[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12783-12827]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



            SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001--Continued


                           Amendment No. 866

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be 2 minutes equally divided before 
the vote on the Conrad amendment.
  The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the amendment I am offering today is an 
amendment I offered last year that got 60 votes on the floor of the 
Senate. Earlier this year, it got 53 votes on the floor of the Senate. 
It says we should protect both the Social Security and the Medicare 
trust funds. We already provide some protection of the Social Security 
trust fund. It would strengthen those protections. We would also 
provide those same protections to the Medicare trust fund. Both of 
these trust funds deserve protection. If we don't provide it, the money 
will be used for other purposes.
  I hope my colleagues will support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. May I ask, how much time do we have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Thank you.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Conrad 
amendment. In fiscal year 2002, the overall Medicare Program would 
require over $50 billion in general tax revenues. Over the next 10 
years, the Medicare Program would require over $600 billion in general 
tax revenues. We can't lockbox something that simply does not exist. It 
is a fiction.
  This amendment, in my opinion, will harm our ability to reform 
Medicare and also harm our ability to provide a prescription drug 
benefit that is so long due for the American people.
  Furthermore, the Conrad amendment does not contain any real teeth in 
terms of a Social Security lockbox. It lacks any automatic enforcement 
mechanism to protect Social Security. I urge my colleagues to vote no 
on the amendment and against the waiver of the point of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and the chairman of 
the Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd, I raise a point of order 
that this amendment violates section 306 of the Budget Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive the applicable section of 
that act for the purpose of the pending amendment, and I ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), 
the Senator from New York (Mr. Schumer), and the Senator from North 
Carolina (Mr. Edwards) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Santorum), is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 42, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 221 Leg.]

                                YEAS--42

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Smith (OR)
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--54

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Clinton
     Edwards
     Santorum
     Schumer
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 42, the nays are 
54. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The point of order is sustained. The amendment falls.
  Mr. REID. 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. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I was unavoidably detained during this 
vote on the motion to waive the Budget Act with regard to the Conrad 
amendment, vote No. 221. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.''


                           Amendment No. 865

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time on the Voinovich amendment?
  Mr. STEVENS. May we have order, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. The Senator from 
Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senators 
Allard, Fitzgerald, and Hagel as cosponsors, and I also thank Senators 
Sessions, Helms, and Crapo for their help on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. I ask my colleagues to vote to support our Social 
Security lockbox amendment. Our lockbox strengthens the existing point 
of order against spending the existing Social Security surplus. Our 
lockbox makes it out of order to use the Social Security

[[Page 12784]]

surplus in any single year of the next decade. More important, our 
amendment contains an automatic enforcement mechanism. If OMB reports 
the Federal Government will spend the Social Security surplus, an 
automatic across-the-board cut in spending, a sequester will be put in 
place. The size of this sequester will offset the use of the surplus. 
This is the ultimate enforcement mechanism. If the Social Security 
surplus looks like it will get spent, the OMB stops it from happening. 
This will ensure we stay the course on limiting spending and pay down 
the national debt as we promised when we passed the budget resolution.
  Spending cuts under this amendment would impact both discretionary 
and mandatory spending. Mandatory spending for the most needy in 
society would not be affected by these cuts. My amendment would exclude 
Social Security, food stamps, and other programs that are excluded from 
sequesters under the Deficit Control Act of 1985. In reality, about $33 
billion of mandatory spending is subject to sequester. Hopefully, we 
would never have to use the sequester.
  This amendment is straightforward. It relies largely on existing law. 
It primarily builds upon the existing budget process. We all know 
Social Security is off budget and my amendment reinforces that 
position. Our amendment does not modify any budgetary conventions, nor 
does it pretend Social Security is something it is not. We must make 
sure history does not repeat itself. For years the Social Security 
surplus has been an all too readily available source of cash for 
Congress to spend. However, since 1999, there has been a political 
consensus not to return to spending of the Social Security surplus, in 
large part because we have had an on-budget surplus that supplied the 
extra money.
  If, however, the economic prosperity that this Nation enjoyed 
recently continues to fade, although I hope this is a temporary 
situation, and surplus projections are likely to be revised downward, 
then the Social Security surplus will again be in the crosshairs. It 
will be in the crosshairs because of Congressional yearning for more 
spending.
  If you want to make sure money is there to follow through on what we 
promised the American people, if you want to pay down the debt, if you 
want to control spending, and if you want to do it in an accountable, 
enforceable way, without gimmicks, vote for this amendment. I think 
everyone in this room knows this is the right thing to do. I urge my 
colleagues to vote for this amendment and urge them to vote for waiving 
the point of order that will be raised against it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the Voinovich amendment does nothing to 
protect Medicare. Just a few short months ago, every member of the 
Republican caucus voted for protection for both Medicare and Social 
Security. What has occurred that would lead them now to forget 
Medicare?
  This is not a wise course. In the name of protecting Social Security, 
this amendment would cut Medicare. The sequester that is provided for 
in this amendment says, if we are on the edge of going into Social 
Security, cut Medicare, cut defense. It is a one-trick pony. It does 
not matter whether the deficiency was caused by a tax cut, by an 
economic downturn, or by excessive spending, the answer to each and 
every one of them is the same: cut spending. It does not matter if the 
problem was caused by too big a tax cut: cut spending. It does not 
matter if the problem was caused by an economic downturn, the answer is 
cut spending. It is not a balanced approach.
  The assertion that there is no Medicare surplus simply does not fit 
the facts. This is the report of the Congressional Budget Office. On 
page 19, under the table ``Trust Fund Surpluses,'' it shows Social 
Security in surplus, it shows Medicare Part A in surplus, it shows 
Medicare Part B in rough balance.
  The argument that the Senator from Ohio is making is that because we 
have chosen, as a Congress, to fund Part B, in part by general fund 
transfers, that that means Medicare is in deficit. That is not the 
case. That is not the definition of the Congressional Budget Office; 
that is not the definition of the Office of Management and Budget. All 
of them assert there is a surplus in Part A and rough balance in Part 
B.
  We, as a Congress, have made the determination to finance Part B, by 
premiums in part, by general fund transfer in part.
  This is not an amendment we should adopt.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we already have a Social Security 
lockbox. The pending amendment contains matter within the jurisdiction 
of the Senate Budget Committee; therefore, I raise a point of order 
against the amendment pursuant to section 306 of the Congressional 
Budget Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable 
provisions of the Budget Act and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton) 
and the Senator from New York (Mr. Schumer) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Santorum) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 43, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 222 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

     Allard
     Allen
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Campbell
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--54

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Burns
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feinstein
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Clinton
     Santorum
     Schumer
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 43 and the nays are 
54. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The point of order is sustained and the amendment falls.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 873

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 4 minutes of debate equally 
divided before a vote in relation to the Hollings amendment. The 
Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, in the first part of April when we 
passed my amendment authorizing a rebate, we had a $102 billion 
surplus. Now, as of 3 o'clock this afternoon, according to the 
Secretary of the Treasury, the public debt to the penny--and anybody 
can read it on the Internet--the debt now, instead of being a surplus, 
has increased since the beginning of the fiscal year to $36 billion in 
the red. In

[[Page 12785]]

other words, we don't have the $41 billion for a rebate. We have to go 
out and borrow it.
  Common sense says that rather than going out and borrowing money and 
throwing it to the winds, increasing the debt, the public would prefer 
that we pay down the debt. At least that is what we tell them we are 
doing.
  If you look on the screen on channel 2, the Republican channel says 
``abolishes a tax rebate.'' ``President Bush and Congress promise to 
the American people. . . .''
  They didn't promise it. It was my amendment. I promised, as the 
financial world advised me, that it should apply to all taxpayers. What 
they have done is broken my promise. Nothing is in this bill for the 25 
million payroll-tax payers. In other words, you and I, Mr. President, 
will get a rebate, unless you vote for my amendment. But the payroll-
tax payers, such as Dicky Flatt--I don't know where the Senator from 
Texas is, but Dicky Flatt, the fellow who ``pulls the wagon and pays 
the taxes, and builds the country, and sits around the kitchen table'' 
gets nothing.
  Now, come on. If there is a conscience around here, let's talk sense. 
Save that $41 billion. We need it for defense. We need it for 
education. We have increased education spending to $25 billion a year, 
$250 billion over 10 years. We need it for prescription drugs. Let's 
don't throw the money around and then cry the rest of the year here 
that we don't have the money.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Hollings amendment. The Hollings amendment would repeal the retroactive 
marginal rate cuts enacted on June 7th of this year. That is barely 
over 1 month ago.
  My opposition to the amendment is based on both procedural and 
substantive grounds.
  On the first problem the amendment's procedural problems, it is clear 
that, if adopted, this amendment will cause the underlying supplemental 
appropriations bill to violate the origination clause of the U.S. 
Constitution. If sent to the House, the bill would certainly be ``blue 
slipped.'' So, this amendment, if adopted, kills the supplemental.
  The second problem is the substance of the amendment. This amendment 
would repeal all of the retroactive marginal rate reductions in the 
recently passed tax bill. Those rate cuts are based principally on the 
new ten percent bracket for the first $6,000 of income for single 
taxpayers and $12,000 of income for married couples.
  The retroactive new ten percent bracket is the basis for the advance 
refund checks of $300 for a single person and $600 for a married 
couple. The Hollings amendment stops these checks dead. A vote for the 
Hollings amendment is a way to say no to American taxpayers who now 
expect to receive refund checks. A vote for the Hollings amendment is a 
vote against the stimulus in the tax bill we just passed.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I will vote for the Hollings amendment 
and wish to explain my reasoning. The amendment focuses on the 
consequences of the massive tax cut, namely that we are facing a 
Hobson's choice--either raid the Social Security and Medicare HI trust 
funds or forgo needed spending on defense, education and other 
priorities. This is a choice that will bedevil us for years to come 
until we come to our senses regarding a tax cut we can afford.
  The Hollings amendment seeks to avoid this Hobson's choice by 
rescinding a portion of the excessive tax cut. I would prefer that he 
rescinded aspects of the tax cut other than the rebates. I was an early 
advocate of rebates to help us with the current economic slowdown. I 
was disappointed in the rebate that was finally adopted in the tax bill 
because it is not being paid to tens of millions who filed tax returns, 
but I still support rebates.
  If we don't face reality regarding the tax cut, however, we will be 
faced again and again with the Hobson's choice regarding the trust 
funds. We have urgent priorities to modernize our defense establishment 
and to fund the education reform initiative, both issues where I have 
expended considerable effort over the years. The problem we will face 
is that so much of the government's revenue base has now been spent 
that any national priority that requires more support, like defense or 
education, will have to be shelved or funded at the expense of the 
trust fund surpluses.
  As Chairman Conrad has explained, the President's budget plan means 
we may well raid these trust funds this year even if we do not go 
forward with these urgent priorities. We won't know for sure until the 
new budget estimates are provided in August and at the end of the 
fiscal year, but we may spend down these trust funds even if we do not 
exceed the budget resolution limits.
  I applaud Senator Hollings for raising this issue, and for seeking to 
avoid this Hobson's choice. While this amendment affects rebates that I 
support, it brings needed attention to the overall box the 
Administration has placed us in and the difficult choices we will have 
to make. This amendment attempts to avoid our dipping into the trust 
fund surpluses. There are other ways to accomplish the same goal and I 
will be exploring them as we struggle with the consequences of the tax 
bill, the need to defend the trust funds and fund urgent defense and 
education reforms. This is a Hobson's choice we did not have to face 
and that is why I voted against the tax bill and will vote for the 
Hollings amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have 2 minutes. I yield 1 minute to 
Senator Baucus.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, with deep reluctance, I oppose my good 
friend from South Carolina. I must say that I compliment him because it 
was earlier that he suggested to me the stimulus to get the economy 
going. He was foresightful of that fact, and because of that 
recognition, we now find that the economy does need to be stimulated a 
little bit. I compliment him for that.
  I must oppose him on this amendment, however. This is a revenue 
measure. It has not been before the Finance Committee. In fact, it has 
in a certain sense been before the committee because it was part of a 
larger bill and the committee voted against it.
  Second, this is a revenue provision on an appropriations bill. Under 
the Constitution, it will be blue-slipped by the House. The House will 
automatically reject it.
  Beyond that, we just passed a tax bill. Let's not have a yo-yo, up-
and-down tax bill. We can modify it later.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the American people should understand 
that if this amendment is adopted, it will stop the rebate checks in 
their tracks. It is almost as if we want to take the money back from 
the people before we ever give it to them.
  They are saying: Congress did something right. And those who look at 
the American economy say: Hey, they did something right. It is about 
the right time to have a big tax cut.
  I do not believe you will find one economist of renown and repute in 
the United States who will say in the middle of this downturn we should 
increase taxes. Ask somebody. I asked a bunch of them. They said this 
might not be the greatest tax plan, but cut the taxes and leave it 
alone.
  I say to my friend, Senator Hollings, he did a good thing when we had 
the budget resolution before us. He was ahead of us. He said put more 
of it in the early years. We went off to conference and followed his 
admonition. Now he thinks that is too much.
  The checks that are in the mail, if they could get at them, knowing 
the post office, could even be stopped in a week if we adopted this 
amendment.
  It is the wrong thing to do to the people; it is the wrong thing to 
do for the American economy, and certainly for

[[Page 12786]]

the Congress it is absolutely the epitome of moving in the wrong 
direction when the country has problems.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
873. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton) 
and the Senator from New York (Mr. Schumer) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Santorum) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 3, nays 94, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 223 Leg.]

                                YEAS--3

     Hollings
     Lieberman
     Mikulski

                                NAYS--94

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Clinton
     Santorum
     Schumer
  The amendment (No. 873) was rejected.
  Mr. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate 
considers the following amendments, they be considered with the 
following limitations, with no second-degree amendments in order prior 
to the vote in relation to the amendment: Wellstone amendment No. 874, 
there will be 60 minutes equally divided and controlled in the usual 
form; on the Schumer amendment, No. 862, there will be 30 minutes 
equally divided and controlled in the usual form.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. STEVENS. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum so we may examine this 
amendment for just a minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Minnesota, we almost have this 
worked out so that everyone will know what is happening until the end 
of the day. I know my friend from Minnesota is anxious to offer his 
amendment. We have imposed upon him to offer his amendment out of 
order. If we wait another 2 or 3 minutes, everything could be done. I 
ask if my friend objects if we go into a quorum call for a couple more 
minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I was trying to accommodate Senators.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield before he puts in the quorum call?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield.
  Mr. BYRD. I merely want to say, in explanation, that the Senator from 
Minnesota was about to proceed at my request. I did not know the state 
of the situation. I apologize for that. But I thank the Senator for 
yielding.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend, before we go into a quorum call, that 
very efficient staff have typed up a couple different versions of a 
unanimous consent request, the final one of which should be here 
momentarily. I have been conferring with the minority manager, and we 
should have it just about wrapped up, I say to my friend from West 
Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield, in the words of 
Alexander Pope: ``Thou art my guide, philosopher, and friend.''
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, has my colleague suggested the absence 
of a quorum?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Murray). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
be the only first-degree amendments remaining in order to S. 1077; that 
any votes ordered with respect to these amendments occur in the order 
in which the amendment is debated, and that no second-degree amendment 
be in order prior to a vote in relation to the amendment: Wellstone 
amendment No. 874; Bond amendment No. 872, with 30 minutes equally 
divided and controlled in the usual form; McCain amendment No. 869; 
Feingold amendment No. 863; Schumer amendment No. 862; a managers' 
amendment, with 5 minutes equally divided; provided further that there 
be 30 minutes of general debate on the bill, with Senators McCain and 
Gramm of Texas controlling 5 minutes each, and the remainder equally 
controlled by the two managers, Senators Byrd and Stevens; that upon 
the use or yielding back of all time, the Senate proceed to vote in a 
stacked sequence, with 5 minutes equally divided and controlled between 
each vote, and that the votes, after the first vote, be 10-minute 
votes, and that the first vote in the sequence not occur prior to 7:45 
this evening.
  Madam President, we are hopeful and confident we can make the 7:45 
time. We have spent a little time trying to come up with this 
agreement. This has been gone over with Senator Byrd.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, reserving the right to object, the 30 
minutes equally divided between Senator Byrd and myself includes the 10 
minutes for Senators Gramm and McCain, but we are at liberty to yield 
that to any person on the other amendments, if necessary; is that 
correct?
  Mr. REID. That is correct.
  Mr. STEVENS. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I express my appreciation to my friend 
from Minnesota who is his usual courteous self. He has been very 
patient. I

[[Page 12787]]

yield the floor for the Senator from Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.


                           Amendment No. 874

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 874.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, this amendment would increase funding for what is 
called the LIHEAP, the Low Income Energy Assistance Program. It would 
provide $150 million in emergency funding for this fiscal year for the 
LIHEAP program.
  The amendment would be offset directing the Secretary of Defense to 
rescind $150 million in fiscal year 2001 funds out of administrative 
costs.
  There have been many General Accounting Office Inspector General 
studies of the Pentagon budget that have talked about administrative 
waste going far beyond $150 million. Out of the whole budget, we are 
just saying take $150 million from all of the administrative waste--
talking about tens of billions of dollars--and transfer that to the Low 
Income Energy Assistance Program.
  This is a safety net program which provides essential heating and 
cooling assistance to almost 5 million low-income people, many of them 
senior citizens, many of them disabled, many of them working poor, many 
of them working poor families with children.
  Let me explain why I bring this amendment to the floor. Right now, 
national estimates show--and this is shameful--that only 13 percent of 
the households eligible for the Low Income Energy Assistance Program 
actually receive any assistance at all. That is because since 1985, 
accounting for inflation, the truth is, the funding has declined by 70 
percent. For many low-income families, the energy costs are as much as 
20 percent of the monthly budget.
  The Low Income Energy Assistance Program is a lifeline program that 
provides additional grants of money to people when they are in dire 
need of such assistance. When they don't get this help, if they are 
elderly, they don't buy the prescription drugs they need. They don't 
eat what they should be eating.
  They don't have enough money for food. I am not exaggerating.
  I am also talking about cooling assistance. While I come from a cold-
weather State, we also have emergency cooling assistance, but for many 
States that is not unimportant. There are poor people, many of them 
elderly, who run into a lot of difficulty. We have had some summers 
when they died from exposure to the heat, struggling with asthma and 
whatnot and without any cooling assistance whatsoever.
  I recognize the hard work that has been done by the Senate 
Appropriations Committee. In his supplemental request to the Congress, 
President Bush requested only $150 million of additional money for 
LIHEAP emergency funding. I am sorry. I have to say it: This does not 
represent ``compassionate conservatism.'' It was inadequate. The 
President's request would not even have been enough to assist low-
income families who are currently in arrears from this past year's 
devastating winter.
  Chairman Byrd and Chairman Stevens, recognizing the inadequacy of the 
administration's request, doubled it. They deserve the credit for doing 
so. However, while the $150 million requested by the President was 
inadequate, the $300 million certainly does a better job, but it is far 
from adequate. It doesn't meet the needs of millions of working 
families and seniors who are facing unbelievable energy costs no matter 
where one goes in the United States.
  In addition, all of the LIHEAP funds appropriated for this year have 
been released, and nearly half the States have already exhausted or 
nearly exhausted their funding.
  It is clear that we are currently nearing a crisis situation. A study 
was just completed by the National Energy Assistance Directors 
Association, and they found that 28 States and the District of Columbia 
were either out of funding or had very low balances; States reporting 
that they were out of funds: The District of Columbia, Iowa, Kansas, 
Maine, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, 
Washington, and Wisconsin; States reporting very low balances: Alabama, 
Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, 
Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, 
Texas, Vermont, Virginia, and Utah.
  This survey also found that arrearages and threats of shutoffs 
increased to 4.3 million households. This past winter was a living hell 
for a lot of low-income people. Energy costs in the State of Minnesota 
went up 40 percent. We have this deadly combination of our not 
providing the funding that is needed over the years, so that only about 
15 percent, 14 percent of the people who are eligible get the help, and 
in addition, with the dramatic increase in energy prices, it is an even 
far worse situation.
  Let me be specific. Alabama needs an additional $5 to $6 million for 
summer cooling, especially if the State experiences the severe summer 
that has been predicted. Colorado may have to discontinue its summer 
crisis intervention program and the summer fan distribution program for 
lack of funding. Georgia needs an additional $1 million for summer 
cooling and to provide assistance to the 20,000 households that owe 
approximately $80 million in natural gas bills alone.
  The Illinois program estimates it needs $15 to $20 million for a 
statewide summer program and $15 million for arrearage shutoff 
avoidance assistance. Kansas has had to resort to prorated benefits for 
winter heating assistance to compensate for the higher number of 
applicants and fuel costs. Kentucky needs $7 million to operate a 
cooling program. Minnesota needs an additional $13 million to cover the 
applications received this year and provide the same level of services 
as last year. New Hampshire has responded to the increased demand for 
assistance this winter season. It goes on and on.
  Madam President, many States need the help and, as I said before, it 
is the cooling assistance. It also provides the money right now over 
this critical period for the cold-weather States to purchase energy at 
a lower price than they would be able to do later. It also provides 
resources for States to help low-income people pay some of the bills 
they have not been able to pay so that they are not shut off, because 
right now they can be shut off by the utility companies. Again, many 
Senators come from States where home heating prices went up by 40 
percent this past winter.
  I also want to make clear to my colleagues that this emergency 
funding will carry over to the next fiscal year. Advance appropriations 
were eliminated in last year's appropriations cycle. As of October 1, 
2001, States will have totally exhausted their LIHEAP funds. The 
carryover of this amendment will ensure that many States will be able 
to pre-buy heating fuels for the next heating season, and summer 
purchases have greatly benefited low-income households, providing them 
with more fuel for their money.
  This amendment could be offset again by directing the Secretary of 
Defense to transfer $150 million from the whole Pentagon budget in 
administrative expenses for fiscal year 2001. I want to remind 
colleagues that the President has requested $343 billion for the 
defense budget in the next fiscal year, at a time when the Department 
can't even complete an internal audit. I am just saying transfer $150 
million in administrative expenses.
  Now, again, let me be really clear. This is a successful program. It 
is a lifeline program. It is for the most vulnerable citizens in our 
country. We have not provided the funding and the assistance that is 
necessary, and it is the reason I bring this amendment to the floor--
recognizing the good work of the Appropriations Committee. As a Senator 
from Minnesota, I listed all sorts of other States that are in trouble 
right now either for cooling assistance or in trouble as they look to 
this next year.
  We ought to be providing the funding. This is just one vote that 
calls on us to try to get our priorities straight.

[[Page 12788]]

The President's $150 million was hardly compassionate conservatism; 
doubling it was good work, but it doesn't come close to meeting the 
needs over the next 3-month period, doesn't come close for what is 
needed for cooling assistance, doesn't come close for what use States 
can make to provide assistance to people so they don't get cut off by 
utilities. It doesn't provide advance funding for States such as 
Minnesota that are going to wind up in a real financial crunch next 
year because the home heating costs are going to be high and we are not 
going to provide the necessary funding.
  At the very minimum, can't we take $150 million in administrative 
costs from the whole Department of Defense budget, which is well over 
$300 billion, and put it into emergency low-income energy assistance 
for poor people, working poor people, for children, for the elderly, 
and for the disabled?
  I say to my colleagues that we know right now this has been a 
successful program. We also know that the program has continued to be 
underfunded, and we know firsthand that over half the States in the 
United States of America are out of money. I gave you a report on which 
States are almost out of money. We have a hot summer month coming up. I 
do not believe we should pass this opportunity to utilize the 
supplementary emergency vehicle, which is for emergency purposes, to 
bring additional relief to vulnerable citizens in this country. This 
amendment is a modest step in this direction, and I urge my colleagues 
to support it.
  Also, because I know that the chairman and the ranking minority 
member want to continue to move things forward, I believe I have made 
my case, but I also want to kind of put this into a broader context. I 
really worry about where we are heading. We pass these tax cuts, we 
pass this budget resolution, and every day you read editorials and 
articles and you are looking at the figures which Senator Conrad and 
Senator Byrd have laid out for us, and it is becoming crystal clear 
that what we have done is we have not been very intellectually 
rigorous.
  We are not going to have the funding on present course. We had these 
Robin-Hood-in-reverse tax cuts. It is really over $2 trillion over the 
next decade, and it is only going to get worse. And now, at the very 
time when I thought we were going to have additional resources to work 
with, we are being told that soon we are going to be dipping into 
Medicare trust funds, Social Security trust funds, and that we don't 
have any funding. We can't help, in the year 2001, people who need 
lifeline assistance, low-income people who need emergency assistance.
  And then I say to the ranking member, who has been such a leader on 
education, we were told during this debate about the ESEA that there 
would be the funding. Where is the funding going to come from? Where 
will we get the money to fully fund the IDEA program? Where is the 
money coming from for title I?
  Then there is the prescription drug benefit. Everybody who campaigned 
for office campaigned on this issue. Are we going to say we have 
actually so little money, that the copays are so high--I don't know 
about the State of Washington, but I bet it is the same. The income 
profile of senior citizens in Minnesota is not high at all. You have 
too high a copay and people--if you don't deal with the catastrophic 
expenses, you are not providing the help. Are we going to be told again 
we can't afford to do it?
  Are we going to be told we can't do anything on affordable housing? 
Barbara Ehrenreich wrote a book called ``Nickle and Dimed.'' She is a 
fine writer. She went incognito and lived in different communities 
trying to find out what you do. She worked at Wal-Mart. She had a 
chapter about Minnesota, and there is a paucity of affordable housing, 
rental or home ownership. For many, it is just not there. But we can't 
do anything. We are in a straitjacket. So we have amendments proposed 
that will add to the Pentagon budget and take away from workforce 
development, take away from dislocated worker funds. On the Iron Range 
in Minnesota, LTV just shut down; 1,400 workers are out of work.
  I say to my colleague from West Virginia, take away from the steel 
loan fund. What kind of tradeoffs are we getting into? This is becoming 
a zero-sum game. We have a strong defense, but we don't help people who 
are out of work. We don't help rebuild industries that are so critical, 
as a matter of fact, to our national defense. We put more money into 
education, and we don't have money for prescription drugs or for job 
training.
  We passed the Patients' Bill of Rights. I am proud of this piece of 
legislation. The whole question of health security for all is still out 
there.
  Affordable child care: We all say we are for the children. Where is 
the funding for Head Start, and for affordable child care, and for 
affordable higher education?
  What about veterans? Who is going to make the commitment to a decent 
health care budget for veterans? Who is going to do anything about 
homeless veterans?
  I am just telling you that this is a small amendment, but this small 
amendment tells a larger story. I am not raiding Medicare or Social 
Security. I am not doing any of that. This is just a transfer. I am 
just saying, out of the whole Pentagon budget--the huge, over $300 
billion budget--$150 million in administrative costs can be transferred 
to this program so that we can do a little bit better by way of helping 
vulnerable citizens in our country.
  That is the amendment. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from West 
Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I yield time in opposition to the 
distinguished Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, the Wellstone amendment, dealing with 
the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, is a very noble goal. I 
have no quarrel with this goal but, most respectfully, this matter has 
been addressed in this bill.
  The amendment that is proposed would cut funding for the Department 
of Defense by $150 million at a time when we are trying our best to 
increase funding. The amendment would allow the Secretary of Defense to 
choose which programs under his jurisdiction would be curtailed.
  None of us wants to curtail readiness, but this blank check to 
administrative programs would force the Secretary to identify those 
that he considers of lower priority. I always ask myself: In a Senate 
of 100 Members, can we ever agree upon what is of more priority?
  Most respectfully, I inform my colleagues that the Secretary could 
take funding from several items that this body has supported over DOD's 
reluctance, and we have done this for many years.
  For example, we have a fund for the Youth Challenge Program which 
takes high school dropouts and turns their lives around. It is a most 
successful program that is under the auspices of the National Guard. It 
has saved our Nation countless millions of dollars. We have kept these 
young students out of prison. We have kept them out of crime. I do not 
think any one of us would want to cut off that program.
  This amendment could very well force the Secretary to stop programs 
to clean up the environment. One may ask: In what environmental program 
is the Defense Department involved? Over the years, we have been 
closing bases, and all of our military bases, because of the nature of 
the work, are polluted. We have unexploded ordnance in the target 
ranges. There is oil pollution all over the place because we have had 
oil dumps. If the communities want to use these bases, how can they go 
about it under our laws? They have to be clean before people of the 
United States can utilize the bases that have been closed by the action 
of Congress. Do we want to stop that program?
  Then we speak of our cultural heritage. The Department of Defense now 
has a Legacy Program which protects cultural heritage.
  There is a program I am certain the author of this measure wants to 
see

[[Page 12789]]

continued, and that is the program which supports Native American 
tribes. For example, at this moment, we are closing clinics and 
hospitals, not only here but in Europe. We constantly find that our 
Native Americans do not have proper hospital facilities, and so we get 
these old, secondhand beds, old secondhand operating tables, and old 
secondhand x ray machines to help the first citizens of this land. Is 
that high priority or low priority?
  Then we come to the National Guard. This has been a battle from day 
one. Is the National Guard of low priority or is it of high priority?
  These are the types of programs the Secretary is likely to curtail or 
cut out to carry out the intent of this amendment.
  I argue that we are already underfunded in the Department of Defense. 
That is why we are hopeful this Senate will approve this measure which 
will add $5.5 billion to the Department.
  This amendment is a noble one, but I believe it aims at the wrong 
target. Others can speak more knowledgeably about the adequacy of 
funding. I know it is a worthwhile program, but understand, it is 
already fully funded for this fiscal year.
  I have had people ask me: Why is the Department of Defense spending 
money for defense when we do not use an aircraft, when we do not use 
the carriers, when we do not use the submarines? Thank God, Madam 
President, we do not use the submarines. Thank God we do not have to 
use the bombers. Thank God we do not have to use the carriers because 
if we were using them, we would be at war. But since we are prepared, 
potential adversaries think twice before they decide to get into action 
with us.
  Much as I admire the purpose, much as I admire the noble goal, I urge 
my colleagues to vote against the amendment.
  I yield back any time remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has 12 minutes 20 
seconds.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will take 3 minutes, I say to my colleague. I want 
to respond to my good friend from Hawaii by saying three things. First, 
there is not a better person in the Senate. I hate disagreeing with 
him.
  I listened carefully, and I want him to know in the language of this 
amendment, we make it clear:

       In determining the accounts to specify, the Secretary of 
     Defense shall take into consideration the need to promote 
     efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and productivity within the 
     Department of Defense, as well as to maintain readiness and 
     troop quality of life.

  We do not talk about taking money out of any of the programs. We are 
not talking about cutting programs that are especially important for 
youth or especially important for Native American people. We are 
certainly not talking about anything that goes away from readiness and 
troop quality of life.
  The only thing we are talking about is administrative expenses. The 
Pentagon has not even been able to complete its internal audit. We all 
know there is way more than $150 million in administrative waste in an 
over $300 billion budget. I am saying do not take it out of programs, 
and I am certainly saying do not take it out of anything that deals 
with troop quality of life or readiness. I am simply saying take it out 
of the administrative waste and put it into the Low Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program.
  The vote is about whether or not we want to take some money out of 
administrative expenses from over a $300 billion budget and put it into 
this program.
  My colleague talked about this program being fully funded, but the 
fact is, we have only 14 percent of the families who are eligible who 
are able to benefit because it has been so underfunded over the years. 
We just went through a 40-percent increase in heating costs this past 
winter which has thrown everything helter-skelter with States not 
having the money, with not enough cooling assistance, people in 
arrears, people faced with utility shutoffs, with States worrying about 
next year. I don't think anybody from any of these States can make a 
point that we don't need more funding for this program. If I thought we 
already had the funding we need, I would not bring this amendment to 
the floor. I believe it is quite to the contrary.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. INOUYE. How much time do we have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia controls 23\1/
2\ minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. Would the distinguished Senator from Hawaii yield me 3 
minutes?
  Mr. INOUYE. I yield 3 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, this amendment would add another $150 
million for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, in addition 
to the $300 million already included in the bill. The additional LIHEAP 
funds are offset by an administrative cut in the Department of Defense 
to which Mr. Inouye has very ably addressed his remarks in opposition 
thereto.
  I am a strong supporter of LIHEAP; it helps many low-income 
households facing rising fuel costs, pay to heat their homes. However, 
both the House-passed and the Senate committee-reported version of this 
supplemental already recommend an additional $300 million for LIHEAP, 
which is double the amount recommended in the President's budget 
request. The committee-reported bill brings the fiscal year 2001 LIHEAP 
appropriation to $2 billion, and with the carryover funds from the 
prior year, funds available for LIHEAP would total $2.155 billion in 
fiscal year 2001. This compares to $1.844 billion in fiscal year 2000--
an increase of $311 billion.
  I commend the distinguished Senator from Minnesota. He makes a very 
compelling argument. Ordinarily I would want to support him in the 
position he has taken. However, the committee-reported supplemental, as 
I have already indicated, is a balanced bill; it is a fair bill. While 
I would like to provide additional resources for energy assistance to 
low-income people in the country, I believe the best way to quickly get 
supplemental LIHEAP funding to members in need is to approve the 
committee bill without this amendment so that the bill can be more 
immediately sent to conference and on to the President for his 
signature.
  If I have any time remaining, I yield it back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. On behalf of the committee, I move to table the 
amendment.
  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote will occur in a stacked sequence 
later this evening.
  The Senator from Missouri.


