31, 2002.

  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, this amendment arises out of the 
bankruptcy proceedings and reorganization of US Airways. It involves 
the effort by US Airways, with the agreement of the pilots, to 
restructure one of its pension plans. US Airways, as is well known, was 
very hard hit, as was the airline industry generally, by the events of 
September 11. US Airways was hit much harder because Reagan National 
Airport was closed down. In order to pare their expenses, the employees 
of US Airways made enormous concessions. The pilots made concessions of 
some $650 million a year.
  In order to obtain financing to get a Federal loan guarantee, there 
had to be substantial modifications made. One of the proposals from US 
Airways was to restructure its pension plan so that instead of having a 
5-year payout, it would be a 30-year payout. This was agreed to by the 
pilots, by the employees who are affected. And the Pension Benefit 
Guaranty Corporation, PBGC, made a determination that it did not have 
the discretion to permit a plan termination and a reinstatement of the 
plan with a longer payout.

  We had an extensive hearing in the subcommittee of the Appropriations 
Committee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education last 
Tuesday to inquire into this matter in some detail. It is my view that 
the PBGC has substantial discretion, but in order to make a 
clarification, I filed this amendment.
  Two weeks ago, Senator Santorum and I sought unanimous consent to 
take up this legislation as a freestanding bill. I offer it on this 
omnibus appropriations bill because time is of the essence and all of 
US Airways's reorganization proceedings have to be completed by March 
31, 2003.
  I am well aware of the preference not to have this sort of matter on 
an appropriations bill, but we have no choice if we are to have this 
reorganization go forward.
  Key testimony last Tuesday, a week ago yesterday, was given by an 
expert attorney, William Kilberg, who had served as Solicitor to the 
Department of Labor in 1974 when the relevant statute was passed. Mr. 
Kilberg, along with his affiliate Gary Ford, rendered an opinion that 
the PBGC has the authority to allow for the plan modification, as I 
have just articulated. The critical language of Mr. Kilberg's working 
opinion is as follows: The statute ``allows the PBGC to restore a plan 
when it is to be terminated or is in the process of termination.''
  Then, referring to the decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the one case that interprets this matter, the LTV case, Mr. 
Kilberg said ``the court said that a plan can be restored when 
restoration would further the interest that Title IV of ERISA is 
designed to protect.'' He then enumerated the three points of the 
statutory structure: that is, to keep premiums at a reasonable level; 
to keep plans going; and to have the plans pay benefits.
  Now, if the proposal by US Airways, agreed to by the Air Line Pilots 
Association, is not permitted, then the PBGC will have to pay the 
pensions. So it was in the financial interest of PBGC to have the plan 
adopted as US Airways and the pilots wanted.
  Pilots who have worked for 30 years would be cut on their pensions by 
some 20 to 25 percent, which would be a drastic curtailment, especially 
inequitable in the context of the pilots giving up some $650 million a 
year.
  When unanimous consent was asked 2 weeks ago, an objection was raised 
by the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee, and 
hearings were contemplated during the month of January. We went ahead 
with hearings, as I said, from the subcommittee.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Clinton be added as an original 
cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. So the essence of it is that this would be a win-win-win 
situation. It would really be a win situation for the PBGC because it 
would not have to pay the pensions. It would be a win situation for the 
pilots since their pensions would not be reduced drastically, and they 
are the real parties of interest at risk. And it would be a win 
situation for US Airways, which can structure its reorganization and 
this way obtain financing and obtain the appropriate guarantee.
  One point to be focused on with particularity is that this does not 
order the PBGC to adopt the US Airways proposal. All it does is say the 
PBGC has the authority to do so. The Secretary of Labor, who is the 
dominant public official in this matter, advised me that she felt bound 
by the opinion of the attorneys for the PBGC.
  How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 18 minutes 30 seconds.
  Mr. SPECTER. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. ALLEN. Madam President, will the Senator from Pennsylvania yield 
for a series of questions?
  Mr. SPECTER. I do.
  Mr. ALLEN. Madam President, I ask the Senator from Pennsylvania, his 
amendment as best I understand it--and this is for the benefit of other 
Senators to understand the purpose of the amendment--the Pension 
Benefit Guaranty Corporation, interpreted the law and felt that they 
had not accorded what management and labor wanted in the restructuring 
of pensions, and the purpose of the amendment is, in a permissive 
manner, to allow those directors to make that determination where right 
now in their legal opinion they do not have that authority.
  The point is, this is permissive as opposed to mandatory or dictating 
that they must accept?
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, the Senator from Virginia has 
articulated the situation accurately. It is permissive. They do not 
have to adopt the plan. But the Secretary of Labor would then be in a 
position to exercise her discretion, perhaps, if it was plain that the 
PBGC had the authority. It is permissible only.
  I go into some detail with the background of the opinions that they 
do have the authority because the whole statutory structure has been 
set up to keep these plans going, to have reasonable premiums, and to 
have the plans pay benefits. What the PBGC has said is that it cannot 
do it while everyone really agrees it ought to be done.
  Mr. ALLEN. Madam President, I want to make it clear, the Senator 
states that the pilots union, all labor, all management, are in 
agreement with this amendment to try to help save this airline and help 
save those jobs and the service to the communities that are served by 
US Airways; is that correct?
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, that is correct. The leader of the 
pilots association, the national president, testified Tuesday in favor 
of the plan and in favor of this legislation. The president of the 
pilots association of US Airways in Pittsburgh testified in favor. The 
president of US Airways, David Siegel, told me again today that he was 
very appreciative of my pushing this matter, that it would be very 
helpful to US Airways.
  Mr. ALLEN. One final question. This applies only to this agreement 
that has

[[Page S1343]]

to do with US Airways, labor and management. It should not have any 
impact whatsoever on any other airline; is that correct?
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, the Senator from Virginia is correct. 
It has never been tailored to set a precedent or open any portals for 
any other situation in order to eliminate or obviate the argument that 
others can rush in.
  Madam President, when I pressed the general counsel and the executive 
director of the PBGC for any public policy reason not to do this, they 
had no reason.
  I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Kilberg's testimony be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 Excerpt of William Kilberg's Testimony

       Senator Specter. Mr. Kilberg, you've heard the testimony of 
     Mr. Keightley. What is your analysis and conclusion of it?
       Mr. Kilberg. I have a great deal of respect for Mr. 
     Keightley, but both Mr. Ford and I disagree with his opinion, 
     the restoration or the authority to restore a plan, as stated 
     in Section 4047. And while Mr. Ford was general counsel to 
     PBGC, I have had the honor of being solicitor of the 
     Department of Labor, and I was solicitor in 1974, when the 
     statute was passed and the initial restoration authority 
     language was put in.
       It is very, very broad. It allows the PBGC to restore a 
     plan when it is to be terminated or is in the process of 
     termination. So a plan does not actually have to have been 
     terminated in order to have it restored.
       The Supreme Court has had an opportunity to look at this 
     language in one case, the LTV case, the only instance where 
     there's been a plan restoration, and in that decision, the 
     court said that a plan can be restored when restoration would 
     further the interest that Title IV of ERISA is designed to 
     protect.
       When we look at the interest as set forth in the statute, 
     the preamble to the statute, it is really just--just three. 
     It is to keep premiums at a reasonable level and to keep 
     plans going and paying benefits. And it was our conclusion 
     that, in this instance, a plan termination and a restoration 
     funding schedule which allowed a 30-year period of 
     amortization would do precisely that.
       The PBGC and Mr. Keightley, in his opinion, says that 
     funding relief is not a proper purpose. I can't disagree with 
     that, but I would assert, respectfully, that it is a proper 
     method permitted by the statute in order to achieve the 
     statutory objectives of maintenance of plans and their 
     benefits and to keep PBGC premiums at a reasonable level.
       That's basically the sum and substance of our disagreement. 
     There's relatively little case law. You will note that Mr. 
     Keightley's opinion doesn't cite any. There's just the LTV 
     decision. But we believe that that, combined with the 
     language of the statute and its purposes, would support the 
     argument that the PBGC has discretion to work out a 
     restoration funding schedule if it chose to do so with an 
     employer like U.S. Air that is in bankruptcy, where there is 
     no question but that a distress termination would be 
     appropriate, where it is able to fund those benefits over 
     time, and, frankly, where it has received unprecedented 
     concessions from its unions, giving up going-forward benefits 
     that make the ability to fund this plan over time a great 
     likelihood.
       Senator Specter. Would you amplify your analysis of the one 
     decision by the Supreme Court of the United States on this 
     general area, which signifies to you the Supreme Court's 
     interpretation of legislative intent and the public policy in 
     this matter?
       Mr. Kilberg. Well, in LTV it was LTV's decision to create a 
     follow-on plan which mirrored the plan that it had terminated 
     that caused the PBGC to first take the position that the 
     termination was a sham and then to insist that it could 
     restore the plan to LTV and create a new funding schedule.
       That case was hotly litigated. It went to the Supreme 
     Court, and the Supreme Court interpreted the statute to give 
     the PBGC an extraordinarily broad grant of discretion, as I 
     indicated, to restore a plan when restoration would further 
     the interest that Title IV of ERISA is designed to protect.
       The court went further and said that in carrying out this 
     specific and what it called an unambiguous statutory mandate, 
     the PBGC is not required to focus on the policies and goals 
     of other statutes. In other words, one of the arguments that 
     LTV was making was that because of the Internal Revenue code 
     and other statutes, the PBGC could not exercise its authority 
     to restore the plan and to impose a funding requirement upon 
     LTV. The court said that PBGC, in fact, has that very, very 
     broad authority.
       Senator Specter. Mr. Keightley, would you care to comment 
     on Mr. Kilberg's testimony?
       Mr. Keightley. First, I'd like to comment that the Supreme 
     Court, contrary to the trial court as well as the Court of 
     Appeals, deferred to the interpretation of the PBGC as to 
     what a statutory authority was in that particular case. And 
     that particular case was not at all analogous to the 
     situation. In that case, the LTV plans had been terminated in 
     order to avoid shut-down benefits. After that took place, the 
     unions and management agreed to, basically, pension plans 
     that made retirees, as I understand and read the opinions, 
     one-hundred percent whole and many of the others 
     substantially whole, with the PBGC paying the basic benefits, 
     and then they made up the rest in this, what we would call an 
     abusive follow-on plan. So they were letting us absorb their 
     pension cost; and, to the extent you view that as a labor 
     cost. That is completely--and the court said we had the 
     authority to construe the restoration authority in that 
     context.
       In my view, that has no connection with the current 
     situation at all. I would say that they said we had broad 
     authority in interpreting our statute in order to come to 
     that result, but they deferred to our interpretation and 
     agreed with us. And, as I say, I just don't see taking that 
     language. There are limits to what I think we can do under 
     that statute, and I think you folks are, you know, U.S. Air 
     folks are asking us to go beyond that.
       I might point out that there is no question that the 
     purpose, reading from the joint opinion, of the termination 
     restoration, is to provide funding relief for U.S. Airways 
     and pension plans. There's just no question about that. And 
     so, again, we think Congress addressed that issue, told 
     everybody who had that authority, limited the waivers. If you 
     remember the waivers in the IRS context are, you get to waive 
     it and spread the funding over, say, five years, I believe, 
     much shorter period of time.
       So Congress has addressed that issue and built that limited 
     waiver provision into ERISA, and that's how I get to the 
     conclusion that PBGC does not have that statutory authority, 
     and other government agencies only have a very limited 
     statutory authority, which U.S. Air has advised us does not 
     meet their needs financially.
       Senator Specter. While there's no doubt that the LTV case 
     is very different factually, your response doesn't really go 
     to the basic point that Mr. Kilberg made with respect to the 
     Supreme Court's determination that the PBGC has broad 
     authority and broad discretion to interpret the statute. Do 
     you disagree with Mr. Kilberg's statement as to the Supreme 
     Court's decision in that respect?
       Mr. Keightley. We have broad authority within the statutory 
     limits.
       Senator Specter. Well, do you think if you made a finding, 
     as Mr. Kilberg says you have the authority to do so, if that 
     was your decision within your broad discretion, that that 
     would be upheld by the Supreme Court?
       Mr. Keightley. I do not believe--if the purpose was the 
     termination, to provide funding relief for U.S. Airways, I do 
     not believe the Supreme Court, or for that matter, any other 
     court, would uphold that position.
       Mr. Kilberg. I do.
       Senator Specter. Senator Santorum, anything further?
       Mr. Keightley. One last point. I might point out that in 
     the bankruptcy proceedings in response to our opposition to 
     their termination restoration, they have abandoned that 
     position and are now pursuing legislative relief plus a 
     termination, and we intend to be working with them on some 
     other solution. But at this time, they're not pushing that, 
     and litigating it in the bankruptcy court is the point.
       Mr. Kilberg. With all due respect to Mr. Keightley, no one 
     questions that the PBGC has discretion. The PBGC does not 
     have to agree to terminate a plan. The PBGC does not have to 
     agree to restore a plan. It certainly does not have to agree 
     to a particular restoration funding schedule if it does 
     decide to restore a plan. So this is all within the agency's 
     discretion, and we respect the agency's decision in this 
     regard. There's not much choice about it. We wouldn't have 
     standing to raise a complaint, bankruptcy court or anywhere 
     else.
       Senator Santorum. Because what you would raise is they have 
     the discretion, so you certainly can litigate something where 
     you're saying they have discretion and then argue that you 
     abuse--I guess you could argue they abused the discretion.
       Mr. Kilberg. Well, that would be a very difficult argument. 
     Certainly the PBGC has policy reasons. We may not agree with 
     them, but that doesn't mean that their use of discretion for 
     them to assert them.
       Mr. Keightley. I continue to say we don't believe it is a 
     discretionary area when the sole purpose is altering the 
     funding. That's the purpose--that's the reason we're being 
     asked for this, and that is beyond our statutory 
     authority. There may be other areas where we have 
     discretion that is within that authority, but it doesn't 
     extend this far.
       Senator Santorum. Do you agree that that's the purpose?
       Mr. Kilberg. No. I mean, that's the method, obviously. And 
     I had the same point, Senator, that you had earlier, the 
     confusion between a restoration funding schedule and a waiver 
     of funding.
       A waiver of funding is a term of art. It does go to the 
     Internal Revenue Service. There are very, very strict 
     limitations. They would not help U.S. Air in this instance. 
     They're really not for this purpose. What we're looking for, 
     clearly, is something far more creative, but something we 
     believe that, if it could be achieved, would help U.S. Air to 
     come out of bankruptcy and would serve the interest of its 
     employees as well as the company.
       Mr. Keightley. May I read one sentence for the record from 
     the December 13th memorandum signed by Mr. Kilberg? ``The 
     purpose''----
       Senator Specter. Where are you reading from?
       Mr. Keightley. I'm reading from the December 13th memo of 
     Mr. Kilberg and Mr. Ford.

