[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 12 (Thursday, January 23, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1421-S1460]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page S1421]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

                        House of Representatives

The House was not in session today. Its next meeting will be held on 
Monday, January 27, 2003, at 2 p.m.




-----------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 Senate

Thursday, January 23, 2003

     MAKING FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

                              (Continued)


                 Amendment No. 246 To Amendment No. 61

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, the amendment is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the second-degree 
amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Thomas) proposes an amendment 
     numbered No. 246 to amendment No. 61.

  Mr. THOMAS. 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:

       Strike all after the first word and insert the following:
       While nothing in this section shall prevent any agency of 
     the executive branch from subjecting work performed by 
     Federal Government employees or private contractors to 
     public-private competition or conversions, none of the funds 
     made available in this Act may be used by an agency of the 
     executive branch to establish, apply, or enforce any 
     numerical goal, target, or quota for subjecting the employees 
     of the executive agency to public-private competitions or for 
     converting such employees or the work performed by such 
     employees to private contractor performance under the Office 
     of Management and Budget Circular A-76 or any other 
     administrative regulation, directive, or policy unless the 
     goal, target, or quota is based on considered research and 
     sound analysis of past activities and is consistent with the 
     stated mission of the executive agency. Nothing in this 
     section shall limit the use of such funds for the 
     administration of the Government Performance and Results Act 
     of 1993 or for the administration of any other provision of 
     law.

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, this is a second-degree amendment to the 
underlying amendment. We discussed this amendment this morning and 
delayed a vote in hopes of coming to a compromise over some of the 
concerns that were raised. For nearly 2 hours the administration 
officials, my staff, Senator Collins' staff, Senator Brownback, and 
Senator Mikulski worked to find a way to address these concerns. 
Unfortunately, the Senator from Maryland did not agree with that.
  So I am offering this amendment. The compromise was reached that the 
administration believes allows the Government, the President, to 
continue setting important management goals for the public-private 
competition. What this is, of course, is allowing for the FAIR Act, 
which was passed in 1998, to continue to be effective, where we can go 
through and list those items that are not inherently governmental and 
have some competition for those items in the private sector so we can 
have certainly a more efficient Government. This is the way we think we 
ought to do it.
  This amendment would allow for the restrictions on the quotas. But 
when there has been study, when there has been a real approach to what 
can be done and the kinds of activities that fit, then we can move 
forward.
  The complaint here on the amendment has simply been because of 
setting quotas. Quotas does not mean that people will be replaced by 
private enterprise, but, rather, areas that are not inherently 
governmental will be used.
  I turn now to the Senator from Maine for her comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Maryland has 
raised a very legitimate point about the use of arbitrary quotas or 
numerical targets to guide the contracting-out activities of Federal 
agencies. It seems to me that having one target for every agency may 
well be counterproductive and not result in the greatest efficiencies.
  On the other hand, I am concerned that the amendment of the Senator 
from Maryland may have some unintended consequences. It could be read 
as rejecting the notion of ever having competitive contracting, to see 
whether a specific function is best performed in-house or contracted 
out to the private sector.
  I am also concerned that it could have an impact on other laws, 
although I know that is not the intent of the Senator from Maryland.
  We have consulted with the General Accounting Office and have come up 
with some language to try to deal with this. I do want to assure the 
Senator from Maryland, as the new chairman of the Governmental Affairs 
Committee, I want to work with her to try to resolve this issue because 
the issue she has brought to our attention is a legitimate one. So I 
hope to continue, in my new capacity, to work with her, to work with 
the Senator from Wyoming,

[[Page S1422]]

to work with the Senators from Virginia who have also expressed 
concerns about this issue.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I yield now to the Senator from Ohio.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I----
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: First, I 
recognize that the Senator has time. But I didn't know if we were going 
to alternate speakers. Does the Senator from Wyoming intend to use all 
of his 15 minutes and then turn it over to me?
  I am sorry. I don't want to in any way deny the Senator from Ohio his 
right to speak. Usually one side makes an argument, and then the other 
replies, and then go back. Are we not doing that?
  Mr. THOMAS. I understood we had 15 minutes to present our point of 
view and that the others would present their point of view.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. This discussion will be on my time. But usually when we 
have a time allocation we go back and forth. Is the Senator from 
Wyoming going to take all of his 15 minutes and then give me all of 
mine? Is that the way we are going to do it?
  Mr. THOMAS. That was my understanding.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will say that there is no agreement 
to go back and forth. The Senator from Ohio has the floor at the 
moment.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, the Senator from Ohio has the right to 
speak, but it was not part of the agreement. I was just referring to 
the usual and customary behavior in the Senate.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would also announce that the 15 
minutes was to be evenly divided----
  Ms. MIKULSKI. No. We didn't.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On each amendment.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. When do I get my time? There are 15 minutes on each 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct--evenly divided on each 
amendment by 7\1/2\ minutes.
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, how much time do we have on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes twenty seconds remain.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. I thank the Chair.
  First, I share the concerns of the Senator from Maryland about this 
problem, and I want to do everything in my power as chairman of the 
subcommittee on Government oversight and work toward dealing with the 
solution to the problem that is being presented.
  According to the best information I have, this amendment would 
circumvent the administration's prerogative in the executive branch by 
prohibiting the administration from managing the Federal Government's 
competitive sourcing process. It would repeal initiatives passed on a 
bipartisan basis over the past 10 years, including the Government 
Performance Act.
  The amendment would prohibit agencies from developing and 
implementing strategic plans allowing Federal employees to focus on 
high-priority activities, and it would prevent agencies from increasing 
efficiencies, lowering costs, implementing innovation and technology, 
and it would prevent agencies to meet their agency missions.
  Additionally, the President has said that if this provision were in 
the Treasury-Postal appropriations, he would veto the bill.
  We tried to work out a compromise based on some of these concerns 
that he had. We thought that it met the concerns of the Senator from 
Maryland. Unfortunately, it did not.
  I urge that we vote no on her amendment and yes on the amendment we 
are proposing today--understanding this will not solve the problem and 
that we will need to deal with it throughout the remainder of the year.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, do I have time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming has 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. THOMAS. I would like to turn to the Senator from Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming for his 
leadership. I rise in support of his amendment, and, as the Senator 
from Ohio said, in opposition to the amendment of the Senator from 
Maryland.
  My friends and colleagues, we need to always, as a government, be 
looking at new ways of adopting innovation and have improvements--
whether it is our national security or homeland defense. There are many 
ideas, many systems, and many programs in the private sector that can 
perform more efficiently and better for the American people. We need to 
examine those.
  I think the Bush administration's proposal is very modest and 
reasonable, and it is supported by a variety of private sector groups. 
The Mikulski amendment is opposed by a broad range of organizations, 
such as the Northern Virginia Technology Council, the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce, the Professional Services Council, the Contract Services 
Association, and many others.
  For small businesses, large businesses, disadvantaged businesses, 
minority-owned businesses, let us care about the jobs in the private 
sector. Let us also care about those governmental services that are 
essential for our security, but let us make what we are procuring the 
best for all Americans.
  I ask my colleagues to support the amendment of Senator Thomas and 
oppose the amendment of the Senator from Maryland.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Maryland is recognized for 7\1/2\ minutes.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise with vigor to unabashedly oppose 
the amendment of the Senator from Wyoming. The reason I do is that he 
reintroduces the words ``quota'' and ``target.''
  The amendment of the Senator from Wyoming essentially says that a 
``target'' or a ``goal'' is to be considered--``target, target, quota, 
quota.'' I thought we didn't like targets and quotas. I am surprised 
that the Senator from Wyoming is so enthusiastic about them.
  Under the Thomas amendment, Federal managers will still be forced to 
meet arbitrary quotas for privatization without real criteria, 
rationales, or consideration. Under the Thomas amendment, the goal is 
to get a quota or a target--not better government.
  Let us be very clear. My original amendment never did seek the end to 
privatization. Privatization must be based on thoughtful criteria as 
established by the Congress in the FAIR Act.
  Let us privatize Federal jobs where appropriate, but let us keep a 
strong, independent Federal workforce.
  I want to deal with the very valid issues raised by the Senator from 
Maine. I agree. I wanted to modify my amendment. I wanted to modify my 
amendment by adding what is now in the first paragraph in the Thomas 
amendment, which I agree to--that nothing in this section would prevent 
any agency of the executive branch from subjecting work performed by 
the Federal Government employees to be contracted out to public or 
private competition.
  I wanted to do that this morning. The Senator from Wyoming would not 
agree to that modification. We went into a dialog. In the dialog, the 
Senator from Maine, again, offered a very constructive recommendation--
that nothing in this section would limit the use of such funds under 
the Government Performance Act.

  I was willing to go with that. If we had agreed to that, we could 
have agreed to that modification this morning and Senators could be 
heading home tonight. But, no, OMB had to get into the act. They 
insisted that this paragraph say, unless there has to be a target or 
quota. Sure. They say based on research and sound analysis.
  Let me tell you. When the fox is guarding the hen house, I don't care 
what accounting system they have. They are still going after targets 
and they are still going after quotas. That is why I object to the 
amendment of the Senator from Wyoming.
  I would love to have agreed to the original two paragraphs that I 
think would have met the very valid concern of the other side.

[[Page S1423]]

  I salute those on the other side who are reformers. But, no, we 
didn't go that route.
  I am still opposing it. Anything with the word ``target'' in it and 
anything with the word ``quota'' in it. I am fighting today. I am 
fighting all night, if I have to. I will fight tomorrow, and I will 
fight on until the end of the 108th Congress.
  I am not going to destroy the integrity of the civil service system 
with arbitrary quotas and with arbitrary and capricious targets. We are 
going to do this right. We are going to do it under the law. We are not 
going to turn Federal managers into bounty hunters.
  How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland has 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am voting in favor of Senator 
Mikulski's amendment and against Senator Thomas' amendment because the 
Thomas amendment provides for quotas. I favor contracting out where 
there is an individual analysis that saves the Federal Government money 
and maintains appropriate quality. I have consistently opposed quotas 
in school admissions and employment and I similarly oppose quotas in 
this situation.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I hope when we do another process such 
as this and enter into negotiations and when the negotiation is over we 
don't come back and offer something that had been rejected as an 
amendment.
  I am disappointed that this amendment is being offered. That is 
politics. Everyone has a right to offer their amendments. I accept the 
offer of the Senator from Maine and the Senator from Ohio for the long 
haul and for discussion.

  This is very serious. We do know we need a modernized civil service. 
We do know we need to reform. But we do not need targets and quotas 
where OMB has said itself, get rid of 127,000, 500,000 jobs this year. 
So 127,000 people? Who are we going to get rid of? Let's start with the 
Nobel prize winners at NIH. Who needs them? They can go off to the 
private sector. Good-bye. Who needs a Nobel prize winner for finding 
the cure for Alzheimer's? Maybe we could contract out Customs officers. 
Maybe we could go to rent-a-cop agencies.
  Or what about those secretaries who keep the agencies going--like the 
one who went to my high school who has worked for the FBI for nearly 50 
years in Baltimore, who has helped keep the FBI going, such as when the 
FBI was out trying to find the sniper who killed several Marylanders 
and people from Northern Virginia.
  I don't know what is so hostile about Federal employees. If we want 
to save money in pensions, and if we want to save money in health care, 
that is another issue. But bounty hunters? No. Maybe bounty hunters are 
OK when you go after predators, but I don't think the Federal employees 
should be subjected to bounty hunters.
  Guess who else is opposed to this amendment. Federal managers, 
because they say all they are going to be doing is paperwork to be able 
to justify this.
  I could elaborate. Everybody knows I am opposed to the Thomas 
amendment because it is just a dressed-up version of going after 
quotas, which I tried to stop in the first place.
  Mr. President, I know that it is getting late. I think we ought to 
have a vote on this. If I prevail, by defeating the Thomas amendment, 
we are done. If not, I am going to come back and have another say.
  Mr. President, I yield all of my time back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I 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 assistant 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. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 25 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

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

                                NAYS--48

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     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
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

       
     Harkin
     Inouye
  The amendment (No. 246) was agreed to.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Maryland is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 247

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, which 
is provided for under the unanimous consent agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 247.

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

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

       In lieu of the language proposed to be inserted insert the 
     following:
       Sec.   . None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by an Executive agency to establish, apply, or 
     enforce any numerical goal, target, or quota for subjecting 
     the employees of the agency to public-private competitions or 
     converting such employees or the work performed by such 
     employees to private contractor performance under the Office 
     of Management and Budget Circular A-76 or any other 
     Administrative regulation, directive, or policy. This section 
     shall take effect one day after the date of this bill's 
     enactment.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I believe we can move expeditiously 
along on this debate. Might I inquire from the Presiding Officer the 
amount of time we have to debate this amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland has 7\1/2\ minutes, 
and the Senator from Wyoming has 7\1/2\ minutes.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, my amendment is the original amendment that I had 
pending this morning. It seeks to maintain the integrity of the civil 
service system by making sure that civil service is never subjected to 
bounty hunters looking to get rid of their jobs through arbitrary and 
capricious targets and quotas. It makes sure that the civil service 
never lapses into cronyism or political patronage.
  My amendment prevents Federal agencies from establishing or applying 
arbitrary targets or quotas for the contracting out of Federal jobs.
  I want to be clear that my amendment does not prohibit privatization. 
Privatization can continue to go forth as established by Congress in 
the FAIR Act of 1998. It allows contracting out. I don't object to 
that. What I object to is targets, quotas, and bounty hunters. Firstly, 
this is the smallest Federal workforce since the 1960s. Next, we are at 
war. We are fighting a war against terrorism. We also created a new 
agency called Homeland Security. Lastly, we are facing the largest 
number of potential retirees from civil service in over 30 years.

[[Page S1424]]

  Don't we want a civil service? I am proud of the civil service. 
Members of my family have been part of the Federal civil service. My 
brother-in-law was a librarian, I have a sister who was a secretary, 
and I am a Senator. I believe if we are going to recruit and retain the 
people we need, we need to make sure we do not embark upon this 
arbitrary, capricious, hostile, and predatory behavior. That is not the 
way to govern. That is not the way to inspire. That is not the way to 
recruit, and it is certainly not the way to retain.
  It is not that Barbara Mikulski is opposed to this; Federal managers 
are opposed to this amendment. They are concerned that they are going 
to be writing lots of justifications on how to retain jobs. They want 
to fight for America. They want to fight for or perform the missions of 
their agencies. We went from an era of patronage politics. Now we are 
embroiled in an atmosphere of partisan politics. I wish we could get 
back to performance-based politics, sound civil service, good reform, 
some of the ideas being proposed by the other side of the aisle, 
looking at what should be contracted out, which would maintain the 
mission of the agency, give value to the taxpayer but dignity to the 
Federal employee.
  So what is wrong with that? I will tell you why the amendment is 
being opposed. What we want to be able to do is allow the privatization 
to occur under the laws that now exist.
  The FAIR Act of 1998 and the 76-OMB circular that was established in 
the 1960s in the Kennedy-Johnson era is what I want.
  My amendment simply prohibits the arbitrary and capricious 
contracting out by saying:

       None of the funds made available in this act may be used by 
     an executive agency to establish, apply, or enforce numerical 
     targets or quotas.

  That is all it says.
  If you are for quotas, vote for this. If you are for targets, vote 
for this. If you are for arbitrary and capricious decisionmaking, go 
ahead and do it. Who is going to hire these people? Are we going to 
create new corporations?
  What about all those guys who worked for Enron? Maybe they could get 
into ``let's hire a public employee and privatize.'' And all the guys 
from WorldCom, maybe when they get out on parole they could start a new 
agency to pick up these Federal employees.
  I do not know for the life of me why we are so hostile to Federal 
employees. We have less of a workforce now, and we are asking them to 
fight for America; we are asking them to work for missions, the 
agencies. We took away their privileges in homeland security, and now 
we are going to take away their jobs.
  Mr. REID. I ask to be made a cosponsor.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator from Nevada for asking to be a 
cosponsor. I reserve such time as I may have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President I remind my colleagues that the amendment 
this body just agreed to contains word for word the amendment of the 
Senator from Maryland. However, it goes on to explain that as we go 
through the 76 process; it is not the quotas that matter. That is what 
gives some guidance to management. What you have to do is study the 
issue and make sure that is the appropriate place.
  It seems to me we ought to be looking a little bit ahead instead of 
being defensive about big Government and everyone working in the big 
Government. We all like Government. We like the employees. They do a 
good job. The point is, do you want an efficient Government or one that 
continues to grow and pays no attention to efficiency and has no 
competition? What we are talking about is a bill that was passed in 
1998 which said we are going to list those functions within the Federal 
Government that are not specifically governmental, that could be done 
outside the Government, and compete.
  I cannot imagine what is wrong with the idea of having competition, 
what is wrong with the idea of being more efficient. They are still 
jobs. We are not taking away jobs. They may be moving to the private 
sector where they can compete and do that particular function of 
Government more efficiently.
  The idea that we just sit here and defend civil service because they 
are working--it disturbs me when we talk about secretaries. This does 
not have anything to do with secretaries. This has to do with those 
functions in Government that can be done by contracting with the 
private sector. There are a lot of those functions, and there are a lot 
of those functions that are already in place.
  We need to go ahead with what we have done. I suppose it is somewhat 
philosophical: If you do not like the private sector, if you do not 
like competition or like to create opportunities for people to compete, 
then I suppose that is the way you feel.
  There are a number of reasons to oppose the amendment.
  The administration worked at this compromise. The administration and 
OMB said they are going to suggest to the President that if this 
provision passes, that the bill be vetoed. Senior advisers are 
recommending the President veto any legislation that challenges a 
management agenda to be more efficient.
  By the way, before this appropriations bill was passed, this 
amendment was taken out. It was in there, and it was defeated last 
year. This is not the first time we have dealt with this issue, and 
each time it has been defeated because most of us think competition is 
a good idea. Most of us think efficiency is a good idea. Most of us 
think we ought to keep Government as small as we can and get the job 
done that way.
  Therefore, I urge we defeat this amendment that is before us and 
continue to move ahead with the opportunity for the Federal Government 
to carry out a plan of more efficiency and a plan that passed in the 
Congress to do that.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Is the Senator yielding back all his time?
  Mr. THOMAS. I am yielding back.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Excuse me?
  Mr. THOMAS. I yield back my time. I am sorry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator wish to be recognized?
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland has 2 minutes 28 
seconds. The Senator from Wyoming has 4 minutes 44 seconds.
  The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Mikulski 
amendment. As we focus on this after having previously accepted the 
amendment of the Senator from Wyoming, let me share with my colleagues 
the views of people who would be affected by this in the private 
sector.
  The Information Technology Association of America recognizes that as 
a result of this amendment, rather than promote competition and better 
management of the Federal Government, the Bush administration would 
face restrictions. There are many companies in the ITAA. There are 
large companies, some small startups, as well as industry leaders in 
software and the Internet. All of these companies would be denied 
opportunities or hampered by this amendment and therefore urge us to 
vote no.
  Other associations, such as the Northern Virginia Technology Council, 
which consists of 1,600 members and 180,000 employees, urge us to vote 
no as well. Bobbie Kilberg, the president, says this amendment would 
significantly limit private sector involvement and discourage 
competition vital to the technology community.
  The Contract Services Association of America, an industry 
representative for private sector companies that provide services to 
the Federal, State, and local governments--they include small 
disadvantaged businesses, Native American-owned businesses, section 
8(a)-certified companies--wants to have those folks working for the 
public good.
  The Professional Services Council recognizes that we want to hold the 
executive branch responsible for efficient management of services and 
looks at this amendment as one that would harm the ability of the 
administration to do so.
  The Chamber of Commerce of the United States looks at this issue in a 
way with which I agree, and that is, that this is the time to create 
more efficient and effective partnerships between the public and 
private sectors, not to restrict policies that limit funding or 
flexibility in sourcing and decisionmaking processes.

[[Page S1425]]

  We talk about homeland security. It is very important. Many wonderful 
public servants will be involved in homeland security, but what is 
really going to help homeland security is the adaptation, the 
utilization of technologies from enterprise services that allow them to 
analyze the volumes of information, share it within those agencies, 
also with other agencies in a secure way, and with State and local 
governments.
  It is important that in this time when we are worrying about the cost 
of Government and worrying about the taxpayers, we should not be 
limiting the ability of our Government to respond to changing economic 
and security needs of the American people.
  While I understand the heartfelt sincerity of the Senator from 
Maryland, I think there are a lot of people we need to be worried 
about, and let's make sure we are providing the very best of services 
to the people of this country.
  Competition has always been good. It has made it better. Let's adapt, 
let's innovate, and let's move forward in a principled way. I ask my 
colleagues to defeat this amendment. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. I guess we are going to use this time. I might as well 
join in.
  I want to read a part of a communication from OMB:

       Now is the wrong time to short-circuit implementation of 
     the common sense principle of competition--a proven 
     prescription for reaping significant cost savings and 
     performance enhancements--especially since numerous agencies 
     are starting to make real progress. The principle of 
     competition was unanimously adopted by the recent 
     congressionally-mandated Commercial Activities Panel. 
     Prohibiting the funding for public-private competitions is 
     akin to mandating a monopoly regardless of the impact on 
     services to citizens and the added costs to taxpayers. If the 
     final version of the bill would contain such a provision--

  Talking about this amendment--

     the President's senior advisers would recommend that he veto 
     the bill.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time controlled by the Senator from 
Wyoming has expired.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today in support of an amendment 
offered by Senator Mikulski regarding the use of quotas in contracting 
out Government jobs. The administration has put forth proposals 
requiring that a specified number of jobs usually performed by Federal 
employees be contracted out to private companies each year. Senator 
Mikulski's amendment would prevent any of the funding in the omnibus 
appropriations bill to be used in the enforcement of these quotas.
  The administration states that this is an issue of efficiency. I 
disagree. There is no evidence that contracting out Federal Government 
jobs saves the Government time or money. In fact, the opposite is often 
true, the Federal Government is overcharged for less efficient work by 
private companies, work that could be done more efficiently and more 
effectively by Federal employees. Too often, jobs are simply contracted 
out without a proper public-private competition, and without continued 
monitoring of whether any cost savings actually results. Furthermore, 
by requiring that a set number of Federal jobs be contracted out each 
year, the jobs may be contracted out without any regard to cost 
savings.
  In addition, national security is now of vital importance to our 
Nation. We must take a close look at the implications of contracting 
out to ensure that our national interests are being protected. We need 
Federal employees to do these jobs, jobs that are not suited to the 
private sector. Indeed, Federal employees are now screening baggage at 
our Nation's airports, one of the most vital roles in this 
unprecedented time. Requiring that a certain number of Federal jobs be 
contracted out each year could result in the contracting out of jobs 
vital to our national security.
  I firmly believe that the United States Government should not 
contract out jobs merely for the sake of ``reducing'' the Federal 
workforce. Nor should we show a preference to contract employees over 
our dedicated public servants who have demonstrated such determination 
and commitment in this difficult time. I urge my colleagues to support 
Senator Mikulski's amendment and oppose the use of quotas in the 
contracting out of jobs already ably performed by our Federal 
employees.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support Senator Mikulski's 
amendment to prohibit arbitrary, ``one-size-fits-all'' privatization 
quotas for Federal agencies. Under the amendment, agencies would still 
be able to compete, convert, and contract out Federal activities, but 
on a case-by-case basis, with the goal of maximizing quality and cost-
efficiency.
  Under the OMB quotas, Federal departments and agencies are encouraged 
to privatize five percent of their jobs now, and 50 percent by next 
year. The administration's current policy will lead to the 
privatization of 850,000 jobs, nearly half the Federal workforce.
  Fair competition and contracting out can be effective when used in 
the right way. But, this quota system imposes a blanket mandate on all 
Federal agencies, without taking into account individual agency needs. 
Agencies are not all alike. It may be appropriate to contract out the 
construction of military equipment or the mowing the lawn. But, many 
Americans will have serious concerns about contracting out the food 
inspections conducted by the Department of Agriculture, or the tax 
audits performed by the Internal Revenue Service. It makes no sense to 
impose the same privatization policy on every agency.
  The Government has a responsibility to provide its services 
efficiently and effectively and with accountability. Under the 
administration's quota system, a broad range of sensitive and critical 
activities could be privatized without accountability, including some 
that could put our national security at risk. Those who safeguard our 
borders and those who repair our planes, ships, and tanks should be 
held accountable for their work.
  Despite the growing reliance on private contractors, Federal agencies 
today do not have a method in place to hold contractors accountable. 
Many of us have deep concerns about privatizing so much of the Federal 
workforce in the absence of reliable and comprehensive measures to 
determine the quality of the tens of billions of dollars of work 
performed by private contractors. There are no mechanisms to track the 
quality of service contracting. Some agencies served by contractors 
today do not even know which services are being provided by 
contractors.
  In addition, privatization under the administration's current quota 
system can occur without competition. Many Federal jobs will be lost, 
with no opportunity for the Federal employees to compete and 
demonstrate their efficiency. Currently, when Federal jobs are opened 
to competition, Federal workers are hired more than half the time. It 
makes no sense to privatize work that Federal workers can do more 
efficiently. The administration's proposal gives an unacceptable 
preference for private contractors over public workers.
  The administration's proposal will reduce the standard of living for 
large numbers of Federal workers, since contractors have incentives to 
reduce costs by offering inferior compensation. According to the 
Economic Policy Institute, one in ten contractor employees earns less 
than a living wage. When work is privatized, displaced Federal workers 
are likely to lose their health benefits and their security for the 
future.
  Several groups have voiced their opposition to the administration's 
plan. The Federal Managers Association, which represents the 
executives, managers, and supervisors in the Federal government, has 
stated its support for the Mikulski amendment. As the association 
states, the amendment will ``provide Federal agencies and departments 
with the ability to use competition to truly benefit the American 
people and not require competition for the sake of fulfilling quotas.'' 
Even the Commercial Activities Panel, comprised largely of contractors, 
opposes the privatization plan because it believes that such decisions 
require informed judgements and analyses that consider the specific 
needs of each agency.
  The Mikulski amendment will preserve the high standards which make 
Government responsive to the needs of our citizens, and I urge the 
Senate to support it.

[[Page S1426]]

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I strongly support the amendment offered by 
Senator Mikulski that would prevent Federal agencies from establishing, 
applying, or enforcing any numerical goal, target, or quota for the 
contracting out of Federal jobs. The Mikulski amendment is identical to 
language that passed the House by a large, bipartisan margin and was 
included in the House fiscal year 2003 Treasury appropriations.
  I was very troubled by the Office of Management and Budget's 
directive to contract out 850,000 jobs over the next 3 years. I was 
concerned because the OMB privatization quotas encourage agencies to 
privatize Federal employee jobs without public-private competition, 
which is unfair both to the affected employees as well as the 
taxpayers. In fact the OMB quotas force agencies to privatize Federal 
employee jobs that even Federal managers believe should continue to be 
performed by reliable Federal employees.
  Senator Mikulski's amendment is reasonable and fair. It allows for 
the contracting out of Federal employee jobs, but it prevents jobs from 
arbitrarily being privatized. Instead it will ensure that thoughtful 
criteria are established before Federal employee jobs are given away. 
This is an issue of fundamental fairness, and about establishing a fair 
and reasonable process.
  I strongly support Senator Mikulski's amendment and I urge my 
colleagues to vote for it.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I want to make a few quick points. 
First, my amendment, word for word, was voted for in the House of 
Representatives. I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle and 
to my very good friend, the Senator from Virginia, that this amendment 
was offered by two Congressmen from Virginia, Moran and Wolf. This 
amendment passed the House 261 to 166. Tom Davis, Jo Ann Davis, and 
Frank Wolf voted for this. I might also note that the Presiding Officer 
voted for it when he was in the House. So it had bipartisan support.
  I wish we had that bipartisan support. I wish the people who voted 
for it in the House would vote for it now that they are in the Senate. 
That is No. 1.
  No. 2, who would be contracted out? OMB has told the agencies, 
127,500 people by the end of 2003. They are going to go for the largest 
numbers in the quickest way. It is going to be clerical. It is going to 
be support. It is going to be the mail. It is going to have a 
tremendous impact on people of color who have worked their way into 
Federal civil service.
  If one reads the Federal Managers Magazine, they have said the VA has 
said it is going to have a tremendous impact, they fear, on their 
diversity. The same has also been said by other agencies.
  Again, I am not looking for quotas in diversity anymore than I am 
looking for quotas in contracting out, but I want us to know who is 
going to be affected. It is not going to be that high-tech software 
engineer.
  I believe that just as the Northern Virginia High Tech Council has 
offered great ideas and ingenuity through their members, so has 
Maryland. We understand that.
  Let's look at NIH. Let's look at FDA. Who is going to be contracted 
out there? Is it really going to be the Nobel prize winner? No. It is 
going to be a lot of folks who do the thankless day to day work who are 
going to be contracted out.
  Now, my colleagues also need to know, I fear for national security. 
In many of these agencies, it is going to be the blue-collar jobs, such 
as the electricians, the people who are the facility managers, and 
others.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Maryland has 
expired.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Vote yes on Mikulski.
  Mr. REID. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.
  Mr. REID. 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 amendment No. 247. 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 Massachusetts, 
(Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 26 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

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

                                NAYS--50

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kerry
  The amendment (No. 247) was rejected.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the underlying amendment is 
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. Mr. President, I wish to present to the Senate a series 
of amendments that have been modified since they have been introduced. 
After that, the Senator from New Jersey has an amendment to offer on 
which there will be a 15-minute time limitation equally divided. I ask 
unanimous consent that there be 15 minutes equally divided on the 
amendment of the Senator from New Jersey with no other amendments in 
order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. After the Senator's amendment is presented, we will have 
a vote in relation to that. I will probably move to table it. We, then, 
will have a series of amendments from the agriculture subcommittee and 
from the interior subcommittee that have been worked out. Following 
that, Senator Stabenow wishes to offer a sense-of-the-Senate resolution 
and speak briefly.
  We will then go to third reading. We have, I believe, two Members who 
wish to speak briefly before third reading. If Senators will stay with 
us, we will probably have about 45 minutes to an hour of time ahead of 
us.
  Does the Senator from Nevada have any comment about that?
  Mr. REID. No. On our side, prior to third reading, we have Senator 
Stabenow who wants to make a brief statement on her sense-of-the-Senate 
amendment. And Senator Dayton is going to ask for up to 5 minutes 
before final passage.
  Mr. STEVENS. I think I misspoke. I think Senator Stabenow wishes to 
have a sense-of-the-Senate regarding conferees. Am I correct?
  Ms. STABENOW. That is correct.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, if the Senator from Alaska will yield, 
I think there is an understanding that I am going to modify the 
amendment I have at the desk.
  Mr. STEVENS. I have not said that. The Senator has that right. But I 
am offering modified amendments before we take up the Senator's 
amendment.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the manager.