                           Amendment No. 872

  Mr. BOND. I call up amendment numbered 872.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, in recent years we have witnessed some 
very serious and troubling discussions in the Appropriations Defense 
Subcommittee. We have noticed how American fighting men and women are 
being committed to engagements of all kinds all around the world. We 
know that the budget for the Defense Department has come down 
dramatically.
  I was one saying when the Berlin Wall fell we could probably save 30 
percent or more of our military budget because we could cut back and 
still maintain the force we needed. We were in a position where we were 
supposedly able to pursue two major regional contingencies at once. 
That was the theory.
  Unfortunately, as we went farther and farther into more assigned 
missions, it became very questionable whether we could even do that. We 
asked questions from both sides of the aisle in our Appropriations 
Defense Subcommittee hearings about the resources we were providing for 
the Department of Defense. I believe it was

[[Page 12790]]

about 2 years ago about this time of year we had then-Secretary of 
Defense Bill Cohen before our committee, a former member of this body. 
We all respect him greatly.
  I asked point blank: Mr. Secretary, do we have the money that is 
necessary to support our fighting men and women?
  I believe his answer was something like: We do not have the resources 
available for the missions we have been assigned.
  That was the beginning of the realization we had grossly underfunded 
the Department of Defense.
  I am very pleased we have a defense supplemental before the Senate. I 
know these are tight times. There has been an effort to work with the 
administration, with the bipartisan leadership of both bodies, to find 
how we can provide vitally needed resources for the Department of 
Defense. My personal view is we may not have provided enough. That is 
why I have offered this amendment.
  On May 24 of this year, the Associated Press ran a story on 
cannibalization, the lack of military spare parts. According to a GAO 
report, the Pentagon system for dispensing spare parts for airplanes, 
tanks, and other equipment is broken and officials are not sure how to 
fix it. At least 154,000 times a year a military mechanic takes a part 
from one airplane and puts it on another because a new spare part is 
not on hand, according to the GAO.
  This cannibalization is a very questionable process. It is a waste of 
time and money. It costs 1 million extra work hours a year and risks 
damaging the aircraft, as well as the morale of the mechanics doing the 
work, several testified. Once cannibalized, a multimillion-dollar 
aircraft can sit idle for months or years, said Neal Curtin, GAO 
Director of Defense Issues. In one case, about 400 parts were removed 
from a plane that eventually had to be shipped by truck to the 
maintenance depot to be rebuilt. Witnesses said the cannibalization is 
widespread because the services are trying to maintain readiness on an 
aging fleet in a time of increased deployments.
  LTG Michael Zettler, Deputy Chief of Staff for Air Force 
Installation, said cannibalization is only used when it is absolutely 
mission critical, and acknowledged in a prepared statement that it is 
done more than is desirable but blames some of it on design problems 
showing up years after abuse, resulting in a widespread need for more 
parts than specified, and fewer companies are making fewer parts--
having left the market during the Pentagon 1990 downsizing.
  Pentagon spokesman RADM Craig Quigley said: You do what you need to 
do given the availability of parts. It is largely an issue of funding. 
I use the family car as a good example. The older it gets, the more 
repairs you will do, but it is expensive to buy a new car.
  This GAO report follows an earlier report that said the Department 
inventory management is ineffective and results in excessive stocks of 
some parts more than others. Though the problem has been under scrutiny 
since 1990 and the services have formed committees, study groups, and 
programs to fix it, no one has the statistics on how big the problem 
is, according to the GAO Director. Because they view cannibalization as 
a symptom of spare part shortages, they have not closely analyzed other 
possible causes or made concerted efforts to measure the full extent of 
the practice.
  The Pentagon has been unable to document how many times it is done, 
the reasons, or how much time and money it has cost. It also cannot 
determine which cannibalizations are necessary, what alternatives are 
available, what improvements or changes need to be implemented, to what 
extent morale would be increased by reducing the workload.
  My point in going through that article is simply to note that we are 
in a sorry situation where we are preparing to send our air men and 
women into combat without the spare parts we need. We grab a part from 
a Hangar Queen, another aircraft that is increasingly disabled, and 
take that one part to keep the planes flying. That means the planes we 
are cannibalizing are less and less able to carry out their assigned 
mission.
  My amendment is, I believe and I hope, a responsible amendment which 
adds $1.430 billion for the fiscal year to the Defense Department. I 
believe the money is desperately needed by forces and can be spent in 
what remains of the fourth quarter of the current fiscal year. The 
amendment is operative only if and to the extent that the President 
declares it an emergency. The President would have control over whether 
to spend these funds. They could only be spent in the current fiscal 
year on problems which are very serious and which we understand from 
our sources are in dire need.
  This amendment includes funds that will be directed exclusively to 
operations and maintenance and personnel accounts of each of the four 
services. This is money the Pentagon, in our view, needs right now to 
ensure that critical repairs and training are not delayed further. Our 
troops need to believe there is truth behind our words and that help 
is, indeed, on the way.
  Consider this pressing challenge, the parts shortages and 
cannibalization from other pieces of equipment to which I just 
referred, specifically to aircraft. It is required throughout the 
military to keep our aging equipment going. To give an idea of the 
impact of the shortages, the GAO report found that shortcomings in 
spare parts increase maintenance costs by forcing maintainers to do 
things such as cannibalize needed parts from other aircraft, taking 
parts from one airplane to another to get one operational, meaning it 
takes two airplanes to get one ready to go. That essentially doubles 
the maintainer workloads, turning one repair into two.
  Parts swapping also pushes costs up by increasing part failure rates. 
Components are more susceptible to breakdown when they are removed from 
one unit to another. Previously-installed parts have shorter in-service 
life than new parts.
  When maintainers cannot do what they have been trained to do--that 
is, to fix airplanes--that leads to lower retention rates. The people 
who are in the job of doing the very critical work--making sure we 
provide the very best machines for our pilots--leave and go into the 
private sector. It is demoralizing to watch the mission-capable rates 
of airplanes drop due to a lack of spare parts. The maintainers want 
nothing more than to be provided the equipment and parts they need to 
do their jobs.
  I applaud and thank the President for his initiative in submitting 
this supplemental, but I do differ with the administration's view that 
the funding currently provided is sufficient. Saying we will solve the 
problem in fiscal year 2002 is not going to help the problems we 
currently face as a result of the circumstances we have created. Our 
troops are tired of hearing us say help is on the way, only to be 
disappointed when it never comes.
  It is time for us to show them that we, indeed, want to provide them 
the resources they need efficiently and safely to do the missions we 
give them. There are far too many examples of services being forced 
into situations where they must borrow from operations and maintenance 
accounts just to keep operations going and to purchase much-needed 
spare parts and equipment. Meanwhile, infrastructure continues to 
deteriorate at an alarming rate.
  I will have printed in the Record excerpts from testimony of our most 
senior military personnel before the House Armed Services Committee in 
September of last year. For the benefit of my colleagues, allow me to 
read just a few.
  From Admiral Vern Clark, Chief of Naval Operations, Department of the 
Navy:

       I currently have a backlog of . . . $5.5 billion in 
     infrastructure. . . . We are currently not funding this 
     account sufficiently so that we arrest the growth in critical 
     backlog and we have to do better.

  General Shelton had this to say:

       We can ill afford to take away from the current readiness 
     accounts today. In fact, in some cases I think you've heard 
     the Chiefs say they've still got shortfalls. . . . We have

[[Page 12791]]

     got to find a way--and that means more money to be able to 
     modernize the force.

  Madam President, there are quotes from other members of the Joint 
Chiefs, and others, pointing out just how far we have come and how much 
further we need to go. This amendment before us provides $27 million 
for the Marine Corps. During last month's testimony, General Jones, the 
Marine Corps Commandant, told me he would have to find this money 
elsewhere by reprogramming funds if he did not receive it prior to the 
end of the fiscal year.
  Real property maintenance shortfalls remain incredibly high. Just 
consider a recent report that two-thirds of the Army National Guard 
installations will maintain a status of C-4, which means 
``significantly impairs mission performance.'' Installations continue 
to deteriorate because the funding we are providing is not sufficient 
to halt the decline.
  Madam President, the current supplemental does not begin to reverse 
the slide in real property maintenance, and we cannot be sure future 
budgets will either. My colleague from Delaware, Senator Biden, 
refrained from offering an amendment to this supplemental that would 
have added $204 million for additional Blackhawk helicopters, but he 
made the point our Army aviation program is in deep trouble and is in 
dire need of additional funds if we are to get it back on track.
  I came to the floor a month or so ago to point out that in the 
National Guard in Missouri, 75 percent of the helicopters are not 
operational. If we were running a museum, that would not be bad. But we 
expect our National Guard to be ready to be called on in a national 
emergency, and I can guarantee in our State of Missouri, and every 
other State, when there is a natural disaster, whether it is a flood, 
tornado, fire, or some other disaster, we want to be able to call on 
the National Guard. Three out of four planes in the Missouri National 
Guard are not airworthy. That means not only are they not ready, but 
the men and women who are supposed to fly them cannot train in them.
  This is a serious situation that affects all branches of the Active 
and Reserve and the Guard. No matter where we turn, we find pressing 
needs both in our readiness accounts and in our modernization accounts. 
That is why I think it is essential we plus-up the current 
supplemental. Every dollar counts. I hope we can find support for it. I 
know the Members of this body understand the situation. I have been 
assured by people at the Pentagon that funding I seek to add could and 
would be used to fund current needs, and therefore I ask my colleagues 
to support this amendment that adds slightly more than $1.4 billion to 
the supplemental.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I yield myself just a couple of 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. I have great respect for the Senator from Missouri. I am 
constrained to advise him, Senator Byrd and I gave our word to the 
Director of the Office of Management and Budget that we would not 
include any emergency funds in this supplemental appropriations bill 
this year. We did so because we were informed that there was, in fact, 
a substantial increase request to be presented by the President for the 
year 2002. We have, as all Members of the Senate know, received that 
request. It is substantial--over $18 billion. This money that is in the 
amendment of the Senator from Missouri could not be spent before that 
would be available anyway.
  So I hope the Senator might consider relying upon us to work with him 
in the future and help us honor our commitment to the Director of the 
Office of Management and Budget.
  I see my good friend from Hawaii seeks some time. Would he like to 
comment also?
  Mr. INOUYE. Yes, if I may.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield to the Senator from Hawaii.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
  Mr. INOUYE. I wish to advise my colleagues that in crafting this 
supplemental bill we considered two criteria, and both of them were 
requested by the Republican administration, requested by the Department 
of Defense.
  First, any program receiving supplemental funding must be able to 
execute this funding during the current fiscal year. The current fiscal 
year ends in 2\1/2\ months, just a few days away. Second, that the 
funding could not wait until fiscal year 2002. It is the view of 
President Bush that the supplemental request has satisfied this 
objective.
  I believe the modest changes made by the committee have improved this 
measure, increasing readiness and health care funding by $229 million.
  I will remind the Senate that from fiscal year 1994 to fiscal year 
2001, the Congress added $49 billion to the DOD budget, much of it for 
various programs that concern the distinguished Senator from Missouri, 
in some cases operation and maintenance funds appropriated for the same 
activities identified in the supplemental request, such as spare parts, 
base operations, and depot maintenance.
  My point is, the Defense Subcommittee has a demonstrated record of 
considering both the funded and the unfunded requirements of the 
Department before marking up a piece of legislation. The funding 
provided in this bill, most respectfully, I believe meets the urgent 
needs of the military within the funding constraints set by the budget 
resolution for fiscal year 2001 approved by this body.
  This act avoids emergency spending to demonstrate fiscal restraint. 
Much of the funding proposed by this amendment could not be spent 
responsibly in 2\1/2\ months. The Department would struggle to obligate 
the funds before the end of the fiscal year. Some would even be 
obligated to cover workload at the maintenance depots that would carry 
over to next year in violation of the Department's own restrictions.
  I point out to the Senator from Missouri that the Appropriations 
Committee has addressed programs that he seeks to fund with his 
amendment. Specifically, runway repairs for the Masirah Airfield in 
Oman are addressed in the military construction section. The committee 
has addressed the Army's second destination transport costs. Those 
funds were reduced in the bill passed by the House. It seems that the 
unfunded requirement list submitted to the Senator is currently 
outdated.
  So for all the above reasons, Madam President, I therefore must 
oppose this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I wonder if the Senator from Missouri 
would yield 2 or 3 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I would be happy to yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri controls 36 seconds.
  Mr. BOND. How much?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska controls 10 minutes in 
opposition.
  Mr. BOND. How much in support?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri controls 36 seconds.
  Mr. BOND. Thirty-six seconds. I would like to reserve the 36 seconds.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield the Senator from Arkansas 4 or 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Alaska for 
yielding a brief period of time out of order.
  I express my gratitude and my appreciation to Senator Stevens for his 
willingness to accept into the managers' amendment an amendment I had 
proposed that provides $24 million in emergency funding that is offset 
in the amendment but is essential for cleanup from devastating ice 
storms in the States of Arkansas and Oklahoma.
  I also express my appreciation to the chairman, Chairman Byrd, for 
his cooperation in this very vital funding.
  I will make my comments brief. I know there are many desiring to 
speak and many amendments we are considering. But while December of 
2000 has

[[Page 12792]]

come and gone, and many have forgotten those many months ago, it will 
not be a time that is quickly forgotten in the State of Arkansas. It is 
certainly a time I will never forget.
  For many, it was anything but a merry holiday season. On December 12, 
and again on December 26, Arkansas was hit by two major winter storms. 
The Arkansas Department of Emergency Services said: ``These two storms 
combined created the most widespread and financially devastating 
disasters in our state's history.''
  Life in most parts of Arkansas came to a halt as snow, sleet, and 2 
to 4 inches of ice covered much of my State for weeks. To the Senator 
from Alaska, that may not sound like much, but I will tell you, the 
damage, the devastation that was done was unparalleled and 
unprecedented in Arkansas history.
  As a result of the December 12 storm, more than 250,000 Arkansans 
lost power. At the time, that was considered the worst storm in 70 
years.
  By the time the first storm passed, more than 40 counties in Arkansas 
had been declared disaster areas. FEMA officials came in and said they 
would be in the State to do preliminary damage assessments on December 
26, but they could not do it on December 26 because on Christmas 
morning Arkansans awoke to sleet, which turned to freezing rain by late 
afternoon and continued for 3 days. Western Arkansas was covered with 
more than 3 inches of ice. Power lines were down, homes and vehicles 
were damaged by falling limbs, and over half a million electrical 
customers lost their power just at the time many of them had their 
power restored from the first storm.
  Arkansas received a Federal disaster declaration on December 29. 
Eventually, 65 out of 75 Arkansas counties were declared disaster 
areas.
  Despite the recovery efforts, many scars are going to remain in 
Arkansas for years and years to come. It is July and the Forest Service 
personnel are still working to remove damaged timber, reopen roads and 
trails, and repair facilities.
  The Ouachita National Forest in western and central Arkansas took the 
brunt of the damage. The weight of the ice brought down an estimated 
500 million board feet of timber. Now that Forest Service personnel 
have fought their way into many of the most remote areas of the forest, 
that estimate may increase to as much as 800 million board feet.
  I personally visited the forest this spring. I was shocked at the 
extent of the damage. All 1.8 million acres of the Ouachita National 
Forest were damaged to some extent. Twenty-six hundred miles of roads 
and six hundred and twenty-five miles of trails were closed or blocked. 
Roads, trails, and recreation areas in the heaviest damaged areas 
remain closed even to this day.
  Now fire experts have evaluated the fuel loading in the forest and 
found that it is more than 10 times normal levels. Normally, there is 
about 5 tons of timber lying on the forest floor per acre. After the 
storms, that number jumped from 40 to 60 tons per acre. And in the 
hardest hit areas you get a little idea of it: The hardest hit areas 
have 80 tons of fuel per acre.
  Wildfires on a 1.8 million-acre forest are difficult to respond to 
under normal conditions, but roads and trails into the most remote 
parts of the Ouachita are still impassable.
  So as the threat of fire grows with each passing summer month, my 
main concern is for the 843,000 Arkansans living along and around the 
Ouachita National Forest. And that doesn't include the three ranger 
districts in Oklahoma that are of interest to Senator Nickles and 
Senator Inhofe as well.
  The Forest Service is doing everything it can, but if this situation 
does not change, in the next two summers we will see uncontrollable 
wildfires in the Ouachita National Forest.
  So I appreciate this $24 million being included in the managers' 
amendment. I repeat the words of the Arkansas Department of Emergency 
Services: ``These two storms combined created the most widespread and 
financially devastating disasters in our state's history.'' It is now 
impacting tourism. It is impacting our entire economy.
  I have been working with the Forest Service, and I believe this $24 
million will provide the kind of relief to ensure the proper cleanup of 
that fuel in the Ouachita National Forest.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank Senators Stevens and Byrd and yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Missouri.


                      Amendment No. 872, Withdrawn

  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I claim the remaining time I have.
  I appreciate very much the very strong statements made by the 
chairman and the ranking member of the Defense Appropriations 
Subcommittee. These are men of great experience, dedication, and 
understanding. I look forward to working with them to achieve what we 
think is vitally important in filling the readiness gap.
  Madam President, I would like to have been able to pass the amendment 
that I have introduced, but having learned to count in third grade and 
having some experience counting in this body, I defer to the greater 
wisdom of the senior Members and request that my amendment be 
withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Wisconsin.


                           Amendment No. 863

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senate now turn to my amendment, No. 863.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
McCain be permitted to offer his amendment upon completion of debate on 
the Feingold amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, and the Senator from Massachusetts, 
Mr. Kerry, be added as original cosponsors of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, this amendment strengthens America's 
contribution to the Global Fund for HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and 
Malaria, the plagues of the 21st century, and some of the foremost 
threats to security in the world. To pay for this funding increase, my 
amendment would make additional rescissions in procurement funds for 
the troubled V-22 Osprey program.
  The global HIV/AIDS pandemic threatens security and stability around 
the world in a chillingly comprehensive way.
  As Dr. Donald Berwick movingly wrote last month in the Washington 
Post:

       The earth has AIDS; 36.1 million people at the end of the 
     year 2000. In Botswana, 36 percent of adults are infected 
     with HIV; in South Africa 20 percent. Three million humans 
     died of AIDS in the year 2000, 2.4 million of them in sub-
     Saharan Africa. That is a Holocaust every two years; the 
     entire population of Oregon, Iowa, Connecticut or Ireland 
     dead last year, and next year, and next. More deaths since 
     the AIDS epidemic began than in the Black Death of the Middle 
     Ages. It is the most lethal epidemic in recorded history.

  The International Crisis Group, or ICG, is a well-respected private, 
multinational organization founded to build international capacity to 
prevent and contain conflict. Many of my colleagues are familiar with 
their reports on international hot spots from Macedonia to Burundi.
  The ICG recently released a report entitled ``HIV/AIDS as a security 
issue.'' This report states:

       Where it reaches epidemic proportions, HIV/AIDS can be so 
     pervasive that it destroys the very fibre of what constitutes 
     a nation: individuals, families and communities; economic and 
     political institutions; military and police forces. It is 
     likely then to have broader security consequences, both for 
     the nations under assault and for their neighbors, trading 
     partners, and allies.

  The report goes on to note that the crisis also affects personal 
security. As was noted on this floor recently, some reports indicate 
that if current trends continue, 15-year-olds in some of the most 
severely-affected countries will actually be more likely than not to 
die of AIDS.

[[Page 12793]]

  The crisis affects economic security. Analysts predict that in 
Botswana, the pandemic will reduce government revenues by 7 percent, 
while the costs of fighting the disease increase by 15 percent.
  The crisis affects communal security. In Lusaka, Zambia, I visited an 
orphanage, of sorts, where committed volunteers worked by day with 
nearly 500 children orphaned by AIDS. But by night, there was space for 
only fifty of these children. The rest were on the streets.
  By 2020, some 40 million African children will have lost one or both 
parents to the disease. In Zimbabwe, even the healthy find it 
increasingly difficult simply to attend the many funerals of their 
families and friends and still fulfill their job responsibilities.
  The crisis affects national security. According to UNAIDS, in sub-
Saharan Africa, some military forces have infection rates five times 
higher than those of their civilian populations.
  The crisis affects international security. Sub-Saharan Africa is in 
the midst of an urgent crisis. Infection rates are on the rise in 
Eastern Europe, Central Asia, South Asia, and the Caribbean. The 
consequences of this pandemic at all societal levels poses a serious 
threat to international peace and stability. Our country's prosperity 
and progress cannot be divorced from the global context in which we 
live.
  That HIV/AIDS is a security issue is no longer revolutionary 
thinking. In January of last year, the National Intelligence Council 
produced an intelligence estimate entitled ``The Global Infectious 
Disease Threat and Its Implications for the United States,'' a report 
which framed the issue in much the same fashion.
  Secretary of State Colin Powell said recently that he ``know[s] of no 
enemy in war more insidious or vicious than AIDS, an enemy that poses a 
clear and present danger to the world.''
  But while many have absorbed the astounding--in many ways 
terrifying--statistics about this crisis, and many, including our 
Secretary of State, appear to have grasped its terrible implications, 
the U.S. policy response remains woefully inadequate.
  We have all talked about the need to do more. Today we have an 
opportunity actually to do it.
  Of course, addressing AIDS takes leadership, and as the chairman of 
the Committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Africa, I am aware 
of the difference that energized leadership, such as that exhibited in 
Uganda and Senegal, makes and that it makes a critical difference when 
countries take on in a meaningful manner the fight against AIDS.
  But America's leadership is required as well. UN Secretary General 
Kofi Annan has called for a global fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, 
and malaria. This is a true emergency affecting national security. The 
United States must answer the call.
  My amendment would increase funding for this vital effort by $593 
million. And the funding in this amendment is completely paid for. 
According to the Congressional Budget Office, this amendment is budget 
neutral. The amendment offsets the increased funding, dollar for 
dollar, with reductions in procurement of the troubled V-22 Osprey 
program.
  Over the last 2 decades, HIV/AIDS has infected 60 million people, 
killed more than 20 million people, slashed life expectancies, and has 
left millions of orphans in its wake. We now know to a certainty the 
national security reality of the AIDS pandemic. But even after 20 years 
of research, development, and testing, we still don't know if the V-22 
Osprey will work.
  This amendment would not endanger the integrity of the Osprey 
production line, nor would it affect money that has been obligated as 
of April 2001.
  But serious questions and concerns continue to cloud the Osprey 
program. Thirty Marines have died in Osprey crashes since 1991. 
Unanswered questions remain regarding the validity of maintenance 
records and the safety and viability of this aircraft.
  The final report of the blue ribbon panel appointed by former 
Secretary of Defense William Cohen to review the program recommended a 
``phased approach'' to proceeding with the Osprey program. The blue 
ribbon panel concluded that the Osprey ``is not ready for operational 
use.''
  I agree with that conclusion. I also concur with the panel's 
recommendation that procurement should be reduced to the minimum 
necessary to maintain the production line until the myriad design and 
safety problems are addressed and further testing is done to ensure 
that this aircraft is safe. My amendment does just that.
  The underlying bill rescinds $513 million in Osprey procurement 
funds--$150 million from the Navy and $363 million from the Air Force. 
While I am pleased that the underlying bill zeros out the Air Force 
procurement budget for the Osprey, it still leaves about $944 million 
in the Navy's aircraft procurement account for a program that has been 
grounded indefinitely and that is headed back into the research, 
development, testing, and evaluation stage for the foreseeable future.
  The committee report accompanying this bill says that this funding 
will be used to procure eleven of the Marine Corps version of the 
aircraft, the deeply flawed MV-22. This is five fewer Ospreys than were 
authorized for fiscal year 2002, but in my view, it is still eleven 
more than we should build this year.
  My amendment would rescind an additional $594 million intended for 
the Osprey from the Navy's aircraft procurement account. It leaves 
enough funding in place to maintain the integrity of the production 
line, and it does not affect the funding that the Navy has obligated 
for this program as of April 2001.
  Based on the formula that was used when the Navy suspended production 
on two other troubled aircraft programs, the T-45A and the SH-60F, the 
minimum required to sustain the production line for the MV-22 is about 
$350 million. In the case of the T-45A, the Navy maintained the 
production line with 28 percent of its original funding; 34 percent of 
the funding was maintained for the SH-60F. The $350 million that my 
amendment would leave in place is the average of what the Navy left in 
place to maintain the production lines for these two programs.
  We know the Osprey is broken. The Navy and Marine Corps are working 
on ways to fix it. And we should allow that process to move forward. 
But, we should not spend scarce taxpayer resources on building new 
Ospreys that will require costly and extensive retrofitting later.
  So I think this is a great example of where we have to make a choice, 
and I think the choice is clear.
  My amendment would scale back funding on a troubled program that 
plainly needs a thorough review. And it would increase our response to 
the world's greatest urgent threat to human life, the AIDS pandemic.
  AIDS is a security issue, but it is also unquestionably a moral one. 
Our response is a measure of our humanity. We are not civilized, we are 
not just, and we cannot lay claim to common decency, if we simply 
accept millions of deaths and dismiss them as simply the problem of 
another continent.
  Sadly, we are living in a time of plague. We have an obligation to 
fight it. History will judge us all.
  Last month, the UN General Assembly conducted a special session on 
the pandemic. Let us begin today to match our response to our rhetoric. 
This amendment is fiscally responsible, it is the right thing to do, it 
is in the U.S. interest, and it reflects our national values. I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  I reserve the remainder of my time and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time to the Senator from Arkansas?
  Mr. BYRD. How much time do we have, I ask the Chair?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 5 minutes each under the control of 
the managers, and 8\1/2\ minutes is under the control of the Senator 
from Wisconsin.
  Mr. BYRD. How much time does the Senator from Arkansas want?
  Mrs. LINCOLN. If either the Senator from Alaska or the Senator from 
West

[[Page 12794]]

Virginia will yield it, I will need about 3 or 4 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I am simply here to extend my 
heartfelt thanks to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and to 
Senator Stevens from Alaska for the people of Arkansas.
  Right before we broke for the Fourth of July recess, I joined with my 
colleague, Jim Inhofe from Oklahoma, in writing to both the chairman 
and the ranking member to express to them our concern on behalf of our 
constituents. During the winter of 2001, our home States of Arkansas 
and Oklahoma suffered through some of the most devastating storms in 
recorded history. On December 29, 2000, President Clinton declared a 
major disaster for our States, triggering the release of Federal funds 
to help people and communities recover from the severe ice storms that 
had blanketed our home States.
  Unfortunately, the assistance provided to date has not been 
sufficient in getting our communities back on their feet. Farmers, 
ranchers, and timberland owners have been hardest hit. These ice storms 
added more than 10 times the normal amount of downed timber on the 
ground in Arkansas' Ouachita National Forest.
  This year, Arkansas and Oklahoma have the potential to have one of 
the worst fire seasons in our history. With the massive amount of fuel 
on the ground, wildfires will burn extremely hot and fast, which will 
make it difficult to control or to contain. With the funding outlined 
in the emergency supplemental bill, our residents can complete the 
cleanup effort while also working to prevent massive forest fires this 
fall.
  It would not be possible without the wonderful bipartisan working 
relationship of these two gentlemen who have worked steadfastly with 
both of our delegations to make sure we can provide our residents with 
what they need in order to keep our families, our forests, and 
certainly our communities safe. I thank both of these Senators on 
behalf of my constituents in Arkansas for the work they have been 
willing to put into this effort.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator from Arkansas for her 
exceedingly kind remarks concerning my efforts and the efforts of my 
distinguished colleague, Senator Stevens from Alaska. There need not be 
any doubt in anybody's mind that the Senator stands up for her 
constituents and ably represents them. This is just another example of 
that.
  Madam President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has 2\1/2\ 
minutes. The Senator from Alaska has 5 minutes. The Senator from 
Wisconsin has 8\1/2\ minutes.
  The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator from West Virginia for allowing me 
to proceed on this amendment. I do oppose the amendment Senator 
Feingold has offered. I do so because of my great interest in this 
system.
  The V-22 represents the best new technology in aeronautics adapted by 
the military air system that I have seen in my time in the Senate. 
Unfortunately, it has had some bad circumstances, and we all regret 
deeply the difficulty it has had.
  I have spent a considerable amount of time with the Marines, in 
particular, on this system and have discussed them personally with the 
Commandant of the Marine Corps. I will be very brief in saying that I 
believe this amendment is untimely and it is not in the best interests 
of our Marine Corps system.
  I do believe, as the Commandant has written to me today, that the V-
22 Osprey is the Marine Corps' No. 1 aviation priority. I think we 
should be very slow to terminate or disturb such a system which is 
being developed in the best interests of our men and women in the 
Marines.
  In particular, if it proves successful, as I pray it will, it will 
take our men and women across the beach. We will not see visions again 
in any war of our people hitting the beach and being slaughtered at the 
edge of the water. They will be able to fly from smaller ships and all 
over the place and enter into any battle zone by air, and they will 
have a better opportunity of survival and success in defending our 
Nation's interests in a time of war. It is a military asset of great 
value to our Department of Defense.
  I intend to oppose the amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letter sent to me today by General 
James L. Jones, Commandant of the Marine Corps, be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                    July 10, 2001.
     Hon. Ted Stevens,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Stevens, the restructuring of the V-22 program 
     as recommended by the Panel to Review the V-22 resulted in 
     proposed changes to the FY01 funding profile. Those changes 
     were presented in the Administration's FY2001 Supplemental 
     request. Your committee subsequently marked the program, 
     making adjustments to the Navy funding and zeroing the Air 
     Force procurement funding. While the Marine Corps would 
     prefer that the Air Force remain an active participant at 
     this stage of the V-22 program restructure, we understand 
     your Committee's mark. That mark does allow the program to 
     remain viable.
       Unfortunately, Amendment 863 of S. 1077, currently being 
     considered on the floor of the Senate, so radically reduces 
     aircraft procurement funding that the resultant effect is 
     termination of the V-22 program in FY 2001.
       As you know, Senator Stevens, the V-22 Osprey is the Marine 
     Corps' number one aviation priority. It will revolutionize 
     combat assault in a manner not seen since the introduction of 
     the helicopter more than 50 years ago. The V-22 Osprey is the 
     only vertical lift, assault support aircraft that provides 
     the combination of range, speed, and payload which fulfills 
     the Marine Corps' medium lift requirement. The Osprey met or 
     exceeded all Marine Corps' key performance requirements and 
     is projected to meet or exceed all Air Force/SOCOM key 
     requirements. It carries three times as much, five times as 
     far, twice as fast as the Vietnam era CH-46 Sea Knight it is 
     replacing. The V-22 Osprey is a key enabler allowing Marine 
     expeditionary forces to rapidly respond to unpredictable, 
     unstable situations throughout the world. Additionally, the 
     V-22 is also the only vertical lift aircraft that can rapidly 
     self-deploy to meet USSOCOM's mission requirement--completion 
     of the critical long-range infiltration/exfiltration mission 
     in one period of darkness.
       Senator Stevens, a better course of action would be to 
     support the Review Panel's recommendation to restructure the 
     V-22 program that uses a phased approach to a return to 
     flight and tactical introduction. However, the amendment 
     currently under consideration by the Senate would cause a 
     production line shut down and any remaining FY01 funding 
     would be used to terminate the contract. Other potential 
     impacts include:
       Labor rate increases due to business base reduction;
       Production loss of learning due to potential layoffs (loss 
     of experience, going back up the curve);
       Inflation cost increases due to moving quantities to the 
     right;
       Material burden increases;
       Material cost increases due to economies of scale impacts 
     (quantity reductions);
       Vendor elimination causing loss of learning for materials 
     and re-qualification costs;
       Obsolescence costs and other non-recurring cost;
       Increased manufacturing inefficiency; and
       Personnel layoff.
       Should quantities change for V-22, labor wrap rates for 
     other Bell and Boeing Programs would also be adversely 
     impacted.
       Senator Stevens, clearly these negative impacts were not 
     intended by the Panel to Review the V-22, the 
     Administration's restructuring of the program or your 
     Committee mark-up of the FY2001 Supplemental bill. In a world 
     that is often chaotic and unpredictable, the V-22 Osprey 
     provides the Nation with an aircraft that can deal with any 
     situation--from humanitarian relief to full combat 
     operations. I request your support to keep this critical 
     program viable as the FY2001 Supplemental request proceeds 
     through the Senate.
       I have provided a similar letter to Chairman Inouye, 
     requesting his support.
           Semper Fidelis,

                                               James L. Jones,

                                       General, U.S. Marine Corps,
                                   Commandant of the Marine Corps.