[[Page S1344]]

       Senator Specter. I understand that, but where from the 
     memo?
       Mr. Keightley. Oh, in the first paragraph. ``The purpose of 
     the termination restoration''--I underscore ``purpose''--``is 
     to provide funding relief for U.S. Airways' pension plans.''
       Senator Santorum. Mr. Kilberg?
       Senator Specter. Well, there's no doubt about that, is 
     there?
       Mr. Kilberg. There's no doubt, there is no doubt about 
     that, but that is our purpose. The question earlier was 
     ``purpose under the statute.'' They said that that was not a 
     purpose under the statute. When we use the term ``purpose,'' 
     we're using it as a method. That's the method that we 
     thought----
       Senator Santorum. To accomplish what purpose under the 
     statute?
       Mr. Kilberg. To accomplish a purpose under the statute that 
     would, from the PBGC's standpoint, that would maintain 
     premiums, and from the company employees' standpoint that 
     would restore the plan and would allow the employees to 
     obtain the benefits under the plan. Those are the statutory 
     purposes.
       We used the term ``purpose'' here--we weren't talking about 
     statutory purpose; we were talking about our purpose.
       Senator Santorum. Mr. Keightley, is the purpose, is the 
     method by which Mr. Kilberg has suggested U.S. Airways wants 
     to achieve its purposes proscribed by the statute?
       Mr. Keightley. Yes, it's beyond our statutory authority, 
     whether it's a method or a purpose.
       Senator Santorum. Is it proscribed by the statute . . .

  Mr. SPECTER. Anyone can examine the record. There was simply no 
public policy reason given. When I talked about this to my colleagues, 
the argument has been raised, well, it is complicated. Well, we have 
not had hearings before the other committees. We had a very extensive 
hearing before the subcommittee on labor in the Appropriations 
Committee. I say, this is win-win-win all the way around.
  Mr. President, how much time remains on my side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The Senator has 14 minutes 32 
seconds.
  Mr. SPECTER. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I will yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Mississippi.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding this time.
  I understand what the Senator from Pennsylvania is trying to do here, 
but I am concerned that the Finance Committee has not had a chance to 
look into this issue, the impact on the Pension Benefit Guaranty 
Corporation. Neither has the Commerce Committee. I am also concerned 
about the precedent that is being set here.
  It is a rifleshot for one company. The other companies would like to 
have this same opportunity, perhaps. They are all involved in this 
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. It may be permissive, as was 
pointed out, I believe, by the Senator from Virginia. But if this 
company, US Airways, does not make it in the end, as I understand it, 
the other companies that pay into this benefit plan will be responsible 
for covering the losses. Whether or not that is accurate, I am not 
positive what the impact would be. So that has been my concern, as I 
expressed to the Senator earlier today.
  It may have some merit. We may even want to look at setting this 
precedent. But I don't think we have yet fully thought it through, and 
I am concerned we may be making a mistake here that could cause 
tremendous additional damage to the rest of the aviation industry.
  I am going to be working with Senator McCain, Senator Hutchison, and 
Senator Rockefeller on this issue this year. We need to take a serious 
look at aviation as a whole, not only the airlines but labor, 
obviously--their needs. How we deal with their pensions, what we do 
about security, the costs they are faced with. It is going to take some 
time to do this. To do this one rifleshot at this time, I would have to 
raise questions about it.
  I would like to be able to work with the Senator from Pennsylvania 
because I know how committed he is to doing the right thing for the men 
and women who work for this company, but I express my reservation at 
this time on this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, it is fine to talk about working this out 
this year, but that will be too late, and the pilots will then have 25 
percent of their pensions remaining. We talked to the Finance Committee 
two weeks ago about scheduling a hearing in January. No hearing has 
been scheduled for the Finance Committee during the month of January, 
as was anticipated. When the Senator from Mississippi makes a point 
that the other airlines will have to pay the pensions of US Airways 
pilots, that is precisely what is going to happen if this plan is not 
adopted. The PBGC is going to have to pay the pension benefits. So, at 
worst, if US Airways does not succeed, in any event, PBGC will be no 
worse off if this is adopted than if US Airways fails.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I have strong concerns about the very 
narrow manner in which this provision is written. In general, I am not 
in favor of legislating in a way that deals with one specific company. 
Furthermore, as a member of the Senate Committee on Finance and the 
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation, I regret that 
this matter was not considered via the normal committee process. I hope 
that we can have a broad discussion in the days ahead about ways to 
address pension issues at struggling companies. Despite these concerns, 
however, I am supporting the amendment of the senior Senator from 
Pennsylvania, particularly since this provision will place no 
additional burden on the American taxpayer. I also support its goal of 
protecting employees' pensions. Furthermore, this provision is 
important to US Airways' effort to secure a loan from the Air 
Transportation Stabilization Board. As a critical provider of air 
service to West Virginia, I am committed to doing everything I can to 
ensure US Airways' long-term viability.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me 2 minutes?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.
  Mr. McCAIN. I have the same concerns as articulated by the chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Aviation of the Commerce Committee, Senator 
Lott. I know he and I would both be willing to look into this 
situation.
  We are in great sympathy for the entire airline industry. United 
Airlines is in bankruptcy. They have similar problems.
  As far as this giving any leeway is concerned, it says right here:

       . . . funding rules [for certain plans] shall apply for any 
     plan year beginning after December 31, 2002, in the case of a 
     defined benefit plan. . . .

  Then it goes on to describe USAir.
  Then later on it says:

       . . . the minimum funding requirements under this paragraph 
     shall be the requirements. . . .

  This is clearly a mandate. There is no flexibility in this. We all 
know what ``shalls'' mean in appropriations bills.
  I am in sympathy for the entire airline industry. That is why the 
first hearing we had in the Commerce Committee was on the status of the 
airline industry. CEOs of these industries came before us. They are in 
bad shape. They are in very bad shape. They are hemorrhaging hundreds 
of millions of dollars every year.
  USAir is in bankruptcy. United is in bankruptcy. Others border on 
bankruptcy. This needs to be viewed in the context of the entire 
airline industry. As much sympathy as I have for USAir, I don't think 
we can do something such as this at this particular time on an omnibus 
appropriations bill.
  I want to commit to the Senator from Pennsylvania, I appreciate his 
dedication to the people of Pittsburgh and to the people who are 
employed by USAir, and I look forward to working with him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Specter 
amendment. I understand, just listening to the Senator from Arizona, 
that this is a complex issue and there are a lot of carriers involved 
in bankruptcies or financial distress. For this carrier timing is the 
issue. They have to file this complete reorganization by the end of 
March.

[[Page S1345]]

  We have a situation where hearings and study by the Commerce 
Committee, Finance Committee, HELP Committee--whatever--are great for 
looking at the overall picture of pensions and what we are going to do 
with funding of distressed plans, but that doesn't solve the problem of 
US Airways. US Airways went about solving their own problem, and they 
did so by working in a very aggressive fashion with a labor union that 
is most involved, which is the pilots, and got enormous concessions. 
They got enormous concessions from the pilots union, in this case, to 
dramatically reduce their pension benefits in order for the airline to 
survive.
  This was actually a model of labor-management cooperation. They came 
to the administration believing--as Senator Specter has outlined, 
justifiably so--because their counsel, who is a former PBGC lawyer, 
suggested they had the discretion to do so--they could get this plan 
approved. That is because it was a model of how to restructure a 
pension plan to: No. 1, provide a reduction of expenses to allow the 
company to go forward and emerge from bankruptcy--and that is what this 
plan does; it reduces US Airways' expenses to allow them to emerge from 
bankruptcy; No. 2, provide the best possible compensation for a pilots 
union, for pilots who obviously have very good benefits, but they were 
willing to take a hit, but not as much as would be the case if the PBGC 
took over the plan. So it was a good compromise; and, No. 3--and this 
is something our colleagues should be concerned about--it doesn't cost 
the Federal Government any money. If the PBGC takes over the plan--if 
the plan is terminated and the PBGC takes over this plan, it is a half 
a billion dollars. That is what is going to be the cost if we don't 
agree to this amendment and don't give the administration the 
flexibility to adopt the US Airways-pilots union agreement.
  So we have here a situation where we would be encouraging positive 
cooperation between labor and management; saving the Federal Government 
money; and, according to the provisions we enacted here after 9/11, 
where airlines effectively were eligible for these loan guarantees but 
we wanted to be sure if these guarantees were given, the companies 
would do the things necessary to run a good financial operation, US 
Airways has dramatically reduced their costs at the direction of the 
board we set up to help stabilize the airlines.
  So US Airways has done everything we would want a company to do: 
Reduce costs to make them competitive; get agreements with their labor 
unions to reduce costs but at the same time not in a draconian way; and 
save the Federal Government money. The administration has come back and 
said: That may be all well and good, but we don't have the authority to 
do this and we just don't think it is good policy. But even if we did 
think it was good policy, we don't have the authority to do it.
  Fine. This amendment gives them the authority to do it. It doesn't 
force them to do it.
  So I say to my colleagues who suggest what we are doing here is 
opening Pandora's box by allowing other companies to come in under this 
USAir exemption, all this does is give them the flexibility to deal 
with this situation. It doesn't force them to adopt the US Airways 
proposal.
  So I think this is a prudent step. It is in response to the PBGC 
saying they do not have the authority. I am not sure--and I don't know 
whether Senator Specter has commented on this--whether they would even 
exercise that authority if this amendment is agreed to. But what it 
does is it gives them the opportunity, or hopefully the incentive, to 
relook at their decision based on the facts as to what would be in the 
best interests of the fund, the people who actually contribute to the 
pension system. So it is not taxpayers' dollars but it is employee 
contributions.
  So it would, in fact, be beneficial, I believe, saving money, 
encouraging labor-management cooperation, and encouraging companies, 
airlines in particular, to restructure in a way that is going to give 
them the chance to be profitable over the long term.
  That is a win-win-win for us. Hopefully, we will be successful in 
agreeing to Senator Specter's amendment.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 8 minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in response to the arguments raised by 
the Senator from Arizona, he points out the ``shalls'' in the pending 
amendment. But each of the ``shalls'' relate to preexisting obligations 
under which the PBGC can put this plan into effect. The two ``shalls'' 
in subsection (2)(A) say that ``the minimum funding requirements under 
this paragraph shall be the requirements set forth in Treasury 
Regulation.'' So it establishes the funding in accordance with existing 
regulations. What it does not say is that the PBGC has to put the plan 
into effect.
  The later provision under (B)(i) says that ``the plan shall be 
treated as having met the requirements of Treasury Regulation,'' and 
specifies the technical compliance. But it does not in any way require 
that the PBGC has to carry this plan forward.
  Let me add as cosponsors Senators Warner, Allen, Dole, Clinton, and 
Senator Santorum, whom I believe I should have mentioned earlier as an 
original cosponsor to the bill.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute of my 2 minutes to the 
Senator from Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this is the same issue which the Senator 
from Arizona raised not too long ago. It has serious deficiencies: No. 
1, that it only applies, as I understand it, to one carrier and not to 
other carriers, which on its face raises many serious questions.
  No. 2, I said to the Senator from Pennsylvania at that time, if I 
were in the position to influence whether we would have hearings on 
this subject in the near future, I would certainly do so. Time has 
passed. We have a new chairman of the Finance Committee. But I still 
hold the same view; namely, that we should have a good opportunity to 
address this issue more broadly and more fairly and deal with other 
airlines that face, to some degree, the same issues; otherwise, this is 
a single-shot amendment. It is unfair to other airlines. We should have 
more time to consider the right way to deal with this issue.
  I respectfully urge Senators not to adopt this amendment so we can 
more appropriately deal with the matter at an appropriate time.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself the 1 minute remaining. 
At the end of the time being used up, I will make a motion to table. I 
will not do that yet.
  But I want to reiterate what my colleague from Montana said; that 
this is a problem bigger than USAir and requires the time of our 
committee to work on it. The statistic the distinguished chairman of 
the Appropriations Committee gave me is that there are about 125 
companies in one shape or another that are working in unison to try to 
find a global solution. So taking care of the situation for US Airways 
ought to be taken care of in conjunction with the issues that other 
companies have before the Congress instead of using a rifleshot. This 
is within the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee. Nothing has 
been said about those left, but the chairman of the Senate 
Appropriations Committee is trying to write an appropriations bill that 
would avoid the blue slip problem with the House of Representatives.
  So this has a lot of problems. We have to deal with it in the 
committee.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, could I ask a question of Senator 
Specter? Do we have time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Specter will have to yield time.
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have a very simple question. If in 
fact this amendment is agreed to, and let us assume the next step is 
that the board grants it--although you were saying that is optional, 
let us assume it is granted--do the other airlines have a chance of 
losing money as far as that fund is concerned now or in the future 
because of this incident?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico for 
his question. The answer is they do not have any chance of losing money 
unless you say the competitors of US Airways stay in flight. But that 
is very

