[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 12 (Thursday, January 23, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1379-S1419]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     MAKING FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of H.J. Res. 2, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

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

  Pending:

       Feingold Amendment No. 200, 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.
       Mikulski Amendment No. 61, to prohibit funds to be used to 
     establish, apply, or enforce certain goals relating to 
     Federal employees and public-private competitions or 
     workforce conversions.
       Murray Amendment No. 39, to provide funding for the 
     community access program.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. 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. BOND. Mr. 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the quorum call be rescinded.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. 200

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
Feingold amendment. The Feingold amendment, as my colleagues probably 
know, deals with Indonesia and makes not too subtle suggestions about 
evil doings and suggests that we can only work with them in certain 
circumstances. As one who has traveled frequently to that region, I am 
very much disturbed by the intent and the apparent direction of this 
amendment.
  It is very clear to the Government of Indonesia and its people that 
there is a legitimate terrorism threat in that country today. The 
tragic bombing in Bali, a major international tourist destination and 
the source of essential revenue in the country, brought the reality of 
terrorism squarely on the heads of the Indonesian Government. This is a 
country which, if superimposed geographically on the United States, 
would extend from San Francisco to Bermuda. It is the fourth largest 
country in the world, with the largest Muslim population in the world. 
It is also, unfortunately, home to many elements of al-Qaida and Jamaah 
Islamiyah, another Islamic terrorist group.
  The tragic bombing in Bali, with almost 300 people killed, has 
brought home to that country the real threat of terrorism, and they are 
taking that threat seriously.
  I have talked with our resources in the area, our embassies. I have 
talked with neighboring countries that are very much concerned about 
the future of Indonesia. We believe they are performing a credible and 
thorough investigation of the bombing. Arrests have been made. But the 
investigation continues and the Government is committed to arresting 
all those involved.

  Indonesia is a majority Muslim nation. Many of its citizens, 
regrettably, hear continually from extreme elements within the country 
that the United States is targeting Muslims and is anti-Islam. This 
creates a very difficult political climate for the country's moderate 
Muslim President. She is one who has visited this country. I have met 
with her on a number of occasions, and I know she understands the 
importance of our relationship and the importance of their efforts 
against terrorism.
  The country is making an effort now to investigate the terrorists who 
committed the bombing, to control the terrorism problem, and to 
strengthen the military.
  I ask, Is this the best we can offer in the Senate to encourage 
cooperation between the two countries, to pursue a warmed-over agenda, 
to embarrass the military because some activist groups are not 
satisfied with the results of the tribunals that investigated the 
outrages in East Timor?
  This is a time when we in the United States have to be serious about 
our relationship with moderate Muslim nations. We need to support the 
people within these countries who are resisting the extremists. It is a 
tremendous challenge for them to stand up to extreme voices. We should 
be supportive. We ought not to be sticking a finger in their eye. We 
ought not to be gratuitously slapping them in the face.
  In the case of Indonesia, we should encourage strengthening those 
institutions which the Government will rely on to investigate 
terrorism, apprehend terrorists, and prevent further attacks. In 
Indonesia, the only institution with that capacity is the military.
  I have talked with our Secretary of State and our Secretary of 
Defense, and I have asked them what we can do to improve our relations 
with Indonesia to assure they have the strength to resist terrorism and 
to provide their share of the role in the international battle against 
terrorism.
  What they have said, quite frankly, to bipartisan groups in front of 
them is to stop congressional interference and slurs on the Indonesia 
military. Unfortunately, rather than moving in a sensible direction to 
encourage military-to-military contact, to take actions to raise the 
standards of their military to levels we are comfortable with and to 
promote relationships between officers, we would, by adopting this 
measure, pursue a course that insults the people, strains relations, 
and will aid the extremist elements in their efforts to demonize the 
United States.
  This may be presented as a harmless amendment, one that can be 
satisfied easily by us and the Indonesians, but those people are our 
friends. Our allies in Southeast Asia take note of what we do; they 
hear our message. What we pass is loud, and it is clear; it resonates. 
It is not only a bad idea, it is dangerous.
  We need to stand up and support our friends, especially in these 
challenging times. As I have met with friendly nations in Southeast 
Asia, they have been dumbfounded that we continue to insult, denigrate, 
and downgrade Indonesia. We should be supporting them.
  This amendment is not grounded in legitimate policy concerns but, 
rather, in an ongoing interest by some to refight the East Timor battle 
year in and year out, despite the fact that East Timor is now an 
independent country. It is hollow all the way through.
  I urge my colleagues to join with me in defeating this amendment, to 
send the message that we will support moderate Islam countries, 
struggling democracies trying to fight terrorism.
  I thank the managers and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.

[[Page S1380]]

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, in the interest of fairness, although I 
do agree with my friend from Missouri, I ask unanimous consent that the 
sponsor of the amendment, Senator Feingold, have 5 minutes when he 
appears.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I see Senator Feingold is on the floor. I did make 
arrangements for Senator Feingold to have an extra 5 minutes, and I 
call that to his attention. Senator Bond has just spoken on the 
Feingold amendment. There are 5 minutes for Senator Feingold to speak, 
if he wishes to do so.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have conferred with the manager of the 
bill on what the Democrats would like to do in offering their 
amendments. I understand there will be Republican amendments 
interspersed. Our first amendment with Senator Kennedy, there has been 
a 30-minute time agreement on that; that has been agreed to. I ask 
unanimous consent that that be approved. Senator Clinton, amendment No. 
89, a time agreement of 30 minutes, evenly divided; Senator Bingaman, 
amendment No. 138, I have no time agreement on that; Senator Cantwell, 
amendment No. 108, a 30-minute time agreement; Senator Nelson, 
amendment No. 178, a 10-minute time agreement equally divided; Senator 
Corzine, amendment No. 233, I have no time agreement on that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. STEVENS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I agree we 
should set this order. We are still working on it. We hope we will have 
a chance to have an amendment on one side and then the other. I will 
come later and try to intersperse these with amendments from our side 
of the aisle when they are identified.
  Mr. REID. The only thing I would ask, Mr. President, is that there 
would be no amendments except as I have already talked about to the 
manager of the bill. The Nelson amendment----
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I will have to reserve, I think, on one 
or more of those. There may be a second-degree amendment. I don't have 
any problem with the order, but I will come back.
  Mr. REID. Then eliminate the time on the amendment. I ask that the--
  Mr. STEVENS. That is fair. We will set the order and agree on the 
time; and if there is an amendment, if there is any identified, at the 
present time, Senators are willing to set the order with that 
understanding.
  Mr. REID. Should we eliminate the time though?
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes.
  Mr. REID. Why don't we have the time applicable unless you decide to 
offer a second-degree.
  Mr. STEVENS. Very well, I don't have any problem with that. But I do 
want to reserve the right to schedule amendments from this side in 
between if Senators wish to offer amendments in this period of time.
  Mr. REID. I did mention that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. For the information of Senators, as I indicated last 
evening, we will have a series of amendments that we will offer in 
small groupings very soon. I believe we will have some amendments 
identified on our side of the aisle as soon as this first vote will 
begin. It is my understanding that the vote on Senator Feingold's 
amendment will commence at 11.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. STEVENS. Is the Senator ready to start now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. My understanding is that I am to be allotted 5 minutes 
in response to Senator Bond's comments on my amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. That was my request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair and I thank the managers for their 
fairness in light of the fact that we were going to have a minute on 
each side. I appreciate the understanding that I do want to respond to 
Senator Bond's remarks.
  Senator Bond apparently has not actually read what my amendment does 
with regard to the Indonesian military and the IMET Program. Obviously, 
there is a terrorism threat in Indonesia today, as Senator Bond 
indicated. That is one of the conditions this amendment is all about. 
It is about making sure that Indonesia cooperates with us in fighting 
terrorist attacks, such as the ones that were so awfully perpetrated on 
the people in Bali.
  What is even more troubling about Senator Bond's remarks is that he 
doesn't even mention the fact that apparently the Indonesian military 
was involved in an incident in Papua which killed American citizens.
  Are we only going to be upset when American citizens are killed in 
Yemen and Kuwait or are we going to respond and expect standards of 
help and behavior from countries when our citizens are killed in a 
place such as Indonesia?
  All this amendment does is try to make sure, as we continue our 
relationship with Indonesia--yes, a fledgling democracy--that we 
actually have accountability of that Indonesian military with which we 
would be involved. I am very troubled when we see the failure of 
cooperation with the FBI's reasonable request to deal with this awful 
murder of our citizens. We need a message to be sent clearly to the 
Indonesian Government, and in particular to the Indonesian military, 
that as the FBI returns to try to do this investigation again, we will 
get cooperation.
  The whole point here is not that we are trying to cut off military 
help and assistance; it is that there have to be two preconditions to 
make sure it is a legitimate enterprise in which to be involved. One is 
that the Indonesian Government and military has to help us in dealing 
with terrorism; secondly, they need to help us get to the bottom of 
this awful massacre that occurred.
  If Senators don't believe me, I refer them to the letter of Patricia 
Lynn Spier of Colorado, whose husband was brutally murdered in this 
incident. Ask her and the other families whether they think it is 
appropriate for the Indonesian military to investigate itself with 
regard to this incident or whether they should cooperate with the FBI.
  Despite the attempt to distort what this amendment is about, my 
amendment is simple. Until the President determines that Indonesia is 
committed to fighting terrorism and committed to cooperating and 
investigating the murder of American citizens, my amendment would deny 
Indonesia access to IMET, though it would--I emphasize this to the 
Senator from Missouri--permit access to expanded IMET courses that are 
relevant to military reforms. So, yes, we want to promote a good 
relationship with the military in Indonesia, if these preconditions are 
met. We are going to continue counter-terrorism training, expanded IMET 
sales of nonlethal defense articles, officer visits, educational 
exchanges, and port visits. We are not cutting off these items.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I have the floor, Mr. President.
  Let's be clear, because the Senator from Missouri did not mention 
this. Last August, two Americans were killed and eight were wounded in 
an ambush in West Papua, Indonesia. Indonesia's police investigated, 
and their report concluded that the Indonesian military was very likely 
responsible for the deaths of these Americans. When the investigation 
was turned over to the Indonesian military, it exonerated itself and it 
failed to fully cooperate not only with the Indonesian authorities but 
with our own FBI.
  Some may say this amendment cuts off ties to the Indonesian military

[[Page S1381]]

when we need a strong coalition to fight terrorism. But nothing in my 
amendment will prohibit important national security programs, including 
counterterrorism training. Why would we hesitate? Why would we hesitate 
to condition one element--only one element--of our relationship with 
the Indonesian military on a demand that we simply get to the bottom of 
this incident? Real partners in the fight against terrorism do not 
murder American citizens and do not conspire to cover up such murders.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BOND. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 24 seconds.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield to the Senator for a question.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am not speaking on the time on this side. 
I ask my colleague from Wisconsin if he has visited the area, if he has 
talked with our officials in the region, if he has talked with the 
people in governments who support us and who support Indonesia. Has he 
had the opportunity to find out what the impact of this amendment would 
be?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I have had daily contact with a wide variety of 
individuals we are concerned with, including some the Senator 
mentioned. I have been involved in this issue of Indonesia and East 
Timor for 10 years, since I have been a Member of the Senate and a 
member of the Subcommittee on Asia. I think I have a right to speak on 
this as much as the Senator from Missouri. When it comes to the deaths 
of American citizens, they should be cooperating with the FBI.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, this is exactly the wrong time to be 
taking away IMET from the Indonesian military. For 10 years they were 
prohibited from having the kind of military-to-military relationship 
with us that helps upgrade their military and teach them about human 
rights and to do the right thing regarding their own people. It took a 
long time to get IMET restored, and the leader of that effort was 
Senator Inouye of Hawaii--that bipartisan effort to get IMET restored. 
Now we would take a step in the wrong direction.
  (At the request of Mr. McConnell, the following statement was ordered 
to be printed in the Record.)
 Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I want to convey to my colleagues 
my opposition to this amendment. During the markup of the foreign 
operations bill by the full Appropriations Committee, I offered an 
amendment to restore full International Military Education and Training 
to Indonesia. I believe full participation in this important program is 
essential to maintain our partnership with Indonesia in our global 
fight against terrorism. The restriction on the participation of 
Indonesia proposed by my colleague from Wisconsin will harm our 
relationship and impede our fight against terrorism in one of the 
front-line countries of this fight. I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment. The Feingold amendment will send a message to the 
Indonesians that although we ask for their cooperation in our fight 
against international terrorism, we will not provide them with the 
training and tools necessary for that fight and view their country as 
not worthy of full participation in our international assistance 
programs. I do not believe this is the message we want to send to one 
of our critical allies. It is in our national interest to have a stable 
and democratic Indonesia and that their military is accountable and 
professional. We can work toward these goals through the participation 
of Indonesia's military in our IMET program.
  Once again, I urge my colleagues to oppose the pending amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask that a copy of the statement I made when I 
offered my amendment before the Appropriations Committee be printed in 
the Record.
  The statement follows.

       Introduction of the Amendment to Restore IMET to Indonesia

       Mr. Chairman, together with my colleagues the senior 
     Senators from Alaska, Kentucky, and Missouri, I offer an 
     amendment to restore full International Military Education 
     and Training (IMET) program participation to Indonesia.
       In April, Senators Stevens and I traveled to Asia. We 
     visited Indonesia where they had just brought into custody a 
     Muslim cleric who was quoted as having said, ``Osama bin 
     Laden is a lightweight.'' Indonesia has the world's largest 
     Muslim population and has only recently embraced democratic 
     principles. We must engage and support this fledgling 
     democracy by supporting reform of the military and helping to 
     build capacity to control and support modern, professional 
     armed forces. We believe that full access to IMET programs 
     will foster the necessary changes.
       We also believe that the continued restriction on IMET 
     program participation of Indonesia sends a message to the 
     Indonesians. It is a message that they are second class 
     international citizens, unworthy of full participation in our 
     international assistance programs. Is this the message we 
     want to send?
       I appreciate that this bill provides $400,000 for Expanded 
     (IMET (E-IMET) programs in Indonesia. However, the training 
     provided under E-IMER focuses on administration of the armed 
     forces and the dissemination of international human rights 
     information through the use of Mobile Education Teams that 
     are sent in country. The E-IMET program does provide valuable 
     skills in defense resource management and military justice, 
     but Indonesia needs to focus on professionalizing the 
     military. This can only be accomplished through our 
     assistance via the full IMET program.
       I IMET program training is provided to all levels of the 
     military, from generals to enlisted personnel. This training, 
     much of which is provided in the United States, builds 
     invaluable connections between the United States and foreign 
     nations that provide long-term benefits. The Department of 
     Defense conducts a variety of activities for foreign military 
     and civilian officials. Formal instruction is offered 
     involving more than 2,000 courses taught at approximately 150 
     military schools and installations. The program is based upon 
     the premise that active promoting of democratic values is one 
     of the most effective means available for achieving U.S. 
     national security and foreign policy objectives and for 
     fostering peaceful relationships among the nations of the 
     world.
       I understand that Senator Leahy views IMET as a reward and 
     does not believe it should be afforded to the TNI in light of 
     past abuses and failure to achieve the accountability 
     benchmarks set in last year's Foreign Operations 
     Appropriations bill. This is not a reward. IMET is a vehicle 
     to help TNI achieve those benchmarks. Indonesia has made some 
     progress toward meeting the Leahy conditions, but without 
     recognition of and response to what has been accomplished to 
     date, we will only bolster the arguments of those in 
     Indonesia opposed to reform who believe it is worthless to 
     try to please the United States since we are unwilling to 
     recognize their progress.
       There are few countries in the world with democratic 
     governments where the rule of law is as firmly established as 
     in the United States. That cannot be our litmus test for 
     provision of assistance. Providing the requested assistance 
     to Indonesia would not be an exception to a well-established 
     rule. Our nation assists countries that are obviously not 
     democracies. Why do we do this? Because, it is in our 
     national interest. Were we helping a democracy when we 
     embarked on Operation Dessert Storm and put up our fortune 
     and our most precious resource, the lives of our soldiers? 
     No, we were not, but we were acting in our national interest.
       It is in our national interest to have a stable and 
     democratic Indonesia. It is in our national interest that 
     Indonesia develops internal capabilities to address 
     international terrorism. It is in our national interest that 
     Indonesia's military is professional and accountable. We can 
     work toward these goals through the participation of 
     Indonesia's military in our IMET program.
       Please be assured that I do not advocate lifting the 
     prohibition on the participation of Indonesia in the Foreign 
     Military Financing program. I believe a strong professional 
     and accountable TNI must be established before Indonesia's 
     participation in that program is renewed. However, I believe 
     participation in the full IMET program is vital to reaching 
     that goal, and I ask my colleagues to support this 
     amendment.

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep concern 
about a deadly attack that occurred last August in West Papua, 
Indonesia, and to call on the Government of Indonesia to cooperate 
fully with U.S. law enforcement authorities to ensure that those 
responsible are brought to justice.
  Ted Burgon of Oregon and Rick Spier of Colorado were gunned down 
along with an Indonesian, Bambang Riwanto. Eight Americans were 
injured: Nancy Burgon, Saundra Hopkins, Ken Balk, and Taia Hopkins, all 
of Oregon, Patsy Spier of Colorado, Francine Goodfriend of Illinois, 
Steven Emma of Florida, and Lynn Poston, of Washington State.
  The victims, school teachers from the International School and their

[[Page S1382]]

families, were associated with the Freeport-McMoran mine in West Papua.
  I speak to this issue because the bill before us restores funding for 
International Military Education and Training programs for Indonesia. 
Before we do that, I think we need some answers.
  Mr. President, there is troubling evidence that members of the 
Indonesian military may have been behind the attack. It occurred less 
than half a mile from an Indonesian military outpost.
  Hundreds of rounds were fired at the teachers and their vehicles 
during the ambush, which lasted 45 minutes, but the military was very 
slow to respond and failed to apprehend any of the assailants.
  The Indonesian police promptly began an investigation. They collected 
evidence, interviewed witnesses, and reconstructed the ambush. The 
senior police official in charge said last December that there is 
evidence that soldiers from the army's strategic reserve force were 
involved in the shooting. This same senior police official also 
reported last November that a witness to the ambush reported seeing 
members of the Indonesian army's special forces participating in the 
attack.
  The motive? The Army may have hoped to blame the murders on West 
Papuan rebels who have been fighting a low level insurgency for years 
seeking independence from Indonesia.
  Bottom line: The police report on the murders concludes, quote: 
``there is a strong possibility that the case was perpetrated by 
members of the Indonesian National Army Force, however, it still needs 
to be investigated further.''
  Well, guess what happened? After they pointed the finger at the 
military, the two senior police officials on the case, General Raziman 
and Assistant Senior Police Commissioner Sumarjiyo were mysteriously 
transferred, removed from all responsibility for investigating the 
murders.
  The investigation was handed over to the Indonesian military itself! 
Not surprisingly, the military concluded that the armed forces had 
nothing to do with the killings.
  Mr. President, this is the same military that denied all culpability 
for gross violations of human rights over 25 years in East Timor and 
Aceh. The same military that has armed, trained, and protected militant 
Islamic groups associated with grotesque, religiously motivated attacks 
on innocent civilians elsewhere in Indonesia.
  Mr. President, it is essential that the United States secure the full 
support of Indonesia--a nation of 200 million people, most of them 
Muslims--in the war on terrorism.
  Indonesia itself has been the target of terrorists, as we witnessed 
last year in the terrible bombing on Bali that left hundreds dead and 
injured, many of them Australian tourists.
  It is appropriate that in the wake of 9/11, the United States has 
sought ways to strengthen our ties to Indonesia, including considering 
the resumption of normal military training for the Indonesian Army. 
Civilian authorities in Jakarta and some officers within the military 
are trying to end the culture of impunity that has prevailed for the 
past 30 years. I think it is in our national interests to establish 
appropriate links to the Indonesian armed forces to improve their 
professionalism, enhance intelligence sharing, and help prevent future 
terrorist attacks in Indonesia or elsewhere.
  But that does not mean we should turn a blind eye to continuing 
abuses by the Indonesian Army.
  We will not be doing ourselves or the Indonesian people any favors if 
we ally ourselves with those who may themselves be responsible for 
criminal acts.
  Before we jump to restore IMET funding for Indonesia, I hope that 
President Bush will give us his assurance that we are getting the full 
cooperation of Indonesian authorities. The FBI should have full access 
to all the evidence and to the witnesses to the attack. An independent 
investigation should be launched of the possible Indonesian military 
involvement.
  These are American citizens we are talking about. Victims, perhaps, 
of a cynical effort to manipulate United States public opinion and 
convince our government to increase aid to the Indonesian armed forces 
as part of the war on terrorism. We need to get to the bottom of what 
happened.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter 
from the State Department opposing this amendment be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         U.S. Department of State, Assistant Secretary of State 
           for Legislative Affairs,
                                 Washington, DC, January 22, 2003.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Committee on 
         Appropriations, U.S. Senate.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to express concern about 
     the proposed amendment to the FY 03 omnibus appropriation 
     bill by Senator Feingold that restricts IMET to Indonesia. 
     The Department of State opposes this amendment, which would 
     damage important U.S. foreign policy interests in Indonesia.
       The amendment in question would limit Indonesian military 
     personnel to participation in the Expanded IMET program only, 
     absent a presidential determination ``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 U.S. 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.''
       We share Senator Feingold's concerns on both points and 
     have been working actively with the Indonesian Government on 
     them. Indonesia is engaged in the war against terrorism--
     including a new police counter-terrorism unit that we are 
     helping to establish. Indonesia authorities are investigating 
     and prosecuting terrorists, including members of the al-Qaida 
     affiliated Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), while not sacrificing 
     newly-gained democratic freedoms. In the extremely 
     professional Bali bombing investigation, Indonesian National 
     Police investigators have detained over 30 supects to date, 
     and are cooperating with regional ASEAN neighbors to uncover 
     possible links to international terrorism. The Bali 
     investigation process has also seen good cooperation 
     between the Indonesian National Police and counterparts 
     from the Australian Federal Police, the FBI, and Scotland 
     Yard. It is also important to note that the Indonesian 
     Police, not the Indonesian Armed Forces, have the lead 
     responsibility in this and in other terrorist 
     investigations.
       The killing of American citizens in Papua is a matter of 
     gravest importance to us. The President has directed that we 
     emphasize to the Government of Indonesia that there must be a 
     credible investigation and process of justice to avoid damage 
     to our entire bilateral relationship. We have done so at the 
     highest levels. In response to our repeated demarches, the 
     Indonesian Government has agreed to a new investigation of 
     this crime to include FBI participation. FBI agents will 
     arrive in Indonesia on January 22 to explore the terms of 
     their participation in the investigation.
       We have requested that $400,000 in FY03 IMET be provided 
     for Indonesia. If approved by Congress, this will be the 
     first time in a decade that we will have the ability to use 
     IMET as a tool to pursue our national objectives in 
     Indonesia. These objectives include strengthening Indonesian 
     cooperation in the war on terrorism, as well as supporting 
     the democratic transition in, and the territorial integrity 
     of, Indonesia. IMET assists these objectives by providing us 
     with access to the Indonesian Armed Forces, which remains 
     among the most prominent national institutions in Indonesia. 
     IMET also provides a vehicle for the United States to impart 
     our ideas about civil-military relations to foreign military 
     audiences, and to promote military reform.
       We ask that Congress proceed with its consideration of the 
     Administration's IMET request. The goals of the proposed 
     amendment by Senator Feingold are worthy and we share them. 
     But, they are now, and will remain, works in progress for 
     some time to come, not settled issues. In the interim, if 
     Congress approves our request, we will not obligate these 
     IMET funds without further consultation with Congress.
       We hope that this information assists you in your 
     consideration of this amendment. Please contact us if you 
     have any questions.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Paul V. Kelly,
                                              Assistant Secretary.

  Mr. McConnell. Mr. President, let me sum it up. The Bali bombing 
underscores that when it come to terrorism, Indonesia is at ground 
zero, right there in the middle of it. They are on our side. This 
amendment should be roundly defeated.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, with much reservation, I rise today in 
support of the Feingold amendment. On

[[Page S1383]]

August 31, 2002 several Americans in West Papua--Indonesia were 
brutally attacked by heavily armed assailants. Two Americans--Rick 
Spier and Ted Burgon--were murdered during the 35 minute ambush and 
many others were seriously wounded.
  Last week, I met with Rick Spier's wife, Mrs. Patsy Spier, who was 
also shot three times during the attack. She described with much 
emotion the circumstances of the attack and the horrific result. I was 
saddened by her loss and angered by the Indonesian Government's failure 
to bring the perpetrators to justice. Following my meeting with Mrs. 
Spier, I contacted the Department of States and later received a 
detailed briefing from Deputy Assistant Secretary Matthew Daley. I also 
contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation and expressed my interest 
in meeting the agents charged with investigation this case upon their 
return from Indonesia.
  Following these meetings, I wrote to President Bush to express my 
strong views about this matter. I urged the President to press the 
Indonesian Government to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the 
attack. I further wrote that if the Indonesian Government fails to act, 
a severe diplomatic response, including the suspension of funding for 
the International Military Education Training Program for Indonesia, 
should be considered. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record at the conclusion of my remarks my letter of January 16 to 
President Bush.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is as ordered.
  (See exhibit 1).
  Mr. ALLARD. I am pleased that Senator Mitch McConnell, Chairman of 
the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, has included strong report 
language on Indonesia. As I noted in a colloquy with Senator McConnell, 
the references in the report language to the Americans murdered in West 
Papua and the demands that justice be served for these crimes were 
warranted and much appreciated.
  The amendment before us would limit Indonesian military personnel to 
participation in the IMET program only, absent a presidential 
determination that the Indonesian government and armed forces are 
``demonstrating a commitment to assist United States efforts to combat 
international terrorism'' and ``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'' whom might be involved in the August 31 killings.
  I understand that the Department of State opposes this amendment, 
which it believes would damage important U.S. foreign policy interest 
in Indonesia. In a letter sent to Senator McConnell, Assistant 
Secretary of State James Kelly wrote:

       . . . the President has directed that we [the Department of 
     State] emphasize to the Government of Indonesia that there 
     must be a credible investigation and process of justice to 
     avoid damage in our entire bilateral relationship.

  He further wrote:

       In response to our repeated demarches, the Indonesian 
     government has agreed to a new investigation of this crime to 
     include FBI participation. FBI agents will arrive in 
     Indonesia on January 22 to explore the terms of their 
     participation in the investigation.

  While I applaud the administration for its involvement in this issue 
and am encouraged by Indonesia Government's agreement to conduct a new 
investigation, I strongly believe that the murder of innocent Americans 
is unacceptable and demands serious action on our part. We cannot be 
seen as rewarding the Indonesian government for covering up the killing 
of Americans. Such an action would set a frightful precedent and give 
other nations the impression that the murder of Americans would not 
warrant a serious response on the part of the United States. Clearly, 
the IMET funding in this bill sends the wrong signal at the wrong time. 
Therefore, despite serious reservations, I will vote in support of the 
Feingold amendment.
  Like many of my colleagues here in the Senate, I will continue to 
monitor this situation very closely, and should the Indonesian 
Government conduct a full and fair investigation, I will consider 
supporting new funding for Indonesia in the future.

                               Exhibit 1


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                 Washington, DC, January 16, 2003.
     Hon. George W. Bush,
     President, the White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear President Bush: I am writing to express my growing 
     concern about the lagging investigation into the August 31, 
     2002 attack on several Americans in West Papau, Indonesia. 
     Three people were killed, including two Americans, during the 
     attack, and eight others were seriously wounded.
       As you may know, the Indonesian police completed its 
     preliminary investigation last fall and concluded that the 
     Indonesian military may have been responsible for the attack. 
     Despite being informed of the results of the police 
     investigation, the Indonesian military has failed to look 
     into this matter. In fact, press reports suggest that the 
     Indonesian military may have exonerated itself of any 
     responsibility.
       I understand that senior officials at the Department of 
     State have expressed the concerns of your Administration 
     about the dogged pace of the investigation to the Indonesian 
     government. Your effort to determine who was responsible for 
     this brutal attack is commendable. However, more must be 
     done.
       I urge you to press the Indonesian government to conduct a 
     comprehensive investigation into the attack. Such an 
     investigation should include active and meaningful 
     participation by United States law enforcement agencies who 
     should have complete access to evidence and witnesses.
       The murder of innocent Americans overseas warrants a 
     serious response on our part. If the Indonesian government 
     fails to act, severe diplomatic actions, including the 
     suspension of IMET funding for Indonesia, should be 
     considered. We cannot afford to overlook further delays in 
     this important investigation.
       Again, thank you for your efforts, and I look forward to 
     your response.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Wayne Allard,
                                                     U.S. Senator.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. All time has 
expired.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 200.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have not been ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. We ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the 
Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), 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 annouced--yeas 36, nays 61, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 19 Leg.]

                                YEAS--36

     Allard
     Biden
     Boxer
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Sarbanes
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--61

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (FL)
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Harkin
     Inouye
     Lieberman
  The amendment (No. 200) was rejected.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. 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 the next vote be 
10 minutes in length.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Can we have order in the Chamber, please. Will the Senator from 
Alaska restate his request?

[[Page S1384]]

  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent time for the vote on the 
Mikulski amendment be limited to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. There is objection. Reserving the right to object, Mr. 
President, the Senate is not in order.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask unanimous consent the rollcall on the Mikulski 
amendment be postponed until such time to be called up as agreed upon 
by the two managers. We think we can work something out.
  Mr. STEVENS. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Amendment No. 39

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the next amendment in order is Senator 
Murray's amendment. There is a minute on each side, if the Senator 
wishes to use it. I wish to state now we will accept this amendment and 
it will be included in the across-the-board cut as an offset. Because 
of an amendment that was adopted yesterday, we now have leeway in that 
ceiling that we self-imposed, and we can take the amendment of the 
Senator from Washington. I believe her amendment has the approval of 
the House also. Many of us want to vote for it. We are prepared to 
accept the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate?
  Mr. STEVENS. Let her offer it, please.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska, and 
Senators Frist and Gregg and others who worked with us on the Community 
Access Program.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. I understand the Senator from Rhode Island has a 
colloquy?
  Mr. STEVENS. May I announce there will be no votes for a little while 
now. We have worked out we will have another series in a few minutes. 
Right now we would like to have the colloquy out of the way.
  I urge we adopt the Murray amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend Senator Murray for her strong 
leadership in restoring funds for the Healthy Communities Access 
Program to improve the delivery of care to the uninsured. The program 
provides grants to coalitions of health providers to improve the 
coordination of care for the uninsured. Since its inception, we have 
seen an overwhelmingly positive response to the program. Through these 
grants, 150 communities have been able to increase care for the 
uninsured, reduce unnecessary health costs, and create innovative 
projects through collaboration and information-sharing. In 
Massachusetts, the Cambridge Health Alliance used its grant to launch 
an impressive outreach campaign to enroll 57,000 uninsured residents in 
a comprehensive and well-coordinated system of care. The Alliance has 
formed strong partnerships with local schools, law enforcement, and 
advocacy groups who work together to meet the needs of the most 
vulnerable members of the community.
  The Healthy Communities Access Program embodies exactly the kind of 
innovative approach to improving the quality of health care that we 
need. Yet, despite its successes, the administration wants to zero out 
the program and the Omnibus Bill eliminates its funding. We should not 
allow the gains made in communities across the country to be lost 
because of this shortsightedness. I urge the Senate to approve this 
amendment and support our communities in this effective way to improve 
care for the uninsured.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back. The question is on 
agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 39) 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.
  Mr. STEVENS. I inquire how much time the Senator from Rhode Island 
and the Senator from West Virginia wish for their colloquy?
  Mr. CHAFEE. I believe it would be about 10 minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. Ten minutes total?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. We don't need that much.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent the Senator from Rhode Island 
and the Senator from West Virginia be recognized for not to exceed 10 
minutes total.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Rhode Island.