  Mr. STEVENS. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from 
Hawaii.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.

[[Page 12795]]


  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I realize that time is limited. If I 
may, I will quote from the letter dated July 10, 2001, from the 
Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, GEN James L. Jones. I believe this 
one paragraph, the third paragraph, says it all:

       As you know, Senator Stevens, the V-22 Osprey is the Marine 
     Corps' number one aviation priority. It will revolutionize 
     combat assault in a manner not seen since the introduction of 
     the helicopter more than 50 years ago. The V-22 Osprey is the 
     only vertical lift assault weapon aircraft that provides the 
     combination of range, speed, and payload, which fulfills the 
     Marine Corps' medium lift requirement. The Osprey met or 
     exceeded all Marine Corps' key performance requirements. . . 
     . It carries three times as much, five times as far, twice as 
     fast as the Vietnam era CH-46 Sea Knight it is replacing. The 
     V-22 Osprey is a key enabler, allowing Marine expeditionary 
     forces to rapidly respond to unpredictable, unstable 
     situations throughout the world.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, this amendment will wipe out the V-22 
program, and if at a later time we find it necessary to revive that 
program, it will cost billions.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, of course, I have enormous regard for 
both speakers in opposition, the Senator from Alaska and the Senator 
from Hawaii, but I want them to know how carefully we crafted this 
amendment to avoid the consequence they both mentioned.
  This amendment does not kill the Osprey program. It is not 
inconsistent with the statement of the Senator from Alaska that this 
may well turn out to be the best new technology. It is not inconsistent 
with the Commandant's letter where he says this is the No. 1 priority 
of the Marines. We do not contradict that at all.
  In fact, I respect the fact there is a real effort out there to try 
to fix the problems with the Osprey. This does not kill the Osprey 
program. I understand some of our people sadly have died in these 
helicopters, but I also know yesterday there was an unfortunate 
accident involving the helicopters they want to replace.
  I want to be candid about this. There may well be a need for an 
improved helicopter. This amendment does not kill the Osprey program, 
and that is the only argument that has been made against the amendment.
  The amendment is carefully crafted. What this amendment allows is to 
have the research and the consideration that needs to be done on the 
Osprey actually completed, to have the tests done, to make sure people 
are going to be safe in this helicopter, and at the same time allow 
Senators to vote to do what they must do: To enhance the international 
effort against the AIDS pandemic. It is truly a win-win proposition 
that does not threaten the Osprey.
  Specifically, in response to the Commandant's letter that was just 
printed in the Record, it simply is incorrect in terms of the budget 
implications. This amendment does not shut down the production line. 
That is what is being suggested, but it does not. There are still 
Ospreys in various stages of construction that are being built with 
both fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 resources. We do not impact 
those Ospreys. They will continue to be produced on the production 
line.
  More important, the experts at the GAO have specifically stated a 
very different conclusion. According to the GAO, the Osprey production 
line is currently being maintained with the completion of between four 
and seven planes per calendar year. Four planes were delivered to the 
Marines in 1999; five were delivered in 2000; six planes have been 
completed since December 2000 but have not yet been delivered because 
the fleet remains grounded and no flight testing of those planes can 
take place.
  Each Osprey costs about $83 million to produce. This amendment 
carefully leaves in place--it does not wipe out the program--$350 
million in fiscal year 2001 money, plus the $102 million the Navy has 
already obligated, for a total of $452 million remaining in the 
program.
  At $83 million per aircraft, this $452 million would purchase five 
Ospreys, and given the current production rate, as I just pointed out, 
no more than seven Ospreys have been delivered in any one calendar year 
anyway.
  In my view and in the view of the blue ribbon panel, this program 
should be reduced to the minimum necessary to maintain production until 
the aircraft undergoes redesign and further testing. It is still 
unclear how much retrofitting will need to be done on the existing 
Ospreys and how much it will cost or if it will be cost-effective or 
even possible to retrofit the existing Ospreys. The Department of 
Defense has said it will take about 1 year to do the additional 
research and testing needed to determine the status of the Osprey 
program.
  Clearly, if we are talking about budget prudence and caution and 
making sure we do not waste millions of dollars, this amendment is the 
way to go. It is prudent to wait and see what the results of the tests 
are, obviously, before we increase the rate of production above the 
current five to seven per year.
  I reiterate, we do not kill the Osprey program. We do not stop it. We 
simply make sure we only use it at the minimum level that it is 
currently at and maintain the production line so it can be studied and 
so the additional resources that would have gone to it make a serious 
contribution to the fight against HIV/AIDS around the world.
  Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from 
Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I thank the Senator. I hope my 
colleagues who are following this debate in their offices will pause 
for a moment to consider what we are about. How many times have we come 
to this Senate Chamber and voted for resolutions, voted for ideas that 
say we are pledged to fighting the AIDS epidemic in Africa? Sadly, it 
has almost become commonplace here.
  We voted for amendments and budget resolutions because, frankly, they 
are messages we send out for the world to read. But this amendment from 
the Senator from Wisconsin is real. It is an amendment which comes up 
with millions of dollars to deal with a crisis that faces the world; 
not just a crisis facing the United States, it faces the world.
  This crisis is the AIDS epidemic in Africa. The Senator from 
Wisconsin visited Africa a week or two before I did last year. We both 
talked about it. It was a profound, transforming experience to visit a 
continent that is consumed with disease and to realize that people with 
whom you are having casual conversations are likely to be the casualty 
of those diseases. Whether it is AIDS, tuberculosis, or malaria, Africa 
is dying.
  The question for all of us who live in this prosperity and wealth in 
the rest of world is whether we care, and if we care, it is not enough 
to pass a resolution saying we care. The important test is whether we 
will put our money on the table. That is the test not only for this 
President and this administration, it is the test for all of us.
  I support this amendment. I believe the Senator from Wisconsin is 
showing real leadership, and if all of the Senators who have voted for 
the resolutions expressing their heartfelt concern about this epidemic 
in Africa will come forward and vote for this amendment, I think we 
will have shown that we are prepared to put our money where our mouths 
have been.
  I still think back to those moments in Africa when I was visiting. I 
just read on the way over here some of the things I had written and 
about which I had forgotten. I thought about going to a clinic in 
Mbale, Uganda, and listening to a beautiful choir of Ugandans who were 
all dying from AIDS, who set up in front of us and sang a song 
entitled, ``Why Me, Why You, Why Him, Why Her, Why Me.''
  As I looked into their eyes, I thought: I will never forget this, 
ever, the courage I saw in that clinic.

[[Page 12796]]

  Their courage should be matched by our commitment. This disease, this 
epidemic is not just destroying Africa; it is a test for the rest of 
the world. Will we respond to this holocaust of the 21st century or 
will we turn away and say the most prosperous nation in the world 
cannot come up with a singular symbolic contribution to end this 
scourge?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Illinois not 
only for his tremendous eloquence but for his genuine compassion and 
commitment on this issue. It is moving to me to see a Senator stick to 
this effort and be willing to race down to the Chamber and speak in 
such a moving way. I thank him and hope we get the kind of vote this 
clear choice deserves.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, in 1983, at my request, we started the 
Army's infectious disease section to determine whether there could be a 
cure for AIDS or prevention of its transmission. Since that time, we 
have spent more money than all the world put together in trying to 
defeat AIDS. The way to help our great friends in Africa is to find a 
way to cure AIDS but not to take money from a system that needs 
protection under the Department of Defense.
  Mr. BYRD. Does the Senator have anything further?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. If the other Senators yield their time, I will yield 
mine.
  Mr. BYRD. I have a brief statement.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I reserve my time.
  Mr. BYRD. I intend to move to table if the Senator would like to 
speak prior to that motion.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. If the Senator wants to proceed, I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. I oppose the amendment proposed by the Senator from 
Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold. This amendment provides funding to address the 
AIDS epidemic, which is a problem of astounding proportions affecting 
millions in the world today. There is a very laudable purpose behind 
the amendment. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the committee-reported 
bill which contains $100 million for the Global AIDS Program is a fair 
and commendable approach under the present circumstances and at the 
present time. The $100 million for the Global AIDS Program was included 
in the committee bill at my own request. I made the request at the 
urging of the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Daschle. The President 
did not request supplemental funds for this purpose, but we worked in 
committee to identify noncontroversial offsets for this important 
program.
  I believe the committee has produced a fair bill, a responsible bill, 
a balanced bill. I believe the most effective way to get this essential 
aid to the people who need it is to approve the committee bill, without 
this amendment, so the bill can be taken to conference and sent to the 
President for his signature.
  I shall move to table and I do so with apologies to the distinguished 
Senator from Wisconsin, who is, as I have already indicated, offering 
an amendment that is laudable. I think we have responded in the 
committee, and under the circumstances I think the committee bill 
should be approved as is with respect to this amendment.
  I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
motion to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second. The yeas and nays are ordered. The vote 
will be delayed until later this evening under the previous order.
  Under the previous order, the Senator from Arizona is recognized to 
debate his amendment numbered 869, with 2 hours equally divided. The 
Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I am not quite ready with the amendment 
so I suggest the absence of a quorum. I understand the time will be 
taken from my allotted time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona.


                     Amendment No. 869, As Modified

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to send a 
modification to my amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the Senator's 
modification of his amendment?
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, reserving the right to object--I have no 
intention of objecting--if we may just study the modification 
momentarily?
  Mr. McCAIN. Yes.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, the time to be 
taken from both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I remove my reservation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified.
  The amendment (No. 869), as modified, is as follows:
       After section 3002, insert the following:
       Sec. 3003. (a) In addition to the amounts appropriated to 
     the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2001 by other 
     provisions of this Act or the Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-259), funds are 
     hereby appropriated, out of any funds in the Treasury not 
     otherwise appropriated, to the Department of Defense for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, for purposes under 
     headings in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 
     2001, and in amounts, as follows:
       (1) Under the heading ``Military Personnel, Navy'', 
     $181,000,000, of which $1,000,000 shall be available for the 
     supplemental subsistence allowance under section 402a of 
     title 37, United States Code.
       (2) Under the heading ``Military Personnel, Marine Corps'', 
     $21,000,000.
       (3) Under the heading ``Reserve Personnel, Navy'', 
     $1,800,000, which shall be available for enhancement of force 
     protection for United States forces in the Persian Gulf 
     region and elsewhere worldwide.
       (4) Under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', 
     $103,000,000.
       (5) Under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', 
     $72,000,000, of which $36,000,000 shall be available for 
     enhancement of force protection for United States forces in 
     the Persian Gulf region and elsewhere worldwide.
       (6) Under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Marine 
     Corps'', $6,000,000.
       (7) Under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Air 
     Force'', $397,000,000.
       (8) Under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Army 
     Reserve'', $21,000,000.
       (9) Under the heading ``Other Procurement, Navy'', 
     $45,000,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2003, which shall be available for enhancement 
     of force protection for United States forces in the Persian 
     Gulf region and elsewhere worldwide.
       (b) The amount appropriated by chapter 10 of title II to 
     the Department of the Treasury for Departmental Offices under 
     the heading ``Salaries and Expenses'' is hereby reduced by 
     $30,000,000.
       (c) The matter in chapter 11 of title II under the heading 
     ``National Aeronautics and Space Administration human space 
     flight'' shall not take effect.


                              (rescission)

       (d) Of the unobligated balance of the total amount in the 
     Treasury that is to be disbursed from special accounts 
     established pursuant to section 754(e) of the Tariff Act of 
     1930, $200,000,000 may not be disbursed under that section.


                             (rescissions)

       (e) The following amounts are hereby rescinded:
       (1) Of the funds appropriated to the National Aeronautics 
     and Space Administration under the heading ``human space 
     flight'' in the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing 
     and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2001 (as enacted into law by Public Law 
     106-377), the following amounts:
       (A) From the amounts for the life and micro-gravity science 
     mission for the human space flight, $40,000,000.
       (B) From the amount for the Electric Auxiliary Power Units 
     for Space Shuttle Safety Upgrades, $19,000,000.
       (2) Of the funds appropriated to the Department of Commerce 
     for the National Institute

[[Page 12797]]

     of Standards and Technology under the heading ``industrial 
     technology services'' in the Departments of Commerce, 
     Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2001 (as enacted into law by Public Law 
     106-553), $67,000,000 for the Advanced Technology Program.
       (3) Of the funds appropriated to the Department of Commerce 
     for the International Trade Administration under the heading 
     ``operations and administration'', $19,000,000 of the amount 
     available for Trade Development.
       (4) Of the funds appropriated by chapter 1 of the Emergency 
     Steel Loan Guarantee and Emergency Oil and Gas Guaranteed 
     Loan Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-51, $126,800,000.
       (5) Of the funds appropriated to the Department of Labor 
     for the Employment and Training Administration under the 
     heading ``Training and Employment Services'' in the 
     Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
     Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 (as 
     enacted into law by Public Law 106-554), the following 
     amounts:
       (A) From the amounts for Dislocated Worker Employment and 
     Training Activities, $41,500,000.
       (B) From the amounts Adult Employment and Training 
     Activities, $100,000,000.
       (6) Of the unobligated balance of funds previously 
     appropriated to the Department of Transportation for the 
     Federal Transit Administration that remain available for 
     obligation in fiscal year 2001, the following amounts:
       (A) From the amounts for Transit Planning and Research, 
     $90,000,000.
       (B) From the amounts for Job Access and Reverse Commute 
     Grants, $116,000,000.

  Mr. McCAIN. I want to explain the modifying amendment removes the 
offsets of title XI of the maritime subsidies and also the cut in the 
Export-Import Bank subsidy. So the remaining offsets will remain. I 
will go through those in a few minutes, but I want to emphasize that 
both the Export-Import Bank rescission and the Maritime Guaranteed Loan 
Program have also been removed. There have been increases in the 
amounts of offsets for transit planning and research to $90 million and 
job access to $116 million. So I will now be glad to discuss that with 
the managers of the bill, if they have any additional questions.
  I am pleased to have the support and cosponsorship of Senators 
Lieberman, Landrieu, Kyl, and Carnahan as cosponsors to this amendment.
  Basically what it does is it adds a total of $847.8 million in 
additional spending, all of it for personnel, operations and 
maintenance, and a very small amount, $45 million, for procurement. So 
virtually all of this--$800 million of the $847 million--is for the men 
and women in the military, the Reserve personnel, including funds to 
remove sailors and Marines from food stamps, and operations and 
maintenance, which, as we all know, is very badly underfunded.
  This amendment funds the bare minimum that the military services have 
said they need. We must prioritize our spending and, in my judgment, 
fully funding the readiness of our forces must be our first obligation. 
This amendment will add $847.8 million to the defense portion of the 
supplemental appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001, yet it will not 
exceed the budget resolution caps because it is fully offset by 12 
separate rescissions from non-defense programs. This amendment will 
increase the President's supplemental budget request from $5.5 billion 
to $6.34 billion. Most of the funding offsets in the amendment were 
added last year by Congress in the fiscal year 2001 appropriations 
bills and will not be obligated by this October, according to various 
agency heads. In other words, much of the money I propose to rescind 
will not be spent this year--no matter how seemingly worthy the cause.
  Later this month, the President will send to Congress the Pentagon's 
Omnibus Reprogramming Request for Fiscal Year 2001. I am told that the 
reprogramming request is about $850 million. The services will have to 
reprogram or transfer critical money from other key readiness and 
modernization accounts to adequately pay and train our service men and 
women. Our military services, stretched thin and overworked, are 
raiding Real Property Maintenance readiness funding--already $16 
billion underfunded--and other key accounts, just to ensure that they 
can pay much-needed bonuses to retain servicemembers.
  We have sailors, soldiers, airmen, and marines--some still on food 
stamps--living in very old, dilapidated homes because the military 
services keep reprogramming critical funds to shore up other equally 
urgent needs. In Arizona, for example, there are marines at Yuma Marine 
Corps Air Station living in World War II-era barracks. Base Commanders 
tell me that they have deferred maintenance for the past 10 years 
because they need to fund higher priorities--and who can blame them. We 
should fund the services adequately, instead of forcing them to make a 
Hobson's choice.
  Recent terrorist threats have clearly demonstrated the dangerous 
impact of the military funding shortfalls. In late June, U.S. Navy 5th 
Fleet warships in ports of the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea, and the Gulf 
of Oman, were ordered to sea, after several reports that Osama Bin 
Laden, the world's most notorious terrorist, was said to be planning a 
comprehensive attack on U.S. and Israeli targets in the Mideast.
  The U.S. ships had to leave port, since the U.S. Coast Guard--which 
had primary responsibility for protecting U.S. Naval ships after the 
USS Cole attack--had to pull out its port security forces due to lack 
of adequate funding or reimbursement from the U.S. Navy, whose budget 
already is underfunded. The U.S. Navy then had to implement an 
emergency Presidential recall of Navy Reservists, resulting in a nearly 
$2 million unfunded liability not addressed in this supplemental. This 
amendment pays for these critical force protection efforts.
  In 1998, the service chiefs confirmed many of the alarming readiness 
deficiencies that had been identified by countless sources.
  The imperative for increasing military readiness and reforming our 
military is as strong today as it was then, It is my firm belief that 
as elected officials, providing for a strong national defense is our 
most serious obligation. Anyone who dismisses our readiness problems, 
our concerns with morale and personnel retention, and our deficiencies 
in everything from spare parts to training is blatantly ignoring the 
dire reality of this situation.
  Too often in the last century, we ignored warnings from the military 
that our armed forces were too weak to meet the many grave challenges 
they face. Today, we must listen to our commanders, so as not to repeat 
the mistakes of the past.
  The service chiefs have indicated that they need at least $30 billion 
more per year for modernization and readiness accounts. Listen to 
detailed testimony before the House and Senate Armed Services 
Committees on September 27, 2000--just eight months ago--by our current 
Joint Chiefs on the underfunded needs of our military services, and the 
dramatic, harmful consequences likely to occur if we fail to adequately 
fund these requirements.
  General Henry H. Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:

       [C]ontinuing to improve our current readiness posture to 
     desired levels while preparing for tomorrow's challenges will 
     require additional resources. . . . The $60 billion projected 
     by the QDR [for procurement] will not be enough to get the 
     job done.

  General Shelton continues:

       [O]ur long-term ability to sustain our [military] equipment 
     is slipping. One cause is due to the negative effects of a 
     higher than planned tempo of operations on our aging 
     equipment. This high tempo and the associated wear-and-tear 
     require more frequent maintenance and repair, further 
     highlighting the need for recapitalization and modernization 
     of our forces. Moreover, we have not been able to procure 
     enough new equipment to reduce the average age of our force 
     structure. It is also important to note that we believe this 
     higher maintenance tempo has also had a deleterious effect on 
     the hardworking troops attempting to maintain this aging 
     equipment, which directly impact retention of our quality 
     force. At posts, camps and stations, such items as housing, 
     fuel lines and water lines, as well as facilities where 
     people work and live, have outstripped their useful life. . . 
     . and this directly impacts our ability to provide a decent 
     quality of life for our troops. . . . How much more funding 
     is needed? . . . Well in excess of $60 billion is needed to 
     maintain our readiness.

  Gen. Eric Shinseki, U.S. Army Chief of Staff, testified that $30 
billion more per year is a move in the right direction, but even that 
does not take into

[[Page 12798]]

account Army transformation costs or shortages in critical ammunition 
needs:

       We have training shortfalls in institutional training, 
     training support, training range modernization, and combat 
     training center modernization. Real Property Maintenance is 
     currently funded at 75 percent of requirement, a funding 
     level that will not slow or prevent the ongoing deterioration 
     of existing Army facilities. . . . At this rate, it will take 
     the Army about 157 years to fully revitalize our 
     infrastructure.

  Any of my colleagues who read the recent study conducted by the U.S. 
Army about the personnel situation in the U.S. Army today should be 
appalled and deeply disturbed by the findings of the U.S. Army about 
the lack of confidence amongst the young men and women about their 
leadership, about their future, about their lack of desire in 
retention. We are losing captains in the U.S. Army at a greater rate 
than at any time in the history of the U.S. Army.
  Adm. Vern Clark, Chief of Naval Operations, concurred in testimony 
that $30 billion more in total each year is required:

       I am concerned about the inventory levels of Precision 
     Guided Munitions. . . . We are still below the current 
     warfighting requirement. The shortfall of precision munitions 
     is a major risk driver for our forces . . . with our current 
     inventory, execution of a second MTW will rely more on the 
     use of non-precision munitions, thereby increasing the risk 
     to our pilots and the potential for collateral damage.

  Madam President, I have a lot of quotes.
  Admiral Clark continues:

       It is critical that we begin to fund 100 percent of our 
     manning, maintenance, ordnance, modernization, 
     recapitalization and training requirements. . . . We have not 
     been doing that. Improving the quality of our workspaces 
     requires a commitment to both Real Property Maintenance and 
     MILCON, both of which are seriously underfunded.

  Admiral Clark continues:

       [M]anpower is our most urgent challenge. . . . In retention 
     we remain below our goal. [T]oday--

  He is talking about last September--

       I am 14,000 people short: almost 8,000 at sea, and 6,000 
     ashore. That has to be redressed soon. We are at war for 
     people. It has to be reflected in our budget. . . . [A]nd we 
     will need the help of Congress.

  Gen. Michael E. Ryan, Air Force Chief of Staff, testified that the 
Air Force needs at least $11 billion more per year:

       [A]ir Force readiness has not turned around--at best these 
     efforts have leveled off the decline. . . . The overall 
     combat readiness of our combat units is down 23 percent since 
     1996. Because we must assure the readiness of our engaged 
     forces overseas, we have done it at the expense of our 
     stateside units. The reasons for these readiness declines 
     have their basis in operations tempo, past underfunding of 
     spares, dealing with older and aging systems, and a workforce 
     that is less experienced because of retention declines.

  General Ryan also contends:

       [T]he Mission Capable (MC) rates of our aircraft have 
     continued to decline by over 10 percent since 1991. Mission 
     Capable rates are directly proportional to how much time an 
     aircraft is not available because of not having parts in 
     supply or because maintenance work needs to be done on the 
     aircraft to make it ready. Some of our units are not getting 
     as much flying as they should get, because of our inability 
     to generate the aircraft because of mission capability rates. 
     We have not had enough funding to do that adequately.

  He continues:

       [T]he overall retention rate remains a serious concern. We 
     fell below our end strength authorization of 361,000 active 
     duty members by 5,300. . . . And that is probably 5,000 under 
     what is required. So a total of 10,000 short right now.

  Madam President, I am again reminding my colleagues, I am talking 
about testimony that was given last September to the Armed Services 
Committee.

       Enlisted retention levels are below goal. . . . A shortage 
     of 1200 pilots exists today, the additional bonuses have made 
     an impact. [Moreover,] [b]ecause of funding shortfalls, we 
     have significantly under-invested in base operating support, 
     Real Property Maintenance, family housing, and military 
     construction. We cannot continue to mortgage this area of our 
     force readiness without significant long-term effects. Over 
     the past six years we have averaged an investment in 
     infrastructure at a 250-year replacement rate. Industry 
     standard is 50 years. We have a $4.3 billion Real Property 
     Maintenance backlog.
  The Commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. James L. Jones, testified 
that the Marine Corps needs at least $1.5 billion more per year for 
modernization alone, including $220 million for basic ammunition:

       We are at a point where failure to rectify modernization 
     and readiness shortfalls can no longer be ignored. . . . It 
     is readily apparent that we are fast running out of short-
     term fixes for budget shortfalls. One-time increases in 
     defense spending are not the solution. A sustained period of 
     increased funding is required in order to ensure the future 
     readiness of your Corps.

  He continues:

       [T]he countless hours of maintenance on our aging ground 
     systems directly impacts the life of our Marines. Many of our 
     aircraft are approaching block obsolescence. The majority of 
     our key aviation equipment is older than the Marines who use 
     it. . . . Since 1995, the direct maintenance man-hours per 
     hour of flight increased by 33 percent and there has been a 
     58 percent increase in our ``cannibalization'' rate.

  ``Cannibalization'' means stealing parts from one airplane to make 
another one operationally capable.

       During the same time period the full mission capable rate, 
     though still within acceptable parameters, has decreased by 
     9.45 across the force. These statistics represent data for 
     all Marine Corps aircraft and show a declining level of 
     readiness.

  General Jones also maintained that:

       [W]e continue to have a deficit of approximately 10,000 
     family units. Our backlog of Maintenance and Repair . . . 
     amounts to over $600 million. Budget limitations force us to 
     make hard choices that result in funding only our most 
     critical construction requirements. Although we have reduced 
     our MILCON--

  Military construction--

     replacement cycle to approximately 100 years, it is still 
     twice the industry standard.

  The testimony of the service chiefs is alarming. It underscores the 
rationale for this amendment. It seeks simply to respond to basic 
requirements of our military services just until the end of this fiscal 
year, which occurs in fewer than 75 days from now.
  The amendment will help our service men and women recognize their 
Government's firm commitment to: Adequately provide for modernization; 
ensuring equipment maintenance--including reversing the deficiency in 
spare parts availability--is adequately funded; sufficiently funding 
critical training needs, including flying hours; beginning to resolve 
the broad pay and benefits disparity that affects our service men and 
women; starting to reverse the high rates of attrition across the 
services; continuing to take service members off the food stamp rolls; 
and ensuring at least minimum force protection efforts to help prevent 
further U.S.S. Cole-type terrorist attack.
  I urge your support for this critical amendment.
  Madam President, I outlined shortfalls and deficiencies within the 
Department of Defense that far exceed--far, far exceed--this $847 
million amendment.
  But I would point out that this administration, with my wholehearted 
support, and this Secretary of Defense are doing everything they can to 
restructure and reorganize the military and impose necessary savings. I 
believe a very good faith effort is being made on the other side of the 
river at the Pentagon. I am proud of the efforts Secretary Rumsfeld is 
making. I look forward eagerly to supporting him in whatever 
conclusions and recommendations they make because he has gathered 
together some of the best military minds in America to come up with 
these proposals.
  But they have not been forthcoming yet. We have some very deep and 
severe short-term needs. I was fully expecting--fully expecting--when 
this administration came in that there would be significant increases, 
including in this supplemental appropriations bill. I appreciate the 
efforts of the managers. But I say to the managers, it is not enough, 
nor is this amendment enough. But I cannot imagine why these urgent 
needs, which are being addressed on a personnel and operations and 
maintenance basis, would be rejected.
  There may be some questions about the offsets.
  There is a $30 million offset from the Department of the Treasury 
``Salaries & Expenses'' for the 2002 Winter Olympics security. In this 
rescission we only

[[Page 12799]]

cut half of the money added for the Olympics by the Senate 
Appropriations Committee during markup of the supplemental bill. We 
still leave $30 million for this program, adding to the $220 million in 
total Federal funding in the fiscal year 2002. It is difficult to 
understand why the need for Federal funding for safety and security 
purposes for the Olympic games has more than quadrupled since the 1984 
Summer Games in Los Angeles and more than doubled since the 1996 Summer 
Olympics in Atlanta.
  Compared to the 23 venues spread over a 500-square-mile area used for 
the Los Angeles Olympic Games and the 31 venues located in 8 cities 
that spread from Miami, FL, to Washington, DC, for the Atlanta Games, 
the Salt Lake Games will utilize only 14 venues located within a 
significantly smaller geographical perimeter. Yet the current total of 
Federal funding for safety and security purposes, which includes this 
$60 million in supplemental funding, is $220 million. The total funding 
for safety and security for Los Angeles, $68 million, and Atlanta, $96 
million, combined was far less than what will be spent on the Salt Lake 
Winter Games. Last year's GAO report demonstrated that taxpayers have 
shelled out $1.3 billion in subsidies for Salt Lake City alone.
  As to the NASA shuttle electric auxiliary power units, $19 million: 
This amendment would rescind the remaining $19 million of FY 2001 funds 
for this program, whose implementation NASA has chosen to terminate. 
According to NASA, the anticipated remaining funding for FY 2001 is $19 
million. Following the results of the EAPU review process that found 
technical flaws and cost overruns in the program, NASA has determined 
that the prudent action at this time is to terminate EAPU 
implementation while NASA formulates a plan on how to proceed with this 
upgrade project. The electric auxiliary power unit, EAPU is one of the 
several upgrade programs that NASA is developing for the Space Shuttle 
program.
  As to the NASA life and micro-gravity research, $40 million: The FY 
2000 VA/HUD appropriations bill earmarked $40 million for a space 
shuttle mission, R-2 for life and micro-gravity research. Due to delays 
in overhauling the Shuttle Columbia the shuttle mission has been 
delayed and will not be launched in 2001. The supplemental 
appropriations bill would broaden the use of the $40 million for life 
and micro-gravity research that was earmarked for a special shuttle 
mission and other Space Station research in FY 2001. This amendment 
would rescind this earmark.
  As to the Commerce Department's ``Advance Technology Program,'' known 
as ATP, $67 million: This amendment would rescind the funds that the 
Commerce Department carried over from last fiscal year and again and 
expects to be left over again at the end of this fiscal year. The 
President's FY 2002 budget request has requested no funds for the 
program. Historically, I have fought this program as corporate welfare, 
because it has given awards to Fortune 500 companies such as General 
Electric, Dow Chemical, the 3M Company, and Xerox.
  As to the Labor Department unspent balances in worker employment 
training activities, $141.5 million: This is the same amount rescinded 
by the other body for this program. The House supplemental 
appropriations bill rescinded $359 million from the $1.8 billion in 
advanced funding provided in the FY 2001 Labor/HHS Appropriations Act 
for adult and dislocated worker employment and training activities. The 
Senate bill only rescinded $217.5 million from these employment and 
training activities. We increase the amount rescinded by $141.5 million 
from these same activities so that we merely do the same thing as the 
House did and rescinded $359 million in total. Even with the 
rescission, States will still have $5.1 billion available to support 
these activities in 2001--$455 million over amounts available in 2000. 
The reason for this rescission is that when the advance appropriations 
were provided, it was not anticipated that there would be such high 
levels of unspent balances in these programs.