[[Page S1346]]

much in the competitive interest of the United States.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I should have said other than they will retain a 
competitor.
  Mr. SPECTER. They lose absolutely nothing.
  Mr. DOMENICI. If you have to extend the program in terms of the 
payoff, does that mean it takes care of itself and that United Airlines 
money put into that plan takes care of that, not the other airlines? 
The other airlines don't pay for it in any way?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, that is exactly correct. It is the money 
of US Airways paid over a longer period of time which meets the 
obligations to the pension. The other side of that coin is if the plan 
is not adopted, PBGC has to pay the pensions.
  I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator. I want to make a point, too, that 
this is not a pension fund that has been underfunded for a long period 
of time. This isn't like a lot of the industries that have been in bad 
shape for years. I believe this pension fund is overfunded as recently 
as 2\1/2\ years ago. So this is not a chronically bad pension fund that 
all of a sudden is now coming into bankruptcy and asking for help. This 
is a fund that has been dramatically affected by two things: No. 1, 
obviously, September 11. One can make the argument that no other 
airline was affected more by 9/11 than US Airways. Why? Because they 
closed the most profitable place they operate--Reagan National Airport. 
Who did that? The Federal Government. They closed their most profitable 
center at Reagan National Airport for an extended period of time--the 
place that was the most effective with air travellers for US Airways. 
That is where the traveling fell off most dramatically. That had a huge 
impact on their ability to pay into their pension. No. 2, obviously the 
decline in the market.
  The ``perfect storm,'' if you will, hit US Airways and put them in a 
particularly bad situation. And for them to come to the PBGC and say: 
Look, this is not a long-term problem, this is a problem that happened 
which is a very unusual event. Give us an opportunity to work ourselves 
out of the hole.
  Mr. SPECTER. Would my colleague yield for a question? How much longer 
is he going to take?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I just wanted to know if the Senator from Pennsylvania 
agrees.
  Mr. SPECTER. Take another minute.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I wanted to know if the Senator from Pennsylvania 
happened to agree with my analysis.
  Mr. SPECTER. Absolutely.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SPECTER. No. I don't have enough time, I regret to say. Let me 
make a concluding argument. If time remains, I will yield for a 
question from the Senator from Montana.
  We have heard this business of a single shot. That is what we do 
around here. We fire single shots. We have a problem, and we try to 
structure legislation to answer the problem. We should fire single 
shots.
  The most fascinating part about this argument today is that not one 
public policy argument has been advanced against this proposition. 
Nobody has said this is bad public policy. They have said that it is 
the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. Senator Santorum and I were 
on this floor on January 9 asking unanimous consent to take up the 
bill, and the Senator from Montana, then the chairman, and the Senator 
from Iowa, then the ranking member now reversed, said we will try to 
give you a hearing in January. No hearing has been scheduled. We went 
ahead in the Appropriations Committee. We heard from the executive 
director of the PBGC and the general counsel. They had not one public 
policy argument to advance against what we have said.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield on that very point 
about the public policy argument?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute.
  Mr. SPECTER. Twenty seconds.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Will the Senator agree, strong public policy, which this 
body has adopted, is that a company does not borrow from their pension 
funds for their own corporate purposes? That is a strong public policy 
point.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, has the time expired?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the business about borrowing from the 
pension plan is a purple herring. It does not even rise to the level of 
being a red herring. Nobody has said anything about borrowing from the 
pension plan.
  Here we have an amendment which is a rifleshot to protect the 
pensions of thousands of pilots. Otherwise, the PBGC is going to have 
to pay out money. This jurisdictional business does not have any 
standing when the equities are so strong in favor of this amendment.
  Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty seconds.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in summation, I believe the arguments are 
overwhelmingly in favor of this amendment. I am joined by Senator 
Santorum, Senator Warner, Senator Allen, Senator Dole and Senator 
Clinton.
  A beneficial question was asked by Senator Domenici. We deal in 
rifleshots. We deal in protecting our constituents. And Pennsylvania 
has a big constituent interest, but so does America. This is the 
country's sixth biggest airline.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I move to table this amendment and ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. 
Feinstein), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the Senator from Hawaii 
(Mr. Inouye), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the 
Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 64, nays 31, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 18 Leg.]

                                YEAS--64

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (FL)
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Reid
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Wyden

                                NAYS--31

     Allen
     Biden
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Collins
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Gregg
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Reed
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kerry
     Lieberman
  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.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Durbin be allowed to call up an amendment which we will accept and then 
Senator McCain call up an amendment which we will accept. We are 
working on a unanimous consent request and, if it is accepted, there 
will be no more votes tonight. We have not quite gotten that straight 
yet. We cannot announce that yet. As soon as we get this unanimous 
consent request adopted, we will be able to make that announcement.

[[Page S1347]]

  For the time being, does the Senator have a time limit on his 
amendment?
  Mr. DURBIN. Five minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. Five minutes on the Durbin amendment. How much time on 
the McCain amendment?
  Mr. McCAIN. Senator Kyl and I would both like 15 minutes, if that is 
agreeable.
  Mr. STEVENS. Each?
  Mr. McCAIN. Ten each.
  Mr. STEVENS. Ten each.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Alaska, I note 
the presence of my colleague, Senator DeWine, who would also like 5 
minutes. A total of 10 minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. Fifteen minutes for Senator Durbin and Senator DeWine, 
and 20 minutes for Senator McCain and Senator Kyl--10 minutes each for 
Senator Kyl and Senator McCain. Is that agreeable?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. STEVENS. After which we will accept the amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. And that no amendments be in order to these amendments. 
I ask there be no amendments in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                           Amendment No. 127

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I express my gratitude to my colleague and 
cosponsor of this amendment, Senator DeWine from Ohio. It has been a 
bipartisan effort from the start, and we would not be at this 
successful moment without him. I thank him from the bottom of my heart 
for his dedication to this cause. I particularly thank the Senator from 
Alaska. He led the effort to fund the first effort to deal with the 
AIDS epidemic. I salute him for his leadership.
  I call up amendment No. 127.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for himself, Mr. 
     DeWine, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Murray, 
     Mr. Schumer, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Kohl, Mrs. Clinton, 
     Mr. Biden, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Edwards, Mr. 
     Lautenberg, Mr. Coleman, Ms. Collins, Mr. Brownback, Mr. 
     Smith, Mrs. Dole, Mr. Specter, and Ms. Snowe, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 127.

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

 (Purpose: To provide an additional amount for funding global HIV/AIDS 
                               programs)

       On page 311, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:


                 united states agency for international

                              development

                child survival and health programs fund

             additional amount for global hiv/aids programs

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For an additional amount to carry out the provisions of 
     chapters 1 and 10 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961, for child survival, health, and family planning/
     reproductive health activities, $180,000,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2004: Provided, That of such 
     amount, not less than $100,000,000 shall be made available 
     for a United States contribution to the Global Fund to Fight 
     AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (in addition to amounts made 
     available for contribution to such Fund under any other 
     provision of this Act): Provided, further, That, of the 
     additional amount appropriated under this heading, up to 
     $25,000,000 (not to be derived from the amount made available 
     for contribution under the preceding proviso) may be 
     transferred to (and upon transfer shall be merged with) 
     amounts appropriated for the Department of Health and Human 
     Services for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
     for disease control, research, and training under title II of 
     division G of this Act, which shall be made available for 
     child survival, maternal health, and other disease programs 
     and development activities to prevent, treat, care for, and 
     address the impact and consequences of HIV/AIDS: Provided, 
     further, That not more than seven percent of the total amount 
     appropriated under this heading may be made available for 
     administrative costs of departments and agencies of the 
     United States that carry out programs for which funds are 
     appropriated under this heading, but funds made available for 
     such costs may not to be derived from amounts made available 
     for contribution and transfer under the preceding provisos.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
Senators be added as cosponsors of the amendment: Senators Clinton, 
Biden, Landrieu, Corzine, Edwards, Coleman, Collins, Brownback, Smith, 
Dole, Specter, and Snowe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I will speak briefly to the substance of 
this amendment.
  This amendment adds $180 million to the U.S. effort to fight the 
global AIDS epidemic. I believe future generations will judge our work 
by many standards. One of the first tests of public service will be 
what we did to respond to the most devastating epidemic in history. The 
challenge of global AIDS is a challenge to each and every one of us 
blessed with good health, a bountiful life, and a conscience. Today, 
with this amendment, the United States will increase its spending on 
the global AIDS crisis by 50 percent over last year's level. With these 
dollars, children will not be orphaned, communities will have hope, and 
we will extend a hand to help the least of our brothers and sisters.
  Now we turn to the world community and ask that they join us, 
increasing their commitment with the United States to this struggle, 
showing our mutual resolve to commit the resources, the energy, and the 
leadership to save a world at risk.
  I am hoping that by the end of this week, Senator DeWine, Senator 
Graham of Florida, and a few others will be able to make a trip with me 
to visit Haiti. As far as my experience is concerned, it is the first 
time--Senator DeWine has been there many times--to see that the AIDS 
epidemic is not across the ocean, it is in our backyard. It is in every 
part of this world. It threatens us from every direction. Once one has 
seen it face to face, they will never, ever be the same.
  Two years ago, I went to Africa and saw it myself. I saw it in 
Uganda, where I sat on a porch with mothers who were HIV positive, who 
were gathering scrapbooks, photos, notes, and little memorabilia of 
their lives to leave to their children who were in the yard playing, 
children who had been orphaned already, losing one parent, and were 
about to lose their second parent.
  There are 42 million AIDS victims worldwide, most of them in sub-
Saharan Africa. When one meets these victims, sees their courage, and 
sees what little it takes to fight this AIDS epidemic successfully, as 
they have in Uganda and a few other countries, they realize that our 
leadership and our commitment at this moment in history can make such a 
difference.
  The United States has again shown leadership with this amendment. I 
thank Senator Stevens and my colleagues in the Senate for joining what 
I consider to be a historic moment. We have made a commitment on behalf 
of our country, which we hope others in the world will join, and in so 
doing, I believe we can catch, and I hope apprehend, this epidemic 
before it is out of control, bringing peace and joy to the minds of 
many who today are suffering around the world.
  I thank my colleague Senator DeWine. It has been a genuine joy to 
work with him on this. I thank him for his commitment.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dodd be added as a cosponsor of 
this amendment as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague for adding me as a cosponsor. I 
commend my colleague from Illinois for taking the leadership on this 
effort. I also commend our colleagues on both sides of the aisle for 
endorsing and supporting this proposal.
  Over the last number of days, there have been rare occasions when we 
have found some common ground. At this late hour on Wednesday night, it 
is refreshing to know that on this matter, and I think eventually on 
the matter raised by Senator Nelson of Florida earlier, the issue of 
starvation and hunger, we will eventually find some common ground as 
well.
  The leadership of Senator Durbin is something that ought to make all 
of us proud as Members of this body that the United States can step up 
to the forefront and try to do everything we possibly can to alleviate 
the hardships

[[Page S1348]]

caused by this scourge. I commend him for his efforts. I thank others 
who have joined Senator Durbin as a cosponsor and thank Senator Stevens 
for his willingness to accept this amendment and to endorse it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise in the support of Senator Durbin 
and Senator DeWine's amendment to increase U.S. support for the fight 
against the HIV/AIDS pandemic. As a 10-year member of the Senate 
Subcommittee on African Affairs--and over half of those years have been 
as either the ranking minority member or the chairman--I have seen the 
terrible unfolding of the pandemic. I have read and repeated the 
numbing statistics that grow more horrifying every year. In 2002 alone, 
3.1 million people died of AIDS. Five million were infected with HIV 
over the course of the year, and 42 million people were living with the 
virus by the end of the year. Ten million children have been orphaned 
by AIDS, and that number is expected to quadruple in the next 10 years. 
And I have seen the reality of these statistics in individual faces; I 
have met with orphans, with the sick, with the dying, and with the 
mourning. And while most of my own experience with this disaster has 
been in the African context, this is not only an African problem. In 
India, China, Russia, and the countries of the Caribbean, the terrible 
statistics have begun their own march steadily upward as the pandemic 
is taking hold.
  The devastation is all the more appalling each year not just because 
the numbers grow, but because each year we have more tools at our 
disposal to fight this catastrophe. We know more about what works in 
terms of prevention and public awareness; we have improved treatment 
protocols and developed more effective methods for stopping the 
transmission of HIV from mother to child. But we still have not 
developed the will to scale up our activities and to use these tools on 
a grand scale.
  The world simply must do more. Whole communities are being gutted--
robbed of their core of productive adults. Whole societies--whole 
countries, even--are at risk. I urge my colleagues to consider the 
magnitude of the crisis, consider the human tragedy involved, consider 
the consequences of massive destabilization in the developing world, 
and to support this amendment. It is not going to solve the problem 
before us, but it is a step in the right direction, and we must take 
these steps at our every opportunity.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank Senator Durbin for the great work 
he has done. I thank Senator Dodd, Senator Coleman, and all of those 
who have worked on this bill to bring us to this point. I also thank 
Senator Ted Stevens for raising the amount of money that this bill 
originally had by $50 million, at our request. And then coming along, 
he brought this bill to the floor and agreed to this amendment. I am 
very grateful. He has been a leader in this area.
  I also thank the majority leader, Bill Frist, who has great vision in 
this area and great compassion as well. My colleague from Illinois has 
said it very well. When you travel to Africa or, as my wife Fran and I 
have, to Haiti, when you see these children, when you hold them, touch 
them, talk to the people who care for them, when you know these 
children whom you see or are holding in all likelihood many of them are 
going to die, it truly does change you forever. When you leave those 
countries and when you leave those children, you know you cannot just 
leave. You know you have to try to do something. That is an experience 
I had, it was an experience my wife Fran had, but we are not unique. I 
know my colleague Bill Frist has traveled to Africa. When he goes 
there, he can do much more than I can. He can work as a medical doctor. 
I know Senator Inhofe goes, as well as many other people, and they see 
this, and they come back. I have talked with so many of my colleagues.
  This amendment says to the world that the United States of America 
does not just care, does not just want to use its rhetoric, but that we 
are going to back that up with our dollars and that we are going to do 
something about it and that, as the richest country in the world, we 
are going to lead in this area. We are going to be a leader in the 
world.
  In the last several years, we have done a lot better. My colleague 
has said our spending level in this area has gone up significantly, and 
I compliment my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for that. 
With this amendment, we are upping that a lot more. It is $150 million 
more. That money goes a long way. That money can be used primarily in 
two significant ways. One is to help in the area of the transmission 
from mothers who have AIDS to their babies. It is an amazing statistic. 
We know, medical science tells us and the experts tell us, if we can 
reach these mothers early enough, before they give birth to that child 
who will have AIDS because the mom has AIDS, and get medical treatment 
to her and get the proper drugs to her that really cost comparatively 
little, we can save that child.
  Two out of three of the children who will be born, if the mother gets 
the appropriate drugs, will not have AIDS. Think of the savings in 
dollars and cents, let alone the human savings. We can do that. Yet 
children are being born every single day with AIDS who needlessly would 
not have to have AIDS.
  With the great plagues in Africa today and the great plagues in Haiti 
today, there are a number of children who are orphans. All throughout 
this little country of Haiti, there are thousands of orphans. Why? 
Because there are not the drugs to keep the parents alive. And that is 
transforming that little country of Haiti. For the next year, there 
will be just as many incidents of AIDS in Haiti, a country of 8 million 
people, as there will be in the entire United States of America. We can 
see this is a problem not just in sub-Saharan Africa, it is a problem 
in a country that is only a 1-hour flight from Miami.
  So this bill goes a long way to deal with this problem. It speaks 
volumes. It says we care and we are going to put our money where our 
mouth is. It is a step forward.
  It does not do everything, we have a long way to go, but I think it 
is a great bipartisan effort. I thank all of my colleagues for getting 
behind this. I thank Senator Stevens for accepting the amendment. I 
again pay tribute to Senator Durbin, who has been a real bulldog on 
this. I thank all of my colleagues who have really made a great 
commitment to it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I support this amendment and I congratulate 
my friend from Illinois, Senator Durbin. He has been a passionate, 
relentless advocate for increased funding to fight the horrific scourge 
of AIDS.
  The foreign operations portion of this omnibus appropriations bill 
contains $791 million for international programs to fight AIDS. That is 
a lot of money, and I applaud Senator McConnell, the chairman of the 
Foreign Operations Subcommittee, for including those funds, which is 
similar to the amount that was reported by the Appropriations Committee 
last July.
  It is a lot more than we were spending to combat AIDS just 2 or 3 
years ago. But think about it another way. The amount we expect to 
provide in 2003 on AIDS, which threatens the lives of each of the 
world's 6 billion people--is less than what my own State of Vermont, 
with a population of only 600,000 people, will spend on health care 
during that same period.
  So while the United States is doing more than ever, and we can point 
to successes in several countries such as Uganda, Thailand, and Brazil, 
the reality is that the AIDS pandemic is out of control.
  It is spreading faster, not slower. Forty million people are 
infected. Almost nobody is receiving treatment. Twenty five million 
people have died from AIDS-related causes, and at the current rate that 
number is expected to exceed 65 million by the year 2020.
  The reality is that despite everything we have done and are doing, we 
are failing miserably to control this pandemic. Until we develop a 
strategy that