                                 S-CHIP

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I have been working for the last several 
months with a bipartisan group of Members from the House and Senate to 
protect funding for the State Children's Health Insurance Program, also 
known as S-CHIP, which provides critical health care to millions of 
children. In Rhode Island, over 12,000 children participate in this 
program. There is strong, bipartisan support for a 2-year S-CHIP 
proposal developed last fall that would preserve $2.7 billion in 
Federal S-CHIP funds that either expired at the end of fiscal year 2002 
or will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Our proposal also 
establishes a redistribution formula for the Centers for Medicare and 
Medicaid Services to use to quickly redistribute unspent fiscal year 
2000 funds to those states that have exhausted their allotments and 
need additional funds.
  Under Federal law, CMS is required to redistribute all unspent 2000 
funds this year, but there is no Federal requirement on what formula it 
should use. CMS is currently holding off redistributing unspent 2000 
funds because it is awaiting Congressional action. However, a few 
States, including Rhode Island, need the redistribution of 2000 funds 
as soon as possible so they have sufficient funds for the rest of the 
year to maintain services to the children currently enrolled in S-CHIP.
  This S-CHIP issue is very time-sensitive. If we do not remedy this 
situation soon, some States may scale back S-CHIP eligibility because 
they will assume they will have far less in Federal funds available 
than previously expected.
  Unfortunately, it appears that we cannot address this issue in the 
omnibus appropriations bill. I appreciate the willingness of the 
chairman of the Finance and budget Committees, Senators Grassley and 
Nickles, to work with us to address this issue in both the fiscal year 
2004 budget resolution and then to move this legislation quickly in the 
Finance Committee.
  I also think it is imperative for us to work with CMS so that they 
can move forward to begin to redistribute some of the unspent 2000 
funds to States like mine that are facing a serious S-CHIP funding 
problem. As Congress moves ahead to complete action on this proposal, 
CMS should move forward on the immediate redistribution of these funds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a moment? Does the Senator 
have the time?
  I want to commend my friend from Rhode Island. As one of the authors 
of the S-CHIP Program, we gave the States an opportunity to use the 
money and then we provided, if they did not use the money, that States 
that were attempting to cover the children would have some access to it 
and then eventually it would go back to the Treasury.
  We are finding out now that there are a number of States that are 
prepared to go ahead and insure these children. This program is so 
enormously important, because if you put it with the Medicaid Program, 
there is no real reason why any child in America isn't covered with 
some form of health insurance.
  I commend the Senator from Rhode Island. This program was agreed to 
and accepted in a strong bipartisan way. As author, along with my 
friend from Utah, Senator Hatch, if we had just not provided this 
provision and let the States have a little more time to implement it, 
we would have a lot more children covered. This makes a great

[[Page S1385]]

deal of sense. It is focused and it is a successful program. The point 
the Senator from Rhode Island makes is that it will ensure that 
hundreds of thousands of more children will be protected with health 
insurance.
  I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, following on what the Senator from 
Rhode Island said, it is extremely important that we get it done 
immediately. This is a two-part problem. One is the $1.5 billion 
shortfall in this fiscal year, and the $1.6 billion in the second 
fiscal year. The States have the money. Since we did not put the 
program under Medicaid at the very beginning, States started at various 
rates. Some were faster than others. Therefore, not all the money has 
been used. Rather than return it to the Treasury where it can't help 
any child at all--we still have 8 million, or 10 million, or 12 million 
children who need to be insured. We need to do the short-term fix, 
which is what this colloquy is about. Then we need to get to a longer 
term fix in the Finance Committee. I look forward to working with 
Chairman Grassley and Chairman Baucus to mark up a bill which will 
accomplish this objective on an annual basis, and then, of course, move 
on to the next logical step, which is to include the parent or parents 
of those same children.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to join in the colloquy 
that has just been held because it comes under the jurisdiction--or at 
least some of it--of the committee that I chair.
  I thank my colleagues for their attention to this important 
children's health care policy. They are correct that something must be 
done to address the funds that have and will revert to the treasury in 
the near future. They are also correct to note the constraints within 
the omnibus bill. I strongly support the State Children's Health 
Insurance Program. It is a program that provides heath care for over 
16,000 low-income children in my state.
  Senators Chafee, Snowe, and Rockefeller are looking to address a 
necessary maintenance issue within S-CHIP. As Senator Snowe noted, I 
worked very closely with Senator Baucus, Senator Chafee, Senator 
Rockefeller, Chairman Tauzin, and Representative Dingell on a 
bipartisan, bicameral proposal that would have addressed expired S-CHIP 
funds.
  The proposal reflected a balanced approach to redistributing S-CHIP 
funding taking into account that some states are spending through their 
existing allotments and other states are ramping up their programs and 
will need additional funding in the years to come.
  This proposal did not pass the Senate last year, but it is a fair 
approach to redistributing S-CHIP funds. Unfortunately, I can not 
support including this policy at this time. The omnibus bill is a poor 
vehicle for this necessary maintenance.
  I am sympathetic to the intent of this policy, although this is 
neither the time nor the place to address this issue. The Senate and 
the House have an agreement with the Administration to keep the omnibus 
appropriation bill under $750 billion. The S-CHIP policy costs over 
$1.2 billion in budget authority in 2003. An amendment of this nature 
would break that agreement and that is simply not acceptable. I 
appreciate Senator Snowe's, Chafee's and Rockefeller's willingness to 
accept this reality.
  I assure my colleagues that I will work with them in the near future 
to update the S-CHIP redistribution policy in the near future as 
chairman of the Finance Committee. It my understanding that Senator 
Nickles, the chairman of the Budget Committee, is also interested in a 
regular order approach and that he is interested in putting money aside 
in the budget to address the needs of S-CHIP.
  With this in mind, I believe the most appropriate way to address this 
issue is to work with the Chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator 
Nickles, to secure sufficient funding for this bipartisan S-CHIP 
proposal and then to address it in the Finance Committee. I will also 
continue my work with Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Tauzin, so 
the Senate and the House can move forward in a coordinated fashion.
  I assure my colleagues that I will work with them once the budget 
resolution for fiscal year 2004 has been adopted to move legislation 
quickly through the Finance Committee that reflects a bipartisan, 
bicameral two-year agreement on S-CHIP.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I compliment the chairman of the Finance 
Committee. I will work with him. I tell the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, if these amendments had come up, we would 
have had problems. There were about three S-CHIP amendments. We will 
not do the amendments on the appropriations bill. We will work to try 
to make it possible to do them through the Budget Committee. If we did 
pass one, it would go over to the House, and the House--which did pass 
a budget, and they have exceeded their authorization--they would stop 
it. I think this is the best way to work. When we pass a new budget 
resolution, we will supersede last year's budget resolution. We will be 
able to do this in regular order through the Finance Committee.
  I look forward to working with the chairman, and also Senator Snowe, 
Senator Collins, Senator Rockefeller, and others who have strong 
interests in trying to make sure these unexpended funds that are set 
aside for S-CHIP can be appropriately used.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the State 
Children's Health Insurance Program and to thank my colleagues for 
their willingness to work with me on restoring funding to this program 
that is essential to ensuring continued health care coverage for 
America's children.
  For the past week, I have worked with my colleagues to secure this 
agreement that will restore $2.7 billion in expired, or soon to expire, 
SCHIP funding. This compromise, that has been endorsed by our Nation's 
Governors, would ensure that this funding remains in the program and 
continues to provide children with access to the care that is vital to 
their healthy development.
  I appreciate the willingness of Majority Leader Frist, Finance 
Committee Chairman Grassley and Budget Committee Chairman Nickles to 
work with us in developing this agreement. Because of their commitment 
to finding a solution, we are able to move forward with this important 
policy.
  I believe this agreement is the most appropriate way to restore the 
SCHIP funding. Because the budget resolution adopted by the House of 
Representatives does not include adequate budget authority to restore 
this funding, the floor amendment that I filed to the omnibus 
appropriations bill would be subject to a budget point of order in the 
House. Given the that this point of order would lie against the 
provision, the likelihood that the House would strip this during 
conference is great. In light of these circumstances, I believe that 
this agreement is the most appropriate way to ensure that this funding 
is restored.
  The agreement that was struck would, in exchange for withdrawing the 
amendments that my colleagues and I filed to the omnibus appropriations 
bill to restore SCHIP funding--provide the support of the majority 
leader and Chairman Grassley and Nickles to make necessary changes that 
will remove the budget hurdles that have prevented this legislation 
from being enacted.
  Specifically, Senator Nickles has provided his commitment to 
reallocate through the fiscal year 2004 budget process additional 
budget authority for SCHIP in fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004. 
Senator Nickles, I am confident that under your leadership, the budget 
process will move smoothly and expeditiously and that we will be able 
to speed the adoption of this proposal in both the Senate and House of 
Representatives.
  Further, Chairman Grassley has agreed to move this policy through his 
committee as soon as the necessary changes are made to the budget 
allocations. Again, under his strong leadership, I am confident that we 
will get this done.
  Finally, Majority Leader Frist has agreed to place the legislation on 
the

[[Page S1386]]

Senate calender as soon as it is reported from the Finance Committee.
  I might add that while I am aware that this agreement was forged in 
the Senate, the underlying policy proposal was developed through a 
bipartisan, bicameral process led by Senators Grassley and Baucus last 
fall. I hope that the House of Representatives will work with us to 
make the necessary changes to the fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004 
budget allocations and to see this vital policy enacted in a timely 
manner.
  Since 1997, States have made historic progress in their effort to 
insure low-income children under SCHIP. In fact, the National Center 
for Health Statistics just released data this month showing that the 
percentage of children 17 years of age and younger with health 
insurance has increased from 86.1 percent in 1997 to 91.2 percent 
during the first half of 2002. During this same period of time, 
statistics show the percentage of children insured by government 
programs, such as SCHIP, also increased to 27.2 percent. While these 
statistics are encouraging, a great deal of work remains if we are to 
address the critical issues of affordability and accessibility of 
health insurance, especially as they relate to health care for our 
children.
  These compelling statistics reinforce the necessity that Congress 
must act to restore the expiring SCHIP funds. If we delay, we could 
jeopardize the substantial progress that has been made since 1997 in 
increasing the number of insured children in America. It is estimated 
that without restoration of this funding, almost one million children 
could lose health insurance coverage.
  How it works it this, once passed, the policy would restore $2.7 
billion in SCHIP funding that has either reverted to the Treasury or is 
scheduled to revert to HHS for redistribution. On October 1, 2002, $1.2 
billion reverted to the Treasury in unspent SCHIP funding from 1998 and 
1999. If we do not recapture this funding, it will be lost to the 
program. Our agreement allows the States to reclaim this unspent money 
and provides until the end of fiscal year 2004 to spend it on health 
insurance provided by SCHIP.
  It also strikes a compromise between States that have spent all of 
their 2000 and 2001 allotments, and those that have not, by dividing 
the funding evenly between them. Those States that have not spent all 
of their allocations would be able to retain half of their funding, 
while the remaining States would receive additional allotments from the 
redistributed funding.
  It also rewards those States that used Medicaid to expand access to 
health care for low-income children prior to the creation of SCHIP, by 
allowing them to access some of their SCHIP funding to serve this 
population. This compromise has the endorsement of the National 
Governors Association and children's health advocates from across the 
country.
  In my home State of Maine, this proposal would allow the State to 
keep $13.4 million in SCHIP funding and would provide until the end of 
fiscal year 2004 to spent, I do not know about your State, but in Maine 
$13.24 million will help provide health care assistance to a lot of 
children, children who otherwise would not have access to 
immunizations, well-baby visits and yearly check-ups.
  While my colleagues and I have agreed to forgo the appropriations 
process as the vehicle to move this package, we certainly have not 
abandoned our effort to restore the funding. If fact, we are more 
committed then ever to seeing the SCHIP funding restored and have added 
the support of the majority leader and chairs of the Finance and Budget 
Committees. Adding their endorsement to this effort, which already has 
garnered strong bipartisan support, will help to speed its passage.
  In closing, I wish to highlight a quote from Secretary Thompson when 
his agency released the positive new data I referenced earlier 
regarding the level of health insurance for children in our country. He 
said:

       More and more children are getting the health care they 
     need, thanks in large measure to our success in working with 
     states to expand health coverage through the SCHIP program. 
     We are giving governors the flexibility they need to continue 
     to expand coverage to more children, and our strategy is 
     paying off for children and parents alike.

  This strong endorsement of SCHIP should act as an impetus to getting 
this policy enacted and ensuring that we do so in a timely fashion. 
Again, I appreciate the support of my colleagues and look forward to 
working with you as we move forward to enact this policy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time on 
the Kennedy amendment be 30 minutes equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KENNEDY. What was the request?
  Mr. STEVENS. My request was that the time on the Kennedy amendment be 
30 minutes equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. STEVENS. I also ask unanimous consent that the time on any 
amendment be limited to 30 minutes unless specifically requested 
otherwise by myself or the distinguished minority whip.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCAIN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I renew that request.
  Mr. McCAIN. I remove my objection.
  Mr. STEVENS. The unanimous consent request is that the time on any 
amendment be limited to 30 minutes unless specifically requested 
otherwise by myself or the minority whip.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DORGAN. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on the Clinton 
amendment numbered 89 the time be equally divided and limited to 30 
minutes, and that there be no second-degree amendments in order prior 
to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, on amendment No. 138 offered by Senator 
Bingaman, I ask unanimous consent that debate be limited to 30 minutes 
and that there be no second-degree amendment prior to the vote.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. I have included the Clinton amendment numbered 89 with 30 
minutes equally divided; the Bingaman amendment numbered 138 with 30 
minutes equally divided, and I would like to do the same on the 
Cantwell amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. I can't agree on the Cantwell amendment. We can agree on 
the others.
  Mr. REID. Those two will be fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, staff has indicated that we were perhaps not 
clear on the Kennedy amendment. There would be no second-degree 
amendment prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.


                           Amendment No. 123

  Mr. KENNEDY. 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 Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 123.

  Mr. KENNEDY. 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 increase funding for reducing health disparities and 
                       promoting minority health)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. ____. (a) In General.--In addition to amounts 
     otherwise appropriated in this Act, there are appropriated 
     $584,646,000, of which--
       (1) $43,492,000 shall be made available to the National 
     Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities;
       (2) $21,015,000 shall be made available to the Office of 
     Minority Health of the Department of Health and Human 
     Services;

[[Page S1387]]

       (3) $15,334,000 shall be made available to the Office for 
     Civil Rights of the Department of Health and Human Services 
     for discrimination-related enforcement and allocated to 
     enforcement actions and the investigation of complaints and 
     potential violations of law relating to discrimination and 
     racial disparities in health care;
       (4) $491,500,000 shall be made available to the Department 
     of Health and Human Services for research and activities 
     under the Minority HIV/AIDS initiative; and
       (5) $13,305,000 shall be made available to the Health 
     Resources and Services Administration for Health Professions 
     Training for Diversity programs.
       (b) Office of Minority Health.--The amount appropriated 
     under subsection (a)(2), shall be made available to the 
     Office of Minority Health of the Department of Health and 
     Human Services to be used for activities including--
       (1) to undertake, through and in collaboration with the 
     Public Health Service agencies, a coordinated Federal 
     initiative to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in health, 
     particularly in the six focus areas of infant mortality, 
     cancer screening and management, cardiovascular disease, 
     diabetes, HIV/AIDS, and immunizations;
       (2) to increase funding for minority health initiatives and 
     collaborations at the multi-State, State, and local level 
     that employ proven public health strategies to reduce health 
     disparities in specific minority populations;
       (3) to expand Federal efforts and assist States in the 
     collection and analysis of health status data that includes 
     standard racial and ethnic data;
       (4) to conduct or support research on effective health 
     interventions in minority communities;
       (5) to assist in the development and dissemination of cross 
     cultural curricula for the training of health professionals;
       (6) to provide technical assistance to States to improve 
     public health infrastructures and outreach for health 
     disparity populations; and
       (7) to sponsor National Forums on African American Health 
     Care, Latino Health Care, Asian American Health Care, and 
     Native American Health Care.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 8 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this is a health amendment. It is related 
to the broad disparities that exist in health care in our society, 
which recently the President of the United States has recognized, and 
also our majority leader.
  I will take a moment or two to demonstrate these very significant 
health disparities. This amendment is intended to support and expand 
some of the existing programs which are in effect and a number of which 
have been cut very deeply in this omnibus appropriations bill, to 
restore funding to the appropriations, and then also to meet some of 
the current needs.
  Just very quickly, we have nearly one in four African Americans and 
one in three Hispanics who are uninsured compared to 16 percent of all 
Americans. The mortality rate for African Americans is 1.6 times higher 
than for Whites, a ratio that is actually identical to the ratio in 
1950. That has not changed since 1950--the last 50 years. The African-
American infant mortality rate is twice that of Whites. Diabetes 
afflicts Hispanics twice as much as Whites. Minorities are less likely 
to get heart medicines or cardiac surgery or even essential pain 
medications. African-American men suffer prostate cancer twice as often 
as White men.
  This is the reality. And I could go on. There are very dramatic and 
significant disparities. Take, for example, the health disparities in 
HIV/AIDS. This chart shows the rate per 100,000 of the population. It 
is 81.9 among Black Americans, 34.7 among Hispanics, 9.4 among American 
Indians/Alaskans. And it is 8.4 among the White population. There is a 
tremendous disparity.
  What we have seen is that the minority HIV/AIDS initiative faces a 
devastating cut in this omnibus bill. It is an 85-percent cut. Do we 
hear that? An 85-percent cut.
  In 2002, there was $381 million available for the initiative. In the 
omnibus, it is $50 million. This amendment would put it at $540 
million. It would take the $380 million and adjust it to the increased 
demands we are facing.
  It is absolutely intolerable that we have seen this dramatic 
reduction in terms of outreach for services, for prescriptions, for 
caring among minority populations. I think it is one of the glaring 
deficiencies of this particular program.
  Before continuing, I must make a brief comment on today's Washington 
Post article on the front page where they say the AIDS panel choice 
wrote of a ``gay plague''--a ``gay plague.'' ``Views of White House 
Commission Nominee Draw Criticism.''
  I would have thought, with all the debate and discussion we have had 
here on the floor, going back to the debate and discussion on Ryan 
White, and how we have debated and discussed the NIH budget and other 
issues relating to minority health, that we could have moved beyond 
this kind of serious stereotype of characterizing those with HIV or 
AIDS as part of a ``gay plague.'' Most of us thought this country had 
gone well beyond that kind of horrible insensitivity. I believe this 
appointment should be withdrawn. It is an insult to gay Americans, to 
those who have worked so hard to treat people with AIDS with 
sensitivity and support.
  Removing one individual is not enough. We must maintain and expand 
our commitment to deal with the disease. When it comes to AIDS in the 
minority community, this appropriations bill is missing in action.
  This amendment also provides some assistance to the NIH Center on 
Minorities and Health Disparities to try to make sure that the center, 
which coordinates a national research agenda on minority health is 
going to be adequately funded.
  It also provides a very small and modest increase in the HHS Office 
for Civil Rights. Many members of the minority community are being 
excluded from treatment, care, and attention. It is difficult to think 
that is the case, but that is happening all over this country. The HHS 
Office for Civil Rights has more than 1,000 complaints on its desk that 
are being unanswered. We provide a few million dollars, from $33 
million up to $48 million, to be able to deal with this.
  Finally, one of the most important provisions in all of this pertains 
to programs that are directed to try to help meet the deficiencies in 
training minority health professionals and support historically Black 
schools. I just want to point out that in the Clinton year of 2000, 
funding was $93 million; in 2001, it was $109 million; and in 2002, it 
was $115 million; but the Bush request for this year is $10 million--
$10 million.
  There has been an increase in the revised omnibus, but it still shows 
a blatant and flagrant failure to understand the serious problem in the 
declining numbers of minority health professionals. These series of 
programs and the centers of excellence that enable many minorities to 
make it to schools of professional training--in nursing, dentistry, and 
medicine--those programs would have effectively been closed down. And 
the scholarship programs which have been available to minority students 
effectively would have been drastically reduced.
  It does seem to me, after all we have heard in the debates over the 
period of the last 2 weeks, on issues of affirmative action, on issues 
of civil rights, that the one area on which we could all come together 
is these extraordinary disparities in health care that have been out 
there. These are the same disparities that have been around for the 
last 50 years and, under this omnibus bill, programs that help to 
alleviate the disparities are being cut back or abandoned in a very 
significant and important way.
  This amendment restores those funds and adds additional funding to it 
to make sure we have realistic levels of assistance to reduce 
disparities. It does seem that even though we have had debates that 
have been divisive over recent times, on issues of affirmative action 
and other judicial issues, we as a Senate ought to be able to come 
together and say that whether you are going to get care and attention 
on a particular sickness or disease should not depend on the color of 
your skin. That is what is happening.
  Mr. President, I yield myself 2 more minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham of South Carolina). Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, that is what is happening. In too many 
instances we are finding that those whose skin is not white are being 
denied medical care. They are being denied the services which are so 
essential to individuals to improve their kind of health conditions.
  This is an area we can do something about. We will have broad debates 
on

[[Page S1388]]

other kinds of policy issues, but in terms of reducing the disparities 
and having support for the tried and true programs, this amendment will 
advance that cause. I hope we can accept it and move on.
  Mr. President, I withhold the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Does anyone yield time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and the 
time to be applied equally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, this amendment by the Senator from 
Massachusetts would increase funding by nearly $600 million. It would 
increase funding for programs at the National Center on Minority Health 
and Health Disparities, the Office of Minority Health at the Department 
of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Office for Civil Rights at HHS, 
the Department's Minority HIV/AIDS initiative, and the Health Resources 
and Services Administration's (HRSA) Health Professionals Training for 
Diversity Programs.
  I support these programs. In fact, many of these programs were 
established or authorized by legislation that I authored, including the 
Minority Health and Health Disparities Act of 2000 and the Health 
Professions Education Partnership Act of 1998.
  However, this amendment provides no offsets for these spending 
increases. At a time when we are facing significant spending pressures, 
it is irresponsible to propose such spending without specifying how to 
pay for them; and, although I support and will continue to support 
these programs, I must oppose this amendment.
  I would also note that the bill we are considering already contains 
significant increases in many of these programs, and I would commend 
Senators Stevens and Specter for their good work in this area. In fact, 
for the National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities and 
for the Office of Minority Health, the bill before us today contains 
exactly the same funding levels as the Democrats provided in their July 
2002 Labor-HHS Appropriations bill.
  In the case of Health Professions' programs in general, and the 
Health Professionals Training for Diversity program in particular, the 
bill already contains a drastic increase from that provided in the 
Democrats' July bill. For the Health Professionals Training for 
Diversity program that this amendment targets, I would point out that 
the underlying bill contains $125 million--an increase from the 
previous fiscal year--and that this program was zeroed out by the 
Democrats in July. For them to now say that we are not providing 
sufficient funding is disingenuous and disgraceful.
  I am disappointed by this attempt to politicize an important issue 
that we have successfully worked in the past to address on a bipartisan 
basis. I have made this issue of health disparities a priority over the 
past several years, and hope that, together, we can make additional 
strides in an area of health disparities in the coming year.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I have 5 minutes remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. President, I would like to call attention to the Labor-HHS 
appropriations conference report from FY 2002 on the Minority HIV/AIDS 
Initiative.
  What it shows is the appropriations for HIV/AIDS health programs for 
FY 2002--$123 million for HRSA; $96 million for CDC; $7 million for 
SAMHSA/Center for Mental Health Services; $57 million for SAMHSA/Center 
for Substance Abuse Treatment; $38 million to the Center for Substance 
Abuse Prevention; $50 million for the Office of the Secretary; $9.7 
million for the Office of Minority Health. That adds up to $381 
million.
  The Senate fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations lists $50 million 
for the Minority HIV/AIDS Initiative, Office of the Secretary. That is 
it. It is all listed in very considerable detail in this 2002 report. 
On the other hand, under this fiscal year 2003, minority HIV/AIDS has 
just the $50 million, Office of the Secretary.
  This is extremely important. The 2002 conference report illustrates 
exactly where the funding has been directed and the support for it. 
That is completely missing in this proposal.
  Our amendment addresses these issues and provides the kind of support 
which will make an important difference in reducing the disparities in 
health care in our society.
  Having listened to so many who have spoken so often in the last 
several days on civil rights, there may be differences on one issue or 
another affecting civil rights, but we should all come together on this 
issue to address the disparities in health care which exist. We should 
go beyond our differences.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does anyone yield time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 additional minute.
  What do these cuts mean? They mean 10,000 minority women and 
children, including HIV-infected pregnant women, will lose medical care 
under title IV of Ryan White; 11,000 minority patients in the hardest 
hit cities will lose lifesaving drugs and critical medical care through 
title I of Ryan White; another 5,000 minority patients will lose 
medical care funded through State governments under title II of Ryan 
White. These are just some of what will happen unless we make major 
changes in the omnibus appropriations bill, and my amendment does that.
  I withhold my remaining time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this is an important program. As a matter 
of fact, the amendment I have offered provides $130 million more than 
the minority bill in the last Congress for these same programs. In 
addition, the amendment I have offered, the omnibus amendment, provides 
over $3.1 billion for minority health, education, and training 
initiatives which was not in the bill that was prepared in the last 
Congress when the leadership was on the other side of the aisle.
  This $3.1 billion is an increase of $144.3 million over the level of 
fiscal year 2002, which is the operating level now.
  Has the Senator's time expired?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes 33 seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I have 2 minutes which I will use.
  Mr. STEVENS. Would the Senator consider reserving his 2 minutes and 
have 2 minutes reserved on this side, and let's put this off? I know 
many people have left the building now for lunch. I would like to see 
this vote started at 1:15. At that time the Senator would have 2 
minutes, and I would have 2 minutes before that vote. Is the Senator 
agreeable to that?
  Mr. KENNEDY. That is fine.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield, reserving the 
right to object, it is my understanding what we are planning on trying 
to do--Senator Clinton is in the Chamber, and she is willing to offer 
her amendment. There is 30 minutes on that which would take us until 
about 12:30. I understand Senator McCain is available.
  Mr. STEVENS. It would be my hope, I say to the distinguished 
Democratic whip, that we would have a series of amendments stacked and 
start the votes at 1:15. A series of tabling motions, as a matter of 
fact, would occur at 1:15.
  Mr. REID. My only statement here, in reserving my right to object, is 
that it is good we are stacking these votes. I have no problem with 
that. But I would rather we did it when the debate on the third one 
ends.
  Mr. STEVENS. I don't have any objection to that. I think the third 
one will end when I make the motion to table.
  Mr. REID. Let's do that. Let's have Clinton. Let's have McCain.
  Mr. STEVENS. Two McCains.
  Mr. REID. There are two McCains? OK, fine. We would do those and then 
have three stacked votes.

[[Page S1389]]

  Mr. STEVENS. Clinton and two McCains, and we will have the vote take 
place at the end of the last of those.
  Mr. REID. I think that is appropriate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Is that agreeable with the Senator from Massachusetts?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Would the Senator be good enough to repeat?
  Mr. REID. We are going to have a series of votes starting at 
approximately 1:15, 1:30.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the leaders.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. I have not yet made the motion to table because we have 
2 minutes on a side. I will make it later. Is Senator Clinton prepared 
to proceed now?
  Mrs. CLINTON. Yes.
  Mr. STEVENS. We will put off the McCain amendment until the Senator 
has offered the amendment.


                            Amendment No. 89

   (Purpose: To improve health care under the medicare and medicaid 
                               programs)

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 89 and ask for 
its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 89.

  (The amendment is printed in the Record of January 21, 2003 under 
``Text of Amendments.'')
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to offer the 6-month Medicare and 
Medicaid extenders amendment No. 89 to H.J. Res. 2. The modified 
version of the amendment is at the desk. The modification assures that 
the cost of this amendment is fully offset by extension of the Customs 
user fee.
  The current appropriations bill, like the extension of unemployment 
insurance we passed earlier, represents unfinished business from last 
year. We are dedicating so much time to deliberating this bill because 
we recognize our obligation to take care of issues we left unresolved 
in the last Congress. I stand before you today to discuss another 
obligation that we left unfinished. That is Medicare.
  Virtually every Senator on both sides of the aisle has in the past 
expressed deep concern about the shortfalls of the Medicare system, 
particularly the lack of a long overdue prescription drug benefit.
  Now, regardless of the many DSH solutions that have been proposed and 
debated, I think it is fair to say that all of us stand united in 
saying Medicare needs fixing. Now, does this amendment provide that 
long-awaited fix? No. But what it does do is effectively freeze 
Medicare in its 2002 state.
  As badly as we all believe that Medicare was functioning last year 
because of the fiscal pressures, without action Medicare will be in 
even worse shape this year. Many of the Medicare and Medicaid 
provisions enacted in the Balanced Budget Act of 1999 or the 
Beneficiary Improvement and Protection Act of 2001 either expired at 
the end of fiscal year 2002 or will be expiring soon.
  Last year, there was bipartisan interest, led by Senators Grassley 
and Baucus, in addressing many of these ill-conceived cuts. But that 
effort was caught up and procedurally tangled at the end of last year, 
and many of the cuts we were trying to avert will now go into effect. I 
believe a number of these cuts, once implemented, will be very 
difficult to reverse. Yet because of procedural roadblocks, we won't be 
able to address them, despite the overwhelming bipartisan majorities in 
this body to fix these cuts and their impact.
  This is policy by default and by neglect, not by deliberative 
democracy. My bill provides a 6-month moratorium on this Medicare cliff 
to prevent irreversible deterioration of services for beneficiaries 
while Congress completes the unfinished debate from last year over a 
more comprehensive Medicare reform package. The measures in this 
amendment--with the exception of the physician payment update, which 
lasts from March 1 to September 30--are scheduled to be implemented 
from April 1 to September 30, 2003, the exact same time period as the 
other rural hospital provision that is already included in the omnibus.
  The specific measures of this amendment include an inflationary 
update for hospitals and a continuation of the workforce add-on for 
nursing facilities that are trying to maintain nurses in a time of 
shortage. It also delays the automatic 15-percent home health cut. It 
prevents cuts in dialysis services, and it helps stroke victims by 
continuing a moratorium on the $1,500 cap for therapy services.
  This amendment would also assure that hospitals serving a 
disproportionate share of Medicaid and Medicare beneficiaries, 
including teaching hospitals, are not crippled or even have services 
basically shut down while Congress debates this issue. It assures that 
doctors who have suffered a 5.4-percent cut last year, and are frozen 
at last year's rate by this omnibus bill, would get a 2-percent 
increase from last year's unacceptably low levels. It also extends the 
QI Program, which I know my colleague Senator Bingaman is very 
interested in; that provides support for low-income seniors who would 
otherwise be unable to afford Medicare premiums. These seniors will be 
kicked off Medicare on April 1. Once they are kicked off, it will be 
hard to identify and reinstate them unless Congress extends their 
eligibility.
  Medicare+Choice plans are also increasing their premiums, cutting 
benefits, and withdrawing services. I believe beneficiaries need 
protections against these health plan deductions and we should debate 
and pass these protections in the coming year.
  In the meantime, I am troubled by reports of plans pulling out of 
markets and leaving beneficiaries stranded. As you can tell from this 
chart, until we can act to help beneficiaries, this amendment provides 
for a 3-percent increase, increasing the 2 percent already scheduled, 
which will hopefully prevent further pull-outs and the disruption they 
cause to the continuity of care.