[[Page S1427]]

Amendments Nos. 6, 83, 85, 131, 136, 144, 156, 172, 150, 199, 186, 142, 
                178, 57, 167, 166, and 188, As Modified

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I now offer a series of amendments, and 
after I name them I will ask that they be considered en bloc: Amendment 
No. 112 offered by Senator Bunning and Senator Santorum--these are 
modifications at the desk that have been cleared on both sides--
amendment No. 6 by Senator Coleman; amendment No. 83 by Senator Reid; 
amendment No. 85 by Senator Reid; amendment No. 131 by Senators Harkin, 
Durbin, and Landrieu; amendment No. 136 by Senator Mikulski and others; 
amendment No. 144 by Senator Santorum; amendment No. 156 by Senator 
Domenici; amendment No. 172 by Senators Landrieu and Snowe; amendment 
No. 150 by Senator Murkowski and myself; amendment No. 199 by Senators 
Durbin and Hutchison; amendment No. 186, which is a sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution by Senator Bond; amendment No. 142 by Senator Reid; 
amendment No. 178 by Senator Nelson of Florida; amendment No. 57 by 
Senator McCain--that is the Korea sense-of-the-Senate resolution--
amendment No. 167 by Senator Byrd; amendment No. 166 by Senator Byrd--
that is the China commission--and amendment No. 188 by Senator Dodd.
  To my knowledge, we have no objections to any of those.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, 112 has not been cleared on this side.
  Mr. STEVENS. No. 112 was cleared. We showed that to you. It was the 
one modified by your subcommittee.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I think the Korea resolution sense of the 
Senate was in that list that the chairman read.
  Mr. STEVENS. It was.
  Mr. KYL. I wanted to speak for 5 minutes on that.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator make the statement after we adopt this 
package?
  Mr. KYL. Sure.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, could I just ask----
  Mr. STEVENS. I still have the floor, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has the floor.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Not wishing to object, I ask if any disposition has 
been made on amendment 126.
  Mr. STEVENS. We have not been able to clear that one yet. It is not 
in this package. We have another series in a package. There is another 
package coming later.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I will wait for the remaining package. If not, I will 
ask for a vote on it.
  Mr. STEVENS. We will confer with the Senator.
  I now ask unanimous consent that the series of amendments that I have 
referred to be modified in accordance with the submissions that are at 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, what is the consent request?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a unanimous consent request that the 
amendments as presented at the desk be agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Modified in accordance with the way we presented them to 
the desk. I, first, want to modify them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent they be 
considered en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, before they are agreed to, I have to work 
out a situation on amendment No. 112.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask, then, that No. 112 be taken out of this package.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. It will be at the desk, and we will consider it later.
  I ask unanimous consent that these amendments be considered en bloc 
and agreed to en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to en bloc, as follows:


                      amendment no. 6, as modified

(Purpose: To increase funding for the Paul and Sheila Wellstone Center 
                        for Community Building)

       On page 928, line 24, strike ``$3,000,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$5,000,000''.


                     amendment no. 83, as modified

       Sec.  . Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     National Nuclear Security Administration is prohibited from 
     taking any actions adversely affecting employment at its 
     Nevada Operations Office for a period of not less than 365 
     days.


                     amendment no. 85, as modified

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec.  . The Secretary of the Interior, and the heads of the 
     other participating Federal agencies, may participate in the 
     CALFED Bay-Delta Authority established by the California Bay-
     Delta Act (2002 Cal. Stat. Chap. 812), to the extent not 
     inconsistent with other law. The Secretary of the Interior, 
     in carrying out CALFED activities, may undertake feasibility 
     studies for Sites Reservoir, Los Vaqueros Enlargement, In-
     Delta Storage, and Upper San Joaquin Storage projects. These 
     storage studies should be pursued along with on-going 
     environmental and other projects in a balanced manner.


                     amendment no. 131 as modified

(Purpose: To increase appropriations for the Legal Services Corporation 
 by $19,000,000 to ensure that no service area (including a merged or 
   reconfigured service area) receives less funding under the Legal 
 Services Corporation Act for fiscal year 2003 than the area received 
 for fiscal year 2002, due to use of data from the 2000 Census, and to 
   offset the increased appropriations by reducing funds for travel, 
                    supplies, and printing expenses)

       On page 170, line 1, strike ``$329,397,000,'' and insert 
     ``$348,397,000, of which $19,000,000 (referred to in this 
     title as the `supplemental legal assistance amount') is to 
     provide supplemental funding for basic field programs, and 
     related administration, to ensure that no service area 
     (including a merged or reconfigured service area) receives 
     less funding under the Legal Services Corporation Act for 
     fiscal year 2003 than the area received for fiscal year 2002, 
     due to use of data from the 2000 Census, and''.
       On page 111, line 25, strike ``$50,000,000,'' and insert 
     $31,000,000.''


                     amendment no. 136 as modified

     (Purpose: To increase funding for certain nursing programs as 
 authorized under the Nurse Reinvestment Act, and increase funding for 
             International Mother and Child HIV Prevention)

       At the appropriate place in title II of division G, insert 
     the following:
       Sec.   . (a) In General.--In addition to amounts otherwise 
     appropriated under this Act to carry out programs and 
     activities under title VIII of the Public Health Service Act, 
     there are appropriated an additional $20,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended, to carry out programs and 
     activities authorized under sections 831, 846, 846A, 851, 
     852, and 855 of such Act (as amended by the Nurse 
     Reinvestment Act (Public Law 107-205)).
       On page 571, line 24, strike ``$4,302,749,000'' and insert 
     ``$4,317,749,000'' in lieu thereof.
       On page 572, line 1, strike ``$168,763,000'' and insert 
     ``$183,763,000'' in lieu thereof.
       On page 572, line 18 after the colon, insert the following: 
     ``Provided further, That of the amounts provided herein for 
     international HIV/AIDS, $40,000,000 shall be for the 
     International Mother and Child HIV Prevention Initiative.''.
       On page 640, increase the amount on line 2 by $35,000,000.


                     amendment no. 144 as modified

 (Purpose: To make funds available for the treatment and prevention of 
             HIV/AIDS include family preservation efforts)

       On page 311, line 7, before the period at the end insert 
     the following: ``Provided further, That the funds under this 
     heading that are available for the treatment and prevention 
     of HIV/AIDS should also include programs and activities that 
     are designed to maintain and preserve the families of those 
     persons afflicted with HIV/AIDS and to reduce the numbers of 
     orphans created by HIV/AIDS''


                     amendment no. 156 as modified

 (Purpose: To clarify the use of funding under the National Fire Plan)

       On page 489, line 8, after ``Service;'' add the following 
     new proviso: Provided further, That funds for hazardous fuel 
     treatment under this heading may be used for the County 
     Partnership Restoration Program for forest restoration on the 
     Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest in Arizona, the Lincoln 
     National Forest in New Mexico, and the Grand Mesa, 
     Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest in Colorado;''


                     AMENDMENT NO. 172 AS MODIFIED

   (Purpose: To provide for the protection of the rights of women in 
  Afghanistan, and to improve the conditions for women in Afghanistan)

       On page 397, line 12, delete all after ``fund'','' through 
     ``opportunities'' on line 17, and insert in lieu thereof:
       , not less than $8,000,000 may be made available for 
     programs to support women's development in Afghanistan, 
     including girl's and women's education, health, legal and 
     social rights, economic opportunities, and political 
     participation: Provided further, That of the funds provided 
     in the previous proviso, $5,000,000 may be made available to 
     support

[[Page S1428]]

     activities directed by the Afghan Ministry of Women's Affairs 
     including the establishment of women's resource centers in 
     Afghanistan, and not less than $1,500,000 should be made 
     available to support activities of the National Human Rights 
     Commission of Afghanistan: Provided further, That one year 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     State shall submit a report to the appropriate congressional 
     committees that details women's development programs in 
     Afghanistan supported by the United States Government, and 
     barriers that impede women's development in Afghanistan.


                     AMENDMENT NO. 199 AS MODIFIED

       On page 257, strike lines 9 through 15 and insert the 
     following in lieu thereof:
       ``None of the funds contained in this Act may be made 
     available to pay:
       (a) the fees of an attorney who represents a party in an 
     action or an attorney who defends any action, including an 
     administrative proceeding, brought against the District of 
     Columbia Public Schools under the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) in excess 
     of $4,000 for that action; or
       (b) the fees of an attorney or firm whom the Chief 
     Financial Officer of the District of Columbia determines to 
     have a pecuniary interest, either through an attorney, 
     officer or employee of the firm, in any special education 
     diagnostic services, schools, or other special education 
     service providers.''


                     AMENDMENT NO. 150 AS MODIFIED

       Sec.  . The document entitled ``Final Environmental Impact 
     Statement for the Renewal of the Federal Grant for the Trans-
     Alaska Pipeline System Right-of-Way (FEIS)'' dated November 
     2002, shall be deemed sufficient to meet the requirements of 
     section 102(2)(C) of the National environmental Policy Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)) with respect to the determination 
     contained in the Record of Decision dated January 8, 2003 
     relating to the renewal of the Federal right-of-way for the 
     Trans-Alaska Pipeline and related facilities.


                     amendment no. 186, as modified

 (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds by the United States Fish and 
     Wildlife Service to impose on the Corps of Engineers certain 
              requirements relating to the Missouri River)

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

     SEC. 1----. MISSOURI RIVER.

       None of the funds made available by this Act may be used by 
     the United States Fish and Wildlife Service--
       (1) to require the Corps of Engineers to implement a steady 
     release flow schedule for the Missouri River; or
       It is the sense of the Congress that the member States and 
     Tribes of the Missouri River Basin Association are strongly 
     encouraged to reach agreement on a flow schedule for the 
     Missouri River as soon as practicable for 2003.


                     amendment no. 142, as modified

    (Purpose: To protect, restore, and enhance fish, wildlife, and 
            associated habitats of certain lakes and rivers)

       On page 80, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:

     SEC. 7----. RESTORATION OF FISH, WILDLIFE, AND ASSOCIATED 
                   HABITATS IN WATERSHEDS OF CERTAIN LAKES.

       (a) In General.--In carrying out section 2507 of Public Law 
     107-171, the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the 
     Commissioner of Reclamation, shall--
       (1) subject to paragraph (3), provide water and assistance 
     under that section only for the Pyramid, Summit, and Walker 
     Lakes in the State of Nevada;
       (2) use $1,000,000 for the creation of a fish hatchery at 
     Walker Lake to benefit the Walker River Paiute Tribe; and

       (3) use $2,000,000 to provide grants, to be divided 
     equally, to the State of Nevada, the State of California, the 
     Truckee Meadows Water Authority, and the Pyramid Lake Paiute 
     Tribe, to implement the Truckee River settlement Act, P.L. 
     101-618.
       (c) Administration.--The Secretary of the Interior, acting 
     through the Commissioner of Reclamation, may provide 
     financial assistance to State and local public agencies, 
     Indian tribes, nonprofit organizations, and individuals to 
     carry out this section and section 2507 of Public Law 107-
     171.


                     amendment no. 178, as modified

   (Purpose: To make additional appropriations for emergency relief 
                              activities)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec.    . In addition to amounts appropriated by this Act 
     under the heading ``Public Law 480 Title II Grants'', there 
     is appropriated, out of funds in the Treasury not otherwise 
     appropriated, $500,000,000 for assistance for emergency 
     relief activities: Provided, That the amount appropriated 
     under this section shall remain available through September 
     30, 2004.


                      AMENDMENT NO. 57 AS MODIFIED

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate with respect to North 
                                 Korea)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. SENSE OF THE SENATE WITH RESPECT TO NORTH KOREA.

       It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) North Korea has violated the basic terms of the Agreed 
     Framework Between the United States of America and the 
     Democratic People's Republic of Korea, signed in Geneva on 
     October 21, 1994 (and the Confidential Minute to that 
     agreement), and the North-South Joint Declaration on the 
     Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula by pursuing the 
     enrichment of uranium for the purpose of building a nuclear 
     weapon and by ``nuclearizing'' the Korean peninsula;
       (2) North Korea has announced its intention to restart the 
     5-megawatt reactor and related reprocessing facility at 
     Yongbyon, which were frozen under the Agreed Framework, and 
     has expelled the International Atomic Energy Agency personnel 
     monitoring the freeze;
       (3) North Korea has announced its intention to withdraw 
     from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, 
     done at Washington, London, and Moscow on July 1, 1968 (21 
     UST 483);
       (4) the Agreed Framework is, as a result of North Korea's 
     own actions over several years and recent declaration, null 
     and void;
       (5) North Korea's pursuit and development of nuclear 
     weapons is of grave concern and represents a serious threat 
     to the security of the United States, its regional allies, 
     and friends;
       (6) North Korea must immediately come into compliance with 
     its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of 
     Nuclear Weapons and other commitments to the international 
     community;
       (7) any diplomatic solution to the North Korean crisis must 
     achieve the total dismantlement of North Korea's nuclear 
     weapons and nuclear production capability, including 
     effective and comprehensive verification requirements, on-
     site monitoring, and free access for the investigation of all 
     sites of concern;
       (8) the United States, in conjunction with the Republic of 
     Korea and other allies in the Pacific region, should take 
     measures to ensure the highest possible level of deterrence 
     and military readiness against the multiple threats that 
     North Korea poses;
       (9) since 1995, the United States has been the single 
     largest food donor to North Korea, providing $620,000,000 in 
     food aid assistance over that time;
       (10) North Korea does not allow full verification of the 
     use of food aid assistance, as shown by the failure of North 
     Korea to permit the World Food Program to introduce a system 
     of random access monitoring of such use in North Korea and 
     the failure of North Korea to provide the World Food Program 
     with a list of institutions through which World Food Program 
     food is provided to beneficiaries;
       (11) the failures described in paragraph (10) fall short of 
     humanitarian practice in emergency operations in other parts 
     of the world; and
       (12) North Korea should allow full verification of the use 
     of food aid assistance by--
       (A) providing the World Food Program with a list of 
     institutions through which World Food Program food is 
     provided to beneficiaries;
       (B) permitting the World Food Program to introduce a system 
     of random access monitoring in North Korea; and
       (C) providing access for the World Food Program in all 
     counties in North Korea.


                     amendment no. 167 as modified

  (Purpose: To modify the requirements relating to the allocation of 
            interest of the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund)

       At the appropriate place insert the following:

     SEC.    . TREATMENT OF ABANDONED MINE RECLAMATION FUND 
                   INTEREST.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, any interest credited to the fund established by section 
     401 of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 
     (30 U.S.C. 1231) shall be transferred to the Combined Fund 
     identified in section 402(h)(2) of such Act (30 U.S.C. 
     1232(h)(2)), up to such amount as is estimated by the 
     trustees of such Combined Fund to offset the amount of any 
     deficit in net assets in the Combined Fund. No transfers made 
     pursuant to this section shall exceed $24,000,000.
       (b) Prohibition on Other Transfers.--Except as provided in 
     subsection (a), no principal amounts in or credited to the 
     fund established by section 401 of the Surface Mining Control 
     and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1231) may be 
     transferred to the Combine Fund identified in section 
     402(h)(2) of such Act (30 U.S.C. 1232(h)(2)).
       (c) Limitation.--This section shall cease to have any force 
     and effect after September 30, 2004.


                     amendment no. 166, as modified

(Purpose: To rename the United States-China Security Review Commission 
as the United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission, and 
                          for other purposes)

       On page 713, strike line 23 and all that follows through 
     page 714, line 3, and insert the following:

     SEC. 209. UNITED STATES-CHINA ECONOMIC AND SECURITY REVIEW 
                   COMMISSION.

       (a) Appropriations.--There are appropriated, out of any 
     funds in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $1,800,000, 
     to remain available until expended, to the United States-
     China Economic and Security Review Commission.
       (b) Name Change.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1238 of the Floyd D. Spence 
     National Defense Authorization Act of 2001 (22 U.S.C. 7002) 
     is amended--
       (A) in the section heading by inserting ``ECONOMIC AND'' 
     before ``SECURITY'';

[[Page S1429]]

       (B) in subsection (a)--
       (i) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``Economic and'' before 
     ``Security''; and
       (ii) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``Economic and '' 
     before ``Security'';
       (C) in subsection (b)--
       (i) in the subsection heading, by inserting ``Economic 
     and'' before ``Security'';
       (ii) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``Economic and'' before 
     ``Security'';
       (iii) in paragraph (3)--
       (I) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting 
     ``Economic and'' before ``Security''; and
       (II) in subparagraph (H), by inserting ``Economic and'' 
     before ``Security''; and
       (iv) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``Economic and'' before 
     ``Security'' each place it appears; and
       (D) in subsection (e)--
       (i) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``Economic and'' before 
     ``Security'';
       (ii) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``Economic and'' before 
     ``Security'';
       (iii) in paragraph (3)--
       (I) in the first sentence, by inserting ``Economic and'' 
     before ``Security''; and
       (II) in the second sentence, by inserting ``Economic and'' 
     before ``Security'';
       (iv) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``Economic and'' before 
     ``Security''; and
       (v) in paragraph (6), by inserting ``Economic and'' before 
     ``Security'' each place it appears.
       (2) References.--Any reference in any Federal law, 
     Executive order, rule, regulation, or delegation of 
     authority, or any document of or relating to the United 
     States-China Economic and Security Review Commission shall be 
     deemed to refer to the United States-China Economic and 
     Security Review Commission.
       (c) Membership, Responsibilities, and Terms.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1238(b)(3) of the Floyd D. Spencer 
     National Defense Authorization Act of 2001 (22 U.S.C. 7002) 
     is amended--
       (A) by striking subparagraph (F) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(F) each appointing authority referred to under 
     subparagraphs (A) through (D) of this paragraph shall--
       ``(i) appoint 3 members to the Commission;
       ``(ii) make the appointments on a staggered term basis, 
     such that--
       ``(I) 1 appointment shall be for a term expiring on 
     December 31, 2003; and
       ``(II) 1 appointment shall be for a term expiring on 
     December 31, 2004; and
       ``(III) 1 appointment shall be for a term expiring on 
     December 31, 2005;
       ``(iii) make all subsequent appointments on an approximate 
     2-year term basis to expire on December 31 of the applicable 
     year; and
       ``(iv) make appointments not later than 30 days after the 
     date on which each new Congress convenes;''.
       (2) Responsibilities of the commission.--The U.S.-China 
     Commission shall focus on the following nine areas when 
     conducting its work during fiscal year 2003 and beyond:
       A. Proliferation practices.--The Commission shall analyze 
     and assess the Chinese role in the proliferation of weapons 
     of mass destruction and other weapons (including dual use 
     technologies) to terrorist-sponsoring states, and suggest 
     possible steps which the U.S. might take, including economic 
     sanctions, to encourage the Chinese to stop such practices;
       B. Economic reforms and united states economic transfers.--
     The Commission shall--analyze and assess the qualitative and 
     quantitative nature of the shift of United States production 
     activities to China, including the relocation of high-
     technology, manufacturing, and R&D facilities; the impact of 
     these transfers on United States national security, including 
     political influence by the Chinese Government over American 
     firms, dependence of the United States national security 
     industrial base on Chinese imports, the adequacy of United 
     States export control laws, and the effect of these transfers 
     on U.S. economic security, employment, and the standard of 
     living of the American people; analyze China's national 
     budget and assess China's fiscal strength to address internal 
     instability problems and assess the likelihood of 
     externalization of such problems;
       (C) Energy.--The Commission shall evaluate and assess how 
     China's large and growing economy will impact upon world 
     energy supplies and the role the U.S. can play, including 
     joint R&D efforts and technological assistance, in 
     influencing China's energy policy;
       (D) United states capital markets.--The Commission shall 
     evaluate the extent of Chinese access to, and use of, United 
     States capital markets, and whether the existing disclosure 
     and transparency rules are adequate to identify Chinese 
     companies which are active in United States markets and are 
     also engaged in proliferation activities;
       (E) Corporate reporting.--The Commissions shall assess 
     United States trade and investment relationship with China, 
     including the need for corporate reporting on United States 
     investments in China and incentives that China may be 
     offering to United States corporations to relocate production 
     and R&D to China.
       (F) Regional economic and security impacts.--The Commission 
     shall assess the extent of China's ``hollowing-out'' of Asian 
     manufacturing economies, and the impact on United States 
     economic and security interests in the region; review the 
     triangular economic and security relationship among the 
     United States, Taipei and Beijing, including Beijing's 
     military modernization and force deployments aimed at Taipei, 
     and the adequacy of United States executive branch 
     coordination and consultation with Congress on United States 
     arms sales and defense relationship with Taipei;
       (G) United states-china bilateral programs.--The Commission 
     shall assess science and technology programs to evaluate if 
     the United States is developing an adequate coordinating 
     mechanism with appropriate review by the intelligence 
     community and Congress; assess the degree of non-compliance 
     by China and United States-China agreements on prison labor 
     imports and intellectual property rights; evaluate U.S. 
     enforcement policies; and recommend what new measures the 
     United States Government might take to strengthen our laws 
     and enforcement activities and to encourage compliance by the 
     Chinese;
       (H) World trade organization compliance.--The Commission 
     shall review China's record of compliance to date with its 
     accession agreement to the WTO, and explore what incentives 
     and policy initiatives should be pursued to promote further 
     compliance by China;
       (I) Media control.--The Commission shall evaluate Chinese 
     government efforts to influence and control perceptions of 
     the United States and its policies through the internet, the 
     Chinese print and electronic media, and Chinese internal 
     propaganda.
       (3) Effective date.--This subsection shall take effect on 
     the date of enactment of this Act.


                     amendment no. 188, as modified

     (Purpose: To exempt Head Start programs from across the board 
                              rescissions)

       Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act, the 
     $6,667,533,000 provided for the Head Start Act shall be 
     exempt from the across-the-board rescission under Section 601 
     of Discussion.

  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, Senator Lautenberg has 5 minutes on his 
amendment on the Superfund.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the Senator wants to call up amendment 
No. 112 now, he can.
  Mr. STEVENS. Very well.


                     Amendment No. 112, As Modified

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 112.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 112, as modified.

  Mr. STEVENS. 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. 112 as modified

 (Purpose: The Secretary of HHS may make grants to purchase ultrasound 
                               equipment)

       At the end of the general provisions relating to the 
     Department of Health and Human Services, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. ____. GRANTS FOR PURCHASE OF ULTRASOUND EQUIPMENT.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     may make grants for the purchase of ultrasound equipment. 
     Such ultrasound equipment shall be used by the recipients of 
     such grants to provide, under the direction and supervision 
     of a licensed physician, free ultrasound examinations to 
     pregnant woman needing medical services: Provided, That: the 
     Secretary shall give priority in awarding grants to those 
     organizations that agree to adhere to professional guidelines 
     for counseling pregnant women. Whereby a pregnant woman is 
     fully informed in a non-biased manner about all options.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask for the immediate adoption of the 
modified amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment, as modified, 
is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 112), as modified, 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the manager.


                     Amendment No. 192, As Modified

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I call up my amendment, which is at 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 192.


[[Page S1430]]


  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment that 
is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we have 
not seen the modification.
  I remove that objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
  The amendment (No. 192), as modified, is as follows:


                     amendment no. 192 as modified

  (Purpose: To increase the appropriation for the Hazardous Substance 
                               Superfund)

       On page 982, strike lines 21 through 25 and insert the 
     following:

     per project; $1,372,888,000, to remain available until 
     expended, consisting of $736,444,000, as authorized by 
     section 517(a) of the Superfund Amendments and 
     Reauthorization Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-499; 100 Stat. 
     1613), and $636,444,000 as a payment from general

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized for 
7\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair.
  The authorization level under the Superfund law for this year is 
$11.5 billion. The bill before us provides $1.27 billion. Of that 
amount, 50 percent comes from the Superfund trust fund and the rest 
comes from general revenues.
  There is now about $120 million in unobligated funds left in the 
Superfund trust fund. My amendment takes $100 million of that and adds 
it to the $1.27 billion so that we can increase the number of 
contaminated sites we will be cleaning up, but also to give some 
encouragement to a group of highly trained professionals so they can 
look to a continuation of a career that has been devoted to getting 
these sites cleaned up.
  My amendment doesn't fully fund the program, but because the average 
cost of cleanup in a normal Superfund site is $12 million, this $100 
million could help protect eight more communities from contaminated 
ground water and toxic soil in their neighborhoods.
  From the beginning, an important principle of Superfund has been that 
those responsible for the contamination should pay for the cleanup. The 
polluters--not the general public--should pay.
  In keeping with this principle, my amendment draws only from the 
trust fund, not from general revenues.
  Unfortunately, it seems that some have lost sight of the ``polluter 
pays'' principle at the heart of the Superfund program.
  In the appropriations bill before us, taxpayers, not polluters, would 
pay for 50 percent of the cleanup program. This simply isn't fair to 
our Nation's taxpayers.
  But the ``polluter pays'' principle is fair. It has worked, and it 
should be preserved. Yet the tax on petroleum and chemical products--
the sources of contamination at most Superfund sites--has been allowed 
to lapse. We need to reauthorize the funding source and reinstate a 
dependable revenue stream for the program, but that is a debate for 
another day. In the interim, we have to do more with what we have.
  In the 4 years leading up to the year 2000, an average of 87 
Superfund were being cleaned up each year. Since then, the number has 
dropped by half: 42 sites cleaned up in 2001 and 47 sites cleaned up in 
2002. This isn't acceptable nor is it responsible.
  Adequate funding for Superfund is a very serious matter for the 
people of my home State of New Jersey. My State has 113 hazardous waste 
sites on the National Priority List (NPL)--more than any other State.
  But I would quickly point out this isn't simply an urban-State 
problem. The largest Superfund site in the country right now is in 
Coeur d'Alene, ID, one of the most beautiful States in our country. And 
yet there is this blight in their midst. And we see the same thing in 
Montana, another rural mountain State, so beautiful with nature's 
blessing.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Sure.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to thank the 
Senator from New Jersey and say how wonderful it is, for anyone who 
cares about the environment and of cleaning up the environment, to have 
him back.
  This is a very important amendment. Superfund sites are all over the 
country in almost every single State. They hurt our people. They are 
dangerous to our children. They have to be cleaned up.
  The Senator is right. Polluter pays is the way we ought to go with 
these funds. So I just wanted to rise to thank my friend.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California. 
We have worked diligently together to try to turn these Superfund sites 
from environmental and health hazards into productive properties for 
the affected communities.
  I yield to the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I commend the Senator for the amendment. 
It is a crime that we have not been utilizing the Superfund the way it 
should be utilized. The Senator is putting it back on track. I commend 
the Senator for his efforts.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. CORZINE. Will my colleague from New Jersey yield?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes. I yield to my colleague.
  Mr. CORZINE. I just want to reinforce and reemphasize how important 
this is in our State of New Jersey with the 113 sites. By the way, 
there is an increasing sense--scientific sense, data sense--that we are 
having a high incidence of cancer in areas that surround these sites.

  This is a health problem. It really is something that needs to be 
addressed. I think my colleague from New Jersey is doing exactly the 
right thing to bring this issue forward.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank my distinguished colleague.
  Mr. President, nationally, one in four Americans lives within 4 miles 
of an NPL site. That is unacceptable. Contaminated sites endanger our 
environment, they endanger our health, they endanger our economy.
  We have money in the trust fund. We should use it. We desperately 
need to clean up these sites and make them safe and productive again, 
especially for the sake of the communities that surround them. Having 
these blighted locations throughout our country is simply that; it is a 
plague on these communities. We ought to get on with transforming them 
from wastelands into industrial, commercial, and residential sites that 
benefit everybody.
  This amendment is cosponsored by several of my colleagues, including 
Senator Corzine, Senator Boxer, Senator Kennedy, Senator Biden, Senator 
Clinton, Senator Nelson of Florida, Senator Jeffords of Vermont, 
Senator Kerry, and Senator Schumer.
  Mr. President, I hope we will be able to use these funds for the 
purpose intended: cleaning up more Superfund sites faster in the coming 
year. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Lautenberg 
amendment. I look over and see both Senators from Louisiana here. I can 
assure you that money is not just the answer. I remember at Bossier 
City there was a site that the Federal Government was going to clean 
up. It was going to cost X dollars. I don't remember the exact amount, 
but I didn't know this amendment was going to come up. After we spent 
quite a bit of time, we found that the responsible parties were willing 
to do it under State supervision. All of the parishes agreed to it. All 
of the citizens, neighborhood groups, agreed to it. Yet they were still 
going to do it. We ended up forcing this through and cleaning it up for 
one-half the amount of money and in one-half of the time.
  We need to reform the Superfund system. I would argue with my good 
friend from Idaho, I think we have the largest Superfund problem in Tar 
Creek in the State of Oklahoma.
  I will not yield to my friend because I think I need my time.
  But I would say this: We have spent about $100 million on it over the 
last 15 years, and it has not resolved the problem. We want to reform 
the system. We need to reform the system. And, of course, there are no 
offsets. So I know that will mean something to some of the people.
  But let's go ahead, give our committee a chance, give Senator Chafee, 
whose subcommittee has the jurisdiction, a chance to go in here and do 
a better job rather than pouring money on a system that is not working 
today.

[[Page S1431]]

  Now I will yield----
  Mr. CRAIG. One minute.
  Mr. INHOFE. One minute to the Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. The superfund site in Coeur d'Alene, ID, that the Senator 
from New Jersey referred to, 3 years ago was touted to cost $1 billion 
to clean up. As a result of a cooperative State plan, in conjunction 
with EPA--the first unique plan of this kind, designed under a new 
State commission; and our new Director Whitman has signed off on it--
that same area can be cleaned up and meet all of the standards for less 
than $300 million over a 12-year to 15-year period.
  Now, $300 million versus $1 billion is a heck of a lot of money. 
Because of these new cooperative relationships and State plans--that 
past EPAs refused to negotiate and bring States into the process--but 
because we are now doing that, I agree with the Senator from Oklahoma, 
there is great opportunity for reform. You just don't throw money at 
these problems. You resolve them in new, creative ways, and still meet 
standards for clean water and clean air.
  Mr. INHOFE. I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Idaho 
because we do have two of those devastating sites.
  I yield whatever time I have to the Senator from Missouri.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, in addition to the arguments that the 
distinguished Senators from Oklahoma and Idaho made about the need to 
revise the Superfund law, let me simply point out that this amendment 
would add $100 million more to Superfund spending. You can call it 
coming from the Superfund trust fund, but it is still spending, and it 
still scores against the budget. It goes over the agreement that we had 
with the President.
  The current bill funds Superfund activities and cleanup at $1.273 
billion for fiscal year 2003. This is what the administration 
requested, and that is what is needed.
  The Superfund cleanups are adequately funded.
  Does my colleague from Oklahoma wish to add anything further?
  Mr. INHOFE. Yes. We are in the process of making some major changes. 
You heard from the Senator from Idaho the improvements that have been 
made there. And this is one of the main agenda items.
  So I urge the defeat of the Lautenberg amendment and yield to the 
Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will you give me 1 minute?
  Mr. INHOFE. Sure.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I want to tell the Senate, 10 years ago I made a speech 
downtown to 350 people. They were anxiously paying attention. I said: 
It is this year we are going to reform that crazy fund where we can't 
get anything done. The money is piling up and chemicals don't get 
cleaned up--the Superfund. I am looking to make sure I never go back to 
that group because it has been 10 years, and I don't want them to ask 
me what happened. Maybe it will happen next year.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I listened with interest to the 
comments of my colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time does 
the Senator from New Jersey have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey has 52 seconds 
remaining. The Senator from Oklahoma has 2 minutes 30 seconds.
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, no one would suggest that we shouldn't 
look for more efficient ways to do things with regard to the Superfund 
program. And there is always redress, unfortunately, to the court if 
one wants it. But the Superfund Program has been working: 87 sites a 
year, on average, were being cleaned up, up until the year 2000; over 
800 sites in all. That is pretty darn good. We learned how to do it. 
The program is working. To deprive it now is really not what ought to 
be happening. I am sure citizens across this country would agree with 
us: More money, more cleanups. That is what we want out of the 
Superfund Program.
  I yield back whatever time remains.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have to argue with my good friend from 
New Jersey. If he wants to use the Superfund Program as an example of a 
program that has been working, then we don't have any problems around 
here because it hasn't been working. We have been working on making 
major changes. We are going to make major changes.
  I yield back the time and move to table the Lautenberg amendment. 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.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) and the 
Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 27 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     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
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--45

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     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)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Harkin
     Inouye
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  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.


Amendments Nos. 10, 28, 47, 65, As Modified; 88, 110, 139, As Modified; 
             155, 201, 218, 151, 50, 34, 126, 158, En Bloc

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, if I may have the attention of the 
Senate, I have two more amendments that have been cleared. I will make 
a request after I recite the amendments.
  Amendment No. 10, Senator Nelson of Florida; amendment No. 28, 
Senator Kennedy; amendment No. 47, Senator Feinstein; amendment No. 65, 
as modified, Senator Kyl; amendment No. 88, Senator Warner; amendment 
No. 110, Senators Boxer and Feinstein; amendment No. 139, as modified, 
Senators Graham, Nelson, and Voinovich; amendment No. 155, Senator 
Domenici; amendment No. 201, Senator Feingold; amendment No. 218, 
Senator Hatch; amendment No. 151, Senator Murkowski and myself; 
amendment No. 50, Senator Sarbanes; amendment No. 34, Senator Craig; 
amendment No. 126, Senators Bingaman and Domenici; and amendment No. 
158, Senators Bingaman and Domenici.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these amendments be 
considered en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. STEVENS. Is that agreeable?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are 
considered en bloc.
  Mr. STEVENS. I urge they be adopted en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed 
to.
  The amendments were agreed to, en bloc, as follows:

[[Page S1432]]

                            AMENDMENT NO. 10

 (Purpose: To transfer the building at 5401 NW Broken Sound Boulevard, 
 Boca Raton, Florida and all improvements thereon to the Administrator 
                of the General Services Administration)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       (a) The Administrator of General Services shall accept all 
     right, title and interest in the property described in 
     subsection (b), if written offer therefore (accompanied by 
     such proof of title, property descriptions and other 
     information as the Administration may require) is received by 
     the Administrator from the owner of such property within 12 
     months after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) The property described in this subsection is the 
     property located at 5401 NW Broken Sound Boulevard, Boca 
     Raton, Florida and all improvements thereon.
       (c) The United States shall pay an amount that does not 
     exceed $1 in consideration of any right, title, or interest 
     received by the United States under this section.