[[Page S1349]]

matches the challenge, and until we start thinking in terms of 
billions, not millions, of dollars, we will continue to fail.
  The alternative is unthinkable, but it is by no means far-fetched. 
100 million deaths, 200 million, 400 million, this virus spreads 
exponentially and so does the cost of controlling it.
  Imagine waking up tomorrow morning and learning that every single 
man, woman, and child--every single person--in Miami, Minneapolis, 
Atlanta, Denver, Boston, Seattle, Washington, DC, New York City, Los 
Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, San Diego, Detroit, and Dallas 
combined had a virus for which there was no cure.
  That is the reality in Africa today. Every hour--hour, not day, not 
week not month, every hour--AIDS buries another 250 Africans.
  Within the next decade, at the current rate, more than 40 million 
children in Africa will lose one or both parents to AIDS.
  Many of these children will end up on the streets, turning to crime, 
drugs or prostitution, driving the rates of HIV even higher, 
perpetuating this vicious cycle.
  This is an enormous challenge for Africa, but it is an even greater 
challenge for the world.
  Every day, another 12,000 people are infected and millions more 
continue to suffer needlessly.
  In India,the infection rate is skyrocketing. In China, only 4 percent 
of the Chinese population even knows how AIDS is spread.
  It is a grim picture, but there is a great deal we can do. We do not 
have a cure for AIDS and there is no vaccine in sight, but we know how 
to protect ourselves from the HIV virus. We can provide basic care to 
the sick, and mobilize communities to support the growing number of 
AIDS orphans.

  We know how, for pennies a day, to treat the half of all AIDS 
patients who will otherwise die from the pneumonia, tuberculosis, or 
meningitis that prey upon weak immune systems. We have to get these 
drugs, as well as antiretroviral drugs which have been available in 
wealthy countries for years, to people in poor countries that need 
them.
  We know how to reduce the transmission of AIDS from mothers to 
children. We must also care for the mothers who are sick, because a 
young child without a mother in these countries cannot survive.
  We know all these things but, even so, we are failing. The disease is 
spreading out of control. What we lack, even after all these years, is 
a global plan.
  This administration, as the one before it and the one before that, 
has no plan for how to mount a global campaign to combat the most 
deadly virus in history. There is no strategy for dealing with 40 
million AIDS orphans, no strategy for getting treatment to the 40 
million people infected today, or the 50 million who will be infected 
in another 3 years, no strategy for expanding education and prevention 
programs on the scale that is called for.
  It is not enough to point to a few success stories, as important as 
they are. You have to look at the big picture. Despite everything we 
have done and are doing, we have failed miserably. This deadly pandemic 
is out of control, and the amount of money being spent is a pittance of 
what is needed.
  If we are going to conquer--or at least control--this disease, we 
need to think differently about it. It sounds cliche and it has 
probably been said many times before, but we need the health equivalent 
of the Manhattan Project or putting a man on the moon. We need to 
increase our investment not linearly but exponentially. Where we are 
spending millions we need to spend billions.
  Unless we start treating AIDS as a global health catastrophe, not 
just someone else's problem, we will face a far worse, and far more 
costly, crisis in the future.
  The world faces immense challenges--from global warming to the threat 
of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, to poverty on a vast 
scale. We cannot ignore any of challenges because they all affect the 
security of future generations of Americans.
  But when those same future generations look back at this time and 
place, I believe they will judge us, more than anything, on how we 
responded to AIDS. It is the most urgent, the most compelling, moral 
issue of our time.
  This amendment is a step, and an important one. I urge President 
Bush, who has shown real leadership in focusing our country and the 
world on combating terrorism, to think differently about AIDS. As 
serious a threat as international terrorism is, and we are spending 
many billions of dollars to protect ourselves from terrorists, measured 
by the number of victims it pales compared to AIDS.
  Last year, the White House opposed an earlier amendment by Senator 
Durbin, to provide $500 million in emergency funding to combat AIDS. 
Because of the White House's objection, that amendment was defeated. I 
hope we do not repeat that mistake today because if AIDS is not an 
emergency, nothing is.
  To those who would say we cannot afford the additional $180 million 
provided in this amendment, I say look at the past decade. Look at the 
past two decades. If we had only acted then. We could have saved tens 
of millions of lives and billions of dollars. Instead, there was 
monumental failure of leadership, and today we are facing costs that 
were unthinkable then.
  Have we learned nothing? I hope we have. Let us pass this amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join in support of the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Illinois, Senator Durbin, and by the 
Senator from Ohio, Senator DeWine, to provide urgently needed help in 
the international battle against AIDS, TB, and malaria.
  AIDS killed 3 million people last year, TB almost 2 million, and 
malaria killed more than 1 million, mostly children in Africa. These 
terrible diseases end lives, destroy families, undermine economies, and 
threaten the stability and progress of entire nations.
  AIDS, TB, and malaria rob poor countries of the workers they need to 
develop their economies. They lose teachers needed to combat illiteracy 
and train their workers for modern challenges. Africa has lost 7 
million farmers needed to meet the food needs of entire nations. These 
diseases plunge poor nations into even deeper, more desperate poverty.
  We must carry the fight against AIDS, TB, and malaria to every corner 
of the globe. And the Durbin-DeWine amendment would help the United 
States and the world to meet this extraordinary challenge.
  While we still seek a cure to AIDS, we have learned to help those 
infected by the virus to lead long and productive lives through the 
miracle of prescription drugs.
  But this disease knows no boundaries. It travels across borders to 
infect innocent people in every continent across the globe.
  We have an obligation to continue the fight against this disease at 
home. But we should also share what we have learned to help those in 
other countries in this life-and-death battle. And we must do all we 
can to provide new resources to help those who cannot afford today's 
therapies.
  As we sought to enforce child labor laws at home, we also worked to 
protect children abroad. As we developed new ways of promoting 
children's health and public health, we have shared these lifesaving 
discoveries with other countries in need.
  And once again, we are called upon to open the doors between nations 
to do all we can to halt the spread of AIDS, TB, and malaria, and to 
treat those infected by these deadly diseases.
  Twelve years ago, this country demonstrated its commitment to the 
care and treatment of Americans living with AIDS by passing the Ryan 
White Care Act. Since that time, community-based care has become more 
available, drug treatments have been developed that nearly double the 
life expectancy of HIV positive individuals, and public campaigns have 
increased awareness of the disease. Yet, advances such as these remain 
largely the privilege of wealthy nations.
  AIDS inflicts a particular toll on developing countries. Globally, 40 
million people have HIV/AIDS, and the overwhelming majority live in 
poor countries. Sub-Saharan Africa is the most affected region, where 
nearly all of the world's AIDS orphans live.
  Governments can make the difference in battling this epidemic.

[[Page S1350]]

Where governments in poor countries have been provided resources to 
fight the spread of AIDS, infection rates have dropped 80 percent. But 
these countries cannot turn the corner on AIDS on their own. Their 
governments must be provided the technical assistance and resources to 
carry out anti-AIDS campaigns. They need financial help to afford 
expensive antretroviral drugs. And drug companies must do their part to 
make these drugs more affordable to the poor.
  The challenges are great, but not insurmountable. The epidemic is in 
its early stages. In most regions of the world, the prevalence rate is 
still less than 1 percent of the population. But we cannot delay. It 
only took 10 years for the HIV/AIDS population to double in the Russian 
Federation. And in South Africa, the rate increased from 1 in 100 
people to 1 in 4 in one decade.
  The Durbin-DeWine amendment would help the United States and the 
world to meet the extraordinary challenges of AIDS, TB, and malaria. By 
supporting this amendment to increase the funding for bilateral AIDS 
prevention, care and treatment, as well as the United States commitment 
to the Global Fund, we will be helping to address the global public 
health crisis and maintain international stability.
  I thank Senator Durbin and Senator DeWine for offering the amendment, 
and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. DURBIN. I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Minnesota. I 
precede this by saying I was particularly touched by his decision to 
add his name as a cosponsor of this amendment. He is new in the Senate. 
I do not know him well. But he has made a fabulous first impression on 
me that he would stand up so early in his Senate career for such an 
important issue.
  I yield 2 minutes to the new Senator from Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from 
Illinois for yielding the floor and giving me this opportunity.
  Two weeks ago yesterday, I was sworn in as a Senator. This is the 
very first amendment I signed onto. I appreciate this opportunity.
  All too often, we talk about all politics being local, but there is a 
global aspect. We are touched by what happens around the world. The 
Jewish philosopher Maimonides said we each should view ourselves as if 
the world were held in balance and any single act of goodness on our 
part can tip the scales.
  The reality is the impact of this amendment will tip the scales again 
and again and again and it will change the world.
  As my colleague from Ohio discussed, we reach one mother, we save one 
child. I believe this is a national security issue. If we do not deal 
with the plague and the plight of AIDS, it will have a tremendous 
impact upon our security here.
  I believe this is a humanitarian issue. We are doing the right thing.
  I thank my colleague from Illinois for his leadership in helping me 
be part of doing what is right.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I conclude briefly by saying there are 
many people in this world who do not understand the United States of 
America. There are many people in this world who hate the United States 
of America. They do not understand who we are. They do not understand 
our values.
  Tonight, the Senate, with this small effort, is trying to say to the 
world that we care, we are part of this global community that wants to 
make this a better Earth, better for everyone to live on. I hope that 
some who judge us will judge us by what we have done tonight.
  I express my gratitude to all the Senators who have joined me in this 
effort, particularly Senator DeWine, in passing this important 
amendment. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If all time is yielded back, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Illinois.
  The amendment (No. 127) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DURBIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Could I ask the regular order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). The Senator is to be recognized 
to offer an amendment.


                            Amendment No. 54

  Mr. McCAIN. On behalf of Senator Kennedy, Senator Kyl, Senator 
Feinstein, and myself, I believe there is an amendment at the desk, and 
I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Mr. Kyl, for 
     himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. McCain, and Mr. 
     Feingold, proposes an amendment numbered 54.