  So what would happen if we didn't do anything? Well, as this chart 
shows, hospitals are already struggling to keep up with rising health 
care demands while trying to invest in the latest lifesaving 
technology. They would lose roughly $1 billion, including over $100 
million in New York alone. Medicaid DSH hospitals, which take care of a 
disproportionately high number of uninsured patients, would lose an 
additional $100 million.
  Meanwhile, this chart shows the increasing amount of uncompensated 
care that hospitals are forced to provide. Let me say a word about 
physicians, many of whom were forced to limit their Medicare practice 
due to last year's cut. This will--if we don't act, if we only 
implement what is in the omnibus bill--continue to bring about 
limitations in practice and decrease the numbers of patients who are 
served.
  Skilled nursing facilities already facing worsening nursing shortages 
would lose $700 million. That amounts to about $32 per day per 
resident. And for the average nursing facility, this amendment amounts 
to about a $117,000 annual cut. That is enough to pay for two 
registered nurses, three licensed practical nurses, or five certified 
nursing assistants.
  Home health agencies, which are so critical in allowing patients to 
be taken care of at home rather than in expensive inpatient facilities, 
would lose $500 million. These are just a few of the providers who form 
the fabric of our seniors' health care system. If we allow the fabric 
to fray, it will be much harder to weave it together again. As this 
chart shows, the fabric is already framed. Over the past year, I have 
talked to numerous providers from New York and from other States who 
are just on the brink of halting services, not only to Medicare 
patients but actually going out of business altogether. The common 
refrain I hear is that once these providers leave the Medicare system, 
they are not coming back, even if an eventual long-term solution is 
found. In other words, it is far easier, and I argue far cheaper, to 
preserve our current system and then strengthen it later than to allow 
the current system to be destroyed with the hope of rebuilding it in 
the future.
  When a critically ill patient comes into the emergency room, he is 
first seen in the ER, stabilized, then sent to surgery, if required. 
Why? Well, we all know from watching television that the ER physician 
knows that surgery will take a while. If immediate measures are not 
taken, the patient could

[[Page S1390]]

die before the surgeon can even begin operating.
  What we have with Medicare right now is a critically ill system, one 
which I know requires major surgery in the very near future to 
transplant the dying patient into once again a live and vigorous one. 
But until we are ready to do that operation, we need to take immediate 
action to stabilize the system and prevent it from collapsing before we 
are able to act.
  This amendment will act as that stabilizer, will give us time to 
undertake the long-term task. I therefore urge my colleagues to support 
the amendment. Continued inaction will leave Medicare so irreversibly 
damaged that even the best healers among us will be unable to 
revitalize it. I look forward to stabilizing our patients and getting 
on to debating the right cure.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will my colleague yield for a question?
  Mrs. CLINTON. Yes.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I am happy to cosponsor this amendment. I 
will ask the Senator a question. We in New York--and I think it is true 
throughout the country--are seeing that our providers, whether they be 
hospitals or clinics or home health care, are laying off people and are 
not able to do the job anymore that they once did. There is no more fat 
in the system. We cut that out in New York in the 1980s, and then we 
did it further federally in the 1990s.
  Aside from the No. 1 job, which is to provide the best health care 
possible to our seniors and others, aren't our cutbacks in New York and 
elsewhere causing the economy to go down even further because of the 
layoffs of many people? These are some of the poorest citizens--people 
who just climbed the ladder, with health care jobs, particularly at the 
entry level, which are important to immigrants and so many others. 
Doesn't she believe her amendment might have a small stimulative effect 
on the economy, and, conversely, not doing this amendment and allowing 
the cuts to go deeper would hurt our economy throughout the country?
  Mrs. CLINTON. The Senator is absolutely correct. Health care is a 
primary provider of jobs in every State that I know of and certainly in 
the cities across the country. Our hospitals, nursing homes, home 
health programs, physicians offices are all providing employment. That 
is why it was so important that we tried to address this last year. We 
could not get past the procedural roadblocks, despite the best efforts 
of Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus. I supported their proposals. 
Now we have to act because we are on the brink of an emergency.

  I want to make sure that the modified version of the amendment with 
the offsets we have found is at the desk because there seems to have 
been some confusion.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator from New York yield?
  Mrs. CLINTON. Yes, I will yield.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from New York, it is 
not a question of whether we address this issue; it is a question of 
when and how. This is a very serious issue. It has a profound impact 
especially on rural hospitals but on all hospitals and all facilities 
that provide patient care. This Congress has to address this issue.
  I really appreciate the amendment the Senator has offered. I hope 
perhaps we can begin the process of addressing it today. If not, it has 
to be soon.
  Mrs. CLINTON. I thank the Senator from North Dakota. Clearly, if we 
do not act, doctors are going to start pulling out of Medicare in a 
month. Then we are going to have the rapid unraveling of the system, 
which we all fear. It is going to be much harder to put it together 
under the leadership of Senator Grassley and others who are addressing 
this issue.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, will the Senator from New York yield?
  Mrs. CLINTON. Yes.
  Mr. NICKLES. I heard the Senator mention a modification, but I have 
not seen it yet. I am concerned in reading page 15, section 302, about 
budget scorekeeping, that the Senator is modifying the Budget Act or 
trying to waive the Budget Act.
  Mrs. CLINTON. The Senator is correct to point that out. That is not 
in the modified amendment. I apologize; the Senator has not gotten a 
copy of the modified amendment.
  Mr. NICKLES. For the Senator's information, none of us has a copy of 
the modification. This Senator, for one, is going to be very reluctant 
to agree to anything if we are modifying the budget or waiving the 
budget.
  Mrs. CLINTON. No.
  Mr. NICKLES. I warn my colleague, she cannot be throwing up a 
modification and saying we want you to accept this when the amendment 
deals with substantive issues. The amendment deals with entitlements, 
with issues that are under the Finance Committee jurisdiction. I have 
made five speeches saying we should not be doing authorizing work on an 
appropriations bill without the appropriate committees having 
significant time to review the bill.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator. As the Senator 
knows, as often happens around here, we have been working very closely 
with staff of the Finance Committee. Many of these provisions have been 
modified, and also we were able to fully offset the costs by extension 
of the Customs user fee, knowing full well that is a concern of many of 
my colleagues with respect to how this would be paid for. I will take 
the position it is such an emergency that we should find new money, if 
necessary, to give us the time to do this in a deliberative manner. But 
we do have the offsets, and the modified amendment provides for those 
offsets.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mrs. CLINTON. Yes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Can the Senator tell me whether this amendment addresses 
the indirect medical education cost issue?
  Mrs. CLINTON. The teaching hospitals will certainly help defray some 
of the increasing costs that are not going to be taken care of 
otherwise.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I say to the Members of the Senate, I hope 
they have listened carefully to their hospital administrators across 
their States, particularly at teaching hospitals which we count on to 
deal with some of the most complicated medical cases that are 
presented, and also hospitals that are responsible for teaching the 
next generation of specialists, including children's hospitals.
  If the Senator from New York does not prevail, I can tell her that in 
my State of Illinois, some of the very best and most important care 
will be compromised, and we will see the next generation of doctors who 
we want to be the best and brightest in America not being prepared. How 
can that be in the best interest of medical care in Illinois, New York, 
Iowa, or Oklahoma?
  I salute the Senator from New York. We have talked about a lot of 
amendments to this appropriations bill, but I wish to ask the Senator 
in closing----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from New York has 
expired.
  Mr. DURBIN. Does she believe, with the offset she has come up with, 
that we have avoided any budget complaints that this bill is not being 
paid for?
  Mrs. CLINTON. The Senator's question is absolutely pertinent. We 
worked very hard through the night addressing that point. I have been 
informed by my staff, in consultation with the Finance Committee staff, 
that the amount is offset. Clearly, as I have said, I think this is 
such an emergency that we should spend new money, but we do have such 
an offset.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from New York has 
expired.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, if there is a question before the 
Senate, I do not want to interfere.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, for the information of my colleagues, 
correct me--parliamentary inquiry--I do not believe there has been a 
modification agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There has not.
  Mr. NICKLES. The modification has a tax increase to pay for it, I 
understand that, but that may have some problems in itself. I want all 
of our colleagues to know the amendment has not been modified as of 
yet.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
modified amendment be accepted at the desk and be considered.
  Mr. KYL. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.

[[Page S1391]]

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wish to pose a question to the Senator from 
New York, if I may. Do I understand the offset is with Customs user 
fees; is that correct?
  Mrs. CLINTON. Yes.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I object because the Customs user fees would 
be one of the worst offsets we could provide, given the obligations of 
the Homeland Security Department with Customs security at our borders.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority whip.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator does not have time.
  Mrs. CLINTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator does not have time.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, it is my understanding I have 15 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 13\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes, and then I 
will yield Senator Kyl 5 minutes.
  I want my colleagues to reject this amendment. I, like the Senator 
from New York, agree we need to strengthen and improve Medicare, and I 
proved that last year with a bipartisan bill on Medicare give-back. 
Working with Senator Baucus, we put together a $43 billion bill that 
would have improved health care in rural America and address many of 
the issues the Senator from New York wants to address as well.
  While I support addressing the needs of all Medicare providers, I 
cannot support doing it in this way in the amendment being proposed. We 
have to do this in a comprehensive, studied, and targeted way.
  Everyone agrees that Medicare needs improving, and most of us would 
agree that Medicare payments need to be updated, but we do not have 
agreement on how that should be done. Some, including this Senator, 
believe that at least some providers need more money, but other 
Senators who might disagree with me say that providers are doing well 
and that their funding should be reduced.
  Even very recently, we had the nonpartisan Medicare Payment Advisory 
Committee last week make recommendations to Congress calling for 
reductions in some provider payments.
  I do not take these recommendations as gospel truth, and they are not 
going to govern my decisionmaking, but I believe we have a 
responsibility in the Finance Committee to examine all of these issues 
closely. More important, the only way we get anything done in this body 
is by a bipartisan approach. So we have to build a consensus before we 
pass a one-size-fits-all policy such as the one before us. I believe 
the place to do that is the Finance Committee. We will do our homework. 
That means listening to providers, beneficiaries, and experts to craft 
payment adjustments that ensure access to services for Medicare 
beneficiaries.
  I will certainly ensure that the Finance Committee consider my 
colleague's proposal. The two Medicare provisions in this omnibus bill 
are limited in time and duration. They target the cases with the most 
widespread support--physicians as well as rural and small urban 
hospitals--while we can do it. These two items stand the best chance of 
being preserved through conference and in negotiation with the White 
House.
  If this bill turns into some sort of Christmas tree for additional 
health care provisions, then the reality is that these provisions are 
likely to come out of the bill entirely, and we will not be helping 
anybody. Consequently, particularly doctors are going to have to wait 
until spring or summer. Let's not let the best be the enemy of the 
good.
  That is why I suggest we keep with the compromise in the bill and 
expect our committee, which we will do, to bring forth recommendations.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, to inform my colleague from New York, at 
least at this point I have not decided to object to a unanimous consent 
to modify her amendment, but I am concerned about the amendment. I am 
concerned about the modification, of which I have just now received a 
copy. I think I have the first copy on this side of the aisle.
  These are entitlement changes. They are expensive and they affect a 
lot of people.
  I will also tell my colleague from New York, there are a lot of us 
who have a lot of interest in a whole lot of these provisions. Being on 
the Finance Committee, I have worked with a lot of provider groups that 
have an interest in Medicare modifications and updates. This should go 
through the Finance Committee, and it should be bipartisan. Ninety-
some-odd percent of the Medicare adjustments that have ever been made 
since Medicare's inception have been bipartisan.
  I might mention that when I read language we are going to waive the 
budget and/or now we are going to raise taxes, that is not bipartisan; 
that is not working together.
  I reserve the right to object on the modification, but I say to my 
colleagues, this is the type of bill that should have regular order, 
should go through the committees, should be bipartisan through the 
committees, with input from all members of those committees, instead of 
being on an appropriations bill where we have not had a chance to 
thoroughly analyze it to a greater degree.
  I think we have some mutual objectives that can be accomplished in 
short order, but I do not believe this is the right way to do it today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eight and a half minutes.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Okay. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Arizona and 
then 3\1/2\ minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I have already objected to the modification 
of the amendment because it includes an offset of U.S. Customs Service 
fees. I have talked to the Senator from New York about my commitment to 
try to find a way in the Finance Committee to develop a plan very early 
in this year to find the reimbursement capability for the health care 
providers that are included within her amendment because I have in the 
past cosponsored legislation which would provide for adequate 
reimbursement to all of the health care professions.
  To set the record straight, we have ensured in this legislation that 
the cut that was going to take place in physician reimbursements will 
not take place. Additionally, there is funding for the rural hospitals. 
That will be done because those were the emergency requirements that we 
deal with in this legislation.
  In addition to that, the add-ons to the reimbursements to all of the 
other providers that are the subject of the amendment of the Senator 
from New York are set to expire. It is my intention to work with the 
Senator from New York to find a way to ensure that we can continue 
those add-ons. That can be done in the Finance Committee, and I am 
hopeful we will be able to do that.
  The first point I want to make is that the true emergency--the 
physicians--is being taken care of in this legislation. The expiration 
of the add-ons is something I will work on with the Senator from New 
York to try to accomplish, but we cannot do it by offsetting Customs 
user fees. At a time when we are asking the Customs Department to aid 
us in the war on terror at our borders and they are stretched as thin 
as they can possibly be stretched, it would be the absolute wrong thing 
to do. In talking with the Senator from New York, I am sure she agrees 
that if this is, in fact, what would happen, this would not be a 
necessarily good thing, that the funding that ordinarily would accrue 
to the Customs Service would not necessarily accrue to the Customs 
Service if an offset is permitted for this particular program.
  I will quote two things from a statement before the Terrorism 
Subcommittee last year. Bonni Tischler, the Acting Director of the 
Customs Service, testified, and I will quote a couple of things she 
said. I asked her about the effect of an offset on Customs user fees. 
She said: My personal opinion is it would severely hamper us.

[[Page S1392]]

  Later on she said: Yes, we would be severely hampered in how we 
operated.
  Then in a letter from the Customs Service from the Acting 
Commissioner which was sent to all of us--it was actually a memorandum 
from the Under Secretary for Enforcement--the point was that it would 
negatively impact the available funding from the Customs Service.
  I think my bone fides are pretty good. I helped to defeat a proposal 
of my chairman, Chairman Grassley, which was also going to be using the 
Customs user fees as an offset. This is the wrong way to achieve what 
may well be good objectives, and therefore I was constrained to object.
  We are all in agreement that we cannot allow the reimbursements to 
physicians to be cut in March. We are taking care of that in this 
legislation. In addition, we should try to find ways to prevent the 
add-ons, or the other health care providers, from not continuing to be 
in effect throughout the next year. It is my commitment to try to work 
with the Senator from New York in a way to ensure that happens as part 
of the Finance Committee deliberations probably on the Medicare 
legislation.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Iowa, Mr. 
Grassley, controls the time; is that right?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. The Senator from Arizona used his 5 minutes, and I have 
yielded 3\1/2\ minutes to Senator Santorum.
  Mr. REID. I ask for 30 seconds.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Of my time?
  Mr. REID. Yes.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. If it is not more than 30 seconds and we can get the 
show on the road, let's do it.
  Mr. REID. I say to everyone on that side of the aisle, we are going 
to have a vote on this amendment one way or the other. It is not that 
hard to do. So I think rather than having two votes, we should have 
one. I suggest that as the votes have gone in the last week or so, they 
have not been too favorable for us, and I do not know what the fear is 
of having a vote. We are going to have a vote sometime today. I thank 
the Senator very much for the 30 seconds.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the remaining time to the Senator from 
Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator from Iowa. I take this opportunity 
today to keep the Senate updated as to the ``spendometer'' that is 
flying now at a very high rate of speed as a result of the last few 
amendments. We have been going through all the different amendments, 
and now they are at such a level I will not detail them all, but as of 
the last time I spoke with this chart, we were at $341 billion. That 
was yesterday at about this time. So within a 24-hour period, we have 
gone from $341 billion added to the deficit, with the inclusion of the 
amendments that have yet to be voted on--which are the Clinton, the 
Kennedy, the Cantwell, and the Bingaman amendments--with those votes we 
will be almost to the grand total of a half a trillion dollars in new 
spending being proposed over the next 10 years by Members on the other 
side of the aisle.
  These are additions to the baseline which CBO will score as an amount 
that will be added to with inflation, plus the interest costs of 
carrying this additional deficit.
  So when we hear the other side talk about how we cannot afford any 
relief for the taxpayer, we cannot afford any economic stimulus package 
because we will add to the deficit, this is money they want to add to 
bills that should have been passed 3 months ago.
  In a matter of a month or two, we will consider the 2004 budget. I 
suspect we will see amendments probably double or triple this amount to 
add to the 2004 budget on top of what they wanted to add to the 2003 
budget. We are looking at an enormous expansion of Government that has 
been voted on almost unanimously by the Members on the other side of 
the aisle. Some of them, I agree, have been voted by us and I condemn 
us for the ones that we have voted for, but they have been rather small 
amounts of money.

  I argue that we are heading down a path of Government growth in 
spending that is simply not sustainable in this economy, and we need to 
focus on growing the economy, not growing Government.
  This is a fundamental difference between the two sides of the aisle. 
We are about growing the economy through putting more money out in the 
private sector. They are about growing the Government in the last week 
to the tune of almost a half trillion dollars in new spending over the 
next 10 years.
  That is fine. If they want to go out to the American public and say 
we think the answers to the economic woes this country is suffering are 
going to be met with more Government spending to the tune of a half 
trillion dollars over the next 10 years, go out and make the case, but 
do not make the case that we do not have money to help this economy 
grow because we are concerned about deficits.
  No one who proposes half a trillion dollars in new spending--and, by 
the way, votes for it almost unanimously--can make a legitimate claim 
that they are worried about deficits. One cannot be worried about 
deficits and vote unanimously, almost to a person on the other side, 
for almost half a trillion dollars in new spending over the next 10 
years. It is inconsistent. It is not honest.
  Let's be consistent. We are either for more spending, we are for 
higher deficits, or we are for growth in the economy. That is the 
difference between the two parties. Let's face the facts.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa retains 20 seconds.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I enjoyed very much the speech of my 
colleague from Pennsylvania, but it has almost no relevance to what is 
going on here at all. It was good for the amusement of the Chamber, but 
those numbers bear no relationship to the amendments that have been 
offered.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania adds up some tote board scoring of 
costs that bear no relationship to the amendments on which we voted. 
These amendments were not spending for 10 years. These amendments were 
to restore cuts that have been made in the budget for this year. This 
does not have anything to do with spending for 10 years from now, or 5 
years from now. So all those cumulative totals bear no relationship to 
what has occurred in the Senate.
  The concern with deficits of the Senator from Pennsylvania is 
interesting, but it is a change for him because he supported the 
massive tax cuts that have opened up this chasm, where we have gone 
from a projection 2 years ago of $5.6 trillion of surpluses over the 
next decade to now being $2 trillion in the hole. Where was he in his 
concern for deficits then?
  The assertion that each of these items that have been voted on can be 
totaled is erroneous as well. We cannot just take each of these 
amendments, every one of them which has been defeated, and total them. 
One amendment is offered, it is defeated. That money cannot be treated 
as though it has been spent. That is what the Senator from Pennsylvania 
has done. It defies logic. It defies reason. It defies the facts.
  These amendments were not offered in total. They were offered one at 
a time. As they were defeated, another amendment was offered. So you 
cannot total them. And you certainly cannot make 10-year totals from 
any of them because they are 1-year pending proposals.
  I am happy to yield to my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota has the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. If I might ask a question, it has been interesting to 
hear this discussion. I saw the tote board.
  Mr. McCAIN. What is the regular order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the understanding of the Chair, based on 
previous conversations, that we were to proceed with the Senator from 
Arizona and the offering of his amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. If I might ask the Chair, the Senator from North Dakota

[[Page S1393]]

sought recognition, was granted recognition, the Senator from North 
Dakota still has the floor; is that not the case?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. CONRAD. That is correct. And I have yielded to my colleague, the 
Senator from North Dakota, for a question.
  Mr. DORGAN. If I might ask a question, the discussion was quite 
interesting. I will be very brief.
  Our colleague said our position is to grow Government. I am wondering 
if growing Government would be something that occurs as a result of 
proposals that dramatically increase the Federal deficit. Is it the 
case that those who would propose and support policies that 
dramatically increase the deficit, such as a $1.7 trillion tax cut or 
$690 billion tax cut, all of which is borrowed, is it the case that 
would target the growth of the economy?
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, deficits inhibit growth and hurt the 
economic strength of the country. That is undeniable.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 214

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration. The amendment is numbered 214.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCAIN] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 214.

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

 (Purpose: To require completion of the feasibility study required by 
Public Law 105-245, and the other requirements of that law relating to 
   construction of an emergency outlet at Devils Lake, North Dakota, 
        before any appropriated funds are spent for the project)

       On page 262, beginning with ``That'' in line 2, strike 
     through ``State,'' in line 24, and insert ``That the 
     Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, 
     may use up to $5,000,000 of Construction, General funding as 
     provided herein for construction of an emergency outlet from 
     Devils Lake, North Dakota, to the Sheyenne River except that 
     the funds shall not become available until completion of the 
     feasibility study required by Public Law 150-245, for the 
     continuation of which the Secretary may use $500,000 of such 
     funding, and except that the funds for such construction 
     shall not become available unless the Secretary of the Army 
     determines that an emergency (as defined in section 102 of 
     the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122) exists with respect to the 
     emergency need for the outlet and reports to Congress that 
     the construction is technically sound, economically 
     justified, and environmentally acceptable and in compliance 
     with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 
     4321 et seq.): Provided further, That the economic 
     justification for the emergency outlet shall be prepared in 
     accordance with the principles and guidelines for economic 
     evaluation as required by regulations and procedures of the 
     Army Corps of Engineers for all flood control projects: 
     Provided further, That the economic justification be fully 
     described, including the analysis of the benefits and costs, 
     in the project plan documents: Provided further, That the 
     plans for the emergency outlet shall be reviewed and, to be 
     effective, shall contain assurances provided by the Secretary 
     of State, after consultation with the International Joint 
     Commission,''.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as soon as the Senator from Minnesota 
arrives in the Chamber, I intend to propose a time agreement so we can 
dispense with this amendment. I would like to consult with cosponsors 
before we do. I don't think this issue needs to be debated very long. 
But I will propose a time agreement very shortly.
  I offer an amendment to a provision of a bill regarding a project to 
construct an outlet in Devils Lake, ND. The project is very 
controversial and its impact extends well beyond North Dakota into 
Minnesota, Missouri, and Canada. I am pleased to be joined in support 
of this by Senators Dayton and Coleman.
  The outlet from the landlocked lake allows contaminated water to flow 
into neighboring waterways, causing the introduction of invasive 
species.
  I ask unanimous consent to have letters of support be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Friends of the Earth; Minnesota Center for Environmental 
           Advocacy; National Audubon Society; National Wildlife 
           Federation; Sierra Club,
                                                 January 22, 2003.
     Re McCain-Dayton Devils Lake Amendment to the Omnibus 
         Appropriations Bill.

     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of our conservation organizations 
     and the millions of members and supporters we represent, we 
     urge you to support the McCain-Dayton Devils Lake amendment 
     to the Omnibus Appropriations Bill for FY 2003. That 
     amendment would remove an anti-environment, anti-taypayer 
     rider authorizing the Devils Lake ``Emergency'' Outlet 
     project in North Dakota. The rider waives the standard 
     requirement that the project's benefits must exceed its costs 
     and changes current law to weaken international consultation 
     requirements with Canada.
       Far from a parochial state issue, the rider would authorize 
     a bad precedent-setting out-of-basin water transfer and a key 
     element of North Dakota's longstanding and highly 
     controversial Garrison Water Diversion Plan. The States of 
     Minnesota, Missouri, and the Great Lakes Commission all 
     oppose the Devils Lake project. So too do the Canadian 
     Government and the province of Manitoba.
       The Bush Administration did not request any funding for the 
     Devils Lake outlet and the Army Corps of Engineers has 
     delayed issuing a Final Environmental Impact Statement for 
     the project, citing the need for additional analysis of the 
     project's environmental impacts in the U.S. and Canada. The 
     Corps has also calculated that the project benefit/cost would 
     only generate 37 cents of benefits on the dollar based on the 
     region's hydrologic record.
       Because Devils Lake has no natural outlet, it contains high 
     concentrations of salts, dissolved solids and other 
     pollutants. Pumping the lake water into the Sheyenne River, 
     which flows to Minnesota and Manitoba, would take a dramatic 
     toll on water quality downstream--with serious impacts on 
     people, wildlife and the environment that could reach through 
     the Red River to Lake Winnipeg and as far as the Hudson Bay.
       Far from an ``emergency,'' the water level of Devils Lake 
     has actually declined over the last two years. In addition, 
     taxpayers have already spent more than $350 million on 
     mitigation, including buying out affected property owners 
     around the lake. This project is not authorized and has not 
     been reviewed in hearings before the Senate Environment and 
     Public Works Committee. When considered through the proper 
     channels, it will become clear that there are far better and 
     less expensive solutions, such as restoring wetlands around 
     Devils Lake, than transferring its water out of basin.
       We urge you to support the McCain amendment, which would 
     preserve a legitimate planning process for the Devils Lake 
     project, honor our international treaty obligations to 
     Canada, and protect wildlife and the environment and the 
     affected communities in Minnesota's Red River Valley.
           Sincerely,
         Sara Zdeb, Legislative Director, Friends of the Earth; 
           Peter Bachman, Executive Director, Minnesota Center for 
           Environmental Advocacy; Bob Perciasepe, Sr. Vice 
           President for Policy, National Audubon Society; Jim 
           Lyon, Senior Director for Congressional and Federal 
           Affairs, National Wildlife Federation; Debbie Sease, 
           Legislative Director, Sierra Club.

  Mr. McCAIN. The Canadian Government is so concerned that it was a 
leading item in recent talks between President Bush and the Prime 
Minister of Canada.
  The provision authorizes $5 million for construction and a total of 
$100 million for the Corps of Engineers to have completed their 
feasibility study or environmental review. In fact, the Corps has 
indicated they do not believe the outlet would accomplish the purpose 
for which it was intended.
  There is a letter from the Canadian Ambassador addressed to the 
Honorable Bill Young, chairman of the Appropriations Committee that I 
ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                             Canadian Embassy,

                                    Washington, DC, March 8, 2000.
     Re Devils Lake Supplemental Appropriation.

     Hon. Bill Young,
     Chairman, Appropriations Committee, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Young: I understand that you will soon be 
     considering the Administration's request for $6.6 million in 
     emergency supplemental funding for preconstruction activities 
     related to the Corps of Engineers' proposed construction of 
     an outlet from Devils Lake, North Dakota, to the Sheyenne 
     River. I am writing to express the strong opposition of the 
     Government of Canada and the Province of Manitoba to a 
     project that could lead to transfers of water, potentially 
     carrying non-native biota, including fish diseases, from 
     Devils Lake into the Red River

[[Page S1394]]

     and Hudson Bay basin, a result that the International Joint 
     Commission concluded in 1977 could have ``irreversible and 
     catastrophic'' consequences for Manitoba's commercial fishing 
     industry.
        While Canada sympathizes with North Dakota's problems with 
     Devils Lake flooding, it cannot agree to a solution that 
     poses a genuine threat to Canadian water resources, as well 
     as to those of other states. There are alternative, internal 
     solutions available to North Dakota, including the 
     construction of additional flood protection works and the 
     pursuit of upper basin storage approaches. Canada urges that 
     additional funds not be provided for the Devils Lake outlet 
     project unless and until all of the issues it raises are 
     thoroughly addressed through studies repeatedly mandated by 
     Congress, and following meaningful consultation with Canada 
     under the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty.
       There is little question that an outlet to the Sheyenne 
     River from Devils Lake would adversely affect water quality 
     in the Red River (into which the Sheyenne flows), due to the 
     high level of total dissolved solids, sulphates and 
     bioaccumulation of mercury in Devils Lake water. The initial 
     work done by the Corps of Engineers has raised serious doubts 
     about the possibility of operating an outlet in compliance 
     with existing US water quality standards. Water quality in 
     the Red River at the point where it flows into Canada has 
     already failed to meet established objectives, according to 
     the International Joint Commission. Additional, poor quality 
     water from Devils Lake would require municipalities which use 
     the Red River as their drinking water source to increase 
     their level of treatment, and incur increased costs.
       Although the US Fish and Wildlife Service's preliminary 
     review in May 1999 did not address the impact of an outlet on 
     the Red River, it concluded that ``the combination of high 
     total dissolved solids (TDS), sulfates, and chlorides (plus 
     unknown levels of other toxic or harmful constituents) would 
     likely devastate the freshwater aquatic life in the Sheyenne 
     River.'' The US Fish and Wildlife Service also concluded that 
     the ``introduction of Devils Lake water into the Sheyenne 
     River will significantly degrade water quality, increase 
     erosion and sedimentation, and result in conditions 
     detrimental to aquatic mollusks, such as freshwater mussels, 
     pill clams, and snails.'' We understand that these concerns 
     are shared by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 
     and contribute to opposition to the outlet from Governor 
     Ventura and Senator Wellstone.
       In addition to the impact on downstream water quality and 
     its effect on aquatic species, Canada is especially concerned 
     about the potential transfer of unknown biota from Devils 
     Lake to the Red River. While there is some knowledge of the 
     large fish species, very little is understood at this time 
     about microscopic organisms in either system such as fish 
     pathogens, viruses, etc. As you know, there are many examples 
     of prior man-made connections between major watersheds 
     causing severe regional and international problems because of 
     biota transfer, including the introduction of the sea lamprey 
     into the Great Lakes, the spread of zebra mussels to dozens 
     of states, and the invasion by round gobies (which are 
     displacing perch in Lake Michigan) of the Mississippi River 
     and Missouri River watersheds. Zebra mussel management in the 
     Great Lakes alone costs over $3 billion per year. President 
     Clinton recognized the seriousness of this national 
     problem last year in his Executive Order on Invasive 
     Species. If a Devils Lake outlet to the Sheyenne River is 
     constructed, it will provide a permanent route for 
     existing and future non-native biota to move into the 
     Hudson Bay basin.
       From a technical standpoint, there is serious doubt that an 
     outlet with the proposed capacity would have any demonstrable 
     effect on the level of Devils Lake. After thorough review, 
     the Corps of Engineers announced in a June 1999 press release 
     its conclusion that an outlet is not the necessary or 
     appropriate solution, at this time, and recommended a review 
     of alternatives. Restoration of drained wetlands is one 
     possibility. As Devils Lake has no natural outlet, its high 
     levels may well have been exacerbated by the amount of run-
     off from drained wetlands in the basin.
       If the proposed outlet is nevertheless constructed and 
     found ineffective, this could result in pressure to increase 
     the flows, thereby increasing the volume of water flowing 
     into the Red River and Hudson Bay basin, and exacerbating 
     future flooding and water quality problems in both the United 
     States and Canada.
       Of critical concern to Canada, Manitoba and US opponents of 
     the outlet is the link between the Bureau of Reclamation's 
     Garrison Diversion Unit and the stabilization of water levels 
     in Devils Lake. It is well known that water level 
     stabilization in Devils Lake was one of the original goals of 
     the Garrison project. Public statements by both local 
     government officials in the Devils Lake basin and by the 
     North Dakota congressional delegation clearly indicate that 
     this has been their long-term goal. While gaining an outlet 
     to Devils Lake is their immediate objective, once water 
     levels recede naturally following the end of the present wet 
     cycle--as they have historically--their next goal will be to 
     create an inlet to raise the lake level using water diverted 
     from the Missouri River. It is important to note that less 
     than ten years ago, North Dakota was examining proposals to 
     construct an inlet to Devils Lake from the Missouri River 
     because of concerns with low water levels. This objective has 
     remained evident in State of North Dakota literature on the 
     Garrison Diversion and on Devils Lake. This raises once again 
     Canadian and other concerns over inter-basin biota transfer 
     that caused such controversy over the Garrison Diversion 
     before the 1986 Reformulation Act.
       The potential for imminent overflow of Devils Lake to the 
     Red River basin in minimal. U.S. federal agencies had 
     concluded in 1999 that, even with the previous rate of lake 
     level increase, such an overflow would not occur naturally 
     for another 10-18 years, and that planning for such an event 
     would not have to begin for another five or six years. This 
     year, it is predicted there will be a decrease in level for 
     the first time in several years, further supporting that 
     conclusion. This allows sufficient time for serious and 
     thoughtful examination of all potential alternatives and a 
     thorough assessment of environmental impacts.
       For all these reasons, Canada is very concerned that the 
     Corps of Engineers has proposed in its Supplemental Fiscal 
     Year 2000 request, and in its request for Fiscal Year 2001, 
     the deletion of language contained in the last several Energy 
     and Water Development Appropriations Acts that requires a 
     showing of an emergency need and economic justification 
     before construction can proceed. Canada urges that those 
     restrictions, which among other things require compliance 
     with U.S. environmental laws and obligations under the 
     Boundary Water Treaty of 1909, remain intact.
       I would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have 
     regarding Canada's position on the Devils Lake outlet or the 
     Garrison Diversion project.
           Yours sincerely,
                                                 Raymond Chretien,
                                                       Ambassador.