  As to the Transportation Department Job Access Reverse Commute Grants 
Program, $76 million: This offset in the amount of $76 million 
represents surplus funds from the Job Access Reverse Commute Program 
account that remained unused at the end of FY 2000. The enacted FY 2001 
budget authority for this account was approximately $100 million. When 
added to the surplus funds from FY 2000, this account contained nearly 
$176 million. I have been informed by the budget office of the 
Department of Transportation that this account has a current 
unobligated balance of $146 million, which means that in the past 9 
months of the current fiscal year, only about $30 million has been 
spent. We are thus rescinding only $76 million out of the total amount, 
leaving nearly $50 million for the Transportation Department to use 
over the next 82 days for this purpose.
  The Transportation Department transit planning and research, $34 
million: The offset of $34 million is surplus funds which remained in 
the transit planning and research account at the end of fiscal year 
2000.
  As to the Commerce Department International Trade Administration, 
Export Promotion Program, $19 million: The International Trade 
Administration's trade development program helps U.S. industries export 
their products. This program amounts to a corporate subsidy. There is 
no need to burden the American taxpayers with this program. U.S. 
industries wishing to export goods and services should pay for this 
type of counseling themselves. The fiscal year 2001 omnibus 
appropriations bill appropriated $64.7 million to this program. 
According to the Department of Commerce, $21 million remains unexpended 
in this account.
  As to the Emergency Steel Guaranteed Loan Program, $126.8 million: 
These are loan guarantees to qualified steel companies. There remains 
$126.8 million in unspent balances in the account for fiscal year 2001 
out of a total appropriation of more than $129 million. I am told that 
none of this money will be spent in the 82 days left in this fiscal 
year.
  As to the Treasury Department U.S. Customs Service Byrd antidumping 
amendment funds rescission, $200 million: The ``continued dumping and 
subsidy offset'' was added in the fiscal year 2001 Agriculture 
appropriations conference report--the wrong way to do business, I say 
to the managers of the bill, the wrong way to do business. However, the 
important point is that the entire sum of money collected during the 
current fiscal year under this law is not being spent. CBO scores the 
Byrd amendment at $200 to $300 million annually, and the chief 
financial officer of the Customs Service confirms this figure for 
fiscal year 2001. None of the money that is being collected throughout 
fiscal year 2001 will be disbursed to companies this year. In fact, it 
will not be disbursed until the second quarter of fiscal year 2002. The 
money that has been collected since the law was signed in October 2000 
but which will not be disbursed in fiscal year 2001 is currently 
sitting unused in the general treasury.
  I am philosophically opposed to this program that distorts trade 
policy by taking antidumping duties levied to protect U.S. companies 
and actually redistributing duties collected to those very companies, 
providing them a double reward: punitive tariff rates for imports from 
overseas competitors, as well as a slush fund of public money.
  Again, the point here is that none of the $200 million collected 
annually for this program will be spent this year and sufficient funds 
will be collected next year to meet the law's fiscal year 2002 
obligations.
  I have described the offsets because every one of those programs 
which this money is being reduced from, most of it unused at this time, 
pales in significance to the importance of taking care of the men and 
women in the military. Which is more important, decent housing for the 
men and women in the military or Commerce Department international 
trade administration export promotion programs?
  We have to always set priorities. I argue that the priority that 
exists today and that those of us on this side of the aisle promised 
the American

[[Page 12800]]

people as a result of the election last year was that we would do a 
much better job of taking care of the men and women in the military 
than had been happening in the previous 8 years.
  I strongly urge adoption of this amendment.
  I yield such time as the Senator from Texas may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Corzine). The Senator from Texas is 
recognized.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment. I 
support the amendment for a lot of reasons.
  The most important reason I support it is that this is an amendment 
where a Member of the Senate has actually gone through a $2 trillion 
budget, a budget that spends $7,000 per man, woman, and child in 
America, and found $800 million that he believes is a lower priority 
than the things for which he would increase funding in the military.
  It never ceases to amaze me that in a government where we spend $2 
trillion--that is with a ``t''--every year, over and over again, 
Members of the Senate stand up and offer amendments to increase 
spending on some favored program, and almost never, ever do they 
suggest that there is something in the Federal Government that is a 
lower priority than the thing they believe is a high enough priority to 
increase spending to fund.
  I think you can quarrel, though I do not quarrel, but you can quarrel 
with almost any one of the choices the Senator from Arizona has made. 
But you can't quarrel with the logic of the Senator from Arizona, which 
is that our job is setting priorities. He argues that operation and 
maintenance, housing, and improved capacity in the military, exceed in 
value the list of the $800 million worth of expenditures he would 
reduce or terminate in order to fund his amendment.
  I believe these kinds of amendments need to be encouraged. I am in 
support of the amendment and I intend to vote for it. Let me also say 
that it is hard for me to judge the statements being made about 
defense. I can't forget that many of the same people who are now saying 
that there is virtually no limit to what we could use in defense, 
either they or their predecessors, 2 or 3 years ago, were saying that 
everything was great in an administration that was dramatically 
reducing the real level of defense spending.
  I believe we do need a top-to-bottom review at the Pentagon. I agree 
with the Senator from Arizona that a good-faith effort--perhaps the 
best effort in 10 or 20 years--is being undertaken by the Secretary of 
Defense. That effort is not going to produce results that will be 
uniformly happy, and I would have to say that of all of the proposals 
that have been looked at--and I agree with all the people who, with 
unhappiness and bluster, say it was done the wrong way, we weren't 
notified, and there are 101 explanations for being opposed to cutting 
one program to fund another--but the bottom line is, we had an effort 
underway to undo the one proposal to reprogram that had been made by 
the Pentagon. I think, quite frankly, that sets a very bad precedent. 
So I believe we do need a comprehensive review.
  My dad was a sergeant in the Army. That is the extent of my knowledge 
about the military. I believe in a strong defense. I am proud of my 
record in supporting defense. I think I have a base of support for 
people who wear the uniform that is virtually second to none. But 
whether or not we need to be in a position to fight two major conflicts 
at once is something subject to question. I am a lot more concerned 
about modernization and recruitment and retention than I am about 
continuing to keep production lines alive. I think Eisenhower clearly 
was right when he warned us so long ago that even with our best 
intentions about defense, defense spending would be driven by political 
interests--something he called the ``industrial military complex.''
  Let me sum up what I came over to say today. First of all, I commend 
the Senator from Arizona for being the first person in this Congress 
and the first person in a long time who really not only thought we 
ought to spend money on something we weren't spending it on, but who 
was willing to actually name things he was willing to take it away 
from. It is interesting that all over America every day families make 
these kinds of choices. The washing machine breaks down and so they 
have to make choices. Maybe they don't go on vacation. Or Johnny falls 
and breaks his arm and it has to be set and it costs money. They have 
to make choices, and they are hard choices. We never seem to make any 
of those choices. I am attracted to this amendment because it does make 
those choices, whether you agree with them or not.
  Secondly, I believe we need more money for defense, but I think it 
has to come in the context of a dramatic reform of defense spending. I 
think one of the worst things we can do is to simply have a dramatic 
increase in defense spending without going back and making fundamental 
decisions about where the money needs to be spent. So I am not unhappy 
with where we are in terms of a comprehensive review. Once we have a 
new plan, once we set new priorities, then I am willing to do what the 
Senator's amendment has done, which is to take money away from lower 
priority uses. But I do think it is important that we know what we want 
to do.
  So I commend our colleague for the amendment. I support it. I did 
want to go on record as saying that I am concerned that many of our 
colleagues are ready to stop the one effort the administration has made 
in terms of changing priorities. I think that sends a very bad signal. 
I think whether it affects individual States--and this is one that 
happens to negatively affect my State--I don't think we can take the 
position that every program change ought to be opposed if it affects 
our particular State. I think in the end you have to look at the big 
picture. I think we are all expected to work for the interests of our 
States, but, in the end, it is the interest of the common defense of 
the country that defense spending is about.
  I thank the Senator for yielding me time and for his amendment. I 
don't have any doubt that, looked at in the aggregate, the $800 million 
of programs--no matter how meritorious any one individual might be, the 
merits of those programs pale by comparison to the merits of the 
programs he has proposed to take the money from and use for the 
purposes of defense funding. That is what our appropriations process 
ought to be about. Unfortunately, it is not, and I think our Government 
is diminished as a result.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time to the Senator from Minnesota?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I wonder if I might yield myself 10 minutes to speak 
in opposition to the McCain amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Off of whose time does the Senator wish to 
consume time?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. In opposition to the McCain amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. There is an hour in opposition to the McCain amendment. 
On behalf of the chairman, I yield the Senator 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized for 
10 minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, I think we would be 
making a mistake to gut some important domestic programs that I think 
are critical to our being competitive in the global economy. I think it 
is critical that we make sure we also live up to the national security 
of our own country, which is the security of local communities where 
people really have the opportunity for dislocated workers to rebuild 
their lives, where we are able to make investments in industries that 
are critical to the economic life of our communities and our country.
  I don't doubt the judgment of the Senator from Arizona on some of the 
new spending that he believes is critical for defense. I argue that I 
believe we should be able to find this money within DOD's budget.
  I want to go over inspector general reports, which point to a very 
bloated, wasteful Pentagon budget, where there

[[Page 12801]]

is more than enough money to meet my colleague's challenge. I think the 
amendment turns our priorities on their head, and I think it is a 
mistake. The Senator's amendment would rescind $141.5 million, and that 
is on top of the $217 million that we have already rescinded for job 
training programs under the Workforce Investment Act. My colleague from 
Arizona said the workforce investment decision was designed to bring 
the Senate rescission to what the House did but, in fact, the House did 
not rescind any funds. So I think my colleague is in error on that 
point.
  More important, I think it is a mistake in these times. I am speaking 
as a Senator from Minnesota, but as I said earlier, on the Iron Range--
which is a second home for me and my wife Sheila in terms of how 
strongly we feel about the people up there--we saw LTV Company pull the 
plug, and 1,300 steelworkers are out of work. These are taconite 
workers. These were $60,000-a-year jobs, including health care. These 
families are trying to recover. These workers are now dislocated. They 
are looking for other work. In farm country and in rural parts of the 
State, many people have been left behind.
  I think it is simply the wrong priority to make additional cuts to 
additional rescissions in assistance for dislocated workers. It is just 
not right. It is not right. Moreover, in the Workforce Investment Act, 
which I wrote with Senator DeWine in a bipartisan effort, we did things 
to make sense by way of streamlining and having a good public-private 
partnership, and by way of being consistent in terms of what our 
national priorities are, which I think is all about, again, the 
importance of human capital, the importance of education, the 
importance of people having the skills training and the people finding 
employment so they can support themselves and their families. I do not 
think it makes sense to make additional cuts in this priority program.
  My colleague also would rescind nearly $127 million from the Steel 
Loan Guarantee Program. I do not know, but there are a lot of Senators, 
and I know there are Republicans as well, who come from a part of the 
country where the industrial sector is really important, where we have 
had an import surge, where many workers, hard-working people--you 
cannot find any more hard-working people--are now losing their jobs, 
and we are talking about how to make an investment in this industry.
  By the way, the steel industry is one of those industries that is 
critical to our national security, in the critical role the steel 
industry has always played by way of contributing to defense, much less 
the infrastructure of highways and bridges within our own country.
  Again, I find myself in major disagreement with this amendment.
  Finally, if we are going to look for resources for the new needs 
identified by Senator McCain, I think we can find it right out of this 
bloated Pentagon budget. I have no doubt there is at least $1 billion 
of waste that the Secretary of Defense can identify. Let me talk about 
what the Pentagon inspector general found by way of bookkeeping entries 
that could not be tracked or justified:

       We identified deficiencies in internal controls and account 
     systems related to General Property, Plant and Equipment; 
     Inventory; Environmental Liabilities; Military Retirement 
     Health Benefits Liability; and material lines within the 
     Statement of Budgetary Resources. We identified $1.1 trillion 
     in departmental-level accounting entries to financial data 
     used to prepare DOD component financial statements that were 
     not supported by adequate audit trials or by sufficient 
     evidence to determine their validity.

  This is not a new problem. In fiscal year 1999, the inspector general 
reported there were $2.3 trillion in entries that could not be 
corroborated.
  Six years ago, the General Accounting Office put the Pentagon's 
financial management on its list of agencies that are at high risk for 
waste, fraud, and abuse.
  The inspector general also has uncovered many other examples of gross 
overcharges in the Pentagon's accounting system. A March 13, 2001, 
report listed the following gross abuses:
  The Pentagon paid $2.10 for a body screw that cost the vendor 48 
cents, a 335-percent markup.
  The Pentagon paid 25 cents for a dust protection plug that cost the 
vendor 3 cents, a 699-percent markup.
  The Pentagon paid $409.15 for a washroom sink that cost the vendor 
$39.17, a 945-percent markup.
  The source: Office of Inspector General, Department of Defense 
report. This was March 13, 2001.
  If we want to find the money, let's look at some of the 
administrative waste within the Pentagon. We can surely find that 
money. We can surely make that transfer instead of going after priority 
programs that are also all about our national defense.
  I argue, again, part of the definition of national defense is the 
security of local communities where dislocated workers have the 
opportunity to rebuild their lives, to develop their skills, to find 
gainful employment where we have industries that have the capital that 
can generate the jobs on which people can support their families.
  Why in the world would we want to make cuts in these programs? I 
believe this amendment reflects the wrong priorities, and I hope my 
colleagues will vote no.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator from Wyoming wishes to have time. I yield 
him 7 minutes from the time in opposition to Senator McCain.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I congratulate the Appropriations Committee for the 
fact they covered all of the expenditures. Senator McCain has covered 
the expenditures, but before we vote for Senator McCain's amendment, I 
ask that we give some serious concern to from where some of this money 
is coming.
  I serve on the Small Business Committee, and we have worked on a 
number of ways to be sure people who lost jobs could have additional 
training. So I rise today to express some serious concern over the use 
of workforce investment funds to offset 2001 supplemental 
appropriations. While I do support additional appropriations for the 
purposes outlined in the underlying bill, dramatically reducing funding 
for State and local workforce development programs to pay for it does 
not seem prudent.
  Again, I recognize the pressures placed on the appropriators, but I 
would have expected that the Members responsible for oversight of such 
programs would have been consulted as to the impact of such cuts on the 
program's ability to fulfill its purpose.
  The programs authorized by the Workforce Investment Act were agreed 
to through a strong bipartisan process, led by Senators DeWine, 
Kennedy, Jeffords, Wellstone, and myself. I fear, given the apparent 
willingness to cut funding for the act, that we did too good of a job 
in 1998 when Workforce Investment Act was enacted. What I mean by that 
is that we successfully streamlined the often duplicative and 
disjointed collage of job training programs in existence prior to 1998. 
So now, if these rescissions are adopted, there will not be any 
alternative workforce investment programs for people to access. The 
point is, this money is the program. None of us can support this 
rescission and walk away thinking another workforce initiative will 
simply absorb our constituents.
  Moreover, a retroactive cut of this size will compound the challenges 
that many States are already facing during the transition from the Job 
Training Partnership Act, which my colleagues know as JTPA, to the 
Workforce Investment Act. Also--and no one is really talking about this 
part--since States were due a portion of their annual allotment on July 
1, they now are going to have to turn around and send a large portion 
of that back to Washington in the form of a rebate check. This just 
does not seem right to me.
  I do not have any formulas at hand to demonstrate the value of 
workforce development programs in the face of a slowed economy. It is 
simply too early too soon, but what I can offer my colleagues is common 
sense. Now is not

[[Page 12802]]

the time for us to scale back basic skills training, re-training of 
displaced workers, or innovative initiatives designed to spur long-
range economic development in struggling communities. It is these 
communities that need our help, and that is help that we promised last 
year in the ``regular'' FY 2001 appropriations bill.
  Again, I know the dilemma facing our appropriators is not easy. There 
is consensus that we need to provide immediate additional resources to 
our military, our farmers and others whose distress is our 
responsibility. I also recognize that identifying unobligated current 
year appropriations in July is like finding a needle in a haystack, but 
rescinding funds from people who are trying to make themselves 
employable, to make themselves contributing members of their community 
is not exactly skimming fat off the top. This cuts to the bone in 
Wyoming and in countless other States. My State, for instance, was due 
to receive $555,420 on July 1 for dislocated workers. I know this does 
not sound like a lot to those of you from larger States, and it is not 
a lot even in Wyoming, but it is crucial in Wyoming in the effort to 
address the counties that have been hard hit by unemployment. So now 
instead of $555,000, we will receive 62 percent of that, or $345,000. 
That is a 38-percent cut of already appropriated money. We are not 
talking about cutting a request; it is already appropriated and should 
have been sent.
  I can assure Members it will have an adverse impact on the progress 
we have made in the implementation of the Workforce Investment Act and 
will impact getting people retrained for currently useful jobs. My 
concern over this rescission is clear, and I will not belabor my 
opposition. I ask that the able managers of the bill reconsider using 
workforce investment funds to offset supplemental spending. I am happy 
to work with them and their House counterparts as they reconcile the 
two bills in conference.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Alaska for yielding 
time. I wish to remind my colleagues, in crafting this supplemental 
bill the Department of Defense considered two criteria. These 
requirements were that any program receiving supplemental funding must 
be able to execute this funding during the current fiscal year, and the 
current fiscal year has just about 2\1/2\ months remaining, and that 
the funding cannot wait until fiscal year 2002.
  I also wish to remind the Senate that from fiscal year 1994 to fiscal 
year 2001 the Congress of the United States added $49 billion to the 
Department of Defense budget, much of it to the very programs that 
concern Senators from Arizona. Some of the unfunded requirements 
addressed by the Senator in this amendment were identified by the 
services in January and February before the Bush administration began 
its own defense review. And some of these items are funded in the 
fiscal year 2002 request.
  We are committed to working with the Defense Department to avoid a 
supplemental next year and fund all legitimate requirements. Many of 
the items identified by the distinguished Senator will be funded in 
fiscal year 2002 or through the omnibus reprogramming request.
  We understand the Senator's amendment seeks to fund anticipated costs 
that DOD expects to materialize later this year. I wish to underline 
``anticipated costs'' because the intent of the Senator's amendment to 
cover this cost is very meritorious. However, the committees of 
jurisdiction, the Armed Services Committee and the Appropriations 
Committee, have yet to receive this request. We have not received a 
request from the Department of Defense. The increases in question have 
not been scrutinized by either of these committees. Therefore, we 
cannot validate to our colleagues this day that the amounts identified 
by the distinguished Senator from Arizona are the ones that the 
Department of Defense truly needs. We understand and support the 
concept that the Senator offers in the amendment, but we do not believe 
we can support the amendment until the committees have had a chance to 
study, to scrutinize the specific details of the request.
  Until such time, we cannot advise our colleagues that this is what 
DOD really needs. Therefore, I must stand in opposition to the McCain 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will read from an article in the 
Washington Post dated May 31, 2001, titled ``Bush Eyes Additional $5.6 
Billion For Military: Increase Is Far Less Than Services Expected,'' by 
Robert Suro and Thomas Ricks, Washington Post staff writers.
  In part it states:

       The supplemental budget request . . . does not include any 
     new money for ballistic missile defense which [Bush] has 
     depicted a top priority, or for the weapons systems and 
     operating costs that he said the Clinton administration had 
     grossly underfunded. Some senior military officers and 
     defense experts said yesterday the president's request is so 
     small that it will not fully cover the Pentagon's current 
     expenses.
       ``This request is the barebones, just the items that are 
     absolutely to get by, and no one has any illusions that it is 
     anything more than that,'' said a senior military officer 
     speaking on the condition of anonymity.

  The article goes on to say:

       In the early days of the new administration, top military 
     officials said they hope to get much more, at least $8 
     billion to $10 billion, in a supplemental that would, in 
     effect, be the first installment of a Bush buildup. But the 
     White House and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld decided 
     they would take care of only immediate needs in modifying 
     this year's defense budget. . . . The new priorities will not 
     be fully felt until the 2003 budget is unveiled next winter . 
     . .
       Although relatively small sums are at play, compared to the 
     size of the defense budget, some senior military officers 
     have complained. ``On the campaign trail he said over and 
     over, `Help is on the way,''' said a flag officer . . . 
     ``Well, we are going to need help when the fourth quarter of 
     this budget year rolls around, and it is not going to be 
     there.''
       In principle, supplemental spending requests are meant to 
     provide relatively small amounts for contingencies that arise 
     after the Federal budget is enacted. But the Pentagon, unlike 
     other Federal agencies, has regularly used supplementals to 
     fill out identity funds for basic operations, maintenance, 
     and supplies. Rumsfeld has warned that he intends to put an 
     end to this practice, beginning with a crackdown this year.

  I certainly hope that will be the case.
  I challenge a Member of this body to find any member of the U.S. 
military leadership, any chief petty officer or sergeant who would tell 
them this is enough, that what is in the supplemental is enough.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Utah.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I don't intend to be an expert in 
military matters, and I yield to those who do understand those matters. 
But I have to rise to oppose Senator McCain's amendment with respect to 
one of the offsets he has created that would cut the provisions in the 
supplemental in half for those funds that would be appropriated in 
support of the Olympics.
  I understand concern about the Olympics. I understand the sense that 
this is a sporting event. What is the Federal Government doing with 
respect to a sporting event? But I have to point out a few things with 
respect to the Olympics that take it out of the realm of the pure 
sporting event.
  The Senator from Arizona has talked about the Olympics in Atlanta as 
well as the Olympics in Los Angeles. I attended the Olympics in Los 
Angeles because I was living there, and I recognize that we live in a 
very different world than we did in 1984. The Olympics in Atlanta was 
the first Olympics at which we had a bomb in the United States, and as 
a result of the bomb that went off in Atlanta and the scare that came 
following that, President Clinton issued Presidential Decision 
Directive No. 62, PDD 62, designating this as a Presidential event, 
changing the security arrangements of the Olympics forever. The whole 
circumstance surrounding the Olympics, now, as a result of PDD 62 are 
focused on international terrorism in a way that they were not in the 
more simple

[[Page 12803]]

days of the Los Angeles Olympics in 1984 or certainly even in Atlanta.
  Now, as a result of PDD 62 creating this as a Presidential event, we 
as a government are now faced with these circumstances. And $52 million 
of the $62 million called for in the supplemental go to the Treasury 
Department and the Secret Service for a variety of functions 
surrounding PDD 62 and its requirements. The first deals with the core 
mission of the Secret Service which has to do with protecting the 
President, protecting foreign dignitaries, and dealing with 
counterterrorism. We are going to have an unprecedented number of 
foreign dignitaries attending these Olympics. That goes with every new 
Olympics. Every time there is a new Olympics, more foreign dignitaries 
show up than 4 years before.
  We must understand that the venues for these games, they being winter 
Olympics, are not focused around a stadium or a swimming pool. We are 
talking about a 900 square mile area, including some of the most 
mountainous territory in the United States. To protect all of that area 
requires a tremendous amount of effort on the part of the Secret 
Service. That is what the money is going for.
  There is a question of customs. We are getting people from all over 
the world to come to the Olympics--people who, as we saw in Munich, can 
pose as athletes and turn out to be terrorists, as well as athletes, 
their coaches, families, and, of course, spectators.
  Dealing with customs in the Treasury Department is where part of this 
money will go. The ATF, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 
energized obviously by the experience in Atlanta where there was a bomb 
that went off, is now making sure that a great deal more activity is 
done to prevent that than was done in Atlanta. It is only prudent to do 
this. That is $52 million of the $60 million we are talking about in 
this supplemental going to the Treasury Department for those kinds of 
functions.
  The other $8 million goes to the Justice Department, the Agriculture 
Department, and the Interior Department. You would ask: What does 
Agriculture and Interior have to do with the Olympics? The fact is that 
a very large portion of the Olympics will take place on Forest Service 
land, which is policed by the Department of Agriculture, and BLM land, 
which is policed by the Department of the Interior. These agencies have 
the adequate facilities to deal with this, but, in the heightened 
activity surrounding the Olympics, they will have to pay their people 
overtime. They will get their people there. They have the trained 
people to do it, but they will have to pay airfare. There will have to 
be lodging. They will have to pay overtime. These agencies have been 
putting together this information.
  We can complain maybe this should have been done in the previous 
bill, it should have been taken care of in the 2001 appropriations bill 
and we should not have it before us as a supplemental, but the fact is, 
if we do not get it prior to the end of this fiscal year, the proper 
preparations will not be able to be made.
  This money is in the 2002 bill. The full $60 million is in the 2002 
bill, which, in the normal course of governmental activity, that would 
be the proper way to do it. The fact is, however, we cannot change the 
time of the Olympic games. That is set in concrete, and if we do not do 
the money in a more readily available upfront manner, we will find we 
are facing the challenge of trying to have the money in the pipeline 
while the games are taking place.
  It seems in this situation, in the middle of the summer when the Sun 
is shining and it is hot outside, that this may not be a matter of that 
much pressing urgency. But if we have an international incident at the 
Olympics in Utah in 2002--if a foreign dignitary is attacked; if a 
terrorist attack goes on to try to embarrass any country--ours or any 
other--if there is a lapse in security and the fingers start to be 
pointed as to where were the Americans, why weren't they prepared--it 
will be a little difficult to say we wanted to put it off, we wanted to 
take it out of the supplemental and have it take place in the 2002 
budget; we were only saving 4 or 5 months, but we wanted to use the 
money for something else for that 4- or 5-month period. I do not want 
to run that risk. I do not want to have the opportunity handed to an 
international terrorist that says the American Secret Service is 
underfunded, the Forest Rangers and others involved with policing the 
public lands have not been able to get their overtime in the right 
appropriations bill; we waited too late; the preparations were not 
made; therefore, we had this event.
  I respectfully suggest we reject the amendment of the Senator from 
Arizona and, instead of having this money come in the 2002 bill, have 
it stay where it is now, in the supplemental bill. It will be easier to 
get a delay on some of these other things for 4 months, things that do 
not have a firm time scale connected to them, than it will be to have 
this money delayed for the Olympics.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I rise to speak against Senator 
McCain's amendment to the fiscal year 2001 supplemental appropriations 
legislation. I fully appreciate the sentiment underlying this 
amendment. The men and women of our Armed Forces deserve nothing but 
the best in living conditions, pay, and working environment. I 
understand that this amendment would enhance the operations and 
maintenance of the services. I have always supported legislation that 
provides for our soldiers, airmen, and marines. However, I find that 
one of the offsets to Senator McCain's amendment is totally without 
merit.
  I am vehemently against section 3003, paragraph (b) in Senator 
McCain's amendment which reduces the salaries and expenses in the 
Department of Treasury by $30 million. The amendment does not address 
what the $30 million is for, but I will tell you this funding is for 
security for the 2002 Winter Olympics. It pays the salaries and 
expenses of law enforcement personnel.
  Senator McCain's amendment seeks to add funding to the military that 
would not dramatically improve our national security but the $30 
million that he takes away from the Treasury Department's budget can 
have a dramatic impact on safety at this international event.
  For several years now we have worked very hard to ensure the public 
safety of this major international event. The law enforcement budget 
has been carefully planned, fully justified, and endorsed by this body. 
Any reduction to this budget would have a severe impact on the security 
of the Olympics and impose unacceptable risks. I am sure my colleagues 
agree that the safety of the Olympic athletes and spectators is of 
paramount importance, and a national responsibility when this Nation 
agreed to host the 2002 Olympic Games.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise to express my serious concern 
about a provision in Senator McCain's amendment which I believe would 
significantly undermine the commitment we made in the Transportation 
Equity Act for the 21st Century, (TEA-21), to address our citizens' 
mobility needs. This provision would rescind funding for two crucial 
programs run by the Federal Transit Administration: the Job Access and 
Reverse Commute Program, and the Transit Planning and Research Program.
  TEA-21 created the Job Access and Reverse Commute Program to provide 
transit grants to assist states and localities in developing flexible 
transportation services to connect welfare recipients and other low-
income people to jobs and other employment-related services. In 
addition, the program provides support for transportation services to 
suburban employment centers from urban, suburban, and rural locations--
``reverse commutes''--for all populations.
  Even in a time of low unemployment, a person who cannot get to the 
workplace cannot hold a job. Not everyone can afford access to an 
automobile, especially those who are looking for employment. Public 
transportation can be a vital component in helping these individuals 
leave the welfare rolls and enter the workforce.