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

      (Purpose: To make funds available for the Entry Exit System)

       On page 95, line 7, strike ``$3,076,509,000'' and insert 
     the following: ``$3,241,787,000: Provided, That of the amount 
     appropriated under this heading $80,200,000 shall be 
     available only for the Entry Exit System, to be managed by 
     the Justice Management Division: Provided further, That, of 
     the amounts made available in the preceding proviso, 
     $42,400,000 shall only be available for planning, program 
     support, environmental analysis and mitigation, real estate 
     acquisition, design and construction: Provided further, That 
     $25,500,000 shall only be available for an entry-exit system 
     pilot, including demonstration projects on the southern and 
     northern border, and $12,300,000 shall only be available for 
     system development: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     appropriated in this Act, or in Public Law 107-117, for the 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service's Entry Exit System 
     may be obligated until the INS submits a plan for expenditure 
     that: (1) meets the capital planning and investment control 
     review requirements established by the Office of Management 
     and Budget, including OMB Circular A-11, part 3; (2) complies 
     with the acquisition rules, requirements, guidelines, and 
     systems acquisition management practices of the Federal 
     Government; (3) is reviewed by the General Accounting Office; 
     and (4) has been approved by the Committees on 
     Appropriations: Provided further, That funds provided under 
     this heading shall only be available for obligation and 
     expenditure in accordance with the procedures applicable to 
     reprogramming notifications set forth in section 605 of 
     Public Law 107-77: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     made available by this Act shall be available for any 
     expenses relating to the National Security Entry-Exit 
     Registration System (NSEERS), and that the Attorney General 
     shall provide to the Committee on Appropriations all 
     documents and materials: (1) used in the creation of the 
     NSEERS program, including any predecessor programs; (2) 
     assessing the effectiveness of the NSEERS program as a tool 
     to enhance national security; (3) used to determine the scope 
     of the NSEERS program, including countries selected for the 
     program, and the gender, age, and immigration status of the 
     persons required to register under the program; (4) regarding 
     future plans to expand the NSEERS program to additional 
     countries, age groups, women, and persons holding other 
     immigration statuses not already covered; (5) explaining of 
     whether the Department of Justice consulted with other 
     federal agencies in the development of the NSEERS programs, 
     and if so, all documents and materials relating to those 
     consultations; (6) concerning policy directives or guidance 
     issued to officials about implementation of NSEERS, including 
     the role of the FBI in conducting national security 
     background checks of registrants; (7) explaining why certain 
     INS District Offices detained persons with pending status-
     adjustment applications; and (8) explaining how information 
     gathered during interviews of registrants will be stored, 
     used, or transmitted to other Federal, State, or local 
     agencies.''.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I join my friend, Senator Kyl, and thank 
him, Senator Kennedy, Senator Feinstein, and Senator Feingold. I also 
thank Senator Stevens for his agreement to this amendment which we 
think is a very important amendment.
  I understand that under the previous order, I have 10 minutes and the 
other Senator from Arizona has 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment restores $165 million, 
which was the level of funding requested by the President, to the INS 
for development and implementation of the exit-entry systems to be used 
at ports of entry across the United States.
  Before any of my colleagues might have an impression that somehow I 
am breaking some of my iron rules, the fact is this amount of money was 
requested by the President in the President's budget, so what Senator 
Kyl and

[[Page S1351]]

I are achieving here is the restoration of at least some of those funds 
for this very important program.
  This morning, on the front page of the Wall Street Journal:

       A Ranger's Death Shows New Hazards Of a Venerable Job. Law 
     Enforcement Has Become A Bigger Part of Duties; Some Bridle 
     at the Change. A Gunfight on the Border.
       Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Ariz.
       In the ovenlike afternoon heat last Aug. 9, Kris Eggle got 
     a call for help.
       Mexican police were chasing a truck that was about to cross 
     the poorly marked national border into this desert park. Mr. 
     Eggle, a 28-year-old park ranger, raced to the scene and 
     found the truck stuck in a dust-filled pothole on the U.S. 
     side. Several men spilled out and ran.
       Mr. Eggle spotted one of them trying to hide behind a bush. 
     He approached the suspect and prepared to arrest him, when 
     the man whipped out an AK-47 automatic rifle and fired.

  Mr. Eggle, a dedicated member of the U.S. Park Service, was killed in 
that encounter. He is the fourth park ranger to be killed in recent 
times as we are experiencing an increasing level of violence on our 
southern border.
  We are in a crisis on our southern border--not just Arizona, but 
Arizona, unfortunately, is experiencing a majority of these problems 
because there have been crackdowns in California and in Texas, which 
has then funneled people up through Arizona.
  This is a tragedy--a tragedy. Last year, 320 illegal immigrants died 
in the desert of Arizona trying to get across, usually exploited by 
unscrupulous coyotes, as they are called, who brought them across the 
border and said, ``Tucson is right over the next hill,'' and left them 
to die in the desert of Arizona.
  By the way, the motivation of those who died, I am sure, was simply 
to get a job so they could feed their families. The ones with the drug 
smugglers and the coyotes and the bad people, they don't starve in the 
desert because they know how to survive and they know where to go. 
Innocent people are dying every day in the deserts of Arizona and 
across this Nation. These innocent people, very frankly, are coming 
here because they want a better life in the United States. That is the 
same reason my ancestors came here and any of us who are not Native 
Americans.
  There is a crisis in health care in Arizona. Emergency rooms are 
being shut down. Over $100 million in medical expenses was incurred by 
the State of Arizona last year because of medical services paid for by 
illegal immigrants. Senator Kyl will talk about the fact that it is the 
INS people who are waving medical emergencies across the border. That 
is a Federal responsibility. It is not a State responsibility. It is a 
Federal responsibility. Enforcement of our border is a Federal 
responsibility.

  Do you know what else is happening? An interesting and very alarming 
thing is happening. People, believing--correctly--that the Federal 
Government won't take care of its responsibilities, are beginning to 
want to take these responsibilities in their own hands in the form of 
vigilantism.
  The Arizona Daily Star, January 3, 2003:

       Bisbee militia leader Chris Simcox says he is set today to 
     launch the first patrols along the border with members of his 
     Civil Homeland Defense group.
       Simcox has said he plans to have groups of armed citizens 
     patrolling three areas of the Arizona-Mexico line, though he 
     wouldn't specify the sites.

  Do you know what vigilantism leads to, Mr. President? There is no 
doubt what it leads to; that is the death of innocent people. Our 
border is uncontrolled. If we are going to win a war on terrorism, how 
do we know who those 1,000 people a day are? A thousand people a day 
who are coming across the Arizona border into our country are not just 
people who are seeking a job, not even just drug smugglers, but could 
be terrorists, as well.
  This amendment is attacking a small part of a major problem that we 
have in this Nation. I don't think it is a parochial attitude toward my 
own State when the facts are that three out of every five illegal 
aliens who are coming into the United States of America are apprehended 
in the State of Arizona. There are miles and miles and miles of border. 
What separates the United States of America from Mexico is seven 
strands of barbed wire. The latest tactic--I don't mean to take too 
much of my colleagues' time--is to take an SUV, put something in front 
of it, and bust right through the barbed-wire fence and bring in the 
drugs and bring in the illegals and everybody else who wants to get in. 
Senator Kyl went down and talked to a rancher--11 times in 1 week SUVs 
have driven right across his property, a couple of them armed. Our 
citizens deserve better than that; those who live along the border, 
those who run health care facilities along the border, deserve better 
than that and certainly the citizens of this country deserve a better 
enforcement of our national borders than they are receiving today.

  I say in closing that Senator Kyl and I, along with other border 
State Senators, intend to make this an issue this year because it has 
to be addressed. It has to be addressed.
  If we are going to preserve the security of this Nation, we have to 
have protection of our borders. It may cost money. It may be a 
difficult task to achieve. But the consequences of a failure to act are 
unacceptable.
  I yield the remainder of my time and again I thank Senator Stevens 
for helping us with this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we are prepared to accept the amendment, 
and I ask it be adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is time remaining.
  Mr. KYL. I would like to speak on it as well.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am sorry, I thought the Senator had already spoken. I 
withhold my motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me take a couple of minutes to amplify a 
couple of points my colleague, Senator McCain, made and also I ask 
unanimous consent Senator Domenici of New Mexico be added as a 
cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, as Senator McCain just noted, we have a 
crisis on the southern border with Mexico. We have drug and human 
smuggling daily. There are over 500,000 illegal immigrants a year 
crossing into the United States; 320 people died last year crossing 
into the desert area of Arizona. There is a significant degradation of 
the environment that has occurred because of the large number of people 
and vehicles coming across. The ranchers' operations are disrupted, 
their cattle are sent scurrying, their fences are cut, their water is 
taken. We have hundreds of millions of dollars of medical costs that 
are unreimbursed because of the emergency care that is being provided 
to illegal immigrants. We have the vigilantes that Senator McCain 
talked about springing up now, an understandable reaction to a problem 
but not an appropriate one. We have attacks on the Border Patrol every 
day, and even park rangers are being killed.
  This is a crisis and it has to be dealt with. I thank Senator Stevens 
and the other Senators who were helpful, for helping us to restore some 
of the funding the President had requested, and for their willingness 
to accept this amendment to begin to deal with at least one aspect of 
this problem.
  We have not only, however, a problem of controlling the border at the 
border, but we also have a problem of dealing with the people who come 
to the United States legally but stay here illegally. That is one of 
the specific focuses of this amendment. I would like to take just a 
second to talk about it.
  Did you know that half of the approximately 10 million people who are 
here in the United States illegally today came here legally and they 
overstayed their visas? The problem is, we don't have an effective 
system in our country that can track the people who are here illegally. 
We have mandated it three times in the law now. It is called an Entry 
Exit System. One of the things this amendment will do is to restore 
about $80 million to help fund this Entry Exit System.
  This was originally left out of the Senate version of the bill, but 
as I said, thanks to the work of Senator Gregg and Senator Hollings, 
Senator Byrd and Senator Stevens, we were able to get this funding back 
into the bill.
  The Entry Exit System was originally authorized in 1996 through the 
Illegal Immigrant and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, and then it 
was

[[Page S1352]]

strengthened again in the U.S.A. Patriot Act after September 11, and 
again in the Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act. In all three 
cases we need to basically mandate the Federal Government to institute 
and administer this program.
  Finally, Congress has gotten the attention of the appropriate 
officials, and we are beginning to get this done. It makes no sense to 
spend all of the resources we spend to control the border and then 
totally ignore the fact that half of the people who are here illegally 
got here legally, but we have no way of tracking them and determining 
where they are at a given time.
  There are a lot of reasons this is important, but just think about 
the terrorism aspect for just a moment. This will help us identify 
terrorists, someone who arrived on a valid visa but hasn't exited the 
country because they want to stay here and engage in some nefarious 
activity. Just imagine if we had an effective system working at the 
time the September 11 hijackers came here. All of them came legally but 
of course they weren't all remaining in the country legally after they 
arrived.
  It will also obviously help in a lot of other ways. As a matter of 
fact, when someone exits the country, if our law enforcement officials 
need to question them for any reason, they can be stopped and therefore 
they can be questioned because of the effectiveness of this system.
  I want to make a final comment for the benefit of the administration 
because Congress is now acting to begin the funding of this program.
  Senator Gregg, the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee, has 
made the point in the past it always has not been a wise expenditure of 
money by Congress to fund INS systems because the money doesn't seem to 
be spent very wisely. What we are saying is, as a result of this 
amendment, we are willing to put confidence in the INS, in the new 
Homeland Security Department, Justice Department, Border Patrol, and 
the other agencies that have this responsibility. But we expect them to 
follow through on the laws that we pass so when we mandate a system, it 
is implemented, and we expect it to be implemented on time.
  We are going to be restoring the funding so they can do that. We 
expect them to do their part of the job and put these systems into 
effect. Not only is it important to help us with the problems of 
illegal drug smuggling and illegal immigration and general crime 
control, but it is now very important to deal with the problem of 
terrorism and the terrorist threat to our country.
  I thank Senators Stevens, Gregg, and Hollings. I thank the cosponsors 
of this legislation. I am very much looking forward to working with 
them on the problems that Senator McCain and I have identified in many 
other areas that we are going to have to deal with this year to deal 
with this crisis situation on the border between the United States and 
Mexico.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back? The Senator from 
Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the amendment 
offered by the Senators from Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back. The question is on 
agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 54) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 80, As Modified

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, is amendment No. 80 pending?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, it is.
  Mr. REID. On behalf of Senator Dayton, I ask unanimous consent the 
Dayton amendment be modified with the changes that are now at desk, the 
amendment as modified be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on 
the table, with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. STEVENS. No. I thank the Senator from Nevada for his great work 
on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 80), as modified, was agreed to, as follows:

 (Purpose: To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-
296) to provide that waivers of certain prohibitions on contracts with 
 corporate expatriates shall apply only if the waiver is essential to 
             the national security, and for other purposes)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC ____. CONTRACTS WITH CORPORATE EXPATRIATES.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``Senator Paul Wellstone Corporate Patriotism Act of 2003''.
       (b) Limitation on Waivers.--Section 835 of the Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296) is amended by 
     striking subsection (d) and inserting the following:
       ``(d) Waivers.--The President may waive subsection (a) with 
     respect to any specific contract if the President certifies 
     to Congress that the waiver is essential to the national 
     security.''.
       (c) Expanded Coverage of Entities.--Section 835(a) of such 
     Act is amended by inserting ``nor any directly or indirectly 
     held subsidiary of such entity'' after ``subsection (b)''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. REID. If the Senator will yield? The Senator from Connecticut 
wishes to make a short statement. We have a unanimous consent agreement 
we wish to enter into.
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes. I have a unanimous consent request to offer as soon 
as the Senator from Connecticut is finished.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. I believe the unanimous consent request needs to be made to 
withdraw both the Dodd and the Gregg amendments and then I will offer 
what will be a substitute for those two amendments. I think it needs to 
proceed in that order, if I am not mistaken.
  Mr. STEVENS. We do plan to offer a unanimous consent request that 
would bring up amendment No. 217. Is that what the Senator is referring 
to?
  Mr. DODD. I believe so.


                  Amendments Nos. 71 And 78 Withdrawn

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Dodd and 
Gregg amendments be withdrawn. Would you like to have that adopted 
first?
  Mr. DODD. I think we ought to do that first.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent the pending Dodd and Gregg 
amendments be withdrawn. Further, that Senator Dodd be recognized to 
call up amendment No. 217, that the amendment be modified with the 
changes that I, Senator Gregg, and Senator Dodd have agreed to, and 
will send to the desk, that the amendment be agreed to and the motion 
to reconsider be laid on the table. After that, I will ask the Senate 
proceed to other amendments.
  Does the Senator from Connecticut wish to be heard at this time?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving right to object, I ask the Senator 
to complete the request. Let us get it finished.
  Mr. STEVENS. Does the Senator from Connecticut withhold?
  I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate then proceed to the 
consideration of the following amendments in the following order and 
that the designated times in relation to the amendments be equally 
divided in the usual form:
  Senator Feingold, amendment No. 200, 30 minutes;
  Senator Mikulski, amendment No. 61, 20 minutes;
  Senator Murray, amendment No. 30, 20 minutes.
  I further ask consent that following debate on each amendment, the 
amendment be temporarily set aside and a vote occur in relation to each 
amendment on Thursday at a time determined by the leader, with no 
second-degree amendments in order to any amendments prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Feingold has graciously consented to 
limit his time to 20 minutes equally divided.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I amend that request to 20 minutes 
instead of 30.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, may I 
inquire, if I may have 1 minute.
  Mr. STEVENS. It is my intention to ask that the Senator from 
Connecticut be recognized for whatever time he needs.
  Mr. DODD. I would like 3 or 4 minutes to explain what the amendment 
will achieve.

[[Page S1353]]

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, may we have the consent agreement agreed 
to?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask that the Senator from Connecticut 
be recognized.


                     Amendment No. 217, As Modified

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

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], for himself and 
     Mr. Stevens, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. 
     Jeffords, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Corzine, 
     Mr. Kerry, Mr. Reid, Mr. Reed, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Bingaman, 
     Mr. Johnson, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Kohl, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 217, as modified.