                            amendment no. 28

(Purpose: To permit the National Park Service to rehabilitate historic 
buildings in the New Bedford Whaling National Historical Park that were 
                       severely damaged by fire)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Section XXX. Section 511(g)(2)(A) of the Omnibus Parks and 
     Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 
     410ddd(g)(2)(A)) is amended by striking ``$2,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$5,000,000''.


                            amendment no. 47

   (Purpose: To extend the expiration of the Herger-Feinstein Quincy 
                       Library Group Act of 1998)

       On page 486, line 9, insert the following:
       Sec.  . Congress reaffirms its original intent that the 
     Herger-Feinstein Qunicy Library Group Forest Recovery Act of 
     1998 be implemented, and hereby extends the expiration of the 
     Quincy Library Group Act by five years.


                     AMENDMENT NO. 65, AS MODIFIED

(Purpose: Fund rehabilitation on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest)

       On page 488, line 10, strike ``1,349,291,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,351,791,000.''
       On page 489, line 9, strike ``$3,624,000'' and insert 
     ``$6,124,000.''
       On page 489, line 10, following ``restoration,'' insert 
     ``of which $2,500,000 may be for rehabilitation and 
     restoration on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest.''
       On page 493, line 17, strike ``$148,263,000'', and insert 
     ``$145,763,000.''


                            amendment no. 88

  (Purpose: To clarify the boundaries of the Plum Island Unit of the 
                   Coastal Barrier Resources System)

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

     SEC. ____. REPLACEMENT OF COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM 
                   MAP.

       (a) In General.--The map described in subsection (b) is 
     replaced, in the maps depicting the Coastal Barrier Resources 
     System that are referred to in section 4(a) of the Coastal 
     Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(a)), by the map 
     entitled ``Plum Tree Island Unit VA-59P, Long Creek Unit VA-
     60/VA-60P'' and dated May 1, 2002.
       (b) Description of Replaced Map.--The map referred to in 
     subsection (a) is the map that--
       (1) relates to Plum Island Unit VA-59P and Long Creek Unit 
     VA-60/VA-60P located in Poquoson and Hampton, Virginia; and
       (2) is included in a set of maps entitled `Coastal Barrier 
     Resources System'', dated October 24, 1990, revised on 
     October 23, 1992, and referred to in section 4(a) of the 
     Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(a)).
       (c) Availability.--The Secretary of the Interior shall keep 
     the replacement map described in subsection (b) on file and 
     available for inspection in accordance with section 4(b) of 
     the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(b)).


                           amendment no. 110

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding prohibiting the 
  use of funds to approve any exploration, development, or production 
plan for, or application for a permit to drill on, land in the southern 
California planning area of the outer Continental Shelf that is subject 
                           to certain leases)

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

     SEC. ____. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 
                   OFFSHORE OIL LEASES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) there are 36 undeveloped oil leases on land in the 
     southern California planning area of the outer Continental 
     Shelf that--
       (A) have been under review by the Secretary of the Interior 
     for an extended period of time, including some leases that 
     have been under review for over 30 years; and
       (B) have not been approved for development under the Outer 
     Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.);
       (2) the oil companies that hold the 36 leases--
       (A) have expressed an interest in retiring the leases in 
     exchange for equitable compensation; and
       (B) are engaged in settlement negotiations with the 
     Secretary of the Interior for the retirement of the leases; 
     and
       (3) it would be a waste of the taxpayer's money to continue 
     the process for approval or permitting of the 36 leases while 
     the Secretary of the Interior and the lessees are negotiating 
     to retire the leases.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that no funds made available by this Act or any other Act for 
     any fiscal year should be used by the Secretary of the 
     Interior to approve any exploration, development, or 
     production plan for, or application for a permit to drill on, 
     the 36 undeveloped leases in the southern California planning 
     area of the outer Continental Shelf during any period in 
     which the lessees are engaged in settlement negotiations with 
     the Secretary of the Interior for the retirement of the 
     leases.


                           amendment no. 139

 (Purpose: To direct the Corps of Engineers to construct a portion of 
      the modified water delivery project in the State of Florida)

       On page 271, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:

     SEC. 1____. MODIFIED WATER DELIVERY PROJECT IN THE STATE OF 
                   FLORIDA.

       The Corps of Engineers, using funds made available for 
     modifications authorized by section 104 of the Everglades 
     National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989 (16 U.S.C. 
     410r-8), shall immediately carry out alternative 6D 
     (including paying 100 percent of the cost of acquiring land 
     or an interest in land) for the purpose of providing a flood 
     protection system for the 8.5 square mile area described in 
     the report entitled ``Central and South Florida Project, 
     Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park, 
     Florida, 8.5 Square Mile Area, General Reevaluation Report 
     and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement'' and 
     dated July 2000.


                           amendment no. 155

(Purpose: To extend certain authority relating to the Board of Trustees 
                      of the Valles Caldera Trust)

       On page 488, on line 2, strike the period after the word 
     ``accomplishment'' and insert the following:
       ``: Provided further, That within funds available for the 
     purpose of implementing the Valles Caldera Preservation Act, 
     notwithstanding the limitations of 107(d)(2) of the Valles 
     Caldera Preservation Act (Public Law 106-248), for fiscal 
     year 2003, the members of the Board of Trustees of the Valles 
     Caldera Trust may receive, upon request, compensation for 
     each day (including travel time) that they are engaged in the 
     performance of the functions of the Board, except that 
     compensation shall not exceed the daily equivalent of the 
     annual rate in effect for members of the Senior Executive 
     Service at the ES-1 level, and shall be in addition to any 
     reimbursement for travel, subsistence and other necessary 
     expenses incurred by them in the performance of their duties, 
     and except that Members of the Board who are officers or 
     employees of the United States shall not receive any 
     additional compensation by reason of service on the Board.''


                           amendment no. 201

   (Purpose: To require the release of a Department of the Interior 
              strategy to address chronic wasting disease)

       On page 450, line 2, strike ``restoration:'' and insert the 
     following:
       ``restoration; and with the funds provided in this title, 
     the Secretary shall release a plan for assisting states, 
     federal agencies and tribes in managing chronic wasting 
     disease in wild and captive cervids within 90 days of 
     enactment of this Act:''.


                           amendment no. 218

  (Purpose: To extend the availability of funds for the Four Corners 
                          Interpretive Center)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. 7(c) of PL 106-143 is amended by striking ``2001'', 
     and inserting 2004.


                           amendment no. 151

       At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following 
     new section:
       ``Sec. ____ Clarification of Alaska Native Settlement 
     Trusts.
       ``(A) Section ______ of P.L. __ (43 U.S.C. 1629b) is 
     amended:
       ``(1) at subsection (d)(1) by striking ``An'' and inserting 
     in its place ``Except as otherwise set forth in subsection 
     (d)(3) of this section, an'';
       ``(2) by creating the following new subsection:
       ``(d)(3) A resolution described in subsection (a)93) of 
     this section shall be considered to be approved by the 
     shareholders of a Native Corporation if it receives the 
     affirmative vote of shares representing--
       ``(A) a majority of the shares present or represented by 
     proxy at the meeting relating to such resolution, or ``(B) an 
     amount of shares greater than a majority of the shares 
     present or represented by proxy at the meeting relating to 
     such resolution (but not greater than two-thirds of the total 
     voting power of the corporation) if the corporation 
     establishes such a level by an amendment to its articles of 
     incorporation.'';
       ``(3) by creating the following new subsection:
       ``(f) Substantially all of the assets. For purposes of this 
     section and section 1629e of this title, a Native Corporation 
     shall be considered to be transferring all or substantially 
     all of its assets to a settlement Trust only if such assets 
     represent two-thirds or more of the fair market value of the 
     Native Corporation's total assets.

[[Page S1433]]

       ``(B) Section ______ of P.L. __ (43 U.S.C. 1629e) is 
     amended by striking subsection (B) and inserting in its place 
     the following:
       ``(B) shall give rise to dissenters rights to the extend 
     provided under the laws of the State only if:
       ``(i) the rights of beneficiaries in the settlement Trust 
     receiving a conveyance are inalienable; and ``(ii) a 
     shareholder vote on such transfer is required by (a)(4) of 
     section 1629b of this title.''


                            amendment no. 50

(Purpose: To direct the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife 
 Service to submit a report on avian mortality at communication towers)

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

     SEC. ____. REPORT ON AVIAN MORTAILITY AT COMMUNICATIONS 
                   TOWERS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Director of the United States Fish 
     and Wildlife Service, in cooperation with the Chairman of the 
     Federal Communications Commission and the Administrator of 
     the Federal Aviation Administration, shall submit to the 
     Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works, and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate a report on avian mortality at 
     communications towers in the United States.
       (b) Contents.--The report submitted under subsection (a) 
     shall include--
       (1) an estimate of the number of birds that collide with 
     communication towers;
       (2) a description of the causes of those collisions; and
       (3) recommendations on how to prevent those collisions.


                            amendment no. 34

  (Purpose: To modify the provision relating to the Bonneville Power 
                          Administration Fund)

       On page 286, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:
       For the purposes of providing funds to assist in financing 
     the construction, acquisition, and replacement of the 
     transmission system of the Bonneville Power Administration 
     and to implement the authority of the Administrator under the 
     Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 839 et seq.), an additional $700,000,000 in 
     borrowing authority is made available under the Federal 
     Columbia River Transmission System Act (16 U.S.C. 838 et 
     seq.), to remain outstanding at any time: Provided, That the 
     Bonneville Power Administration shall not use more than 
     $531,000,000 of its permanent borrowing authority in fiscal 
     year 2003.


                           amendment no. 126

     ``SEC.____. PERMANENT AUTHORITY TO OPERATE THE STRATEGIC 
                   PETROLEUM RESERVE AND OTHER ENERGY PROGRAMS.

       (a) Amendment to Title I of the Energy Policy and 
     Conservation Act.--Title I of the Energy Policy and 
     Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6211 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by striking section 166 (42 U.S.C. 6246) and 
     inserting--


                   ``authorization of appropriations

       ``Sec. 166. There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     secretary such sums was may be necessary to carry out this 
     part and part D, to remain available until expended.'';
       (2) by striking section 186 (42 U.S.C. 6250e); and
       (3) by striking part E (42 U.S.C. 6251; relating to the 
     expiration of title I of the Act).
       (b) Amendment to Title II of the Energy Policy and 
     Conservation Act.--Title II of the Energy Policy and 
     Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6271 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by striking section 256(h) (42 U.S.C. 6276(h)) and 
     inserting--
       ``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary such sums as 
     may be necessary to carry out this part, to remain available 
     until expended.'';
       (2) by inserting before section 273 (42 U.S.C. 6283) the 
     following:

          `` Part C--Summer Fill and Fuel Budgeting Programs''

       (3) by striking section 273(e) (42 U.S.C. 6283(e); relating 
     to the expiration of summer fill and fuel budgeting 
     programs); and
       (4) by striking part D (42 U.S.C. 6285; relating to the 
     expiration of title II of the Act).
       (c) Technical Amendments.--The table of contents for the 
     Energy Policy and Conservation Act is amended--
       (1) by amending the items relating to part D of title I to 
     read as follows:

              ``Part D--Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve

``Sec. 181. Establishment.
``Sec. 182. Authority.
``Sec. 183. Conditions for releas; plan.
``Sec. 184. Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve Account.
``Sec. 185. Exemptions.'';
       (2) by amending the items relating to part C of title II to 
     read as follows:

           ``Part C--Summer Fill and Fuel Budgeting Programs

``Sec. 273. Summer fill and fuel budgeting programs.''; and

       (3) by striking the items relating to part D of title II.
       (d) Section 183(b)(1) of the Energy Policy and Conservation 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 6250b(b)(1)) is amended by inserting 
     ``(considered as a heating season average)'' after ``mid-
     October through March''.
       (e) Full Capacity.--The President shall--
       (1) fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve established 
     pursuant to part B of title I of the Energy Policy and 
     Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6231 et seq.) to full capacity as 
     soon as practicable;
       (2) acquire petroleum for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
     by the most practicable and cost-effective means, including 
     the acquisition of crude oil the Untied States is entitled to 
     receive in kind as royalties from production on Federal 
     lands; and
       (3) ensure that the fill rate minimizes impact on petroleum 
     markets.
       (f) Recommendations.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall 
     submit to the Congress a plan to--
       (1) eliminate any infrastructure impediments that may limit 
     maximum drawdown capability; and
       (2) determine whether the capacity of the Strategic 
     Petroleum Reserve on the date of enactment of this section is 
     adequate in light of the increasing consumption of petroleum 
     and the reliance on imported petroleum.


                           amendment no. 158

  (The amendment is printed in the Record of Tuesday, January 21 under 
Text of Amendments.'')


                           amendment no. 158

  Mr. BINGAMAN: Mr. President, the amendment being offered jointly by 
the senior Senator from New Mexico and myself represents a consensus 
solution in New Mexico to a thorny land dispute in and around 
Albuquerque. The text of this amendment passed the Senate unanimously 
as part of a package of public land bills at the very end of the last 
Congress. Because of the urgency of resolving this dispute, we are 
offering this Senate-passed language on this bill. I thank my colleague 
from New Mexico and my colleagues in the Senate for their help in 
passing this amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


Amendments Nos. 33, 102, As Modified; 205, 236, 243, 135, As Modified; 
116, As Modified; 226, As Modified; 163, As Modified; 187, As Modified; 
                 62, As Modified; 238, and 129, En Bloc

  Mr. STEVENS. I have another list. I will similarly make a request 
that they be considered en bloc: Amendment No. 33, Senator Craig and 
Senator Durbin; amendment No. 102, Senator Leahy. It should be modified 
so that ``shall'' reads ``may.'' I ask for that modification now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendment is so modified.
  Mr. STEVENS. Amendment No. 205, Senator McConnell; amendment No. 236, 
Senator Harkin; amendment No. 243, Senator Edwards. Further, at the 
desk are modifications for amendment No. 135, Senator Talent; amendment 
No. 116, Senator Leahy; amendment No. 226, Senator Kohl; amendment No. 
163, Senator Fitzgerald and Senator Harkin. I ask that those amendments 
be so modified according to the items at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. On amendment No. 187, there is a substitute at the desk. 
On behalf of Senator Leahy, I ask that the substitute be considered as 
part of this package in lieu of the original version of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment will be so 
modified.
  Mr. STEVENS. Amendment No. 62, as modified, Senator McConnell; 
amendment No. 238, Senator Dodd; and amendment No. 129, Senator Kerry 
and Senator Snowe. Mr. President, amendment No. 62 is a modification. I 
did not read that. I ask that that original amendment be modified 
according to the papers that are at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these 
amendments be considered en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask that they be adopted en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to en bloc, as follows:

[[Page S1434]]

                            Amendment No. 33

(To clarify the rates applicable to marketing assistance loans and loan 
 deficiency payments for other oilseeds, dry peas, lentils, and small 
                               chickpeas)

       At the appropriate place in Division A, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. ____. MARKETING ASSISTANCE LOANS AND LOAN DEFICIENCY 
                   PAYMENTS FOR OTHER OILSEEDS, DRY PEAS, LENTILS, 
                   AND SMALL CHICKPEAS.

       (a) Definition of Other Oilseed.--Section 1001(9) of the 
     Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 
     7901(9)) is amended by inserting ``crambe, sesame seed,'' 
     after ``mustard seed,''.
       (b) Loan Rates for Nonrecourse Marketing Assistance 
     Loans.--Section 1202 of the Farm Security and Rural 
     Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7932) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (10) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(10) In the case of other oilseeds, $.0960 per pound for 
     each of the following kinds of oilseeds:
       ``(A) Sunflower seed.
       ``(B) Rapeseed.
       ``(C) Canola.
       ``(D) Safflower.
       ``(E) Flaxseed.
       ``(F) Mustard seed.
       ``(G) Crambe.
       ``(H) Sesame seed.
       ``(I) Other oilseeds designated by the Secretary.'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking paragraph (10) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(10) In the case of other oilseeds, $.0930 per pound for 
     each of the following kinds of oilseeds:
       ``(A) Sunflower seed.
       ``(B) Rapeseed.
       ``(C) Canola.
       ``(D) Safflower.
       ``(E) Flaxseed.
       ``(F) Mustard seed.
       ``(G) Crambe.
       ``(H) Sesame seed.
       ``(I) Other oilseeds designated by the Secretary.'';
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Single County Loan Rate for Other Oilseeds.--The 
     Secretary shall establish a single loan rate in each county 
     for each kind of other oilseeds described in subsections 
     (a)(10) and (b)(10).
       ``(d) Quality Grades for Dry Peas, Lentils, and Small 
     Chickpeas.--The loan rate for dry peas, lentils, and small 
     chickpeas shall be based on--
       ``(1) in the case of dry peas, United States feed peas;
       ``(2) in the case of lentils, United States number 3 
     lentils; and
       ``(3) in the case of small chickpeas, United States number 
     3 small chickpeas that drop below a 20/64 screen.''.
       (c) Repayment of Loans.--Section 1204 of the Farm Security 
     and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7934) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``and extra long staple 
     cotton'' and inserting ``extra long staple cotton, and 
     confectionery and each other kind of sunflower seed (other 
     than oil sunflower seed)'';
       (2) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (h); and
       (3) by inserting after subsection (e) the following:
       ``(f) Repayment Rates for Confectionery and Other Kinds of 
     Sunflower Seeds.--The Secretary shall permit the producers on 
     a farm to repay a marketing assistance loan under section 
     1201 for confectionery and each other kind of sunflower seed 
     (other than oil sunflower seed) at a rate that is the lesser 
     of--
       ``(1) the loan rate established for the commodity under 
     section 1202, plus interest (determined in accordance with 
     section 163 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform 
     Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7283)); or
       ``(2) the repayment rate established for oil sunflower 
     seed.
       ``(g) Quality Grades for Dry Peas, Lentils, and Small 
     Chickpeas.--The loan repayment rate for dry peas, lentils, 
     and small chickpeas shall be based on the quality grades for 
     the applicable commodity specified in section 1202(d).''.
       (d) Applicability.--This section and the amendments made by 
     this section apply beginning with the 2003 crop of other 
     oilseeds (as defined in section 1001 of the Farm Security and 
     Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7901)), dry peas, 
     lentils, and small chickpeas.
                                  ____



                     Amendment No. 102, as modified

 (Purpose: To provide funds for value-added projects for agricultural 
                            diversification)

       On page 80, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:

     SEC. 7____. VALUE-ADDED PROJECTS FOR AGRICULTURAL 
                   DIVERSIFICATION.

       Of the amount of funds that are made available to producers 
     in the State of Vermont under section 524 of the Federal Crop 
     Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1524) for fiscal year 2003, the 
     Secretary of Agriculture shall make a grant of $200,000 to 
     the Northeast Center for Food Entrepreneurship at the 
     University of Vermont to support value-added projects that 
     contribute to agricultural diversification in the State, to 
     remain available until expended.
                                  ____



                           Amendment No. 205

       (Purpose: to improve the administration of price supports)

       On page 80, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:

     SEC. 7____. PRICE SUPPORT ADJUSTMENTS.

       (a) Carry Forward Adjustment.--Section 319(e) of the 
     Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1314e(e)) is 
     amended in the fifth sentence--
       (1) by striking ``: Provided, That'' and inserting ``, 
     except that (1)''; and
       (2) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, (2) the total quantity of all adjustments 
     under this sentence for all farms for any crop year may not 
     exceed 10 percent of the national basic quota for the 
     preceding crop year, and (3) this sentence shall not apply to 
     the establishment of a marketing quota for the 2003 marketing 
     year''.
       (b) Special Requirements.--During the period beginning on 
     the date of enactment of this Act and ending on the last day 
     of the 2002 marketing year for the kind of tobacco involved, 
     the Secretary of Agriculture may waive the application of 
     section 1464.2(b)(2) of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations.
       (c) Regulations.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Agriculture may 
     promulgate such regulations as are necessary to implement 
     this section and the amendments made by this section.
       (2) Procedure.--The promulgation of the regulations and 
     administration of this section and the amendments made by 
     this section shall be made without regard to--
       (A) the notice and comment provisions of section 553 of 
     title 5, United States Code;
       (B) the Statement of Policy of the Secretary of Agriculture 
     effective July 24, 1971 (36 Fed. Reg. 13804), relating to 
     notices of proposed rulemaking and public participation in 
     rulemaking; and
       (C) chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code (commonly 
     known as the ``Paperwork Reduction Act'').
       (3) Congressional review of agency rulemaking.--In carrying 
     out this subsection, the Secretary shall use the authority 
     provided under section 808 of title 5, United States Code.


                           amendment no. 236

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning use of certain 
   funds to provide technical assistance for mandatory conservation 
   programs under the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002)

       On page 80, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:

     SEC. 7____. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING CERTAIN FUNDS FOR 
                   TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR MANDATORY CONSERVATION 
                   PROGRAMS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) conservation technical assistance provided through the 
     Department of Agriculture is essential to help the farmers, 
     ranchers, and landowners of the United States to implement 
     and maintain critical conservation practices;
       (2) Congress provided a historic increase in mandatory 
     funding for voluntary conservation efforts in the Farm 
     Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-
     171);
       (3) in that Act, Congress provided mandatory funding 
     sufficient to cover all conservation technical assistance 
     needed to carry out conservation programs;
       (4) under that Act, conservation technical assistance is 
     provided to carry out conservation programs;
       (5) the General Accounting Office has determined that, 
     under the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, 
     funding for conservation technical assistance--
       (A) is provided directly for conservation programs; and
       (B) is not subject to the limitation specified in section 
     11 of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 
     714i); and
       (6) the General Accounting Office has determined that funds 
     in the Conservation Operations account cannot be used to fund 
     conservation technical assistance for conservation programs 
     under the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) the President should provide full funding for 
     conservation technical assistance in order to implement 
     conservation programs under title XII of the Food Security 
     Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3801 et seq.); and
       (2) the President should not use funds from the 
     Conservation Operations account to provide conservation 
     technical assistance for carrying out conservation programs 
     directly funded by that title.


                           amendment no. 243

  (Purpose: To broaden the purpose for which certain funds for rural 
                          housing may be used)

       On page 80, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:

     SEC. 7____. RURAL HOUSING SERVICE.

       Title III of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 
     Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     2001, is amended in the first paragraph under the heading 
     ``rural housing insurance fund program account (including 
     transfer of funds)'' under the heading ``Rural Housing 
     Service'' (114 Stat. 1549, 1549A-19) by inserting before the 
     period at the end the following: ``: Provided further, That 
     after September 30, 2002, any funds remaining for the 
     demonstration program may be used, within the State in which 
     the demonstration program is carried out, for fiscal year 
     2003 and subsequent fiscal years to make grants, and to cover 
     the costs (as defined in section 502 of the Congressional 
     Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 661a)) 
     of

[[Page S1435]]

     loans authorized, under section 504 of the Housing Act of 
     1949 (42 U.S.C. 1474)''.


                     amendment no. 135, as modified

(Purpose: To improve the administration of certain programs relating to 
                                 corn)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. CORN.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary of Agriculture shall consider the 
     planting, prevented planting, and production of corn used to 
     produce popcorn as the planting, prevented planting, and 
     production of corn for the purposes of determining base acres 
     and payment yields for direct and counter-cyclical payments 
     under subtitle A of title I of Public Law 107-171.
       (b) Effective Date.--This section takes effect on October 
     1, 2003.


                     amendment no. 116, as modified

  (Purpose: Expressing the sense of the senate that the United States 
   should use the authorities of the Commodity Credit Corporation to 
               provide additional international food aid)

       At the appropriate place insert:
       Whereas there are immediate needs for additional food aid 
     in the Sub-Saharan Africa where more than 38 million people 
     are at risk of starvation;
       Whereas there are serious shortfalls of food aid in other 
     parts of the world, including Afghanistan a key nation in the 
     war on terror, that have put millions at risk of starvation;
       Whereas other potential emergencies in Iraq, North Korea, 
     and other regions could place millions more at risk of 
     starvation;
       Whereas prices have increased by 30 percent over the course 
     of the past year for certain staple commodities;
       Whereas additional food aid helps build goodwill towards 
     the United States, is consistent with the National Security 
     Strategy of the United States, dated September 17, 2002, and 
     reduces the conditions that can contribute to international 
     terrorism;
       Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that:
       (1) the Secretary of Agriculture should immediately use the 
     funds, facilities, and authorities of the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation to ensure that United States contributions for 
     international humanitarian food assistance for each fiscal 
     year 2003 through 2007 shall be no less than the previous 
     five year average beginning on the date of enactment of this 
     Act.
       (2) The President should immediately submit an emergency 
     supplemental request to meet any additional shortfalls in 
     fiscal year 2003 for food and to vulnerable populations 
     living in sub-Saharan Africa that are not met by actions 
     undertaken in paragraph (1) or by any other provision in this 
     Act.


                     Amendment No. 226, As Modified

    (Purpose: To provide funding for Grants for Youth Organizations 
                                Program)

       Strike the text of the amendment and insert the following:
       On page 17, line 5, after ``tuition shall receive no less 
     than $1,000,000;'' insert the following: ``for grants to 
     youth organizations pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 7630, $3,000,000;'' 
     On page 16, line 1, strike ``$284,218,000'' and insert 
     ``$281,218,000''.


                     Amendment No. 163, As Modified

          (Purpose: To provide funding for bioenergy program)

       Strike the text of the amendment and insert the following:
       On page 75, strike lines 17-20 and insert the following:
       Sec. 741. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
     by this Act may be used to pay the salaries and expenses of 
     personnel to carry out section 9010 of Public Law 107-171 
     that exceed 77 percent of the payment that would otherwise be 
     paid to eligible producers (7 U.S.C. 8108).


                     Amendment No. 187, As Modified

(Purpose: To provide funding for international family planning programs 
                        and for other purposes)

       On page 347, line 4, after the colon, insert:
       Provided further, That of the funds appropriated under this 
     heading, not less than $35,000,000 shall be made available 
     for the United Nations Populations Fund:
       On page 306, line 25, strike ``$368,500,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$385,000,000''
       On page 365, line 4, before the period insert the 
     following:
       : Provided further, That of the funds appropriated under 
     title II of this Act, not less than $435,000,000 shall be 
     made available for family planning/reproductive health
       On page 347, line 7, strike ``Secretary of State'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof:
       President


                     Amendment No. 62, As Modified

       On page 318, line 21 after ``ethics:'' insert the 
     following:
       Provided further, That not to exceed $200,000,000 of the 
     funds appropriated under this heading in this Act may be made 
     available for the costs, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, of modifying direct loans 
     and guarantees for Pakistan: Provided further, That not to 
     exceed $15,000,000 of the funds appropriated under this 
     heading in Public Law 107-206, the Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act for Further Recovery From and Response To 
     Terrorist Attacks on the United States, FY 2002, may be made 
     available for the costs, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, of modifying direct loans 
     and guarantees for Jordan:


                           amendment no. 238

   (Purpose: To clarify the effect of the appropriation relating to 
                            election reform)

       Beginning on page 111, line 25, strike ``: Provided, That'' 
     and all that follows before the period on page 112, line 4.


                           amendment no. 129

(Purpose: To authorize the use of certain funds previously appropriated 
to the Small Business Administration for loan guarantee subsidies under 
                section 7(a) of the Small Business Act)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. USE OF EMERGENCY FUNDS FOR SMALL BUSINESS LOANS.

       The matter under the heading ``business loans program 
     account'' in chapter 2 of division B of the Department of 
     Defense and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for 
     Recovery from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United 
     States Act, 2002 (Public Law 107-117) is amended by striking 
     ``For emergency expenses'' and inserting the following: ``For 
     loan guarantee subsidies under section 7(a) of the Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)) or for emergency expenses''.


                           amendment no. 129

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I offer, on behalf of myself and 
Senators Snowe, Landrieu, Lieberman, and Levin, an amendment to H.J. 
Res. 2, the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations resolution. The 
purpose of the amendment is to reverse severe budget cuts to the SBA's 
largest small business lending program, commonly referred to as the 
7(a) loan program. As part of the administration's fiscal year 2003 
budget request, the President under-funded the program by 56 percent, 
leaving small businesses short than $6 billion in critical loan 
dollars.
  In order to restore over a billion dollars of that short-fall, this 
amendment would transfer unused funds from SBA's STAR loan program to 
the 7(a) loan program. As my colleagues may recall, the STAR program 
was a temporary loan program that I established with Senator Bond to 
help small businesses across the Nation hurt by terrorist attacks of 
September 11, 2001. Thousands of small businesses nationwide were 
helped by the $3.6 billion in loans already made available through the 
STAR program, and I thank Senators Hollings and Byrd for helping me to 
secure the funding.
  The authorization for the STAR loans has expired and rather than let 
the remaining money lapse, we should re-allocate it to help small 
businesses have access to regular 7(a) loans. Just as we took care of 
small businesses hurt by 9/11, it is time to turn our attention to 
those who need financing in this down economy when banks are 
restricting capital to small businesses. Not only is the 7(a) loan 
program SBA's largest lending program to small businesses, but it is 
also the single, largest source of long-term capital available to small 
businesses in this country. As banks have cut back on lending to small 
businesses, demand for SBA's loan programs have grown by more than 16 
percent, and this is one of the few sources for working capital loans. 
As I said a few minutes ago, by reprogramming this money, we will be 
able to leverage over a billion dollars in loans to small businesses, 
thereby stimulating the economy and creating and preserving jobs. 
Further, transferring this money would be budget neutral and has the 
support of OMB.
  There is much at stake for small businesses in all of our States. In 
my home State of Massachusetts, if we implement the President's budget 
as requested, small businesses stand to lose $121 million in loan 
dollars and almost 3,700 jobs. As a nation, we would lose $6.2 billion 
in loans, which translates into 189,000 jobs either lost or not 
created. In this economy, we can not afford to lose any more jobs or 
hinder job creation.
  This amendment was part of a more comprehensive proposal that Senator 
Bond and I put forth last Congress. One part was to use more accurate 
data and a more predictive cost model, and the other was to transfer 
money from the STAR program to the 7(a) loan program. That legislation 
had the bipartisan support of then-Budget Committee Chairman Conrad, 
then-ranking Member Domenici and Senators Landrieu, Snowe, Harkin, 
Hollings and Byrd. It was approved by the Office of Management and 
Budget and voted out of the Senate by unanimous consent. Unfortunately, 
politics kept it from passing the House. This Congress, our incoming 
Chair, Senator Snowe,

[[Page S1436]]

has quickly taken up where Senator Bond left off, re-introducing last 
year's bill, now S. 141, to correct the program's subsidy rate model. I 
thank her for her swift work and for joining me today in offering this 
amendment. I ask all my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.
  In closing, I want to thank Chairwoman Snowe, Senator Bond, Senator 
Conrad, Senator Domenici, Congressman Manzullo, and Congresswoman 
Velazquez for their previous and continued efforts in this fight for 
small businesses. In addition, I would like to thank the countless 
small business groups, from NAGGL and NADCO to the small business 
coalition lead by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which included among 
many others, the National Black Chamber of Commerce, National Small 
Business United, and the American Bankers Association, for their hard 
work and support with regard to this matter.
  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.


                     amendment no. 226, as modified

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, the 2002 farm bill authorized the Grants for 
Youth Program, an initiative to develop pilot programs and expand 
outreach to youth in rural communities and small towns across the 
Nation. The Girl Scouts of the USA, Boy Scouts of America, National FFA 
Organization, and National 4-H Council will be key players in this 
initiative. The original Senate version of the fiscal year 2003 
Agriculture appropriations bill included $6 million in funding for this 
new program. That funding was removed in the version before us.
  I am offering an amendment to restore $3 million in funding for the 
Grants for Youth program. This program will be funded through the USDA 
Extension Service. In view of enhanced need for funds for education and 
other Federal initiatives for our children, we should also support 
private efforts to bring programs like Girl scouts, Boy Scouts, 4-H and 
Future Farmers of America to our underserved rural youth. It would be a 
mistake to keep these marvelous--and proven--youth programs from 
expanding to our rural areas.


                  provo airport control tower funding

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, will the distinguished chairman of the 
Transportation Subcommittee, my good friend, the Senator from Alabama, 
yield for a question?
  Mr. SHELBY. I will be glad to.
  Mr. HATCH. My office was recently visited by the mayor of Provo, in 
my home State of Utah. He reiterated to me the importance of erecting a 
control tower to handle an unusually large volume of air traffic coming 
into and out of the airport.
  My colleagues may not be aware of this, but Provo's airport currently 
does not have a tower--even though it is the second most used airport 
in the state, providing a much needed training ground for new pilots 
and a landing area for corporate jets that keeps them out of the Salt 
Lake City International Airport traffic flow.
  It is my understanding there are 143,000 operations at this airport 
per year. I share the concern of Mayor Lewis Billings and the citizens 
of Provo that this type of airport traffic with no control tower is 
very unsafe and, in the past, has led to a crash and a number of near 
misses.
  Mr. SHELBY. I note for the Senator from Utah that the Transportation 
Appropriations Subcommittee has already allotted $666,000 for this 
project in the Fiscal Year 2003 appropriations bill.
  Mr. HATCH. I am very appreciative to the Senator from Alabama and the 
other Appropriations Committee members for this, and I know it will be 
very helpful to the effort. However, I understand the House 
appropriation for this same project currently stands at $1 million 
which would really help the city of Provo get this project underway. I 
am also very appreciative for the Appropriations Committee's vigilance 
in keeping the budget to an absolute minimum and restraining 
superfluous spending. I only ask that the good Senator from Alabama try 
to work in conference to recede to the House number.
  Mr. SHELBY. I thank my colleague for making me aware of his interest 
in this project. I know you recognize that we have a great many 
requests for funding, and we are working hard to provide the 
appropriate levels for each one within budget constraints. I will be 
mindful of the Senator's interest in this project during conference 
deliberations with the House.


                      summer food service program

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I have long supported programs important to 
improving the lives of children and, last year, I had included in the 
fiscal year 2003 Agriculture appropriations bill a provision to expand 
an ongoing pilot related to the USDA Summer Food Services Program. This 
increase would have expanded to all 50 States a successful 13-State 
pilot program to streamline the process of setting up a summer feeding 
site. A report released last summer by the Food Research and Action 
Center found that the 13 pilot States increased their participation in 
the SFSP by 8.9 percent between July 2000 and July 2001. Participation 
in the rest of the Nation decreased by approximately 3.3 percent during 
the same time period.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I appreciate the efforts of my friend from Wisconsin. I 
agree that the Summer Food Service Program is important for several 
reasons. Not only does it provide children with a healthy meal, but 
many of the approved sites that administer the SFSP also provide 
educational and recreational opportunities that foster learning 
throughout the summer months while parents are working.
  Mr. KOHL. While I understand the fiscal constraints we were facing 
during this budget year, I believe that it is important that we 
continue to work to find ways to increase the number of low-income 
children who receive healthy meals over the summer. I believe the 
expansion of the SFSP is an excellent way to do that, and I look 
forward to working with the chairman of the Agriculture Committee to 
make such an expansion permanent during the reauthorization of the 
Child Nutrition Act.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Again, I thank the senior Senator from Wisconsin, and I 
appreciate his commitment to this important issue. I look forward to 
working with him on this program during the upcoming reauthorization of 
the Child Nutrition Act.