  Mr. McCAIN. In part it reads:

       While Canada sympathizes with North Dakota's problems with 
     Devils Lake flooding, it cannot agree to a solution that 
     poses a genuine threat to Canadian water resources, as well 
     as to those of other states. There are alternative, internal 
     solutions available to North Dakota, including the 
     construction of additional flood protection works and the 
     pursuit of upper basin storage approaches. Canada urges that 
     additional funds not be provided for the Devils Lake outlet 
     project unless and until all of the issues it raises are 
     thoroughly addressed through studies repeatedly mandated by 
     Congress, and following meaningful consultation with Canada 
     under the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty.
       From a technical standpoint, there is serious doubt that an 
     outlet with the proposed capacity would have any demonstrable 
     effect on the level of Devils Lake. After thorough review, 
     the Corps of Engineers announced in a June 1999 press release 
     its conclusion that an outlet is not the necessary or 
     appropriate solution, at this time, and recommended a review 
     of alternatives. Restoration of drained wetlands is one 
     possibility. As Devils Lake has no natural outlet, its high 
     levels may well have been exacerbated by the amount of run-
     off from drained wetlands in the basin.

  I have had extended conversations with both Senators from North 
Dakota. I do not claim to have extensive education and expertise on 
this issue. I think it is serious when we have these concerns by Canada 
and neighboring States and there is not a cost-benefit analysis.
  My friends from North Dakota point out that it is under the way in 
which that cost-benefit analysis is conducted. With a basin such as 
this, that catches water and does not release water, as happens in the 
case of rivers, this is very difficult, if not impossible, to do. I 
still believe we should be able to fashion some kind of formula to find 
out what the cost-benefit ratio is.
  I also point out that, thanks to the good efforts of the Senators 
from North Dakota, $350 million has been spent in the last several 
years, raising highways and relocating individuals who live in 
proximity to Devils Lake.
  There are concerns raised. I think the concerns are serious. I also 
assured my colleagues from North Dakota that I will send my staff out 
to North Dakota.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. McCAIN. I will be glad to yield.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator entertain a time agreement now?
  Mr. McCAIN. I would like to wait, if it is agreeable to the Senator 
from Alaska. I understand the senior Senator from Minnesota is on his 
way. If you could give me about 3 or 4 minutes?
  Mr. STEVENS. All right. Thank you.
  Mr. McCAIN. The senior Senator, as well as the junior Senator, from 
Minnesota, have views on this issue. I would not like to enter into a 
time agreement until such time as they at least are consulted. But I am 
sure they would be agreeable to a reasonable time limit.
  I did discuss with my colleagues from North Dakota that I sent staff 
out to

[[Page S1395]]

Devils Lake to further look at this situation. I understand and 
appreciate their long involvement--I understand 9 years--in this issue. 
I would be more than willing to learn more about this issue.
  At this time, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, first of all, I thank our colleague from 
Arizona for taking the time to listen to our concerns, because this is 
a disaster of staggering proportion in our State. Let me just say it is 
the unanimous view of every elected official in the State of North 
Dakota, every single one, Republican and Democrat, that we must deal 
with this unfolding crisis.
  Here is what has happened to this lake. This lake, by the way, is 
three times the size of the District of Columbia. This is a massive 
lake. It has risen dramatically, some 26 vertical feet, since 1992. It 
started rising then and, as you can see, it has been straight up since 
then. This is a flood unlike any other in our Nation's history. The 
reason for that is that there are only two closed basins in the entire 
United States. The drainage basin for this lake is the size of the 
State of Massachusetts. This lake, if it continues uncontrolled, will 
reach the size of the State of Rhode Island. That is not just 
conjecture. That has happened two times in history. Those two times 
were at times when North Dakota and Minnesota were unpopulated.
  Already the cost to the Federal Government already of this lake 
rising has been over $350 million. Threatened structures have been 
moved. Highways have been raised. A massive dike protecting the town of 
Devils Lake has been increased twice already. The Federal Government is 
poised to raise it again. So the hard reality is that unless more is 
done, we face a catastrophic event.
  The year before last, 50 miles outside this basin, there was an event 
where 18 inches of rain fell in 1 day. If that event had occurred 50 
miles to the west, this lake would have gone up, according to the Corps 
of Engineers' calculations, by 3 feet, perhaps even more. That probably 
would have overwhelmed the road system, because we now have roads 
acting as dams, protecting homes, protecting people from catastrophic 
loss. If that event would have occurred in the middle of the night, it 
is entirely likely that lives would have been lost.

  The consequences of a failure to act here are enormous. This lake, 
which is already three times the size of the District of Columbia, has 
had an uncontrolled release out of the east end twice before in its 
history. If it happened again, it would be devastating to the hundreds 
of thousands of people downstream.
  I remind our colleagues, the first ones downstream are the people in 
North Dakota, in the towns of Valley City, Fargo, and Grand Forks.
  We have insisted that water quality has to be met with any outlet 
procedure. The provision in this bill provides that the funds shall not 
become available unless the Secretary of the Army determines that an 
emergency exists with respect to the need for an outlet and reports to 
Congress that the construction is technically sound, environmentally 
acceptable, and in compliance with the National Environmental Policy 
Act; provided further that the justification for the emergency outlet 
shall be fully described, including the analysis of benefits and costs 
to which the Senator from Arizona referred. There will be a requirement 
that a cost-benefit analysis is done. Provided further that the plans 
for the emergency outlet shall be reviewed and, to be effective, shall 
contain assurances provided by the Secretary of State that the project 
will not violate the treaty between the United States and Great Britain 
relating to the boundary waters between the United States and Canada.
  We have attempted to be environmentally sensitive and cost-friendly 
to American taxpayers, but also to respond to this burgeoning crisis in 
the Devils Lake Basin, a crisis that has already cost the taxpayers of 
the United States $350 million. If the growth of this lake continues, 
it has the prospect of costing the American taxpayers hundreds and 
hundreds of millions of dollars more.
  We have already had to buy out an entire town. We have already had to 
buy out the town of Church's Ferry.
  The next town on the list is Minnewaukan. There is the lake. It has 
already eaten up the playing field of the high school there. That is 
all under water. This entire town is now threatened.
  American taxpayers have already had to buy out Church's Ferry. Next 
is Minnewaukan, and if this continues, Devils Lake, a town of 10,000, 
would potentially fall into the requirement of having to be bought out. 
The cost of that to the American taxpayers would be billions of 
dollars. That is the hard reality.
  Let me close with this photo. We like to say this is the luckiest 
fellow in North Dakota because he just escaped the advancing flood. 
This is a lake that, as one Federal official came out and said: My God, 
this looks like an ocean. Indeed, it is huge, three times the size of 
the District of Columbia. If it continues to grow, we will see complete 
devastation for hundreds and hundreds of thousands of acres and for 
hundreds of thousands of people.
  This is a picture of a home having to be burned because it was in 
line with the floodwaters before it could be moved. Of course it would 
have created a serious health hazard had it been allowed to go into the 
water. So homes all across this area had to be burned and hundreds have 
had to be moved.
  This project needs to go forward to protect human life and to prevent 
a disaster of stunning proportion. If this lake escapes uncontrolled 
out of the east end, as it has twice in our history, we expect that the 
downstream people would have a very serious adverse health effect.
  I asked one time, when I heard repeatedly the Corps of Engineers talk 
about the health effects that would occur, the illness that would be 
the result of an uncontrolled release of the water out of the east end, 
what kind of health problems would occur? They explained the water 
systems downstream cannot handle the dissolved salts that are in this 
lake. If it went out of the east end of the lake uncontrolled, 
thousands of people downstream would be made ill.
  There are many things that need to be done. Additional storage in the 
upper basin, millions of dollars have been spent on that. Moving 
threatened structures, raising roads, millions of dollars have been 
spent on that. Raising the dike protecting Devils Lake, tens of 
millions of dollars have been spent on that.
  But one part of an overall strategy to deal with this crisis is to 
provide for an outlet. As the Senator from Arizona correctly states, 
there is no assurance that will solve the problem, but it is our best 
hope to prevent a catastrophe of truly stunning proportion, one that 
would not only adversely affect the people of North Dakota but the 
people of Minnesota and the people of Canada as well.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dorgan 
be recognized for 5 minutes, Senator Dayton for 10 minutes, Senator 
McCain for 2 minutes, and following that the debate on this be ended.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the vote will occur 
at 1:15 on the Kennedy amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote be 
moved to 1:45.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my colleague has pretty much covered this 
subject.
  Let me say to my colleague from Arizona that I understand he raised 
some concerns to which I think Senator Conrad has responded. I 
appreciate the manner in which Senator McCain has raised this issue. 
This is not an issue that is irrelevant to others. It is very important 
to others. It is important to our neighbors. It is important to the 
State of Minnesota. It is important to the neighboring country of 
Canada to the north. It is important to the American taxpayers. It is, 
obviously, important to my colleague from Arizona. I don't dismiss 
concerns people have raised about these issues.

[[Page S1396]]

  I want to say--as my colleague, Senator Conrad, said--that it is not 
our intention to build an outlet from the lake itself in a manner that 
injures anyone. We don't come to this project saying we would like to 
have a project for our State. This is not something we are anxious to 
do because we believe this project would be something that would be a 
feather in our cap. We come to this because we have a lake that has 
been chronically flooding for a long time.
  As was mentioned earlier, there are only two closed basins in this 
country. One is the Great Salt Lake and the other is Devils Lake. The 
upper basin of Devils Lake is the size of the State of Massachusetts. 
Water funnels down from that basin into Devils Lake. This picture 
doesn't do justice to the lake. But it does show what is happening 
here. What used to be a road and commerce and opportunity in this area 
of our State that is very important to us is now flooded--inundated--
with water. This extends over to an Indian reservation called the 
Spirit Lake Nation.
  I recall one day driving around with the tribal chairman of the 
Spirit Lake Nation with a man named Elmer White. Elmer is dead now. 
Elmer passed away a couple of years ago. He said: Our elders told us 
the water was coming. He said: All of these roads that are no longer 
passable and all of these roads that are now inundated with water, our 
elders told us this was going to happen.

  What happened is we stranded part of this Indian reservation. We have 
had to make substantial investments in roads in order to get people to 
hospitals. They have to move around and meander in strange ways on 
backroads.
  This flooding has been chronic and very difficult. Frankly, I don't 
expect anybody to understand lake flooding until they have seen it. My 
notion of a flood is almost always the notion of the Red River Valley 
flood or some other flood that I have seen on television someplace. 
There is a coursing and a gushing river--a virtual torrent and wall of 
water. It sweeps houses and trees and cattle downstream in a rush of 
water and in a roar of noise. Then, 12 hours later, or 24 hours later, 
or 48 hours later, the river is back in its banks, in all its calm. 
That is what river flooding is. That is what we think of with flooding.
  This lake has increased 26 feet in height in the last 9 years. It has 
gobbled up more and more land.
  One of the things we have to do to respond--not because we want to 
but because we must in order to protect others--is try to take some 
pressure off that lake and do it without hurting anyone else. If we 
don't take pressure off that lake with a measured outlet, what is going 
to happen is, if that water continues to rise, it goes over the divide 
naturally in an uncontrolled way and you have people living 
downstream--yes, in North Dakota our big population centers, but also 
up in Canada--and the worst quality water is going to make literally 
hundreds of thousands of people sick--North Dakotans, Minnesotans, and 
Canadians. That is what will happen in an uncontrolled release of water 
over the divide if we don't do something to reduce the risk.
  That is what this proposed outlet is about.
  I have a couple of final points. This outlet cannot be built unless 
it meets all environmental standards. Under the NEPA Act, the studies 
are ongoing. The studies must be done.
  Second, this cannot be built and we cannot do anything unless we 
pledge--as we have and unless our country determines as it has--that we 
will not violate the boundary waters treaty with Canada. We don't 
intend to take a problem that exists here and foist that problem on 
someone else; certainly not on our constituents living downstream, not 
on our neighbors, not on Minnesotans, and not on the Canadians.
  This is a project that is critically necessary to reduce risks.
  I understand my colleague from Arizona and the questions he has 
raised. We had a long meeting this morning. I hope we will be able to 
resolve all of these issues. But I believe this project is critically 
important to a whole lot of folks who have been victimized by chronic 
floods that came and stayed--by lake flooding that has been devastating 
to this region of the country. We must find a way to reduce the risk 
for the people who live in this region, for the American taxpayer--
especially for people who live downstream who would be the recipients 
and victims of an uncontrolled release of water if we don't do 
something to take the pressure off this lake.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Minnesota for taking on so many of the responsibilities here, and for 
his involvement in the balance of our portfolios in Minnesota. I 
welcome the Chair.
  I don't like to disagree with my colleagues from North Dakota. We 
have an excellent working relationship. In fact, our two States--other 
than fighting over hockey players--generally get along pretty well on 
everything else, and particularly on this matter related to the water 
management. We have worked cooperatively on water problems in most 
cases over the last couple of decades because it is absolutely 
necessary to get something accomplished. Minnesota shouldn't be 
foisting problems on North Dakota that are not of its creation and that 
exacerbate their situation. We in Minnesota would ask the same of our 
friends across the border in North Dakota. In this case, that is 
exactly what would happen.
  I am very disappointed that my colleagues from North Dakota have 
chosen to try to insert this funding into the appropriations bill 
authorizing a $100 million project that I am told did not go before the 
Senate committees. It hasn't had that review. It hasn't gone through 
the normal Senate process. It has been instead snuck into this measure.
  I thank the distinguished Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, for his 
vigilance in this matter. I am going to read bills as carefully and as 
thoroughly as the Senator from Arizona does because he does a 
phenomenal job at identifying these attempts to circumvent our Senate 
process.
  In 1999--this preceded my time in the Senate--according to the 
Record, the States of Minnesota and North Dakota, along with the 
Canadian Government, which may not have been in complete accord, worked 
out language that was reflected in the 1999 bill which set forth basic 
procedures that would have to be followed before this project could 
move forward.
  That language says very specifically, among other things, that the 
economic justification for this emergency outlet shall be prepared in 
accordance with the principles and guidelines for economic evaluation 
as required by regulations and procedures of the Army Corps of 
Engineers for all flood projects.
  I am told the project itself does not meet those requirements. 
Minnesota projects have been turned down by the Army Corps of Engineers 
because of the cost-benefit analysis. The costs exceed the benefits. In 
this area, we were told that the project would have a cost benefit of 
0.37 percent. According to the EPA, that is an understatement because 
it fails to take into account the environmental damage that would 
ensue.
  The solution, according to my colleagues, is to waive that 
requirement and have them report on a cost-benefit analysis but not 
have to apply the same standard or measure that is applied to the other 
projects in Minnesota and other States across the country, which would 
circumvent the will of the Congress in terms of how these projects are 
managed, and to make it consistent across the Nation.
  The funding would then allow water to be diverted initially to North 
Dakota but then into the Red River, which is the common boundary 
between Minnesota and North Dakota, and within the site of severe 
flooding in recent years, which included cites that are on the 
Minnesota and North Dakota border. But also, then, at the very northern 
part, as we border Canada, the river diverts from North Dakota--the 
Rainy River--and runs across our northern border.
  I wish I could show my colleagues this picture. It is of this last 
summer, the flooding that occurred in Roseau, MN. The entire city was 
under water--everything except the Polaris manufacturing plant, which 
employs 1,800 people in the northwestern corner of our State. If that 
had been flooded, the

[[Page S1397]]

company's loss would have been just so devastating to the region; its 
cost is almost incalculable. It was within half an inch of flooding 
entirely and only because the entire city gave up on their homes and 
went to sandbags. Just down the river in, Warroad, MN, the dikes were 
an inch from overflowing and flooding the entire city.
  So anything that would divert water from anywhere else and put that 
water downstream into Minnesota poses a grave risk to our State. That 
is the reason our Department of Natural Resources has opposed it, along 
with local officials throughout Minnesota.
  There are also concerns about the effect in terms of the solidity of 
the water in Devils Lake. Because of its own problems, it is much 
different in quality and characteristic from water elsewhere.
  So, again, they are going to solve their problem by passing it on to 
us. I think, again, this is grotesquely unfair and unwarranted.
  This project is opposed by not only the State of Minnesota but by the 
Environmental Protection Agency. We have castigated EPA recently--some 
of us--in some of their decisions. In this case, EPA stands four square 
with the environmental organizations in opposing this project.
  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife oppose it. The State of Minnesota, the 
Canadian Government, the Great Lakes Commission, Taxpayers for Common 
Sense, the National Wildlife Federation, Minnesota Conservation 
Federation, the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy--just about 
everybody opposes it except for North Dakota. I understand the reasons 
that the North Dakota Senators would want to accomplish this project 
but not at Minnesota's expense, not at the violation of our procedures 
here, not at the circumvention of the way we send legislation through 
our committees and the governmental relations we have between North 
Dakota and Minnesota and Canada.
  We are attempting to work constructively to solve these problems. 
This is not the way to do that. I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
measure.
  I also point out that the Army Corps of Engineers, which is the very 
entity that would be carrying out this project, itself has indicated 
that it would not favor proceeding at this time. It was, I expect, the 
decision of the Chief of Engineers, Robert Flowers, of the Army Corps 
of Engineers, in August of last year, who announced he would not 
approve the environmental impact statement because the Corps had not 
given adequate consideration to the project's potential for serious 
environmental damage. He recommended that the International Joint 
Commission be given the opportunity to examine the report.
  That unwillingness to proceed--again, a Federal Government agency 
doing its job properly, as instructed by the rules and regulations of 
laws passed by Congress and the rules and regulations that itself 
promulgated--brought this project to a halt. So now we are going to 
circumvent that entire professional judgment here in the Senate.

  Mr. President, I conclude my remarks at this point, but I ask for the 
yeas and nays on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona has 2 minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield my 2 minutes to the Senator from 
North Dakota, Mr. Conrad.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank, again, Senator McCain, and I 
thank my colleague, Senator Dayton. He is here defending his 
constituency as he sees it. I just want to assure him of a couple of 
things.
  No. 1, on this notion that we are asking for a different standard of 
measuring the cost-benefit test, that is true. And the reason is that 
the standard that applies in the law has no relevance to what is 
happening in North Dakota. The standard that applies in the law is 
designed to deal with river flooding, where the water comes and the 
water goes, and once the damage has been done you can rebuild.
  That is not the circumstance here. That is why everyone who has 
examined this circumstance has said the standard cost model is 
irrelevant.
  Mr. DAYTON. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield, but if I can just finish my thought.
  What is required here is to understand this is cumulative damage as 
this lake continues to rise. That is why we have had to raise this dike 
twice, and the Federal Government is poised to raise it a third time. 
That is why the roads have had to be raised twice. That is why hundreds 
of threatened structures have had to have been moved. More will have to 
be done. And the cumulative cost continues to grow.
  Second, on the question of flooding in Minnesota, we share the border 
with Minnesota. We are not going to do anything that will make the 
flooding worse for our own people. We share the border with Minnesota. 
We will do nothing to hurt Minnesota or North Dakota because that would 
not be in our constituency interest.
  Finally, we have to meet NEPA. That is what our amendment provides. 
That is what is in this law. We have to meet the National Environmental 
Policy Act. We have to meet the Boundary Waters Treaty with Canada. But 
we should not be blocked, either, by Canada refusing to make a joint 
referral to the IGC, which they have done for more than a year.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I understand I have a minute remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, then I will entertain questions from my 
colleagues from North Dakota in return.
  I will point out, I was not here in 1999, but my two colleagues from 
North Dakota were. I do not know the circumstances under which this 
language was adopted. That requires the Army Corps of Engineers to 
undertake exactly the same kind of cost-benefit analysis for this 
project as it does for others. If that was not applicable then, I do 
not know why that was not raised in 1999 or 2000 or 2001.

  Contrary to what the Senator implied, the language in this amendment 
does not set up a different standard. It weighs the standard. It simply 
says the Army Corps of Engineers will describe the cost benefit. It is 
not going to have any standard it has to meet whatsoever other than the 
fact that that analysis is done.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DAYTON. When I finish my thought.
  In terms of the two States, I cannot explain why, since we do share a 
common border, our departments of natural resources view it 
differently, although the interests are different. But I know for a 
fact that part of that is because of the severe flooding which we 
shared in 1997 in East Grand Forks and Grand Forks and Fargo and 
Moorhead.
  But also, as I indicated, in the last 2 years Minnesota farmers have 
been devastated in the northwestern part of the State and the cities 
there have been flooded after the river diverts from the North Dakota-
Minnesota border.
  We have circumstances that are different; therefore, the interests of 
our States differ. That is exactly the reason why Minnesota and North 
Dakota and Canada should be working cooperatively on this and not have 
one State go off on its own trying to finagle something which I think 
undermines the trust and working relationship.
  I will yield for a question.
  Mr. DORGAN. I just point out, if this were to injure downstream 
citizens in your State or ours, I would not support it. We do not 
intend to foist a problem that exists in this basin on any other 
constituency anywhere.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DAYTON. In the judgment of Minnesota, that is what you are doing.
  I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to table the Senator's amendment and ask for the 
yeas and nays on that tabling motion. And I ask unanimous consent that 
vote take place following the vote on Senator Clinton's amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

[[Page S1398]]

  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). Without objection, the vote will 
take place after the Clinton amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, Senator McCain has another amendment. It 
is my understanding that the parties have agreed to a 20-minute time 
agreement equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona.


                           Amendment No. 230

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 230 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona proposes (Mr. McCain) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 230.

  Mr. McCAIN. 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 reduce the total construction general account in the Corps 
 of Engineers, Flood Control Mississippi River and Tributaries, etc., 
  account by $14,750,000 and restore the appropriation for the Yazoo 
Basin Backwater Pumping Plant to the $250,000 level recommended by the 
                               President)

       On page 263, beginning with ``$346,437,000,'' in line 24, 
     strike through line 6 on page 264 and insert ``$331,687,000, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That the 
     Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, 
     using $250,000 of the funds provided herein, is directed to 
     continue environmental review and project plans for the Yazoo 
     Basin, Yazoo Backwater Pumping Plant, Mississippi.''.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to reduce 
funding for the Yazoo Pump Project in Yazoo Basin, MS. I believe the 
project is wasteful and environmentally harmful. It has not been 
subjected to standard responsible environmental or economic assessment. 
And although it was touted as a flood control project, the Yazoo pumps 
are not designed to save homes and lives. Instead, in my view, the 
pumps are specifically designed to drain wetlands so that large 
landowners can increase agricultural production on marginal lands, the 
majority of which are irreplaceable wetlands.
  In fact the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has indicated this 
project will likely be subject to a Clean Water Act veto because the 
project will drain and damage more than 200,000 acres of significant 
wetlands in the Mississippi flyway. That is more than three times the 
number of wetlands lost across the country in an entire year from all 
causes. It is more than seven times as many wetlands as the Corps 
allows private developers to destroy in an entire year nationwide under 
the Clean Water Act section 404 permit program.
  Wetlands drained will include more than 31,000 acres currently 
enrolled in the Wetlands Reserve and Conservation Reserve programs 
which the Federal taxpayers already have paid more than $30 million to 
protect. Tens of thousands of acres of forest and wetlands located on 
Federal and State lands will also be damaged. But the harm won't end 
there. The pumps will alter the hydrology of the entire 925,000-acre 
project area and of the Dear Creek, Steele Bayou, Little Sunflower, and 
Big Sunflower Rivers that flow through that area. The project also 
encourages increased pesticide use in an area of the country already 
plagued by significant toxic contamination.
  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has also opposed the project due 
to the severity of the ecological harm it will cause.
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the opposition 
statement of the EPA.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                U.S. Environmental


                                            Protection Agency,

                                    Atlanta, GA, January 19, 2001.
     Hon. Louis Caldera,
     Secretary of the Army,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Caldera: While there has been extensive 
     communication between the Environmental Protection Agency 
     (EPA) and the Corps of Engineers regarding the Yazoo 
     Backwater Pumping Plant, we are writing to express directly 
     to you the depth of our concern with the environmental 
     consequences of the Corps proposal. It would alter the 
     hydrology of over 200,000 acres of ecologically significant 
     wetlands. It would drain wetlands currently enrolled in the 
     Conservation Reserve Program and the Wetlands Reserve 
     Program, wetlands being managed as mitigation for previously 
     constructed projects in the region, and wetlands on national 
     forest, national wildlife refuge, and state lands. Moreover, 
     an independent evaluation has found serious flaws in the 
     Corps' cost-benefit analysis for this project. Our objections 
     are intensified because the unacceptable environmental 
     impacts are avoidable.
       The Yazoo Backwater Pumping Plant would work against the 
     progress that has been made in reducing the losses of our 
     nation's wetlands resulting from the hard work of the Army 
     Corps, other agencies, and our non-federal partners. Just 
     last week Secretaries Babbitt and Glickman announced that the 
     net wetland loss rate has been reduced to less than 60,000 
     acres per year across the entire U.S., which puts in 
     perspective the massive scale of the wetlands at risk because 
     of the Yazoo project.
       The Corps has not responded to our concerns that the 
     project exceeds the Congressional authorization. The Flood 
     Control Act of 1941, upon which the Corps derives its 
     authority to construct the Yazoo Pumps, prohibits the 
     draining of lands below the 90 foot elevation. This 
     prohibition has never been removed or altered. The 
     recommended plan, however, proposes to drain lands well below 
     the 90 foot elevation with significant adverse environmental 
     impacts. Over approximately 150,000 acres of forested and 
     cropped wetlands will be adversely impacted by draining below 
     the authorized elevation.
       Explicit Congressional authorization would be required 
     before the Corps could proceed with the project or seek a 
     Clean Water Act exemption, and any such authorization would 
     be subject to the cost share requirements of 33 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 2213.
       Because of the environmental effects, EPA strongly opposes 
     Congressional authorization of the project as proposed. We 
     hope that the Department of Army would share our objections.
       We are reiterating EPA's offer to work with the Corps to 
     develop an alternative to meet project objectives, while 
     avoiding the significant level of environmental damage 
     associated with the Corps proposal. Other federal agencies 
     with programs that could be part of an alternative approach, 
     including the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the 
     Natural resources Conservation Service, and the U.S. Fish and 
     Wildlife Service have also expressed their willingness to 
     cooperate with the Corps in exploring less environmentally 
     damaging alternatives.
       Thank you for your interest and involvement in this 
     important issue. If your wish to discuss this matter, please 
     contact John Meagher at 202-260-1917.
           Sincerely,
     J. Charles Fox,
       Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.
     John Hankinson,
       Regional Administrator, EPA Region IV.
  Mr. McCAIN. The controversy surrounding this project is not limited 
to the environmental harm the pumps will cause. An independent economic 
analysis conducted by a highly respected economist, who also chairs the 
National Academy of Sciences panel, shows that the Yazoo pumps cannot 
be economically justified. It shows that the Corps has overstated just 
the agricultural benefits of the project by $144 million. It also shows 
that the Corps of Engineers is asking Federal taxpayers to spend well 
over $180 million simply to help large landowners earn more farm 
subsidy payments.
  Those subsidies are already substantial. In just the 2-year flood 
plain of the project area, where 150,000 acres of wetlands will be 
damaged, 51 landowners split $15.3 million on Federal farm subsidies in 
the 6 years from 1996 to 2001. One of those landowners received $2.7 
million during that time while four others received more than $1 
million each.
  Perhaps the worst thing about this project is that each and every 
benefit could be achieved in a way that would avoid each and every 
impact we are talking about. Nonstructural measures, including the 
purchase of conservation and flowage easements and targeted flood 
proofing of buildings, could reduce flood damages in the region. This 
alternative has been suggested for years but has been brushed aside by 
the Corps. The Corps has not finished its environmental review of this 
project, has not finished the feasibility study for this project, and 
it has not issued a record of decision. The Corps of Engineers has far 
to go to satisfy its planning requirements. The draft environmental 
review was so flawed that it was given the lowest possible rating by 
the EPA.
  This makes any directive to enter into a continuing contract for the