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

(Purpose: To provide additional funding for special education programs)

       At the appropriate place, add the following:
       Sec.  . Funding for the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     Act, in addition to any amounts otherwise appropriated under 
     this Act for support of Part B of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act other than section 619 of such 
     part the following sum is appropriated out of any money in 
     the Treasury not otherwise appropriated for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2003, $1,500,000,000, which shall become 
     available on October 1, 2003, and shall remain available 
     through September 30, 2004, for academic year 2003-2004: 
     Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     Act, funds provided under this section shall not result in a 
     further across-the-board rescission under section 601 of 
     Division N.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could direct a question to the manager 
of the bill, it is my understanding that the majority leader has said 
there will be no more rollcall votes tonight.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it is my privilege to announce that. I 
was going to do that after the Senator from Connecticut was finished. I 
assume he is not going to want any further votes. I announce in behalf 
of the majority leader that there will be no further votes this 
evening. The next vote will occur tomorrow at probably around 11 
o'clock.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, and Senator Gregg, and, of 
course, my colleagues Senator Mikulski and others who spoke eloquently 
on this subject matter a few days ago regarding special education 
funding. I say to my colleague from Alaska that he has been a great 
help.
  This $1.5 billion for special education is going to make a huge 
difference for schools and communities during the 2003-2004 school 
year. This is 1-year funding--it is not fully funding special education 
as we have promised, but it is a great step. As I look at the Presiding 
Officer, a former mayor, I know that Governors all across this country, 
as well as mayors, consistently put special education funding at or 
near the top of their list of priorities. And, it is especially 
important to note that unlike some other amendments that the Senate has 
adopted the past few days, this funding will not come through across 
the board cuts that include such critical programs as Head Start, WIC, 
and others that I have talked about. This is the way for us to address 
our priorities.
  I am very grateful to my colleagues for supporting this. I will not 
take a lot of time this evening to go into it. Obviously, it makes a 
huge difference to our States, our communities, and, of course, 
families and children who will be the direct beneficiaries of these 
efforts.
  Our colleague from Alabama spoke the other day about the importance 
of reform in this area. I agree that we need to review these programs 
to make sure the dollars are reaching the families who need them. And 
we will be reauthorizing IDEA in this Congress as we have in the past. 
But in the midst of a lot of pressure, I say to the Senator from 
Alaska, the chairman of the committee, that this is a special moment.
  While it is late evening, and there will be no other recorded votes 
tonight, I want to thank him immensely for working out a solution to 
this. This may not be perfect. I know that some are a little bit 
disgruntled over how we managed to get this done. But this will truly 
make a difference in the lives of children and families. It is a 
special moment as we begin this 108th Congress. So, again, I thank the 
Senator from Alaska, and his staff, for working this out with us.
  And, I thank my colleagues who have been stalwart. Senators Harkin, 
Jeffords, and Hagel, among others, who have done, and I know will 
continue to do, a tremendous amount of work in this area.
  Finally, I hope and expect that this amendment, which includes not 
only myself and the many other Democrats I listed as co-sponsors, but 
also Senator Stevens, the chair of the Appropriations Committee, and 
Senator Gregg, the chair of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
Committee, will be maintained in conference. I urge the conferees to 
oppose any effort to strip this provision that is so critical to our 
children and families.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would like to add my wholehearted 
support for the amendment offered by my friend from Connecticut.
  The passage of IDEA was a watershed event--for children with 
disabilities and for all Americans.
  By opening the doors of our public schools, we enabled millions of 
talented students to join their peers in becoming productive members of 
society.
  Equally important, we improved education for all students by allowing 
them to know the strength and richness that diverse people with 
different experiences, challenges, and abilities bring to our lives.
  Finally, we took yet another critical step on our journey to becoming 
a country that lives out our ideals of democracy, opportunity, and 
equality.
  Because we have not lived up to the commitments made in IDEA, the 
full promise of this law has yet to be fulfilled.
  Having failed to provide the full 40 percent of excess cost that was 
committed over 25 years ago, we have cheated students of the high-
quality education they deserve.
  This amendment gives us another chance to right that wrong and move 
forward on a path to full funding.
  Last year during the ESEA debate, this body unanimously adopted an 
amendment that would have fully funded IDEA over the next 6 years.
  The Dodd amendment would add the first increment of the full funding 
to the appropriations bill.
  I hope my colleagues have not changed their minds about the 
importance of funding special education. I hope this amendment will 
also be adopted unanimously.
  Frankly, given my home State's projected budget shortfall of $2.4 
billion, these funds are even more desperately needed to maintain and 
improve education for children with disabilities.
  We have all agreed time and again that it is important to fully fund 
IDEA. Now we can actually provide the dollars to back up those 
statements. With this amendment, we have the opportunity to make an 
important choice for our children's future.
  Are we going to make the investment in education that all our 
children deserve?
  Or are we going to offer another false promise?
  Cheating children of their education cheats them of their chance to 
succeed.
  This is especially true for children with disabilities, who already 
face a more challenging future. We must do everything in our power to 
ensure all children have that chance.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.
  Mr. President, recently I received a note from an educator in my 
state reminding me what this money could mean for our students.
  Northport School District is a small, rural school district nestled 
between the Idaho panhandle and the border with British Columbia. It 
serves 202 students in grades K-12.
  Mary Swaim is both the special education director and the only 
special education teacher in Northport, WA. She has one aide, who 
spends the majority of her day giving physical therapy to six students.
  Mary told me that they currently have 15 special needs students with 
disabilities that range from Autism to

[[Page S1354]]

muscular dystrophy and from Down's Syndrome to learning disabilities.
  According to Mary, one of these students costs the district $30,000 a 
year. They have spent a small fortune on therapeutic equipment that 
includes a Hoyer lift, tables, wheel chairs, walkers and therapy balls.
  But Mary's concern is not the cost of educating these children. She 
is worried that this small school cannot afford the staff to provide 
the quality education these students deserve.
  According to Mary, fully funding IDEA would give Northport the money 
to hire another special education teacher, and would greatly improve 
these children's chance to learn and to succeed.
  Mary told me:

       I've watched your legislation to keep class sizes small in 
     general education but, in special education, we frequently 
     have higher numbers than the general education classes and 
     all of our students have far greater needs. More funding 
     would mean quality education. Thank you so much for asking my 
     opinion.

  I believe we need to do more than ask Mary's opinion. I believe we 
need to listen to her valid concerns and act, as we can today, to make 
a difference for the students about whom she is so rightly concerned.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Mary Swaim 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Dear Senator Murray: You asked what difference it would 
     make to me and my students if IDEA were funded at 40 percent. 
     Northport School District is a small, rural school with 202 
     students K-12 and we have a B-3 Early Headstart program/4-5 
     year old EACAP program renting space on our campus. We 
     currently have 15 special needs students that include Autism, 
     multiple handicaps, muscular dystrophy, mental retardation 
     and specific learning disabilities. We could hire a full time 
     teacher on what it costs this district for the autistic 
     student alone ($30,000.00). The muscular dystrophy student 
     costs at least $12,000.00 a year over the funding we receive 
     for him. We have an autistic student who will be three years 
     old in March and will be added to our program and we have two 
     multiple handicapped kindergarten students who require 
     speech, occupational therapy and physical therapy. We have 
     spent a small fortune on therapeutic equipment that includes 
     a Hoyer lift, tables, wheel chairs, walkers and therapy 
     balls. I am the special education teacher/director. I have 
     one full time aide and the majority of her day is spent 
     delivering physical therapy to six students. We receive only 
     a small portion back from Medicaid on what we put out on our 
     students. This small school cannot afford the staff to 
     provide a quality education to these students. I've watched 
     your legislation to keep class sizes small in general 
     education but, in special education, we frequently have 
     higher numbers than the general education classes and all of 
     our students have far greater needs. More funding would mean 
     quality education. Thank you so much for asking my opinion.
       Mary Swaim, Northport School District #211

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, has the amendment been agreed to?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the amendment is 
agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 217), as modified, was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.


                           Amendment No. 200

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

       The Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Feingold) for himself, Mr. 
     Leahy, Mr. Wyden, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. Durbin, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 200.

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

  (Purpose: To restrict funds made available for IMET assistance for 
  Indonesian military personnel to ``Expanded International Military 
 Education and Training'' assistance unless certain conditions are met)

       Before the period at the end of the undesignated paragraph 
     under the heading ``International Military Education and 
     Training'', insert the following: ``Provided further, That 
     funds made available under this heading for Indonesian 
     military personnel shall be available only for ``Expanded 
     International Military Education and Training'' assistance, 
     unless the President determines and reports to the 
     appropriate congressional committees that the Government of 
     Indonesia and the Indonesian Armed Forces are (1) 
     demonstrating a commitment to assist United States efforts to 
     combat international terrorism, including United States 
     interdiction efforts against al-Qaida and other terrorist 
     organizations, and taking effective measures to bring to 
     justice those responsible for the October 13, 2002, terrorist 
     attack on Bali, which killed United States citizens, and (2) 
     taking effective measures, including cooperating with the 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation, to bring to justice any 
     member of the Indonesian Armed Forces or Indonesian militia 
     group against whom there is credible evidence of involvement 
     in the August 31, 2002, attack, which resulted in the deaths 
     of United States citizens, and in other gross violations of 
     human rights: Provided further, That nothing in the preceding 
     proviso prohibits the United States from conducting ongoing 
     contacts and training with the Indonesian Armed Forces, 
     including sales of nonlethal defense articles, 
     counterterrorism training, officer visits, port visits, 
     educational exchanges, or Expanded International Military 
     Educational and Training for military officers and 
     civilians''.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask that Senators Leahy, Wyden, Boxer, 
and Durbin be added as cosponsors of this amendment.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a very simple 
amendment to this bill.
  This amendment restricts Indonesian participation in the 
International Military Education and Training program, or IMET, 
limiting that participation to Expanded-IMET only, until the President 
can determine that Indonesia is doing two things--demonstrating a 
commitment to assist U.S. efforts to combat terrorism and taking 
effective measures, including cooperating with the FBI, to bring to 
just those members of the Indonesian Armed Forces and militia groups 
against whom there is credible evidence of involvement in the August 
attack on American citizens.
  On August 31, 2002, two American schoolteachers and one Indonesian 
citizen who were working at an international school for the children of 
Freeport McMoRan's mine employees were killed, and eight more Americans 
were wounded when they were ambushed on a mountain road in Papua, 
Indonesia. Press reports indicate that Indonesian garrisons control all 
access to the remote road where the attack occurred. The attackers 
sprayed their targets with automatic weapons--weapons that would be 
rare to find in the hands of separatists in the area. Police reports 
indicated that the Indonesian military was very likely involved in the 
attack, but the investigation was then turned over to the military, 
which, not surprisingly, has proven unwilling to investigate itself, 
and unwilling to fully cooperate with the FBI. In November, the 
Washington Post reported that intelligence agencies had obtained 
information indicating that, prior to the ambush, senior Indonesian 
military officials discussed an operation targeting Freeport and 
intended to discredit Papuan separatists.
  The survivors of the attack, and the widows of the murdered, want 
their government to pressure the Indonesians to uncover the truth about 
the attack and to bring those responsible to justice. This Senate 
should support them.
  I want to be very clear about what this amendment does not do. It 
does not cut off military contacts with Indonesia. Rather, it 
explicitly states that nothing in the amendment shall prohibit 
important national security contacts and programs, including counter-
terrorism training, sales on non-lethal defense articles, officer 
visits, port visits, participation in conferences, or educational 
exchanges. The amendment explicitly permits Indonesian civilians and 
military personnel to participate in the expanded-IMET program, which 
offers a wide range of courses highly relevant to the reform efforts so 
important to the future of the military in Indonesia's new democratic 
system.

  I believe that the United States should work with Indonesia to 
support such reforms, and should work within Indonesia and other states 
around the world in making the coalition against terrorism ever 
stronger.
  The October 12 terrorist attack in Bali made plain that international 
terrorism threatens Indonesia just as it threatens the rest of the 
world, and I am encouraged by the many positive steps that Indonesia 
has taken in the wake of that horrific event--steps to track down those 
responsible using solid law enforcement methods, and

[[Page S1355]]

broader steps to acknowledge the reality of international terrorism's 
link to Indonesia. These efforts marked a welcome change from an 
initial reluctance in Jakarta to acknowledge the fact on the ground. 
More work remains ahead. The International Crisis Group recently 
published a powerful report on the Jamaah Islamiyah terrorist network, 
a group that is linked to dozens of attacks across Southeast Asia and 
that is believed by intelligence officials to be associated with al 
Qaeda. It is my hope that cooperation with Indonesia will continue to 
grow stronger.
  But I also believe that our relations with Indonesia and the 
Indonesian military cannot be characterized by a business-as-usual 
approach until they have made a commitment to cooperate in 
investigating the murder of American citizens. In late December, when 
American citizens were brutally murdered in Yemen, the White House 
spoke plainly, stating that ``it is our intention to bring to justice 
any and all people who were responsible for these murders.'' The White 
House was right to make that perfectly clear, and I take them at their 
word. And it is all the more important in the Indonesian case--where 
one of the institutions of the state may well be responsible for the 
murder of American citizens, where we find a long history abusive and 
extortionate military practices and an urgent need for military 
reform--it is all the more important, in this case, the U.S. make its 
intentions plain. We must be equally clear with the Indonesians, 
equally resolute in our commitment to get to the bottom of the murders 
in Papua. I hope that my colleagues will join me in this effort, and 
support this amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I strongly support this amendment. It 
addresses a problem that has been a concern of mine for years, which is 
the involvement of the Indonesian military in deliberate attacks 
against American citizens.
  I fully appreciate that Indonesia is an important country with an 
elected president. We want to support Indonesia in every way we can, 
and we are doing so. The foreign operations portion of this omnibus 
appropriations bill provides $150,000,000 in economic assistance for 
Indonesia, a significant increase above the amount requested by the 
President.
  We are also supporting the Indonesian military. Our armed forces are 
engaging with the Indonesian military at all levels, including 
providing them millions of dollars in antiterrorism training 
assistance.
  So no one should be under any illusion that we are not engaging with 
the Indonesian military or that we are not working with them to thwart 
international terrorism. We are training them and we are working with 
them.
  We are doing that despite the fact--and this is widely known--that 
the Indonesian military was responsible for creating and arming some of 
the most radical Muslim terrorist groups in that country.
  But that is not what this amendment is about. This amendment focuses 
on a separate, $400,000 military training program, which was suspended 
in 1999 after senior Indonesian military officers orchestrated the 
massacre of some 1,000 people in East Timor, and then lied about it.
  It was criminal, it was shameful, and it was universally condemned.
  At that time, we, the Congress, said that we would resume that IMET 
training program when the Indonesian military took steps to bring to 
justice those responsible. Was that too much to ask? No one thought so 
at the time. Not here, not in the Pentagon.
  There has been no justice. In fact, the Indonesian military has 
flagrantly obstructed justice, intimidating, judges and threatening 
witnesses.
  But even worse, there is credible evidence that 5 months ago--last 
August--the Indonesian military purposefully singled out American 
citizens for assassination. That they planned an attack which left two 
American teachers dead and several others wounded. Since the, they have 
actively tried to obstruct the police investigation of the crime.
  We all agree that Indonesia is an important country, and that we need 
to work with the Indonesian government to combat international 
terrorism, and on other issues. We are doing that. But should we not at 
least expect the Indonesian military to cooperate with the 
investigation of the murders of American citizens.