                               Section 32

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have two amendments at the desk that are 
intended to address a critical shortage in nutrition funding for 
schools, food banks and soup kitchens brought about by the Bush 
administration's decision to pay for Federal farm disaster assistance 
using funds available to the Secretary of Agriculture under Section 32 
of the Act of August 24, 1935.
  Since 1935, the so-called Section 32 program has provided the means 
for the Secretary of Agriculture to assist farmers and ranchers by 
purchasing surplus commodities, which are then used to help poor 
Americans by providing emergency food assistance to those in need. It 
creates a ``win-win'' situation allowing us to help our farmers while 
feeding the hungry.
  Section 32 is the primary source of federal funding for purchases of 
food distributed to the needy through schools, state and tribal 
governments, food banks, soup kitchens, and other charitable 
institutions. Last year, USDA surplus food donations to the needy 
through Section 32 totaled more than $250 million. And the President's 
budget for 2003 called for $215 million in Section 32 surplus food 
donations this fiscal year.
  On October 10 of last year, Senator Tom Harkin and I wrote to 
Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman seeking assurances that federal 
funding for these programs would not be diminished this fiscal year due 
to the Bush Administration's use of Section 32 to pay for the Livestock 
Compensation Program. We were concerned that this maneuver--taking some 
$752 million out of Section 32--would constrain the Secretary's ability 
to provide the needed and historic levels of funding for federal 
emergency food assistance programs.
  The Secretary never responded to our letter, but White House and USDA 
officials met with hunger program advocates and assured them there 
would not be cuts in federal emergency food assistance. Senator Harkin 
and I found this quite remarkable, because it appeared evident from the 
beginning that the Bush Administration had over-

[[Page S1437]]

committed its Section 32 funds. According to the President's own budget 
figures, it was clear that Section 32 funds would be depleted once the 
Livestock Compensation Program (LCP) was implemented and that was 
before a $185 million cost over-run was reported by USDA in early 
December, bringing the cost of the LCP program to $937 million.
  According to the President's budget submissions and information 
provided by USDA, an estimated $5.9 billion in funding will be 
available for Section 32 during fiscal year 2003. This includes 
approximately $5.8 billion in new appropriations and approximately $92 
million in carryover funds. Taking the original estimate of $752 
million out of Section 32 to fund the Livestock Compensation Program 
leaves only $5.148 billion to meet the Department's other obligations 
under Section 32. That amount is not enough to fully-fund the child 
nutrition programs and meet the Department's other obligations under 
Section 32.
  In fiscal year 2003, to meet requirements of the Richard B. Russell 
School Lunch Act $4.746 billion was scheduled to be transferred from 
Section 32 directly into the child nutrition programs' cash account and 
$400 million was budgeted to purchase commodities for the child 
nutrition programs. In addition, $75 million was budgeted to be 
transferred to the Commerce Department for fisheries activities; and 
$25 million is needed for Agriculture Marketing Service administrative 
expenses. These expenditures alone exceed the level of funding 
available in Section 32 after the LCP program is implemented, leaving 
no funding food banks, soup kitchens and the like.
  I understand that the Administration has since shifted monies among 
various accounts, and was able to alleviate some of the pressure on 
Section 32 by tapping the Commodity Credit Corporation to pay for a 
portion of the commodity purchases for the School Lunch Program. This 
allowed USDA to come closer to balancing its books and freed up some 
money for emergency food assistance, but a gap still remains.
  In a December 3 letter to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the 
Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry, Secretary Veneman acknowledged that even after shifting funds 
among various accounts, USDA would be able to donate no more than $125 
million worth of surplus commodities to food banks, soup kitchens, etc. 
this year.
  That is half of last year's level and roughly $90 million less than 
budgeted for by the President.
  It is a sad fact that this food is sorely needed. According to USDA, 
in 2002 more than 33.6 million Americans were food insecure--at risk of 
hunger. Nearly 25 million of them turned to charities that operate food 
banks or soup kitchens for food. Sixty-two percent of the people 
requesting emergency food assistance were members of families--children 
and their parents. Thirty-two percent of the adults requesting food 
assistance were employed. Of those people seeking emergency food 
relief, more than one-third (36 percent) had to choose between buying 
food or paying for housing. Many seniors have to choose between 
purchasing food or purchasing prescription drugs. For many Americans, 
wages and pensions have simply not risen enough in the last years to 
cover the increased cost of living, and food has become unaffordable.
  These cuts couldn't have come at a worse time. With the weak economy 
and increased joblessness, demand for emergency food assistance is 
rising. A recent survey by U.S. Conference of Mayors found that during 
the past year requests for emergency food assistance in our nation's 
cities increased by an average of 17 percent-the sharpest increase in 
10 years--with 83 percent of the cities registering an increase.
  Now is not the time to reduce federal emergency food assistance 
funding. Now is the time to increase federal emergency food donations, 
not decrease them.
  In his amendment, Senator Cochran provided an additional $250 million 
for surplus commodity purchases, largely addressing this year's 
shortfall. If these funds are fully utilized to provide emergency food 
assistance this fiscal year, then I would agree that at least this 
year's problem has been adequately addressed. However, I am concerned 
that the Administration might elect not to use these funds this year.
  And so I ask Senator Cochran and Senator Kohl whether they will 
entertain a question regarding the intended use of these funds.
  Is it the Senators' intention and understanding that the $250 million 
made available in the Cochran amendment for the Section 32 program be 
used to provide emergency food assistance to those in need this fiscal 
year?
  Mr. COCHRAN. As the language in section 205 of my amendment that was 
adopted by the Senate yesterday states, these funds would only be 
available for surplus removals and would restore funds in the Section 
32 account that were used for other purposes this fiscal year.
  Mr. KOHL. That is my understanding. I share your concern that the 
Administration might elect not make these purchases, and it would be my 
hope that the House and Senate conferees agree on language ensuring 
that these purchases are made this fiscal year.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I will be glad to work with the Senator from Wisconsin 
and the Senator from Vermont to address their concerns during the 
Conference.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Senators for their assurances. In light of 
this, I will withdraw my amendments.
 Mr. HARKIN. I would like to associate myself with the remarks 
of Senator Leahy regarding the restoration of Section 32 funds that 
were depleted to finance the Administration's ad-hoc program to provide 
emergency aid to livestock producers.
  On two separate occasions last year, the Senate passed provisions on 
strongly bipartisan votes to provide disaster assistance for our 
Nation's farmers and ranchers. Rather than acknowledging the need for 
this emergency disaster assistance legislation, the Administration 
devised a program of limited help to livestock producers and thereby 
put in jeopardy Federal assistance for the school lunch and other 
domestic nutrition and hunger relief programs this fiscal year and 
possibly next.
  The Administration funded the Livestock Compensation Program through 
the use of Section 32 funds. Section 32 provides funds for school lunch 
and other domestic nutrition and hunger relief programs. Further, 
through Section 32 purchases of surplus commodities--such as fruits, 
vegetables and portk--USDA is able to support producers and provide 
food to child nutrition programs, soup kitchens and food banks, and 
Indian reservations.
  When the LCP was announced, the Administration estimated the program 
would use $752 million from Section 32. However, due to the ``open 
ended'' nature of the LCP and an under-estimate of its projected cost, 
as of December 3 the program had drained an additional $185 million--
for a total of $937 million--from Section 32. Even at the $752 million 
level, it was apparent that the Administration had over-committed the 
resources of the Section 32 account by several hundred million dollars.
  Use of such a large amount of Section 32 funds diverted resources 
away from other agricultural producers who benefit from use of Section 
32 for the traditional purpose of removing surpluses from the market. 
The shortfall in Section 32 funds also jeopardizes child nutrition 
programs that depend on bonus commodities as well as The Emergency Food 
Assistance Program which relies on surplus commodities to supply soup 
kitchens and food banks and the Food Distribution Program on Indian 
Reservations.
  As a result of the current economic downturn, State, local and 
private contributions to food banks and other emergency nutrition 
facilities are declining while demand for emergency food assistance is 
on the rise. In fact, a recent U.S. Conference of Mayors report shows 
that the need for emergency food assistance has increased by a sharp 19 
percent this year. Pulling back on the Federal commitment to domestic 
food assistance programs run by faith-based and other institutions at 
this time would be unjustified and irresponsible.
  I therefore commend Senator Cochran for including an additional $250 
million in Section 32 funds in his disaster assistance amendment. If 
used carefully, this amount should be sufficient, although a larger 
amount would have been justified. It is essential that Senate and House 
conferees protect the intended use of these funds. I join my

[[Page S1438]]

colleague, Senator Leahy, in requesting that the Administration be 
directed to use these funds for surplus removals and restoration of 
funds in the Section 32 account that were diverted to other purposes 
this fiscal year.


    the importance of assisting Fox Islands Electric Cooperative in 
providing affordable and reliable electricity to the residents of north 
                          haven and vinalhaven

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to engage in a colloquy with 
the distinguished junior Senator from Maine, the distinguished junior 
Senator from Maine, the distinguished ranking member of the Agriculture 
Appropriations Subcommittee. As the chairman and ranking member are 
aware, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service 
administers the electric programs that provide funding and support 
services for utilities that serve rural communities in order to assist 
in modernizing local infrastructure. I ask the chairman and ranking 
members to give consideration to the extraordinary electricity costs 
faced by the island communities of North Haven and Vinalhaven, and work 
to have the Rural Utilities Service assist Fox Islands Electric 
Cooperative in providing reliable and affordable electricity to these 
communities.
  The 1,770 households in North Haven and Vinalhaven obtain electricity 
from four undersea electric cables that run twelve miles to the 
mainland. These cables, which are maintained by Fox Island Electric 
Cooperative and serve as the islands' only source of electricity, were 
originally installed back in 1978 and have now reached the end of their 
manufacturing life expectancy. Over the past five years the cables have 
been failing with ever-increasing frequency and since February, 
electric service has been interrupted four times.
  I have been in touch with the Fox Islands Electric Cooperative and 
the communities of Vinalhaven and North Haven about this situation, and 
it has become clear that the escalating nature of this problem deserves 
attention. With that said, Fox Islands Electric Cooperative is 
confronted with the difficult decision of taking on significant debt to 
replace the submarine cables or continue operating the outmodeled 
transmission system. Unfortunately, both alternatives will continue to 
impose high electric costs on the townspeople. Each household on the 
island currently pay 15.5 cent per kilowatt hour, a rate almost triple 
the national average. Without assistance in replacing these cables 
electricity rates would rise to 23 cents per kilowatt hour.
  As the chairman and ranking member are aware, the fiscal year 2003 
Omnibus Appropriations bill provides $30 million for the Rural 
Utilities High Energy Cost Project to assist communities with extremely 
high energy costs. If the communities of North Haven and Vinalhaven 
quality for the High Energy Cost Program, this could provide much 
needed assistance to the citizens who pay an extraordiarily high rate 
for their electric utilities. Any consideration that the distinguished 
chairman and ranking member can provide is much appreciated.
  Ms. COLLINS. I join the distinguished senior Senator from Maine in 
asking the distinguished chairman and distinguished ranking member to 
give this unique situation consideration in conference. While many 
Americans have experienced the inconvenience of a temporary blackout or 
brownout, frequent power outages and high energy prices for the 
citizens of North Haven and Vinalhaven have imposed significant 
financial burden and uncertainty on the community.
  The placement of the cables on the sea floor, in combination with 
their old age, means that the lines are susceptible to damage from 
rough seas and fishing activity. Blackouts resulting from a severed or 
damaged cable not only incapacitate local businesses, but also disable 
the Water Districts, hampering their ability to maintain adequate water 
supplies to the towns' residents.
  Due to the complex nature of working underwater, repairing the 
undersea cables is both expensive and time consuming. Fox Islands 
Electric Cooperative currently carries $2.7 million in debt owed to the 
Rural Utilities Service and estimates that replacement of the submarine 
cables will cost $7 million dollars. While the islands' electricity 
costs have always been above average due to its remoteness and small 
population, frequent disruptions and repairs have raised electric rates 
even further for the citizens of North Haven and Vinalhaven. As the 
distinguished chairmen and distinguished ranking member continue their 
work on the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations bill in conference, 
I would greatly appreciate consideration that may be given to Fox 
Islands Electric Cooperative.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the distinguished Senators from Maine, and I 
will be happy to work with them in conference on this important 
electric project, which will provide affordable and reliable 
electricity to the islands.
  Mr. KOHL. I look forward to the opportunity to work with the 
distinguished Senators from Maine on this important project to provide 
a reliable and affordable source of electricity to these communities, 
and I will work with Senator Cochran in conference to remedy this 
problem.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when we 
reach third reading, Senators Kyl, McCain, Dayton, and Stabenow be 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, there are still two amendments. On one we 
are waiting for the papers, and on the other we are waiting for 
clearance. One is amendment No. 207; the other is amendment No. 143. It 
is my understanding we worked out language so that these two are 
acceptable, but I do not have the language yet. We should have it 
momentarily.
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is correct, but we do not have the 
modifications yet at the desk.
  Mr. REID. I ask if the four Senators can speak after the vote. The 
reason I say that is the ranking member of the Foreign Relations 
Committee and the former chairman of the Intelligence Committee and 
present chairman of the Banking Committee are scheduled to leave on a 
plane immediately. They both have very important speeches to give. If 
they do not leave quickly, the speeches will not be given.
  I am wondering if it is possible to do those speeches after third 
reading, but that does not work because we have amendment No. 143 and 
amendment No. 207 still awaiting action.
  Mr. STEVENS. I inquire of the Senators mentioned if those four 
Senators will be willing to speak after final passage.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senators Kyl, McCain, Dayton, and 
Stabenow each have their time after final passage and that Senator 
Coleman be added for 5 minutes.
  Mr. REID. Senator Stabenow has a sense-of-the-Senate amendment that 
has to be part of the package, so I ask that she be allowed to do hers 
right now.
  Mr. STEVENS. Senator Stabenow may proceed now.
  Mr. REID. Five minutes is what she has agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, Senator Stabenow seeks 5 minutes on a 
matter of the sense of the Senate regarding instructions to conferees.
  Mr. REID. It has been cleared on both sides.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator be recognized 
for 5 minutes at this time and I regain control of the floor after 
that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Does the Senator from Minnesota object?
  Mr. DAYTON. May I inquire, I was not clear on the sequence. Will we 
have the opportunity to make our remarks before the vote on final 
passage?
  Mr. STEVENS. The request is that the other Senators speak after final 
passage. Two Senators have a plane to catch to go on a very important 
mission for the Senate and they need to leave.
  Mr. DAYTON. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Michigan.


                           Amendment No. 248

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, and I 
ask unanimous consent that it be considered in lieu of my motion to 
instruct the conferees that is already at the desk.

[[Page S1439]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Ms. Stabenow] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 248.

  Ms. STABENOW. 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. 248

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the conferees on the 
     part of the Senate for H.J. Res. 2 should insist that certain 
  amendments to the Homeland Security Act of 2002 be included in the 
                           conference report)

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the conferees on the 
     part of the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
     on this joint resolution should insist that the committee of 
     conference ensure that the joint resolution as reported from 
     the committee includes section 102 of division I, relating to 
     Homeland Security Act of 2002 Amendments, as passed by the 
     Senate, (relating to amendments to sections 1714 through 1717 
     of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296)).
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, as I indicated, my amendment is a sense 
of the Senate that insists that the conference report for the Omnibus 
Appropriations Act retain the Senate provisions that repeal the special 
interest vaccine component provisions that were originally included in 
the Homeland Security Act.
  The purpose of this amendment is to send a very strong message to the 
Senate conferees who will represent our interests in the conference, 
and to the House, that we stand firmly behind the repeal of the vaccine 
component provisions that were contained in last year's Homeland 
Security Act. We need a strong show of support in favor of this 
amendment to demonstrate our commitment to public interest over special 
interests. We also need to ensure that the conference report of this 
bill maintains a full repeal of that language. Anything less is 
absolutely unacceptable.
  Last November, Speaker Hastert and Representative DeLay gave only 
vague assurances they would strike the special interest provisions from 
the Homeland Security Act, and since then I have seen signs that their 
commitment to this process may have continued to slip, and we certainly 
do not wish that to happen after the hard work of putting this language 
into the bill.
  Again, we need to send a very strong message to all the Members of 
the House and the Senate that we must have full repeal of this special 
interest provision, commonly referred to as the ``thimerosal 
provision.''
  I thank my colleagues Senators Snowe, Collins, and Chafee, who worked 
to incorporate the spirit of the bill, S. 105, that I introduced at the 
beginning of the year that proposed a full repeal into the final 
version of this Omnibus Act. I also thank the cosponsors of my bill.
  Most importantly, though, I thank the families of children with 
autism for working so hard to repeal the special interest provisions. 
They are the ones who have been successful in this effort, and I 
congratulate them. I joined them in a capital rally a few weeks ago 
where we praised them for their courage, hard work, and commitment. 
They traveled of their own accord and paid their own costs, which is 
very difficult and burdensome for a family of a special needs child. 
They came to Washington, DC, to fight to repeal this provision.
  I promised those parents I would fight to remove it and that we would 
fight that it be repealed in total in conference and signed by the 
President. So I thank my colleagues who have been involved in this 
issue, and I ask that they join in keeping the promise to these very 
special families by supporting my amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this amendment is a sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution concerning instruction to conferees, and I am pleased to 
consider the Senator's suggestion. I ask that the sense-of-the-Senate 
amendment be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 248) was agreed to.
       Amendments Nos. 207 and 143, As Modified
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, there are two remaining amendments. No. 
207 is at the desk as well as No. 143, as modified. This is the 
modification for No. 143. I send it to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to modifying the amendment? 
Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is modified.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask that the amendments be adopted en bloc.
  Mr. REID. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendments are agreed to.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 207

  (Purpose: To expand the boundaries of the Ottawa National Wildlife 
  Refuge Complex and the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge)

       On page 547, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:

          TITLE ____--OTTAWA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPLEX

     SEC. ____01. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Ottawa National Wildlife 
     Refuge Complex Expansion and Detroit River International 
     Wildlife Refuge Expansion Act''.

     SEC. ____02. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) International refuge.--The term ``International 
     Refuge'' means the Detroit River International Wildlife 
     Refuge established by section 5(a) of the Detroit River 
     International Wildlife Refuge Establishment Act (16 U.S.C. 
     668dd note; 115 Stat. 894).
       (2) Refuge complex.--The term ``Refuge Complex'' means the 
     Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge Complex and the lands and 
     waters in the complex, as described in the document entitled 
     ``The Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the Ottawa National 
     Wildlife Refuge Complex'' and dated September 22, 2000, 
     including--
       (A) the Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge, established by the 
     Secretary in accordance with the Migratory Bird Conservation 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 715 et seq.);
       (B) the West Sister Island National Wildlife Refuge 
     established by Executive Order No. 7937, dated August 2, 
     1937; and
       (C) the Cedar Point National Wildlife Refuge established by 
     the Secretary in accordance with the Migratory Bird 
     Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715 et seq.).
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (4) Western basin.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``western basin'' means the 
     western basin of Lake Erie, consisting of the land and water 
     in the watersheds of Lake Erie extending from the watershed 
     of the Lower Detroit River in the State of Michigan to and 
     including Sandusky Bay and the watershed of Sandusky Bay in 
     the State of Ohio.
       (B) Inclusion.--The term `western basin' includes the Bass 
     Island archipelago in the State of Ohio.

     SEC. ____03. EXPANSION OF BOUNDARIES.

       (a) Refuge Complex Boundaries.--
       (1) Expansion.--The boundaries of the Refuge Complex are 
     expanded to include land and water in the State of Ohio from 
     the eastern boundary of Maumee Bay State Park to the eastern 
     boundary of the Darby Unit (including the Bass Island 
     archipelago), as depicted on the map entitled ``Ottawa 
     National Wildlife Refuge Complex Expansion and Detroit River 
     International Wildlife Refuge Expansion Act'' and dated 
     September 6, 2002.
       (2) Availability of map.--The map referred to in paragraph 
     (1) shall be available for inspection in appropriate offices 
     of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
       (b) Boundary Revisions.--The Secretary may make such 
     revisions of the boundaries of the Refuge Complex as the 
     Secretary determines to be appropriate--
       (1) to facilitate the acquisition of property within the 
     Refuge Complex; or
       (2) to carry out this title.
       (c) Acquisition.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary 
     may acquire by donation, purchase with donated or 
     appropriated funds, or exchange the land and water, and 
     interests in land and water (including conservation 
     easements), within the boundaries of the Refuge Complex.
       (2) Consent.--No land, water, or interest in land or water 
     described in paragraph (1) may be acquired by the Secretary 
     without the consent of the owner of the land, water, or 
     interest.
       (d) Transfers From Other Agencies.--Administrative 
     jurisdiction over any Federal property that is located within 
     the boundaries of the Refuge Complex and under the 
     administrative jurisdiction of an agency of the United States 
     other than the Department of the Interior may, with the 
     concurrence of the head of the administering agency, be 
     transferred without consideration to the Secretary for the 
     purpose of this title.
       (e) Study of Associated Area.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the Director 
     of the United States

[[Page S1440]]

     Fish and Wildlife Service, shall conduct a study of fish and 
     wildlife habitat and aquatic and terrestrial communities in 
     and around the 2 dredge spoil disposal sites that are--
       (A) referred to by the Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority 
     as ``Port Authority Facility Number Three'' and ``Grassy 
     Island'', respectively; and
       (B) located within Toledo Harbor near the mouth of the 
     Maumee River.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall--
       (A) complete the study under paragraph (1); and
       (B) submit to Congress a report on the results of the 
     study.

     SEC. ____04. EXPANSION OF INTERNATIONAL REFUGE BOUNDARIES.

       The southern boundary of the International Refuge is 
     extended south to include additional land and water in the 
     State of Michigan located east of Interstate Route 75, 
     extending from the southern boundary of Sterling State Park 
     to the Ohio State boundary, as depicted on the map referred 
     to in section ____03(a)(1).

     SEC. ____05. ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) Refuge Complex.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall administer all 
     federally owned land, water, and interests in land and water 
     that are located within the boundaries of the Refuge Complex 
     in accordance with--
       (A) the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 
     of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.); and
       (B) this title.
       (2) Additional authority.--The Secretary may use such 
     additional statutory authority available to the Secretary for 
     the conservation of fish and wildlife, and the provision of 
     opportunities for fish- and wildlife-dependent recreation, as 
     the Secretary determines to be appropriate to carry out this 
     title.
       (b) Additional Purposes.--In addition to the purposes of 
     the Refuge Complex under other laws, regulations, executive 
     orders, and comprehensive conservation plans, the Refuge 
     Complex shall be managed--
       (1) to strengthen and complement existing resource 
     management, conservation, and education programs and 
     activities at the Refuge Complex in a manner consistent with 
     the primary purposes of the Refuge Complex--
       (A) to provide major resting, feeding, and wintering 
     habitats for migratory birds and other wildlife; and
       (B) to enhance national resource conservation and 
     management in the western basin;
       (2) in partnership with nongovernmental and private 
     organizations and private individuals dedicated to habitat 
     enhancement, to conserve, enhance, and restore the native 
     aquatic and terrestrial community characteristics of the 
     western basin (including associated fish, wildlife, and plant 
     species);
       (3) to facilitate partnerships among the United States Fish 
     and Wildlife Service, Canadian national and provincial 
     authorities, State and local governments, local communities 
     in the United States and Canada, conservation organizations, 
     and other non-Federal entities to promote public awareness of 
     the resources of the western basin; and
       (4) to advance the collective goals and priorities that--
       (A) were established in the report entitled ``Great Lakes 
     Strategy 2002--A Plan for the New Millennium'', developed by 
     the United States Policy Committee, comprised of Federal 
     agencies (including the United States Fish and Wildlife 
     Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
     the United States Geological Survey, the Forest Service, and 
     the Great Lakes Fishery Commission) and State governments and 
     tribal governments in the Great Lakes basin; and
       (B) include the goals of cooperating to protect and restore 
     the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Great 
     Lakes basin ecosystem.
       (c) Priority Uses.--In providing opportunities for 
     compatible fish- and wildlife-dependent recreation, the 
     Secretary, in accordance with paragraphs (3) and (4) of 
     section 4(a) of the National Wildlife Refuge System 
     Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)), shall 
     ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that hunting, 
     trapping, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and 
     environmental education and interpretation are the priority 
     public uses of the Refuge Complex.
       (d) Cooperative Agreements Regarding Non-Federal Land.--To 
     promote public awareness of the resources of the western 
     basin and encourage public participation in the conservation 
     of those resources, the Secretary may enter into cooperative 
     agreements with the State of Ohio or Michigan, any political 
     subdivision of the State, or any person for the management, 
     in a manner consistent with this title, of land that--
       (1) is owned by the State, political subdivision, or 
     person; and
       (2) is located within the boundaries of the Refuge Complex.
       (e) Use of Existing Greenway Authority.--The Secretary 
     shall encourage the State of Ohio to use authority under the 
     recreational trails program under section 206 of title 23, 
     United States Code, to provide funding for acquisition and 
     development of trails within the boundaries of the Refuge 
     Complex.

     SEC. ____06. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary--
       (1) to acquire land and water within the Refuge Complex 
     under section ____03(c);
       (2) to carry out the study under section ____03(e); and
       (3) to develop, operate, and maintain the Refuge Complex.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 143

 (Purpose: To clarify the obligation of certain producers and handlers 
      of milk to Federal order pools, to apply minimum milk price 
   requirements to certain handlers of Class I milk products in the 
 Arizona-Las Vegas marketing area under certain circumstances, and to 
           exclude Nevada from Federal milk marketing orders)

       On page 80, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
       (a) Study on the Sale of Milk Into California.--Within 90 
     days, the Secretary shall report to Congress on the economic 
     impacts to California dairy farmers from handlers or 
     processors of Class I milk products in the Las Vegas-Nevada-
     Arizona region selling milk or milk products into the 
     California state order.
       (b) Exemption of Milk Handlers From Minimum Price 
     Requirements.--Section 8c(5) of the Agricultural Adjustment 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 608c(5)), reenacted with amendments by the 
     Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (as amended by 
     subsection (a)), is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(N) Exemption of milk handlers from minimum price 
     requirements.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     subsection, prior to January 1, 2005 no handler with 
     distribution of Class I milk products in the Arizona-Las 
     Vegas marketing area (Order No. 131) or Pacific Northwest 
     Marketing Order (Order No. 124) shall be exempt during any 
     month from any minimum milk price requirement established by 
     the Secretary under this subsection if the total distribution 
     of Class I products within the Arizona-Las Vegas marketing 
     area or the Pacific Northwest Marketing area of any handler's 
     own farm production exceeds the lesser of--
       ``(i) 3 percent of the total quantity of Class I products 
     distributed in the Arizona-Las Vegas marketing area (Order 
     No. 131); or the Pacific Northwest Marketing area (Order No. 
     124); or
       ``(ii) 5,000,000 pounds.''.
       (c) Exclusion of Clark County, Nevada From Federal Milk 
     Marketing Orders.--
       (1) In general.--Section 8c(11)(C) the Agricultural 
     Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 608c(11)(C)), reenacted with 
     amendments by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 
     1937, is amended by striking the last sentence and inserting 
     the following: ``In the case of milk and its products, Clark 
     County, Nevada shall not be within a marketing area defined 
     in any order issued under this section.''.
       (2) Informal rulemaking.--The Secretary of Agriculture may 
     modify an order issued under section 8c of the Agricultural 
     Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 608c), reenacted with amendments by 
     the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, to 
     implement the amendment made by paragraph (1) by promulgating 
     regulations, without regard to sections 556 and 557 of title 
     5, United States Code.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion on to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to pose a question to my 
esteemed colleague from Montana. It is my understanding that the fiscal 
year 2003 Senate Appropriations Interior Subcommittee report contains 4 
million dollars allocated for the Next Generation Lighting Initiative. 
Is that correct?
  Mr. BURNS. You are correct Senator. Four million dollars is in the 
report for this purpose which originated from a request to the Interior 
Appropriation Subcommittee in the form of a Dear Colleague letter dated 
April 23, 2002, initiated by both Senator DeWine and yourself, which 
contains 22 bipartisan signatures.
  Mr. DeWINE. Senator Bingaman, as you know my state of Ohio is 
considered the home to the lighting industry, and from the start, I 
have been a strong supporter of the Next Generation Lighting 
Initiative. I feel it is important that for the record, there is a good 
understanding by the executive branch on the legislative history of the 
Next Generation Lighting Initiative. Would you please be so kind as to 
share with us its history?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I would be glad to. The Next Generation Lighting 
Initiative was first introduced as S. 166 in the 107th Congress. It was 
then included in H.R. 4, the Comprehensive Energy Bill, as amended by 
the Senate, which then went into conference with the House. 
Unfortunately, the energy bill failed in conference, but the Next 
Generation Lighting Initiative, and nearly the entire R&D authorization 
title were conferenced with the House. This agreed upon R&D 
authorization

[[Page S1441]]

title, with the Next Generation Lighting Initiative, is now found in 
H.R. 238, as introduced by the House Science Committee in the 108th 
Congress.
  Mr. DeWINE. Senator Bingaman, did we not introduce this conference 
language as a bill this Congress?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Yes, it is now S. 167.
  Mr. BURNS. My esteemed colleagues, Senators Bingaman and DeWine, I 
wish to thank you both for sharing with me the legislative history of 
the Next Generation Lighting Initiative, and I hope this is of aid to 
the Department of Energy as it manages this project. It will be useful 
background to my subcommittee as it performs its oversight duties in 
the upcoming year.


                clean water partnership for the americas

  Mr. CHAFEE. Included within Senate Report 107-219, and repeated in 
Chairman Stevens' Overview and Summary of his amendment to H.J. Res. 2, 
the Omnibus Appropriations Bill, is report language stating the 
Appropriations Committee's strong support for the Clean Water for the 
Americas Partnership. Does the Chairman of the Foreign Operations 
Subcommittee share my expectation that the United States Agency for 
International Development (USAID) will fund the Clean Water for the 
Americas Partnership at $10 million for fiscal year 2003?
  Mr. McCONNELL. It is my expectation that it will be funded, and I 
expect USAID to communicate with you and your office in a timely manner 
to discuss funding for this program.
  Mr. LEAHY. Let me add that the subcommittee would appreciate being 
informed of these discussions. There are millions of impoverished 
people in Latin America who lack access to clean, safe water, which is 
a cause of chronic disease and environmental pollution. The Senator 
from Rhode Island's initiative, the Clean Water for the Americas 
Partnership, could help address these problems, and I would hope that 
USAID would work with him and the Subcommittee to support it.


                     sawtooth nat. recreation area

  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, would the distinguished Chairman of the 
Subcommittee yield for a colloquy regarding Land and Water Conservation 
Funds for Idaho?
  Mr. BURNS. I would be pleased to yield to the Senator to discuss this 
important issue.
  Mr. CRAPO. First allow me to commend the Chairman and Ranking Member 
of the Subcommittee for their leadership and hard work on this bill. 
The Committee has had to make difficult decisions with scarce resources 
and have worked hard to do so in a fair manner. I appreciate Chairman 
Burns and Ranking Member Byrd's effort and diligence.
  Idaho is a state of spectacular natural beauty and wildlife habitat. 
One jewel within the Gem State is the Sawtooth National Recreation 
Area, SNRA. The SNRA is a national treasure enjoyed by locals and 
visitors to Idaho alike. The opportunity to preserve important parts of 
its pristine beauty is available through the purchase of scenic 
easements. Further, when the SNRA was established nearly thirty years 
ago, a commitment was made to private property owners to secure 
easements.
  In the past, funding has been inadequate to complete the easement 
purchases. However, in recent years, with the support of the Chairman 
and Ranking Member, we have been a renewed interest in completing the 
purchase of relevant easements within the SNRA. Idaho is grateful for 
the committee's support in obtaining these easements.
  It is expected that $3 million in Fiscal Year 2003 will fulfill the 
easement needs in the SNRA. Unfortunately, funding for easements in the 
SNRA was not included in the committee-passed bill. I recognize the 
subcommittee is operating under significant financial restraints and 
not all worthy projects can be funded. Yet, it is my hope the Chairman 
and ranking member can revisit their important project in the 
conference.