[[Page S1399]]

pumps supply contract entirely premature. Given the widespread 
opposition to this project, the detailed and scientifically supported 
challenges to the Corps project analysis, and the ecosystemwide harm 
this project will cause, Congress would do an enormous disservice to 
taxpayers and the environment to direct the Corps to begin 
construction.
  This amendment would allow the planning process to proceed without 
interference. It would ensure we don't short circuit the ongoing 
environmental and physical review of this project that could destroy an 
entire ecosystem and cause taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  At the moment, there is not.
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment of 
the distinguished Senator from Arizona. Let me point out that there has 
been a lot of discussion over the last several years about the impact 
of the Yazoo Backwater project.
  The Corps of Engineers several years ago undertook a reevaluation of 
this project which was authorized over 40 years ago. As a matter of 
fact, it is a part of a very large Mississippi River and tributaries 
project. This is one of the last parts of that authorized project to be 
constructed. Because it is one of the last projects to be constructed, 
an intense amount of scrutiny has been devoted to the project. That is 
just fine. That is an appropriate thing for people who are concerned 
and interested in the environment and in agricultural production and in 
the lives and well-being of the people who live in this area.
  The point is, the project is not going to authorize the drainage of 
any new wetlands. There will be no new lands cleared of bottom lined 
hardwood for this project. There will be a small amount of land 
cleared, 38 acres, in order to construct the project. But 62,500 acres 
of existing agricultural land will be reforested. There will be new 
habitat created, way beyond what exists now.
  The purpose of this project is not to create new agricultural 
opportunities in this part of the Mississippi Delta, but it is to save 
lives. It is to prevent damage to existing infrastructure such as roads 
and bridges. It is to prevent the flooding of schools and hospitals and 
businesses. It is to address the concerns of people who want the 
project to proceed, such as those who visited my office last week when 
they heard there might be an amendment to strike the money to begin 
this construction project.
  These were not big shot farmers. These were poor people who have 
homes and businesses in Mayersville and in Sharkey County in the area 
where this project will be constructed.
  I am hopeful that the Senate will reject this amendment. It is an 
amendment designed to cut money the committee put in the bill, $14.5 
million. It will cut almost all of that money.
  The Corps of Engineers is nearing the point where they will be able 
to enter into contracts for design and construction of the project and 
to do some real estate activities that are necessary before the 
construction is actually begun.
  I urge the Senate to carefully look at the facts. I will include for 
the Record 5 pages of misconceptions and the facts that prove those 
misconceptions to be erroneous. I hope Senators will take the time to 
look at them and to read these factual statistics and information as 
relevant to this project. I ask unanimous consent that a document 
entitled ``Yazoo Backwater Area, Mississippi'' be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   Yazoo Backwater Area, Mississippi

       The Corps of Engineers initiated the reevaluation of flood 
     control plans for Mississippi's Yazoo Backwater Area, a 
     1,550-square-mile portion of the state's flood-prone lower 
     Delta region. The goal of the study was to provide protection 
     to businesses, infrastructure, and people of the area, while 
     notably improving the future of the region's environment.
       Extensive coordination with customers and stakeholders took 
     place over the course of the study to find a solution that 
     addressed both the economic and environmental needs of the 
     Backwater Area. The Corps spent several years in a consensus 
     building process among environmental agencies and economic 
     interests in the Mississippi Delta. The effort resulted in a 
     multi-purpose approach that addresses the desire for a 
     balance between flood control, environmental restoration, and 
     the concerns of the private landowners in the Yazoo Backwater 
     area.
       As a part of our public involvement program, it is the goal 
     of the Vicksburg District to provide the public with 
     unbiased, factual information about the Yazoo Backwater 
     Project. A considerable amount of inaccurate and/or 
     incomplete information is currently being circulated about 
     this proposed project.
       The following misconceptions were selected based on the 
     comments we received since the release of our draft report.
       Misconception 1: Contrary to federal policy, the Yazoo 
     Pumps are designed to drain wetlands to increase agricultural 
     production on lands that have always flooded.
       Facts: The structural features of the Yazoo Backwater Area 
     Project are designed to lessen flooding in the Lower Delta 
     for those flood events that exceed a one-year flood. While 
     the lessening of flooding would possibly increase production 
     on existing agricultural lands, Federal agricultural policy 
     remains in place, which would preclude the clearing and 
     draining of any wetlands. In addition, the non-structural 
     flood control feature of the proposed project provides for 
     increasing bottomland hardwood wetland habitat by converting 
     up to 62,500 acres of lands currently in agricultural 
     production to forest lands.
       Misconception 2: The project will drain and damage 200,000 
     acres of wetlands, two times the number of acres destroyed 
     each year across the country by all public and private 
     projects combined.
       Facts: The wetland resources in the project area would be 
     increased by 23% under the proposed plan. The Yazoo Backwater 
     Area Project includes both a structural and non-structural 
     feature. The structural feature, the pumping plant, would not 
     change flooding on 62,500 acres of farmed or prior converted 
     wetlands or the 142,000 acres of bottomland hardwoods that 
     are now flooded by the 1-year flood. These lands would 
     continue to be flooded. The Corps of Engineers would purchase 
     conservation easements on up to 62,500 acres of farmed or 
     prior converted wetlands from willing sellers and reforest 
     this land. Lands above the 1-year flood plain would receive 
     reduced levels of flooding. In this area, there could be some 
     increase in the level of production on these lands and there 
     could be some shifting of crop types by the farmers; however, 
     no additional land would be cleared.
       Misconception 3: The project would not make a single home 
     free from flooding.
       Facts: There are 1,441 homes that would be impacted under 
     existing conditions by a 100-year flood. The average value of 
     these homes is approximately $36,000. With the implementation 
     of the proposed Yazoo Backwater Area Project, over 1,000 of 
     these homes would be free from flooding by the 100-year 
     event.
       The proposed project would lower the elevation of the 100-
     year flood by 4 to 4\1/2\ feet. For example, if a flood 
     similar to the 1973 flood occurred again, those homes that 
     had 4 to 4\1/2\ feet of water in them in 1973 would no longer 
     be flooded. Those homes and structures that had more than 
     4\1/2\ feet of water would still have water in them; however, 
     they would not be flooded as deep or for as long.
       The Eagle Lake area would see significant reductions in 
     flooding. Almost all residences in this area would be 
     protected from the 100-frequency flood event. Only 5 of the 
     homes would still be subjected to the 100-year flood, but 
     even these 5 homes would benefit overall from the lessened 
     flooding. Flooding in other communities in the project area 
     would also be reduced significantly. No homes in the towns of 
     Cary, Valley Park, Anguilla, Rolling Fork, Mayersville, or 
     Hollandale would be flooded by the 100-year flood with the 
     project in place.
       Flooding impacts even those residents whose homes have not 
     flooded in the past. Those residents have to contend with 
     significant flooding of roads and bridges. Flooding of roads 
     in the area disrupts transportation of children to schools, 
     causes access problems for emergency vehicles, and creates 
     problems for area residents in their daily lives. It becomes 
     difficult to get to the supermarket for food, or to see a 
     doctor or dentist. This proposed project would help to 
     alleviate much of the flooding of area roads and bridges.
       Misconception 4: This project would promote increased 
     pesticide and fertilizer use in a region already plagued by 
     toxic contamination.
       Facts: With the reforestation of up to 62,500 acres of 
     cropland, an increase in the usage of agricultural chemicals 
     associated with implementation of the recommended Yazoo 
     Backwater Project is unlikely. No additional land would be 
     cleared for agricultural production.
       Misconception 5: The project would waste millions of tax 
     dollars to increase agricultural production when the federal 
     government is spending billions on farm subsidies and on 
     taking excess croplands out of production.

[[Page S1400]]

       Facts: The amount of agricultural cropland in the Yazoo 
     Backwater Area would be reduced, not increased. In the case 
     of the Yazoo Backwater Area, the proposed project would not 
     change the flood patterns on the 62,500 acres of cropland or 
     the 142,000 acres of bottomland hardwoods in the 1-year 
     floodplain. These lands would still flood as they have in the 
     past. The Federal government would offer to purchase 
     conservation easements from willing sellers on these 62,500 
     acres of cropland and where these easements are purchased, 
     the agricultural intensification benefits associated with 
     this project would be limited to either increasing the amount 
     of a crop grown per acre of remaining cropland or switching 
     to grow a more valuable crop on the remaining cropland.
       Misconception 6: The project is wasteful because it 
     benefits a few people at tremendous taxpayer expense.
       Facts: In addition to local benefits, the project would 
     also provide additional national benefits. Everyone who uses 
     stores, schools, roads, medical facilities, or owns 
     businesses and farms would benefit. The project as proposed 
     would reverse the prior clearing of bottomland hardwood 
     forests in this important area by replanting up to 100 square 
     miles of the alluvial flood plain, which accounts for 
     approximately 20% of farmland that is now in use. Such local 
     benefits would be accomplished over and above a return of 
     $1.48 in economic benefits to the country for every $1 
     invested.
       Misconception 7: The pumps would destroy some of the best 
     remaining bottomland hardwood forest in the lower Mississippi 
     River basin, which provide habitat for bald eagles, 
     alligators, bobcat, deer, and the threatened Louisiana black 
     bear.
       Facts: The construction of the pump plant would result in 
     the loss of a 38-acre tract of forested land. No additional 
     clearing would be required for implementation of the project 
     and no additional clearing is expected due to project 
     implementation. The reforestation of up to 62,500 acres of 
     agricultural lands would provide a significant environmental 
     benefit to the backwater area. This land use conversion from 
     agricultural to bottomland hardwoods would result in a 
     significant increase in environmental habitat by connecting 
     fragmented tracts of forested land. This reforested land 
     would also create a significant buffer between agricultural 
     activities and the aquatic environment, which would result in 
     improved water quality in the lower Delta.
       The project calls for raising low water levels during the 
     summer months, which would provide more wildlife habitat. The 
     excessive low water stages on the Mississippi River 
     experienced over the past two summers would have resulted in 
     an extreme hardship on the terrestrial and aquatic 
     environment had it not been for the operation of the Steele 
     Bayou Structure. Water was ponded approximately 20 feet 
     higher than that of the Mississippi River. The entire basin 
     would have essentially dried up if it were not for the 
     structure and the series of weirs in Steele Bayou constructed 
     by the Corps. The proposed project would allow for increased 
     stages to even further reduce the hardship on aquatic 
     habitat.
       Separate habitat-based analyses for waterfowl, wetland, 
     terrestrial, and aquatic resources, have documented both the 
     positive and negative impacts to the environment from the 
     recommended plan. These studies showed that terrestrial 
     resources would increase 17 percent, wetland resources would 
     increase 23 percent, and aquatic resources would increase 19 
     percent; however, waterfowl resources would decrease 42 
     percent. The waterfowl decrease is the result of a reduction 
     in foraging habitat with the reforesting of agricultural 
     lands. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has indicated that 
     the reforestation of agricultural lands is more important to 
     waterfowl than the loss of foraging habitat since sufficient 
     foraging habitat would remain in the area.
       Misconception 8: The project would damage productive lakes 
     and swamps that support hunting, fishing, and ecotoursim 
     industry.
       Facts: The pump project would not drain the delta. The 
     pumps would only operate during flood conditions when the 
     Steele Bayou Control Structure gates are closed and water 
     levels are above evaluation 87. At this level, there are 
     still about 170,000 acres that remain flooded on a yearly 
     basis. The pump would be used to reduce flooding for only the 
     more serious events.
       Misconception 9: The pumps would be used for all floods.
       Facts: The pump feature of the project is designed to 
     remove only that water which is above elevation 87.0 and 
     trapped behind the closed gates of the Steele Bayou 
     Structure. The Steele Bayou Structure gates are closed only 
     when the Mississippi River is at flood stage to prevent 
     backwater flooding into the protected area. Should the water 
     level be above elevation 87.0 while the gates of Steele Bayou 
     Structure are open, it is unlikely the pump would be utilized 
     because normal gravity flow would occur.
       Misconception 10: The Vicksburg District is behind in its 
     mitigation requirements for other projects.
       Facts: The Yazoo Backwater project requires no compensatory 
     mitigation. Several other projects under construction by the 
     Vicksburg District do require compensatory mitigation; the 
     Vicksburg District is committed to fulfilling all of its 
     authorized mitigation requirements. Lands required for 
     mitigation by the Vicksburg District are from willing sellers 
     and must meet certain environmental criteria such as use as a 
     moist soil area or frequency of flooding prior to purchase. 
     The lands purchased to meet this mitigation requirement are 
     acquired concurrent with project construction. As of June 
     2000, the Vicksburg District has purchased 82,050 acres of 
     mitigation lands for all projects requiring land acquisition. 
     This acreage is 12,450 acres more than the amount required to 
     be concurrent with construction of our projects.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Lott, is 
recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I, too, rise in opposition to this amendment 
and support the funds that are provided in this section of the energy 
and water appropriations bill for the Yazoo Backwater Pump Project. I 
thank the committee for the time they spent on this project and for the 
funds they provided. Actually, they have a lot of knowledge about this 
project because it is not new.
  Let me take a minute to add a few points to the very good points my 
colleague, the senior Senator from Mississippi, already made. First of 
all, the Great Flood of 1927 that hit the Mississippi Delta covered 
27,000 square miles, killed more than 500 people, and left 700,000 
people homeless.
  In response to this event and because water from 41 percent of the 
United States drains through the Delta--I was listening to the 
discussions about the Devil's Lake project in North Dakota and thinking 
that the drainage begins way up there, but it all winds up down in this 
funnel-like area of the Mississippi Delta. Being aware of that, 
Congress passed the Flood Control Act of 1929 making flood protection 
in the Mississippi River Valley a Federal responsibility.
  The Yazoo Pump Project was actually authorized in 1941 as a part of 
this overall effort. So, you see, this is not something that hasn't 
been considered and worked on for years and years. The point was made 
earlier that the Corps of Engineers hasn't finished its review. I 
wonder, how long does it take? Year after year, these people who live 
in this area are threatened with floods, as are their homes and 
businesses and hospitals, as the Senator pointed out. It is a very 
dangerous situation.
  This pump actually will protect 1,000 homes--not just a few rich 
farmers, as has been alleged, but 1,000 homes, and includes, very 
importantly, the reforestation of over 62,000 acres currently in 
agricultural production.
  This is a win-win situation. It protects the people from flooding 
while restoring large amounts of land to natural habitat. I thought 
that was what we should be trying to do.
  This is a project that is being moved forward very carefully. The 
funding here is slightly short of $15 million. So it is being done 
incrementally and in a way that will include the ability to improve 
this natural habitat.
  This pumping plant, by the way, is not unique. There are currently 15 
similar plants in operation throughout Arkansas, Louisiana, and 
Mississippi within 200 miles of the Yazoo pump. In fact, the W.G. 
Huxtable Pump in Arkansas is almost the same size as the Yazoo but 
drains only half the acreage of the Yazoo. The Yazoo will protect 2.6 
million acres, while the Huxtable plant drains only 1.3 million acres.
  This project has bipartisan support from Democrats such as 
Congressman Bennie Thompson, who has been there and looked at the 
damage and the threat to the people. He supports this project, as do 
Democratic State elected officials.
  Aside from that type of statistic, I think the most important thing 
is the human side of this. Year after year--and it is almost every year 
that people have water in their homes. You cannot believe what it is 
like. I was looking at some of the pictures being shown earlier with 
the Devil's Lake project. We can show you the same type of pictures 
from Mississippi--people with sandbags around their houses and the 
water is up above the porch level. These are hard-working, mostly poor 
people in this area of the Mississippi Delta--five counties right down 
at the end of the funnel, really.
  By the way, in most of these counties, the African-American 
population is the majority--the lowest is 54 percent, up to as much as 
71.8 percent. The delegation Senator Cochran referred to who came to 
see us was led by Ms. Ruby Johnson of Cary, MS. She met

[[Page S1401]]

with us to talk about these projects. She had a delegation of five. All 
five of them were African Americans who literally were concerned about 
being able to continue to live there. They were talking about how their 
kids have left the Delta and can't come back. They cannot attract 
businesses and industry because of, among other things, the threat of 
the flooding year in and year out. They told us stories about having to 
put their children in boats to take them to school when the water is 
rising. They told us of fearing snakes, which find their way into their 
homes after the waters recede.
  The Federal Government has made a promise to these good people. This 
project has been delayed, analyzed, and criticized in the media. 
Special interest groups are saying it is not being done in an 
environmentally sound way. It is. A project like this one which will 
provide flood protection while restoring thousands of acres to its 
natural habitat should be held up as a model for future environmental 
projects.
  I urge defeat of this amendment and support of the Yazoo Backwater 
Pump. If we don't, we are going to end up with five counties in this 
area that will have no people and no opportunity for a decent living, 
or any kind of business, or economic development. We can have all of 
these in this area if only we keep the promises first made by the 
federal government over 70 years ago. The people of the Mississippi 
Delta have waited long enough.
  So I appreciate the opportunity to speak, and I plead for my 
colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona has 4\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I know of no two Members of the Senate who 
have worked harder on behalf of their constituents than my friends from 
Mississippi. I also understand that they have special problems and 
special needs in one of the least economically well-off parts of 
America. I understand their dedication to this and other efforts they 
have made on behalf of their constituents.
  It is with that understanding that I still oppose this project. It 
has nothing to do with the admiration and respect I have for both of my 
dear friends.
  Mr. President, I hope this amendment will be sustained by my 
colleagues. I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is yielded back.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we are going to proceed to a vote on four 
amendments soon. There is an agreement for 2 minutes on each side 
before Kennedy amendment No. 123.
  I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes before the Clinton 
amendment No. 89, which will follow the Kennedy amendment. And then on 
the McCain amendment No. 214, I have already made a motion to table 
that amendment. The yeas and nays are in order. I move to table the 
McCain amendment No. 230, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
the Kennedy amendment, the votes on all three succeeding amendments be 
limited to 10 minutes each.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I want to say 
a couple things to the manager. First of all, the Clinton amendment--
have you moved to table that?
  Mr. STEVENS. No.
  Mr. REID. There is a question as to whether or not she is going to be 
able to modify. Senator Nickles is not in the Chamber.
  Mr. STEVENS. It is my hope that she will be able to modify the 
amendment. We are trying to work that out. I have not asked for the 
yeas and nays on the Clinton amendment yet.
  Mr. REID. I also say that we have been through this and we are trying 
to limit the votes to 10 minutes. We hope the majority leader will 
condense the votes to 10 minutes; otherwise, we are going to be here 
really late tonight.
  Mr. STEVENS. We are saying 10 minutes. I think the Senate will see 
what 10 minutes means this afternoon. If we are going to finish, we 
must stick to that. So there will not be voting beyond 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Senator Kennedy has 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 123

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, my good friend from Alaska has alleged 
that the appropriations bill already has funds for minority health. The 
fact is that this bill dramatically cuts funding for minority AIDS 
treatment and prevention. It cuts the Office of Civil Rights and the 
Office of Minority Health, and it has a small, inadequate increase for 
other minority health problems.
  Let me focus on what this bill does for minority AIDS. Bear in mind 
that we have an epidemic of AIDS in the minority community that is 
killing and infecting minority men and women and children every day. 
Last year's appropriations bill set aside $123 million for AIDS efforts 
out of the Health Resources and Service Administration for the minority 
AIDS program. That is the Ryan White Program. You can search this 
Senate appropriations bill from cover to cover. You will not find it; 
it is not there. You will find $96 million for prevention and tracking 
of AIDS through the CDC set-aside for minorities in last year's bill. 
You can look cover to cover in this Senate bill and you won't find it; 
it is not there. The list goes on.
  So what does it mean to reject this amendment? It means that 
thousands of minority students will not enter the health professions to 
become doctors and nurses and scientists.
  It means civil rights violations will continue to go uninvestigated 
and unpunished. It means tens of thousands of minority men, women, and 
children with AIDS will not get the medical care they need, and 
prevention efforts will be reduced.
  On this Dr. Martin Luther King birthday week, let us stand up for 
minority health. Let us do what the new majority leader has said we 
should do and put new emphasis on minority health. Let us do what the 
true spirit of America calls us to do. Let us try to bring the blessing 
of good health to all of our people.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I hope my good friend from Massachusetts 
will agree that this amendment would provide an additional $584 million 
for various programs, and the amendment I offered provides $130 million 
more than the bill that was before the Senate last year when it was 
managed by the Democratic Party.
  My amendment also, I stated, provides $3.1 billion for a minority 
health, education, and training initiative which was not in the July 
bill that was before us. This is an increase of $144.3 million over the 
2002 level. That is the current level of funding for these programs.
  Mr. President, I move to table this 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. REID. I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the 
Senator from Hawaii Inouye), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Leiberman) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 20 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     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
     Snowe
     Specter

[[Page S1402]]


     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--46

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Harkin
     Inouye
     Lieberman
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                            Amendment No. 89

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senate will now consider Senator 
Clinton's amendment numbered 89, with 2 minutes on each side. I ask 
that Senator Nickles take the time on our side.
  I remind the Senate that all votes now will be 10 minutes for the 
rest of the afternoon, and 10 minutes means 10 minutes. If we are to 
finish this evening, we cannot go on and on and on with these 
amendments. Ten minutes means 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise in support of my amendment. I 
urge the Senate to take action now because, in the event we do not 
freeze the cuts that would go into effect, we will be facing disastrous 
impacts throughout our Nation with respect to our physicians, our home 
health agencies, our skilled nursing homes, our Medicare+Choice 
programs, our teaching hospitals, our community hospitals, our rural 
hospitals--all of which need to keep up with inflation and increasing 
costs and demands.
  If you look across our country you can see specifically the amount of 
money that our hospitals and all of our other health care providers 
will lose if we do not take this action now to freeze these cuts before 
they go into effect on the first of March.
  This amendment provides for the freeze. It also provides for a 2-
percent increase for physicians who otherwise are going to be leaving 
Medicare.
  I really appreciate the commitment we have received from the Finance 
Committee to address this issue. We will all be working diligently to 
ensure we do address it. But in the meantime, our system is 
deteriorating. The quality of service is decreasing. The numbers of 
providers are not there to take care of the increased demand, and I 
urge the Senate to take this intermediary step to vote this 6-month 
action while we try to fix the program.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the Senate is not order in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first I want to make sure from the 
Senator from New York this is the original proposal, not the modified 
proposal?
  Mrs. CLINTON. Yes, it is the original proposal.
  Mr. NICKLES. I urge our colleagues to vote to sustain a budget point 
of order that I will raise in just a moment. This is a bill that should 
go through appropriate order, regular order. This is an entitlement 
program. These are big changes. These are changes we should do in the 
Finance Committee. These are changes for which we have bipartisan 
support in the Finance Committee, many, but they have to be worked out.
  This is an amendment many of us saw just moments ago. It deals with 
billions of dollars--actually I think it is about $4.1 billion.
  The chairman of the Finance Committee and also the ranking member of 
the Finance Committee did a fix for doctors, but there are a lot of 
other provisions we need to consider, dealing with some of the 
provisions mentioned by the Senator from New York, but they need to be 
dealt with in a bipartisan way through the regular order through the 
committee. If we are going to bypass all the committees all the time, 
maybe we don't need to have committees. Those on the Finance Committee 
who have been working on this issue would like to have some input on it 
as well.
  Therefore, the pending amendment by Senator Clinton includes an 
increase in mandatory spending and, if adopted, would certainly 
increase the deficit. Therefore I raise a point of order pursuant to 
section 207 of H. Con. Res. 68, the fiscal year 2000 budget resolution 
as amended by S. Res. 304 from the 107th Congress.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask to speak using leader time for 
approximately 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, before doing that, I would be happy to 
yield to the Senator from New York. Was she about to respond?
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. Majority Leader, I was going to move to waive the 
relevant section of the Budget Act and ask for the yeas and nays, but 
let me wait until you are finished.
  Mr. FRIST. It would be more appropriate for you to go ahead.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Pursuant to section 207(C) of H. Con. Res. 68, the 
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2000, I move to 
waive section 207(B) of that concurrent resolution for purposes of the 
pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Using leader time, I just want to make a very brief 
comment because this is a very important issue, an important issue to 
the many seniors who are listening to this debate, and individuals with 
disabilities, the physicians, the hospitals, the health care providers.
  It is very clear to me that health care providers today are being 
inadequately paid under the Medicare Program, and that is why I, as has 
been pointed out earlier, regret the fact that we finished, adjourned 
the 107th Congress, without passing legislation to provide seniors with 
prescription drug coverage and have more comprehensive strengthening of 
the Medicare system.
  But now, once we get finished with some of the unfinished business 
such as the appropriations bills, we have a new Congress, we have new 
leadership, and we absolutely will address strengthening Medicare head 
on, including provider payments, including a prescription drug benefit 
package for our seniors and individuals with disabilities.
  This particular amendment has not been considered by the Finance 
Committee. There are urgent needs that we are addressing in the 
underlying Stevens amendment. It has been mentioned one of those is a 
flattening of this decrease in payments that we have seen for doctors 
over time, by freezing what otherwise would be a 4.4-percent cut for 
physicians. The underlying Stevens amendment addresses that.
  What the Senator from New York has proposed--part of that is contrary 
to the specific recommendations of MEDPAC, which is the advisory 
commission specifically set up for us, in terms of learning what we 
should be doing. A package such as this, as the Senator from Oklahoma 
pointed out, does deserve careful vetting, careful consideration. We 
simply have not had that opportunity to date.
  Let me make it clear once again. My priority as majority leader, as a 
physician, is to address in a comprehensive way, legislation that will 
do things such as provide access to seniors, strengthen and improve the 
Medicare Program, as well as address provider payments, which this 
particular amendment attempts to do. I look forward to working with my 
Finance Committee colleagues. I do want this to go through the Finance 
Committee where we can have careful vetting and consideration as we 
develop this legislation which will strengthen Medicare.
  In closing, I urge Senators to vote no to waive the Budget Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I hadn't intended to speak, but I will be

[[Page S1403]]

brief, and I will use some of my leader time to do so. Let me say three 
things.
  First, I don't know that there is a greater crisis in our country 
today than in what we are witnessing with providers in rural and urban 
areas alike. Whether it is doctors or nurses, facilities, nursing 
homes--the crisis is as severe as any that I have seen in our lifetime.
  Secondly, there are those who say this process ought to go through an 
appropriate legislative process, the way we would normally do things. I 
couldn't agree more that the legislative process is a good one and we 
ought to respect it.
  But we have talked about providing relief, now, for years. There is a 
great deal in this bill that we are now supporting that had nothing to 
do with the legislative process or committee consideration. This is an 
emergency that has to be addressed. I don't know how much longer we can 
wait. Of course, it is always better to go through the committee 
process, and where that is possible we ought to do so. But this doesn't 
preclude going through the committee process as we look at this issue 
over and over again in the coming months and years.
  So it is critical we send the right message. At least the Senate 
ought to go on record today that, at this point, with as difficult a 
time as our health care industry is having, with the crisis we are 
facing at the provider level, at the facility level, at the 
institutional level--throughout our country--we need to say without 
equivocation that we are going to be partners in fixing it. There is no 
better time to do that than right now. There is no better message to 
send than the one we can send with this amendment. I urge my colleagues 
to support it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
waive. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have the authority of the leader to 
yield 1 minute to me on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am trying to finish this bill tonight. We are trying 
to get this bill into conference with the House and to settle the 11 
bills that were not passed last year, for whatever reason they were not 
passed.
  This, with all due respect to the Senator from New York, is a Finance 
Committee amendment. It would require the Ways and Means and Finance 
Committees to meet, separate from us, in conference. It is not 
something that belongs on this bill. This is an appropriations bill. 
For years we had points of order that would take these out of our 
consideration, but I urge the Senate not to do this. There are a whole 
series of other amendments coming up just like this one that deal with 
other subjects from other committees. They are legislative amendments.
  We are going to finish this tonight by saying we are passing an 
appropriations bill or we are going to sit here and debate other 
legislative items that should go to Finance or Energy or other 
committees all night.
  I urge that the Senate vote no on this motion. I hope we will table 
the other ones because we will have a series of them unless people 
listen to us. Let us get out of here tonight.
  I might add one little thing. In my lifetime, we have never met 
before the State of the Union Message. Do you know why? Because 
Presidents in the past were just like this one--trying to figure out 
what should be in the State of the Union Message and what should be in 
the budget. This President can't decide what should be in the State of 
the Union Message because we haven't yet finished last year's budget. I 
hope we can go home tonight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The 
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the 
Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Lieberman), are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 41, nays 56.

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 21 Leg.]

                                YEAS--41

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

                                NAYS--56

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Harkin
     Inouye
     Lieberman
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 41, the nays are 
56. 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 fails.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How long did that 
vote take?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fourteen minutes.


                           Amendment No. 214

  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield my minute to the Senator from 
Minnesota, Mr. Dayton.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona whose 
vigilance brought this matter to light.
  This project is opposed by those who are supposed to carry it out, 
the Army Corps of Engineers, the chief engineer of which, last August, 
said this project does not meet environmental standards. It does not 
meet the cost-benefit analysis standards that are applied to every 
other water diversion project across the country.
  So that North Dakota solution is, I am sorry to say: Well, let's 
waive the standards and waive the tests. So we would not have a cost-
benefit analysis requirement. They do one, but it would not account for 
anything. And they pass this problem on to Minnesota and to Canada, 
both of which oppose this project. The Canadian Government is opposed, 
the State of Minnesota is opposed, the EPA is opposed, the Army Corps 
of Engineers is opposed, the major environmental groups in this area 
are opposed, everyone is opposed to this project, except for the State 
of North Dakota, which wants to pass this problem on to Minnesota.
  That is why I ask my colleagues to join in opposition.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition to the 
amendment?
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the time in opposition is on our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, what has just been stated is not the case. 
The Corps of Engineers is not opposed to this project. They have been 
working on this project for years. EPA has not registered opposition to 
this project. We have met with the Director.
  Let me show my colleagues the problem we face. We have a lake called 
Devils Lake that has risen 26 vertical feet since 1992. The Federal 
Government has already had to spend $350 million raising roads, raising 
protective dikes, and moving threatened structures and

[[Page S1404]]

populations. The Corps of Engineers has determined that if we have to 
continue to buy out communities--we have already had to buy one; the 
water is lapping at the edge of a second town--if we have to buy out 
the town of Devils Lake, it will cost billions of dollars.
  The answer is, more storage in the upper basin and outlet.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. CONRAD. I urge my colleagues to support the tabling motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The 
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), the 
Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), 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 62, nays 34, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 22 Leg.]

                                YEAS--62

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham (FL)
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Warner

                                NAYS--34

     Alexander
     Biden
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Coleman
     Collins
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dole
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Graham (SC)
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Leahy
     Levin
     McCain
     Murray
     Nickles
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Sununu
     Talent
     Voinovich
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Baucus
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Lieberman
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, 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.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, what is the next amendment?