[[Page 12804]]

  In fact, investment in public transportation benefits all Americans. 
As the numbers emerging from the 2000 Census show, the shape of America 
has changed in recent years. The fact is that two-thirds of all new 
jobs are now located in the suburbs, while much of the workforce lives 
in the city. For millions of Americans, transit is the answer to this 
spatial mismatch. And as cities and towns across America are 
discovering, public transit can stimulate the economic life of any 
community. Studies have shown that a nearby transit station increases 
the value of local businesses and real estate. Increased property 
values mean more tax revenues to states and local jurisdictions; new 
business development around a transit station means more jobs.
  I am therefore quite concerned to see that the McCain amendment would 
take over $200 million away from transit programs. This amendment would 
be a significant setback in our efforts to make transit services more 
accessible and improve the quality of life for all Americans. I urge my 
colleagues to vote against it.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President I rise today to further explain my 
opposition to the pending amendment offered by my good friend from 
Arizona, Senator McCain. The Senator's amendment seeks to address 
worthwhile objectives such as providing for the operation and 
maintenance of our armed forces and increasing funding for personnel 
needs. I support these goals and believe they should be addressed.
  However, the offset for this amendment troubles me for two reasons 
and it is because of these reservations that I cannot support the 
amendment offered by Senator McCain. The first issue concerns the 
specific funding recissions in the designated offset. For example, the 
amendment rescinds $141,500,000 in Department of Labor funding 
earmarked for Dislocated Worker Employment and Training Activities and 
Adult Employment and Training Activities.
  This funding is critical for my home State of Montana because we are 
in the midst of an energy crisis that has to date been responsible for 
over 1000 lost jobs. Retraining dollars are essential for helping these 
newly laid-off workers develop new skills and learn new trades so they 
can more quickly rejoin the workforce in a state that is already 
struggling economically.
  The second issue is the lack of separation between non-defense and 
defense funding that this amendment proposes. The separation of defense 
and non-defense spending has served us well in meeting our nation's 
budget priorities and making fiscally responsible decisions. Utilizing 
non-defense funding to offset the additional spending of this amendment 
sets a precedent that I do not believe we should set. We should fund 
the priorities, laid forth by Senator McCain, in a timely manner, but 
we should not use existing funding in non-defense programs to 
accomplish our goal.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to provisions 
in the McCain amendment, and in underlying bill, S. 1077, which rescind 
funds from programs supported under the Workforce Investment Act, 
including the Dislocated Worker Employment and Training Program and the 
Adult Employment and Training Activities.
  The underlying bill rescinds funds from WIA in order to pay for 
important increases in funding for title I education services and Low 
Income Home Energy Assistance Program. I support the need to increase 
essential funds for students in our highest-poverty schools and for 
low-income individuals who are being hardest hit by increasing energy 
costs. Indeed, I signed on in support of the increases for title I and 
LIHEAP. I do not think, however, we should increase funding for these, 
defense or any other programs by taking money away from New York 
workers at a time when these employment and training programs are most 
in need and are beginning to meet their potential.
  At this time when upstate New York is facing more notice of layoffs, 
we should not be cutting back our support for dislocated workers. Last 
year, over 25,000 New York workers received notices warning them of 
layoffs--an increase of over 7,000 workers from 1998.
  Over the past several months, we have learned that hundreds of 
workers at the Xerox facility in Webster, NY, will soon find themselves 
out of work; several hundred more New Yorkers who have spent years 
working for Nabisco in Niagara Falls also recently received notice that 
they would no longer have a job. Corning announced just yesterday that 
it will have to close three factories, resulting in a loss of nearly 
1,000 jobs.
  At a time when we see signs of our economy weakening, this bill would 
reduce funds specifically designated to assist workers who are victims 
of mass layoffs and plant closures. With the rescission in the base 
bill alone, New York can expect to lose approximately 29 percent of its 
dislocated worker funds. I have received hundreds of letters from New 
Yorkers--not only from concerned workers, but also from businesses who 
need trained workers.
  Why are my colleagues suggesting that we should rescind WIA funds at 
a time when our economy is weakening and many of our workers will need 
these critical funds to be retrained and relocated in new jobs?
  They are claiming that States are not spending and obligating funds 
quickly enough. I agree. But, I also agree that States and local 
communities have made tremendous progress in implementing the Workforce 
Investment Act.
  Let's get the facts straight. States were not required to implement 
the Workforce Investment Act until July 1, 2000. Beginning July 1, 
2000, States had 2 years to spend funds and were required to obligate 
80 percent of their funds. Many counties in New York are doing a 
tremendous job--Chautauqua County, for example, has obligated 95 
percent of its dislocated worker funds, as well as 95 percent of adult 
funds; the Town of Hempstead has allocated 90 percent of both its 
dislocated and adult worker funds; as has Erie County--all of which can 
expect to lose funds under this rescission.
  I do know that there are at least eight counties in New York that 
have struggled in their implementation--working to get up to 19 Federal 
partners at the local level to offer services in One Stop training 
centers--and, as a result have obligated 70 percent or less of their 
funds. These counties need to do better and the State needs to do 
better in supporting their efforts. But, the way to do so is not to 
take funds away from a fledgling program that is aimed to assist our 
workers most in need of training and assistance.
  I oppose these efforts to undermine the new Workforce Investment Act. 
I agree with accountability of Federal dollars, but I do not agree that 
we should unnecessarily punish workers before allowing the program to 
get up and running.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 15 minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. 
Wellstone, may be mistaken. In fact, $359 million was rescinded in the 
House supplemental from the programs. I think he was inaccurate in his 
statement that none was rescinded.
  I am sorry the Senator from Utah may have to leave the floor. The 
Senator from Utah fails to mention that we have already shelled out 
$1.3 billion--``b,'' billion--in subsidies for the Salt Lake Olympics, 
far more than any other Olympics in history, far more, for all kinds of 
pet projects.
  I asked 3 years ago, a simple request of the Senator from Utah, if he 
would give us an assessment of how much in Federal dollars would be 
needed. Of course, I never got an answer. In fact, we had a little 
dialog on the floor of the Senate.
  Never once, never on any occasion has the Commerce Committee, of 
which I am the ranking member, had a request for authorization for 
funds for the Salt Lake City Olympics--never once. Not on any single 
occasion, even though I have requested time after time, the committee 
of oversight that authorizes the funds and what may be required has 
never, ever been approached.
  Why not? Perhaps one of the reasons might be because we found out in 
a

[[Page 12805]]

GAO report that the taxpayers have shelled out $1.3 billion already for 
the Salt Lake City Olympics for every kind of imaginable thing--I will 
include the GAO report--every imaginable kind of project, none of 
which--or very little of which had to do with security. It had to do 
with land acquisitions; it had to do with all kinds of things. Of 
course, we have never yet had a request for an authorization.
  What do we find? We find a supplemental appropriations bill for $30 
million for security. It sounds good. Why was the request not made a 
long time ago? Perhaps, if the Senator from Utah had complied with the 
simple request that I made as chairman of the oversight committee, that 
we could get some kind of estimate as to how much it would cost the 
taxpayers, we would not be going through this drill we are going 
through now.
  I, again, urge the Senator from Utah to tell us how many of the 
taxpayers' dollars are going to be needed to fund the Olympics, No. 1; 
and, No. 2, seek authorization through the authorizing committee for 
those funds--which happens to be the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation.
  I point out on this amendment that the Office of Management and 
Budget and the Department of Defense have not voiced objections. In the 
interests of straight talk, they have not expressed support for this 
amendment either. But there has not been any objection raised by the 
Office of Management and Budget or by the Department of Defense to this 
amendment. I hope Senators will take that into consideration.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, how much time remains in opposition?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There remains 34 minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I share many of the concerns that have 
been expressed by my colleague from Arizona. I am sure he understands I 
join him in the desire that we assure the adequate protection and 
support for our men and women in the armed services. I do think the 
amendment of the Senator is well intentioned. It is consistent with the 
priorities identified by Secretary Rumsfeld in his budget request for 
the fiscal year 2002. That request provides for a substantial increase, 
which I shall discuss further, in defense spending, commencing with 
October 1 of this year--82 days away.
  By the time this bill gets to the President, probably it will be 75 
days; by the time he signs it, it will be about 70 days; by the time 
the money could be released by the OMB, and then released by the 
Comptroller of the Department of Defense, that is about 60 days later. 
So we are talking about the same time because their machinery over 
there is designed to follow through on the amendment that has already 
been submitted by the Secretary.
  I believe it is my duty to join the Senator from Hawaii, and others, 
in stating that we think this matter is better addressed in the fiscal 
year 2002 Defense authorization and appropriations bills.
  The Senator from Arizona talks about authorization. This matter is 
before the Armed Services Committee now. The Secretary has testified 
before that committee. They may come up with different priorities. I 
believe the Senator is right; we have a role in helping to determine 
the priorities for defense spending.
  We share that with the House of Representatives. Congress has the 
power of the purse. I do believe we should use it. But with the 
situation going on now, Secretary Rumsfeld and the Joint Chiefs are 
working on a comprehensive effort to redefine defense priorities. He 
has submitted this amendment for 2002.
  We are just now reviewing the details of the total request that was 
received just prior to the Fourth of July recess. I do not think there 
is any way we can determine the merit of Senator McCain's amendment 
until we better understand what the Secretary of Defense and the 
services have presented to us in the amendment to the budget for 2002.
  Several items in this amendment are likely to be accommodated in the 
Department's annual omnibus reprogramming. Every year, as we get down 
to this last quarter, the Department comes to us with reprogramming 
requests which are approved, under existing law, by the Appropriations 
Committees of both the House and the Senate. That shifts considerable 
money. We gave the Department of Defense, this year, through the 
Defense Appropriations Act, the authority to shift $2 billion from one 
fund to a fund of higher priority. We have to approve that, of course, 
but that lifted the ceiling considerably. Annually, the Department 
presents to Congress reprogramming requests that shift from one purpose 
to an alternative higher priority. That is what we should do. We should 
let the Department shift these funds and tell us where they want them 
shifted to, if they wish to do so.
  But I am constrained to point out that the budget resolution for this 
fiscal year contains what we call a wall. It is a wall between defense 
and nondefense spending. The amendment by the Senator from Arizona 
calls upon us to make moneys available from a substantial number of 
nondefense accounts for defense spending.
  I want to assure you if the amendment were the other way around, 
suggesting we should take money from defense and put it in nondefense, 
I am certain the Senator from Arizona would join me in vigorously 
opposing such an amendment. I think, in my role on the Appropriations 
Committee, it is my duty to vigorously oppose this amendment because of 
the attempt to shift money from nondefense accounts to defense accounts 
for this fiscal year.
  Later this month we are going to review the $330 billion spending 
proposal of the Department of Defense for 2002. I am sure that as a 
member of the Armed Services Committee, Senator McCain will work very 
hard on these matters. I am certain he will assist in determining 
whether the priorities are correct as submitted by the Secretary, with 
the approval of President Bush.
  I do not believe we should shift funds from the nondefense priorities 
until we are certain that the funds are in excess of those programs' 
needs. As a matter of fact, I do not think we should do it at all 
because that was our commitment, that we would keep a wall between 
defense and nondefense spending. The budget resolutions for the last 4 
years--I believe 5 years--have spelled that out. And we have adhered to 
it. We, in the Appropriations Committee, have been quite clear about 
that.
  I have to confess, I did suggest that some of the defense moneys go 
to the Coast Guard, but I made that request because I believe they are 
a semimilitary agency. They carry out some military functions, and they 
have to have military equipment, military training, and military assets 
on board their ships. But we have vigorously defended the concept of 
the wall. Those people who vote for the McCain amendment are, for the 
first time, going to set the Senate on record as abandoning the concept 
of the wall.
  I have asked the Parliamentarian if this is subject to a point of 
order because of this fact, and I have to ascertain that later. But I, 
for one, believe in the wall because we put it up to protect defense 
spending, not the other way around.
  I don't want to get political here, but in the last few years the 
President was not as much in favor of defense spending as the Congress, 
and therefore we protected the defense spending with the wall. I do not 
see any reason now for us to turn around and renege on the commitment 
we have made to protect that concept of separating defense and 
nondefense spending.
  We should not shift these funds from other nondefense priorities. It 
is a matter of fact that there are substantial needs out there for the 
Department of Defense. I do not argue about that at all. I have to 
confess, if I were the Secretary of Defense, I would be among those who 
would be asking for even more than has the Secretary of Defense. I have 
every reason to believe the Secretary of Defense has asked for more 
money than OMB has submitted to us because the OMB, with the overall 
problem of controlling expenditures and meeting objectives in the 
nondefense area, has limited the Secretary

[[Page 12806]]

of Defense in his request for 2002. I think we understand that.
  We are going to push that envelope as far as we can. But clearly the 
moneys that have been requested now put this administration on record 
of requesting more moneys--I think almost $80 billion more--than the 
level of 2001 that will be spent in 2002 for defense. And that is--
what?--less than 3 months away.
  I really have objection to the McCain amendment because of where the 
money comes from. It cuts $41.5 million from the dislocated workers 
assistance program. It rescinds $100 million from the job training 
program. The committee bill already took some money from this 
dislocated workers program, but ours is from unexpended balances of the 
program. This rescission takes it from the program, actually cuts job 
training programs for dislocated workers. And I will vote against that 
as a separate amendment.
  Senator McCain's amendment also makes substantial reductions, 
significant reductions, in the international space station account. 
This is at a time of extreme need. I have been spending some time 
looking into the space program because of my extreme confidence in the 
Administrator there and his demonstrated interest in pursuing the space 
program.
  I am told the space program has some $4 billion in potential cost 
overruns already to meet the full promise of the first-class orbiting 
space laboratory. The rescissions in this amendment would impact needed 
upgrades to the space shuttle, critical upgrades needed to ensure the 
safety of our astronauts. I do not think we can afford to make a snap 
judgment because of a perceived need in the Department of Defense--
perceived because I think those needs have been already met by the 
submission by the Department.
  Why should we take moneys from the space account? We do not have any 
justification for that that I can find, that I can see. I think it is a 
critical juncture now in the future of the space station. I believe we 
should demonstrate our continued support for it.
  There are a great many items in the Senator's amendment that disturb 
me. I hope other Members will take a look at it to see where these 
moneys are coming from. They start on page 3 of the amendment. Not only 
are the funds reduced from the space account I just mentioned, there 
are funds from the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 
under the heading ``Industrial Technology Services,'' that are reduced 
by $67 million for the Advanced Technology Program. There is another 
$19 million from the Department of Commerce for the International Trade 
Administration. There are moneys that were provided under the Emergency 
Steel Loan Guarantee and Emergency Oil and Gas Guarantee Loan Act.
  I do appreciate the fact that the Senator has deleted the suggested 
reductions in the Maritime Guarantee Loan Program Account.
  We also have a suggestion to take from the Department of Labor for 
the Employment and Training Administration under the heading ``Training 
and Employment Services'' and for the dislocated worker account, as I 
mentioned, $41.5 million; adult employment and training activities, 
$100 million. Then from the Department of Transportation--here again, I 
think this would be subject to a point of order--as I understand TEA-
21, there is a wall in that, too. That money cannot be used for other 
purposes, but the amendment of the Senator from Arizona would take $90 
million from the transit planning and research and $16 million from job 
access and reverse commute grants under the Federal Transit 
Administration.
  All of this, to me, means that I appreciate the attempt of the 
Senator from Arizona to increase the amount of money for defense. If we 
had money that would be free under the budget for 2001 as it exists 
now, I would support the Senator's amendment to do so. But the 
Senator's amendment takes money from other accounts. I am being 
redundant now. These are nondefense accounts. And it takes the money to 
put it into the defense accounts to meet needs already covered by a 
budget submission delivered to the Senate prior to the Fourth of July 
recess which will for approximately the same time as this money could 
be made available, it will be made available under the 2002 bill.
  I cannot support it. I hope the Senate will not support the Senator's 
amendment. At the appropriate time, I will make a motion to table the 
Senator's amendment. I do not wish to do so at this time because he 
still has time remaining.
  I ask how much time do I have remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 20 minutes 30 seconds. The 
Senator from Arizona has 12 minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the 
Record the expenditures that have been made according to the GAO for 
the Olympics.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   APPENDIX III.--FEDERAL FUNDING AND SUPPORT PLANNED AND PROVIDED TO THE 2002 WINTER OLYMPIC GAMES IN SALT LAKE CITY
                                                             [1999 dollars in thousands \1\]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Planning and staging the 2002 Winter  Preparing the host city of Salt Lake
                                                                                              Games                                 City
                                                                             ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Federal organization                    Project or activity                                 Designated                            Designated
                                                                                Planned   Expenditure  by Congress    Planned   Expenditure  by Congress
                                                                                  \2\                      \3\          \2\                      \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Agriculture...................  ..............................      $7,242       $2,901  ...........      $8,887       $5,473       $4,546
    U.S. Forest Service.....................  Olympic planning and increased       7,242        2,901  ...........  ..........  ...........  ...........
                                               services.
                                              Forest improvements...........  ..........  ...........  ...........       8,887        5,473        4,546
Department of Commerce......................  ..............................         205  ...........           92  ..........  ...........  ...........
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric          Increased weather forecasting          205  ...........           92  ..........  ...........  ...........
     Administration.                           services for Olympic events.
Department of Defense.......................  Safety- and security-related        24,691           45           45  ..........  ...........  ...........
                                               services.
Department of Education.....................  Paralympics...................         876           44          876  ..........  ...........  ...........
Department of Energy........................  Safety- and security-related         1,586          194  ...........  ..........  ...........  ...........
                                               services.
Department of Health and Human Services.....  ..............................       9,494  ...........  ...........  ..........  ...........  ...........
    Food and Drug Administration............  Public health safety- and              598  ...........  ...........  ..........  ...........  ...........
                                               security-related services.
    Centers for Disease Control.............  Safety- and security-related         1,923  ...........  ...........  ..........  ...........  ...........
                                               services.
    Office of Emergency Preparedness........  Public health safety- and            6,973  ...........  ...........  ..........  ...........  ...........
                                               security-related services.
Department of Housing and Urban Development.  ..............................       3,172  ...........  ...........  ..........  ...........  ...........
                                              Housing for media.............       1,894  ...........  ...........  ..........  ...........  ...........
                                              Housing for security personnel       1,278  ...........  ...........  ..........  ...........  ...........
Department of the Interior..................  ..............................       1,270          153  ...........  ..........  ...........  ...........
    National Park Service...................  Increased park services.......       1,252          153  ...........  ..........  ...........  ...........
    Bureau of Land Management...............  Increased Bureau services.....           5  ...........  ...........  ..........  ...........  ...........
                                              Safety- and security-related            13  ...........  ...........  ..........  ...........  ...........
                                               services.
Department of Justice.......................  ..............................      47,060       14,960       16,950  ..........  ...........  ...........
    Federal Bureau of Investigation.........  Safety- and security-related        21,486          767  ...........  ..........  ...........  ...........
                                               services.
    Immigration and Naturalization Service..  Safety- and security-related         2,431            3  ...........  ..........  ...........  ...........
                                               services.
    Office of Community Oriented Policing...  Grants for safety- and              10,417       10,417       10,417  ..........  ...........  ...........
                                               security-related services.
    Office of Justice Programs..............  Grants to local law                  8,806        3,692        3,692  ..........  ...........  ...........
                                               enforcement.
    Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys......  Safety- and security-related         1,027           81  ...........  ..........  ...........  ...........
                                               services.
    Community Relations Service.............  Assess racial tensions........          52  ...........  ...........  ..........  ...........  ...........
    Counter terrorism fund..................  Safety- and security-related         2,841  ...........        2,841  ..........  ...........  ...........
                                               services.
Department of State.........................  Increased agency services.....         663            3  ...........  ..........  ...........  ...........
Department of Transportation................  ..............................      83,854       26,838       36,896     998,275      257,318      318,783

[[Page 12807]]


    Federal Highway Administration..........  Olympic transportation              10,227        5,785        5,682  ..........  ...........  ...........
                                               planning.
                                              Accelerated road and bridge     ..........  ...........  ...........     645,315      199,678       18,541
                                               projects.
                                              Olympic event access road:          14,962       14,962       14,962  ..........  ...........  ...........
                                               Snow Basin.
                                              Olympic event access road:           4,106        3,162  ...........  ..........  ...........  ...........
                                               Winter Sports Park.
    Federal Transit Administration..........  Olympic Transportation System       47,348        1,402        2,788  ..........  ...........  ...........
                                               (OTS) \4\.
                                              Olympic infrastructure               (\5\)          465        9,291  ..........  ...........  ...........
                                               improvements.
                                              Olympic park and ride lots....       (\5\)        1,024        4,173  ..........  ...........  ...........
                                              Light rail: Downtown to         ..........  ...........  ...........      91,369        5,019       91,369
                                               University of Utah line.
                                              Light Rail: North/South line..  ..........  ...........  ...........     228,598       48,850      202,919
                                              Olympic intelligent             ..........  ...........  ...........       3,788  ...........  ...........
                                               transportation system
                                               deployment.
                                              Commuter rail.................  ..........  ...........  ...........       3,788        1,849        3,776
                                              Intermodal centers............  ..........  ...........  ...........       9,470  ...........        2,178
    Federal Aviation Administration.........  Safety- and security-related         6,098  ...........  ...........  ..........  ...........  ...........
                                               services.
                                              Facility improvements.........  ..........  ...........  ...........      15,947        1,922  ...........
    Federal Railroad Administration.........  Safety- and security-related           388  ...........  ...........  ..........  ...........  ...........
                                               services.
    U.S. Coast Guard........................  Safety- and security-related           407  ...........  ...........  ..........  ...........  ...........
                                               services.
    Office of Secretary of Transportation...  Safety- and security-related           318           38  ...........  ..........  ...........  ...........
                                               services.
Department of the Treasury..................  ..............................      58,693           71  ...........  ..........  ...........  ...........
    Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.  Safety- and security-related         8,811  ...........  ...........  ..........  ...........  ...........
                                               services.
    Internal Revenue Service................  Safety- and security-related         1,520  ...........  ...........  ..........  ...........  ...........
                                               services.
    U.S. Secret Service.....................  Safety- and security-related        13,704           46  ...........  ..........  ...........  ...........
                                               services.
    U.S. Customs Service....................  Safety- and security-related        19,320           21  ...........  ..........  ...........  ...........
                                               services.
    Wireless Program........................  Safety- and security-related        15,285  ...........  ...........  ..........  ...........  ...........
                                               services.
    Office of Enforcement...................  Safety- and security-related            53            4  ...........  ..........  ...........  ...........
                                               services.
Department of Veterans Affairs..............  Safety- and security-related         2,746            1  ...........  ..........  ...........  ...........
                                               services.
Environmental Protection Agency.............  ..............................       2,961  ...........        2,083  ..........  ...........  ...........
                                              Olympic venue-related sewer          2,083  ...........        2,083  ..........  ...........  ...........
                                               construction.
                                              Planning and increased                 473  ...........  ...........  ..........  ...........  ...........
                                               services.
                                              Safety- and security-related           405  ...........  ...........  ..........  ...........  ...........
                                               services.
Federal Communications Commission...........  Communications systems                 137  ...........  ...........  ..........  ...........  ...........
                                               improvements.
Federal Emergency Management Agency.........  Safety- and security-related         6,107  ...........  ...........  ..........  ...........  ...........
                                               services.
General Services Administration.............  Safety- and security-related         1,472  ...........  ...........  ..........  ...........  ...........
                                               services.
U.S. Information Agency.....................  Education, cultural affairs...          80  ...........  ...........  ..........  ...........  ...........
U.S. Postal Service.........................  Increased postal services.....       1,894  ...........  ...........       4,673  ...........  ...........
                                              Facilities improvements.......  ..........  ...........  ...........       4,673  ...........  ...........
                                              Increased postal services.....       1,894  ...........  ...........  ..........  ...........  ...........
          Total.............................  ..............................     254,203       45,210       56,942   1,011,835      262,791      323,329
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 1999 dollars were calculated by dividing 2002 dollars by 1.056, a conversion factor derived from chain-type price indexes for gross domestic
  product.
\2\ Planned includes funds already expended.
\3\ ``Designated by Congress'' refers to funds that were specifically designated for an Olympian-related purpose in appropriations acts or committee
  reports accompanying those acts.
\4\ In July 1998 the SLOC requested $137 million in FTA funds for the Olympic Spectator Transit System (OSTS). In February 2000, the SLOC revised this
  request to $91 million. On March 3, 2000, FTA proposed a maximum contribution of $47.3 million for the 2002 Olympics and Paralympics. However, a
  current bill in the House of Representatives, H.R. 4475, provides $56.8 million for Olympic buses and facilities and $9.5 million for the Olympic
  Infrastructure Investment.
\5\ Included in above for OTS.

  Mr. McCAIN. It includes things such as land acquisition, Olympic 
infrastructure, Olympic park-and-ride lots, light rail downtown to the 
University of Utah, Olympic intelligent transportation system, commuter 
rail, intermodal centers, the list goes on and on of the $1.3 billion 
that has already been spent before we tack some more onto this 
supplemental appropriations bill.
  I hope the Senator from Alaska will also work very hard to remove the 
nondefense appropriations from the defense appropriations bills.
  I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut and reserve the 
remaining 4\1/2\ or 5 minutes for me before all time expires.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment offered 
by my friend from Arizona. I do so because I think this amendment makes 
two very important points. Those are points that have strength and with 
which I want to identify whether or not this amendment has any 
possibility of passing.
  The two points are these: First, that we are not spending enough on 
our national security; second, Congress has recently adopted and the 
President has signed a tax cut package that will make it increasingly 
difficult for us in the months and years ahead to find the resources to 
meet the needs of our defense systems and structures and forces. Those 
are the two critical points.
  We have in recent years tried in Congress, and succeeded on a 
bipartisan basis, to significantly increase the recommended budget 
levels to sustain real growth in our defense spending. Beginning in the 
mid 1980s and going through about 2 or 3 years ago, every year spending 
on defense dropped in real dollars. That was a peace dividend, people 
said. In fact, when you look at the constriction of spending in the 
Federal Government over the last decade or so, most of it comes at the 
expense of defense; some of it obviously justified by the end of the 
cold war.
  At the end of the cold war, America emerged in a very different world 
as the one superpower with extraordinary responsibilities for 
maintaining the peace in our own interest and the world's interest 
around the world.
  As I say, we began to turn that around. In real dollars we began to 
increase defense spending 2 or 3 years ago.
  Continuing this support must be a priority. We have to provide for 
immediate needs in the fiscal year 2001 supplemental and to commit to 
funding levels to maintain current readiness, as well as to modernize 
and transform our forces in the coming defense budget. I am deeply 
concerned that if we do not, we may jeopardize our capacity to defend 
our interests here and abroad.
  I have heard what my friend from Arizona has said. I couldn't agree 
with him more about the statements made last year that ``help is on the 
way.'' In some sense, it appears that the check may have been lost in 
the mail because although there are increases in defense in this 
supplemental appropriations and in the budget President Bush has 
recommended, they are inadequate to the needs of our defense. That is 
where I hope we in this body and Members of Congress, the other body, 
will join together on a bipartisan basis to give the Department of 
Defense the funds it needs to protect us.
  The defense supplemental for fiscal year 2001, as has been said, is 
$5.6 billion, which, as I understand it, is about half of the amount 
that the service chiefs asked for. Although the fiscal year 2002 budget 
request from the administration is an increase, again, I don't think it 
is enough to meet our national security needs.
  For instance, by my calculation, both procurement and research and 
development for the Army are less than that appropriated last year.
  Navy procurement is lower by almost $2 billion than last year. As 
Admiral Clark, the Chief of Naval Operations, testified at the Armed 
Services Committee today, we are now a 314-ship Navy and on a course to 
head to 240

[[Page 12808]]

ships. It wasn't so long ago that we thought we needed 600 to protect 
us in the waters of the world. We are not meeting the needs of the 
Navy.
  Air Force research and development, the investments in the ideas and 
technologies that will maintain our dominance in a high-technology 
world are lower in this budget than they were last year.
  It is all that which brings me to join with Senator McCain in this 
amendment to make a statement not only about the short-term needs of 
the military this year, which respectfully are inadequately met in this 
supplemental appropriations bill, but also to raise an alarm about the 
inadequate funding in the budget submitted for fiscal year 2002 and 
about the ever more difficult problems we will face in the years ahead 
as a result of the national resources that have been squandered in the 
adoption of a tax bill that gives most to the few and leaves little for 
the broad national needs of our Nation.
  This amendment adds $847.8 million to the amount requested by the 
President, a reasonable amount, mostly targeted toward short-term needs 
in the personnel and operation and maintenance accounts that must be 
fixed within the next 3 months. This is not extra, surplusage.
  This money will be put immediately to critical national security 
uses, including $1 million to remove additional sailors and marines 
from food stamps--a national disgrace--and for the protection of our 
forces in the Arabian Gulf. To do this, this measure includes offsets. 
So it is, in that sense, balanced.
  I realize that every dollar has an advocate and every cut here will 
pain someone. In fact, some of them pain me. Senator McCain has chosen 
some programs that I have supported and identified with. But the point 
is that there is a larger interest here, and that is that the short-
term military needs of our country are a higher priority now.
  I believe the short-term military needs are a higher priority now. 
But this, of course, is more than an issue of short-term spending. It 
is also a question of long-held values and responsibilities.
  One of the most fundamental responsibilities we have under the 
Constitution is to provide for the common defense of our Nation. To 
fulfill that obligation, I am convinced we will have to significantly 
increase defense spending over the next decade. This amendment is a 
small, but significant, step in that direction; immediately, it is a 
large statement of what is to come. I hope that together we will meet 
our obligations to our men and women in uniform and, therefore, meet 
our responsibility to provide for the common defense.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 20 minutes under the Senator's 
control.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The McCain amendment provides $848 million for defense that the 
President has not requested, is not assumed in the budget resolution 
and is not authorized. Many of the items that would be funded in the 
McCain amendment will be considered as part of the annual DoD omnibus 
reprogramming request. DoD will cover many of these costs with their 
own offsets rather than through cutting non-defense programs.
  Many of the non-defense offsets contained in the amendment are 
objectionable:
  Job training: The McCain amendment rescinds an additional $141.5 
million from the FY01 job training funds, $41.5 million from dislocated 
workers and $100 million from adult job training. This is in addition 
to the $217.5 million rescission already included in the bill. 
Increasing the rescission above the $217.5 million risks actual cuts on 
job training services.
  Security at Winter Olympics: The McCain amendment would cut $30 
million from the Committee bill. The committee approved the funds to 
provide security for participants and visitors to the 2002 Salt Lake 
City Winter Olympics. The federal government is mandated under 
Presidential Decision Directive 62 to provide security for officially 
designated National Security Special Events. These funds were requested 
and fully paid for.
  Advanced Technology Program: The amendment would rescind $67 million 
from the National Institutes for Standards and Technology Advanced 
Technology Program. ATP is a valuable and well-managed innovation 
program. From the telegraph to the Internet to biomedical research, 
government investment has spurred the development of new technologies 
and new fields, which have had great impact on and held enormous 
benefit for the American people. According to the National Academy of 
Sciences' National Research Council, ATP's approach is funding new 
technologies that contribute to important societal goals.
  International Trade Administration, Trade Development: The amendment 
would rescind $19 million. TD is responsible for negotiating and 
enforcing industry sector trade agreements such as these on autos, 
textiles and aircraft. TD's mission is extremely important in the era 
of trade agreements such as NAFTA and the African Free Trade Agreement.
  Oil/gas: $114.8 million has already been rescinded from the Emergency 
Oil and Gas Loan Guaranteed Loan Program to help pay for the Radiation 
Exposure Compensation Act, RECA, and Global AIDS. This funding is no 
longer available for rescission.
  Steel: The amendment would rescind $126.8 million from the oil and 
gas and steel loan guarantee programs. The committee bill already 
rescinds $114.8 million from the oil and gas program. If the entire 
$126.8 million rescission came from the steel loan guarantee program, 
then the ability of the steel loan guarantee board to help the steel 
industry receive needed capital would be eliminated. This reduction 
would come at a time when a record number of steel companies have filed 
for bankruptcy (eighteen companies) and steel prices have fallen below 
levels that prevailed during the depths of the 1998 steel crisis.
  Access to Work: The McCain amendment would rescind over 80 percent of 
Access to Work funding. This program has been very successful at 
starting new programs at transit agencies to get welfare recipients to 
employers that want to hire them. Many studies have shown that one of 
the biggest problems in getting welfare recipients off the welfare 
roles and on to payrolls is transportation--getting them to work.
  Antidumping: In the last 4 years, continued dumping or subsidization 
has been found in roughly 80 percent of all administrative reviews 
conducted by the Department of Commerce. Industries affected include 
many parts of agriculture, chemicals, consumer goods, industrial goods 
and components, and metals. The amendment would rescind $200 million 
from the Treasury program established last year to assist companies 
impacted by unfair foreign trade practices. This rescission would 
eliminate the program just when it is anticipated that the first offset 
disbursements will be made by Customs toward the end of November 2001.
  NASA: The amendment would rescind $40 million from Life and Micro-
Gravity research. In FY 2000, Congress fenced $40 million for a life 
and micro-gravity mission aboard the space shuttle. However, due to 
delays in overhauling the Space Shuttle Columbia, and the need to 
accelerate the Hubble space telescope servicing mission, NASA was 
forced to reschedule the launch date May 2002. As a result of the 
delay, the committee included bill language that lifts a restriction on 
the use of the funds to give NASA the flexibility to reprogram the 
funds for a Shuttle mission that will include a life and microgravity 
research experiment. Rescinding these funds will prohibit NASA from 
conducting a life and microgravity research experiment as directed by 
Congress, and put in jeopardy future research missions by threatening 
the viability of NASA's contractor.
  NASA electric auxiliary power units: The Senate should not rescind 
$19 million from the electric auxiliary power

[[Page 12809]]

units. As part of the space shuttle safety upgrades program, NASA 
initiated an effort to develop an electric auxiliary power unit in FY 
2000 to upgrade the existing power units to make them safer and more 
reliable. However after the initial development phase, it became clear 
that there were significant technical hurdles that could not be 
overcome without a significant increase in the budget.
  While this particular program was canceled by NASA, the overall Space 
Shuttle Safety Program remains a top priority. NASA will redirect the 
remaining funds to address other key safety and reliability upgrades 
for the space shuttle. There is no higher priority than protecting our 
astronauts.
  Transit research and planning: The McCain amendment would virtually 
eliminate funding for transit planning and research -$90 million, 
provided in the FY 2001 Transportation Appropriations Act.
  Mr. President, I hope the Senate will oppose and defeat the 
amendment. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator from West Virginia yield me 5 minutes?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I gladly yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished majority whip.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, will someone get Senator McCain? He wanted 
to close. He has about 4 minutes remaining.
  I want to spend a little time speaking tonight before we have these 
series of votes. Floor staff has been kind enough to gather for me some 
information. Since the leadership has changed in the Senate, we 
indicated we were going to try to stick to 15-minute votes and extend 
the time for 5 minutes, to make it a 20-minute vote, and with 10-minute 
votes, extend it to 5 minutes to make it a 15-minute vote.
  In the 13 days we have had votes, we have spent 179 minutes over 
those times for a total of 3 hours. If one multiplies that out, over 1 
month it will probably be about 5 hours. We are in session 9 or 10 
months, so it is 45 or 50 hours we waste waiting for Senators to vote 
because committees are not adjourned in time--the excuses are 
unbelievable why Senators cannot get here within 20 minutes.
  I hope everyone will respect other people's time. We are going to do 
our very best to stick to the 20-minute time limit. I have spoken with 
Senator Daschle. He agrees. Everyone will acknowledge that it is time 
wasted for everyone.
  Since June 6, 179 minutes have been wasted. There are a lot of things 
each of us can do in 45 or 50 hours a year in wasted time. We, of 
course, could answer mail probably more precisely than we do if we had 
an extra 45 or 50 hours. We could review our mail more closely. We 
could visit with constituents who come here. A lot of time we are 
waiting for other Senators to vote and we are not able to see our 
constituents or, if we do see them, we give them the bum's rush. We 
could participate in congressional hearings more deliberately with an 
extra 45 or 50 hours. We could make telephone calls we simply do not 
have time to make. We could do something such as go home and visit with 
our families and have dinner.
  I hope everyone understands, there will be people who are going to 
miss votes, but in fairness to everyone here, that is the way it has to 
be. I hope committee chairs will allow members to leave early. It is 
very difficult for us to say: Turn in the vote.
  What we are doing is not partisan. Democrats and Republicans are just 
as responsible for the standing and waiting around. I wish it were just 
the Republicans and we could blame them for it, but it is us. We are 
just as bad as they are.
  There are going to be Democrats who will complain: Why did you 
terminate the vote? I had something real important to do. I was having 
dinner with my son; I was at a key point in the hearing. The excuses, 
most of them, are very valid. But in fairness to all 100 Senators, we 
have to have a time limit that is enforced.
  I say that the staff, which is very good about this--they hate to 
turn in a vote when there are people not here because people yell at 
them, but we need to move along and do this.
  It is going to be bipartisan. We are going to do our best to make 
sure it is fair to everybody. Remember, we are talking about 50 hours a 
year wasted just in not having our votes, not in 15 minutes, but in 20 
minutes; not in 10 minutes--sometimes we have 10-minute votes--not 
having those votes in 10 minutes but 15 minutes. I am talking about the 
time wasted over the 20-minute time limit.
  I hope people will not be upset about this. I know some will. Maybe 
if we get in the habit of calling the votes on time, Senators will come 
on time.
  I thank Senator Byrd for yielding me time.
  Senator McCain is not yet here. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, how much time remains on the McCain 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes for the Senator from Arizona; 7 
minutes for the opposition.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Alaska, Senator McCain asked to 
close. What we could do is reserve his time and the motion to table and 
go on to Senator Schumer to save time. Would that be appropriate?
  Mr. STEVENS. It is my understanding the Senator from Missouri wishes 
5 minutes of the time in support of the McCain amendment.
  Mr. REID. There are not 5 minutes. There are 4 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 4 minutes left for Senator McCain.
  Mr. STEVENS. We will be glad to accord the Senator from Missouri 5 
minutes of our time. The Senator is right; let's hold the time and let 
Senator Schumer start his amendment.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the McCain 
amendment be set aside, and that the 4 minutes be reserved for Senator 
McCain and 4 minutes be reserved for Senator Stevens and Senator Byrd, 
and we go to the Schumer amendment, which is the last amendment in 
order tonight.
  Mr. STEVENS. Reserving that right to object, I wish the Senator would 
allocate that time to the Senator from Alaska. I have 2 minutes; 
Senator McCain has 4; the Senator from Missouri has 5 minutes.
  Mr. REID. That will be taken from the Senator's time?
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator so modify the request?
  Mr. REID. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from New York is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 862

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 862.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I believe it is by the unanimous consent request of the 
Senator from Nevada.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my friend, the Presiding Officer. Amendment No. 
862 is an amendment I have sponsored with Senator Reed of Rhode Island, 
Senator Reid of Nevada, Senator Dodd, Senator Lieberman, Senator 
Corzine, and Senator Johnson.
  It is a very simple amendment. It rescinds in this emergency 
supplemental $33.9 million for advance mailings from the IRS to the 
General Treasury.
  I ask for the yeas and nays if they have not been ordered. Have they 
been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not been ordered.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Chair. I believe I have 15 minutes to debate 
on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 14\1/2\ minutes.