  Again, I am grateful the committee has previously responded to the 
opportunities to use land and water conservation funds to acquire 
easements in the SNRA to protect the valuable habitats and scenic 
values. Support for easements in the SNRA are locally-driven, with 
wide-spread support and anxious willing-sellers. Completion of this 
project will address the concerns of private property owners and 
protect this wonderful resource for all Americans to enjoy.
  I would ask the Chairman and ranking member if they would work with 
me in conference to evaluate this request, with an eye toward inclusion 
in the conference report.
  Mr. BURNS. I appreciate Senator Crapo's interest in the Sawtooth 
National Recreation Area. I understand this is an important issue to 
the Senator and would be happy to work with him so that the acquisition 
of these easements will be considered in conference.
  Mr. BYRD. I too appreciate Senator Crapo's devotion to the SNRA. I am 
pleased we have been able to provide funding for this worthy project in 
the past and are near completion.
  I look forward to working with the Senator during the conference.
  Mr. CRAPO. I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member.
  Mr. BENNETT. The chairman may be aware that drought in the west has 
caused record low water levels in Lake Powell at Glen Canyon National 
Recreation Area. Does the chairman agree that the National Park Service 
should use funds available in its repair and rehabilitation account to 
address the recreation infrastructure needs that have arisen because of 
these low water levels?
  Mr. BURNS. I agree with the Senator that the service should make 
every effort to address these recreation infrastructure needs, 
including boat ramp extensions and intermediate pump stations, using 
resources in the repair and rehabilitation account or other appropriate 
funding sources.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the chairman.


                         ergonomics regulation

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I would like to ask the chairman of the 
Labor, HHS, Education Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, 
Senator Spector, to engage in a colloquy on certain appropriations 
within his subcommittee's jurisdiction.
  There is a $2 million appropriation for the Department of Labor that 
indicates that the Secretary may use it if she decides to issue new 
ergonomic standards. It is my understanding that the appropriation is 
not a mandate or a direction to the Secretary to issue any such 
standard, but it is only available in case there is a decision made to 
issue those standards. Is that correct?
  Mr. SPECTER. I would report that the language does not require the 
Secretary of Labor to re-issue ergonomics regulation, but simply make 
sure that funding is available for work within the $18 million 
recommended for safety and health standards activities of OSHA.


                          wildlife management

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished 
managers of the bill in a brief colloquy, and commend them, along with 
the distinguished junior Senator from Montana, for providing 
substantial la mounts of funding in recent years for wildlife 
conservation efforts at the State level. As you know, United States 
laws and policies place the primary responsibility for implementing 
wildlife management programs in the hands of the 50 States, but 
effective implementation depends on Congress providing consistent and 
adequate funding to the States. For decades, such Federal funding has 
focused primarily on- and been largely responsible for- enormously 
successful programs ensuring conservation and sustainable use of 
important wildlife species hunted or fished by the millions of 
sportsmen across America. At the same time, the population of many non-
game species has fallen dramatically over the past thirty years due in 
great measure to the lack of focus of Federal resources on the 
conservation of these species prior to their decline.
  The bottom line it that it is in the Federal interest to continue our 
partnership with the States and provide adequate funding so we can 
maintain the population of these non-game species of wildlife before 
they near endangered status, which is far more costly to correct.
  Funding for the Fish and Wildlife Service State and Tribal Wildlife 
Grants Program for Fiscal Year 2003 has fallen to dangerously low 
levels in the current bill. I ask the managers of the bill to give 
every consideration to addressing this issue to the best of their 
ability when this important program is considered in conference with

[[Page S1442]]

the House of Representatives. I yield the floor to my distinguished 
colleague from Arkansas.
  Mr. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I strongly support the remarks of my 
friend from Virginia. The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program 
provides States with the resources critically needed for foresighted 
and cost effective wildlife conservation and restoration efforts. These 
funds will enable the States to probatively plan and implement their 
wildlife management strategies for game and non-game species in 
cooperation with landowners to their mutual benefit. I, too, would ask 
the managers of the bill to give serious consideration to significantly 
increase the funding for this critical program as it is considered in 
conference.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senators from 
Virginia and Arkansas for their support of this important program to 
assist States in implementing effective programs to ensure conservation 
and sustainable use of game and non-game species. As this program is 
considered in conference, I will give every consideration to the 
request of the Senators from Virginia and Arkansas, and keep their 
views in mind as we negotiate a final omnibus appropriations bill.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. president, I, too, thank the Senators from Virginia and 
Arkansas for raising this issue and for their strong support of State 
wildlife conservation efforts, I will give every consideration to this 
request as we discuss this program during a conference with the House 
of Representatives.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to thank chairman Burns and 
Ranking Member Byrd for their support of the National Park Service 
Rivers and Trails Conservation Assistance Program. I see the Chairman's 
Committee report has included language requiring the Park Service to 
give careful consideration to applications for assistance for the Ohio 
River Trail, the Fanno Creek Greenway Trail and the Tuscaloosa Nature 
Preserve and Hiking Trail. I would like to also bring the trail 
redevelopment project at Charles Towne Landing to your attention.
  Charles Towne Landing in Charleston, SC, was the first successful 
European/African settlement in South Carolina between 1670 and 1680. It 
is one of four original settlement sites remaining in the United 
States. In 1971, the State of South Carolina designated the site as a 
State Park comprised of 663 acres, of which 196 acres are high ground 
and 467 acres are salt marsh and freshwater lagoons. Three trails make 
up over 6 miles of paths which edge freshwater lagoons and wetlands. 
When these trails were originally constructed in 1970 no consideration 
was given to disability access, erosion control or archaeological 
cultural resources. Today, the trails are in a serious state of 
disrepair. Would the Chairman and Ranking Member agree that the Rivers 
and Trails Program is ideally suited to provide technical assistance to 
Charles Towne Landing in their trail redevelopment efforts?
  Mr. BYRD. The Senator from South Carolina is correct. The Rivers and 
Trails Program provides significant benefits to local governments and 
organizations for river restoration, the preservation of open space, 
and the development of trail and greenway networks. Certainly, the 
staff's technical expertise in ecologically sensitive trail 
construction would be appropriate for the Charles Towne Landing 
project.
  Mr. BURNS. I concur. The National Park Service should give careful 
consideration to the Charles Towne Landing application as well as the 
others.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member 
of the Subcommittee for their attention to this matter and, again, 
appreciate their support.


                              BYRNE GRANTS

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Senator Stevens, I would like to speak with you for a 
moment about the recent vote on Senator Harkin's Byrne Grant Program 
amendment. While I agree with you that it is vitally important that 
this Omnibus Appropriations bill adheres to principles of fiscal 
responsibility, I must stress that the continuation of the Byrne 
Formula Grants is absolutely critical to local law enforcement, 
especially in rural States like Iowa. I voted on the procedural motion 
to table the Harkin amendment, because of our need for fiscal 
responsibility. However, I would not have done so, if you had not made 
a personal commitment to me that the funds for the Byrne Formula Grants 
would be fully restored in conference. Because the availability of 
these funds makes such a difference to Iowa, I want to once again get 
an assurance from you that when we take the final vote on this bill the 
full funding for the Byrne Grants will be included in the bill.
  Mr. STEVENS. Senator Grassley, I appreciate your concern about the 
Byrne Grant Program. I agree with you completely. I will commit to you 
that when the conference report comes back here for a final vote, we 
will have the Bryne Formula Grants in there at the House level of $500 
million. I appreciate your understanding and help on this important 
matter.


                            hydrogen economy

  Mr. WYDEN. Senator Gordon Smith and I would like to discuss an 
important element of the Department of Energy's Hydrogen Fuel Cells and 
Infrastructure Program. This program is preparing the country for the 
next energy revolution--what many refer to as the ``hydrogen economy.'' 
It will establish an energy infrastructure for America based on 
abundant and domestically produced hydrogen, which will be used to fuel 
our powerplants, our homes, and our automobiles. The Senator's 
leadership, and that of the Congress as a whole, has strengthened the 
program over the past few years. However, there is one area on which 
the House and Senate have not yet achieved a consensus, an area that 
Senator Smith and I believe is important for establishing one early 
element of the hydrogen economy.
  I am referring to fuel cells, and specifically the Proton Exchange 
Membrane, or P-E-M fuel cell. Is the Senator aware that this technology 
is being developed by American companies for widespread applications, 
including homes and automobiles, but that before it may be used broadly 
in these applications, the fuel cell must be greatly improved and made 
affordable?
  Mr. REID. That is my understanding. Would you please explain further?
  Mr. SMITH. The Congress and the DOE have partnered with the U.S. fuel 
cell industry, beginning with the space program and continuing today, 
to develop and demonstrate fuel cells. Early commercial fuel processors 
that generate the hydrogen for fuel cells are being marketed tested by 
our industrial partners, as are P-E-M fuel cell powerplants. They need 
to be improved and demonstrated in niche markets. Then their costs will 
reduce substantially. As this scenario plays out, as it has so many 
times with the introduction of revolutionary new technology supported 
by the Federal Government, the very large residential and automotive 
markets will adopt fuel cells. It is then that America will achieve a 
significant level of independence from overseas sources.
  Mr. REID. That is very helpful. Is it possible that there will be 
near-term niche markets such as hospitals, aircraft control centers, or 
other buildings that cannot tolerate power failure?
  Mr. WYDEN. That is correct. However, at the current pace of 
development it will be at least a decade before fuel cell systems are 
available in any significant numbers for large markets. Meanwhile, 
Japan and the European countries are investing more in fuel cell 
development than the U.S. is investing, and we are losing our 
leadership in this area. Japan's investment last year alone was three 
times that of the DOE.
  Senator Smith and I agree that U.S. fuel cell companies are ready to 
demonstrate P-E-M fuel cell powerplants that will serve the niche 
markets, and can accelerate the introduction of fuel cells to markets 
in the near term and the larger markets in the mid term. Would the 
Senator agree that there is an exciting opportunity here?
  Mr. REID. Yes, and what does the Senator recommend be done?
  Mr. WYDEN. We suggest that the Congress approve $4 million for 
continued development and validation of advanced P-E-M fuel cells and 
metal membrane fuel purification technologies in the Energy & Water 
appropriations measure.
  Mr. REID. Do other funding communities support an acceleration of 
these technologies?
  Mr. SMITH. Yes. The Interior Appropriations Conference, directed DOE 
to

[[Page S1443]]

provide the plan and rationale for increasing the pace of fuel cell 
public-private partnerships in the fiscal year 2002 report.
  Mr. WYDEN. Senator Smith and I appreciate the Senator's consideration 
of our request. We thank him for the opportunity for this exchange, and 
his continued leadership for the advancement of energy technologies 
important to our Nation.


               southeast louisiana flood control project

  Ms. LANDREIU. Mr. President, I rise to request a colloquy with my 
fellow Senator from Louisiana and the Chairman of Appropriations 
Committee, the distinguished Senator from Alaska, regarding Amendment 
No. 225 to provide additional funding for the Southeast Louisiana Flood 
Control Project.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, the Southeast Louisiana Flood Control 
Project is of extreme importance to me and Louisiana, so I will gladly 
engage in a colloquy with the junior Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I also agree that the Southeast Louisiana 
Flood Control Project is critical to protecting the citizens of 
southeast Louisiana and wish to engage in a colloquy with my 
distinguished colleagues from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, on July 24, 2003, the Senate 
Appropriations Committee unanimously approved the fiscal year 2003 
Energy and Water Appropriations bill, which included $55 million for 
the Southeast Louisiana Flood Control Project. However, the current 
omnibus bill that we are debating regarding fiscal year 2003 
appropriations only provides $40 million for this worthy project. 
Accordingly, Senator Breaux and I have offered an amendment which will 
restore funding to $55 million for this critical flood control project 
in the New Orleans metropolitan area.
  Although Senator Breaux and I have decided to withdraw our amendment 
from consideration by the full Senate at this time, we wish to inform 
the Senate of this project and emphasize its importance.
  The Southeast Louisiana Flood Control Project is commonly referred to 
as SELA. Its purpose is to provide flood protection to handle a 10-year 
rainfall event and reduce damages arising from larger rainfall events 
in the New Orleans metropolitan area. In 1996, Congress authorized 
construction of this project.
  The SELA project is currently under construction and essentially 
involves adding pumps and increasing the number and size of drainage 
channels in the New Orleans metropolitan area. The total cost of this 
project is $647 million with a non-federal cost share of approximately 
25 percent or $166 million. To date, $308 million in Federal funds have 
already been expended on SELA.
  Mr. BREAUX. Louisiana annually experiences an enormous amount of 
rainfall. One example of this occurred in May 1995 when the New Orleans 
metropolitan area received more than 24 inches of rainfall in less than 
24 hours. This area is particularly vulnerable to large rainfalls 
because the rainwater is trapped within the developed areas by the 
levees at the edges of the Mississippi River which were built to 
prevent river flooding.
  When complete, SELA will protect approximately 30 percent of 
Louisiana's population and 40 percent of Louisiana's economy. 
Furthermore, when complete, its average annual flood control benefits 
are estimated at $53.4 million.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, the SELA flood control project is a 
smart investment. By investing in these flood control projects, we 
could prevent the expenditures of hundreds of millions of dollars that 
will otherwise be spent in Federal flood insurance claims and other 
disaster assistance programs.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, for all of these reasons, my distinguished 
colleague from Louisiana and I respectfully request that SELA funding 
for fiscal year 2003 be increased beyond the $40 million currently 
proposed in the omnibus bill and, further, that funding be restored to 
$55 million as was approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee in 
July.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I will work with my distinguished 
colleagues from Louisiana, my ranking member, and the entire Senate in 
our continued deliberation of the appropriations legislation so that 
the construction of the vital SELA project can continue.


                  Provo Airport Control Tower Funding

  Mr. HATCH. Would the distinguished Chairman of the Transportation 
Subcommittee, my good friend, the Senator from Alabama, yield for a 
question?
  Mr. SHELBY. I would be glad to.
  Mr. HATCH. My office was recently visited by the mayor of Provo in my 
home state of Utah. He reiterated to me the importance of erecting a 
control tower to handle an unusually large volume of air traffic coming 
into and out of the airport.
  My colleagues may not be aware of this, but Provo's airport currently 
does not have a tower--even though it is the second most used airport 
in the state, providing a much needed training ground for new pilots 
and a landing area for corporate jets that keeps them out of the Salt 
Lake City International Airport traffic flow.
  It is my understanding that there are 143,000 operations at this 
airport per year. I share the concern of Mayor Lewis Billings and the 
citizens of Provo that this type of airport traffic with no control 
tower is very unsafe and, in the past, has led to a crash and a number 
of near misses.
  Mr. SHELBY. I would just note for the Senator from Utah that the 
Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee has already allotted 
$666,000 for this project in the fiscal year 2003 appropriations bill.
  Mr. HATCH. I am very appreciative to the Senator from Alabama and the 
other Appropriations Committee members for this and I know it will be 
very helpful to the effort. However, I understand the House 
appropriation for this same project currently stands at $1 million 
which would really help the City of Provo get this project underway. I 
am also very appreciative for the Appropriations Committee's vigilance 
in keeping the budget to an absolute minimum and restraining 
superfluous spending. I only ask that the good Senator from Alabama try 
to work in conference to recede to the House number.
  Mr. SHELBY. I thank my colleague for making me aware of his interest 
in this project. I know you recognize that we have a great many 
requests for funding and we are working hard to provide the appropriate 
levels for each one within budget constraints. I will be mindful of the 
Senator's interest in this project during conference deliberations with 
the House.


                     BIA SCHOOL OPERATIONS FUNDING

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, as the Senate considers the fiscal year 
2003 omnibus appropriations bill, Interior Chapter, I would like to 
engage the distinguished Senator from West Virginia in a colloquy 
regarding the School Operations Budget for the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs. As the Chairman knows, the current language of the Senate 
omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003 eliminates $11.9 
million in increased funding the administration requested for these 
schools.
  As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I understand very well 
the difficult task the Chairman faced in putting the Interior bill 
together under the difficult budget constraints we are operating under 
for the upcoming fiscal year. However, the 185 Bureau-funded schools 
rely solely on the Federal Government for funds to provide an education 
to about 50,000 Indian children.
  I suspect that the funding level for school operations in the Senate 
bill reflects the Chairman's wise desire to reject the administration's 
ill-advised ``School Privatization Initiative.'' I commend him for 
rejecting the School privatization Initiative, but I hope we might find 
a way to still retain the programmatic increases requested by the 
administration for Student Transportation, Administrative Cost Grants 
and facility operations, as well as to restore the $2 million reduction 
proposed by the administration for instructional programs through the 
Indian School Equalization Program.
  The House bill uses the funds targeted for the privatization 
initiative to make the increases outlined above. I respectfully request 
the Chairman's assurance that he will do his best to accept the House 
bill's level of funding for the School Operations budget of the Bureau 
of Indian Affairs when we go to conference, and I will be as helpful as 
I can as a conferee on this matter.
  Mr. BYRD. I understand the concern of my colleague regarding this 
matter

[[Page S1444]]

and thank you for raising it. The Committee realizes the importance of 
funding for these schools that rely on the Federal Government for 100 
percent of their funding. I can assure the Senator that the Committee 
is supportive of the Bureau of Indian Affairs school system, and I will 
do what I can to see that higher levels of funding for School 
Operations are provided during conference with the House.


            TRIBAL SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to 
commend my colleagues on the Senate Interior Appropriations 
Subcommittee for their continued support and commitment to the Tribal 
School Construction Demonstration Program administered by the Bureau of 
Indian affairs. I also rise to engage in a colloquy with the 
distinguished Chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. 
Burns.
  My distinguished colleagues, the chairman and ranking member of the 
Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. Burns and Mr. Byrd 
respectively, worked to make sure that this important program received 
funding this year. A tribe in my home State of Michigan, the Saginaw 
Chippewa Tribe of Michigan, met with me and the subcommittee early in 
this process regarding their intention to utilize the demonstration 
program. Thank you for all of your cooperation and hard work on this 
legislation.
  Over the last 25 years, the Saginaw Tribe has worked hard to create a 
tribal economy to provide education, health care, and other 
governmental services to its members. The tribe has made many 
constructive steps towards self-sufficiency and is dedicated to 
providing every educational opportunity to its tribal youth. The 
dilapidated condition of their current school facility has been a 
roadblock to further advancement. The temporary, modular housing 
facility where Saginaw Chippewa children attend classes is inadequate. 
It is a dismal learning environment, anything but conducive to the 
positive development and education of young minds.
  Although the current language in the Interior appropriation bill only 
allocates $3 million to the program, a sum nearly $2 million short of 
what the Tribe is seeking in a Federal match, the Tribe would still 
like to partner with the Department this funding cycle in order to 
begin immediate construction of the Saginaw Chippewa Academy. The Tribe 
is willing to assume a cost-share greater than 50 percent to complete 
construction. In addition, the Tribe is also willing to forgo any 
future Federal dollars to fund operation and maintenance costs in order 
to receive the highest priority for a Federal matching grant as set 
forth in the authorizing language under the program. Given all of these 
commitments, don't you think the tribe should be given high 
consideration from the Department of Interior for this grant during the 
fiscal year 2003 year?
  Mr. BURNS. Yes, I agree with the distinguished Senator from Michigan. 
The Senate did include funding in the amount of $3 million for the 
Tribal School Construction Demonstration Program. The legislation also 
authorizes the Department of Interior to continue administering the 
program from fiscal year 2003 to 2007. Future years funding will be 
subject to appropriations. In addition, the authorizing language 
provides that the Secretary of Interior shall ensure that a tribe that 
agrees to fund all future operations and maintenance costs receives the 
highest priority for a grant under the program.
  The program was first authorized and funded in fiscal year 2001. The 
Program was reauthorized in fiscal year 2002, but the subcommittee did 
not provide funds to the Department of Interior because there were no 
eligible tribes capably of sharing the construction costs. The 
subcommittee was pleased to learn that the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of 
Michigan is eligible, willing, and capable to take advantage of this 
innovative program during the fiscal year 2003 funding cycle.
  The subcommittee believes that the Tribal Construction Demonstration 
Program will continue to prove to be one of the most beneficial and 
successful programs of its kind for the improvement of Native American 
education facilities.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, thank you for clarifying this issue and 
for your support of this critical project. The Saginaw Tribe is eager 
to partner with the Department of interior to ensure that the 
educational needs of its people are met.


                  Advanced Housing Research Consortium

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I request the Senate's support and 
assistance on a funding item of importance to the University of North 
Dakota and other universities involved in the consortium for advanced 
housing research.
  Several years ago, my state experienced extreme flooding in the Red 
River Valley. These floods destroyed thousands of homes in my state. 
After the flood waters receded, the University of North Dakota, UND, 
recognized the need for research that could increase the survivability 
of wood structures during natural disasters. To meet this need, the UND 
chemistry department began working with the Housing Research Consortium 
for Natural Disasters to improve the durability of wood and to increase 
the effectiveness of assessment and recovery technologies.
  Although it has taken several years, I am pleased that this research 
initiative has finally been identified for funding through the U.S. 
Forest Service. The House fiscal year 2003 Interior Appropriations Bill 
contains $1.7 million for this research through the advanced housing 
research consortium. While the initial request was substantially higher 
than what was contained in the House bill, I think that this funding is 
a good start and I urge my colleagues who will serve with me on the 
Conference Committee to recede to the House position on this item.
  Mr. BURNS. I understand the importance of this item to the Senator 
from North Dakota, and I will work with him on this item when this bill 
moves to conference.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator from North Dakota, a Member of our 
Subcommittee, for bringing this item to the attention of the Senate.
  Mr. DORGAN. I thank the distinguished managers of this chapter of 
this bill.


                  next generation lighting initiative

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to pose a question to my 
esteemed colleague from Montana. It is my understanding that the fiscal 
year 2003 Senate Appropriations Interior Subcommittee report contains 
$4 million allocated for the next generation lighting initiative? Is 
that correct?
  Mr. BURNS. You are correct, Senator. Four million dollars is in the 
report for this purpose which originated from a request to the Interior 
Appropriations Subcommittee in the form of a dear colleague letter 
dated April 23, 2002, initiated by both Senator DeWine and yourself, 
which contains 22 bipartisan signatures.
  Mr. DeWINE. Senator Bingaman, as you know my State of Ohio is 
considered the home to the lighting industry, and from the start, I 
have been a strong supporter of the next generation lighting 
initiative. I feel it is important that for the record, there is a good 
understanding by the executive branch on the legislative history of the 
next generation lighting initiative. Would you please be so kind as to 
share with us its history?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I would be glad to. The next generation lighting 
initiative was first introduced as S. 1166 in the 107th Congress. It 
was then included in H.R. 4, the comprehensive energy bill, as amended 
by the Senate, which then went into conference with the House. 
Unfortunately, the energy bill failed in conference, but the next 
generation lighting initiative, and nearly the entire R&D authorization 
title were conferenced with the House. This agreed upon R&D 
authorization title, with the next generation lighting initiative, is 
now found in H.R. 238, as introduced by the House Science Committee in 
the 108th Congress.
  Mr. DeWINE. Senator Bingaman, did we not introduce this conference 
language as a bill this Congress?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Yes, it is now Senate Bill 167.
  Mr. BURNS. My esteemed colleagues, Senators Bingaman and DeWine, I 
wish to thank you both for sharing with me the legislative history of 
the next generation lighting initiative, and I hope this is of aid to 
the Department of Energy as it manages this project. It will be useful 
background to my subcommittee as it performs its oversight duties in 
the upcoming year.

[[Page S1445]]

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, while I appreciate the desire of my 
colleagues to complete the omnibus fiscal year 2003 appropriations bill 
early in the session of this Congress, this rush to complete the bill, 
unfortunately, allows for the addition of certain riders that should 
have greater scrutiny prior to being added under the cover of darkness. 
Of particular concern to me is section 329, which would eliminate 
consideration of the record of decision for the 2002 Supplemental 
Environmental Impact Statement for the 1997 Tongass Land Management 
Plan, forest plan, from the Forest Service's administrative appeal 
process and judicial review.
  The inherent values of the Tongass National Forest to the American 
public cannot be understated. As the Nation's largest national forest, 
17 million acres, located in southeast Alaska, it contains large tracts 
of pristine lands that are presently unprotected from future management 
activities. This is the last vestige for species that once roamed the 
Lower 48 States uninterrupted by the designs of humans. The Tongass is 
home to the American eagle, grizzly bears, a variety of fish species, 
including the Chinook, Coho, and Sockeye salmon to name a few, that 
once flourished in the rivers throughout the United States and numerous 
plant and wildlife species both common and unique.
  Section 329 is opposed by many Alaska and national environmental 
organizations. Over 170,000 Americans commented on the agency's 2002 
Draft EIS, which recommended no new wilderness on any of the 9.7 
million acres of Tongass roadless areas. Over 95 percent of those 
commenting urged the agency to recommend more wilderness protection for 
the Tongass.
  While there is a time and place for the appropriate management of any 
national forest, making that determination of when and where needs to 
include the public in the decisionmaking process. Whereas, 
collaboration and public involvement play an integral role in the 
development of any forest plan, at times there is the need for an 
objective review to ensure that the public's concerns have been 
addressed. Removing these reviews, either through the agency's 
established appeals process or by the court, undermines the basic 
intent of allowing for public involvement in the management of the 
public's lands.
  It has taken numerous years to develop the Tongass Forest Plan; this 
should not be viewed negatively, but as a reflection of the public's 
passion for this national treasure. The court told the Forest Service 
in a previous order to go back to the drawing board. This determination 
was due to the lack of additional lands into the National Wilderness 
Preservation System. This court decision resulted in the 2002 
Supplemental EIS, which now my colleague proposes to bypass both the 
agency's internal review process and the judicial system. It is as 
though he is saying ``trust us, we will get it right this time.'' It is 
not a matter of right or wrong, but a matter of due process that we 
need to ensure has been adhered to, to ensure that the American 
public's concerns have been heard on the management of their national 
lands.
  This amendment would set a dangerous precedent for the entire 
national forest system by essentially giving the Forest Service a free 
pass to write the record of decision however they like because it 
cannot be reviewed. I urge my colleagues to remove the language and 
instead let the review process work as it is intended to occur.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am extremely disappointed that this 
bill contains a 15-year reauthorization of the Price-Anderson Act, 
which indemnifies the commercial nuclear power industry and limits the 
industry's liability in the event of an accident. This act, which has 
provided such protections for the nuclear power industry for some 45 
years, needs to be revisited and seriously reconsidered--particularly 
in the wake of the events of September 11, 2001. It is my hope that 
such consideration will still be given by the Senate Committee on 
Environment and Public Works, the Committee of jurisdiction of which I 
am proud to be a member, despite the reauthorization of the Act on page 
1027 of this 1052-page bill--a reauthorization which has not been 
debated at all of the floor or in Committee this Congress.
  In addition to increased security concerns at nuclear powerplants as 
a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, there are 
additional issues that warrant further debate before this act is 
reauthorized. Recently, the General Accounting Office found that 
liability limits under the Price-Anderson Act are not adequate to 
provide for compensation of victims in all nuclear accident scenarios--
not to mention the kind of event we experienced in New York on 
September 11, 2001. Also, questions have been raised as to whether the 
Price-Anderson Act includes sufficient protections to deal with the 
currently deregulated energy industry--whether the act would operate as 
intended and ensure that nuclear powerplant operators are able to 
provide compensation in the event of an accident up to the act's 
limits.
  A recent study has concluded that under the act, limited liability 
corporations and multi-tiered holding companies that own nuclear 
powerplants may be able to effectively shield their intermediate and or 
parent corporations from financial responsibilities under the Price-
Anderson Act and thereby walk away from Price-Anderson obligations 
without jeopardizing other assets. The use of these relatively new 
corporate structures for ownership of nuclear powerplants raises 
questions about the respective obligations of subsidiary, intermediate, 
and parent corporations to make the payments required under the 
provisions of the Price-Anderson Act--questions that should be resolved 
before the act is reauthorized for a 15-year period.
  In addition, there is increasing cause for concern regarding the 
general safety and security of our Nation's nuclear powerplants. A 
recent report by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) Inspector 
General found that ``NRC appears to have informally established an 
unreasonably high burden of requiring absolute proof of a safety 
problem . . . before it will act to shut down a power plant.'' In 
addition, the NRC recently ruled that the risk of terrorism is too 
speculative to be considered when making nuclear reactor licensing 
decisions. And a recent survey of NRC employees shows that a third of 
employees question the Commission's commitment to safety, and almost 
half say that they do not feel safe speaking up in the NRC. While 
almost 90 percent of the agency's executive-level employees answered 
favorably to questions regarding the Commission's commitment to safety, 
less than two-thirds of those in the mid-level ranks answered 
similarly, according to recent press reports about the employee survey.
  In addition, reports have been issued that show security guards at 
nuclear powerplants are over-worked and under-trained, that the guards 
themselves do not feel that they are getting the support they need to 
do their jobs right. In fact, a January 2002 report commissioned by 
Entergy, the owner of the Indian Point nuclear power plant in New York, 
found that only 19 percent of security guards at Indian Point 2 stated 
that they could ``adequately defend the plant after the terrorist event 
of September 11th.''
  For these and other reasons, I strongly oppose the inclusion of this 
15-year reauthorization of the Price-Anderson Act in this legislation. 
I remain committed to a thoughtful reconsideration and debate of this 
act as it pertains to the commercial nuclear power industry, and look 
forward to addressing this and other issues related to nuclear 
powerplants, including the important issue of nuclear powerplant 
security, in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee this 
Congress.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I intended to offer an amendment to 
address fundamental concerns that a provision in this bill 
discriminates against children in need of special education services 
because they happen to live in the District of Columbia. That provision 
imposes a limitation of $3,000 on how much the District of Columbia may 
pay per case in attorney's fees to plaintiffs who prevail in litigation 
brought against the District of Columbia public schools under the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, in order to enroll 
their children in special education services.
  I would prefer that we eliminate section 135 from the bill entirely. 
Congress should not impose restrictions on the District of Columbia's 
use of local funds. If someone is raising a child