                           Amendment No. 230

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question recurs on a motion to table the 
McCain amendment No. 230.
  Mr. STEVENS. May we have order? The Senator has time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I understand I have 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment would eliminate $14.5 
million for construction activities for the Yazoo Pump Station in 
Mississippi. It would require the completion of feasibility studies, 
environmental review, and the economic analysis that is required of 
other core projects.
  If the project proceeds unimpeded, there are 200,000 acres of 
environmentally sensitive wetlands that would be destroyed and a host 
of other environmental problems that will ensue.
  It is telling that the other Federal agencies charged with evaluating 
projects and protecting the Nation's environment are opposed to the 
project. The EPA has given, in the core analysis of this project, its 
lowest possible rating. And the analysis also revealed that the costs 
of the project far outweigh the benefits, questions that should be 
answered before this project proceeds. I urge my colleagues not to 
table the amendment.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, Senators should understand this is a 
project that actually protects the environment in a more aggressive way 
than it would have without the project being funded. Mr. President, 
62,500 acres of farmland will be reforested under this project, when 
this project is complete. This is money that begins a process of 
developing, design, and construction. It is at the early stage of work.
  There are homes, hospitals, schools, businesses, roads, and bridges 
that are flooded but for the construction of this project. It will get 
worse rather than better. These are mostly poor people who are affected 
in this area of Mississippi.
  I urge the Senate to reject this amendment and vote aye on a motion 
to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute 
while I explain the process.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. This is the last of the stacked votes. After this vote 
is over, we will start the process of bringing before the Senate the 
amendments we have on both sides agreed to accept in groups. We expect 
that will take an hour or so to accomplish. As I understand it, between 
4 and 5 there will be a briefing. We have asked for no votes during 
that time.
  I think Members know if their amendment is going to be accepted. If 
there is anyone on either side who intends to ask for a vote on an 
amendment, I urge them to notify either me or the Senator from Nevada, 
and we will then, hopefully, have a process to get those amendments 
voted upon before 6 o'clock.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Nevada 
have a minute also.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Mikulski offered an amendment 
earlier in the proceedings. There was some hope we could work that out. 
We have not been able to do that.
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is right. I thought it was worked out. 
During this vote, we will try our best to work it out.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I say to the very cooperative Senator 
from Alaska, we have not been able to work out our amendment because of 
a disagreement with OMB. Our colleagues have been most collegial, but 
we have not been able to work it out. We have been able to work out the 
nurses amendment, but I do not believe we have been able to work out 
the civil service quota amendment.
  Mr. REID. The question is, Should we dispose of that after this vote?
  Mr. STEVENS. If we do not dispose of it, it will be the first vote 
when we come back at 5 o'clock.
  Mr. REID. I also say, because there are a lot of Members in the 
Chamber now, we have scrubbed our side quite well. I have amendments 
still by Senators Bingaman, Cantwell, Nelson, Lautenberg, Durbin, Dodd, 
Landrieu, and Wyden. They know the numbers of those amendments. I think 
that is all we have. I hope that is all we have. That is eight. Even if 
we have 10 minutes a side--my colleagues can add it up themselves--it 
is going to be quite a long night. I hope this is all. If it is not, we 
need to know right away.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table amendment No. 230. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the 
Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), 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 67, nays 30, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 23 Leg.]

                                YEAS--67

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo

[[Page S1405]]


     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Talent
     Thomas
     Warner

                                NAYS--30

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham (FL)
     Jeffords
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     McCain
     Murray
     Reed
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Sununu
     Voinovich
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Harkin
     Inouye
     Lieberman
  The motion was agreed to.


                             Change of Vote

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 23, I voted yea. It 
was my intention to vote nay. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I 
be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome of 
the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, so ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, if I could have the attention of the 
Senate, the managers have now reviewed the 245 amendments that were 
filed by the deadline on the omnibus bill. At this juncture, we 
continue to work to clear as many of these amendments as we can.
  To facilitate the Senate's consideration of these amendments, we will 
now present them grouped by the subcommittee with jurisdiction over 
each amendment. We intend to proceed in the following order this 
afternoon as we complete the review of each section.
  The first section we will consider, and I will bring it to the desk 
in a moment, will be the Legislative Branch-Treasury bill; the second, 
Commerce, Justice, State; the third, Foreign Operations; the fourth, 
Labor-Health and Human Services; the fifth, Transportation-HUD-VA; 
sixth, Defense-Energy and Water; seventh, Agriculture; and the eighth, 
Interior.
  There are also separate groups of amendments that require 
modification to be adopted. We are going to handle them in a separate 
group.
  The managers intend to call up amendments by number in each group and 
ask for adoption en bloc. Any Senator, of course, is entitled to object 
to these amendments and needs to be on the floor so we can proceed to 
debate and vote on amendments that may be objected to. These have been 
cleared on both sides of our Appropriations Committee by the 
subcommittee staffs, by myself, and I believe the manager on the other 
side.
  If we can adopt this process, it is still possible to finish today. 
We do not know on this side yet how many amendments we may wish to have 
a vote upon. I think this process may identify some of those.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Is the Senator wishing to move forward on the first block 
at this time?


           Amendments Nos. 165, 23, 70, 96, 113, 190, and 174

  Mr. STEVENS. I will call that up now. I ask unanimous consent that 
the following amendments be considered en bloc: No. 165 and 166 offered 
by Senator Byrd; No. 23 offered by Senators Grassley and Baucus; No. 70 
offered by Senator Frist; No. 96 offered by Senator Voinovich; No. 113 
offered by Senator Kohl; No. 190 for Senators Boxer and Dorgan; and No. 
174 offered by Senator Akaka. They all come under the heading of the 
Legislative Appropriations bill.
  Mr. REID. Every amendment is fine, except No. 166; we need to look at 
that, the second amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Senator Byrd's? I will pull that out of the package, 
then.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to considering the 
amendments en bloc with the noted exception?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent they be agreed to en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed 
to.
  The amendments agreed to en bloc are as follows:


                           amendment no. 165

   (Purpose: To provide for the Office of the President pro tempore 
                               emeritus)

       On page 641, line 10, insert ``President Pro Tempore 
     emeritus, $7,500;'' before ``Chairmen of the Majority and 
     Minority Conference Committees''.
       On page 641, line 13, strike ``$120,000'' and insert 
     ``$127,500''.
       On page 641, line 22, strike ``$116,891,000'' and insert 
     ``$117,041,000''.
       On page 642, between lines 3 and 4, insert:

              office of the president pro tempore emeritus

       For the Office of the President Pro Tempore emeritus, 
     $150,000.
       On page 645, line 2, strike ``$18,513,000'' and insert 
     ``$18,355,500''.
       On page 650, between lines 23 and 24, insert:

     SEC. 8. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE EMERITUS OF THE 
                   SENATE.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established the Office of the 
     President pro tempore emeritus of the Senate.
       (b) Designation.--Any Member of the Senate who--
       (1) is designated by the Senate as the President pro 
     tempore emeritus of the United States Senate; and
       (2) is serving as a Member of the Senate,
     shall be the President pro tempore emeritus of the United 
     States Senate.
       (c) Appointment and Compensation of Employees.--The 
     President pro tempore emeritus is authorized to appoint and 
     fix the compensation of such employees as the President pro 
     tempore emeritus determines appropriate.
       (d) Expense Allowance.--There is authorized an expense 
     allowance for the President pro tempore emeritus which shall 
     not exceed $7,500 each fiscal year. The President pro tempore 
     emeritus may receive the expense allowance (1) as 
     reimbursement for actual expenses incurred upon certification 
     and documentation of such expenses by the President pro 
     tempore emeritus, or (2) in equal monthly payments. Such 
     amounts paid to the President pro tempore emeritus as 
     reimbursement of actual expenses incurred upon certification 
     and documentation under this subsection, shall not be 
     reported as income, and the expenses so reimbursed shall not 
     be allowed as a deduction under the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986.
       (e) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on the 
     date of enactment of this Act and shall apply only with 
     respect to the 108th Congress.


                            amendment no. 23

(Purpose: To strike the provision relating to the treatment of certain 
                             excise taxes)

       On page 820, strike lines 3 through 13.


                            amendment no. 70

(Purpose: To provide additional funding for innovative programs at the 
                         state and local level)

       At the appropriate place add the following:


                      united states postal service

       The United States Postal Service (USPS) is required under 
     Title 5, Chapter 83 United States Code, to fund Civil Service 
     Retirement System benefits attributable to USPS employment 
     since 1971;
       The Office of Personnel Management has reviewed the USPS 
     financing of the Civil Service Retirement System and 
     determined current law payments overfund USPS liability;
       Therefore, It is the Sense of the Senate that the Congress 
     should address the USPS funding of the Civil Service 
     Retirement System pension benefits.


                            amendment no. 96

     (Purpose: To designate the Federal building and United States 
 courthouse located at 10 East Commerce Street in Youngstown, Ohio, as 
      the ``Nathaniel R. Jones Federal Building and United States 
                             Courthouse'')

       On page 852, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:

     SEC. 4____. DESIGNATION OF NATHANIEL R. JONES FEDERAL 
                   BUILDING AND UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE.

       (a) In General.--The Federal building and United States 
     courthouse located at 10 East Commerce Street in Youngstown, 
     Ohio, shall be known and designated as the ``Nathaniel R. 
     Jones Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.
       (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 
     document, paper, or other record of the United States to the 
     Federal building and United States courthouse referred to in 
     subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
     Nathaniel R. Jones Federal Building and United States 
     Courthouse.


                           amendment no. 113

   (Purpose: To provide a savings provision for certain transfer of 
functions under the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296))

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. SAVINGS PROVISION OF CERTAIN TRANSFERS MADE UNDER 
                   THE HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002.

       The transfer of functions under subtitle B of title XI of 
     the Homeland Security Act of

[[Page S1406]]

     2003 (Public Law 107-296) shall not affect any pending or 
     completed administrative actions, including orders, 
     determinations, rules, regulations, personnel actions, 
     permits, agreements, grants, contracts, certificates, 
     licenses, or registrations, in effect on the date immediately 
     prior to the date of such transfer, or any proceeding, unless 
     and until amended, modified, superseded, terminated, set 
     aside, or revoked. Pending civil actions shall not be 
     affected by such transfer of functions.


                           amendment no. 190

     SEC.   . SALARIES.

       No funds shall be used to pay any federal employee or any 
     employee, member or chairperson of any federal commission, 
     board, committee, or council and annual salary in excess of 
     the annual salary of the President of the United States.


                           amendment no. 174

(Purpose: To express the senses of Congress that there should be parity 
in the adjustment in pay rates for members of the uniform services and 
  civilian employees of the United States, including prevailing rate 
                   employees, and for other purposes)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec.   . Sense of Congress on Pay Parity. It is the sense 
     of Congress that there should be parity between the 
     adjustments in the compensation of members of the uniformed 
     services and the adjustments in the compensation of civilian 
     employees of the United States, including blue collar federal 
     employees paid under the Federal Wage System.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


 Amendments Nos. 46, 72, 100, 159, 160, 191, As Modified, 233, and 107

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I turn now to the amendments we have 
agreed to accept within the jurisdiction of the State, Justice, 
Commerce Subcommittee. I have at the desk the following package: 
Amendment No. 46 by Senators Wyden and Smith; No. 72 by Senator Leahy; 
No. 100 by Senator Grassley; Nos. 159 and 160 for myself; No. 191 for 
Senators Breaux and Landrieu; No. 233 for Senators Corzine and Clinton; 
and amendment No. 107 for Senator Kennedy.
  I send a modification to the desk of amendment No. 191 and ask that 
it be substituted for the amendment in this package.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I know of no objection to these items. They have been 
cleared on both sides. I ask unanimous consent that these amendments be 
agree to en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed 
to en bloc.
  The amendments agreed to en bloc are as follows:


                            amendment no. 46

   (Purpose: To establish the West Coast Groundfish Fishing Capacity 
                           Reduction Program)

       On page   , between lines    and  , insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC.   . WEST COAST GROUNDFISH FISHERY CAPACITY REDUCTION.

       (a) The Secretary of Commerce shall implement a fishing 
     capacity reduction program for the West Coast groundfish 
     fishery pursuant to section 212 of P.L. 107-206 and 16 U.S.C. 
     1861a(b)-(e) except that, the program may apply to multiple 
     fisheries, except that: Within 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall publish a public 
     notice in the Federal Register and issue an invitation to bid 
     for reduction payments that specifies the contractual terms 
     and conditions under which bids shall be made and accepted 
     under this section; except that: Section 144(d)(1)(K)(3) of 
     Title I, Division B of P.L. 106-544 shall apply to the 
     program implemented by this section.
       (b) A reduction fishery is eligible for capacity reduction 
     under the program implemented under this section, except that 
     no vessel harvesting and processing whiting in the catcher-
     processors section (section 19 660.323(a)(4)(A) of title 50, 
     Code of Federal Regulations) may participate in any capacity 
     reduction referendum or industry fee established under this 
     section.
       (c) A referendum on the industry fee system shall occur 
     after bids have been submitted, and such bids have been 
     accepted by the Secretary, as follows: members of the 
     reduction fishery, and persons who have been issued 
     Washington, Oregon, or California Dungeness Crab and Pink 
     Shrimp permits, shall be eligible to vote in the referendum 
     to approve an industry fee system; referendum votes cast in 
     each fishery shall be weighted in proportion to the debt 
     obligation of each fishery, as calculated in subsection (f) 
     of this section; the industry fee system shall be approved if 
     the referendum votes cast in favor of the proposed system 
     constitute a simple majority of the participants voting; 
     except that notwithstanding 5 U.S.C. 553 and 16 U.S.C. 
     1861a(e), the Secretary shall not prepare or publish proposed 
     or final regulations for the implementation of the program 
     under this section before the referendum is conducted.
       (d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit 
     the Pacific Fishery Management Council from recommending, or 
     the Secretary from approving, changes to any fishery 
     management plan, in accordance with applicable law; or the 
     Secretary from promulgating regulations (including 
     regulations governing this program), after an industry fee 
     system has been approved by the reduction fishery.
       (e) The Secretary shall determine, and state in the public 
     notice published under paragraph (a), all program 
     implementation aspects the Secretary deems relevant.
       (f) Any bid submitted in response to the invitation to bid 
     issued by the Secretary under this section shall be 
     irrevocable; the Secretary shall use a bid acceptance 
     procedure that ranks each bid in accordance with this 
     paragraph and with additional criteria, if any, established 
     by the Secretary: for each bid from a qualified bidder that 
     meets the bidding requirements in the public notice or the 
     invitation to bid, the Secretary shall determine a bid score 
     by dividing the bid's dollar amount by the average annual 
     total ex-vessel dollar value of landings of Pacific 
     groundfish, Dungeness crab, and Pink shrimp base on the 3 
     highest total annual revenues earned from such stocks that 
     the bidder's reduction vessel landed during 1998, 1999, 
     2000 or 2001. For purposes of this paragraph, the term 
     ``total annual revenue'' means the revenue earned in a 
     single year from such stocks. The secretary shall accept 
     each qualified bid in rank order of bid score from the 
     lowest to the highest until acceptance of the next 
     qualified bid with the next lowest bid score would cause 
     the reduction cost to exceed the reduction loan's maximum 
     amount. Acceptance of a bid by the Secretary shall create 
     a binding reduction contract between the United States and 
     the person whose bid is accepted, the performance of which 
     shall be subject only to the conclusion of a successful 
     referendum, except that a person whose bid is accepted by 
     the Secretary under this section shall relinquish all 
     permits in the reduction fishery and any Dungeness crab 
     and Pink shrimp permits issued by Washington, Oregon, or 
     California, except that the Secretary shall revoke the 
     Pacific groundfish permit, as well as all Federal fishery 
     licenses, fishery permits, area, and species endorsements, 
     and any other fishery privileges issued to a vessel or 
     vessels (or to persons on the basis of their operation or 
     ownership of that vessel or vessels) removed under the 
     program.
       (g) The Secretary shall establish separate reduction loan 
     sub-amounts and repayment fees for fish sellers in the 
     reduction fishery and for fish sellers in each of the fee-
     share fisheries by dividing the total ex-vessel dollar value 
     during the bid scoring period of all reduction vessel 
     landings from the reduction fishery and from each of the fee-
     share fisheries by the total such value of all such landings 
     for all such fisheries; and multiplying the reduction loan 
     amount by each of the quotients resulting from each of the 
     divisions above. Each of the resulting products shall be the 
     reduction loan sub-amount for the reduction fishery and for 
     each of the fee-share fisheries to which each of such 
     products pertains, except that, each fish seller in the 
     reduction fishery and in each of the fee-share fisheries 
     shall pay the fees required by the reduction loan sub-amounts 
     allocated to it under this paragraph, except that, the 
     Secretary may enter into agreements with Washington, Oregon, 
     and California to collect any fees established under this 
     paragraph.
       (h) Notwithstanding 46 U.S.C. App. 1279(b)(4), the 
     reduction loan's term shall not be less than 30 years.
       (i) It is the sense of the Congress that the States of 
     Washington, Oregon, and California should revoke all 
     relinquishment permits in each of the fee-share fisheries 
     immediately after reduction payment, and otherwise to 
     implement appropriate State fisheries management and 
     conservation provisions in each of the fee-share fisheries 
     that establishes a program that meets the requirements of 16 
     U.S.C. 141861a(b)(1)(B) as if were applicable to fee-share 
     fisheries.
       (j) The term ``fee-share fishery'' means a fishery, other 
     than the reduction fishery, whose members are eligible to 
     vote in a referendum for an industry fee system under 
     paragraph (c). The term ``reduction fishery'' means that 
     portion of a fishery holding limited entry fishing permits 
     endorsed for the operation of trawl gear and issued under the 
     Federal Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan.


                            amendment no. 72

(Purpose: To provide necessary funding for the Crime-free Rural States 
     by offsetting funds by reducing the account for buildings and 
                facilities of the Federal Prison System)

       At the appropriate place in the joint resolution, insert 
     the following:

[[Page S1407]]

       Sec. ____. In addition to the funds provided elsewhere in 
     this joint resolution, the following sums are appropriated, 
     out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
     for fiscal year 2003: $10,000,000 to provide for grants as 
     authorized by section 11027 of Public Law 107-273, to 
     implement the Crime-free Rural States Program.
       (b) The amount made available under the account for 
     buildings and facilities of the Federal Prison System in this 
     joint resolution is reduced by $10,000,000.


                           amendment no. 100

 (Purpose: To increase funding for methamphetamine reduction efforts, 
                        and for other purposes)

       On page 107, line 5, insert ``of which $10,000,000 will be 
     provided for the continuance of methamphetamine reduction 
     efforts'' before the semicolon.


                           amendment no. 159

       On page 237, at the end of line 15, insert the following: 
     ``Such amount shall be made available as a direct lump sum 
     payment to the Alaska Fisheries Marketing Board (hereinafter 
     ``Board'') which is hereby established to award grants to 
     market, develop, and promote Alaska seafood and improve 
     related technology and transportation with emphasis on wild 
     salmon, of which 20 percent shall be transferred to the 
     Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute. The Board shall be 
     appointed by the Secretary of Commerce and shall be 
     administered by an Executive Director to be appointed by the 
     Secretary. The Board shall submit an annual report to the 
     Secretary detailing the expenditures of the board.''


                           amendment no. 160

       On page 183, line 25, insert the following after 
     ``contributions.'':
       ``Such amounts shall be subject only to conditions and 
     requirements required by the Maritime Administration.''


                           amendment no. 191

       On page 127, line 17, insert after the ``:'' the following:
       ``Provided further, That of the funding provided for the 
     National Marine Fisheries Service, $3,000,000 may be made 
     available to the oyster industry in the State of Louisiana 
     for economic assistance to the oyster fishery affected by 
     Hurricane Isidore, and Hurricane Lili: Provided further, That 
     such funds may be used only for (A) personal assistance with 
     priority given to food, energy needs, housing assistance, 
     transportation fuel, and other urgent needs; (B) assistance 
     for small businesses including oystermen, oyster processors, 
     and related businesses serving the oyster industry; (C) 
     domestic product marketing and seafood promotion; and (D) 
     State seafood testing programs:''.


                           amendment no. 233

(Purpose: To prohibit funds appropriated under this Act from being used 
to remove, deport, or detain an alien spouse or child of an individual 
who died as a result of a September 11, 2001, terrorist attack, unless 
                      certain circumstances exist)

       On page 115, between lines 23 and 24, insert the following:
       Sec. 110. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     used to remove, deport, or detain an alien spouse or child of 
     an individual who died as a result of a September 11, 2001, 
     terrorist attack, unless the alien spouse or child is--
       (1) inadmissible under paragraph (2) or (3) of section 
     212(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1182(a)) or deportable under paragraph (2) or (4) of section 
     237(a) of that Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)) (including any 
     terrorist perpetrator of a September 11, 2001, terrorist 
     attack against the United States); or
       (2) a member of the family of a person described in 
     paragraph (1).


                           amendment no. 107

(Purpose: To restore a provision regarding fees to cover the full costs 
                     of all adjudication services)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     SEC. ____. RESTORATION OF PROVISION REGARDING FEES TO COVER 
                   THE FULL COSTS OF ALL ADJUDICATION SERVICES.

       The Homeland Security Act of 2002 is amended by striking 
     section 457, including the amendment made by such section.


                       Methamphetamine Reduction

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to have a word with the 
Chairman concerning funding for the war on methamphetamine production 
and trafficking. I appreciate your accepting my amendment to allocate 
$10 million for the continuance of methamphetamine reduction efforts. I 
understand that these funds will come from the $50 million in the bill 
designated for policing initiatives to combat methamphetamine 
production and trafficking and to enhance policing initiatives in drug 
hot spots. It is also my understanding that this $10 million will be 
used to combat meth production and distribution in the State of Iowa. 
This money will go to the Iowa Office of Drug Control Policy to fund 
programs that I consider essential to treating and controlling the drug 
problem in the State of Iowa. These programs would include a Drug-Free 
Workplace Coordinator to help educate employees to deter and detect 
use, and put procedures in place to take corrective action if there is 
a workplace-related substance abuse problem; various community 
prevention, intervention, and treatment programs; and for a Meth Safe 
House in Iowa to provide a safe and drug-free environment for 
recovering meth addicts, and help push them away from the negative 
influences that previously fed their addiction.
  Mr. STEVENS. I was pleased to be able to make the Senator's amendment 
a part of the manager's package. The Senator's understanding is 
correct. This $10 million will go to the Iowa Office of Drug Control 
Policy to fund programs to combat methamphetamine production and 
trafficking.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an amendment 
along with Senator Clinton that would prevent the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service from deporting the spouses of children of the 
victims of the September 11 attacks. This simple legislation would 
allow some 300 people who are still grieving the loss of their loved 
ones to remain in the United States to sort out their affairs.
  The Patriot Act responsibly included a provision that allowed 
nonimmigrant survivors of victims of the September 11 attacks to remain 
in the United States until September 11, 2002. That length of time, 
however, was not sufficient for those families to sort out their 
affairs before returning to their countries of origin.
  I remain steadfast in my belief that these families should be 
permitted to stay in the United States indefinitely as legal permanent 
residents. I intend to raise that issue in the future. This amendment, 
however, is crafted narrowly as a stopgap humanitarian response to the 
everyday challenges these families face before being able to return to 
their native countries. Tough in mourning for well over a year, many 
widows and children have not recovered the remains of their loved ones. 
Instead, they are awaiting DNA analyses of the samples collected from 
the attack site.
  The children of these widows and widowers are enrolled in American 
schools. In fact, some are native-born American citizens and would have 
to return to a country they don't know or face the prospect of 
separating from their one surviving parent.
  The great majority of these families is still awaiting awards from 
the victims' compensation fund. They have homes that will need to be 
sold and other unfamiliar financial matters to settle before returning 
to their native countries. And many are participating in support groups 
with other survivors, groups that simply will not exist in their birth 
country. It would be inhumane to deport them at this time.
  This amendment will provide these brave families with additional time 
to attend to their affairs and undertake the unenviable task of 
dismantling their lives in the United States.
  I urge my colleagues to support this simple but important 
legislation.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise to discuss a provision that the 
Senate agreed to earlier today and that is of particular importance for 
my State of Vermont--my amendment to appropriate $10 million for the 
Crime-Free Rural States Program. I worked to authorize this program 
last year in the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations 
Authorization Act, which was signed into law last November.
  This program will provide crucial law enforcement assistance to rural 
States that are struggling with a variety of crime problems. It 
provides for grants to State criminal justice, Byrne, or other 
designated agencies to develop rural States' capacity to assist local 
communities in the prevention and reduction of crime, violence, and 
substance abuse.
  This program gives States the flexibility to use the funding where it 
is most needed. For example, Vermont is suffering terribly from a rapid 
increase in the abuse of heroin that has put an extraordinary burden on 
our communities and our law enforcement agencies. Vermont could use the 
money provided by this program to help local governments address this 
crisis.
  Rural States face unique problems in their efforts to reduce crime, 
with small numbers of law enforcement officers responsible for 
protecting widely-dispersed communities. As drugs and

[[Page S1408]]

violent crime have become more prevalent in remote regions of our 
Nation, law enforcement officers in those areas have seen their jobs 
become increasingly difficult. This program, which States would 
administer with the assistance of the National Crime Prevention 
Council, would help State and local law enforcement by promoting 
innovation in the development of crime-fighting technology and by 
funding the development of statewide strategic plans, including 
performance targets to ensure the funding is well-spent.
  This program will provide crucial assistance to rural States. I thank 
Senators Stevens, Byrd, Gregg, and Hollings for accepting it as part of 
the managers' package. In addition, I urge the conference committee 
that will reconcile the House and Senate-passed bills to retain this 
provision, and give rural States assistance they so desperately need.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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. 191, As Modified

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have been asked, notwithstanding the 
actions taken so far, to ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 191 
be reconsidered--brought back to the desk in order that one word might 
be changed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I send the modification to the desk. It changes the word 
``shall'' to ``may.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is further 
modified.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that the modification I made to 
amendment No. 191 be adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I urge passage of that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 191), as modified, 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.
  Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. 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. 138

  Mr. REID. I have spoken to the managers of the bill. In an effort to 
save time, we ask that we move to the Bingaman amendment No. 138 and 
there be 20 minutes equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. And prior to the vote, that there be no second-degree 
amendment filed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, before discussing the Bingaman amendment 
No. 138, I ask unanimous consent first, with regard to amendment No. 
126, that Senator Domenici and Senator Landrieu be added as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask that that amendment be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], for himself, 
     Ms. Collins, Mr. Kennedy, and Ms. Landrieu, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 138.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. 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:


                           amendment no. 138

  (Purpose: To extend the QI-1 program under title XIX of the Social 
           Security Act through the end of fiscal year 2003)

       On page 1047, between lines 19 and 20, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 404. Section 136 of Public Law 107-229, as added by 
     section 5 of Public Law 107-240, is amended by striking ``60 
     days after the date specified in section 107(c) of Public Law 
     107-229, as amended'' and inserting ``September 30, 2003''.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of 
myself, Senator Collins, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Landrieu. The 
purpose is to extend a critical Federal-State program that assists low-
income Medicare beneficiaries to pay their health premium costs.
  This program that has been on the books, now, since 1997 and that I 
am trying to extend to the end of this fiscal year, the end of 
September, is one which allows States to use Medicaid funds to assist 
these low-income individuals in paying their Medicare premiums. It is 
for low-income seniors. It was enacted as part of the 1997 Balanced 
Budget Act. It was slated for reauthorization at the end of this last 
year, 2002. Unfortunately, we did not enact any Medicare or Medicaid 
legislation as part of the 107th Congress, so the program was extended 
by the last two continuing resolutions.
  The current continuing resolution under which we are operating the 
Government right now provides for extension of this until March 12. The 
amendment I am offering would further extend this through September 30 
of 2003.
  The program to which I am referring is called the QI-1 Program, 
Qualifying Individual Program, within Medicaid. It is a block grant 
payment to States to pay the Medicare Part B premium. This Part B 
premium is $58.70 per month this year.
  This program only applies to individuals who have monthly incomes 
between $887 and $997. So if you have an income over $997 per month, 
you are not qualified to participate in the program I am trying to 
extend. In the case of a couple, the income of the couple can be 
anywhere between $1,194 and $1,344. This represents an effort to cover 
Medicare beneficiaries with incomes between 120 and 135 percent of the 
Federal poverty level. This amounts to a little over $700 annually for 
many of these older and disabled Americans who depend upon this payment 
for a portion of their health care costs. This is for such things as 
prescription drugs and supplemental coverage. We have over 120,000 
people nationwide who currently rely on this QI-1 Program. They will be 
hard pressed to afford Medicare coverage unless this assistance is 
continued.
  In short, to prevent the erosion of existing low-income protections, 
Congress needs to extend the 5-year Federal allocation for the QI-1 
Program this year.
  We do not know the exact number of people who are eligible for this 
particular program--that is, the number of Medicare beneficiaries who 
have incomes between 120 percent and 135 percent of poverty--but the 
estimate we have is there are about a million of these individuals. We 
have about 120,000, as I indicated before, who are actually enrolled, 
although the numbers are likely far higher than that. We have missing 
data from several States, and it is very difficult to calculate it.
  In my State of New Mexico, for example, we know there are almost 
1,000 New Mexicans who are currently enrolled in the QI-1 Program. This 
disenrolling of these low-income Medicare beneficiaries, which is what 
we would do if we did not adopt my amendment--we would disenroll these 
people from the program--it would cost each and every one of them $700 
annually. It could have a significant impact on their health.
  In a letter from the Medicare Rights Center, they gave an example of 
the kind of person who is affected by this amendment. The example was a 
69-year-old widow with severe arthritis, hypertension, and high 
cholesterol who lives here in our Nation's Capital. This woman, 
referred to as Mrs. B, does not qualify for Medicaid, yet she cannot 
afford premiums for a Medicare HMO or a Medigap plan. The QI-1 Program 
does cover her Part B premium of over $700 per year. If she loses that 
assistance, as she will unless the amendment we are offering here is 
adopted--if she loses that assistance, she does not know how she could 
make ends meet since she already struggles to buy food, to pay her 
Medicare copayment, and to purchase

[[Page S1409]]

prescription drugs. As I indicated before, in order to qualify for this 
payment which she is now receiving, she cannot have an income of over 
$997 per month.

  This is a bipartisan issue. President Bush has included the QI-1 
reauthorization in his fiscal year 2003 budget. When we had the 
confirmation hearing in the Health and Education Committee on the new 
Commissioner for the Food and Drug Administration, Mark McClellan, he 
testified that the administration continues to support the 
reauthorization of this program.
  In addition, QI-1 reauthorization was also included in S. 3018, which 
is the Beneficiary Access to Care and Medicare Equity Act. This was a 
bill that Senators Grassley and Baucus introduced late last year.
  During every Senate race around this country last fall, candidates on 
both sides of the aisle promised our Nation's seniors and disabled 
Medicare beneficiaries improved health coverage with the addition of a 
prescription drug benefit. While they are waiting for us to enact that 
prescription drug benefit, low-income Medicare beneficiaries should not 
be blindsided by the loss of critically needed premium protection that 
is provided in the QI-1 Program.
  I urge the passage of this amendment to extend the program another 
6\1/2\ months. I urge my colleagues to join me in addressing the issue 
on a more permanent basis in the coming months. There are at least 
120,000 low-income Medicare beneficiaries who are counting on us.
  Let me also respond very briefly to some comments my colleague from 
Pennsylvania made earlier, where he said all of these amendments that 
are being offered are new money.
  This is not new money. This is an existing program. It is a program 
that has been in place for 5 years. There are 120,000 individuals out 
there who are depending upon us continuing to assist them in making 
these Medicare premium payments. This is not an example of growing 
government, as was suggested. This is an example of maintaining a 
benefit for low-income seniors and disabled individuals in our society.
  Let me indicate a few of the numbers we are talking about in 
different States so my colleagues have a sense of what is involved.
  In the State of Alabama, there are 9,817 individuals currently 
receiving this benefit; in the State of Arizona, there are 5,620; in 
the State of Florida, there are 13,769; in the State of Kentucky, 
4,329; Louisiana, 5,596; New Jersey, 7,214; North Carolina, 9,059; 
Ohio, 8,362; and Oklahoma, 3,169. There are many individuals who depend 
upon this payment. The correct thing to do, and the right thing to do, 
is for us to adopt this amendment.
  How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute 10 seconds.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of our time on 
that amendment and ask unanimous consent that it be set aside 
temporarily so Senator Cantwell might present her amendment.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Cantwell has agreed to bring up 
amendment No. 104 with 20 minutes equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. May I ask what the unanimous consent request is?
  Mr. REID. Cantwell for 20 minutes.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I would still have the initial minute or so?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. REID. One minute prior to the vote.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Washington.