[[Page 12810]]


  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask the Chair to notify me after I have consumed 7 of 
those minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will do so.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, this amendment is a simple one. There is 
money in this supplemental appropriation to send out a notice within 
the next week to 112 million taxpayers telling them they will get a 
rebate. The amendment is a simple one. It rescinds that money and gives 
it back to the committee. It does not spend it on any other specific 
purpose, but rather at this time when we are all desperate for money--
we just spent 2 hours on Senator McCain's amendment cutting money from 
domestic programs so we can fund defense--this $33.9 million is needed.
  Why do I think this money should be rescinded? Because the notices 
they will fund are unnecessary, they are inappropriately political, and 
they cost money that can be spent on other things, and I will talk 
about each. Unnecessary. It makes no sense that we send each taxpayer a 
notice that they are going to get a rebate. The rebate is self-
explanatory. It has been in all the newspapers. More people will have 
read it in their newspapers than a notice they get from the IRS. And 
if, indeed, we thought it so necessary to do, which I don't think we 
should, it is certainly unnecessary to do it as a separate notice which 
will cost all this extra money.
  The idea that we have to notify taxpayers that they are getting a 
rebate doesn't make sense. We have never done it before--not in the 
1975 rebate, not when we have changed other tax laws. We have never 
done it.
  Second, I am against it because it is a political message. The 
message in this notification of the rebate says: We are pleased to 
inform you that the United States Congress passed, and President George 
W. Bush signed into law, the Economic Growth and Tax Reconciliation 
Relief Act of 2001 which provides long-term relief for all Americans 
who pay income taxes.
  It sounds to me a bit like a political ad. The IRS has always had a 
reputation for being apart from politics. When the IRS gets too 
political we try, justifiably, to pull it back. Yet here from the IRS 
is a notice. We don't send notices out to people when bad things 
happen: We are happy to let you know because of laws that the President 
proposed and the Congress passed that you will get a lien on your 
property, that your property will get a lien because you haven't paid 
your taxes. We just put on the lien. We don't send out notices about 
all the other changes in the law. We publish them in the Register and 
then we go forward.
  Finally, of course, I support this amendment because we are in very 
tough times. How many Americans would make it their highest priority to 
spend this $33.9 million on sending a notice of a rebate?
  My colleague from Nevada, when I yield time to him, will give 
examples of the alternatives on how we could spend the money. Clearly, 
there are better purposes.
  Secretary O'Neill wrote me that it wasn't feasible for mechanical 
reasons to include notification with the check itself. I take that to 
mean that, despite a quarter of a century of dramatic technological 
advances and the impressive stewardship of Commissioner Rossotti, 
hailed as a world-renowned technology expert, the IRS is unable to get 
two pieces of paper into the same envelope--or less able than it was in 
1975 because they did it then.
  Now, to boot, 523,000 taxpayers will receive an inaccurate notice, 
erroneously informing them that they will receive a larger rebate than 
they will actually get. Some have said if we don't send this notice, 
there will be lots of phone calls deluging the IRS. We are not in tax 
season. I think they can handle the phone calls. I argue that knowing a 
small percentage of these notices are erroneous will trigger more phone 
calls than if we didn't send this false message at all.
  The bottom line is simple: We know why this mailing is being sent. We 
now see political figures on television, Governors and mayors, putting 
their faces on, saying: Come to my State for tourism; or, sign up for 
our children's health care plan.
  We all know what the purpose is, but never before has the Federal 
Government stooped to this level. And never before has the IRS, which I 
think we all agree must remain above politics, been used for such a 
message. This notification is unnecessary and can be accomplished in 
other ways. It is political, in an agency which should remain above 
politics. And it wastes a badly needed $33.9 million.
  This amendment was narrowly defeated in the House. I hope this body 
has its usual good sense, higher sense than the House, and passes this 
amendment.
  With that, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. We are hearing a great deal about politics in the debate 
regarding this amendment of the Senator from New York. We hear the 
notices in the mail to inform taxpayers of the rebate checks are 
somehow about ``politics.'' We hear the language used in a notice is 
about politics.
  Let me assure that the only thing that is about politics is the 
amendment before the Senate. I make very clear the notices are being 
issued, being sent by Congress, because we gave that direction in the 
legislation we passed. I read from the conference report of the 
recently passed tax cut bill. Page 127 of the report says:

       The conferees anticipate that the IRS will send notices to 
     most taxpayers, approximately one month after enactment. The 
     notices will inform taxpayers the computation of their checks 
     and the approximate date by which they can expect to receive 
     their check. This information should decrease the number of 
     telephone calls made by taxpayers to the IRS inquiring when 
     their check will be issued.

  That is a quote from the conference report of the Congress of the 
United States, directing the Treasury Department to do what has been 
labeled as pure politics. This is a statement of the conference report. 
That is why these notices are being issued.
  We are seeking to reduce confusion of taxpayers and minimize the 
burden on IRS employees. That is why the National Treasury Employees 
Union, the union that negotiates with the Treasury Department, 
representing those employees, supports the issuance of the letters 
being criticized.
  I read from the last paragraph of the letter I have received from the 
National Taxpayers Union:

       On behalf of the employees of the IRS who are charged with 
     implementing the decisions of Congress with regard to the tax 
     code, I urge you to oppose efforts to cut funding for the 
     mailing of a notification to taxpayers with regard to their 
     tax rebates.

  I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                             NTEU,


                        The National Treasury Employees Union,

                                    Washington, DC, June 20, 2001.
       I am writing with regard to funding included in the FY 2001 
     supplemental funding bill, H.R. 2216, that will allow the IRS 
     to mail notices to taxpayers informing them of the timing and 
     amount of tax rebate they will be getting. While NTEU has no 
     position on the wording of such notice, we strongly believe 
     that a notice will significantly reduce the amount of 
     telephone calls coming into the IRS with questions about the 
     tax rebate and ultimately reduce the costs associated with 
     administering the rebate.
       The IRS already has great difficulty responding to all of 
     the telephone calls from taxpayers with questions. The volume 
     of calls will increase dramatically as anticipation of rebate 
     checks grows, thereby making it even more difficult for 
     taxpayers with other questions to get their calls answered. 
     Providing taxpayers with a notice in advance will hold down 
     the increase in calls and prevent a significant decrease in 
     the IRS' ability to provide customer service.
       It is my understanding that the IRS has indicated that it 
     may go forward with a notice on the tax rebate even if funds 
     to mail it out are cut. Such a move would inevitably cause 
     erosion of customer service levels that are already suffering 
     from underfunding.
       On behalf of the employees of the IRS who are charged with 
     implementing the decisions of Congress with regard to the tax 
     code, I urge you to oppose efforts to cut funding for

[[Page 12811]]

     the mailing of a notification to taxpayers with regard to 
     their tax rebates.
           Sincerely,
                                                Colleen M. Kelley,
                                               National President.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, these concerns about the impact on 
services at the IRS are very real. The newsletter, Tax Notes, reported 
on June 9, 2001, that when Minnesota issued rebate checks, the U.S. 
West Company had to cut off phone service to the tax agency in 
Minnesota because the volume of calls brought down the system for the 
entire Minnesota State capital exchange.
  In addition, notices are important to prevent taxpayers being subject 
to con games. The USA Today newspaper reported on July 5, 2001, that 
taxpayers are receiving solicitations from con artists offering to 
calculate their refund for $14.95. These letters being found fault with 
will go far in preventing frauds and cons such as reported in USA 
Today.
  Some want no notices at all sent, and some want the words of the 
notice changed. Why are they upset? Because the letters start out by 
mentioning that we, the Congress, passed a bill that cuts taxes--the 
bill that provides long-term tax relief for all Americans who pay 
income taxes and was passed by the Congress, in fact, and was signed by 
the President of the United States.
  That is the only way you increase or decrease taxes. It is not done 
by some magic wand being waved by somebody in Washington, DC. But this 
comes as a shock, supposedly, to my colleagues. Some people are a 
little too busy with their lives to be thumbing through the 
Congressional Record after work, like maybe we do, but our constituents 
don't do this.
  So this letter provides a little overview and guidance, so people 
have some contact as to what the letter discusses.
  It should be clear this is not the first time the President by name 
has been mentioned in some IRS notice. For example, a little less than 
2 years ago the IRS sent out a notice mentioning President Clinton. Can 
you believe that? They sent out a notice mentioning President Clinton.
  I have searched the Congressional Record in vain to find any 
complaints from any Senator about that specific notice.
  Also, if this notice were only about politics, why would the 
administration also send out a notice to 32 million taxpayers, 
informing them they will not receive a refund check? That hardly seems 
a political thing to do. It is said we often find our own faults in 
others.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I do not think I will yield. The last time I yielded to 
you on the bankruptcy bill I did not get through my speech. I want to 
finish my speech and then if you want to ask me a question, I will do 
it.
  Mr. SCHUMER. A 10-second question.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. No, I will not, please. I appreciate the man, he is a 
friend of mine, and I do not have any ill will towards him, but I just 
do not want to yield at this point.
  Would I suggest this amendment is about politics? I could not suggest 
this amendment is about politics. But here is what we have to do. We 
have to think of the reality of it. We are trying to make Government 
work. When you are sending out $60-some billion in checks, you want to 
make sure they go to the people they are supposed to go to, and you 
want to know that the people know this is happening and what they are 
supposed to do with it.
  Some suggest we should have the notices, but the wording should be 
changed. As stated earlier, I believe the wording is important to 
better inform taxpayers. Further, to rewrite and reprint the notice 
will cost millions of dollars and delay the notices by weeks. Delay 
would undermine the whole point of the notice: To better inform the 
people prior to checks being issued.
  Remember, you want to get the checks out on time because of the 
stimulus benefit that comes from this. That is not just my saying this 
as a Republican because you want to remember, the last week of March 
people on the other side of the aisle said we ought to have an 
immediate tax rebate to help the economy. So that is something we both 
agreed ought to be done.
  This notice, the Treasury Department informs me, will actually be 
cost-effective. If there is no notice, the IRS will be flooded with 
calls and will not be able to perform other valuable and important 
activities. The language regarding notices is in the conference report 
because of concerns about the impact of issuing checks on IRS 
operations.
  Finance Committee staff has met with the Treasury Department several 
times to ensure that the notice and check effort is performed with 
minimal trouble.
  In addition, Senator Baucus and I have asked the GAO to oversee the 
notice and check effort to ensure it is properly managed.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to a cosponsor of the 
amendment, the Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from New York 
for the fiscal responsibility he is exhibiting with this amendment. The 
amount of money to be saved, again, is $34 million, roughly? Mr. 
President, $34 million--this is astonishing, $34 million to send out a 
mailing? This doesn't pass the laugh test, frankly.
  If I were to go home to my home State of South Dakota and talk to 
people in the street to tell them we are going to send some checks--by 
the way, which I voted for; I voted for the stimulus package, but we 
are going to add $34 million to the cost, from the taxpayers, to brag 
about what we did in advance--they would not know whether to laugh or 
whether to cry.
  This is just astonishing, $34 million for a mailing. Are we going to 
do this now when we do Patients' Bill of Rights? Are we going to send 
out a $34 million mailing? How about ag disaster payments? What else 
are we going to pass this year about which we are going to send out to 
everybody in the country what a wonderful job we are doing for them, 
thanks to your dollars?
  Here we are in this body talking about, well, it doesn't look as if 
we can afford to do as much as we should with school construction; 
probably not enough money to advance Head Start where it ought to be; 
our GI bill enhancement, where we are trying to catch up with inflation 
so our military can get the education opportunities they should have, 
we might not have the money; prescription drugs, we probably do not 
have enough to set aside to do what we need to do. But wait, we are 
going to take $34 million of your money and send you a letter telling 
you what fabulous things we are doing for you.
  I don't know whether or not it is political. What I care about is if 
you are going to carefully mind the people's money, this is not how you 
ought to go about doing it.
  I congratulate the Senator from New York for a little common sense, 
something I see all too seldom in the course of some of these political 
debates.
  Thank you to the Senator from New York. It seems to me this amendment 
deserves support. Let's save $34 million, put it back in the kitty 
where the American people can have it for their benefit.
  I yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield 6 minutes, or the remainder of my time, to the 
Senator from Idaho.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Senator who is just leaving the floor 
needs to know that $34 or $33 million represents about 30 cents a 
letter. I think both he and I wish we could send out any kind of 
campaign solicitation for 33 cents or 30 cents a letter. It seems to be 
a pretty efficient operation to me. But here is what the IRS is saying 
today. Even though the Senator from New York is talking politics, the 
IRS is talking fraud. The IRS is talking scam. The IRS is trying to 
warn the American taxpayer, who may or may not receive a rebate check, 
that they better beware that there is somebody out there who wants to 
take $14 or $15 or $20 of their money.

[[Page 12812]]

  Let me refer to a scam operation known as Revenue Resource Center in 
Boca Raton, FL. Send in your check for $12.95 and an extra $2, and we 
will calculate for you what your rebate is going to be.
  The IRS is already going to calculate for you what your rebate is 
going to be. The Senator from New York knows that. What the Senator 
ought to be saying is: Bravo, IRS, you may be stopping a multi-
multimillion-dollar scam operation.
  The IRS has identified scams in four other States: in Mississippi, 
Missouri, Ohio, and Oklahoma, and they are anticipating there will be a 
good many others before this is over with.
  What does the IRS do in its letter? Not only does it say the Congress 
and the President provided this, on an effort on their part, but it 
says here is how the calculation was made. If you have a question, make 
a phone call. Here is the phone number.
  That sounds pretty responsible to me. I suggest that is the kind of 
government we ought to have. Is it political? I don't think it is. The 
Senator from Iowa mentioned that President Clinton was mentioned in an 
IRS letter. I have a copy of that IRS letter. Bravo. Bravo. Whether we 
take credit for it--in fact, it was the Senator from New York who, in 
1995 said: When you do something you ought to tell your constituent 
about it. So he quoted himself in the New York Daily News.
  Is there anything wrong with what is going on? There is nothing wrong 
with what is going on, in fact. I think what the Senator from New York 
and I know is you take this form right here; it is called 2001 Form 16-
D. It looks like an official IRS form. Let me tell you it is a scam 
form provided by this group from Boca Raton, FL.
  Right here it says:

       Processing fee $12.95. Rush service add $2. Total payment 
     [$14.95].

  If you got $14.95 from a few hundred thousand or a few million 
taxpayers, my guess is you walk away with a bundle because you have a 
mailing address and you have a computer and you have a printer.
  What the IRS is saying when they notify the taxpayer is: You are 
going to get your check and here is how it is going to be calculated.
  They are even saying to some taxpayers: You are not going to get a 
check, and here is why you are not going to get a check.
  My guess is this may have a lot less to do with politics, at least 
from the standpoint of the IRS, and a great deal more to do with 
efficiency of government. But most important, should not we go the 
extra step so we avoid the scams that the great genius of the human 
mind creates when they see an opportunity to take advantage of an older 
person, or an innocent person who might be concerned that somehow they 
are not going to get their appropriate check? So they are going to fill 
out this form and send it in to a group in Boca Raton, FL?
  That is what the issue is all about. So we are going to use $34 
million at a cost of about 30 cents a letter to about 130 million 
Americans to notify them that all the information they need is right 
there available to them, even how their check was calculated, and all 
of that is going to be made available by the IRS. And, oh, by the way, 
yes, you are right, Senator from New York. The front paragraph says: 
And this tax relief was provided for you by the Congress--I believe 
that is Democrat and Republican--and by the President of the United 
States, George W. Bush.
  Let's stop the scam artists. Let's notify the American people when 
they are going to get it, how they are going to get it, and how it is 
calculated. It seems like the right thing to do--not the political 
thing to do.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the cosponsor of 
this legislation, the Senator from Nevada.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, this legislation has nothing to do with 
scams. It has nothing to do with partisan politics. It has everything 
to do with saving $34 million of taxpayer money.
  As the Senator, for whom I have the greatest respect, and the 19 
members of the Finance Committee say, this will provide a little review 
and guidance. Yes, it will, for $34 million.
  There are a lot of domestic programs in need of funding. Thirty-four 
million dollars would do so much for education. We could do something 
that deals with dropouts. Three thousand children are dropping out of 
school every day.
  We could do something about the national treasure of Nevada and 
California called Lake Tahoe. It is deteriorating every day because of 
pollution. We could stop it if we had the money. It is a program that 
we need to help. There are water systems all over America, in rural 
America, that need help. We could do part of that with this money.
  Our Nation is facing an energy shortage. The Energy and Water 
Subcommittee will fight for money to provide research and development 
for energy. Thirty-four million dollars would mean a lot to our 
subcommittee.
  We ought do so many things.
  Veterans: There has been a cutback in the veterans' budget this year 
by $30 million. We could take $343 million and provide help to the 
veterans. Grants are provided to the States for extended care 
facilities, specifically talking about veterans.
  On Medicare prescription drugs, we could do a little bit. But that 
would certainly be something we could do.
  Senator Chafee and I have a bill that gives centers of excellence $30 
million a year so they can study links between breast cancer and the 
environment. That is certainly more important than a $34 million notice 
that is going to go out.
  There are disasters happening all the time. We used to have $250 
million for Federal safe project impact grant programs. That was 
deleted. It is wrong. The State of Washington found out how much that 
program helped.
  This is something for which I don't blame the President. I don't 
blame the Finance Committee. I don't blame anybody. I think what we 
should do, though, is recognize that dollars are very scarce. We should 
do everything within our power to provide additional money for the 
programs that are desperately needed; $34 million would do that. It is 
more than the letter that would give a little bit of review and 
guidance, as my friend from Iowa said.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The sponsor has 3 minutes 5 seconds. The 
opposition has 1 minute, 17 seconds.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Does the Senator from North Dakota wish a minute?
  I will reserve the remainder at the conclusion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I intend to support the amendment. I don't 
know how it got to this point. But I was a tax administrator before I 
came to the Congress. It is not, in my judgment, necessary to send out 
a letter to say: By the way, here is what you are going to get. And 
then you get it. Maybe afterwards they will send a letter to them 
saying: Here is what you got.
  That doesn't make any sense to me. It is $34 million. There are a 
whole host of important things that can be done with $34 million.
  The tax bill stands on its own. It was passed. It is now law. The 
American people will be receiving a rebate. There does not need to be a 
substantial amount of money spent to tell them: By the way, this is 
what you will get in the mail very shortly. Send the check in the mail. 
They would be much more appreciative of receiving the check than 
receiving a letter saying they are going to get a check. Do not send 
them a letter saying they are going to get a check. They will get a 
check. And maybe people will come to the floor asking to send them a 
letter saying they got a check.
  None of this makes sense. This doesn't pass the test. Let's not do 
this. This is a waste of money.
  I will support the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

[[Page 12813]]


  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Is it not the case 
that we must finish the Schumer amendment before we go back to the 
McCain amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. STEVENS. Is the Senator from New York willing to yield the 
remainder of his time?
  Mr. SCHUMER. No. Mr. President, I believe I have 2 minutes. I would 
like to conclude. If the other side would like to use their 1 minute 
remaining, I would then yield. I will wait for them.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself the remaining time.
  There are three things to remember:
  Remember that the union members working this issue for the Treasury 
Department to make sure the Government's work is done right and done on 
time said it is very important that these notices be mailed out. That 
letter is a matter of record and is printed in the Record.
  No. 2, remember that Congress ordered these letters to be sent. It is 
a conference report from which I have already quoted. But remember we 
said that.
  No. 3, these letters are already printed and in the envelopes. There 
was a lot of labor put into this process. There was a lot of effort put 
into it. If you want to waste that money, you waste that money by 
voting for this amendment.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first, in reference to the debate we have 
heard, give me a break. This letter, if you read it, is not going to 
reduce fraud. In fact, if we want to reduce fraud, we contain it right 
with the check--not a letter that people are going to read through a 
month and a half in advance and then get the check. That is a bogus 
argument.
  Second, President Clinton put his name on the notice that was on 527. 
The letter of the Secretary of the Treasury is wrong. All that was 
printed in the Record. President Clinton did not send out 112 million 
pieces of paper bragging about what he was going to do.
  The bottom line is simple. We all know what is going on here. This is 
not an attempt to help the taxpayers; this is an attempt to pat 
ourselves on the back because we did something good. We could spend 
billions of dollars doing that. We all know that the same goal could be 
accomplished by putting the same notification in the same letter as the 
check. We are not doing that either.
  At a time, I appeal to my colleagues, when we are scrounging around 
for $5 million here and $10 million there, the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee and the ranking member are trying their best 
as the members of the committee to find the dollars we need, give me a 
break. This is not the best, the second best, the third best, the 
hundredth best, or the thousandth best way to spend $34 million to send 
a notification patting ourselves on the back that you are going to get 
a rebate check and there is going to be a long-term tax reduction. It 
is an absurdity.
  If any of us cares about fiscal responsibility and balancing the 
budget, we will vote for this amendment.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time on the amendment has expired.
  The question occurs on the McCain amendment.
  The Senator from Arizona withholds 4 minutes. The Senator from 
Missouri withholds 5 minutes.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Alaska is 
giving time to the Senator from Missouri. Is that correct?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, that is correct--in order to accommodate 
the Senator's request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I rise to support the McCain amendment. 
Our military has a number of pressing needs that simply are not being 
met this year. I have seen this first hand in my home State of 
Missouri. Senator McCain has done the hard work by requesting that 
Federal agencies identify funds that are not being spent in this fiscal 
year. These funds should be available and can be put to good use for 
basic military operations and supplies.
  This amendment will provide $200 million for quality-of-life 
improvements for our military personnel, $600 million for operations 
and maintenance of our military equipment, and $45 million for force 
protection of our fleet in the Arabian Gulf. Senator McCain has 
identified these needs, and he has uncovered the resources to relate to 
them.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
  I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Dodd.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague from Missouri.
  Mr. President, I want to take a couple minutes to speak. I know 
others have spoken at length about this underlying supplemental 
appropriations bill.
  I say to the Senator from Alaska, the Senator from Missouri yielded 
me her remaining time.
  I commend the Senator from West Virginia and the Senator from Alaska 
and the Senator from Hawaii. It is a hard job. It is not easy. We are 
talking 80 days. And those days are shrinking as long as we take to 
resolve this in the supplemental.
  There are a number of amendments that have been offered that under 
normal circumstances I would probably support. The LIHEAP amendment is 
a very important amendment for those of us who come from the Northeast. 
I find many down the list that are very appealing.
  I think our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee have done a 
good job. I do not suggest that my good friend from Arizona, and 
others, are not making a good case that additional resources may be 
necessary to help our service men and women to improve equipment, but 
it seems to me that we are just a few days away from dealing with a 
larger issue, the budget issue, in which these matters could be 
addressed. So when it comes to the pending amendment, I am going to 
reject the additional spending that is being proposed and support the 
committee's desire to adopt this supplemental, if we can.
  I notice, as well, there are arguments being made that some of these 
funds have been unexpended. I appreciate that. That is true. That is 
the case, but it is also the case that we are not yet at the end of the 
fiscal year.
  One of the things I want to see us discourage is agencies rushing out 
to spend dollars so that they will not face the kind of arguments they 
get here, where we are a few months away from the end of the fiscal 
year and we start demanding that agencies spend money quickly because 
an amendment may be offered to take any unexpended funds. That is 
irresponsible spending, it seems to me.
  So there are a number of areas here that are being targeted as 
resources to pay for some of these amendments that I hope my colleagues 
will take some note of.
  Worker training is one. Again, all of us understand the benefits of 
worker training. We have just heard news in the last few days that 
there has been a loss of some 125,000 jobs in the month of June alone 
in the United States. I do not need to tell anyone in this Chamber how 
job training and worker training programs can make a difference for 
those people. Those people getting new jobs, getting the skill levels, 
also contribute to the strength of America. Certainly, the job access 
program is another one that has been tremendously helpful to so many 
millions of Americans across the country.
  So while all the money has not yet been expended in job access or job 
training programs, we are still several months away from the end of the 
fiscal year. In light of some of the new unemployment figures, those 
dollars may be very necessary before the end of the fiscal year.
  So again, my compliments to those on this committee crafting this 
supplemental appropriations bill. It is not perfect. They have not 
argued it is perfection. But I think it has done a good

[[Page 12814]]

job in providing additional resources for our military needs. And, in 
the weeks to come, we will be given the opportunity to debate the 
authorization bill and the appropriations bill for the coming fiscal 
year, at which point we can best address the matters raised in this 
debate.
  So my hope would be that my colleagues would applaud the work of the 
Appropriations Committee here and adopt this supplemental bill. The 
temptation to support a number of these amendments is strong. But I 
think we ought to resist that temptation and support the work of this 
committee, and then get about the business of dealing with the various 
appropriations bills as they come to this Chamber.
  If there is any time left, I will be glad to yield it to those who 
may want to debate this amendment further. But if not, I would yield 
back whatever time may remain.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have 4 minutes remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. McCAIN. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I want to simply urge the support of my 
colleagues for the amendment that my colleague, Senator McCain, has 
brought forward. We have to care about the lives and the safety, as 
well as the ability to carry out the mission that we have entrusted to 
them, of the young men and women in our military.
  What Senator McCain is doing is nothing more than taking the word of 
the military--the chiefs and the other military leaders of our 
country--about what they need, and providing a small amount of that as 
a part of this supplemental appropriations bill--$847 million worth.
  All of that money is offset from programs, frankly, that either can 
be deferred or from funds which are not going to be spent before the 
beginning of the next fiscal year. So there is very little in terms of 
loss of any program from the offsets. But this money would make a huge 
difference to the men and women of our military, if we can get it into 
the pipeline before October 1.
  So I hope my colleagues will support the amendment of Senator McCain 
to help the folks in our military and enable them to do the job we have 
entrusted them to do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield myself what time is remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes 45 seconds.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I outlined in some detail the testimony of 
the service chiefs last September: The need for $30 billion more than 
the current defense budget dollars. In a few days, the Department of 
Defense will come over with a reprogramming request. That will be for 
$850 million, which is really what this request is all about.
  What is a reprogramming request? It is a requirement to take money 
out of one category and put it into another because the wheels are 
about to come off. They are going to have to take money from existing 
programs and put it into what this amendment is all about: Personnel, 
readiness, operations and maintenance, and the lives of the men and 
women in the military. This amendment puts money in the right accounts, 
and that is readiness and personnel.
  Nothing is more important than the men and women in the military and 
national defense. The Department of Treasury salaries and expenses 
isn't more important than defense. The NASA Shuttle Electric Auxiliary 
Power Units are not more important than defense. The Life and Micro-
Gravity Science Research is not more important than defense. The 
Advance Technology Program is not more important than defense. The Job 
Access & Reverse Commute Grants Program is not more important than 
defense, nor is Export Promotion Programs or Emergency Loan Guarantees.
  Nothing is more important than the security of this Nation. I hope 
this modest amendment, which does have offsets, will be agreed to by 
this body. It does not have an objection from the Office of Management 
and Budget nor from the Department of Defense.
  So, Mr. President, the men and women of our military are suffering. 
They need help. I promised them that help during the last campaign. 
This is one very small way of beginning to deliver.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am constrained to point out to the 
Senate that part of the Budget Act gives us the power, in the 
Appropriations Committee, to make allocations to specific portions of 
the budget. We have 13 separate bills.
  The allocation to the Defense Department under the Defense 
appropriations bill for 2001 I made when I was chairman--and Senator 
Byrd from West Virginia has modified that slightly, but it is still a 
limitation--it is a limitation that prevents us from transferring money 
from one bill to another without the consent of the Senate.
  The amendment of the Senator from Arizona would increase the amount 
allocated to the Department of Defense for 2001 in excess of the 
current budget allocation that both Senator Byrd as chairman, and I, 
when I was chairman, submitted to the Senate. The amendment by the 
Senator from Arizona has the unfortunate consequence of exceeding our 
allocation.
  I make a point of order against the McCain amendment under section 
302(f) of the Budget Act. If adopted, this would exceed the allocation 
for the Department of Defense for 2001.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I am deeply, deeply disturbed that the Senator from 
Alaska would not allow an up-or-down vote on this amendment, which is 
paid for--which is paid for. And if we are going to play that kind of 
parliamentary game, the Senator from Alaska can plan on a lot of fun in 
the ensuing appropriations bills.
  I move at this point to waive all points of order that may lie 
against this amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. STEVENS. I raise a question about this.
  All points of order?
  Mr. McCAIN. That may lie against this amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Parliamentary inquiry: Is that in order under the Budget 
Act? This is a specific point of order. There are other points of order 
I may want to try, too.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may make a motion to cover all 
Budget Act points of order.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a sufficient second. The vote will be 
delayed under the current sequence.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 30 
minutes of general debate on the bill.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, don't we have a managers' amendment still 
on the agenda?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. STEVENS. Now that Senator McCain's time has expired, that is in 
order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That would be appropriate at this time.


                           amendment no. 876

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I shall send to the desk a managers' 
amendment. It consists of a package of amendments. These have been 
cleared on both sides, and I believe there is no controversy on them.
  The first items are amendments by Senator Stevens, Senator Lincoln, 
and Senator Hutchinson for storm damage repair and relief in Arkansas 
and Oklahoma and emergency response and firefighting needs in Alaska. 
The amendment provides a total of $26,500,000 with the necessary 
offsets.