[[Page S1446]]

with a serious learning disability and wants that child evaluated for 
enrollment in a special education program, we have provisions in the 
law across America governing access to services. This law provides for 
the awarding of reasonable attorney's fees at prevailing community 
rates to parties who prevail in their due process proceedings. It is 
only in the District of Columbia that some Members of Congress want to 
unfairly limit the amount paid to those attorneys. These same 
Congressmen and Senators would never impose such limitations on their 
own States and districts. In last year's Senate appropriations bill for 
the District of Columbia, the Senate overwhelmingly supported an 
amendment I offered to soften the impact of a $2,500 attorney fee 
limitation by designating certain situations in which such a cap would 
not apply.
  I have been engaged in extensive discussions with my colleague, 
Senator Hutchison, the chief proponent of section 135, which have led 
to a modification of that provision. The nature and amount of attorney 
fees in special education cases brought under IDEA raise serious 
questions about both the adequacy of in-school programs to serve 
special education students and some aggressive activities of certain 
attorneys and firms. The modification raises the limit on the amounts 
which may be paid to $4,000 per action. It also precludes the payment 
of the fees of any attorney or firm whom the chief financial officer of 
the District of Columbia determines to have a pecuniary interest, 
either through an attorney, officer, or employee of the firm, in any 
special education diagnostic services, schools, or other special 
education service providers.
  I note that this bill mandates that the chief financial officer of 
the District of Columbia require disclosure by attorneys in IDEA cases 
of any financial, corporate, legal, board memberships, or other 
relationships with special education diagnostic services, schools, or 
other special education service providers before paying any attorney's 
fees. The chief financial officer may also require attorneys in special 
education cases to certify that all services billed in special 
education were rendered. The bill also directs that the chief financial 
officer will prepare and submit quarterly reports to the Committees on 
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives on the 
certifications and the amount paid by the government of the District of 
Columbia, including the District of Columbia public schools, to 
attorneys in cases brought under IDEA. The bill further allows the 
inspector general of the District of Columbia to conduct audits of the 
certification to ensure attorney compliance.
  I endorse the committee report's strong recommendation that the 
council of the District of Columbia, in cooperation with the Mayor of 
the District of Columbia and the District of Columbia school board, 
develop legislation to address conflicts of interest in special 
education cases.
  I hope these provisions will produce needed accountability. I hope 
these provisions will help prevent manipulative practices by a few 
which unfortunately denigrate the honest, dedicated work of the vast 
majority of the attorneys who devote their careers to serving 
vulnerable families and children through legal representation in 
special education placement cases.
  It is my expectation that the reauthorization of the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act and reform efforts by the District of 
Columbia Public Schools will make the imposition of caps on how much 
the District of Columbia may pay in attorney's fees in IDEA cases 
unnecessary in subsequent appropriations bills.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I voted in support of the Edwards 
amendment to delay the implementation of the EPA's final rule on New 
Source Review for six months for the purpose of ascertaining the impact 
on air quality and human health. There has been significant controversy 
and uncertainty about the effects of this rule. I believe in this case 
we need to have an independent assessment in order to assure the public 
that this regulatory change will not jeopardize existing air quality or 
human health.
  Given that the rule represents a significant change in national clean 
air policy, we should have this essential information in hand at this 
final phase of the rule-making process. However, we haven't seen any 
thorough or independent analysis of the pertinent data or a definitive 
assessment of impacts.
  I have stated my strong view on the issue of global climate change 
that we have sufficient information to move forward to define effective 
measures to address this most serious environmental problem. In order 
to move forward responsibly with this significant change of air 
emissions regulation, we apparently need additional scientific 
information.
  I am struck by the extent of disagreement over the effects of this 
change amongst air quality experts, members of the regulated community, 
air quality regulators on the federal, state, and local levels, and 
environmental groups. I believe the federal taxpayers who pay for this 
regulatory program, in terms of both dollars and health impacts, would 
want Congress to approve the implementation of this new regulatory 
regime only if we are certain the costs are commensurate with the 
benefits.
  At this point, there is significant confusion on this score. The EPA 
has testified that 50 percent of the facilities that are now subject to 
the Clean Air Act's technology requirements would fall out of those 
requirements under the rule changes. A number of reputable studies 
indicate that emissions will increase as a result. The argument has 
also been made by the Administration and others that air quality will 
improve because facilities would be encouraged to install new, more 
energy-efficient technology.
  This amendment provides a six month period for an independent panel 
of scientific experts to give us the information that we need in order 
to assert that this policy change will benefit the public and the 
environment, as well as the regulated community. Once we have this 
information, we should move forward decisively to either put the final 
rule in place or reject this approach.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                                U.S. Congress,

                                 Washington, DC, January 23, 2003.
     The Hon. Ted Stevens,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Defense, Committee on 
         Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     The Hon. Daniel K. Inouye,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Defense, Committee on 
         Appropriations, U.S. Senate Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Stevens and Ranking Member Inouye: We very 
     much appreciate your efforts on behalf of including in the 
     FY03 Omnibus Appropriations bill an amendment we have worked 
     on relating to the Department of Defense Total Information 
     Awareness Program.
       We wish to let you know that as the Senate moved toward 
     final passage of the Omnibus Appropriations bill this 
     afternoon, our office continued to be engaged in a discussion 
     with other interested offices about the wording of the 
     language in Sec. 111(c)(2)(B) of Amendment No. 59 affecting 
     the scope of the Office of Total Information Awareness. 
     Questions have been raised that the wording of this 
     subsection of the amendment, as adopted, could be interpreted 
     to inhibit lawful foreign intelligence activities. That is 
     not the intent of the amendment, and to correct the problem 
     we propose to strike in that subsection (B) all after the 
     word ``activities.'' We are committed to working jointly with 
     you to address this concern through enactment of this change 
     in conference.
       Again, we appreciate your willingness to include a 
     provision establishing strong Congressional oversight over 
     this program, and look forward to working with you to correct 
     the language to reflect our intent more accurately.
           Sincerely,
     Charles E. Grassley.
     Ron Wyden.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, after six continuing resolutions to keep 
the Federal Government operating and more than 3 months into the new 
fiscal year, the appropriations process for fiscal year 2003 is finally 
coming to an end. Of the 13 appropriations bills that were required to 
be passed and enacted into law last year to fully fund programs for 
fiscal year 2003, only two were passed and enacted. The 11 remaining 
bills have been bundled up in this so-called ``omnibus'' appropriations 
legislation.
  And once again, as in past years, we are faced with voting on a 
massive legislative package without adequate time for thorough review 
and debate. The 1,052-page bill before us, which appropriates 
approximately $400 billion,

[[Page S1447]]

was not made available for review at 9:00 p.m. on the night before the 
first full day of debate on the bill. The managers submitted for the 
Record what would have been the committee reports for the 11 bills 
encompassed in this omnibus, but it was not available for review until 
debate on this bill was well under way. Have members and their staffs 
even spent the time to learn what is contained in this monstrous 
vehicle?
  When will we ever learn? I hope that the 108th Congress brings with 
it a renewed spirit of bipartisan cooperation. In the last Congress, 
such cooperation took a backseat to election year politics, partisan 
bickering, and ill-advised parliamentary tactics that had the effect of 
further polarizing this body. If we continue on this troubled path, we 
will be in the same situation 1 year from now. And again, this will be 
at the cost of the American taxpayer.
  During times of threats to our national security, it has been common 
practice to ask Americans to sacrifice to protect our homeland. 
However, today some believe it appropriate to merely craft this 
appropriations bill with little regard for the severe security and 
fiscal challenges confronting our Nation. We are on the verge of a 
possible war, and our economy is in distress. So what are we 
appropriating scarce resources for? Orangutans, pig waste, and sea 
otter commissions.
  There is approximately $11 billion in pork-barrel spending and a 
number of legislative riders that are riddled throughout this bill. In 
fact, Congressional earmarks reached their highest level during the 
last fiscal year, increasing 32 percent from the previous year. The 
multitude of unrequested funding earmarks buried in this 1,052-page 
bill will undoubtedly further burden American taxpayers. While the 
amounts associated with each individual earmark may not seem 
extravagant, taken together, they represent a serious diversion away 
from Federal programs that have undergone the appropriate merit-based 
selection process.
  As I discussed earlier today, one of the most egregious riders we 
consistently see in appropriation bills are the Army Corps of 
Engineers's water projects. Water projects have become synonymous with 
pork because of the habitual authorization of these projects in 
appropriation bills. These water projects continue to be slipped into 
appropriation bills without congressional consideration as to their 
effects on the environment and without going through established 
project evaluation procedures.
  Today's Washington Post reports that the Yazoo Pump project in 
central Mississippi--which would involve building the world's largest 
hydraulic pumping plant--would authorize $15 million to drain 200,000 
acres of wetlands that is home to both waterfowl and rare plants. The 
sole purpose of this project is to drain environmentally sensitive 
wetlands for agricultural production. Touted as a ``flood control 
project,'' the Yazoo pump is not designed to save homes or land but to 
drain the wetlands for soybean and cotton production. More importantly, 
$30,000 of federal taxpayer money has already been spent to preserve 
these wetlands because of their unique features as a bird sanctuary. At 
a minimum, we should allow the EPA to complete its study of this 
project--environment review is still ongoing. In fact, in the draft 
environmental review, the EPA gave the Yazoo the lowest possible rating 
calling the project ``flawed and inadequate.'' If this project could 
not proceed forward on the merits, why should Congress give its 
blessing to it in a rider to an omnibus appropriation bill?
  The next project, located in Devil's Lake, North Dakota not only 
authorizes a wasteful and highly controversial project but the rider 
also exempts the project from standard evaluation procedures. Today's 
Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that the rider provides $100 million 
for pipeline into the Sheyenne River, which flows into the Hudson Bay. 
Because of widespread water quality concerns on connecting rivers and 
lakes, there is strong opposition to this project from the Canadian 
government, the States of Missouri and Minnesota, and U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, the EPA, national conservation organizations and 
environmental groups in North Dakota. Despite this opposition and the 
complex ecological issues raised by this project, funding has been 
authorized and standard language requiring the Corps to evaluate the 
merits of the project has been omitted. The bottom line: If this 
project was ever assessed on its merits, it would likely never survive.
  The report language for this bill directs the Agency for 
International Development to provide at least $2.5 million to the 
Orangutan Foundation located in Indonesia. The foundation likes to call 
the orangutan ``the neglected ape.'' Luckily for them, they are not 
being neglected by the Appropriations Committee. And, the appropriators 
not only like orangutans, they also are fond of gorillas. The Committee 
gave $1.5 million to groups like the Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund. Mr. 
President, why stop at giving special preference to these two primates? 
What about the other members of the animal kingdom? Which brings us to 
the lowly catfish and its heretofore unknown relation to the cow. In 
the emergency disaster relief section of this bill, a provision was 
included that would qualify catfish farmers for livestock compensation 
payments. As my colleagues know, the livestock compensation program is 
a Federal farm program that compensate eligible livestock producers--
such as owners of beef and dairy cattle, sheep, goats, or certain 
breeds of buffalo--who have suffered losses or damages as a result of a 
severe drought.

  While I often take issue with various farm policies that 
disproportionately benefit large agribusiness of farms at the expense 
of small farmers and taxpayers, or those that compromise American 
agricultural trade commitments, this effort to compensate catfish 
farmers from a farm program that is intended for livestock stands out. 
I am certain that catfish proponents will offer a dozen different 
explanations to justify this provision. However, not even hog, poultry, 
or horse producers are eligible under the livestock compensation 
program. Why should catfish then get livestock payments? Mr. President, 
when did a catfish become analogous to a cow?
  Catfish farmers are hardly left out in it the cold--they are eligible 
for other types of emergency assistance from USDA. Also, in the recent 
2002 farm bill, domestic catfish proponents were successful in banning 
all catfish imports by requiring that foreign catfish be labeled as 
something other than catfish. It seems very clear to me that catfish 
farmers do not want to compete on a fair basis, domestically or abroad, 
and are willing to double-dip into disaster-relief funding intended for 
other farmers in need. Mr. President, let's remove this extraneous 
provision and let livestock be livestock, not catfish.
  Other interesting earmarks include: $200,000 for the Anchorage People 
Mover in Alaska; $250,000 for the Mary Baldwin College in Staunton, 
Virginia for the Center for the Exceptionally Gifted; now they really 
are exceptionally gifted; $1.5 million for WestStart's Vehicular 
Flywheel Project in the State of Washington; an extra $1 million for 
the National Center for the Ecologically-based Noxious Weed Management 
at Montana State University; $600,000 to treat waste on small swine 
farms in South Carolina; $1 million for a DNA bear sampling study in 
Montana; $100,000 for the Alaska Sea Otter Commission; $300,000 to the 
Southern Regional Research Center at New Orleans, LA, for termite 
detection systems, evaluation of wood products for protecting building 
materials, and bait technology; $200,000 to study seafood waste at the 
University of Alaska; $300,000 for Old Stoney feasibility study in 
Wyoming; $650,000 for grasshopper and Mormon cricket activities in the 
State of Utah;
  I am pleased to see that $1.5 billion was added to this legislation 
to supplement the $50 million that was originally appropriated to fund 
the recently-passed ``Help America Vote Act.'' However, I am concerned 
that this funding has only been added as a common pool and not 
designated according to the legislation that Congress passed last year. 
For example, the bill would not explicitly fund the program to improve 
accessibility for disabled voters at the poling places. I urge my 
colleagues to address this discrepancy in the House-Senate Conference.
  I believe it is beneficial that the Senate address physician and 
hospital fee

[[Page S1448]]

schedules under Medicare. Recent Medicare physician fee reductions have 
forced many doctors across the Nation to reduce Medicare patients, 
leaving seniors without access to the care they need. Similarly, rural 
hospitals, particularly in my home State of Arizona, have experienced 
an unfair imbalance in payment schedules compared to their urban 
counterparts. Although our Nation's health care providers would benefit 
from provisions under this bill, I do not believe that appropriations 
bills are the venue for such legislative language. I am also concerned 
about giving hospitals and doctors well over $1 billion in additional 
funds from Medicare, without providing seniors with a much needed 
prescription drug benefit.
  There are numerous provisions in this bill that circumvent the clear 
jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee. Perhaps the most egregious 
example is section 211 of Division B, which would grant new life to an 
already failed shipbuilding project that has cost the American taxpayer 
over $185 million, and give it to a foreign-owned corporation. I've 
already expressed my opposition to this special interest provision. But 
there are a host of other items that I wish to discuss.
  Another section of the bill would allow a narrow class of airports to 
exclude air carriers that may want to provide scheduled air service. It 
is my understanding that this is so narrowly tailored that it benefits 
just one airport--Centennial Airport in Colorado.
  Another provision would allow an airport to give Airport Improvement 
Program money back to the FAA enabling the agency to hire staff to 
speed up environmental reviews of that airport's projects. This is an 
area in which the Commerce Committee took action last year, and we will 
continue to monitor and pursue further action this year, should it be 
necessary. Appropriations bills are not the proper nor the traditional 
vehicles that should be used to address the AIP.
  This bill also earmarks $1.2 billion for New Starts under the transit 
program. I find this set of earmarks to be particularly egregious. The 
earmarks do not just direct the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to 
spend the appropriated funds on pet projects in certain States, they 
also actually change the recommendations that FTA has made regarding 
which projects should be funded and the level of funding each project 
should receive in fiscal year 2003. Mr. President, when are we going to 
allow the FTA to do its job? The FTA, not the appropriators, should 
determine which projects have merit and should be funded.
  This bill also would limit funding for the number of Coast Guard flag 
officers to 37. While the Coast Guard is authorized under title 14 to 
have 48 flag officers, it currently has 37 on active duty. But as the 
Coast Guard grows in size to meet its new homeland security missions, 
its authorized flexibility to promote additional flag officers would be 
severely restrained under this bill. If there is a concern that the 
Coast Guard has too many flag officers, then that concern should be 
addressed through the committee of jurisdiction--the Commerce 
Committee.
  The bill provides $48.7 million for the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting for costs related to digital program developed associated 
with the transition of public broadcasting to digital broadcasting. 
This is $23.7 million more than the President's request, and it was not 
considered by the Commerce Committee, which is the authorizing 
committee. More importantly, I don't believe that Congress is 
exercising sound fiscal policy when we make a decision to appropriate 
millions of dollars to publicly funded television stations so that they 
may purchase the latest in digital technology. Rather the Corporation 
for Public Broadcasting should come before the authorizing committee to 
have a discussion with members on how to best achieve the goals of 
public broadcasters and ensure that taxpayer dollars are being spent 
wisely.
  The bill appropriates $100 million for fisheries disaster assistance. 
Of this, $35 million is for direct assistance to the State of Alaska, 
for any person, business, or town that has experienced an economic 
hardship even remotely relating to fishing. This money is in addition 
to the $20 million for developing an Alaskan seafood marketing program.
  Of the remainder, $35 million is for the shrimp industries of the 
Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic, to provide far-reaching assistance 
to these fisheries. $20 million is provided for voluntary capacity 
reduction programs in the Northeast and West Coast groundfish 
fisheries. $5 million is for Hawaiian fishermen affected by fishing 
area closures. And, 5 million for the blue crab fisheries affected by 
low harvest.
  The bill provides these handouts without requiring any accountability 
on how the money is actually spent. Moreover, the allocations were made 
without offering any form of justification. How much federal money do 
these regions really need, if any? If these needs are legitimate, how 
do they compare to the needs of other regions? We may never know, 
because these appropriations circumvented every stage of committee 
review. We have no basis for determining how necessary this is or 
whether or not this is sound policy.
  Another provision authorized the Secretary of Commerce to award 
grants to encourage individuals to travel to the United States and 
establishes the United States Travel and Tourism Promotion Advisory 
Board; $50 million is appropriated to implement this section. This is 
yet another example of inserting authorizing language in an 
appropriations bill, and providing an enormous amount of money for an 
initiative that has not yet been fully examined and discussed by the 
Senate Commerce Committee.
  The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that the Federal 
Government had a budget deficit of about $109 billion during the first 
quarter of fiscal year 2003. That is significantly more than the $35 
billion shortfall recorded over the same period last year. And all 
forecasts project growing deficits for as far as the eye can see.
  Our current economic situation and our vital national security 
concerns illustrate that we need more than ever to prioritize our 
Federal spending. While I commend members of the Appropriations 
Committee for holding down spending to the level recommended by the 
President, some of these provisions, as is the case in virtually all 
appropriations legislation, serve no national priority. My friends on 
the committee are no doubt tired of hearing me say this, but I am 
obliged to do so; we can and we must do better.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I strongly support the amendment offered 
yesterday by Senator Bill Nelson and several others to increase funding 
for emergency relief in Africa by $600 million in fiscal year 2003. I 
could not be present for the vote on this amendment, but I would have 
voted for it if I were able to. This additional funding is urgently 
needed to address a mounting famine that has put an estimated 38 
million people at risk for starvation in Ethiopia, Eritrea, and six 
southern African countries.
  Because the President submitted his fiscal year 2003 budget request 
nearly a year ago--before the famine reached its current magnitude--the 
omnibus appropriations bill we are now debating does not provide 
adequate resources both to counter this humanitarian crisis and to fund 
ongoing programs in Africa to assist poor and displaced persons. The 
United States has generally provided more than half of the food aid 
required to address this kind of crisis. The proposed $600 million in 
additional funding is needed to reach the one-half mark and forestall 
further destruction in southern and eastern Africa.
  The ripple effects of this kind of famine go far beyond the millions 
of Africans who are directly affected. Because severe famine can force 
families to leave their homes--sometimes even their countries--in 
search of better conditions and to resort to other desperate measures, 
it can cripple economic progress and threaten political stability 
throughout the affected regions. Ultimately, a crisis of this magnitude 
can imperil even our own security. We have an obligation to the people 
of Africa and to our own citizens to provide the resources necessary to 
address this emergency.


                     emerald ash borer infestation

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we have before the Senate the Omnibus 
Appropriations bill. This bill funds a wide array of vital programs, 
but this bill does not address a relatively new problem that is 
affecting the ash tree population in Southeast Michigan.
  I am talking about the Emerald Ash Borer, an Asian beetle that most 
likely

[[Page S1449]]

traveled to Michigan on wooden shipping pallets. An invasive species, 
the Ash Borer is rapidly destroying ash trees in southeastern Michigan 
and as it spreads will do so nationwide. In the time that it has been 
in Michigan, the Ash Borer has already killed 6 million trees. 
Ironically, this invasive pest has the potential to wipe out the very 
tree that was planted to replace the elm trees that succumbed to Dutch 
Elm Disease.
  Ms. STABENOW. My good friend and fellow Senator from Michigan is 
correct; the Emerald Ash Borer has the ability to destroy our nation's 
urban forests. The threat is so great that the Departments of 
Agriculture for Indiana and Ohio as well as the Province of Ontario, 
all of which border Michigan, have published warnings about the Ash 
Borer even though it is not known to have spread from Michigan, yet.
  Currently, an Interagency Invasive Species Task Force including the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Michigan State University, Michigan 
Technological University, and the Michigan Department of Agriculture is 
working to analyze this problem. As such the task force has placed a 
quarantine on 13 counties in southeastern Michigan.
  Mr. KOHL. I thank my friends from Michigan for bringing this problem 
to the Senate's attention. I understand that the Emerald Ash Borer may 
pose a very real threat to the health of our Nation's urban forests.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is imperative that the Animal Plant Health Inspection 
Service (APHIS) take a vital role addressing this problem. It is my 
expectation that APHIS will conducted surveillance into this problem 
and develop a containment strategy that will lay the groundwork for the 
eradication of this invasive species.
  Ms. STABENOW. Having APHIS report on these efforts to Congress would 
greatly assist us as we seek to assist with the eradication of this 
pest and as we seek funds to help contain and eradicate the Emerald ash 
borer.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I appreciate the concerns expressed by my colleagues, 
and I assure them that this subcommittee recognizes the horrible 
effects that the Emerald Ash Borer has had on Southeastern Michigan and 
the potential it has to devastate our nation's Ash tree population. We 
will work with them to address this problem.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Committee Report to the fiscal year 
2003 Interior Appropriations bill recommends a $2 million increase in 
technology deployment for the Clean Cities program and recognizes the 
work of the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition to increase E-85 fueling 
capacity.
  I appreciate the Subcommittee's recognition of the important 
environmental, energy, and economic security benefits that would result 
from expanding our nation's E-85 fueling capacity. I would also like to 
thank Senator Byrd for the Subcommittee's recognition of the work being 
done by the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition to increase E-85 fueling 
capacity. E-85 is a form of alternative transportation fuel consisting 
of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. It will help reduce 
America's dependence on foreign oil.
  Currently, there are over 2 million vehicles in the national vehicle 
fleet that are capable of using E-85 fuel. The use of E-85 in these 
vehicles has the potential to reduce foreign oil imports by 34 million 
barrels a year, while adding $3 billion to total farm income and 
reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
  On March 18, 2002, 10 colleagues and I sent a letter to the chairman 
and ranking member requesting that $2 million be designated to install 
additional E-85 fueling capacity across the country and to begin an E-
85 educational awareness effort in cooperation with the Nation's 
automakers.
  It is my hope that, as this bill goes to conference with the House, 
the Subcommittee would work to provide funding to expand the deployment 
of E-85 fueling capacity, which is important for my State and the 
Nation.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on Christmas Eve, the Department of Labor 
quietly announced that it would discontinue the Mass Layoff Statistics 
program, which collects data and reports on large layoffs involving 50 
or more employees. It's obvious from the timing of the announcement 
that the administration hoped few would notice this embarrassing 
attempt to conceal bad news about the economy.
  Since President Bush took office two years ago, the economic well-
being of America's families has dramatically deteriorated. Yet the 
administration continues to support economic policies that neglect the 
basic needs of working men and women, and lavish excessive tax breaks 
on the wealthiest taxpayers.
  The unemployment rate has risen, while wages have stagnated. Income 
inequality has increased, while stock portfolios and 401(k)s have 
declined.
  The poverty rate has increased to its highest level in nearly a 
decade, while household incomes have fallen and home foreclosures have 
reached their highest rate in 30 years.
  Hard-working families are suffering. Nearly 8.6 million workers are 
now unemployed, 2.6 million more than when President Bush took office. 
Companies are more likely to continue to layoff workers than create new 
jobs. Now is not the time to conceal information about layoffs and 
other important economic data from the public.
  The mass layoff statistics are one of the best measures we have to 
understand the impact on workers of changes in the economy. In the wake 
of the September 11 tragedies, the mass layoff statistics were used to 
give us a clear picture of the economic damage that resulted from 
terrorist attacks. Many businesses, particularly those in downtown 
Manhattan, were directly affected by the horrific attacks and were 
forced to layoff many workers.
  The Bureau of Labor Statistics added non-natural disasters as a 
reason for mass layoffs in its report, and these layoffs became one of 
the few available figures on individuals hurt economically by the 
attacks.
  Similarly, in the wake of the Enron, WorldCom and other corporate 
scandals, the statistics revealed the tens of thousands of layoffs that 
followed. WorldCom had 20,000 layoffs. At Arthur Andersen, 7,000 
workers were laid off. At Global Crossing, 9,000 workers were laid off, 
and Enron laid off 4,000 workers.
  The Mass Layoff Statistics program is respected as one of the most 
accurate signs of the industries has been described as the best, easy-
to-understand overview of which industries in the greatest distress and 
the workers bearing the burden.
  Unfortunately, history is repeating itself. In 1992, in a time of an 
earlier economic downturn, the first President Bush also canceled the 
Mass-Layoffs Statistics program.
  It was reinstated by President Clinton, and has continued to provide 
important information. Economic policy officials, state and local 
workforce investment boards, state unemployment insurance directors, 
job training agencies, job placement organizations, and researchers 
rely on this data, and they deserve to have it.
  The National Association of State Workforce Agencies has sent a 
letter to Secretary Chao urging the Department of Labor to reinstate 
the program. As the letter says: ``The states have come to rely on this 
information as an economic indicator and a tool for operational 
decisions on service delivery and funding allocations for dislocated 
worker programs.''
  The Mass Layoff Statistics program provides accurate, timely 
information about the industries that are involved in large layoffs. It 
provides clear guidance on how to allocate resources, set economic 
priorities, and respond to the urgent needs of the local communities 
affected.
  I am pleased that the Senate has accepted my amendment to restore the 
$6.6 million in funding needed by this program. This is great news for 
the State and local governments that rely on this information, the 
economists who use this data and the American public, which has a right 
to know the truth about our economy.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise to express my disappointment that 
the funding level for the State Wildlife Grants Program has been 
decreased dramatically. This program is essential in our Nation's 
efforts to conserve fish and wildlife, because it focuses on preventing 
species from becoming threatened or endangered. Due to constraints in 
this bill, the Senate had funded this important program at $40 million 
less than the House level of $100 million. Now, in the omnibus, this 
program is funded at an even lower level of $45 million. This is quite 
disappointing. And there will be additional across-the-board cuts which 
will hurt programs such as this one even more.

[[Page S1450]]

  Today, more than 1000 species are listed as federally threatened or 
endangered. The State Wildlife Grant Program helps provide resources to 
State agencies like the North Dakota Game and Fish Department to 
prevent further decline in fish and wildlife.
  In this time of fiscal constraints it is important to recognize that 
this program will actually save taxpayer dollars. Efforts to bring a 
species back from the brink of extinction are quite difficult and 
expensive. The old adage ``an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of 
cure'' is most appropriate in this case. These funds allow States to 
address such conservation problems before they become even more costly. 
Thus, these funds simultaneously save both wildlife and taxpayer 
dollars.
  There is growing recognition of North Dakota's national importance as 
a key breeding area for migratory birds, especially grassland species. 
Baird's sparrow and Sprague's pipit are two priority species that are 
found in my State in greater abundance than most other places. If we 
can work now to maintain healthy grasslands, we can ensure that 
ranchers can continue to work this land, as well as ensure the survival 
of these birds. This is possible when we work early to prevent problems 
rather than waiting for a species to become listed and endangered.
  The State Wildlife Grants program has the support of our Nation's 
leading sportsmen and environmental organizations as evidenced by a 
letter delivered to each Senator earlier this year. This includes a 
broad range of conservation interests such as Pheasants Forever, 
Audubon, Defenders of Wildlife, National Wildlife Federation, and the 
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Notably, all 
50 state fish and wildlife agencies, including the North Dakota Game 
and Fish Department, support this program.
  Because of this nationwide support, and our own understanding of the 
program's commonsense approach to conservation, 28 Senators--myself 
included--signed a letter requesting an increase from the fiscal year 
2002 base of $85 million.
  I hope we will be able to increase the funding for this important 
program in conference and that we will be able to work across the aisle 
to restore much needed funding for this program. In fact, I hope we 
will be able to restore this funding to the $100 million level that was 
previously provided by the House.
  The funding provided for the State Wildlife Grants program in this 
bill will significantly help conserve declining wildlife, but a 
significantly stronger commitment from the Federal Government is 
essential to address mounting conservation needs and, therefore, I am 
extremely disappointed that this funding has been cut even below the 
previous Senate level. Instead, I support the House position that 
provides greater funding for this critical program.