                           Amendment No. 108

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

       The Senator from Washington [Ms. Cantwell], for herself and 
     Mr. Nelson, proposes an amendment numbered 108.

  Ms. CANTWELL. 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:


                           amendment no. 108

     (Purpose: To increase appropriations for workforce investment 
                              activities)

       On page 549, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
       In addition to any amounts otherwise appropriated under 
     this Act for title I of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 
     (29 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.), $678,551,000 is appropriated to 
     carry out that Act, of which--
       (1) $156,965,000 (which is available for obligation for the 
     period April 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004) shall be for 
     making allotments and grants in accordance with subparagraphs 
     (B) and (C) of section 127(b)(1) of that Act (29 U.S.C. 
     2852(b)(1)) (relating to youth activities);
       (2) $76,000,000 (which is available for obligation for the 
     period July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004) shall be for 
     making allotments and grants in accordance with section 
     132(b)(1) of that Act (29 U.S.C. 2862(b)(1)) (relating to 
     employment and training activities for adults);
       (3) $206,096,000 (which is available for obligation for the 
     period July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004) shall be for 
     making allotments and grants in accordance with section 
     132(b)(2) of that Act (29 U.S.C. 2862(b)(2)) (relating to 
     employment and training activities for dislocated workers);
       (4) $181,890,000 (which is available for obligation for the 
     period April 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004) shall be for use 
     under section 169 of that Act (29 U.S.C. 2914) (relating to 
     youth opportunity grants); and
       (5) $57,600,000 (which is available for obligation for the 
     period July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2006) shall be for 
     carrying out subtitle C of title I of that Act (29 U.S.C. 
     2881 et seq.) (relating to the Job Corps).

     Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, funds 
     provided under the preceding sentence shall not result in a 
     further across-the-board rescission under section 601 of 
     division N.

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add the 
following Senators as cosponsors of my amendment: Senators Kennedy, 
Bingaman, Murray, Boxer, Akaka, Clinton, Sarbanes, and Feinstein.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
support this important amendment sponsored by myself, the Senator from 
Florida, and others, which restores essential funding for education and 
job training in America.
  Job training should be our first priority, not our last priority. 
American workers want to learn new skills, and businesses are looking 
for skilled workers. So it would be a terrible decision today to deny 
them the opportunity to provide job training so that they can go back 
to work. But that is exactly what we are doing in this omnibus bill 
today. In fact, this bill is a 10-percent cut in the fiscal year 2002 
funding level. That is a 10-percent cut in the fiscal year 2002 level 
after the Senate Appropriations Committee voted last year to increase 
that number to a higher amount. My amendment restores the original 
committee level.
  Some would argue that these funds have no material impact because 
they would like to say that fiscal year 2002 funds that haven't yet 
been distributed could also be used to offset this cut that is being 
proposed by the administration. That is like saying there is a magic 
slush fund for job training when there isn't. The fact is that job 
training dollars--because the programs continue for several years--are 
committed over a 2- or 3-year period of time. That is how they make the 
programs effective. In fact, if this amendment does not pass today and 
we do not make a decision to restore these cuts, over 65,000 job 
training opportunities will be lost in America.
  To further bolster this notion of the fact that these cuts really 
will take effect and have full impact, I point out to my colleague the 
GAO study on this very issue on whether the States were spending their 
workforce investment dollars. In fact, quoting from the report, it 
said:

       States are spending their funds faster than required by 
     law. And even though 44 percent of the program funds for year 
     2001 are being carried over to 2002, many of these funds have 
     already been committed. Furthermore, because of reporting 
     inconsistencies, the Department of Labor data do not 
     adequately reflect the funds and how they have been obligated 
     in long-term commitments.

  What does this mean? It means that GAO is saying there is no magic 
slush fund. If we make this cut today, we will actually see a cut in 
reduction in programs.

[[Page S1410]]

  Some of my colleagues ask: What is so serious about that? Maybe we 
need a little belt tightening. I point out to my colleagues that we are 
going through rough economic times. Actually retraining workers who are 
then rehired by a company to add to their bottom-line profitability is 
a good economic stimulus package. As Stephanie Powers, CEO of the 
National Association of Workforce Boards, wrote me:

       We strongly agree with the GAO's report and we support 
     maintaining current funding levels. We are on the front line 
     of serving over 2.3 million workers who have lost their jobs 
     over the last two years, and this cut would dramatically 
     impede our ability to meet these services at a very 
     critical time.

  If there is a silver lining to this economic recession we have been 
in, it is the fact that there are companies and there are businesses 
that say they still want to hire workers but can't find the skilled 
workers they need.
  Take the health care industry, for example. The American Hospital 
Association estimates that there are currently over 126,000 unfilled 
nursing positions in the country. Why would we take money away from the 
training programs to retrain individuals who have lost their jobs and 
who could go into nursing to give their families an income and give the 
health care industry the workers they need?
  While we are facing tough economic times, we are also simply facing a 
skills gap. The best way to deal with that skills gap is to give the 
dislocated workers the opportunity to improve their skills. That is 
why, given the high unemployment rate, and the unemployment claims just 
last week increasing by 18,000 and over 2 million people having lost 
their jobs in the last 2 years, this amendment would actually be the 
economic stimulus we are looking for.
  I don't think job training is a political issue or a partisan issue. 
In fact, last year I was enthused by the fact that a majority of 
Members of the Senate signed a letter asking the Senate Appropriators 
to increase funding for Job Training Programs. Of those Senators who 
signed the letter, I want to read from it and quote that they said:

       We are writing to express our support for increasing the 
     funding for 2003. The ability of a skilled workforce is 
     critical to our Nation's economy and will provide the 
     adequate support for job training. We are concerned that the 
     unemployment landscape may not turn around rapidly and that 
     these displaced workers will not be able to return to their 
     former jobs. Many of them need to prepare for new jobs in the 
     workforce.

  If the same colleagues who signed this letter will vote for this 
amendment today, we can put this issue to rest and give the American 
workers the kind of job training and skills they need.
  This amendment will accomplish a stimulus for our economy that is 
much needed. It will make sure that we don't say no to workers and no 
to the businesses that are looking for help, and it will make sure that 
we will say yes to tomorrow's economic opportunities for all of us. I 
urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, how much time does Senator 
Cantwell have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes three seconds.
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of Senator 
Cantwell's amendment and the Workforce Investment Act program amount 
she is seeking. The bottom line is workforce training in a time when 
our economy is in a recession. One of the things we want to do is, when 
people are thrown of work, we want to get them retrained with skills so 
they can obtain work. So that is what this is all about.

  This funding that we are trying to restore was already provided in 
the Senate Appropriations Committee-passed bill; but subsequently, with 
these across-the-board cuts, it has been severely nicked, to the tune 
of what we are trying to restore.
  Why do we want to restore this amount, other than because of the 
commonsense answer that you want to provide job training for folks out 
of work? It assists workers who lose their jobs as a result of 
circumstances beyond their control. It helps Americans gain an element 
of self-sufficiency.
  This is not the time to cut funding for programs that give Americans 
the tools, the guidance, and the skills they need to handle these 
problems.
  I am very much a proponent of this Workforce Investment Act because I 
have seen what it can do. I have seen the workforce centers in Florida. 
We have about four. I have been to one of those centers. And what do 
they do? They train young people to have a saleable skill in the job 
market. And they have an incredible success rate of placing 80 percent. 
And those 80 percent are in jobs that last some number of months. That 
is an incredible success rate.
  Since its inauguration way back in 1964, the Job Corps has provided 
over 2 million disadvantaged youth with the integrated, academic, 
vocational, and social skills training they needed to gain 
independence.
  In closing, I wish to share an e-mail I recently received from an 
organization committed to providing education to young adults down in 
Tampa. This is what the e-mail said:

       We have helped 178 youths get a High School Diploma, 171 
     youths enter college, 605 youths complete Job Readiness 
     Training and almost 800! youths have found jobs.

  These are real results, results that may not be duplicated if we do 
not continue to invest in providing employment training and opportunity 
for disadvantaged Americans.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired.
  Who yields time in opposition?
  All time in support of the amendment has been utilized.
  Who yields time in opposition?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. 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. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment be 
set aside, the time reserved as it is now, pending another amendment to 
be offered and debated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Does the Senator from Wyoming wish to speak on the 
Cantwell amendment?
  Mr. ENZI. Yes.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, how much time remains on the Cantwell 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eight minutes nine seconds.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield the Senator from Wyoming such time as he wishes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. ENZI. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. President, the amendment before us is the Workforce Investment 
Act amendment which appropriates an additional $678 million for 
programs under title I of the Workforce Investment Act. It has some 
money for all of the different processes: youth activities, employment 
and training activities, opportunity grants, and Job Corps.
  The managers' amendment to the omnibus appropriations bill provides 
$5.12 billion for training and employment services. That is $144.3 
million above the budget request. Of this total amount, the bill 
provides $1.38 billion for dislocated worker activities.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Employment, Safety and Training, I 
have been a strong supporter of the Workforce Investment Act. In fact, 
I have joined with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in efforts 
to provide sufficient funding for the Workforce Investment Act.
  Therefore, I have to carefully explain why I am opposing this 
amendment. Let me be clear, I am not questioning the importance of job 
training in these

[[Page S1411]]

difficult economic times, nor am I questioning the importance of the 
Workforce Investment Act as our Federal workforce development system. 
However, I am opposing an amendment that increases funding without 
offsetting such increased amounts. I am opposing an amendment that 
increases funding by $678 million that is not targeted to the 
individuals who are most in need of job training and assistance. Of the 
$678 million increase in funding, only $206.1 million will go to 
dislocated worker programs, those individuals who are most in need of 
assistance to get back to work.
  The President's economic stimulus proposal gives $3.6 billion to fund 
personal reemployment accounts to individuals who need the most help 
getting back to work. These accounts can be used for job training, 
child care, transportation, or other expenses associated with finding a 
new job. These accounts will be administered through the Workforce 
Investment Act's One-Stop Career Center. The personal reemployment 
accounts proposed by the President are both targeted and flexible, 
unlike the amendment before us.
  Most importantly, the Workforce Investment Act is up for 
reauthorization this year. My subcommittee will shortly be commencing 
hearings on the reauthorization. During the reauthorization process, we 
will be considering funding issues for the Workforce Investment Act to 
determine how resources are most effectively used for people who need 
it most. This is not the time to address these issues. We need to 
complete our work on fiscal year 2003 appropriations now. The time to 
address the Workforce Investment Act is during the reauthorization of 
the bill this coming year which will be one of my priorities as 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Employment, Safety, and Training.
  Again, I encourage my colleagues to oppose the amendment. It is not 
offset. It is new money. It is not directed toward the problem, and we 
will be doing reauthorization.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask Democratic Senators Lautenberg, Dodd, 
Wyden, and Kohl to come to the floor. We have amendments that need to 
be offered, and we have now an hour. If we don't do that, it will be an 
extra hour or more we will have to work later tonight.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, on the Cantwell amendment, what is the 
time situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes fifty seconds remain for the 
opponents.
  Mr. STEVENS. Does Ms. Cantwell have any time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield back the remainder of our time. I move to table 
the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that amendment be set aside 
until a time agreed upon by the two managers after 5 o'clock.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendments Nos. 98, 99, And 162, En Bloc

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have on the desk a group of amendments 
that come under the jurisdiction of the Foreign Operations 
Subcommittee. I ask unanimous consent that we now consider, en bloc, 
amendment No. 98 by Senators McConnell and Leahy; amendment No. 99 by 
Senators McConnell and Leahy; and amendment No. 162 by Senators 
Fitzgerald, Dole, and Clinton. I further ask that they be agreed to en 
bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to, en bloc, as follows:


                            amendment no. 98

       On page 366, line 26, strike ``this heading'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof: the heading ``Economic Support Fund''


                            amendment no. 99

       On page 366, strike everything after ``the'' on line 3, 
     through ``Agency'' on line 4 and insert in lieu thereof:

     headings ``Trade and Development Agency'', ``International 
     Military Education and Training'', ``Foreign Military 
     Financing Program'', ``Migration and Refugee Assistance'', 
     and ``Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining and Related 
     Programs''


                           amendment no. 162

 (Purpose: To restrict the availability of funds for the International 
                      Committee of the Red Cross)

       On page 335, line 10, before the period at the end of the 
     line insert the following: ``Provided further, That funds 
     appropriated under this heading may be made available for a 
     headquarters contribution to the International Committee of 
     the Red Cross only if the Secretary of State determines (and 
     so reports to the appropriate committees of Congress) that 
     the Magen David Adom Society of Israel is not being denied 
     participation in the activities of the International Red 
     Cross and Red Crescent Movement''.


            Amendments Nos. 35, 52, 58, 87, And 220, En Bloc

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have another group of amendments 
before the Senate: Amendment No. 35 by Senator Kennedy; amendment No. 
52 by Senator Grassley; amendment No. 58 by Senators Collins and Bond; 
amendment No. 87 by Senators McConnell, Boxer, and Ensign; and 
amendment No. 220 by Senator Specter. I ask unanimous consent that they 
be considered and agreed to en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to en bloc, as follows:


                            amendment no. 35

  (Purpose: To provide funding for the mass layoff statistics program)

       On page 563, line 14, insert before the period the 
     following: ``, and $6,600,000 to be used to fund the mass 
     layoff statistics program under section 15 of the Wagner-
     Peyser Act (29 U.S.C. 49l-2). On page 640, line 2, increase 
     the amount by $6,600,000''.


                            amendment no. 52

       Beginning on page 1043, strike line 19 and all that follows 
     through page 1044, line 3, and insert the following:

                      TITLE IV--TANF AND MEDICARE

       Sec. 401. Section 114 of Public Law 107-229, as amended by 
     section 3 of Public Law 107-240 and by section 2 of Public 
     Law 107-294, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``the date specified in section 107(c) of 
     this joint resolution'' and inserting ``September 30, 2003''; 
     and
       (2) by striking ``: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding'' and all that follows through the period and 
     inserting a period.


                            amendment no. 58

  (Purpose: To provide for an extension of the temporary increase in 
 payments for medicare home health services furnished in a rural area)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY INCREASE FOR HOME HEALTH 
                   SERVICES FURNISHED IN A RURAL AREA.

       (a) In General.--Section 508(a) of the Medicare, Medicaid, 
     and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 
     (114 Stat. 2763A-533), as enacted into law by section 1(a)(6) 
     of Public Law 106-554, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``24-Month Increase Beginning April 1, 
     2001'' and inserting ``In General'';
       (2) by striking ``April 1, 2003'' and inserting ``October 
     1, 2003''; and
       (3) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``(or 5 percent in the case of such services 
     furnished on or after April 1, 2003, and before October 1, 
     2003)''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 547(c)(2) of the 
     Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and 
     Protection Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2763A-553), as enacted into 
     law by section 1(a)(6) of Public Law 106-554, is amended by 
     striking ``the period beginning on April 1, 2001, and ending 
     on September 30, 2002,'' and inserting ``a period under such 
     section''.


                            amendment no. 87

   (Purpose: To amend title II of the Social Security Act to permit 
  Kentucky to operate a separate retirement system for certain public 
                               employees)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. ____. (a) Section 218(d)(6)(C) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 418(d)(6)(C)) is amended by inserting 
     ``Kentucky,'' after ``Illinois,''.
       (b) The amendment made by subsection (a) takes effect on 
     January 1, 2003.


                           amendment no. 220

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . FUNDING FOR AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--

[[Page S1412]]

       (1) There remains a great need for after-school programs. 
     The Census Bureau reported that at least 8 to 15 million 
     children have no place to go after school is out.
       (2) According to the FBI, youth are most at risk for 
     committing violent acts and being victims of violent crimes 
     between 3:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m.--after school is out and 
     before parents arrive home.
       (3) Studies show that organized extracurricular activities, 
     such as after-school programs, reduce crime, drug use, and 
     teenage pregnancy.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that every effort should be made to--
       (1) accommodate the waiting lists of children needing 
     access to after-school programs; and
       (2) fund after-school programs at the level authorized in 
     the Leave No Child Behind Act.
  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.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


            Amendments Nos. 26, 48, 92, 69, And 224, En Bloc

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have a group of amendments at the desk 
now that pertain to the Transportation and VA-HUD Subcommittee: 
Amendment No. 26 by Senator Lott; amendment No. 48 by Senator Sarbanes; 
amendment No. 92 by Senator Feinstein; amendment No. 69 by Senator 
Clinton; and amendment No. 224 by Senators Bond and Mikulski. 
  I ask unanimous consent that those amendments be considered and 
agreed to en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to en bloc, as follows:


                            AMENDMENT NO. 26

    (Purpose: To amend the Aviation and Transportation Security Act)

       At the appropriate place add the following:
       Section 145[c] of P.L. 107-71 is amended by striking the 
     number (18) and inserting the number (36).


                            amendment no. 48

   (Purpose: To redirect funds to the Susquehanna Greenway, Maryland)

       On page 787, after line 25, add the following:

     SEC. 3____. SUSQUEHANNA GREENWAY, MARYLAND.

       The table contained in section 1602 of the Transportation 
     Equity Act for the 21st Century is amended in item 1603 (112 
     Stat. 316) by striking ``Construct pedestrian bicycle bridge 
     across Susquehanna River between Havre de Grace and 
     Perryville'' and inserting ``Develop Lower Susquehanna 
     Heritage Greenway, including acquisition of property, 
     construction of hiker-biker trails, and construction or use 
     of docks, ferry boats, bridges, or vans to convey bikers and 
     pedestrians across the Susquehanna River between Cecil County 
     and Harford County''.


                            amendment no. 92

  (Purpose: To strike the section that redefines the Alameda Corridor 
   East and Southwest Passage, California, that has previously been 
 designated as a high priority corridor on the National Highway System)

       On page 772, strike lines 10 through 23.


                            amendment no. 69

(Purpose: To authorize the use of certain previously appropriated funds 
   by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to be used for health 
   examinations of emergency services personnel who responded to the 
     terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001)

       On page 1014, after line 13, insert the following new 
     section:
       ``Sec. 423. From amounts previously appropriated under the 
     heading ``Emergency Response Fund'' in Public Law 107-038, 
     $90,000,000 shall be made available, until expended, for the 
     Federal Emergency Management Agency to administer baseline 
     and follow-up screening and clinical examinations and long-
     term health monitoring and analysis for emergency services 
     personnel and rescue and recovery personnel, of which not 
     less than $25,000,000 shall made available for such services 
     for current and retired firefighters.''.


                           amendment no. 224

 (Purpose: To permit certain qualified aliens and immigrants access to 
  public and assisted housing consistent with the intent of the 1996 
              welfare and immigration reform legislation)

       On page 1014, after line 13, insert the following new 
     section, with the section renumbered as appropriate:
       ``Sec. 423. Section 214 of the Housing and Community 
     Development Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 1436a) is amended by--
       (1) in subsection (a)(6), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) by renumbering paragraph (7) as (8) in subsection (a);
       (3) by adding after paragraph (6) in subsection (a), the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(7) a qualified alien described in 8 U.S.C. 1641, or'';
       (4) in subsection (c)(1)(A), by striking ``paragraphs (1) 
     through (6)'' and inserting ``paragraphs (1) through (7)''; 
     and
       (5) in subsection (c)(2)(A), by inserting ``(other than a 
     qualified alien as described in 8 U.S.C. 1641(c))'' after 
     ``any alien''.''


                            amendment no. 48

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is to 
redirect funding that was made available in the Transportation Equity 
Act for the 21st Century for the construction of a pedestrian and 
bicycle bridge across the Susquehanna between Havre de Grace and 
Perryville, MD to a related project.
  During a tour of Havre de Grace and Perryville in April 1998, the 
mayors of the two towns and members of the Lower Susquehanna Heritage 
Greenway Committee, briefed me on the Heritage Greenway plan and 
expressed a hope that the two towns would one day be connected by a 
pedestrian/bicycle bridge. There are three bridges spanning the 
Susquehanna River at U.S. Route 1, I-95 and U.S. Route 40, but for 
safety reasons Maryland State Highway Administration policy prohibits 
pedestrian/bike traffic on these bridges. The Lower Susquehanna 
Greenway Resource Report dated January, 1994 identified the need to 
link greenway trails along the river in Harford and Cecil Counties via 
a river crossing and identified a potential crossing site which would 
utilize the old Route 40 piers that parallel the existing Amtrak 
bridge.
  In order to help facilitate construction of a pedestrian and bicycle 
bridge at this site, Senator Mikulski and I succeeded in getting a 
provision included in TEA-21 which provided $1.25 million for this 
project. Using a portion of the funds, the State Highway Administration 
conducted an engineering analysis of the existing piers and determined 
that the piers could not support such a bridge without significant and 
costly structural and other improvements. Since that time the 
Susquehanna Heritage Greenway Committee has been examining other 
options, including a ferry boat and a pedestrian/bicycle bridge 
crossing further upstream. My amendment would give the committee 
additional flexibility to undertake these potential crossing 
alternatives and related Lower Susquehanna Heritage Greenway projects. 
I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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 suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


 Amendments Nos. 59, 34, 37, 38, 42, 49, 84, 128, 161, And 206, En Bloc

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I present another group of amendments to 
the desk. They are: Wyden amendment No. 59; Craig amendment No. 34; 
Bunning and Bingaman amendment No. 37; Bunning amendment No. 38; 
Domenici amendment No. 42; Sarbanes amendment No. 49; Reid amendment 
No. 84; Levin and others amendment No. 128; Domenici and Bingaman 
amendment No. 161; and Voinovich amendment No. 206.
  I ask unanimous consent that these amendments be considered and 
agreed to en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to en bloc, as follows:


                            amendment no. 59

   (Purpose: To provide certain limitations and prohibitions on the 
 development and deployment of the Total Information Awareness program)

       At the end of title I of division M, add the following:

[[Page S1413]]

       Sec. 111. (a) Limitation on Use of Funds for Research and 
     Development on Total Information Awareness Program.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, commencing 60 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act, no funds 
     appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of 
     Defense, whether to an element of the Defense Advanced 
     Research Projects Agency or any other element, or to any 
     other department, agency, or element of the Federal 
     Government, may be obligated or expended on research and 
     development on the Total Information Awareness program 
     unless--
       (1) the report described in subsection (b) is submitted to 
     Congress not later than 60 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act; or
       (2) the President certifies to Congress in writing, that--
       (A) the submittal of the report to Congress within 60 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act is not 
     practicable; and
       (B) the cessation of research and development on the Total 
     Information Awareness program would endanger the national 
     security of the United States.
       (b) Report.--The report described in this subsection is a 
     report, in writing, of the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney 
     General, and the Director of Central Intelligence, acting 
     jointly, that--
       (1) contains--
       (A) a detailed explanation of the actual and intended use 
     of funds for each project and activity of the Total 
     Information Awareness program, including an expenditure plan 
     for the use of such funds;
       (B) the schedule for proposed research and development on 
     each project and activity of the Total Information Awareness 
     program; and
       (C) target dates for the deployment of each project and 
     activity of the Total Information Awareness program;
       (2) assesses the likely efficacy of systems such as the 
     Total Information Awareness program in providing practically 
     valuable predictive assessments of the plans, intentions, or 
     capabilities of terrorists or terrorist groups;
       (3) assesses the likely impact of the implementation of a 
     system such as the Total Information Awareness program on 
     privacy and civil liberties; and
       (4) sets forth a list of the laws and regulations that 
     govern the information to be collected by the Total 
     Information Awareness program, and a description of any 
     modifications of such laws that will be required to use the 
     information in the manner proposed under such program;
       (5) includes recommendations, endorsed by the Attorney 
     General, for practices, procedures, regulations, or 
     legislation on the deployment, implementation, or use of the 
     Total Information Awareness program to eliminate or minimize 
     adverse effects of such program on privacy and other civil 
     liberties.
       (c) Limitation on Deployment of Total Information Awareness 
     Program.--(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and 
     except as provided in paragraph (2), if and when research and 
     development on the Total Information Awareness program, or 
     any component of such program, permits the deployment or 
     implementation of such program or component, no department, 
     agency, or element of the Federal Government may deploy or 
     implement such program or component, or transfer such program 
     or component to another department, agency, or element of the 
     Federal Government, until the Secretary of Defense--
       (A) notifies Congress of that development, including a 
     specific and detailed description of--
       (i) each element of such program or component intended to 
     be deployed or implemented; and
       (ii) the method and scope of the intended deployment or 
     implementation of such program or component (including the 
     data or information to be accessed or used); and
       (B) has received specific authorization by law from 
     Congress for the deployment or implementation of such program 
     or component, including--
       (i) a specific authorization by law for the deployment or 
     implementation of such program or component; and
       (ii) a specific appropriation by law of funds for the 
     deployment or implementation of such program or component.
       (2) The limitation in paragraph (1) shall not apply with 
     respect to the deployment or implementation of the Total 
     Information Awareness program, or a component of such 
     program, in support of the following:
       (A) Lawful military operations of the United States 
     conducted outside the United States.
       (B) Lawful foreign intelligence activities conducted wholly 
     overseas, or wholly against non-United States persons.
       (d) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the Total Information Awareness program should not be 
     used to develop technologies for use in conducting 
     intelligence activities or law enforcement activities against 
     United States persons without appropriate consultation with 
     Congress or without clear adherence to principles to protect 
     civil liberties and privacy; and
       (2) the primary purpose of the Defense Advanced Research 
     Projects Agency is to support the lawful activities of the 
     Department of Defense and the national security programs 
     conducted pursuant to the laws assembled for codification 
     purposes in title 50, United States Code.
       (e) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Total information awareness program.--The term ``Total 
     Information Awareness program''--
       (A) means the computer hardware and software components of 
     the program known as Total Information Awareness, any related 
     information awareness program, or any successor program under 
     the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency or another 
     element of the Department of Defense; and
       (B) includes a program referred to in subparagraph (1), or 
     a component of such program, that has been transferred from 
     the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency or another 
     element of the Department of Defense to any other department, 
     agency, or element of the Federal Government.
       (2) Non-united states person.--The term ``non-United States 
     person'' means any person other than a United States person.
       (3) United states person.--The term ``United States 
     person'' has the meaning given that term in section 101(i) of 
     the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 
     1801(i)).


                            AMENDMENT NO. 37

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.  . GAO STUDY ON SUBTITLE D OF THE ENERGY EMPLOYEES 
                   OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS COMPENSATION PROGRAM ACT.

       (a) Study.--The General Accounting Office (in this section 
     referred to as the ``GAO'') shall conduct a study on the 
     effectiveness of the benefit program under subtitle D of the 
     Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program 
     Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 7385o) in assisting the Department of 
     Energy (in this section referred to as the ``DOE'') 
     contractor employees in obtaining compensation for 
     occupational illness.
       (b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 120 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the GAO shall submit a report 
     to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the 
     House of Representative Energy and Commerce Committee on the 
     results of the study conducted under subsection (a).


                            AMENDMENT NO. 38

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.  . GAO STUDY OF CLEANUP AT THE PADUCAH GASEOUS DIFFUSION 
                   PLANT IN PADUCAH, KENTUCKY.

       (a) Study.--The General Accounting Office (in this section 
     referred to as the ``GAO'') shall conduct a study of the 
     cleanup progress at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant in 
     Paducah, Kentucky.
       (b) Report to Congress.--Not later than six months after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the GAO shall submit a 
     report to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 
     and the House of Representative Energy and Commerce Committee 
     on the results of the study conducted under subsection (a).


                            amendment no. 42

  (Purpose: To correct extension date and provide civil penalties in 
                         Division M, Title II)

       On Page 1027, line 17, strike ``August 1, 2002'' and insert 
     ``December 31, 2004''.
       On Page 1032, at the end of line 8, insert the following 
     new section:

     ``SEC. 210. CIVIL PENALTIES.

       ``(a) Repeal of Automatic Remission.--Section 234A b.(2) of 
     the Automatic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2282a(b)(2)) is 
     amended by striking the last sentence.
       ``(b) Limitation for Not-for-Profit Institutions.--
     Subsection d. of section 234A of the Atomic Energy Act of 
     1954 (42 U.S.C. 2282a(d)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``d.(1) Notwithstanding subsection a., in the case of any 
     not-for-profit contractor, subcontractor, or supplier, the 
     total amount of civil penalties paid under subsection a. may 
     not exceed the total amount of fees paid within any one-year 
     period (as determined by the Secretary) under the contract 
     under which the violation occurs.
       ``(2) For purposes of this section, the term `not-for-
     profit' means that no part of the net earnings of the 
     contractor, subcontractor, or supplier inures, or may 
     lawfully inure, to the benefit of any natural person or for-
     profit artificial person.''.
       ``(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall not apply to any violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 
     1954 occurring under a contract entered into before the date 
     of enactment of this section.''


                            amendment no. 49

  (Purpose: To direct the Secretary of the Army to provide immediate 
 corrective maintenance to the project at Herring Creek-Tall Timbers, 
                   Maryland, at full Federal expense)

       At the appropriate place in the division relating to energy 
     and water, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. HERRING CREEK-TALL TIMBERS, MARYLAND.

       (a) In General.--Using funds made available by this Act, 
     the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of 
     Engineers, shall provide immediate corrective maintenance to 
     the project at Herring Creek-Tall Timbers, Maryland, at full 
     Federal expense.
       (b) Inclusions.--The corrective maintenance described in 
     subsection (a), and any other maintenance performed after the 
     date of enactment of this Act with respect to the project 
     described in that subsection, may include repair or 
     replacement, as appropriate,

[[Page S1414]]

     of the foundation and structures adjacent and structurally 
     integral to the project.


                            Amendment No. 84

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ----. NORTH LAS VEGAS WATER REUSE PROJECT.