  Is that too much to ask? It is not about the money. The amount of 
money is insignificant. It is about the message it sends. This 
amendment says that before we resume this tiny military training 
program, the deaths of Americans need to be investigated and the people 
involved brought to justice.
  If the military had not actively obstructed the investigation, this 
amendment would not be necessary. There is even evidence that an army 
officer shot at a police investigator, and that a police vehicle was 
attacked. Only after months of refusals and obfuscation, have they 
finally agreed to let the FBI assist in the investigation, and we do 
not yet know what access to witnesses or other evidence the FBI will 
have.
  This amendment does not cut off anti-terrorism training and it does 
not cut off the IMET program. In fact, it reinstates the IMET program. 
There should be no confusion about that. The Feingold amendment 
reinstates the IMET program. But not for combat training--not until 
they meet the conditions in the amendment.
  It is a timely and reasonable amendment. It is a simple amendment. It 
is a victims rights amendment.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I yield back time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, it is my understanding we will be 
allotted a moment to summarize prior to the vote on the amendment 
tomorrow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no order to that effect at this time.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask the minority whip, what is the intention?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Stevens and Senator Byrd, the two 
managers of the bill and all these amendments, have allowed the 
participants to have a minute on each side. I am sure that will happen 
tomorrow.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, has the other side yielded back their 
time?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I understand there are two more 
amendments to be called up by Senators Mikulski and Murray. For each I 
believe we have 20 minutes to speak on behalf of those amendments.
  I see Senator Mikulski.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.


                            Amendment No. 61

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 61 dealing with 
the contracting out of employment of Federal employees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), for herself, Mr. 
     Sarbanes, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Bingaman, 
     Mr. Feingold, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kohl, and Mrs. 
     Murray, proposes an amendment numbered 61.

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

(Purpose: To prohibit funds to be used to establish, apply, or enforce 
    certain goals relating to Federal employees and public-private 
    competitions or work force conversions, and for other purposes)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. ____. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by an Executive agency to establish, apply, or 
     enforce any numerical goal, target, or quota for subjecting 
     the employees of the agency to public-private competitions or 
     converting such employees or the work performed by such 
     employees to private contractor performance under the Office 
     of Management and Budget Circular A-76 or any other 
     Administrative regulation, directive, or policy.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my 
colleague, Senator Harry Reid, be added as a cosponsor of the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, my amendment will prevent the arbitrary 
privatization of almost a million Federal workers. It prevents agencies 
from

[[Page S1356]]

establishing or applying or enforcing any numerical goal, target, or 
quota for the contracting out of Federal jobs either by public-private 
competitions or by directly converting jobs to the private sector.
  I want to be very clear, I am not against privatization, but I 
believe the privatization should be based on thoughtful criteria, not 
arbitrary numerical quotas.
  This administration has stated, in another arena, they are absolutely 
against quotas. So am I. But they seem to use quotas when it is 
convenient. I do not understand why OMB wants to use quotas to get rid 
of Federal employees. Let's not use quotas at all, whether it is to get 
into college or to get rid of Federal workers.
  Right now, many people are thinking about how to reform the Federal 
workforce. Excellent thinking. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Volcker 
and Senator Voinovich--leaders in this area--have put a lot of work 
into this issue. What they are saying, loud and clear, is, we need to 
be able to recruit the best, we need to be able to retain the best, we 
need to be able to maintain the integrity of the civil service system 
and make sure it never lapses into cronyism or political patronage. I 
am for their approach.
  Why am I offering this amendment? And why would that go against the 
thinking I have just talked about? Because the Office of Management and 
Budget has issued a directive calling for bounty hunters in Federal 
agencies to get rid of 850,000 jobs over the next 3 years. That is 
nearly half of the Federal workforce. No agency would be immune from 
these cuts. And, more importantly, there is no criteria for the cuts. 
Managers will be forced to meet arbitrary targets, sometimes against 
their will or even their better judgment--without careful criteria, 
without rationale, without guidelines; and without considering: Would 
privatization of these jobs affect national security? Is it cost-
effective for the taxpayer? What is its impact on the mission of each 
agency? And what would arbitrary, cavalier, swashbuckling privatization 
mean?
  I think it is a dangerous trend with our Federal employees. Look at 
the Customs Service. Recently, they were made part of the Homeland 
Security Department. Their top priority should be protecting our 
borders and our ports, like stopping the millennium bomber. They should 
be searching for terrorists instead of wasting their time searching for 
private companies to do part of their job.
  Next let's look at DOD. We may be going to war. Yet the Army would 
have to contract out as many as 200,000 jobs. Transferring these jobs 
to the private sector could seriously erode morale and readiness. While 
the military is fighting a war against terrorism, and maybe even a war 
in Iraq, let's not have a war within the Pentagon over who gets to keep 
their job.
  Who are the kinds of people I am talking about? I am thinking about a 
secretary at the FBI in the Baltimore field office who has worked there 
for close to 50 years. During the terrible sniper case that gripped our 
whole Capital region, the FBI was on the job with our local law 
enforcement, along with the BATF, and it was the people in the back 
office keeping the agency support.

  What are we going to say to that secretary who has worked with field 
officers, who has helped keep the FBI going for over 48 years and went 
to the same high school I went to and, by the way, Congresswoman 
Pelosi? Hello. Thank you very much. You are part of a quota. You are 
going to be replaced by a Kelly Girl. There is nothing wrong with Kelly 
Girls, but there is nothing wrong with a dedicated secretary who stuck 
with the FBI for 50 years so they could be effective and out there on 
the job protecting us.
  So I am not seeking an end to privatization, but I think we should 
follow the FAIR Act. I think we should follow OMB's A-76 circular on 
these kinds of things.
  Privatization is a code word to go after Federal employees. I do not 
know why OMB wants to do this. There is even a question of whether it 
will save money.
  First of all, we have now the smallest Federal workforce since the 
1960s. Also, at the same time, we know, from Federal managers 
themselves, that they are really nervous about this OMB directive 
because they think it will, first, undermine morale; and, second, there 
is no clear criteria. And instead of doing the job, they now have to 
justify the job.
  I do not know why we are so prickly, hostile to our Federal 
employees. Who are the Federal employees? They are the Customs 
inspectors, they are the nurses at our VA hospitals, and they are the 
people at Social Security who make sure the seniors get their checks on 
time.
  I am a Senator from Maryland, and I am really proud of it. I 
represent over 100,000 Federal employees. I wish you could meet them 
the way I do: on the job, at supermarkets. I represent people who are 
Nobel Prize winners at the National Institutes of Health and the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology. I represent people who 
work for the Coast Guard who are out there protecting our coast. I 
represent FBI agents. I represent the National Security Agency, the 
faculty at the United States Naval Academy that is getting our next 
generation of leaders ready.
  They work hard every day to guard our borders, protect our homes, get 
America ready for the future. Workers in the FDA are protecting our 
food supply and making sure our pharmaceuticals are safe. They are also 
the Federal employees in other parts of America, the ones who died at 
the World Trade Center. How about the ones who died at the Pentagon? 
How about the ones who lost their lives in Oklahoma City? They were 
protecting our Nation. They were protecting our communities.
  We said a grateful Nation will never forget. Well, let's not forget 
them when it comes to pushing out their colleagues from the Federal 
workforce. I know what Federal employees do. They work hard. They think 
for themselves first as citizens of the United States and second as 
workers at missions-driven agencies.
  Let me just close by saying this. We need to have a civil service in 
this country. And we need to have a civil service that is reliable and 
has integrity and is independent.
  We have gone from an age of patronage politics to an age of partisan 
politics. I believe the American people want us to be in an age of 
performance politics. That means keeping a civil service. Do not fool 
around with the civil service. Don't just contract it out and reward 
your pals through cronyism or a new form of patronage.
  I fought a political machine to get into politics, and I will fight a 
political machine that will try to destroy the civil service of the 
United States.
  Let's keep a strong nonpolitical Federal workforce. Let's get rid of 
the quotas for the OMB circular, and let's take a rational approach 
maintaining the civil service but privatizing those jobs that are 
appropriate.
  I yield the floor and reserve time that I might need for rebuttal.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the 
amendment offered by the Senator from Maryland, Ms. Mikulski, of which 
I am a cosponsor.
  I have long been concerned about the costs and benefits associated 
with the process by which the Federal Government contracts out work. In 
particular, I am concerned about the lack of data on whether these 
contracts actually achieve real savings for taxpayers, and about the 
effects of outsourcing on the pay and benefits of Federal workers.
  I do not oppose contracting out. Such a process is often appropriate. 
I am concerned, however, that the arbitrary quotas proposed by the 
Office of Management and Budget will encourage Federal agencies to 
circumvent the existing public-private competition process for 
contracting out work without regard for what is the best use of 
taxpayer dollars. Contracting out affects the jobs of thousands of 
dedicated Government employees each year. These men and women deserve 
the chance to compete for this work--and for their jobs--on a level 
playing field.
  The amendment offered by the Senator from Maryland would prohibit OMB 
from using numerical targets to privatize jobs currently filled by 
Federal employees. It would not prevent Federal agencies from 
contracting out. Instead, it would ensure that contracting decisions 
are based on what is

[[Page S1357]]

best for American taxpayers, rather than on arbitrary quotas set by 
OMB.
  The language included in the Mikulski amendment was adopted by the 
Senate Appropriations Committee last year as part of the fiscal year 
2003 Treasury-Postal appropriations bill. It was also adopted 
overwhelmingly by the House of Representatives by a vote of 261-166 
during that body's consideration of the fiscal year 2003 Treasury-
Postal appropriations bill.
  I remain concerned about the administration's push to contract out 
hundreds of thousands of Federal jobs with little regard for true 
public-private competition. Late last year, OMB released its proposed 
changes to the Circular A-76 process, that, if adopted, would result in 
the privatization of 850,000 Federal jobs nearly half of the Federal 
workforce. The proposed revisions would allow agencies to contract out 
jobs currently held by Federal employees without public-private 
competition. In addition, the proposal would force agencies to 
privatize work without competition if they fail to meet arbitrary 
deadlines for contracting out work.
  The proposal further undermines competition by rarely allowing 
Federal employees to compete for new work or work that is currently 
being done by contractors. It would also switch to a so-called ``best 
value'' system of competition, rather than continuing the current cost-
based system that takes into account quality of work.
  OMB's proposal does nothing to improve the tracking of costs and 
benefits of contracted work or to ensure that there is oversight to 
determine whether the contractors are providing quality services or 
otherwise complying with the terms of their contracts. Further, once a 
contractor has been awarded a job, there is no mechanism to recompete 
the work at a later date to ensure that taxpayers are actually 
receiving the best work for the best price.
  I agree that the Federal contracting system needs reform. But to rush 
to outsource the positions of nearly half of the Federal workforce in 
an arbitrary manner, and without allowing these dedicated workers to 
compete to keep their jobs, is shortsighted. We should proceed 
cautiously to ensure that the contracting process is fair to Federal 
workers and that it actually results in a quality, cost-effective 
product for taxpayers. OMB's current plan for arbitrary quotas and 
little public-private competition will not achieve these goals.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to support and cosponsor 
Senator Mikulski's amendment to the omnibus appropriations bill. Our 
amendment would prevent funds appropriated by this bill from being used 
to impose privatization quotas on Federal agencies. This amendment 
would promote sensible procurement policies by eliminating the need to 
contract out Federal work just to meet subjective targets. Decisions to 
contract out Federal work, which would reduce the Federal workforce, 
should never be based on political objectives. This amendment is an 
important step towards preventing contracting decisions based on 
arbitrary quotas.
  Under proposed regulations governing privatization, up to 850,000 
Federal employee jobs will be reviewed for privatization. At minimum, 
the administration intends to open up at least 425,000 Federal jobs to 
competition by the end of 2004. The decision to do so is not based on 
data or hard science. How did the administration choose that number? I 
want my colleagues to know that there is no evidence that outsourcing 
such a sizeable number of Federal jobs so quickly will achieve any cost 
savings at all. The proposed revisions to A-76, the regulations 
governing the contracting of Federal work, support outsourcing quotas 
by forcing agencies to outsource jobs without first holding public-
private competitions, regardless of whether the move to privatization 
saves the Government any money.
  Arbitrary quotas serve no purpose, and they place Federal workers in 
the unenviable position of never knowing whether their job will be 
eliminated. Even if employees were to understand the regulations 
governing Federal contracting, they would be competing in a system that 
is skewed toward private-sector bidders. Moreover, Federal managers are 
ill-prepared and undertrained to deal with large-scale outsourcing of 
government work. Federal employees are being forced to compete for jobs 
they already hold with very little, if any, training or guidance on how 
to enter the Federal contracting process and successfully compete with 
seasoned bidders. The past performance of Federal employees will not be 
taken into account when analyzing whether a Government contract should 
be awarded. However, a great value will be placed on the past 
performance of a private contractor.
  As a member of the Governmental Affairs Committee, I am committed to 
an efficient, effective, and responsive Federal Government. However, as 
we look for ways to achieve this, we must ensure that contracting 
objectives are fair to our Federal workforce and result in cost 
savings. I do not believe that these goals are mutually exclusive. I 
will continue to work toward ensuring that Federal procurement policies 
are fair to Federal workers and cost-effective. The Mikulski amendment 
achieves this end, and I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I yield back the time on this side.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, if the other side yields back its time, 
I therefore yield back my time and know that there will be an agreement 
to vote on my amendment that will be concluded at the end of the 
evening.
  I thank my colleague from Alabama. I hope all my debates are that 
easy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Washington is recognized.