                                smallpox

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished majority 
leader and chairman for their commitment to enhancing America's 
preparedness for bioterrorism. We have worked together successfully for 
many years to help America prepare more effectively for the threat of 
biological attack. The Nation is embarking on a program to vaccinate 
millions of health care and emergency workers against the threat of a 
potential biological attack using smallpox, and I look forward to 
working with the distinguished majority leader and chairman to ensure 
that this program is conducted in a way that properly protects the 
health and safety of those receiving the vaccine.
  Mr. FRIST. I appreciate the Senator's comments. I believe that we are 
all in agreement on the importance of a smallpox immunization program 
to our national security, and I look forward to working with the 
Senator and with Chairman Gregg to ensure the success of a smallpox 
immunization program.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I have offered an amendment to the current legislation 
that would provide funding for a program to compensate those who suffer 
injuries from the smallpox vaccine, and to provide States, localities 
and cities with funding to implement the vaccination program. I 
understand from my colleagues that, while they are unable to support 
this amendment, they are willing to work with me on legislation that 
would provide appropriate compensation for those who may be injured by 
the vaccine.
  Mr. GREGG. I appreciate the Senators' interest in this area, and I 
believe we should work to pass legislation to provide appropriate 
compensation. I have scheduled a hearing in the Health, Education, 
Labor and Pensions Committee for next week that I hope will delve into 
many of the questions we must address in crafting the appropriate 
policy in this area. We are all in agreement that we should work to 
address this issue in a timely manner, and I will work with the Senator 
and leaders to ensure prompt consideration in the committee and on the 
floor of the Senate of such legislation.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I am sure that my colleagues appreciate that 
implementing the smallpox plan will impose significant costs on many 
communities. We should provide additional resources to allow 
communities to implement the plan without having to curtail other 
important health priorities.
  Mr. GREGG. I will do my best to see that appropriate funding is 
provided later in the year.
  Mr. FRIST. I join my colleagues in their comments, and I am committed 
to bringing legislation to provide appropriate compensation to the 
floor promptly and to address legitimate funding needs.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank my colleagues for their commitment to address 
these issues.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wish to speak about an amendment that 
I have offered to get behind the nurses and patients in this country. 
My amendment would provide $20 million in this bill to fund programs 
created by last year's bipartisan Nurse Reinvestment Act to recruit and 
retain nurses. I'm pleased that my amendment has been accepted by the 
managers of this appropriations bill. I thank Senators Stevens, Byrd, 
Specter, and Harkin for working with me to include my amendment in the 
Senate fiscal year 2003 appropriations bill.
  My amendment is a down payment. It has the support of 17 bipartisan 
cosponsors. The Nurse Reinvestment Act is an important bipartisan 
accomplishment from the last Congress. Republicans and Democrats came 
together to make this down payment to address the nursing shortage, a 
crisis that impacts patient care across the country. Now Congress must 
provide the funds to make these nurse recruitment and retention efforts 
a reality.
  America is facing a nursing shortage and it will only get worse. 
Today, there are about 126,000 nurse vacancies in hospitals alone 
nationwide. This number does not even include the nurses needed in 
nursing homes, home health agencies, schools and other sites. In my 
home state of Maryland, about 15.6 percent of the nursing jobs are 
vacant in hospitals. More than 2,000 full-time nurses are desperately 
needed.
  In 2000, there was a shortage of 110,000 registered nurses in this 
country. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, this 
number will: more than double by 2010 to 275,000; more than quadruple 
in 2015 to 507,000; and reach 808,000 in 2020.
  The demand for nurses will increase as the 78 million baby boomers 
get older and start to need more health care. The nursing shortage 
comes at a time when nurses are being asked to do more: hospitals 
caring for more critically ill patients; nurses receiving small pox 
vaccinations and giving small pox vaccinations to patients; and the 
nurses in military reserves called into active duty.
  Most importantly, this nursing shortage affects patient care. Nurses 
are on the front lines of health care everyday in hospitals, nursing 
homes, and home health agencies. A study published last year in the New 
England Journal of Medicine found that nursing shortages in hospitals 
are associated with a higher risk of complications and even death for 
patients.
  Last year, Congress passed the bipartisan Nurse Reinvestment Act as a 
down payment to help recruit and retain nurses, a first step to help 
address the nursing shortage. This bill alone will not solve the 
nursing shortage. It does not address the fact that nurses are 
underpaid, overworked, and undervalued.
  The Nurse Reinvestment Act does three things. First, it helps bring 
men and women into the nursing profession

[[Page S1451]]

by making nursing education more affordable. It provides scholarships 
and loan repayments in exchange for two years of service in areas that 
need nurses the most.
  Second, the Nurse Reinvestment Act helps keep nurses in the 
profession by providing additional education and training opportunities 
and programs to empower nurses. It provides financial assistance to 
pursue advanced degrees and training such as fostering mentoring 
programs, internships and residencies, as well as specialized geriatric 
care training. It also supports programs to encourage collaboration 
with other health care professionals and promote nurse involvement in 
decision-making. Finally, it increases the number of faculty in nursing 
education programs by forgiving loans in exchange for a commitment to 
teach in a nursing school.
  Last year, Congress put nursing recruitment and retention as a 
priority in our federal lawbooks. But this will be a hollow opportunity 
if Congress does not fund the Nurse Reinvestment Act this year. 
Congress must now put the Nurse Reinvestment Act as a priority in the 
federal checkbook. Funding the Nurse Reinvestment Act in 2003 has 
bipartisan support from 37 Senators. I also want to thank Senators 
Kennedy, Kerry, Jeffords, Clinton, Murray, Rockefeller, Corzine, 
Lieberman, Collins, Sarbanes, Lautenberg, Johnson, Biden, Cantwell, 
Smith, Roberts, and Landrieu for cosponsoring my amendment.
  My amendment is endorsed by the American Nurses Association, American 
Association of Colleges of Nursing, National League for Nursing, 
Emergency Nurses Association, American Association of Community 
Colleges, American College of Nurse Practitioners, National Association 
of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners, Oncology Nursing Society, and the 
Maryland Nurses Association. Numerous other groups support funding the 
Nurse Reinvestment Act in 2003 including the American Hospital 
Association, American Health Care Association, and the Federation of 
American Hospitals. But most importantly, this amendment has the 
support of patients who want to have nurses when they need them. 
Patients across the country are depending on the Congress to help them.
  This is my third nursing shortage as a United States Senator. I want 
to help find solutions so that it is the last nursing shortage. I thank 
my colleagues for their support. I strongly urge the House and Senate 
conferees on this bill to keep this $20 million to fund the Nurse 
Reinvestment Act in the conference report. Patients, nurses, and health 
care facilities across the country are depending on your support.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by my 
colleague, Senator Larry Craig, which I am proud to cosponsor along 
with the entire Northwest delegation. This amendment would provide an 
additional $700 million in borrowing authority for the Bonneville Power 
Administration, BPA, which will allow the agency to make much-needed 
improvements in our region's transmission grid, modernizing lines and 
reducing bottlenecks. The borrowing authority will also allow BPA to 
fund new conservation and renewable energy initiatives and make 
improvements at existing hydroelectric facilities, to make them more 
efficient and fish friendly.
  This amendment is consistent with current law, advances many of our 
shared, bipartisan energy policy goals, and represents a sound 
investment for U.S. taxpayers. I would also point out to my colleagues 
that this amendment is similar to legislation passed as part of the 
Senate energy bill last spring, which contained $1.3 billion in 
additional BPA borrowing authority. Further, it is consistent with the 
President's budget request for Fiscal Year 2003, which provided $700 
million for this purpose.
  The Bonneville Power Administration--created in 1937 under the 
Bonneville Project Act--has historically been one of the primary 
economic engines of the Pacific Northwest. Today, BPA owns and operates 
75 percent of the high-voltage transmission system in the region, 
consistent with principles of non-discriminatory open access. My 
colleagues may be interested to learn that among BPA's various 
statutory responsibilities included in the Pacific Northwest Power 
Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 is that the agency must ``assure 
the Pacific Northwest of an adequate, efficient, economical and 
reliable power supply.''
  Even more specifically, the Federal Columbia River Transmission 
System Act of 1974 stipulates that the BPA Administrator ``shall 
operate and maintain the Federal transmission system within the Pacific 
Northwest and shall construct improvements, betterments, and additions 
and replacements of such system within the Pacific Northwest as he 
determines are appropriate and required to: . . . maintain the 
electrical stability and electrical reliability of the Federal system . 
. .''
  The additional borrowing authority provided in this amendment will 
enable Bonneville to uphold these crucial responsibilities. It is also 
important to note that this infrastructure investment is one for which 
U.S. taxpayers would be repayed, with interest. As my colleagues may 
know, BPA makes payment to the U.S. Treasury on an annual basis--from 
revenues it collects from northwest ratepayers. BPA expenditures thus 
do not place any long-term burden on appropriated or trust fund 
activities. Indeed, the principal on all BPA capital-borrowing costs is 
fully repaid, with legally-required, market-determined interest.
  Like most of the country, transmission investment in the northwest 
has lagged behind demand. No major new transmission lines have been 
constructed in our region since 1987. In the meantime, Northwest loads 
have been growing steadily at a rate of 1.8 percent per year. This load 
growth, combined with deregulation of wholesale power markets, has 
given rise to a 2 percent per year rise in traffic on the transmission 
system.
  In addition, the Northwest Power Pool has estimated that winter peak 
load will have grown from 59,972 megawatts in 1998 to 66,952 megawatts 
by 2008 or, by 12 percent. But at the present rate of transmission 
investment--without the improvements this amendment will allow--the 
system will have grown from only 61,415 circuit miles in 1998 to 62,325 
circuit miles in 2008--or, by 2 percent. In short, regional 
transmission is not keeping up with load growth.
  To remedy this situation--and in keeping with its statutory 
obligations--BPA has identified 26 groups of needed transmission 
projects, for construction and energization over the next 5 to 6 years. 
The first nine, some of which are already underway, would address the 
most critically constrained pathways in our area.
  The construction of additional transmission will reduce existing 
bottlenecks, reinforce the system to assure minimal conformance with 
reliability standards for major load centers such as Seattle, Portland 
and Spokane, and ultimately allow the integration of more than 5,000 
megawatts of new generation. I would also like to point out that this 
amendment will aid in the acquisition of new conservation and renewable 
energy sources, as well as make capital improvements on the 31-project 
federal hydroelectric system--all of which are extremely important 
components of BPA's multi-faceted public purposes.
  This amendment will enhance the reliability of the northwest 
electricity grid--and, by extension, the western transmission system as 
a whole. It is consistent with the missions this body set out for the 
Bonneville Power Administration, dating back to 1937 and in the 
legislative history spanning the 66 intervening years. And it 
represents good energy policy today, which is why FERC Chairman Pat 
Wood--in hearings before the Senate Energy Committee last year--voiced 
his strong support for an increase in BPA borrowing authority.
  I thank Senator Craig for bringing this amendment to the floor today, 
as well as all of my Northwest colleagues. I believe it has been a 
tremendous team effort that has spanned both a couple of years and the 
jurisdictions of the Senate Energy, Budget and of course Appropriations 
Committees. I would also like to thank the Chairmen and Ranking Members 
of those Committees for their support today.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I discussed an item in the Energy 
Conservation account with the distinguished

[[Page S1452]]

managers of the Interior Appropriations chapter of this bill. I believe 
that the reliable, efficient, and clean generation of electricity is 
vital to the American economy. The Congress has made important 
investments in fossil energy research to improve the efficiency and 
reduce emissions of large, central power generation technologies. In 
recent years the Appropriations Committee has recommended increases in 
what, I believe, are complementary and equally important technologies 
that generate power on a smaller, distributed generation scale.
  These smaller technologies, including microtubines, fuel cells, 
reciprocating engines and industrial turbines, range in size from only 
a few hundreds of kilowatts up to 30 megawatts and offer many benefits. 
For example, fuel cells and microturbines can be deployed in urban 
areas to provide power where the construction of additional 
transmission and distribution lines is not practical because of the 
crowded conditions. Ironically, these same systems are well suited for 
use in rural areas, as well, where the cost of constructing electric 
lines to serve only a few customers may be prohibitive.
  These onsite power generation systems are highly reliable. They are 
not vulnerable to power line failures caused by weather or manmade 
circumstances. Moreover, their smaller scale often allows distributed 
energy technologies to be located in areas where exhaust heat from the 
generators can be utilized rather than released into the atmosphere. 
When used in a combined heating and or cooling mode, distributed energy 
devices can attain efficiencies in excess of 80 percent.
  The wise research investments recommended by the Committee will help 
conserve our important domestic energy resources, reduce environmental 
emissions, and help American companies and their employees maintain 
U.S. leadership in global markets for these technologies. I compliment 
the Senators from Montana and West Virginia for their leadership in 
this allocation of scarce resources available to the Committee.
  Through the National Accounts Energy Alliance, the natural gas 
industry has worked closely with leading commercial and industrial 
companies who are logical candidates to use these distributed energy 
technologies as they become ready for testing in the market place. This 
is a partnership between government and the private sector. It marries 
the technology developers with the technology users such as major 
grocery stores, restaurant chains, and building developers. Most 
important, the Alliance serves to ensure that market requirements are 
fully understood by those who develop the technologies and that field 
testing in specific applications, which is essential to market 
acceptance and technology improvement, is an integral part of the 
development process.
  Mr. President, I understand that the House-passed version of the 
Fiscal Year 2003 Department of the Interior and Related Agencies 
Appropriations bill included $3 million for this ``applications 
integration.'' The Senate Committee report passed last summer is not 
specific about how the Department should allocate funds to the National 
Accounts Energy Alliance. I would hope that in conference we could 
accept the specific funding level provided in the House report for 
applications integration including the National Accounts Energy 
Alliance.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota for 
his kind words as a member of the Interior subcommittee.
  The Senator is correct. The House has recommended $3 million for 
``applications integration.'' I say to the Senator that he is always a 
strong and compelling advocate and that I will endeavor to give his 
request every favorable consideration within the limitations that will 
confront the conferees on this bill.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from North Dakota 
for bringing this matter to our attention. I, too, will work with him 
during the conference in support of his request.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senators.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I had planned to offer an amendment to 
eliminate a dangerous anti-environmental rider that was slipped into 
this bill. I am not going to offer that amendment today because I 
believe the best strategy is to strip it in conference.
  However, I want to take just a couple of minutes to let my colleagues 
know about this rider and to explain the bad precedent we would be 
setting.
  In the National Forest Management Act, Congress requires a review of 
roadless areas for possible designation as wilderness areas. Under the 
National Environmental Protection Act we also require that this process 
involve the public and the right to appeal those decisions.
  In 1997 a management plan for the Tongass National Forest was 
proposed that did not adequately address the question of wilderness 
designations. In response, a federal district court in Alaska ordered 
the Forest Service to complete a supplemental evaluation of possible 
wilderness areas. The Draft was released in May of 2002, with 8 
alternatives. The administration's preferred alternative was no 
additional wilderness areas. A final recommendation is due to be 
released in February. At that point, the public has the opportunity to 
appeal the agency's decisions through the administrative process, and 
if necessary to make use of the courts.
  Section 329 of the Interior Appropriations section of this bill would 
eliminate judicial and public oversight of U.S. Forest Service 
wilderness recommendations in the Tongass National Forest. In doing so, 
it waives two key environmental laws--laws that protect the right of 
the public to be involved in decision-making--the National 
Environmental Protection Act and the National Forest Management Act. 
This language will prevent the public, the states and the localities of 
their right to participate in the decision-making process.
  Even more egregious, section 329 prohibits any judicial review or 
appeal of a decision on the Tongass Land Management Plan--a decision 
that has not even been made. So, before we know what the decision is, 
this section says there can be no more public input and no judicial 
review. This is a very bad precedent.
  Judicial and public oversight are an intrinsic part of the process of 
environmental decision-making. In fact, the laws that govern management 
of our public lands are built on these principles of judicial and 
public oversight. These are our public lands, and we all have a right 
to take part in deciding how they are managed, how they are protected, 
and how they are exploited. Stripping away the ability of the American 
people to take part in the process is contrary to the spirit of our 
laws.
  One hundred years ago, Republican President Teddy Roosevelt 
established the Tongass National Forest in Alaska with the support of 
the Alaskan people. For the last hundred years we have managed the 
Tongass in concert with the wishes of the public because we have had 
public participation.
  This rider ignores history, it ignores our environmental laws and it 
creates dangerous precedent.
  It is dangerous because it is a back door attempt to silence the 
public. It is dangerous because it is a back door attempt to override 
our laws, laws passed by this Congress after extensive debate. It is 
dangerous because it is a backdoor attempt to eliminate the normal 
checks and balances that are inherent in our system. And it is a 
dangerous thing for those of us who have pristine lands in our states.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise to express opposition to a provision 
in the bill that syphons off critically needed enforcement funds in 
order to create an unnecessary bureaucracy.
  The bill instructs the Secretary of Labor to create an Office of 
Pension Participant Advocacy. Committee language indicates that this 
office is to serve as a career ombudsman in the Department to advise 
Congress and the administration on necessary changes in policies to 
address problems affecting pension participants. It would also be 
charged with coordinating public and private efforts to assist 
participants and provide meaningful information.
  At this time of heightened concern for pension plan stability, it 
makes no sense to curtail the enforcement budget of the Pension & 
Welfare Benefits Administration (PWBA). President

[[Page S1453]]

Bush had requested an additional $3 million for enforcement and 
compliance activities. This bill takes that $3 million and puts it 
instead in the separate Management account to create a new, unnecessary 
office.
  With every new corporate scandal, pension plan stability is put in 
doubt, and the PWBA is called into action. There is every reason to 
believe that Fiscal Year 2003 will be one of the agency's busiest 
every. Yet the money needed for enforcement has been diverted to create 
a new bureaucracy that duplicates current functions.
  Since the collapse of Enron, more Americans than ever have learned of 
the important and effective work of the PWBA. We all hailed the 
agency's action in ousting the Enron pension plan board of trustees, 
and putting outside experts in their place. The PWBA's profile has 
never been higher, and its needs have never been greater. Now is the 
time to fund pension plan enforcement.
  If this provision in the appropriations bill is allowed to become 
law, pension plan participants will be the losers. Enforcement efforts 
by the Department of Labor in their behalf will be curtailed. The money 
for enforcing their claims will have been diverted to decorate new 
offices for bureaucrats.
  As the chairman of the authorizing Committee for the Department of 
Labor, I am strongly opposed to efforts to restructure an important 
function of the Department. Likewise, I object to efforts to divert 
resources away from needed investigations, compliance efforts, and 
participant education. I oppose the creation of an Office of Pension 
Participant Advocacy at this time and in this manner.
  It must be recognized that the creation of such an Office is already 
within the management prerogative of the Secretary of Labor. She could 
create a separate office under current authority and resources. The 
proposal in the committee report language in essence micro-manages the 
Department.
  The proposed functions of the Office of Pension Participant Advocacy 
are duplicative of the ongoing functions of Pension and Welfare 
Benefits Administration (PWBA) of the Department of Labor.
  Today there are more than 100 highly trained and dedicated Benefits 
Advisors working out of PWBA's national office and 15 field offices 
located throughout the country. In 1996, PWBA had only 12 Benefits 
Advisors all located in the national office.
  The creation of this team of Benefits Advisors represents a serious 
commitment on the part of the Department to protecting the rights of 
and helping workers obtain the benefits to which they are entitled.
  The Benefits Advisors handled 170,000 inquiries in 2001 and recovered 
over $64 million in benefits for participants and beneficiaries through 
informed individual dispute resolution. Over $250 million have been 
obtained through this informal process over the last five years. These 
dollars are separate from any amounts recovered through the formal 
investigative process.
  Complaint referrals from PWBA's benefits advisors have become the 
best source of investigative case leads. If a complaint from an 
individual appears to indicate a fiduciary violation by the plan or a 
matter that impacts several participants and not just one individual, 
then that inquiry is referred to an investigator.
  According to statistics from the PWBA, last year 1,263 investigations 
were opened as a result of referrals from the Benefits Advisors; 1,238 
investigations were closed with over $111 million in monetary results.
  The proposed research functions of the Office of Pension Participant 
Advocate also duplicate important research of the General Accounting 
Office and investigations of the Department's Inspector General.
  It is premature to establish an Office of Pension Participant 
Advocacy since it is the subject of ongoing legislative debate. Last 
year, the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee narrowly 
reported out a pension reform bill that included a section creating an 
office of Pension Participant Advocacy with wider scope than is 
included in this appropriations bill. This year, the Democrat pension 
bill, S. 9, fails to include this controversial and unnecessary 
bureaucracy.
  The ERISA Industry Committee makes the point quite succinctly in a 
letter to every Senator: ``the creation of a new office in the federal 
government should be subject of full debate in the light of day. New 
government bureaucracy should not be established by adding provisions 
to appropriations bills, the language of which is unavailable to the 
public until after Committee consideration.'' I share their concerns.

  Therefore, it is inappropriate through this bill to divert and 
restructure the important work of the Department of Labor in protecting 
workers' pensions. I regret the manner in which this provision was 
added to this legislation and I will work to oppose it at every turn.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I submitted an amendment to extend the 
authority for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve, SPR, is the major tool the United States has to deal with the 
impact of a significant disruption in oil supplies. Current 
authorizations to the President to release or drawdown oil from the SPR 
will expire on September 30, 2003.
  Release of oil from the SPR, in coordination with stock drawdowns 
with other consumer nations is done pursuant to the International 
Energy Agency's International Energy Program, IEP, Agreement. Actions 
taken under this agreement seek to add more supply to a tight market, 
reducing the possibility of price spikes and economic havoc that oil 
markets experienced during such incidents as the Arab oil embargo. 
Decisions to withdraw crude oil from the SPR during an energy emergency 
are made by the President under the authorities of the Energy Policy 
and Conservation Act.
  It is important to extend the SPR authority on this legislation. 
While it may be possible to move legislation through the Energy 
Committee, there is no guarantee that a separate bill would be 
completed and on the President's desk before September 30. Therefore, 
the prudent thing for the Senate to do is to add this language to the 
Omnibus Appropriation bill. Such precautionary action has already been 
taken with regard to Price Anderson authority which does not expire 
until the end in 2004.
  My amendment incorporates the exact language that was agreed to last 
fall by the House and Senate conferees on H.R. 4, the comprehensive 
energy bill.
  The amendment:
  Permanently authorizes the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and our 
participation in the International Energy program.
  Codifies current Administration policy that the reserve be filled to 
700 million barrels which is its current capacity. This does not affect 
the Administration's discretion to adjust the timing and extent of fill 
in light of market conditions.
  Permanently authorizes the Northeast Heating Oil Reserve program.
  Current market disruptions such as political unrest in Venezuela and 
the potential threat of a war with Iraq have already led to unusually 
high oil prices and talk of potentially tapping the SPR. In the current 
market context, operation of the SPR should be a top concern to all 
Senators.

  For the benefit of my colleagues, I thought I would talk a little 
about the current situation regarding oil production in two important 
oil producing states--Venezuela & Iraq. The current uncertainty over 
production in Venezuela and the possibility of war with Iraq has 
contributed to the high oil prices we see today.
  On December 2, oil workers opposed to Venezuelan President Chavez, 
initiated a general strike, now in its 53rd day. The strike has nearly 
shut down the government-owned oil company PdVSA. Production has 
dropped from 2.7 million barrels per day to less than half a million. 
At the same time, world oil prices, currently at a 2 year high, have 
risen more than $8 per barrel, or 30 percent since the strike began. 
Oil market experts attribute half of the price increase to the 
political unrest and production uncertainty in Venezuela.
  The U.S. imports a significant amount of Venezuelan crude. Roughly 16 
percent of U.S. imports come from Venezuela, or what on average amounts 
to more than a million barrels per day, according to the EIA. In the

[[Page S1454]]

absence of Venezuelan imports, U.S. refiners have had to dip into their 
own inventory stocks and resort to using other crudes. Absent 
Venezuelan imports, the U.S. has increased its import of Iraqi crude in 
the last month.
  Even though OPEC overproduction helped cushion the strike's impact at 
the outset, U.S. refiners had to turn to their own inventories and to 
Iraqi crude to make up for lost imports. Those inventories are already 
below normal operational inventory level. Even if the strike were to 
end today, experts are unsure how long it will take to bring Venezuelan 
crude production back to its pre-strike level of three million barrels 
per day. It is unclear how carefully the oil wells in PdVSA's fields 
were shut down improperly, it may take more than six months to bring 
them back online.
  Although some strikers have returned to work and the government 
succeeded in pumping up light crude production, Venezuela has not been 
able to restart production of its trademark heavy crude. To add to the 
uncertainty, Venezuela's Central Bank closed the country's foreign 
exchange market on Wednesday frustrating oil operators' ability to 
convert currency. The reliability of Iraqi crude supplies going forward 
is also uncertain.

  The threat of war with Iraq has contributed to unusually high oil 
prices and talk of potentially tapping into the SPR. This region's 
importance to the stability of not only U.S. but also world markets 
cannot be understated.
  Iraq represents 6 percent of U.S. petroleum imports and the Persian 
Gulf region represents 25 percent. If military conflict disrupts oil 
imports from Iraq or other gulf states, the larger shortfall may exceed 
OPEC's leftover capacity. Even under a benign war scenario, panicked 
buying and a rise in crude prices would still occur at the outset of 
the conflict. Price estimates from oil analysts at the Center for 
Strategic and International Studies range up to $80 barrel oil for the 
worst case scenario.
  In addition to the impact of a war on oil from Iraq, we cannot be 
certain about Iraqi production after a conflict is concluded. If Iraqi 
oil fields are damaged during the war, Iraqi production could be 
reduced for a longer period of time.
  In this period of very tight oil markets and continuing uncertainty 
about both Venezuelan and Iraqi production, we may have to look very 
seriously at releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve this 
year. We should not take the risk that our authority to use the SPR 
will expire in September. I urge my colleagues to vote for my amendment 
and re-authorize SPR authority now.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, as Abigail Scott Duniway, a leader in 
the women's suffrage movement, once said, ``the young women of today, 
free to study, to speak, to write, to choose their occupation, should 
remember that every inch of this freedom was bought for them at a great 
price. It is for them to show their gratitude by helping onward the 
reforms of their own times, by spreading the light of freedom and of 
truth still wider. The debt that each generation owes to the past it 
must pay to the future.'' If I think about my own life and the many 
blessings and freedoms that have been bestowed on me by my foremothers, 
I am mindful of the awesome responsibility I bear to ``onward the 
reform of my times.'' It occurs to me that when Ms. Duniway made this 
statement she did not mean to infer that this responsibility went only 
as far as the American border, but rather to the women of the world.
  With this in mind, I rise in support of an amendment offered by 
Senator Snowe and myself which attempts to help ensure that the women 
of Afghanistan go to sleep at night covered by the same security 
blanket of freedom and democracy that the women of America enjoy. As 
you well know, Mr. President, it has been a long time since the people 
of Afghanistan have enjoyed such freedoms. For years, they suffered 
under one of the most brutal regimes in modern history. Instead of 
listing for my colleagues the rules imposed and the rights denied to 
women, I would like to read two excerpts from an article by Jan Goodwin 
published in 1998, entitled, ``Buried Alive: Afghan Women Under the 
Taliban.''

       Thirty thousand men and boys poured into the dilapidated 
     Olympic sports stadium in Kabul. Street hawkers peddled nuts, 
     biscuits and tea to the waiting crowd. The scheduled 
     entertainment? They were waiting to see a young woman, 
     Sohaila, receive 100 lashes for walking with a man who was 
     not a relative . . . Since she was single it was punishable 
     by flogging; had she been married, she would have been stoned 
     to death.
       Not so long ago, a young mother, Torpeka, was shot 
     repeatedly by the Taliban while rushing her seriously ill 
     toddler to the doctor. Veiled as the law requires, she was 
     spotted by a teenage Taliban guard, authorized to use weapons 
     against women if they decide they are breaking the law, tried 
     to stop her because women are not supposed to leave their 
     homes. Afraid her child would die if she were delayed, she 
     continued. The guard aimed his machine gun and fired several 
     rounds.

  Now, one may think that was yesterday and this is today. Yet, I am 
here to tell you that while the Taliban may no longer be in power, 
their legacy remains. For instance, a September 26, 2002 Washington 
Post article detailed what it is like for a woman to give birth to a 
baby in a ``Taliban-free'' Afghanistan. Even now, women continue to be 
banned by their husbands and fathers from giving birth in hospitals or 
receiving medical care during labor. Even if they are able to access 
care, there is often no care to be had. As a result, women are forced 
to have babies on a dirt floor with no help from anyone but their 
untrained female relatives.
  Young girls traveling to schools on country roads are systematically 
beaten and raped by roadside bandits. Only 11 percent of girls can read 
and write and only 16 percent of women over 16 years old are literate 
and yet young girls are prevented by violence from getting the 
education they need. This cannot continue. If we hope to see the roots 
of democracy take hold and flourish in Afghanistan, then we must be 
willing to make a long term commitment to restoring justice and 
equality for all.
  I am sad to report that a lot has been said about our level of 
commitment to the Afghan people, but so far, there has been more talk 
than action. On October 4, 2001, President Bush pledged that ``America 
will stand strong and oppose the sponsors of terror. And America will 
stand strong and help those who are hurt by those regimes.'' Three 
months later, he confirmed this commitment in saying, ``Thanks to our 
military and our allies and the brave fighters of Afghanistan, the 
Taliban regime has come to an end. Yet our responsibilities to the 
people of Afghanistan have not ended.'' Two months later, he sent a 
budget to Congress that did not have one red penny for aid to 
Afghanistan.
  I am glad that my colleagues in the Senate, on both sides of the 
aisle, understand that actions speak louder than words. In July, the 
Senate Appropriations Committee passed a bill that included $150 
million in military and humanitarian aid to Afghanistan. The bill 
before us now goes even farther, including a total of $220 million in 
aid. I would like to thank the Chair and ranking member of the 
subcommittee, Senators McConnell and Leahy for their leadership in this 
regard. In offering this amendment, Senator Snowe and I propose that we 
go even one step further. What it does is proposes that while the 
amount of money appropriated is, of course, important to the overall 
success of our efforts in Afghanistan, so is the way in which it is 
spent.
  Its purpose is twofold. First, it reserves $8 million, approximately 
10 percent of the total funds appropriated for humanitarian aid, for 
programs to support women's development in Afghanistan, including 
girls' and women's education, health, legal and social rights, economic 
opportunities, and political participation. These programs should be 
long term in nature and invest in infrastructure development in 
Afghanistan. What I mean by this is, there are two ways to address the 
lack of women's health in this country, you can set up temporary 
immunization and nutrition centers or you can help build a women's 
health center and train physicians to work there. I am certain that 
USAID is doing the former, but I would like to suggest that we need to 
do more of the latter. This amendment is designed to move us in that 
direction.
  Secondly, this amendment is structured in such a way to ensure that 
these funds are channeled through

[[Page S1455]]

women-focused, women-run governmental and nongovernmental 
organizations. As you can imagine, the women of Afghanistan are more 
likely to access the services and support necessary to ensure their 
long-term economic independence and health if they trust that the 
person providing the service is not the enemy. Even during the Taliban 
regime, it was women's organizations, run by extremely brave Afghani 
women, who were fighting to protect women from violence and death. It 
will take time before the women there are able to trust in their 
government to protect and provide for their needs.
  I am proud of this amendment. It is the first step in a road with 
many steps. I thank the Chair and the ranking member for their 
leadership and foresight in agreeing to accept it. I look forward to 
working with committee and with USAID to ensure that we use this money 
to ``onward the reform of our times.''
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I oppose the passage of H.J. Res. 2, the 
Omnibus Appropriations Resolution, because it does not provide 
appropriate levels of funding for the important priorities facing our 
Nation. First, the Republican majority and the Bush administration have 
set an arbitrary cap on spending that is inadequate to meet the needs 
of our Nation with respect to homeland security, education, veteran's 
health care, housing, highway funding, Amtrak, and other important 
domestic priorities. Second, the Republican majority forced a $9.8 
billion reduction in domestic spending made available in the Senate 
Appropriations Committee-passed bills last year. Finally, this 
legislation includes a provision which would impose a 1.6 percent 
across-the-board reduction on all domestic spending and Senator Gregg's 
amendment increased that across-the-board cut to 2.9 percent. Together, 
these actions will dramatically reduce domestic spending and will force 
punitive cuts in many programs crucial to the future of our low- and 
moderate-income families, our children, and our economy. It is obvious 
that the Republican majority has been forced to impose these dramatic 
spending cuts in order to hide the huge costs of the tax legislation 
enacted in the 107th Congress--the benefits of which will accrue 
primarily to the wealthiest in our society.
  I strongly believe that the level of funding included in the omnibus 
appropriations resolution to improve our homeland security is not 
sufficient and that additional funding is necessary for several 
critical initiatives aimed at strengthening our efforts to protect 
America and its interests. It is unbelievable to me that the President 
can propose an additional $674 billion tax cut, but can't make a 
sufficient investment in homeland security, which should be our first 
priority. Vulnerabilities exist in our homeland security infrastructure 
and we should not squander a single day addressing them. An independent 
task force, chaired by former Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, 
recently advised that ``America remains dangerously unprepared to 
prevent and respond to a catastrophic attack on U.S. soil.'' We must 
act to ensure that the functions needed to better protect our borders, 
coasts, cities, and towns have sufficient resources to do so.
  Specifically, I believe this bill should have provided more money to 
states and localities to implement President Bush's smallpox 
vaccination plan, to make the radio equipment of first responders 
interoperable, and provide emergency planning and training for 
terrorist attacks. This bill should have made critical investments in 
our preparedness for biological attack. It should have included more 
funding to fortify our borders by funding such things as additional 
Coast Guard patrol boats and improvements to the INS entry and exit 
system.
  Last year I was very involved in the development of the new port 
security law, which included new rigorous security requirements for our 
ports. I also worked hard to enact the Aviation Security Act to provide 
increased security at our airports. Given the vulnerabilities that we 
know exist in our port and airport security, I am deeply disappointed 
that the Senate would opt to provide insufficient funding to address 
these problems. The need to fully fund the TSA cannot be overstated; 
installing baggage screening equipment in the top 40 U.S. airports 
alone is expected to cost billions, and to date only one major airport 
has installed the necessary equipment mandated by the Aviation Security 
Act. We cannot hope to maintain the confidence of the American people 
in our ability to secure the nation's transportation system if we fail 
to adequately fund the legislation we've passed to achieve that goal. 
These investments are essential if we are to be fully protected from 
those who threaten our freedom.
  I am also concerned that the omnibus appropriations resolution 
eviscerates the Byrne program. The Byrne program provides a flexible 
source of funding to state and local law enforcement agencies to help 
fight crime by funding drug enforcement task forces, more cops on the 
street, improved technology, and other anti-crime efforts. 
Massachusetts received over $11.5 million in Byrne funding last year. 
On countless occasions I have heard from law enforcement officers from 
Massachusetts about the value of the Byrne program to their crime 
fighting efforts.
  The war against terror has placed unprecedented demands on State and 
local law enforcement to prevent terrorist attacks and to respond to an 
attack should one occur. But fighting the war on terror is not the only 
job that we expect police officers to do. We also expect them to combat 
the prevalence of drugs in our cities and rural communities, we expect 
them to keep our homes and families safe from thieves, and we expect 
them to make us feel secure when we walk through our neighborhoods. 
We're well aware that the States are facing a severe fiscal crisis--
some $75 billion collectively--what priority does it reflect to cut 
back on support to local law enforcement in this budget and security 
environment? A wrong-headed one, in my estimation.
  The increased accountability and teacher quality requirements of the 
No Child Left Behind Act necessitate a significant investment in our 
schools, but the omnibus appropriations bill before the Senate falls 
short of the needed investment. We must do everything possible to 
ensure that all children can learn to high standards, which is the goal 
of the No Child Left Behind Act. States, districts, schools, and 
teachers are diligently working to meet the stringent requirements of 
the new law at a time when they are facing shrinking education budgets 
due to the state fiscal crisis. Twelve states cut K-12 education 
spending last year and another eleven are poised to do so this year.
  The omnibus appropriations bill includes an increase of only $1 
billion for the Title I program--the education program that provides 
resources for the most economically disadvantaged students in the 
country. This amount is $4.65 billion short of the level authorized by 
the No Child Left Behind Act. The Department of Education announced 
that 8,652 schools will begin the 2002-2003 school year ``in need of 
improvement.'' How will these schools be able to perform if they are 
not provided with the resources to attract and retain high-quality 
teachers and to implement reforms that will ensure all children can 
learn to high standards? As I stated many times during debates on the 
No Child Left Behind Act, tough accountability requirements without 
sufficient resources to meet the requirements is cruel to students, 
teachers, administrators, and parents. Ultimately it will undermine the 
success of this education law.
  I strongly believe we must include additional funding in the omnibus 
appropriations resolution to increase the maximum Pell grant award from 
$4,100 to $4,500. Pell grants are extremely important in helping 
financially needy students enroll and stay in college, many of whom 
would not otherwise have the opportunity to attend college. According 
to ``Empty Promises'', a report released in June 2002 by the 
congressionally mandated Advisory Committee on Student Financial 
Assistance:

       . . . this year alone due to record-high financial 
     barriers, nearly one-half of all college-qualified, low- and 
     moderate-income high school graduates--over 400,000 students 
     fully prepared to attend a four-year college--will be unable 
     to do so, and 170,000 of these students will attend no 
     college at all.