[[Page 12815]]

  The next amendment is offered by Senator Inhofe concerning the 
Education Impact Aid Program. No additional funds are involved.
  Next is an amendment by Senator Boxer to provide $1,400,000 for the 
so-called ``sudden oak death syndrome''. This is from within existing 
funds in the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
  Next is an amendment by Senators Dorgan and Conrad to provide $5 
million for emergency housing for Indians on the Turtle Mountain Indian 
Reservation in North Dakota. It, too, is fully offset.
  Next is an amendment by Senator McConnell making a slight 
modification in the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation 
Program Act. No funding is involved.
  Next is an amendment to establish the new Senate committee ratio for 
the Joint Economic Committee as a result of the recent change in the 
Senate majority. This requires an amendment to the underlying law;
  An amendment concerning the B-1 bomber for Senators Roberts, Miller, 
Craig, Cleland, Crapo, and Brownback;
  An amendment for Senator Patty Murray and Senator Cantwell providing 
$2 million for drought assistance in Yakima Basin in the State of 
Washington. It is fully offset.
  Finally, an amendment by myself to provide $5 million for providing 
relief from the severe recent flooding in my State of West Virginia. 
This amendment is also fully offset.
  Over the last several days and nights, thousands of West Virginians 
have been digging out from the mud and muck left behind from severe 
flooding over the weekend.
  Throughout southern West Virginia, especially, the rain fell hard and 
fast, dropping 8 inches of rain across the region before the clouds 
finally let up. By then, the damage was done. The Guyandotte River was 
measured at 18 feet at Pineville, 5 feet above flood stage and above 
the 1977 record of 17.76 feet. The Tug Fork was at 17.5 at Welch, 7.5 
feet over its banks and more than 4 feet above the previous high.
  It is an almost indescribable scene for many families who have 
watched their homes and their belongings washed away by the torrent of 
flood waters. For many families, this latest flood comes just a few 
weeks after they finished cleaning up from May's heavy rains that 
prompted a Federal disaster declaration from President Bush.
  Today West Virginia's streams, creeks, and rivers are carrying 
refrigerators, stoves, cars, and trucks. Tree branches are filled with 
ruined clothing and debris. Water and sewer systems are washed out. 
Roads and bridges are buckled. Power is out. More than 3,000 homes have 
been damaged or destroyed.
  In the McDowell County town of Kimball, the community is covered with 
thick mud. One woman described it aptly when she said: ``This whole 
town is gone.''
  For everyone, there is a feeling of disbelief at the devastation. But 
there is also a strong determination to recover.
  In an effort to speed Federal assistance, the managers' amendment 
contains $5 million to boost the recovery effort. This is the amount 
that the Natural Resources Conservation Service has stated that it 
needs to remove debris and obstructions to waterways that pose a threat 
to private property or human safety. This is just a small step in the 
recovery process, but it is an important step to make.
  I personally thank the thousands of National Guardsmen, local 
firefighters, sheriffs' departments, police officials, Red Cross 
volunteers, State Office of Emergency Services personnel, and the 
countless others who have worked to save lives over the last few days. 
Their efforts have helped to prevent this disaster from taking an even 
larger tool on West Virginia.
  Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], for himself and 
     Mr. Stevens, proposes an amendment numbered 876.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendments 
be considered en bloc.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. BYRD. I am asking that they be considered, not adopted.
  Mr. McCAIN. I object. I want the amendment read.
  Mr. BYRD. I didn't understand the Senator.
  Mr. McCAIN. I want the continued reading of the amendment.
  Mr. BYRD. Very well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is noted. The clerk will continue 
the reading of the amendment.
  The legislative clerk continued the reading of the amendment.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order is the reading of the 
amendment. The clerk will continue the reading of the amendment.
  The legislative clerk continued the reading of the amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield back the time?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to 
waive the Budget Act with respect to the point of order against the 
amendment of the Senator from Arizona be withdrawn and insert in lieu 
thereof a motion to table the amendment of the Senator from Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Do the Senators yield back time on the 
managers' amendment?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the name of Senator Patty Murray was 
inadvertently omitted from the sponsorship of the $2 million drought 
assistance in the State of Washington. I add that name at this time. So 
it will read: An amendment by Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell 
providing $2 million for drought assistance in the Yakima Basin in the 
State of Washington. It is fully offset. I ask unanimous consent that 
Senator Murray's name be added.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. If the Senator will yield, I ask unanimous consent that 
the amendment be amended to add a million dollars for FEMA for the 
disaster storm Allison. I will present an amendment to the desk in 
writing.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I object. Is the amendment debatable?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 5 minutes equally divided on the 
amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator has 5 minutes under the time agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes in general debate 
time. He may use it now.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Is this concerning 
the amendment on the B-1 that is included in this, or is this in 
addition to the 5 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Byrd has 5 minutes of general debate 
on the bill. There are 5 minutes evenly divided between the two 
managers on the managers' amendment. Senator Byrd has 5 minutes in his 
own right.
  Mr. McCAIN. On the managers' amendment, none of us had ever seen it. 
It was just presented. I notice that it is now an emergency for an 
additional amount for State and private forestry, $750,000 to the Kenai 
Peninsula Borough Spruce Bark Beetle Task Force for emergency response 
and communications equipment, and $1.75 million to be provided to the 
municipality of Anchorage for emergency firefighting equipment and 
response to respond to wildfires in Spruce bark beetle-infested 
forests. Provided, that such

[[Page 12816]]

amount shall be provided as direct lump sum payments within 30 days of 
enactment of this act.
  That is an unusual amendment. There are forest fires all over the 
West, including in my State. But, again, here is a managers' amendment 
worth many millions of dollars which none of us had seen or heard 
about, but we will go ahead and pass it by a voice vote.
  On the issue of the B-1, I believe very strongly that what we are 
doing is micromanaging the Department of Defense. The amendment is led 
on this side. I think the communications could have been and should 
have been established with the Secretary of Defense. I believe strongly 
that this amendment, which is going to be accepted, will not allow the 
transfer of one B-1 bomber from one base to another--not one will be 
allowed to be transferred from one to another.
  The sponsors of the amendment at least removed the preparation and 
planning clause that was also preventive. I think it is a very 
dangerous precedent for us to start at the beginning of a new 
administration and pass an amendment that says not one single airplane 
that is a B-1 can be transferred from one place to another. Yes, there 
should have been better communications. Yes, the affected Senators 
whose bases have B-1 bombers in that State should have been better 
informed. All of those things.
  But for us to act in this Draconian fashion is something I think sets 
a very bad precedent. We all know the Department of Defense needs to be 
restructured and reorganized. This message being sent by this 
amendment--don't tamper with our planes in our State--is not the right 
message to begin this very important period of restructuring and 
reorganizing our Nation's national security capabilities.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for 
working with us on the amendment he has just discussed. It is a 
question of notification. We have not blocked--nor would we want to 
block as a Senate--the ability of this Defense Department to plan. What 
we do want them to do is plan with us in the process. We think the 
notification point does that, and the amendment directs this in that 
order.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
managers' amendment be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 876) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all remaining 
amendments be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I will file the amendment I referred to 
for the managers' amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back on the bill?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am informed that we have just made an 
error. I ask unanimous consent that in section 210(f) of the managers' 
amendment the figure ``$38.5 million'' be ``$39.5 million.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The modification is as follows:

       On page 48, after line 3, insert the following:


         ``federal emergency management agency disaster relief

       ``For necessary expenses in carrying out the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), $1,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended for costs related to tropical storm Allison.''
       On page 14, after line 25, insert the following:''
       ``Sec. 2106. Of funds which may be reserved by the 
     Secretary for allocation to State agencies under section 
     16(h)(1) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 to carry out 
     Employment and Training programs, $39,500,000 made available 
     in prior years are rescinded and returned to the Treasury.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all general debate time yielded back?
  Mr. BYRD. I yield back the remainder of my time.


                           Amendment No. 874

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  The question recurs on the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota. 
There are 5 minutes of debate evenly divided.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, my amendment takes $150 million and 
adds it to LIHEAP. This is a lifeline program for low-income families, 
many of them with disabilities, many elderly, many working poor with 
children.
  Unfortunately, right now, only about 13 percent of households are 
able to benefit because this program is so severely underfunded. The 
money comes from administrative expenses in the whole Pentagon budget. 
It does not come from any programs. It does not come from readiness or 
quality of life for our armed services. It comes out of administrative 
inefficiencies, and believe me, from inspector general to the General 
Accounting Office, there is way more than $150 million when it comes to 
administrative inefficiency.
  A study by the National Energy Assistance Directors' Association says 
that 28 States and the District of Columbia are out of money or about 
to run out of money. These are our States that are telling us: We do 
not have the money for cooling assistance this summer; we do not have 
the money to help for those in arrears and could be faced with utility 
shutoff; we do not have the money as we approach this winter.
  Last year, energy prices went up 40 percent. The very least we can do 
is to give this program, which is so important to the most vulnerable 
citizens in this country, an additional $150 million to help us over 
the next 3 months. It is not taken out of any significant program.
  I am going to vote for this bill, but I certainly think, in the 
overall Pentagon budget of over $300 billion, we can find the $150 
million in administrative inefficiencies.
  I thank my colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I yield back the time in opposition to 
the Wellstone amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on 
agreeing to the motion to table amendment No. 874. The yeas and nays 
have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Thomas) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 77, nays 22, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 224 Leg.]

                                YEAS--77

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--22

     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Cantwell
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Dayton
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Harkin
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lincoln
     Murray
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

[[Page 12817]]



                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Thomas
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. 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. We will have order in the Senate.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, under the order previously entered, all the 
rest of the votes will be 10-minute votes. We were able to stick with 
our 20 minutes on this one. We will stick with 15 on the others and 
move this along as quickly as possible.


                           Amendment No. 863

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on the amendment of the 
Senator from Wisconsin. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Feingold-Durbin-Kerry amendment 
would increase funding for the Global Fund for AIDS, TB, and Malaria by 
$593 million, and it would offset that increase in funding by 
rescinding funds from the Navy V-22 Osprey aircraft procurement 
account.
  This is a chance for this body to move beyond rhetoric and take 
action in a fiscally responsible fashion to address the greatest health 
crisis of our time, a pandemic that has killed 22 million people and 
may infect 100 million by the year 2005.
  U.S. leadership in the fight against AIDS is desperately needed now. 
Obviously, there are problems with the Osprey program. Thirty Marines 
have died in Osprey crashes since 1991. This troubled program is 
currently suspended, pending the outcome of investigations and further 
research, testing, and evaluation.
  My amendment does not endanger the integrity of the Osprey production 
line. Let me repeat this. This amendment does not kill the Osprey 
program and does not affect the ongoing construction of planes that are 
being built with money from fiscal years 1999 and 2000.
  What we have here is a clear choice, to use funds that are currently 
allocated somewhat irrationally and to redirect them towards fighting 
AIDS, an unquestionably worthwhile purpose that reflects our values, 
serves our interests, and may well be the greatest challenge 
confronting the world today.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and oppose the motion 
to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this amendment will wipe out the V-22 
Osprey program. One of the best-kept secrets in the United States is 
the role the U.S. Army has played in the battle against AIDS. The U.S. 
Army, Department of Defense, has spent more money than all the moneys 
spent by other countries on the battle against AIDS. Our research has 
come closest to victory. We have, in the next fiscal year, 2002, the 
full amount requested by the administration.
  We have not forgotten the problem. Yes, the United Nations has passed 
a resolution, but we are still waiting for other countries to come 
forth with their moneys. Our country will come forth with our money but 
not at the expense of the V-22 Osprey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back. The question is on 
agreeing to the motion to table amendment No. 863.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Thomas) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). Are there any other 
Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 79, nays 20, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 225 Leg.]

                                YEAS--79

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--20

     Baucus
     Biden
     Boxer
     Cantwell
     Corzine
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Jeffords
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Murray
     Smith (OR)
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Thomas
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 869

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question recurs on the McCain amendment. 
There are 5 minutes of debate evenly divided.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment is not objected to by the 
Department of Defense or the Office of Management and Budget. The 
amendment adds a bare minimum to fund defense readiness and personnel 
programs. It is $850 million. There are offsets. Whenever there are 
offsets, there are some objections.
  Nothing is more important, I believe at this time, than national 
defense. And this money is earmarked for the men and women in the 
military and their operations and maintenance accounts.
  Very soon the administration will come over with a reprogramming 
request for $850 million, meaning that the wheels are going to come off 
unless they devote more money to exactly these accounts.
  I hope we can vote to take care of the lifestyle, the readiness, and 
the operations of the men and women in the military.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this amendment would mean that we would 
exceed the budget allocation for defense. There are 82 days left in 
this fiscal year. The Department of Defense has already sent us, with 
the President's approval, a request for $18.4 billion for 2002. That 
money will be readily available. This amendment is redundant in that 
respect.
  I have always supported defense in my day. I cannot remember ever 
disagreeing on a defense amendment, but on this occasion it violates 
the commitment we made to stay within the amount of the President's 
budget. It takes funds from nondefense accounts and puts them in 
defense accounts violating the wall concept that we have followed now 
for 4 years. For 4 years, we have agreed to the amount to be spent for 
defense and the amount to be spent for nondefense.
  This amendment takes money exclusively from nondefense and puts it in 
defense. If the tables were turned, I would obviously be violently 
opposed to taking money from defense and putting it into nondefense. I 
feel obligated to defend the process which has saved the defense 
accounts over the past 4 years, and I urge that the McCain amendment be 
tabled.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Do the Senators yield back their time?
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to table was previously made.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

[[Page 12818]]

  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to table amendment No. 869.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Thomas) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 83, nays 16, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 226 Leg.]

                                YEAS--83

     Akaka
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--16

     Allard
     Carnahan
     Ensign
     Gramm
     Hagel
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     McCain
     Nickles
     Smith (NH)
     Thompson
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Thomas
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BENNETT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           amendment no. 862

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 5 minutes of debate evenly 
divided with respect to the Schumer amendment.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Schumer 
amendment. Earlier today, we had a 3-94 vote on the Hollings amendment. 
You will remember the vote of 3-94 earlier today when the Senate 
rejected the Hollings amendment on repealing the tax decrease of a 
month ago. I think that was a vote of this body saying send the checks. 
The conference report on that same bill directed the IRS, for very good 
reasons, to issue these notices that the Schumer amendment wants to 
repeal. We have had the Treasury Employees Union saying send out a 
notice to inform the taxpayers so that the Treasury employees would be 
able to do their job well, without always being on the phone informing 
the taxpayers of what their tax refund might consist.
  So if this amendment would pass, it would keep the taxpayers in the 
dark. It would help the scam artists preying on the poor and elderly, 
as we have been told before. It would play havoc with the important 
work of the IRS. So I strongly urge my colleagues to vote no on this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, this amendment is simple. It has nothing 
to do with the tax cuts and getting back your checks. It has to do with 
perhaps the most foolish exercise that is part of this bill: $33 
million so we can send people a notice that they are going to get a 
check. Well, if we were awash in money, maybe we should do that. But we 
are scrounging. I have such great respect for our leaders from West 
Virginia and from Alaska who are looking for $5 million here and $10 
million there. And here we are going to spend $33 million to notify 
people that they might get a check. Why not put the notice in the same 
envelope as the check and save the money?
  We all want to practice some form of fiscal conservatism--some of us 
so we might have a little money to spend on other programs, and some so 
there might be more tax cuts. But no one from one end of this country 
to the other can justify spending $33 million to send a notice out 
ahead of time saying: Your check is in the mail. It doesn't stop fraud; 
it doesn't serve a purpose. At a time when we are desperate for finding 
dollars, to waste money on this is a disgrace.
  I urge all of my colleagues, regardless of party, to give our 
appropriations leaders some help and a little more money so they might 
be able to do their jobs better. If you had to make a list of 10,000 
things we would want to spend the money on, this would not be it. I 
urge my colleagues to make this bill just a little bit better by 
cutting out this $33 million waste of money and use it for something 
better.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 minute 13 seconds.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, let me take advantage of that time. I 
will take advantage of the opportunity to say, first of all, that all 
of these notices are already printed and ready to go. Do you want to 
throw that money away?
  No. 2, it is only part of the story that there is a message going out 
to tell people they are going to get a check and to expect it. There is 
also a notice going out to 32 million people that they are not going to 
get a check, and that is a very important notice to go out, so that the 
IRS is not bothered by phone calls wondering whether or not they are 
going to get a check. I think it is very important that we do this 
right.
  I ask for the defeat of the Schumer amendment and I yield the 
remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to the Schumer amendment No. 862.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Thomas) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dorgan). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 227 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

     Akaka
     Allen
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--50

     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Thomas
       
  The amendment (No. 862) was rejected.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was 
agreed to.
  Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. That is all the amendments; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.

[[Page 12819]]




                              fort greely

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I would like to ask the Senator from Alaska to 
confirm my understanding of the intent of the provision regarding Fort 
Greely, AK, in section 1205 of this supplemental. I understand this 
provision will allow the Secretary of the Army to modify a previously 
made determination that the property in question was excess to the 
needs of the Army and surplus to the needs of the Federal Government. 
Modifying this decision will allow the Secretary of the Army to retain 
this property until such time as a determination is made as to whether 
this property is needed for any defense purpose.
  Is that the intent of this provision?
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator from Florida is correct. Clarifying the 
ability of the Army to retain this property will allow the Secretary of 
the Army to heat and otherwise maintain the buildings through the 
Alaska winter so that they are not irreparably damaged. This will allow 
the buildings to be preserved until a future decision is made.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Senator from Alaska for this 
clarification. I was concerned that this provision was an attempt to 
predetermine a missile defense deployment decision.
  Mr. LEVIN. I, too, thank the Senator from Florida for this 
clarification.


           WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT DISLOCATED WORKER FUNDING

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to enter into a colloquy with my 
good friend from Iowa, the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee 
on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and my friend from 
Pennsylvania, the ranking member of that subcommittee. I wonder if they 
will respond to a few questions regarding job training programs under 
the legislative jurisdiction of a subcommittee that I chair, the 
Subcommittee on Employment, Safety and Training.
  Mr. HARKIN. I will be delighted.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I know my friend agrees with me that the supplemental 
appropriations bill before us presents a difficult situation affecting 
programs funded by his Subcommittee. We both are very strong supporters 
of the $300 million in low-income energy assistance funding and the 
$161 million in title I education spending in the bill. That spending 
is urgently needed. The problem is that we must try to pay for that 
supplemental spending from a pot of money that is simply too small. The 
bill as reported by the Appropriations Committee thus would offset a 
portion of that important new spending by making a rescission from 
unspent funds in a job training program for dislocated workers. I know 
my friend is also a supporter of that important program, and I 
appreciate that the full Committee reiterated its support for the 
program in the committee report.
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes, my good friend is correct. We are now having to make 
some very, very difficult choices--really impossible choices--because 
the pot of resources we are working with is too small. And you have 
correctly stated both what the committee has done as well as the 
committee's strong support for the job training program for dislocated 
workers under the Workforce Investment Act. Our intent is to carefully 
monitor the need for dislocated worker assistance to ensure that this 
commitment is met and to take that need into account as we take up 
funding for fiscal year 2002.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator. As I understand it, one of the 
factors that the committee observed was a variation among the States in 
the rate at which each State was drawing down their dislocated worker 
funding allocations. My State of Minnesota, for example, has obligated 
virtually all of its dislocated worker funding for this program year 
and will have expended nearly 85 percent of its funding. Other States--
for a number of understandable reasons--are predicted to have 
significant unexpended balances by the end of the fiscal year. To avoid 
undue hardships for States, such as Minnesota, that have been expending 
funds at the expected pace, my understanding is that the bill contains 
a ``hold harmless'' provision. That is, it provides a mechanism for 
excess unspent funds to be re-alloted to States that have reached their 
limits up to the levels these States would have received but for the 
rescission. Is this correct?
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes. That is correct. In addition, subsequent to our full 
committee action, we received Congressional Budget Office scoring that 
has allowed inclusion of language postponing the rescission until the 
Secretary of Labor reallots the excess unexpended balances to the 
States. Our goal with respect to the Dislocated Worker Program has 
always been to try to ensure that no state finds itself without the 
resources to meet its obligations. We believe that is accomplished 
through the ``hold harmless'' provisions.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my good friend from Pennsylvania. Now I want 
to clarify how it is we find ourselves in this situation of having to 
make such difficult choices. Am I correct that at least part of the 
reason we are faced with a pot of resources that is so small is because 
of decisions made during the budgeting process to cap supplemental 
discretionary spending at $6.5 billion, to avoid triggering a 
governmentwide sequester during fiscal year 2001?
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes. My friend is absolutely correct.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. And, of course, it is also true that a huge portion of 
the supplemental appropriations is going to support defense spending; 
am I not correct? So, another part of the reason that we are faced with 
these difficult choices on where to find the resources to support 
urgently needed programs that provide a safety net for American 
families is because of the priority being given to defense spending; is 
that correct?
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Is it fair to say this is just the tip of the iceberg? 
That the truly perverse choices we are being asked to make today 
between educating our children, heating our homes, and training 
dislocated workers are ominous harbingers of things to come as the full 
impact of the $1.3 trillion tax cut is felt? Is that fair to say?
  Mr. HARKIN. Again, my good friend is absolutely correct. Many of us 
predicted during the debate on the tax cut that we would be facing 
precisely these impossible choices. It is upon us and it will only get 
worse.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my good friend. This is not a happy day, and I 
agree with the Senator's predictions that it will only get worse. I 
think we need to look for some solutions to this larger problem. It 
seems to me inevitable that we must re-visit the unfortunate fiscal and 
budgetary priorities that have been set.


                        Crisis in Army Aviation

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I had planned to offer an amendment to this 
supplemental appropriations that would have alleviated the emergency 
shortages of utility helicopters in the Army National Guard. Senators 
Leahy, Bond, Carnahan, Dodd, Lieberman, and Carper were cosponsors of 
the amendment and some have short statements that they will enter.
  Our amendment would have procured 20 new Blackhawks for those Guard 
units in States with the most serious shortages of modern lift 
helicopters. It is my understanding that there are between seven and 
nine States that are at a critical level, having no modern aviation 
assets.
  Delaware is one of those States. The people of my State expect the 
Army Guard to be there when emergencies hit. Unfortunately, the Army 
Guard may not be there because they do not have lift helicopters that 
are flyable. Let me repeat that and be more specific. Since January, 
the Delaware National Guard has had no more than two UH-1 Huey 
helicopters that were flyable--two out of a fleet of twenty-three, and 
they have had two only rarely. The norm has been one. One vintage 
Vietnam-era helicopter out of a fleet of twenty-three is all they have 
had to fly for 6 months--6 months. This is absolutely insupportable. 
Pilots cannot fly and stay proficient and the people who depend on the 
Guard can no longer be sure of their assistance in emergencies.
  A week ago, the Secretary of Defense released his amended budget for 
2002. Unfortunately, there was only enough

[[Page 12820]]

funding for 12 new Blackhawk helicopters for the Army. This is 
incredible. It is completely insufficient to deal with this problem. 
Over the next 5 years, the Army is retiring over 700 Vietnam-era 
helicopters that are no longer safe to fly, but nothing is replacing 
them. Instead of the 330 Blackhawks that are needed--130 for the active 
duty and 200 for the National Guard--less than 70, or about twenty 
percent of the requirement, are funded.
  I have a copy of a letter sent to all of the leaders of the 
congressional defense committees and the appropriations committees that 
details this critical problem. It describes the concern these generals 
have that their ability to do their national security missions today is 
severely impaired and that the situation will only get worse and 
qualified pilots and technicians leave the Guard because they are not 
able to do their missions or even train for them. The letter was signed 
by the 50 Adjutant Generals of the United States.
  I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                        National Guard Association


                                         of the United States,

                                Washington, DC, February 27, 2001.
     Hon. Daniel K. Inouye,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Defense, Committee on 
         Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Inouye: The FY2001 Army Aviation Modernization 
     Plan requires the Army National Guard to significantly reduce 
     its aviation force structure by retiring over 700 grounded 
     Vietnam vintage utility aircraft by FY2004. These aircraft 
     have been replaced by requirements for 330 UH-60L utility and 
     HH-60L MEDEVAC helicopters. However, less than 20% of these 
     helicopters are funded from FY2002 through FY2007. Virtually 
     every state is currently short of its required H-60 
     helicopters, and many states' capability to perform their 
     national security mission including protecting our nation 
     against the threat of weapons of mass destruction is severely 
     impaired by the lack of flyable aircraft.
       The H-60 helicopter is the number 1 unfunded equipment 
     requirement in the Army National Guard. As the Defense 
     Committees discuss the FY2001 supplemenal and the FY2002 
     defense budget, we request your support in two areas. First, 
     to add the procurement of 20 additional UH-60L Black Hawk 
     utility helicopters ($204 million) and 6 HH-60L (formerly UH-
     60Q) MEDEVAC helicopters ($95.4 million) for the Army 
     National Guard to the budget. This will help alleviate an 
     immediate shortfall within the Army National Guard. Second, 
     to fix this problem in the long term we need your support for 
     a multi-year procurement of H-60s at a rate of 60 aircraft 
     per year for the next five years.
       This problem has reached a critical phase. Without the 
     procurement of additional H-60 aircraft for our aviation 
     force to train and utilize, we will soon face a significant 
     loss of valuable pilots and technicians. Your support in 
     funding will assist in our efforts to continue to modernize 
     the aging National Guard fleet and provide our nation with 
     the best equipped and most relevant National Guard force.
           Sincerely,
         Major General Ronald O. Harrison, The Adjutant General of 
           Florida and President, National Guard Association of 
           the United States; Major General Stephen P. Cortright, 
           The Adjutant General of Oklahoma and President, The 
           Adjutants General Association; Brigadier General 
           Randall Horn, The Adjutant General of New Mexico; 
           Brigadier General Giles E. Vanderhoof, The Adjutant 
           General of Nevada; Brigadier General Martha T. 
           Rainville, The Adjutant General of Vermont; Major 
           General Warren L. Freeman, Commanding General 
           Washington, DC; Major General Paul D. Monroe, Jr., The 
           Adjutant General of California; Major General Mason C. 
           Whitney, The Adjutant General of Colorado; Major 
           General David P. Poythress, The Adjutant General of 
           Georgia; Major General Benny M. Paulino, The Adjutant 
           General of Guam; Major General Edward L. Correa, Jr., 
           The Adjutant General of Hawaii; Major General Ron 
           Dardis, The Adjutant General of Iowa; Major General 
           Eugene R. Andreotti, The Adjutant General of Minnesota; 
           Major General John D. Havens, The Adjutant General of 
           Missouri; Major General John E. Prendergast, The 
           Adjutant General of Montana; Major General Gerald A. 
           Rudisill, Jr., The Adjutant General of North Carolina; 
           Brigadier General Michael J. Haugen, The Adjutant 
           General of North Dakota; Major General William A. 
           Cugno, The Adjutant General of Connecticut; Major 
           General John H.V. Fenimore, The Adjutant General of New 
           York; Major General Philip G. Killey, The Adjutant 
           General of South Dakota; Major General Jackie D. Wood, 
           The Adjutant General of Tennessee; Major General Daniel 
           James III, The Adjutant General of Texas; Brigadier 
           General Brian L. Tarbet, The Adjutant General of Utah; 
           Major General Claude A. Williams, The Adjutant General 
           of Virginia; COL (P) Cleave A. McBean, The Adjutant 
           General of the Virgin Islands; Brigadier General Roger 
           P. Lempke, The Adjutant General of Nebraska; Major 
           General Paul J. Glazar, The Adjutant General of New 
           Jersey; Major General Timothy J. Lowenberg, The 
           Adjutant General of Washington; Major General Walter 
           Pudlowski, Commander, 28th ID Pennsylvania National 
           Guard; Major General Alexander H. Burgin, The Adjutant 
           General of Oregon; Major General Francis D. Vavala, The 
           Adjutant General of Delaware; Major General Edmond 
           Boenisch, The Adjutant General of Wyoming; Major 
           General Allen E. Tackett, The Adjutant General of West 
           Virginia; Major General James G. Blaney, The Adjutant 
           General of Wisconsin; Major General John F. Kane, The 
           Adjutant General of Idaho; Major General Don C. Morrow, 
           The Adjutant General of Arkansas; Major General Willie 
           A. Alexander, The Adjutant General of Alabama; Major 
           General E. Gordon Stump, The Adjutant General of 
           Michigan; Major General James F. Fretterd, The Adjutant 
           General of Maryland; Major General John R. Groves, Jr., 
           The Adjutant General of Kentucky; Major General Robert 
           J. Mitchell, The Adjutant General of Indiana; Major 
           General John H. Smith, The Adjutant General of Ohio; 
           Major General David P. Rataczak, The Adjutant General 
           of Arizona; Major General Phillip E. Oates, The 
           Adjutant General of Alaska; Major General James H. 
           Lipscomb III, The Adjutant General of Mississippi; 
           Major General Joseph E. Tinkham II, The Adjutant 
           General of Maine; Major General Bennett C. Landreneau, 
           The Adjutant General of Louisiana; Brigadier General 
           Gary A. Pappas, Deputy Commander, Massachusetts 
           National Guard; Major General Gregory B. Gardner, The 
           Adjutant General of Kansas; COL (P) Francisco A. 
           Marquez, The Adjutant General of Puerto Rico.
  Mr. BIDEN. I have repeatedly asked the Army how it plans to address 
the immediate needs of States like Delaware and the larger issue of a 
clear crisis in Army aviation. A crisis that impacts the readiness of 
our Army today and in the future. It was my hope that we would have a 
plan early this year. Nine months later, I am still waiting for a 
comprehensive plan from the Army and I see no evidence that the new 
budget addresses this problem.
  I ask the distinguished Chairman of the Defense Appropriations 
Subcommittee, who I know has long supported adequate funding for our 
National Guard units, to seriously consider the problem this amendment 
was intended to address. Twenty new Blackhawks this year is only the 
tip of the iceberg, but I believe we have a genuine crisis on our 
hands. It was an emergency nine months ago and it has only gotten worse 
today. Certainly, that is true in the state of Delaware and I have 
heard nothing from the Army to make me think that the same is not true 
in aviation units throughout the nation.
  If, as I understand to be the case, the distinguished managers of 
this bill believe that this funding cannot be designated as emergency 
funding, then I hope that they will pledge to adequately address this 
issue within the fiscal year 2002 defense budget. I cannot go home to 
Delaware and tell them that we are aware of this crisis, have been for 
almost a year, and yet did nothing and have no plans to do anything. 
This problem must be addressed this year.
  Mr. INOUYE. The Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense has 
consistently been a strong supporter of, and advocate for, the National 
Guard. We have historically provided significant additional funding for 
the National Guard where critical shortfalls were identified.
  As my distinguished colleague from Delaware is aware, we have only 
recently received the budget request for the Department of Defense and 
there are ongoing discussions as to what the top line will ultimately 
be for fiscal year 2002. However, we have appropriated additional 
funding for National Guard Blackhawks for several years;