       Sec. 1. (a) Authorization.--The Secretary of the Interior, 
     in cooperation with the appropriate local authorities, may 
     participate in the design, planning, and construction of the 
     North Las Vegas Water Reuse Project (hereinafter referred to 
     as the `Project') to reclaim and reuse water in the service 
     area of the North Las Vegas Utility Division Service Area of 
     the city North Las Vegas and county of Clark, Nevada.
       (b) Cost Share.--The Federal share of the cost of the 
     Project shall not exceed 25 percent of the total cost.
       (c) Limitation.--Funds provided by the Secretary shall not 
     be used for the operation or maintenance of the Project.
       (d) Funding.--Funds appropriated pursuant to section 1631 
     of the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and 
     Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 390h-13) may be used for the 
     Project.
       Sec. 2. Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and 
     Facilities Act.--Design, planning, and construction of the 
     Project authorized by this Act shall be in accordance with, 
     and subject to the limitations contained in the Reclamation 
     Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (106 
     Stat. 4663-4669, 43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.), as amended.


                           amendment no. 128

 (Purpose: To set aside funds for the Chicago Ship and Sanitary Canal, 
                               Illinois)

       On page 259, line 19, strike ``projects:'' and insert 
     ``projects; and of which $500,000 may be available for 
     dispersal barriers in the Chicago Ship and Sanitary Canal, 
     Illinois:''.


                           amendment no. 161

       On page 295 at the end of line 24 insert the following new 
     section:
       ``Sec. 3.  None of the funds appropriated by this or any 
     other Act may be used to defer, deobligate, withdraw to 
     headquarters, reserve for contemplated future rescissions, or 
     otherwise adversely affect the planned and continuing 
     expenditure of funds previously made available for Cerro 
     Grande Fire Activities in P.L. 106-246 and P.L. 106-377.


                           amendment no. 206

  (Purpose: To extend the prohibition on oil and gas drilling in the 
                 Great Lakes through fiscal year 2005)

       On page 424, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:

     SEC. 5  . EXTENSION OF PROHIBITION OF OIL AND GAS DRILLING IN 
                   THE GREAT LAKES

       Section 503 of the Energy and Water Resources Development 
     Appropriations Act, 2002 (115 Stat. 512), is amended by 
     striking ``2002 and 2003'' and inserting ``2002 through 
     2005''.


                             Price-Anderson

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to discuss provisions in the 
Omnibus Appropriations bill relating to Price-Anderson nuclear 
liability. As you know Price-Anderson coverage for NRC licensees ended 
last August 1. Extension of Price-Anderson had been agreed upon by 
conferees on last Session's Comprehensive Energy Bill, but the demise 
of that Bill ended hopes of extension of Price-Anderson before it 
lapsed.
  I've discussed this situation with Senator Inhofe and Senator 
Voinovich, from their perspectives involving the Environment and Public 
Works Committee with jurisdiction over Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
issues. I'm pleased that they concur that the nation is best served by 
prompt renewal of Price-Anderson legislation, retroactive to August 1 
of last year, to ensure that both NRC licensees and Department of 
Energy contractors are subject to its full provisions. I believe we 
agreed that the language agreed to by the energy bill conferees last 
year was adequate to accomplish this goal.
  Mr. INHOFE. The Environment and Public Works Committee has had Price-
Anderson reauthorization bills referred to it in three consecutive 
Congresses now--my bill, S. 2292, in the 106th Congress as well as 
Senator Voinovich's bills, S. 1591 and S. 1360 from the 107th Congress 
and S. 156 in this 108th Congress. I laud Senator Voinovich's diligent 
and effective work on this legislation. I would also like to thank 
Environmental and Public Works Committee staff and associated staff who 
have worked on this legislation, especially Andrew Wheeler, Lewis 
Renjel, Marty Hall, Brian Mormino, and Aloysius Hogan.
  It is quite appropriate that the passage of this legislation be one 
of the first actions of the new Republican majority in the U.S. Senate. 
Indeed, I had scheduled the passage of Senator Voinovich's bill S. 156 
for my first Environment and Public Works Committee mark-up as Chairman 
in this 108th Congress. Moreover, in the Environment and Public Works 
Committee I look forward to further productive oversight and 
legislation regarding the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, control of 
nuclear energy, infrastructure, and continued environmental enhancement 
for our flora, fauna, air, water, and soil.
  I support the opportunity to enact this legislation promptly on this 
omnibus appropriations bill in lieu of Environment and Public Works 
Committee action. By fostering the clean-up of our soil and water and 
by fostering clean air energy sources, the legislation we pass in this 
bill is good for our environment. The sooner we enact this legislation, 
the better for our environment.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. I concur with both of my colleagues, Senators Inhofe 
and Domenici, that prompt, retroactive renewal of the Price-Anderson 
program is in the best interest of the Nation. We need to do whatever 
we can to promote a safe and efficient nuclear energy industry and 
encourage the development of new nuclear reactors. Reauthorizing the 
Price-Anderson Act is a major step in that direction.
  Almost a year before the program was to expire, on August 3, 2001, I 
introduced S. 1360 and shortly thereafter S. 1591 to reauthorize the 
Act. During consideration of the Energy bill, I then proposed an 
amendment that included the provisions of my bills. While my colleagues 
recognized the importance of the amendment and passed it by a vote of 
78-21, the Energy bill was ultimately not considered. Thus, I recently 
reintroduced my bill from last Congress as S. 156.
  I am pleased that this matter is finally being handled in the Omnibus 
Appropriations bill with the inclusion of the House and Senate 
compromise language of my amendment.


                            Amendment No. 49

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is to 
ensure the integrity of a shoreline protection system that was 
constructed by the Army Corps of Engineers in 1985 at Tall Times, MD to 
mitigate the erosion induced by the Herring Creek entrance jetties.
  The Herring Creek Navigation Project, located on the left bank of the 
Potomac River in St. Mary's County, MD, was constructed in 1960 by the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to maintain a navigable channel at the 
inlet. Although the jetties functioned as designed, they blocked the 
natural drift of sand along the shoreline and caused significant 
erosion in the area downstream of the project. To correct this erosion 
problem, in 1985 the Corps of Engineers implemented a mitigation 
project under the authority of section 111 of the River and Harbors Act 
of 1968. The modification consisted of construction of 250 feet of 
beach fill and 2,187 linear feet of stone revetment, and upgrading 350 
linear feet of existing revetment along the Tall Timbers waterfront, 
south of the project inlet. The revetment was constructed essentially 
on top of an existing wooden bulkhead built by St. Mary's County in 
1950. Herein lies the problem: the wooden bulkhead is failing in 
sections, causing huge sinkholes on private property, and undermining 
the integrity of the revetment.
  Although the Local Cooperation Agreement specified that the Army 
Corps of Engineers was responsible for maintaining the revetment, it 
did not specify who would be responsible for maintaining the bulkhead. 
St. Mary's County and local residents assert that this is a Corps 
responsibility. The Corps asserts that it does not have the authority 
to repair the bulkhead.
  The amendment that Senator Mikulski and I are offering would clarify 
the responsibilities of the Army Corps of Engineers to provide 
maintenance of the project. It should be pointed out that, should the 
entire bulkhead fail, the revetment will also fail and the Corps would 
be responsible for replacing the entire revetment at a cost of well 
over $1 million. This is an instance where an ounce of prevention now 
will prevent a pound of federal expenditures later. I urge adoption of 
the amendment.


                            amendment no. 59

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of an amendment 
that was offered by my colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden.
  I want to begin with a USA Today article from February 27, 2002 
entitled

[[Page S1415]]

``Bush Cheney Champion Privacy--for themselves'' by Tony Mauro.
  The article describes how the administration is very concerned about 
protecting privacy when it comes to protecting their meetings to 
develop an energy policy for our Nation. As Mr. Mauro writes, ``Cheney 
and Bush want privacy for their conversations, but not for anyone 
else's.''
  This article also sheds light on how the administration places a 
premium on privacy. Unfortunately, its leaders seem to value secrecy 
mainly to protect themselves from embarrassing revelations or to 
protect their corporate cronies from public scrutiny.
  And yet while the White House was fighting vigorously to prevent the 
American people from getting access to government records, the 
administration was working arduously to ensure that government would 
have unprecedented access into the personal lives of the American 
people through electronic records.
  Today, my colleague from Oregon is offering an amendment to ensure 
that such a program does not go forward unless the privacy of the 
American people is assured.
  This week, many of my colleagues have joined me in speaking on civil 
rights and civil liberties. I feel strongly that we must defend the 
civil liberties of Nevadans and all Americans, including their 
fundamental right to privacy.
  After September 11, our Nation was forced to reflect on the freedoms 
we so often take for granted.
  Americans have accepted many restrictions on those freedoms, because 
they recognized some limits were necessary to provide security against 
terrorists and other realistic threats, and because they believed these 
restrictions would be administered justly.
  So we tolerate waiting several hours to board airplanes, because we 
know it necessary to check our luggage more rigorously than ever 
before.
  But the program my distinguished colleague from Oregon is describing 
concerns me, and I have heard from many Nevadans expressing their 
opposition to the White House plan unless we have greater assurances 
that it will not infringe upon our precious privacy.

  Senator Wyden's amendment aims to curtail the Total Information 
Awareness program being funded at the Defense Advanced Research 
Projects Agency, which is an effort to develop a digital description of 
each and every one of us, available in nanoseconds.
  This digital ``you'' will be made up of every credit card purchase, 
every bank transaction, every driver's license application, every court 
record, and every library book loan you ever borrowed.
  The Federal Government will store all this information--ready to be 
processed in a moment's notice.
  Sound like a good idea?
  I don't think so for a very simple reason: No one has figured out how 
this information is going to be protected, so that you don't become the 
victim of an overzealous Government snoop.
  The Total Information Awareness program is doing nothing to protect 
that privacy. Instead of being an electronic Fort Knox, TIA is going to 
be a gold mine for privacy violations.
  In fact, the White House decided to pick a John Poindexter to run the 
project. He may be a brilliant man, but he was also convicted of lying 
to Congress in the Iran-Contra scandal.
  How are we supposed to believe a man who lied to Congress when he 
tells us that your privacy is safe--that this clearinghouse of 
confidential computer records won't be used improperly?
  There other problems. Just look at the way this agency will work.
  All the research to build this computer web will be done by 
contractors--businesses who are allowed to market, sell and distribute 
their work for commercial development.
  That means the same technology the government is developing to snoop 
on your video rentals could be used by the video rental companies to 
peek on your publicly available government records.
  You can bet the companies who buy this technological peeping tom 
won't be using it to protect the public good, but merely to pad their 
corporate profits.
  Your privacy is not a privilege but a principle that must be 
protected.
  Senator Wyden's amendment is an important and necessary step to 
prevent the Federal Government from trampling your privacy while still 
allowing the Federal Government to protect us against terrorists.


                            amendment no. 59

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, as the Senate moves forward on the Omnibus 
Appropriations bill, I wish to explain in greater detail the amendment 
I first discussed the other day. I offered this amendment with Senators 
Feinstein, Reid, Boxer, and Corzine to establish clear and unambiguous 
congressional oversight over the Pentagon's Office of Total Information 
Awareness, TIA. It is an amendment on which I have worked with 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and I want to especially 
recognize the invaluable guidance Senator Inouye has provided us in 
crafting this amendment.
  It is an amendment that would limit the scope of the Office of Total 
Information Awareness. This is a program that is now being directed by 
retired Admiral John Poindexter, the former National Security Adviser 
to former President Reagan. It is one that raises a number of important 
issues that have arisen in our country since the horrific events of 9/
11.
  Let me be clear. The amendment does not kill the program; rather, the 
amendment shifts the burden to the executive branch to make the case 
for the program. The amendment would restrict funding for the program 
unless the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General and the Director 
of Central Intelligence send to Congress within 60 days a report 
answering a series of questions about the TIA program, or the President 
certifies to Congress in writing that that cessation of TIA's research 
and development work would endanger U.S. national security. Further, 
the amendment would prohibit DOD from sharing this technology with any 
Federal agency that wishes to deploy or implement it until the 
Secretary of Defense informs Congress about the element of the 
program's technology that would be deployed and the intended method and 
scope of the deployment, and an authorization and an appropriations law 
have been enacted to provide for the specific deployment or 
implementation.
  Given the fact that our country is engaged in fighting a war against 
an enemy without boundaries, clearly we must, as a nation, take steps 
that constantly strive to balance the rights of our citizens against 
the need to protect the national security of our Nation.
  My concern is the program that is being developed by Mr. Poindexter 
is going forward without congressional oversight and without clear 
accountability and guidelines. That is why I think it is important for 
the Senate, as we reflect on the need to fight terrorism while 
balancing the need to protect the rights of our citizens, to emphasize 
how important it is that a program like this be subject to 
congressional oversight, and that there be clear accountability.
  On the Web site of this particular program, the Total Information 
Awareness Program, is cited a Latin slogan--``Knowledge is power''--
something we would all agree with, and it states:

       The total information awareness of translational threats 
     requires keeping track of individuals and understanding how 
     they fit in to models. To this end, this office would seek to 
     develop a way to integrate databases into a ``virtual 
     centralized grand database.

  The ``centralized grand database'' would enable the federal 
government to look at the education, financial, travel, medical, and 
other activities of U.S. citizens, and develop risk profiles for 
millions of Americans in the quest to examine questionable conduct and 
certainly suspicious activity that would generate concern for the 
safety of the American people. Our country must fight terrorists, but 
America should not unleash virtual bloodhounds to sniff into the 
personal financial, medical, and other records of millions of 
Americans.

  I am of the view the Senate has a special obligation to be vigilant 
in this area so we do not approve actions or condone actions by this 
particular office that could compromise the bedrock of this Nation: our 
Constitution.
  I sit on the Senate Intelligence Committee. I know it is a difficult 
job to find and maintain the proper balance between constitutional 
rights and the need to thoroughly track down every valid lead on 
terrorism, but I will tell you, I think it is critically important

[[Page S1416]]

that the Senate have oversight over this program, and we make sure 
there is not a program of what amounts to virtual bloodhounds.
  We need to make sure there are guidelines and rules so that there has 
to be, for example, evidence there is activity that could threaten the 
country before additional intrusive steps are taken and, second, that 
there are safeguards in place at a time when it is possible, because of 
modern technology and new databases, to share information very quickly.
  The fact is much of this information is already being shared in the 
private sector, and that is why so many Americans are troubled about 
the prospect of losing privacy right now. What is of concern to many 
about the Office of Total Information Awareness is it will take the 
current policies that threaten the privacy of the Americana people and 
magnify those problems, given the fact we have not been informed as to 
what safeguards and constitutional protections would be in place when 
this program goes forward.
  I am of the view that the Senate must act to suspend this massive 
data-mining project unless and until the executive branch comes forward 
to make the case for it and Congress determines whether the proposed 
benefits of this technology come at too high a price to the privacy and 
personal liberty of U.S. citizens.
  Clearly, to fight terrorism, we have to have the confidence of the 
American people. In doing so, we must protect their rights. My concern 
is the Office of Total Information Awareness, as it is constituted 
today, tips that balance against the procedural safeguards that are 
needed to protect the rights of millions of Americans while fighting 
terrorism.
  That is why I and my distinguished colleagues believe Congress must 
act now to limit the scope of the TIA office. The amendment will ensure 
that as this program is developed in its early days it is done in a 
fashion that is sensitive and respectful of constitutional protections 
and safeguards, while still ensuring that our Nation can continue to 
fight terrorism.
  In closing, I again thank the distinguished ranking member of the 
Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee for his generous assistance.


                            amendment no. 59

  Mr. FEINGOLD. I support the Wyden-Feinstein Amendment. This amendment 
would represent a critical first step towards addressing the concerns 
that so many of our citizens have about one specific data-mining 
system, the Total Information Awareness program in the Department of 
Defense. The amendment would require specific congressional 
authorization before the Total Information Awareness program could be 
deployed.
  Time after time at listening sessions I told throughout my home State 
of Wisconsin people have expressed serious concerns about the prospect 
of data mining. People want a government that can protect us, but not 
at the expense of our most cherished liberties.
  The untested and controversial intelligence procedure of data-mining 
is capable of maintaining and accessing extensive files containing both 
public and private Government records on each and every American. The 
Total Information Awareness program represents a dangerous step that 
threatens some of the very freedoms that we are fighting to preserve in 
the fight against terrorism. Through comprehensive data mining, as 
envisioned by the Information Awareness office at the Department of 
Defense, everything from people's video rentals or drugstore purchases 
made with a credit card to their most private health concerns could be 
fed into a computer and monitored by the Federal Government.
  It is important to emphasize that this amendment is only a first 
step. I will continue to fight for further congressional oversight and 
action on the important issue of data mining. The administration must 
suspend not only the Total Information Awareness program but all other 
data-mining initiatives in the Department of Defense and the Department 
of Homeland Security until Congress can determine whether the proposed 
benefits of aggressive data mining comes at too high a price for our 
privacy and personal liberties.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have another series of amendments. 
These are the amendments we stopped. Senator Wyden's amendment No. 59, 
Senator Bunning's amendment, with Senator Bingaman, amendment No. 37, 
Senator Bunning's amendment No. 38, Senator Domenici's amendment No. 
42, Senator Sarbanes' amendment No. 49, Senator Reid's amendment No. 
84, Senator Levin's, and others, amendment No. 128. I read them before. 
I am leaving out the second amendment. That is why I am reading them 
through again. Domenici and Bingaman amendment No. 161, and Senator 
Voinovich, No. 206.
  There are nine amendments. Does the clerk agree? Amendment No. 34 is 
set aside temporarily. It is not in the package.


           Amendments Nos. 49, 128, 65, and 139, As Modified

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that where the 
word ``shall'' appears in amendments Nos. 49, 128, 65, and 139, it be 
changed to ``may.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. I urge approval of the amendments en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the foregoing amendments 
are modified.
  The amendments, as modified, were agreed to as follows:


                     amendment no. 49, as modified

       At the appropriate place in the division relating to energy 
     and water, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. HERRING CREEK-TALL TIMBERS, MARYLAND.

       (a) In General.--Using funds made available by this Act, 
     the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of 
     Engineers, may provide immediate corrective maintenance to 
     the project at Herring Creek-Tall Timbers, Maryland, at full 
     Federal expense.
       (b) Inclusions.--The corrective maintenance described in 
     subsection (a), and any other maintenance performed after the 
     date of enactment of this Act with respect to the project 
     described in that subsection, may include repair or 
     replacement, as appropriate, of the foundation and structures 
     adjacent and structurally integral to the project.


                     amendment no. 128, as modified

       On page 259, line 19, strike ``projects:'' and insert 
     ``projects; and of which $500,000 may be available for 
     dispersal barriers in the Chicago Ship and Sanitary Canal, 
     Illinois:''.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The foregoing request to take amendment No. 34 
out is agreed to.
  Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I want to make sure the clerk heard my 
modifications. I do not remember the clerk acknowledging the words were 
changed per my request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk made the changes from ``shall'' to 
``may.''
  That request has been granted.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I acknowledge my error. We have two of 
those in the next block. The amendments have been changed, as I 
requested, and they now have been adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk made all the corrections.
  The amendments have been adopted.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Was amendment No. 
161 included in the last group?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair.


                            Amendment No. 74

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send amendment No. 74 to the desk, 
which I introduce on behalf of the distinguished majority leader, to 
reinforce the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security in 
applying criteria to designate college- and university-based centers 
for homeland security research.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we are not doing 
this en bloc, that this is standing alone?
  Mr. STEVENS. This is one item standing alone.

[[Page S1417]]

  Mr. REID. We have no objection to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Frist, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 74.

  Mr. STEVENS. 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:


                            amendment no. 74

   (Purpose: To further reinforce the discretion of the Secretary of 
   Homeland Security in applying criteria to designate college- and 
        university-based centers for homeland security research)

       In Division L, Homeland Security Act of 2002 Amendments, in 
     Section 101(1)(b)(2)(C), strike the first sentence and insert 
     in lieu thereof:
       ``To the extent that exercising such discretion is in the 
     interest of Homeland Security, and with respect to the 
     designation of any given university-based center for homeland 
     security, the Secretary may except certain criteria as 
     specified in 308(b)92)(B) and consider additional criteria 
     beyond those specified in 308(b)(2)(B).''
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask for adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. REID. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 74) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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.
  Mr. REID. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. The group of amendments on defense and--energy and water 
have been adopted; is that right?
  Mr. STEVENS. Except for 34?
  Mr. REID. Except for 34.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Alaska that amendment No. 158 has 
been cleared on this side. It is in the next batch on Interior.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator. We have one item we have to check.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 137

  Ms. LANDRIEU. I call up amendment No. 137 by Senator Lieberman and 
myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), for herself, Mr. 
     Lieberman, Mr. Hollings, and Mr. Graham of Florida, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 137.

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


                           amendment no. 137

(Purpose: To authorize additional appropriations for historically black 
colleges and universities and to decrease the cost-sharing requirement 
               relating to the additional appropriations)

       On page 486, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES.

       (a) Decreased Cost-Sharing Requirement.--Section 507(c) of 
     the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (16 
     U.S.C. 470a note) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(1) Except'' and inserting the following:
       ``(1) In general.--Except'';
       (2) by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and inserting 
     ``paragraphs (2) and (3)'';
       (3) by striking ``(2) The Secretary'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(2) Waiver.--The Secretary'';
       (4) by striking ``paragraph (1)'' and inserting 
     ``paragraphs (1) and (3)''; and
       (5) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Exception.--The Secretary shall not obligate funds 
     made available under subsection (d)(2) for a grant with 
     respect to a building or structure listed on, or eligible for 
     listing on, the National Register of Historic Places unless 
     the grantee agrees to provide, from funds derived from non-
     Federal sources, an amount that is equal to 30 percent of the 
     total cost of the project for which the grant is provided.''.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 507(d) of the 
     Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (16 
     U.S.C. 470a note) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Pursuant to'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--Under''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Additional funding.--In addition to amounts made 
     available under paragraph (1), there is authorized to be 
     appropriated from the Historic Preservation Fund to carry out 
     this section $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2003 
     through 2008.''.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank the managers for working with us 
on this amendment. I believe it has been accepted now on both sides. I 
ask for 2 minutes to explain the amendment, and I think we are prepared 
to accept it.
  Mr. STEVENS. I have no objection to 2 minutes for the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, as you may know, as the Chairman knows, 
there is currently a very important program--it is not a large program, 
but it is a very important program to historically Black colleges and 
universities within the parameters of our Historic Preservation Fund. 
It helps these universities, as they come up with private sector 
dollars, to match the authorization that our program creates. It gives 
them an opportunity to preserve these historic buildings, which are of 
tremendous significance to this Nation, for our heritage, our culture, 
and the current educational needs of over 300,000 students who attend 
these fine institutions.
  This amendment by Senator Lieberman and myself and many others on 
both sides of the aisle basically reauthorizes the program. It expands 
it from $5 million a year to $10 million a year, an authorization for 5 
years to $50 million, reduces the match from 50 percent to 30 percent, 
without adding any money to the current bill. It is strictly an 
authorization.
  This amendment reflects two bills that passed both the House and the 
Senate that reflect this language. It has broad-based support and would 
be very helpful to these universities.
  I thank the managers for working this out. I urge adoption of the 
amendment.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am proud to join with Senator 
Landrieu in offering this amendment to provide historic preservation 
funding for Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Sixteen of us 
from both parties sponsored similar legislation last session, which 
passed the Senate as well as the House. But the two pieces did not come 
together in the closing days of the session.
  American history has been a constant, if not always consistent, march 
toward an ideal. That ideal is equal opportunity for all.
  In every generation, it has taken the work of pioneers to open the 
gates of the American community to people who had previously been 
excluded. We have seen it happen with one immigrant group after 
another. Pioneers have stepped forward when others would not, to 
defiantly State, in effect, that we as a nation will not be defined by 
surface characteristics. We will look deeper and try harder. The 
pioneers have held us to our national promise, and reminded us that 
America and Americanism are not about where you came from, what 
language you speak, what religion you practice, or what you look like, 
but about belief in basic ideals of responsibility, opportunity and 
community.
  Historically Black Colleges and Universities have been such pioneers 
for generations, and they continue today to help America become its 
best self.
  In April of this year, I went to Allen University in Columbia, SC to 
talk about reforming higher education to help more Americans at all 
income levels not only go to college, but graduate--and get a good job 
when they do. Today, about 30 percent of undergraduates at 4-year 
colleges are minorities. That is an increase of 10 percent over the 
last 10 years. HBCUs have helped expand that access to college. 
However, we are still living in a country where if you are white, you 
are twice as likely to obtain a bachelor's degree by the time you're 24 
than if you are African American. And if you are wealthy, you are five 
time more likely to actually

[[Page S1418]]

get a bachelor's degree than if you are from a low-income family. In 
other words, we don't have equal opportunity--not yet.
  Historically Black Colleges have always held us to the high human 
standards to which America deserves to be held--and to which our people 
demand we be held.
  Today, America has over 100 Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities, which educate about 300,000 undergraduate students and 
thousands of graduate, professional and doctoral students.
  In fact, 8 of the top 10 producers of African-American engineers are 
HBCUs. And 42 percent of all the PhDs earned each year by African 
Americans are earned by graduates of HBCUs.
  Despite playing such a central role in our economy, society, and 
culture, HBCUs have been physically eroding for years. In 1998, the 
National Trust for Historic Preservation reported that most of the 
HBCUs in the United States are showing serious signs of neglect. The 
trust said that campus landmarks are decaying and college grounds are 
badly in need of attention. And a 1998 General Accounting Office report 
estimated that in HBCUs nationwide, there were more than 700 historic 
buildings in disrepair.
  That is why I am proudly sponsoring this amendment to provide more 
restoration funding for historic sites at Historically Black Colleges 
and Universities throughout the Nation.
  These beautiful, architecturally significant structures are in most 
cases over a hundred years old, and were often built using the help of 
the students themselves. Their architectural beauty is a sign of 
something deeper--the fact that they have served as critical portals of 
opportunity for African Americans throughout our history. That is why 
they deserve our strong protection and sensitive preservation.
  I saw this firsthand. When I visited Allen University, I went to 
Arnett Hall--a building that had been transformed from an eyesore into 
a beautiful and stately facility with the help of Federal funds. In the 
past, students and faculty would walk into the hall and get the message 
that we as a nation were neglecting these historic treasures. Now, they 
absorb the message that we consider historically black colleges and 
universities central to our history and to our future.
  Thanks in no small part to these institutions, the overarching 
history of African Americans in this country has been not a tragedy, as 
it once was, but a brilliant movement toward dignity, inclusion, 
freedom, and opportunity.
  that is the right message for African Americans and all Americans.
  In closing, I would also like to reiterate that this amendment is not 
new. Bills providing historic preservation funding to Historically 
Black Colleges and Universities unanimously passed both Houses at the 
end of last year. By approving this amendment, we will clean up last 
year's unfinished business. Please join with me and Senator Landrieu to 
adopt this amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Louisiana. I am 
prepared to ask that amendment be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 137) 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 suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CORNYN). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, what is the regular order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a motion to table the Cantwell 
amendment, and the yeas and nays have been ordered on that motion.
  Mr. STEVENS. Following that, there are two other amendments that 
would be the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. First, the Bingaman 
amendment, followed by the Mikulski amendment.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state his inquiry.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend, the manager of the bill, it is my 
understanding that the matter that recurs now is Mikulski?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a pending motion to table the 
Cantwell amendment.
  Mr. REID. I say, then, for the benefit of Senators, we have Mikulski, 
Bingaman, and Cantwell that are now pending, and we are going to 
dispose of Cantwell now. What would be the parliamentary order after 
that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Bingaman amendment would be next, and then 
the Mikulski amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it would be my intention to attempt to 
adopt the Bingaman amendment without a recorded vote. We will see how 
that happens. May we proceed with the Cantwell vote now?


                           Amendment No. 108

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table amendment No. 108. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID, I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) and the 
Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 24 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     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
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--48

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Harkin
     Inouye
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, 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.


                           Amendment No. 138

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask that we bring up Bingaman amendment 
No. 138. We previously discussed this amendment. Does the Senator wish 
to say anything?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask to add Senators Johnson, Clinton, 
and Hollings as cosponsors.
  I very much appreciate the managers' willingness to agree to this 
amendment. It is a very good amendment. I know it is supported on both 
sides of the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask for agreement on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 138) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KYL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                            Amendment No. 61

  Mr. STEVENS. The third amendment was the amendment of Senator 
Mikulski. I inquire if there is a modification at the desk?

[[Page S1419]]

  Ms. MIKULSKI. I believe there is a unanimous consent.
  Mr. STEVENS. Let me ask unanimous consent that we proceed to Senator 
Mikulski's amendment and that it be in order to offer, if a second-
degree amendment is agreed to, it be in order for her to offer a 
further second-degree perfecting amendment, and that there be 20 
minutes equally divided between Senators Thomas and Mikulski prior to a 
vote in relation to this amendment.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, we need consent that the 
Mikulski amendment, the order with respect to that, be vitiated first. 
There is an order already in effect in that regard.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am afraid I didn't read the whole unanimous consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The only agreement was barring the second-
degree amendments, which the Senator has addressed.
  Mr. REID. That will be fine.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask that that unanimous consent request be withdrawn 
and I be permitted to offer a different one.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The unanimous consent request is withdrawn.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that the order----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. May we have order, please.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that the order with respect to 
the Mikulski amendment be vitiated and that Senator Thomas be 
recognized to offer a perfecting second-degree amendment regarding 
public-private competition; provided further that there be a 20-minute 
period for debate equally divided between Senators Thomas and Mikulski 
prior to a vote in relation to the second-degree amendment. I further 
ask that following that debate time, the Senate proceed to a vote in 
relation to the Thomas amendment. I further ask consent that if the 
second-degree amendment is agreed to, Senator Mikulski be recognized in 
order to offer a further second-degree perfecting amendment, provided 
there be 20 minutes for debate equally divided between Senators Thomas 
and Mikulski prior to the vote in relation to that amendment; finally, 
if the Thomas second-degree amendment is not agreed to, the Senate 
proceed immediately to vote in relation to the Mikulski first-degree 
amendment and, notwithstanding the drafting of the Mikulski amendment, 
if it were adopted, the first-degree amendment would be subject to 
further amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BYRD. Reserving the right to object, it was my understanding we 
were going to have three rollcall votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Yes. I say to the Senator, one of them was approved by 
voice vote, so this is the third vote.
  Mr. BYRD. This is the third vote. But this new request, what is this?
  Mr. REID. This is to set up the order of debate on the Mikulski 
amendment which is going to be second-degreed by Senator Thomas. This 
is something we have worked on almost all day. So there will be two 
votes on the Mikulski amendment, one on Thomas and one on Mikulski.
  Mr. BYRD. For the moment, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, is there any way--if I can 
get the attention of the Senator from Wyoming and the Senator from 
Maryland--is there any way we could save 10 minutes by having 15 
minutes between each of them rather than 20?
  Mr. THOMAS. Yes, that is fine.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I didn't hear the Senator.
  Mr. REID. We have 40 minutes. I am asking if we can reduce that to 15 
on each rather than 20, for a total of 30.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Yes.
  Mr. REID. I ask that that be agreed to: Rather than 20 minutes on 
each, it be 15 on each of the amendments for debate.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I stated earlier that for the moment I 
object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is objection.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I renew the Stevens request, as amended by me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. STEVENS. As what?
  Mr. REID. The time.
  Mr. STEVENS. OK.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Wyoming.

  

                          ____________________