  If we are to reduce income inequality in this country, then we must 
support

[[Page S1456]]

students who are academically prepared to attend college, but do not 
have the financial means to do so on their own. Unfortunately, this 
funding was not included in the spending bill we are considering today. 
Our Nation's schools and our children deserve better.
  Today, we are not meeting our promises to our veterans. The 
Department of Veterans Affairs--VA--has consistently received 
inadequate resources to meet rising medical costs and a growing demand 
for its health services. In November 2001, Secretary of Veterans 
Affairs Principi identified a $400 million funding shortfall for fiscal 
year 2002. As a result of this shortfall, more than 300,000 veterans 
throughout the country are on waiting lists for medical care, and many 
must wait 6 months or longer for an appointment to see medical staff. 
Although Congress provided $417 million for veterans health care as 
part of the FY 2002 emergency supplemental spending bill, passed in 
July 2002, the President agreed to spend only $142 million of the 
approved funds. In addition to the fact that the VA health system must 
now overcome the severely inadequate amount provided in fiscal year 
2002, the VA has also been operating at last year's funding level since 
the onset of the 2003 fiscal year in October.
  This funding crisis has forced the VA health system to resort to 
short-term fixes, such as discontinuing outreach activities in an 
effort to reduce enrollment, instituting new regulations that require 
the rationing of health care, and most recently excluding priority 
eight veterans from care. Moreover, the VA has already reduced services 
at a number of facilities throughout the country and has closed some 
facilities altogether. It is crucial for the VA to receive an 
appropriate increase in fiscal year 2003 medical care funding. For this 
reason I circulated a letter co-signed by 39 of my colleagues, urging 
the appropriations committee to assure that the $23.9 billion 
previously provided in both the Senate and the House Appropriations 
Committee bills--a $1.2 billion increase over the President's request--
was not decreased. Instead, the Republican majority has decided to 
impose a 2.9 percent reduction to this funding level. Our nation's 
veterans deserve better.
  Today, our nation is also facing an affordable housing crisis. For 
thousands upon thousands of low-income families with children, the 
disabled, and the elderly, privately owned affordable housing is simply 
out of reach. Recent changes in the housing market have further limited 
the availability of affordable housing across the country, while the 
growth in our economy in the last decade has dramatically increased the 
cost of the housing that remains.
  The Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, estimates that 
more than 5 million American households have what is considered ``worst 
case'' housing needs. Since 1990, the number of families that have 
worst case housing needs has increased by 12 percent--that's 600,000 
more American families that cannot afford a decent and safe place to 
live.
  Earlier this month, HUD also announced plans to dramatically reduce 
the amount of funding available for the operation of public housing by 
up to 30 percent. This would cost the city of Boston approximately $13 
million in housing funding during fiscal year 2003. This additional 
across-the-board cut would impose even further cuts in the operation of 
public housing. This is simply unacceptable to those who depend upon 
housing assistance.
  I am also very disappointed at the inclusion of Section 213 in VA-HUD 
and Independent Agencies section of the omnibus appropriations 
resolution. This provision repeals of Section 9(n)(1) of the United 
States Housing Act and Section 226 of the Department of Veterans 
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies 
Appropriations Act, 1999. Repealing this important law will stop 7,000 
locally developed housing units in the State of New York and 5,000 
housing units in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts from being eligible 
for public housing operating and capital funds from HUD. Those who 
receive public housing assistance in Massachusetts and around the 
Nation deserve better.
  Above and beyond those issues, I have significant concerns about the 
anti-environmental riders in this package. The Tongass Rider, a prime 
example, locks citizens out of the courts, thwarting legal challenges 
to the Bush administration's rewrite of the Tongass' land management 
plan and its failure to recommend any new wilderness in the nation's 
largest intact temperate rainforest. The Yazoo Pumps rider expedites 
construction of the largest water pump project in the world right on 
the Lower Mississippi River Basin, destroying as much as 200,000 acres 
of ecologically rich wetlands--not even the administration recommended 
funding for the Yazoo Pumps in its fiscal year 2003 budget. These are 
serious riders affecting our Nation's wild lands in serious ways and 
they do not belong in any legislation passed by the Senate, much less 
tacked on in a sneaky manner as riders to this omnibus bill.
  The funding levels included by the Republican majority in the omnibus 
appropriations resolution and supported by the Bush administration are 
simply inadequate to meet our Nation's education, homeland security, 
veterans and housing needs. Our Nation deserves better. That is why I 
will oppose this legislation and I ask all of my colleagues to oppose 
this bill as well.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I will vote against the omnibus 
appropriations bill.
  I agree that it is important to complete work on the fiscal year 2003 
appropriations bills. But, while it is important to pass a bill, that 
does not mean we should pass this bill.
  Last year, the Democratic-led Appropriations Committee completed its 
work on all 13 appropriations bills. The new Republican majority took 
those bills and had one mission: cut, cut, cut.
  The FBI was cut $388 million, eliminating over 1000 FBI agents and 
surveillance aircraft used to respond to terrorist attacks.
  The Food Safety Inspection Service was cut $28 million, eliminating 
over 600 food safety inspectors.
  The National Institutes of Health was cut $809 million, reducing the 
budget for biodefense by 46 percent and abandoning the plan to double 
the health research budget over five years--a goal that I worked to 
establish when I was a member of the Senate Budget Committee.
  The Veterans Administration was cut $692 million, meaning that over 
200,000 veterans will go without medical services and another 200,000 
will remain on the waiting list for care.
  Head Start was cut over $395 million, depriving over 21,000 children 
of early education.
  And the funding for After-School programs--the provision of the No 
Child Left Behind Act that I authored with Senator Ensign--was cut $90 
million, meaning that 130,000 additional kids will not be able to 
participate in after-school programs and will be left alone on the 
streets after school gets out.
  These cuts are not acceptable. Yes, we need to pass the 
appropriations bills, but not this way. We should go back to the 
drawing board and do it right.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, like many of my colleagues, I am very 
concerned about the growing number of uninsured Americans. This 
vulnerable population reached an estimated 41.2 million in 2001 and has 
surely grown during the recent economic down turn. I believe this is a 
serious problem facing our Nation and I am committed to working with my 
colleagues to reduce the number of uninsured Americans, to address 
their needs and to help all Americans access affordable health care. It 
is because of this commitment that I strongly support the Community 
Access Program (CAP) and I am pleased to see that it has been fully 
funded for fiscal year 2003 in the Senate-passed bill.
  In my home State of Arizona and across the country, the CAP program 
has helped many hardworking Americans, who are neither eligible for 
State assistance or employer-based insurance, obtain access to health 
care. Five CAP programs currently operate in Arizona. All of them 
function differently, but together the programs help thousands of 
Arizonans access affordable health care. These programs are 
particularly critical in the southern border region of and in the 
northern rural areas of my State, where the programs

[[Page S1457]]

provide outreach services to low-income and non-English speaking 
patients. One program, the Pima Community Access Program (PCAP) works 
with doctors and hospitals to negotiate reduced rates for its members, 
and in some cases has successfully reduced the cost below that of our 
state Medicaid program.
  The simple fact is that these programs are providing an invaluable 
service for the people of my State and across the country. CAP is one 
of several federally funded programs that exist to provide assistance 
to the uninsured. It is a merit-based grant program that allows local 
communities to develop plans that will best provide assistance to their 
uninsured populations. I believe that not only do we need to ensure 
funding for this important program, but we must also look towards 
expanding other successful programs and creating new innovative 
programs, like CAP, to address the needs of this vulnerable population.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, third reading.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the 
amendments and third reading of the bill.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read 
the third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I yield to the majority leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, shortly we will be having our last vote of 
the evening on passage of the appropriations bill. I congratulate our 
two managers, and I thank all of our Members for their cooperation.
  I will outline what our schedule will be so Members can plan. The 
Senate will be in a pro forma session on Friday. No business will be 
conducted tomorrow. The Senate will not be in session on Monday. We 
will next convene on Tuesday.
  As a reminder, the President will deliver his State of the Union 
Address on Tuesday evening and Senators are asked to be in the Chamber 
beginning at 8:30 that evening. I expect there will be several 
important nominations available for consideration next week.
  In addition, there may be other legislative matters and therefore 
rollcall votes are possible during next week's session. I do not 
anticipate any rollcall votes prior to Wednesday of next week. There 
will be further announcements as scheduling of those votes becomes more 
clear.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the 
bill pass?
  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. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 69, nays 29, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 28 Leg.]

                                YEAS--69

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

                                NAYS--29

     Akaka
     Biden
     Boxer
     Clinton
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham (FL)
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Harkin
     Inouye
       
  So the bill (H.J. Res. 2), as amended, was passed.
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate insists 
on its amendments and requests a conference with the House on the 
disagreeing votes of the two Houses and the Chair appoints 29 members 
of the Appropriations Committee as conferees on the part of the Senate.
  The Presiding Officer appointed Senators Stevens, Cochran, Specter, 
Domenici, Bond, McConnell, Burns, Shelby, Gregg, Bennett, Campbell, 
Craig, Hutchison, DeWine, Brownback, Byrd, Inouye, Hollings, Leahy, 
Harkin, Mikulski, Reid, Kohl, Murray, Dorgan, Feinstein, Durbin, 
Johnson, and Landrieu conferees on the part of the Senate.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Specter be added as an original cosponsor of Senate amendment No. 167. 
It was our error.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I want to express my deep appreciation to 
the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, to the distinguished 
ranking member, Senator Byrd, and to their staffs who very patiently 
for the last week have been working on this literally 24 hours a day. 
Terry Sauvain and Steven Cortese have really showed great leadership 
throughout on the completion of a very critical bill. I especially 
thank the staffs very much but also the chairman and the ranking 
member.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have a long statement concerning the 
bill. There are colleagues of mine waiting. Senator Kyl, my friend and 
colleague from Arizona, would like to talk about Korea. But I want to 
talk about the sense-of-the-Senate amendment on Korea.
  First, I would like to make a few comments about the bill that just 
passed. This is a very massive piece of legislation. Obviously, there 
were many legislative authorizations about which I was pleased to hear 
the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee complain. 
But there are several in the area of water projects--the Yazoo Pump 
project in central Mississippi and Devils Lake in North Dakota.
  I would like to point out a couple of items of interest.
  Report language directs the Agency for International Development to 
provide at least $2.5 million to the Orangutan Foundation located in 
Indonesia. The foundation likes to call the orangutan ``the neglected 
ap.'' Luckily for them, they are not being neglected by the 
Appropriations Committee. The appropriators not only like orangutan, 
they are also fond of gorillas. The committee gave $1.5 million to 
groups such as the Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund.
  I do not know why we stop at gorillas. What about man's best friend? 
What about other species around the world that are endangered? I am 
sure that animal lovers throughout the world would be pleased to know 
that we are not just selecting orangutans and gorillas for millions of 
the taxpayers' dollars, which brings us to the lowly catfish.
  Many of my colleagues will remember that last year the lowly catfish 
was designated as not a catfish but basa, depending on where it was 
raised. If it was raised in a pond in Vietnam, it was called basa. If 
it was raised in Arkansas, Mississippi, or other Southern States, it 
was called a catfish--a very interesting interpretation of species of 
animals.
  Now the Appropriations Committee has done another marvelous feat; 
that is, we have now concluded that the lowly catfish, heretofore 
unknown, is related to the cow. In the emergency disaster relief 
section of this bill a provision was included that would qualify 
catfish farmers for livestock compensation payments. Perhaps the 
livestock

[[Page S1458]]

compensation program is a Federal farm program that compensates 
eligible livestock producers such as owners of beef, dairy cattle, 
sheep, goats or certain breeds of buffalo that have suffered losses or 
damages as a result of the severe drought.
  I discussed this issue with some of my colleagues. The distinguished 
President informed me that catfish in Tennessee many times walk on land 
and are seen to be moving about the countryside foraging in various 
places. That helps me understand the logic of designating the catfish 
as livestock.
  My friend, Mr. Enzi of Wyoming, said he heard that trout can easily 
die in certain conditions. Trout can easily die. Certainly the same 
could be said about catfish. That could take place with catfish as 
well.
  I often take issue with various farm policies that disproportionately 
benefit large agribusinesses or farms at the expense of small farmers 
and taxpayers or those who compromise American agricultural trade 
commitments. This effort to compensate catfish farmers from a farm 
program intended for livestock stands out. I am certain that catfish 
proponents will offer a dozen different explanations to justify this 
provision. But hogs, poultry, and horse producers are not eligible 
under the livestock compensation program. I wonder why catfish should 
get livestock payments when those worthy animals are excluded, such as 
hogs, poultry, or horses.

  I think it is important for us to recognize that we have now a new 
category of livestock; and that is catfish. Catfish lovers, and I count 
myself as one, all over America will be very grateful to know not only 
are they a tasty treat, but they are eligible for disaster payments so 
that we can keep Americans supplied with catfish under any 
circumstances, drought or no drought.
  Also, in the recent 2002 farm bill, domestic catfish proponents were 
successful, as I mentioned, in banning all catfish imports by requiring 
foreign catfish be labeled as something other than catfish.
  I want to mention a few others and make a couple of comments about 
them.
  Included in the bill are earmarks, among many others, such as 
$200,000 for the Anchorage People Mover in Alaska. Strangely, as I have 
mentioned in the past on numerous occasions, you will find many 
earmarks that are designated for the great state of Alaska; $250,000 
for the Mary Baldwin College in Staunton, VA, for the Center for the 
Exceptionally Gifted. Now, my dear friends, they are exceptionally 
gifted because they have just received $250,000 for the exceptionally 
gifted. Not many colleges around the country are as lucky and 
exceptionally gifted as the young men and women at the Mary Baldwin 
College in Staunton, VA. And $1.5 million for WestStart's Vehicular 
Flywheel Project in the State of Washington.
  One of the unfortunate aspects about an appropriations bill is that 
quite often, or most of the time, there is not an explanation. As I 
remember flywheel projects, it seems to me that was a perpetual motion 
machine. But it is something on which I think we should continue to 
make an effort. So we have decided to gift WestStart's--I don't know 
who WestStart's is. I know they are located in the State of 
Washington--$1.5 million to continue that effort. And $1 million for 
the National Center for the Ecologically Based Noxious Weed Management 
at Montana State University.
  I think families all over America that have noxious weeds in their 
yards would be pleased to know that we are continuing a multimillion-
dollar effort over a many-year period of time at the uniquely qualified 
Montana State University to try to get rid of these noxious weeds, or 
at least manage them, because I don't think they claim to remove 
noxious weeds. It is just a management program.

  There is $600,000 to treat waste on small swine farms in South 
Carolina. I don't know if that means for small animals or small farms; 
that was not designated--perhaps both. It is in South Carolina. Since 
it is only $600,000, we all know it is chicken feed.
  But my favorite--I will get to my favorite--again, strangely enough, 
$100,000 for the Alaska Sea Otter Commission.
  There is $300,000 to the Southern Regional Research Center at New 
Orleans, LA, for termite detection systems, evaluation of wood products 
for protecting building materials, and bait technology.
  Bait technology is something that all of us who love to fish will be 
very interested in hearing about. As we all know, for those of us who 
love to fish, bait technology is an intricate and very difficult 
challenge. So I can certainly see why the Southern Regional Research 
Center in New Orleans, LA, would be qualified.
  There is $200,000 to study seafood waste at the University of Alaska. 
``Seafood waste''--I am not exactly sure what that means, but I am sure 
it is an important study.
  There is $300,000 for the Old Stoney feasibility study in Wyoming. 
Old Stoney, he has been in there before--Old Stoney. And, again, I am 
not sure exactly what Old Stoney is. I think he is a building, but I am 
not sure. And I don't know what the feasibility or nonfeasibility is of 
Old Stoney.
  There is $650,000 for grasshopper and Mormon cricket activities in 
the State of Utah. I don't know exactly what activities the Mormon 
crickets engage in and grasshoppers, but they are going to have 
$650,000 to engage in their activities.
  Finally, because my colleagues are waiting to speak, there is $1 
million for a DNA bear sampling study in Montana. I have to repeat 
that: $1 million for a DNA bear sampling study in Montana.
  Up to this time, in my limited knowledge and experience, I had only 
known that DNA studies were to determine paternity in the commission or 
noncommission of a crime. But perhaps there are other uses. And I am 
not really familiar with a lot of the bears that live up in Montana. 
But this is really quite a remarkable study--a remarkable study--$1 
million.
  And I don't know how many bears there are in Montana, but I wonder if 
probably that amount of money is very significant, because I think it 
would be very hard to hire people who are eager to go out and get a DNA 
sample from a grizzly bear. In fact, I would be very interested in 
knowing the methodology as to how this DNA sampling is obtained from 
these grizzly bears.
  So I wish them all luck up there in Montana. We will eagerly await 
the results of the DNAs of these bears. And any of them that have been 
guilty of the commission of some serious crime, I am certain it will 
help us in identifying them. I do agree that it is very difficult to 
tell one from another. So that is probably why the DNA is warranted 
here, as I am sure the Senator from Alaska would allege and the good 
folks up in Montana who have been plagued with a lack of ability to 
identify the bears according to their DNA now for several generations.
  So I do believe, in a moment of seriousness, we really need to 
scrutinize some of these appropriations items more carefully. They do 
amount to a great deal of money. Again, I see this legislating on 
appropriations continuing, which I think is an unfortunate practice.
  I congratulate the distinguished manager of the bill with the 
efficiency and dispatch in which he handled the legislation today. I 
congratulate him for his hard work in providing much needed funding so 
we can now begin next year's efforts. And I look forward to being able 
to do this 13 times in the coming year rather than just once or twice.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield to the Senator from 
Arizona concerning a sense-of-the-Senate amendment.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, that was a very enlightening speech, but I 
wonder how long the Senator wishes to speak. There are several others 
who want to speak. I understand it is only for 3 minutes; therefore, I 
will not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Amendment No. 57, As Modified

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, obviously, the subject which I will speak to 
is a very serious one and requires a lot more discussion than we are 
going to give it this evening. But the reason Senator McCain and I 
offered the sense-of-the-Senate resolution on

[[Page S1459]]

North Korea was to begin to shed light on this most difficult problem 
and to give voice to the Senate feelings so that everyone could 
appreciate the fact that the Senate views this as an incredibly 
important problem that requires us to pay a lot more attention to it 
and that requires the President to have additional tools to deal with 
it.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Brownback of 
Kansas be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, one of the primary reasons that Senator 
Brownback is interested in this matter is because the last portion of 
this amendment talks about the fact that North Korea, alone among 
nations in the world, does not participate appropriately in the 
distribution of food aid assistance under the World Food Program.
  The United States is the largest provider of food aid to North Korea, 
some $620 million since 1995. Yet North Korea does not comply with the 
World Food Program requirements to ensure that the food we provide 
actually gets to its intended beneficiaries. They, instead, divert 
much, if not most, of that food aid--that we desire for humanitarian 
reasons, to keep the people of North Korea fed, at least in a modest 
way--to its military industrial complex.
  What this sense of the Senate does is to make it clear that the 
Senate believes that North Korea is in violation of agreements that it 
has signed not to develop nuclear weapons, that it is in violation of 
the agreed framework--by its own actions it has been declared null and 
void--that a diplomatic solution desirable in this situation must 
achieve the total disarmament of North Korea's nuclear weapons and 
their production capability, and that the United States and other 
allies in the region must take measures to ensure the highest possible 
level of deterrence and military readiness in the event that something 
there should occur.
  So what we want to do by this sense of the Senate--as I said, the 
subject is far too serious to be dealt with in just a perfunctory way, 
but at least we hope this sense-of-the-Senate resolution, which was 
adopted earlier this evening, will begin the debate in the Senate, will 
enable us to make clear to the rest of the world that we view this 
situation seriously, that we support the President's efforts to try to 
achieve a resolution of it in a way that will result in the 
dismantlement of the nuclear program in North Korea and, frankly, will 
expose its horrendous practice of taking food aid with which the rest 
of us intend to keep the people of North Korea alive and diverting that 
for the military in North Korea. It will expose that problem to the 
light of day so we can begin to get that food to the people who deserve 
it.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the amendment Senators Bayh, Kyl, 
Sessions, and I offered expresses the sense of the Senate that North 
Korea must immediately comply with its international obligations to 
abandon and dismantle its nuclear weapons programs. As the 
administration explores a diplomatic solution to the crisis with North 
Korea, we believe it is important for the Senate to send Pyongyang a 
clear message that flagrant for its commitments to the United States 
and the international community remains unacceptable.
  Our amendment highlights North Korea's violation of both the Agreed 
Framework and the North-South Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization 
of the Korean Peninsula. It expresses the Sense of the Senate that the 
Agreed Framework, as a result of North Korea's own actions, is own 
actions, is null and void, and that North Korea must immediately come 
into compliance with its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty 
and other commitments to the international community.
  Our amendment states that North Korea's pursuit and development of 
nuclear weapons represent a serious threat to the security of the 
United States and our allies; that any diplomatic solution to this 
crisis must achieve the total dismantlement of North Korea's nuclear 
weapons and nuclear production capability, backed by intrusive 
inspections; and that the United States and our regional allies should 
take measures to ensure the highest possible levels of deterrence and 
military readiness in the face of the North Korean threat.
  We have also worked with Senator Lugar to craft language calling on 
North Korea to allow full verification of food aid assistance by 
providing the World Food Program access to all areas of North Korea and 
permitting the WFP to undertake random inspections. Since 1995, the 
United States has been the single largest food donor to North Korea, 
providing $620 million in food aid assistance. We must have confidence 
that this assistance is going to hungry North Koreans, not the 
country's political and military elite. I thank the Senator from 
Indiana for his contribution.
  North Korea's pursuit of a nuclear arsenal directly threatens the 
security of the American people. Those who counsel a return to the 
status quo fail to grasp the danger of rewarding threats and retreat 
and concession.
  We all hope for a diplomatic solution to the current crisis. But as 
we have seen in the debate over Iraq and in our previous dealings with 
Pyongyang, our desire for peaceful outcomes cannot blind us to the 
dangers of policy drift or diplomatic accommodation in the face of 
compelling threats to our security.
  North Korea and Iraq present different faces of the same danger. I 
believe North Korea poses a greater danger than Iraq, and confronting 
it presents a more difficult challenge. That is all the more reason to 
take whatever action necessary to prevent Saddam Hussein from becoming 
a threat of equal magnitude, and just as difficult to confront.
  But the greater difficulty of resolving the Korean crisis is not the 
central concern. The greater danger it poses is. This doesn't absolve 
us of the responsibility to meet and overcome the threat any more than 
it replaces the necessity of overcoming the threat from Iraq. Nine 
years ago we faced a difficult set of options in dealing with North 
Korea. We chose to avoid them, and our irresolution has placed us in 
even greater danger. I hope we don't make the same mistake again.
  Our security depends on preventing North Korea from possessing a 
nuclear arsenal. That must be the primary object of our diplomacy. 
Freezing Pyongyang's nuclear program in place while we and our allies 
prolong the reign of the world's last Stalinist regime does not 
accomplish that objective, but merely encourages future attempts at 
nuclear blackmail. In my view, only if North Korea is prepared to 
surrender the enriched uranium it secretly attained, the spent fuel 
rods that would yield enough plutonium for three to five nuclear 
weapons, as well as dismantle the reactor and reprocessing plant it now 
threatens to restart, should we or any other country consider any 
assistance that might help North Korea escape the certain destiny of a 
failed state.
  I am pleased the Senate is going on record in its clear support for 
North Korea's nuclear disarmament, a rigorous inspection regime in any 
diplomatic agreement that is reached, the highest possible level of 
military readiness against the threat North Korea poses, and full and 
effective monitoring of food aid assistance. The burden is on North 
Korea to comply with its obligations, not on the United States to 
refrain from telling the truth about this rogue regime, or facing the 
consequences of the grave threat it poses to our people and our 
interests.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.


                      Amendment No. 6, As Modified

  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I know it is late, but I did want to say 
a few words about Paul and Sheila Wellstone before we left today.
  I am deeply gratified one of the first subjects that brings me to my 
feet in this Chamber is the memory of Paul and Sheila Wellstone.
  I knew them both well. I was their mayor. I campaigned for them. I 
campaigned against them. At times I agreed with them, and at times I 
strongly disagreed with them. It is a measure of the humanity and 
integrity of Paul and Sheila Wellstone that even those who disagreed 
with them always respected and admired the enthusiasm, the passion, and 
the courage with which they pursued their vision.

[[Page S1460]]

  This fall I had planned to contest an election against the Senator. I 
never dreamed I would be mourning his death. I was his political 
opponent. And, as two fighters at the end of a boxing match who embrace 
each other after the final bell has rung, I am sad for myself we never 
had that moment.
  This body began the good work of providing a living memorial to Paul 
and Sheila and the others who died. We are proud that it will be in St. 
Paul, the city I served as mayor. It is a Paul and Sheila Wellstone 
kind of place. It is literally where the East meets the West. Since 
Paul came from the East, as I did, he probably felt very much at home 
in our ethnic neighborhoods, filled with middle-class working families. 
It has been a destination for immigrants, as were the Wellstones a 
generation back. It is a city of hard work and big dreams, the soul of 
who Paul and Sheila were.
  We have the opportunity to retain that spirit; and that is the Paul 
and Sheila Wellstone Center for Community Building.
  It will be a 93,000-square-foot building. A community center is a 
poor substitute for the real thing--Paul and Sheila themselves--but it 
is worth doing, providing a safe place where kids can play and learn, 
where families can receive training and support and community members 
can be organized to fight injustice and partake in the American dream.
  In the spirit of Paul Wellstone, I should probably be out here trying 
to triple the funding because he was always pushing the edge, but I was 
sent here by my constituents with a more conservative vision. I simply 
urge my colleagues to support the funding level for the Paul and Sheila 
Wellstone Center authorized last year. I honor Paul and Sheila's memory 
today and will strive to be worthy of the example they set throughout 
the time I am in this place.
  I had introduced an amendment and intended to offer it today to 
increase the appropriations amount for the Paul and Sheila Wellstone 
Center from $3 million currently in the bill to the full funding level 
of $10 million. However, I understand and very much appreciate the fact 
that my good friend, the chairman of the VA-HUD appropriations 
subcommittee, along with other distinguished managers of this bill, has 
agreed to increase the amount to $5 million and to ultimately provide 
full funding at $10 million in the conference report to accompany this 
legislation.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, if the Senator from Minnesota will yield.
  Mr. COLEMAN. I am happy to yield to my friend, the distinguished 
chairman of the VA-HUD appropriations subcommittee.
  Mr. BOND. I commend the Senators from Minnesota for their tribute to 
our colleague, to Paul Wellstone and to Sheila Wellstone, Senator and 
Mrs. Wellstone.
  We know what a priority this is for them and for the people of 
Minnesota. We commend their devotion. I know I speak for my colleagues 
in the Chamber when I say we want to do everything we can to help 
ensure that the Paul and Sheila Wellstone Center for Community Building 
serves as a successful living memorial to the two fine friends we have 
lost.
  In order to do this, we have, working with my distinguished ranking 
member, the Senator from Maryland, increased the appropriations in this 
bill from $3 million to $5 million. I assure the Senators that Senator 
Mikulski and I will work together with our counterparts in the House to 
achieve full funding, $10 million, for the Paul and Sheila Wellstone 
Center. This is something which we understand is very important, and 
they have our commitment to work very hard to see that those dollars 
are made available.
  I thank the Chair and my colleague from Minnesota.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman for 
his assistance on this matter that is so important to me and all the 
people of the State of Minnesota. I know Senator Wellstone and his wife 
will be honored by the tribute we pay them today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I appreciate the words of the chairman of 
the subcommittee, the Senator from Missouri. I appreciate the Senator 
staying here to engage my colleague from Minnesota and myself in this 
colloquy.
  I accept as a matter of good faith the sincerity of the words 
expressed on the floor and also in conversation with the chairman of 
the full Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens from Alaska, that 
this full funding will be sought in conference with the House. In a 
moment now of suspension of disbelief and cynicism, I will trust and 
believe that actually will occur.
  I must say, nothing I have seen so far in this process has persuaded 
me that this result is going to occur. Obviously, what happens here is 
decided by the actions of the 100 of us, and the House the same. Before 
my distinguished colleague from Minnesota was sworn in last November, 
Senator Wellstone's immediate successor, Senator Dean Barkley, in his 2 
months as a Senator from Minnesota, distinguished himself in a number 
of ways. One of them was getting the support of the administration and 
the House-Senate Democratic and Republican caucuses and leaderships to 
a $10 million authorization for this center that will be named after 
and honor the memory of Paul and Sheila Wellstone.
  Ten million dollars is certainly real money, but in the scheme of a 
$690 billion bill, it is a tiny speck. As we heard from Senator McCain 
earlier, there are projects of far less merit that have been funded at 
significantly higher amounts than this particular project. It is hard 
to listen to all of that and see how some of these projects that are 
not supported get in because a certain somebody is in favor of them. On 
a project such as this, which the entire Senate, only 2 months ago, 
voted unanimously to authorize at $10 million, I understand full well 
that is not an appropriation, but it was certainly the expectation when 
this vote was taken that $10 million was going to be needed and 
provided in a way that the memory of Paul and Sheila Wellstone could be 
recognized and acted upon and, in the spirit in which this project was 
passed, with unanimous, bipartisan support, that amount would be 
realized. Then we come back and hear at the beginning of this week 
that, in fact, only $3 million out of the $10 million was appropriated. 
Senator Coleman, to his credit, worked very hard this week within his 
caucus to raise that amount, I am told, to a commitment to $5 million.
  I know how difficult it is for a freshman Senator in the first 2 
years to get $2 million in this process. So I give the Senator from 
Minnesota high praise for getting $2 million in his first month. 
Nevertheless, that is only half of the commitment.
  To me, it is shameful that we are quibbling over this kind of funding 
for something that the entire Senate ought to be doing because they 
said they would do it, because it is the right thing to do.
  Paul Wellstone was my friend of 22 years and colleague for the last 2 
years. I would feel the same way if it were a member of the other 
caucus and if it were somebody whose ideological views were totally the 
opposite of mine. This man gave his life in the service of his country. 
His wife lost her life, and his daughter lost her life. There but for 
the grace of God go any one of us who get on these planes and fly 
around.
  For the Senate to have made a commitment and then failed to honor 
that commitment in full without any of this finagling is disgraceful. 
To pretend that 5 is really 10 and half is really whole and we will get 
it next time or the next round in the process when, with our own 
opportunity right here in front of us, we failed to do so--again, I 
will trust, but as President Reagan said: Trust, but verify.
  The State of Minnesota will be watching this process in conference to 
see if in fact we can count on the words that have been expressed here 
tonight.
  I thank the Chair.
  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. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________