                            Amendment No. 39

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 39 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for herself, Mr. 
     Kennedy, Mr. Reed, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Dodd, Ms. 
     Cantwell, and Ms. Stabenow, proposes an amendment numbered 
     39.

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

     (Purpose: To provide funding for the community access program)

       On page 570, line 19, insert before the period the 
     following: ``; Provided further, That $120,027,000 shall be 
     appropriated to carry out the community access program to 
     increase the capacity and effectiveness of community health 
     care institutions and providers who serve patients regardless 
     of their ability to pay''.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am offering this amendment on behalf of 
myself, Senators Kennedy, Reed, Clinton, Bingaman, Dodd, Stabenow, and 
Cantwell.
  The amendment I have called up is very simple. It restores the $120 
million to the Community Access Program that was cut in the managers' 
amendment. This $120 million level is exactly the same level as we 
appropriated in fiscal year 2002, and it is the same level that was 
included in the fiscal year 2003 Labor-HHS-Education appropriations 
bill which we marked up last year.
  The Community Access Program helps increase the capacity and 
effectiveness of community health care institutions and providers that 
serve patients regardless of their ability to pay.
  It is a community-based program that seeks to coordinate care for the 
uninsured. It has been very successful, and it enjoys broad bipartisan 
support.
  It is difficult for me to understand why the President's budget 
eliminates a program that seeks to get care for the uninsured at a time 
when the ranks of the uninsured continue to grow. Without a coordinated 
community-based approach to accessing care, the uninsured simply end up 
in our emergency rooms or go without care, and both of those results 
add to our growing health care crisis.
  I know firsthand how successful this program has been. Washington 
State has four CAP grantees that have worked to expand access to 
quality, comprehensive care for those who have no health care safety 
net. They are

[[Page S1358]]

based in Spokane, Wenatchee, Olympia, and Seattle.
  As I have met with our CAP grantees, they have shown me a glimpse 
into what I think is the future of health care.
  In October I visited the Odessa Brown Children's Clinic. I saw a 
doctor, a dentist, and a psychologist in the same room, not just 
treating body parts but actually treating the whole child in a 
comprehensive, compassionate way. Today that project is known as ``Kids 
Get Care,'' and it is connecting more than 3,000 children to 
comprehensive health care.
  These kinds of efforts are making a real difference for low-income 
families, and they need more investment. Our CAP grantees have worked 
to ensure that our increased investment in community health centers 
reaps the greatest benefit possible. They have worked with vulnerable 
populations to tear down barriers to care and not just economic 
barriers. They use the small investment to better serve the uninsured. 
We should be strengthening efforts like this right now, not eliminating 
them.
  Currently in my home State of Washington, one in nine residents is 
uninsured. And with my State's ongoing economic crisis--and I am sure 
across the country--demand is going to grow for programs that provide 
care for the uninsured. We need to meet the immediate needs of these 
families who today can only get access in the emergency room.
  CAP provides the seed money that gives community health care 
providers the ability to serve those who have nowhere else to go.
  As a member of the HELP Committee, I am disappointed that the 
majority has proposed eliminating this program. The HELP Committee 
worked in a bipartisan manner, under the leadership of Senators 
Kennedy, Gregg, and Frist, and secured passage of a 4-year health care 
safety net authorization bill. Last year that provided an authorization 
of this CAP program. That legislation was, in fact, unanimously adopted 
by the Senate in October of 2002 and signed by the President on October 
26, 2002.

  The purpose of the authorization is spelled out now in Public Law 
107-251. I want to read the committee report. The purpose is:

       To provide assistance to communities and to consortia of 
     health care providers, in order to develop or strengthen an 
     integrated health care delivery system that coordinates 
     health services for individuals who are uninsured and 
     individuals who are underinsured and to develop or strengthen 
     activities related to providing coordinated care for 
     individuals with chronic conditions.

  Those are goals we must achieve. I understand the fiscal pressures 
facing the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and Chairman 
Specter, but we are facing a major health care crisis in this country. 
This is not just a crisis of the uninsured but a crisis of increasing 
costs. The impact of this will only mean higher Federal expenditures in 
programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, not to mention the human toll 
on our uninsured citizens.
  I applaud the recent comments by the new majority leader in 
discussing the racial inequities in our health care delivery system, 
and I look forward to working with him to address this injustice and to 
ensure greater access to care for all Americans. Fair and just access 
to care is a civil rights issue.
  Being uninsured does not have to mean going without. We can offer a 
safety net to provide comprehensive care to the uninsured through 
programs such as CAP and community health centers.
  I believe that CAP provides us a model for closing the gaps in health 
care and eliminating racial inequities. If we truly hope to provide 
fair and equal access, we must not eliminate CAP in this bill.
  CAP is certainly not the only solution, but we all know that in order 
to address our health care crisis, we have to find innovative solutions 
that use our resources more effectively, and CAP does just that. It 
supports innovative community-based programs.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I remind them, it was 
authorized by the full committee last year, unanimously passed the 
Senate, and has broad bipartisan support. We need to back our words in 
that bill with the resources for these communities to provide care for 
the uninsured and the growing ranks of uninsured across this country. 
We need to strengthen our fragile health care safety net across this 
country, and this amendment will help us do that.
  I thank the Chair and reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington for 
her comments. I had the pleasure a little over a year ago to travel to 
five different rural health clinics in Alabama, many of these in areas 
where minority citizens live, and was very pleased to have the chief 
Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services, Claude Allen, to do 
that, an African-American himself, the chief deputy to Tommy Thompson.
  My understanding is the administration does support rural health 
clinics; in fact, it has plans to expand them. Properly done, it would 
be the right way to go. I will be looking at the Senator's amendment 
and reviewing that as we go forward.
  I think the general policy and the general direction of this 
administration will be to expand those clinics rather than to reduce 
them.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we are waiting for the assistant 
Democratic leader, and while Senator Murray is here, I will add further 
on that subject that we visited rural health clinics in Alabama. They 
do a lot of work. Somehow we have created a system of health care where 
it is not easy for physicians and health care professionals to choose 
to live in rural areas, and it has taken Government programs to meet 
the crisis need. I wish we could figure out a way to incentivize it so 
a person who might like to live in a small town could practice medicine 
there and make a decent living and have a nice life. Somehow we have 
not done that effectively. That is the reason we have felt the need to 
create these clinics with Government support.


                         Textile Transshipments

  Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, it is my understanding that in the 107th 
Congress, $9.5 million was authorized by the Trade Promotion Authority 
Act for the hiring of up to 71 new customs agents to more vigorously 
enforce the existing textile trade agreements. I ask Senator Campbell, 
is that correct?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, it is.
  Mrs. DOLE. And it is also my understanding that this funding was not 
included in the final version of the bill before us. Is that also 
correct?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, that is correct.
  Mrs. DOLE. I understand the severe budget restraints you and the 
committee were working under to produce this final bill. I wish that 
the committee had been able to fund this very important measure.
  Since 1996, 65,7000 jobs have been lost in North Carolina alone in 
the textile industry. However, contrary to some opinions, the North 
Carolina textile industry can compete domestically and worldwide if, 
and I strongly emphasize ``if,'' the Federal Government allocates the 
resources to its customs agents to do their jobs and enforce existing 
trade agreements.
  Chuck Hayes, the former head of the American Textile Manufacturers 
Institute, once said that thousands of textile jobs could have been 
saved in North Carolina if the United States had rigorously enforced 
our existing textile trade agreements.
  But in order to do that, the Customs Service needs to hire many more 
experienced agents to be able to investigate cases of illegally shipped 
textile products into the United States through our ports. It is a 
massive undertaking but one that we must pursue in order to save the 
remaining textile jobs in North Carolina and elsewhere and put our 
domestic textile industry on a more equal basis versus overseas 
manufacturers.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I fully understand and appreciate the Senator's 
feelings on this matter and I will work with her on this problem in the 
next appropriations cycle for fiscal year 2004.
  Mrs. DOLE. I thank the Senator for that pledge to work with me. The 
health and welfare of thousands of hard-working North Carolina families 
depends on enforcing the textile trade agreements we now have in force. 
I will continue to stay in close contact with you and the committee on 
this issue.


                             Port Security

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to request to enter into a 
colloquy with

[[Page S1359]]

the chairman and the ranking member on the Treasury and General 
Government Appropriations Subcommittee, the distinguished Senators from 
Colorado and North Dakota, regarding port security.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the security of our Nation's ports is of 
extreme importance to me, so I gladly will engage in a colloquy with 
the senior Senator from Washington. Being from a northern border state, 
like the senior Senator from Washington, I am particularly concerned 
about how others may try to use the border to circumvent our security. 
Furthermore, it is important that improving our security doesn't 
unnecessarily infringe upon commerce that travels over our northern 
border.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I also agree that securing our Nation's 
ports and points of entry is critical to protecting our citizens.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, on October 31, 2002, the U.S. Customs 
Service published regulations requiring sea carriers to provide cargo 
manifests 24 hours prior to the lading of containerized cargo at 
foreign ports for shipment to the United States. In short, since 
December 2, 2002, the Customs Service has been asking for a detailed 
list of all cargo entering a U.S. port and detailed information 
regarding the shipper. This will allow Customs agents to identify at-
risk cargo, thus making our ports safer.
  My State of Washington includes the ports of Seattle and Tacoma. 
These ports combined represent the Nation's third largest intermodal 
container gateway. So I applaud this initiative, which will allow 
customs agents the opportunity to identify at risk cargo, while 
expediting the process for low-risk cargo.
  Having said that, I am concerned that if this rule is not adopted by 
the Customs authorities in countries with whom we share a border, we 
could actually make our borders even less secure. There is a 
substantial flow of overseas containerized goods coming over the 
Canadian and Mexican borders, especially the Canadian border, into the 
U.S. annually. If those goods are not subject to the 24-hour rule, as 
overseas containerized goods coming through U.S. ports are, we have 
defeated the intent of the rule. In addition, we are actually providing 
an incentive for shippers to use the Canadian or Mexican gateways 
instead of bringing their goods through U.S. ports. This scenario hurts 
us in two ways. First, it diminishes the security at our borders if the 
same rules do not apply to overseas containerized goods coming through 
Canada or Mexico, and second, if shipping lines flock to ports located 
in our northern and southern neighbors to bring goods into the U.S. due 
to the ``hassle factor,'' it takes jobs and the potential for economic 
growth from our communities.
  For this reason, I am gratified to learn that the Canadian government 
is in the process of considering port security regulations of its own. 
U.S. Customs has thus far been able to work successfully with Canadian 
Customs on programs such as the Smart Border Accord, the Container 
Security Initiative, and the Customs Trade Partnership Against 
Terrorism effort.
  So I am asking the distinguished Senators from Colorado and North 
Dakota regardless of whether the Canadian Government does or does not 
implement a similar advanced manifest information requirement, to with 
me to see our Government require the same manifest information on all 
container traffic that is destined to the United States on a through-
bill-of-lading via a Canadian or Mexican port.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Washington for raising this issue with me. Congress must be vigilant in 
making sure that all cargo entering this country via any method--sea, 
air, or rail--faces the same level of scrutiny. Should the perception 
develop that it is easier to move goods into the U.S. through Canada, 
not only would our Nation's ports be disadvantaged economically, but 
our country would face a greater security risk. As you point out, 
regulation on ship traffic is moving ahead. I understand that Customs 
Commissioner Bonner has directed that regulations regarding rail, air, 
and truck shipments be kept on track. I certainly will work with the 
distinguished Senator from Washington and the Customs Service to ensure 
that all cargo entering the United States receives equal scrutiny.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I will work with the Senator from 
Washington, my ranking member, and the Customs Service to achieve this 
important goal. We must work hard to plug the security holes that 
exist, and this is one we should fix.


                   PROVIDENCE PERFORMING ARTS CENTER

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, as we move forward on this measure, I 
noted in the Senate Report accompanying the FY 2003 Commerce, Justice, 
State, and the Judiciary Appropriations bill that the Appropriations 
Committee urged the Economic Development Administration (EDA) to 
evaluate several worthwhile proposals for projects which may be 
eligible for funding under the various EDA programs.
  Mr. GREGG. That is correct. The committee listed six such proposals.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I would like to make the Senator from New Hampshire, the 
Chairman of the Commerce Appropriations Subcommittee, aware of a strong 
economic development proposal from my home state of Rhode Island.
  The proposal focuses on the renovation of the restored historic 
theater at the Providence Performing Arts Center, PPAC, in our capital 
city of Providence. Listed on the National Register of Historic Places, 
the facility was recently named an Official Project of the Save 
America's Treasures program directed by the National Trust for Historic 
Preservation and the White House Millennium Council. The full 
renovation of the theater, both structural and mechanical, is the 
ultimate goal of the non-profit entity that operates the center. A 
renovated PPAC has the potential to be one of the major economic 
development stimulants in the old downtown. I know from my membership 
on the Environment and Public Works Committee, which has authorizing 
jurisdiction over the EDA, that this project is very similar to others 
funded by the agency.
  I ask the chairman if the Providence initiative is in keeping with 
the projects recommended by the committee and listed in the report?
  Mr. GREGG. It is. In fact, the proposal to renovate and operate a 
vibrant theater appears to be just the type of job-creating project EDA 
should be encouraging in our downtowns.
  Mr. CHAFEE. That being so, I ask the chairman if he would deem the 
Providence project part of the committee's recommendation to the EDA.
  Mr. GREGG. Although we cannot amend the report at this point, I would 
urge the EDA to evaluate the Providence Performing Arts Center project 
along with the other projects listed in the committee report. The 
project should be given every consideration within applicable 
procedures and guidelines by the Economic Development Administration.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Senator and look forward to working with the 
committee and EDA to generate positive economic development in downtown 
Providence.

                          ____________________