[[Page 12821]]

for example, in fiscal year 2001, the Defense Appropriations Committee 
added funding for the purchase of 6 additional Blackhawks for the Guard 
and for 11 aircraft in fiscal year 2000. I agree with you that the 
National Guard must be provided sufficient funding to carry out their 
important responsibilities and aviation missions and we will do all 
that we can to address your concerns in the fiscal year 2002 
Appropriations bill.
  Mr. BIDEN. I thank my colleague, and with his assurances, I will not 
offer this amendment. I do so only because of his assurances that we 
will deal with this aviation crisis in the fiscal year 2002 defense 
bill and because I believe this supplemental is so vital to our 
military that I do not wish to endanger its speedy passage.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I enthusiastically support Senator Biden's 
colloquy. As a cochair of the Senate Guard Caucus, I find it alarming 
that of the 1,885 Army National Guard helicopters nationwide, over a 
1,000 were recently reported as grounded because of a lack of spare 
parts. As recently as May it was reported that only 40 percent of the 
fleet of Army National Guard helicopters were flying.
  Our skyrocketing maintenance costs require ever increasing resources 
just to maintain our aging fleet. Consequently our modernization 
accounts remain insufficient to replace aging aircraft, creating a 
viscious cycle. Senator Biden's effort today draws needed attention to 
the alarming trends that we have seen in Army aviation within the past 
few years.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to lend my support to the 
spirit and intentions of the Biden amendment. The National Guard 
suffers from a serious shortage of helicopters, and it is critical that 
the Senate do more to address this threat to the readiness of the 
citizen-soldier force.
  The National Guard needs at least an additional 200 helicopters. This 
is not a number pulled out of thin air. It is the minimum number of 
aircraft needed to carry out the Army Aviation Modernization Plan, 
which was developed by the office of the Chief of Staff of the Army. It 
is the road map for the entire Army's helicopter inventory for the next 
50 years. The plan will streamline the Army's aviation regiments. It 
reduces the overall number of helicopters in the Army's inventory, 
including the National Guard, while increasing capabilities through 
technological advances. Specifically, the service will retire 700 
Vietnam-era UH-1 Hueys, in exchange for 330 advanced UH-60L Blackhawks.
  In streamlining and modernizing this force, the plan reaffirms the 
critical role of our citizen-soldiers in our Nation's defense. It 
recognizes that the National Guard is doing more than ever to defend 
the Nation, whether at home or abroad. Indeed, every Member of the U.S. 
Senate will can tell you what a difference advanced helicopters have 
made in a flood or medical emergency, while every field commander will 
similarly point out the critically important role of National Guard 
aviation assets in a combat environment.
  But the plan also has a much more practical bent. It seeks to avoid a 
looming crisis in National Guard aviation. The Guard's current 
inventory of UH-1 Blackhawk and AH-1 Cobra helicopters is old, 
expensive, and increasingly unsafe to operate. Units that possess 
upwards of 15 aging Huey and Cobra helicopters, may have only 2 to 6 
aircraft actually flying. By legislative mandate, the National Guard 
must remove all of these obsolete aircraft from the flight-line by 
2004. Even when these units take full advantage of additional Kiowa 
helicopters, they will be hard-pressed to maintain qualified pilots and 
an acceptable state of readiness when newer aircraft do not arrive to 
replace them.
  Given the Army's sensible plans and the looming dangers to National 
Guard aviation readiness, I have been surprised and disappointed by the 
Army's reluctance to buy more UH-1's. For the past several fiscal 
years, the Army has requested only 10 helicopters a year. In this 
fiscal year, the service has asked for a 12. It will take well over 20 
years to complete the plan at that pace.
  I am especially disappointed by this meager request because the 
National Guard Caucus, including members with helicopter units in their 
States, have expressed its concern to the Army several occasions. At 
every one of these briefings, meetings, and extended discussions Army 
leaders have admitted that a serious problem exists. Yet, when the 
budget request moved forward, we get this paltry number.
  I recognize that fiscal realities limit what Congress can do to 
rectify this situation on the supplemental. Nonetheless, I urge the 
Senate to examine this situation closely when it reviews the fiscal 
year 2002 defense budget. I look forward to working with the Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee, fellow Guard caucus cochair Senator Bond, 
and longtime caucus member Senator Biden on this issue. I thank Senator 
Biden in particular for offering this amendment and bring further 
attention to this problem.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I offered an amendment to the 
supplemental appropriations bill to increase funding for the Global 
Fund for AIDS, TB and malaria. My amendment was an attempt to get this 
Senate to put its money where its mouth is, and in a fiscally 
responsible fashion to make a significant contribution to the 
multilateral effort to fight the AIDS pandemic--a contribution that 
could leverage more funds from other donors. In the wake of the recent 
U.N. special session on AIDS, it seemed especially appropriate to take 
concrete action rather than rely on mere rhetoric.
  The amendment failed, but I do not want that vote to leave anyone 
with the impression that there is no will in this Senate to address the 
global AIDS pandemic. Some were uncomfortable with the offset, which 
involved rescinding funds from the troubled V-22 Osprey procurement 
program for the remainder of the 2001 fiscal year. I believed that the 
offset was reasonable. Some were uncomfortable with the emergency 
designation in the amendment. The emergency designation was necessary, 
because the bill was already up against the cap on non-defense 
spending. It was also accurate. The AIDS pandemic is, unquestionably, 
an emergency.
  While these issues may have led my amendment to defeat today, I do 
believe that this Senate will take meaningful action to address this 
crisis. The very fact that the supplemental contains $100 million for 
the Global Fund is a testament to the efforts of the appropriators and 
the leadership. Indeed, I suspect that many Senators, including many 
colleagues who opposed my amendment, are left uneasy by the AIDS-
related consequences of the vote on my amendment, and I believe that 
unease will only strengthen our collective resolve to work together, in 
a bipartisan and inclusive fashion, to make certain that the U.S. takes 
meaningful action to strengthen prevention efforts, improve AIDS 
awareness and education, increase global access to treatment, support 
vaccine research, improve health infrastructure, provide services to 
orphans, and support the Global Fund at an appropriate level--one far 
exceeding $200 million.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of language 
which was included in the manager's amendment to S. 1007. I am pleased 
that Senators Byrd and Stevens have agree to accept my language which 
will extend compensation to Department of Energy employees and DoE 
contractor employees who suffered kidney cancer due to exposure to 
radiation while working at a DoE defense nuclear facility or nuclear 
weapons testing site.
  Last year, Congress passed the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 
Compensation Program Act as part of the FY 2001 Department of Defense 
Authorization bill. This measure provides $150,000 lump sum payments as 
well as payments for medical coverage to Department of Energy Workers 
who were made ill as a result of exposure to radiation. Unfortunately, 
when the final version of the bill was drafted the list of covered 
diseases mistakenly did not include kidney cancer. This was 
unintentional, and the amendment I have offered will correct this 
oversight.
  The EEOICPA is well on its way toward implementation. Just last week,

[[Page 12822]]

the Department of Labor opened a resource center in Paducah, KY which 
will assist workers and their families who were made sick from exposure 
to radiation while working at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant. As 
many have pointed out, the employees who worked at these facilities 
producing the technology which helped America win the Cold War deserve 
a grateful Nation's support and appreciation. This must include 
compensation for those workers and their families who may have 
contracted cancer as a result of their employment.
  Again, I thank the managers for their agreement on this important 
issues of fairness.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the 
supplemental appropriations bill's inclusion of $84 million for the 
bankrupt Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust Fund.
  From the 1940s through 1971, uranium miners, Federal employees who 
participated in above-ground nuclear tests, and downwinders from the 
Nevada test site were exposed to dangerous levels of radiation. As a 
result of this exposure, these individuals contracted debilitating and 
too often deadly radiation-related cancers and other diseases.
  These folks helped build our nuclear arsenal--the nuclear arsenal 
that is responsible, at least in part, for ending the cold war. In 
1990, Congress recognized their contribution by passing the Radiation 
Exposure Compensation Act to ensure that these individuals and their 
families were indemnified for their sacrifice and suffering.
  However, the RECA Trust Fund ran out of money in May, 2000. 
Consequently, for over a year most eligible claimants have been 
receiving nothing more than a five-line IOU from the Justice Department 
explaining that no payments will be made until Congress provides the 
necessary funds. Some of these claimants are dying while awaiting their 
payments.
  Frankly, this is unconscionable. Those who helped protect our 
Nation's security through their work on our nuclear programs must be 
compensated for the enormous price they paid. Anything less is 
unacceptable.
  The $84 million in supplemental appropriations would help rectify 
this grave injustice by paying all of last year's approved claims as 
well as the estimated claims for fiscal year 2001.
  Passage of this appropriations bill does not end Congress' work. We 
must also pass the Domenici-authored S. 448 or the Hatch-Domenici bill, 
S. 898. Both of these bills would make all future payments to approved 
RECA claimants mandatory and, thus, not subject to the annual 
appropriations process.
  It is imperative that America not forget those who have tragically 
suffered from their work on our Nation's behalf. This supplemental bill 
is a good step in the right direction.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I take this opportunity to express 
my support of the fiscal year 2001 supplemental appropriations bill. 
This bill contains funding, not only for the defense and security of 
our country, but also funding for the health and well being of American 
citizens.
  This bill contains funding I supported in committee for two issues 
that are vital to many in my home State of Colorado. I am referring 
first to the funding for the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, RECA. 
Far too many people, especially in the West, now suffer from terminal 
illnesses that are the result of their work as miners who collected and 
transported uranium ore that was used in the production of weapons for 
our Nation's defense. For many, the risk of working with radioactive 
materials was unknown, hidden or minimized. The $84 million included in 
this bill will pay the IOU's our Nation made to these terminally ill 
workers in lieu of money. We, as a Nation, have a history of issuing 
IOU's a shameful practice of which I am sure I don't need to remind my 
colleagues. As a Nation we can and must do more than issue IOU's. 
Hundreds of these beneficiaries live in Colorado and they are in 
desperate need of that money that was promised to them last year. Dying 
has a way of making people desperate, especially when the money 
promised them in useless IOU's could be used for their care. There are 
many times we in this body act because we can. In this matter, we have 
the opportunity to act because we ought to.
  I thank my friends and colleagues, Senators Domenici and Bingaman, 
for their assistance and support with this, as many of their 
constituents are claimants as well.
  I would also like to express my strong support for additional funding 
for USDA's Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). The $35 
million included in this bill will allow APHIS to strengthen border 
inspections and improve monitoring of emerging animal and plant 
diseases, including Mad Cow disease, Foot-and-Mouth disease, and other 
livestock diseases. There has never been a case of Mad Cow disease in 
the United States, and there has not been an outbreak of Foot-and-Mouth 
Disease since 1929. But, considering the potentially disastrous effects 
if either disease spreads to our country, we must do everything we can 
to protect the American food supply. As a rancher myself, and having 
heard from fellow cattlemen, I share their growing concern about the 
potential devastating impact of these diseases. Colorado is home to 
12,000 beef producers and 3.15 million head of cattle--more than the 
human population of 20 of our States. We must do all we can to protect 
them. I would like to thank my friend and colleague Senator Kohl for 
his support and assistance in this effort.
  Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to Chairman Byrd and 
Senator Stevens for their leadership and support of this bill and 
particularly for their support of funding for RECA and APHIS.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this 
important funding bill.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I want to first express my 
appreciation to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee for his 
work on the fiscal year 2001 supplemental appropriations bill. It is 
only through his persistence and determination that we are able to 
bring this bill to floor within the spending limits proposed by the 
President.
  I want to specifically thank Chairman Byrd for his work on an issue 
of great importance to California. This bill includes $20 million in 
disaster assistance to crop growers in the Klamath Basin of northern 
California and southern Oregon who are faced with a total loss of 
income resulting from a lack of water. I am very grateful that Chairman 
Byrd saw the true emergency in this situation.
  This year, the Klamath Basin is facing one of the worst, if not the 
worst drought in the Klamath River Project's 90-year history. Federal 
disaster declarations have been issued by the USDA for Modoc and 
Siskiyou Counties in California and Klamath County, OR. Economic losses 
to the farming communities have been estimated at up to $220 million.
  Over 200,000 acres of farmland are irrigated in the Klamath River 
Basin. There are roughly 1500 farming families in the Klamath 
Irrigation Project.
  The Endangered Species Act requires the Bureau of Reclamation to 
review its programs with consultation from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, with the obligation 
to protect endangered species. In Klamath this includes two species of 
suckerfish, the coho salmon, and the bald eagle. In addition to the 
Endangered Species Act, the Bureau of Reclamation must protect tribal 
fishing and water rights.
  What little rainfall that has occurred this year must be first 
applied to minimize endangered fish species losses and then to 
mandatory Tribal Treaty obligations. This leaves literally no water for 
about 85 percent of the Klamath Project-dependent farmers. And this 
problem is not going to go away. Based on Bureau of Reclamation 
estimates, there will not be enough water for all users in 7 out of the 
next 10 years in the Klamath Basin.
  Lack of water in the Klamath Basin is a problem that requires a long 
term solution. I am committed to working with the administration and my 
colleagues here in the Senate to develop that solution.
  Unfortunately, a long-term solution will not help the farmers today. 
That is

[[Page 12823]]

why this assistance is so critical and so necessary. I am grateful that 
Chairman Byrd recognizes this need. I want to again thank the chairman 
for making this assistance possible.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to clarify a 
provision of the fiscal year 2002 supplemental appropriations bill 
regarding human space flight funding within the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration NASA. In its report, the Appropriations 
Committee included language removing a restriction placed on $40 
million in fiscal year 2000 Human Space Flight funding. The restriction 
required these funds to be used for a dedicated shuttle research 
mission. With various delays in the shuttle manifest, the STS 107 
mission has been rescheduled for May 2002. Removing the restriction 
will allow NASA to use the $40 million to cover costs associated with 
the delay of STS 107 mission and for research to be conducted abroad 
the International Space Station.
  The followon shuttle dedicated research mission, also known as ``R 
2,'' is now not expected to fly until at least 2004. This mission was 
intended as a ``gap-filler'' to support the scientific community during 
construction of the International Space Station. At the same time, the 
agency is proposing to decrease funding for Space Station research in 
order to pay for cost overuns associated with building the vehicle 
itself. The life and microgravity science community is already under 
funded. Continuing to delay the ``R 2'' mission will only exacerbate 
the research community's already strained situation.
  While I do not oppose this reprogramming request, I agree with my 
colleagues on the Appropriations Committee about the need to balance 
such requests with maintaining life and microgravity research conducted 
aboard the shuttle and space station. While NASA certainly needs to 
meet its obligations, I am concerned that the redirection of these 
funds will ultimately preclude NASA from pursuing the dedicated 
research flight entirely. The Senate language associated with the 
supplemental appropriations bill directs NASA to consult with Congress 
on the research planned for the R 2 mission in the context of the 
future funding required to support space station research. I expect 
NASA to continue to work on the R 2 mission, or a suitable equivalent, 
and look forward to working with NASA and my colleagues on the 
Appropriations Committee in receiving and reviewing these research 
plans.


                    ISRAELI PURCHASES OF U.S. GRAIN

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have offered an amendment to the fiscal 
year 2001 supplemental appropriations bill regarding the purchase of 
U.S. grain by Israel. This issue is of concern because Israel has 
stated its intention to cut its U.S. grain purchases by more than 22 
percent in the current year.
  Historically, in every year since the Camp David Accords of 1978, 
Israel has agreed to purchase 1.6 million metric tons of grain grown by 
American farmers and to ship at least half that amount in United 
States-flag commercial vessels. These are purchases important to 
American agriculture and to the U.S. citizen merchant mariners critical 
to our national security. Every year, these purchases have been 
consistent, until now.
  Starting in 1979, and in every year since then, Israel has entered 
into a side letter agreement with the United States for the purchase of 
grain, recognizing that the cash transfer economic assistance Israel 
has received replaced, in part, a previous commodity import assistance 
program for Israel.
  Despite a level of U.S. aid in every year since 1984 that has been 
higher than the 1979-1983 level, Israel never increased grain imports. 
Had proportionality been the test, Israel's purchases should have 
reached 2.45 million tons at least at one point. The commitment to 
purchase never grew as Israel's economic support fund assistance grew. 
America, in generous friendship, didn't push for those purchases to 
grow. And, as economic assistance to Israel has recently decreased, 
Israel's commitment to purchase didn't change until now.
  The Government of Israel has announced its intention to reduce grain 
purchases by more than 22 percent this year, from 1.6 million tons to 
1.24 million tons. This is not proportional, but disproportional. U.S. 
economic assistance to Israel has declined only 12.5 percent this year. 
If Israel's purchases of U.S. grain were not tied to increasing levels 
of U.S. economic aid, then those purchases should not be tied to a 
recent downward fluctuation in economic aid. Such an overreaction 
ignores history, is disappointing in view of our long-term friendship 
and overall relationship, and ignores the express intent of this 
Congress in providing aid in the past. Several times in recent years, 
Congress has enacted laws providing that, in administering assistance, 
the President would guard against an adverse impact on such exports 
from the United States to Israel.
  The amendment I offered this week simply would have reiterated for 
fiscal year 2001 the past Congressional commitment that this year's 
side letter agreement should be in accordance with terms as favorable 
as last year's agreement. I was prepared to pursue that amendment 
further. I remain concerned and disappointed over this year's side 
letter. However, with most of fiscal year 2001 past, with the need for 
this supplemental bill to move quickly for the benefit of our national 
defense and our men and women in uniform, and based upon discussions 
with the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Foreign Operations 
Subcommittee, I would be willing to withhold at this time. I would like 
to yield to those two colleagues for a discussion on this matter.
  Mr. LEAHY. The Senator is correct in stating that Congress, and our 
subcommittee, has had a longstanding interest in this area and has 
consistently monitored this issue. We are prepared to turn very shortly 
to consideration of the fiscal year 2002 foreign operations 
appropriation bill. I believe that would be the best vehicle for 
consideration of this issue, in the regular order, when we can consider 
all the policy ramifications for the entire, upcoming year. I can 
assure the Senator of our continued attention to this matter, and of 
thoughtful, thorough consideration.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I appreciate the Senator of Idaho's concerns, and give 
him my assurances that we will work together on this issue. Coming from 
a farming State myself, I fully understand his interests in the 
purchase of American grain by Israel. Senator Leahy and I anticipate 
that within the next few weeks the Subcommittee will mark up the fiscal 
year 2002 foreign operations bill, and we look forward to working with 
the Senator toward an acceptable resolution of this matter.
  Mr. CRAIG. I appreciate my colleagues' comments and their willingness 
to address this issue again. I withdraw my amendment and thank them for 
their consideration.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to comment 
specifically on Chapter 1 of the supplemental appropriations 
legislation, S. 1077, and the provision of funding for the Radiation 
Exposure Compensation Act, or RECA as it is more commonly known.
  Since the enactment of RECA in 1990 and the subsequent amendments in 
2000, thousands of Americans have received compensation based on their 
unknowing exposure to harmful radiation caused by the government's 
nuclear production and testing activities.
  As many of my colleagues will recall, last year, Congress passed the 
Radiation Exposure Compensation Amendments of 2000, S. 1515. This law 
made important changes to the original 1990 Act by updating the list of 
compensable illnesses--primarily cancers--based on scientific and 
medical information gathered over the past decade.
  However, even before the enactment of RECA 2000, the Trust Fund 
became financially depleted. Starting in the Spring of last year, 
approved claimants began receiving ``IOUs'' from the Department of 
Justice rather than their checks.
  Many of us are totally dismayed that the RECA Trust Fund is depleted. 
It is totally unfair for the government to issue IOUs rather than 
checks to the hundreds and potentially thousands of

[[Page 12824]]

individuals who are expected to be approved for compensation.
  I know that my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee agree, and 
that is why they have included $84 million for RECA claims in this 
bill. It is my understanding that these funds are the amount necessary 
to cover all approved claims pending at the Justice Department through 
the end of this fiscal year. And that is good news.
  The bad news is that we still face a shortfall in funding over the 
course of the next 10 years. That is why I introduced legislation, S. 
898, along with my distinguished colleagues Senator Domenici and 
Senator Daschle to provide permanent funding for the RECA trust fund. 
Such action would provide certainty to the thousands of claimants for 
whom the program was enacted 10 years ago.
  As I am sure my colleagues recognize, for the Federal Government to 
promise compassionate compensation to the RECA downwinders and workers 
and then not honor that commitment is simply unacceptable. It is 
inexcusable for the government to pledge this compensation and then 
issue nothing more than a simple IOU. This strikes at the very heart of 
our citizens' ability to have confidence in their government.
  I have met with many of the RECA claimants in my state. It does not 
take long to see the pain and suffering they have endured over the 
years. This pain and suffering, I would add, has taken a toll on their 
lives and the lives of their families as well. Most of these 
individuals are now retired; they live on modest incomes and fear that 
their declining health will only exacerbate their limited family 
finances.
  And let us not ignore the overwhelming and personal human tragedy 
that many of these individuals already have died as a result of the 
injuries they sustained while working for the government's nuclear 
production program. Today, we have the opportunity to right a wrong 
through passage of this legislation, and I hope that we do so at the 
earliest opportunity.
  In closing, I particularly want to thank my good friend Senator 
Domenici, and his excellent staff, for their work on the Appropriations 
Committee in securing these funds. Senator Domenici and I have worked 
together since 1990 on RECA. We have done so in the name of thousands 
of individuals across many states who were literally innocent victims 
of our nation's nuclear weapons program. I am appreciative for all 
Senator Domenici has done to make this program the success it has been.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, my amendment to the bill will redesignate 
Building 1500 at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, VA, as the 
Norman Sisisky Engineering and Management Building. I am joined by my 
Virginia colleague, Senator George Allen.
  As a Navy veteran of World War II, Congressman Sisisky was proud to 
be a part of one of the most extraordinary chapters in American 
history, when America was totally united at home in support of our 16 
million men and women in uniform on battlefields in Europe and on the 
high seas in the Pacific--all, at home and abroad, fighting to preserve 
freedom.
  During our 18 years serving together, Congressman Sisisky's goal, our 
goal, was to provide for the men and women in uniform and their 
families.
  The last 50 years have proven time and again that one of America's 
greatest investments was the G.I. Bill of Rights, originated during 
World War II, which enabled service men and women to gain an education 
such that they could rebuild America's economy. The G.I. Bill was but 
one of the many benefits that Congressman Sisisky fought for and made a 
reality for today's soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines.
  His strength in public life was supported by his wonderful family; 
his lovely wife Rhoda and four accomplished children. They were always 
by his side offering their love, support, and counsel.
  He worked tirelessly throughout Virginia's 4th District, however, 
there was always a special bond to the military installations under his 
charge. As a former sailor, the Norfolk Naval Shipyard was high among 
his priorities. He knew the workers by name and the monthly workload in 
the yard. In consultation with his family and delegation members, we 
chose this building at the shipyard as a most appropriate memorial to 
our friend and colleague.
  I waited until the special election was concluded so the entire 
Virginia delegation could join together on this legislation.
  Norman Sisisky was always a leader for the delegation on matters of 
national security. We are honored to join in this bi-partisan effort to 
remember Congressman Norman Sisisky and his life's work; ensuring the 
Nation's security and the welfare of the men and women in uniform and 
their families.
  Along with my remarks, I would like to include the remarks of the 
Commander Chief of the Atlantic Fleet, Admiral Bob Natter. Admiral 
Natter worked very closely with Norman Sisisky throughout his career 
and joins me and the entire Virginia delegation in supporting the 
naming of Building 1500; the Norman Sisisky Engineering and Management 
building.
  Admiral Bob Natter, Commander in Chief, Atlantic Fleet writes:
  It is highly fitting to name the Norfolk Naval Shipyard's Engineering 
and Management building at the Navy's oldest and most historic shipyard 
after Representative Norman Sisisky. Mr. Sisisky was on hand in 1983 
for the dedication and ribbon cutting of this building, which has 
become the most recognizable building on the shipyard. His dedication 
and service to our Navy, this great shipyard, and its many employees 
mirror the Norfolk Naval Shipyard motto of ``Service to the Fleet, any 
ship, anytime, anywhere.''
  From improvements in quality of life to technology that have made 
Norfork Naval Shipyard one of the finest yards in the nation, Mr. 
Sisisky strongly supported the best interests of our Navy and our 
Nation. Among a wide range of projects at the shipyard, he supported a 
new bachelor enlisted quarters which today houses 300 Sailors and 
served as a model for the entire Navy. He was an ardent supporter of a 
waterfront improvement project that significantly expanded shipyard 
capabilities, including the capacity to conduct simultaneous repairs on 
two DDG 51 class ships. He was personally dedicated to keeping this 
great public shipyard competitive, in cost and in unparalleled quality.
  Perhaps most of all, the Sailors of the Atlantic Fleet and the 
dedicated men and women of the Norfolk Naval Shipyard who work 
tirelessly on our ships and submarines knew Norm Sisisky was their 
strongest supporter and would fight for their best interests. His 
presence at nearly every important Navy event in the community made him 
a popular, recognizable and appreciated friend among uniformed Sailors 
and civilians alike. He has made an indelible mark on this community 
and a lasting contribution to the Atlantic Fleet. We are honored to 
have this centerpiece of the Norfork Naval Shipyard named after Norman 
Sisisky, a great patriot who will forever be remembered as a great 
friend of the Navy.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the supplemental 
appropriations bill which we will vote on today includes much needed 
funding for education.
  Federal support to improve the educational opportunities of 
disadvantaged students is provided under title I of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act. Earlier this year, the Department of Education 
announced the allocation of title I funds for qualified schools. The 
Department was forced to make cuts in the expected funding for all of 
these school districts, due to a shortfall in the amounts appropriated 
for this purpose last year.
  This bill provides $161 million to cover that shortfall; $2.4 million 
of these funds will be allocated to schools in my State. With this 
funding, schools in Mississippi will be able to continue to provide 
essential learning resources to students from preschool through 12th 
grade.
  In April of this year, in his capacity as chairman of the Senate 
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and

[[Page 12825]]

Human Services, Education and Related Agencies, Senator Specter 
authorized me to chair a hearing in Mississippi to examine the 
effectiveness of title I in my State. Our panel of witnesses included 
Mississippi Department of Education officials and local school 
superintendents. The resounding message from the hearing was that title 
I funds are vital to making good learning opportunities available to 
all of Mississippi's students.
  One of the most compelling statements was that of Yazoo City School 
Superintendent, Dr. Daniel Watkins who told of his experience at 
Montgomery Elementary School in Louise, MS. I want to share with the 
Senate some of his testimony, which I quote here:

       I began my educational career in 1964 in Louise. My mother 
     was a single parent with 7 children.
       My first 3 years at elementary school, I had a severe 
     speech impediment that allowed me to be quiet when I knew 
     answers. But I do remember, through title I funding, a speech 
     pathologist, to bring me out of my shyness. Again, I grew up 
     in a small delta town called Louise, with my mother being the 
     mother, the father, a provider and whatever else she needed 
     to be. Besides school, our work consisted of working in the 
     cotton fields.
       My mother drove a school bus and worked in the school's 
     cafeteria. One of the happiest days of my mother's life was 
     when she received her GED. Needless to say, she stressed 
     education daily and yearly throughout my grade school life. 
     There were many needs in our school system back then, to the 
     extent that I did not quite understand, but I have since 
     learned that through the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act, the Federal Government reduced many of these needs. In 
     later years, I have seen the happiness of my mother as she 
     observes her daughter working with a parenting program in 
     Louisville, Mississippi, and two of her sons receiving 
     Ph.D's. Without the increasing help of title I, none of these 
     could have been achieved in the lives a poor Delta family.

  Hearing Dr. Watkins' personal experiences is helpful in understanding 
the real life consequences of title I and what it can do to broaden the 
horizons of a young student. Dr. Watkins' story is, I think, a 
marvelous testimony to the success of title I.
  Dr. Watkins and the other witnesses at that hearing went on to tell 
in just as riveting testimony newer stories of title I providing the 
resources to reduce dropout rates, provide tutoring, increase literacy 
of parents and students, enhance teachers' skills, and overall increase 
the likelihood of high achievement among the most disadvantaged 
students.
  I am happy to provide the Senate with some of the good news about 
title I and I am very pleased that this bill will allow the 
continuation of the much needed services it provides.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I sincerely thank Chairman Byrd and his 
staff, Galen Fountain and Chuck Kieffer, for all their hard work and 
consideration on this bill. I would especially like to thank the 
Chairman for his understanding the needs of my constituents in the 
Klamath Basin and thereby including these much needed payments in this 
bill. I would also thank Senator Stevens and his staff, Rebecca Davies, 
for their understanding and support.
  This amendment provides $20,000,000 for the farmer families in the 
Klamath Basin. While the Secretary has the discretion to disseminate 
this money as she sees fit, I am pleased that we have an understanding 
with the Bush administration that this money will be distributed as 
grants or direct payments but not as loans.
  The Klamath Basin stretches between southern Oregon and northern 
California. The water in the Basin is managed primarily by the 
Department of Interior's Bureau of Reclamation. The management of this 
water has assured the continuation of a significant agricultural 
community in the Basin. But this growing season the Basin is home to 
1,500 growers and their families whose farms are parched. It is home to 
three National Wildlife Refuges and fish bearing lakes and rivers that 
are also parched. There is not enough water to go around.
  I, and several colleagues, fought so hard for the $20,000,000 
contained in this bill for these farmer families because this money 
provides our farmers the assurances they need to get through this 
season. It provides the Basin farmers with the safety net they need as 
the tightrope between agriculture and the environment is traversed. 
This $20,000,000 safety net is necessary to keep these folks alive 
while the larger natural resource issues evident in the Klamath Basin 
are debated and ecological balance in the Basin is pursued. There is a 
balance that can and should be struck and this money is, unfortunately, 
a necessary step on that long and arduous journey.
  There is a precedent for this appropriation in other USDA 
conservation programs. For instance, this money may be able to be used 
by the Secretary to purchase, under short term contracts, water 
easements for the sake of water conservation in the Basin. In this way, 
the money will get directly to the farmer much like land easement 
payments under the conservation Reserve Program are made directly to 
the farmer.
  I am pleased to be joined by my colleague and friend from Oregon, 
Senator Smith, and my colleagues and friends from California, Senators 
Feinstein and Boxer, in thanking the Chairman and Senator Stevens for 
their inclusion of this important provision in this supplemental 
appropriations bill.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to speak 
out on the Air Force's decision to substantially cut America's B-1 
Bomber force. As many of my colleagues know, as part of the 2002 
Defense budget amendment, the Air Force announced its intentions to 
remove the B-1 Bomber from the Air National Guard Wings at McConnell 
Air Force Base in Kansas, and Warner Robins Air Force Base in Georgia, 
and consolidate the remaining bombers at two active duty Air Force 
bases in Texas and South Dakota.
  The Air Force intends for this proposal to take effect immediately 
after funds become available following the passage of the 2001 
supplemental appropriations bill, and desires that the entire project 
be completed in a year or so. The Air Force justified this announcement 
to Congress by stating that this cut was a good way to realize cost 
savings in 2002 Defense Budget.
  The decision to cut and realign the B-1 force has been mishandled 
from the start. I support and have cosponsored this amendment in an 
effort to urge and allow the Air Force to give due consideration to 
important decisions.
  I guess if you are not familiar with the men and women of the 184th 
Bomb Wing, or if you just are not a student of defense policy, you 
might be wondering what the big deal is. I think the best way to 
explain what happened with this decision is to offer an analogy.
  If a family decided to remodel their old house, the first thing they 
would do is sit down with an architect and sketch out their ideas of 
what they want their house to look like. The architect would then take 
these sketches and form a blueprint, the final plan that gives the 
instructions to the carpenter who would in turn remodel the house.
  The carpenter would never dream of deviating from this blueprint. 
After all, his job is to follow the architect's instructions, and 
respect the family's wishes. It really wouldn't matter if he thought 
his ideas were better than the family's. No family in their right mind 
would ever hire a carpenter who wanted to re-design their home 
according to his whims and wishes.
  This is exactly what happened with the announcement to pull the B-1's 
from the Air National Guard. The Air Force is now on the verge of 
reversing a longstanding policy by saying that our national defense 
needs would be better served if the B-1's were flown exclusively by the 
Active Duty forces. This decision was made in spite of the fact that 
the blueprint for our national defense policy, the Quadrennial Defense 
Review, has yet to be completed by the Secretary of Defense.
  It is as if the carpenter has decided to begin construction before he 
has been handed the plans. This questionable practice has raised other 
questions: One, how can the Air Force make a decision to remodel the 
Air Force to meet future threats if the plans for meeting those threats 
are still works in progress? Two, in some of

[[Page 12826]]

his previous statements, Secretary Rumsfeld has acknowledged that 
future combat missions will depend on long range, precision strike 
bombers which are capable of reaching their targets from airbases 
within the United States. How can the Air Force make a decision to cut 
the B-1 Bomber fleet when such a decision seems to run contrary to 
Secretary Rumsfeld's previous statements?
  As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I fully agree with 
this assessment. It is becoming increasingly difficult for the U.S. to 
rely on other country's airstrips to stage our Air Force operations. We 
must look to platforms that enable us to conduct missions from the 
safety of America's shores.
  No other bomber in today's Air Force can match the B-1 for 
accomplishing these missions. The B-1 has more payload capacity than 
the Stealth B-2, and is much faster than either the B-2 and B-52.
  While I agree that stealth technology is important to our Air Force, 
we should be cautious about becoming overly reliant on it. If we cannot 
always depend on stealth for surprise and protection, we will have to 
return to speed and maneuverability. The B-1, is the only bomber today 
that meets this requirement.
  So if the Air Force still needs the B-1, why cut the fleet from 93 to 
60? One excuse is that it will be cheaper, and that the Active Duty can 
accomplish this mission better than the Air National Guard.
  But according to figures released by the Guard Wing at Mcconnell, the 
Air Force is simply wrong in this estimation. Consider just a few 
simple facts.
  The average B-1 Mission Capable rate for the Air National Judd is 
61.5 percent. The active component only rates 53,4 percent.
  The average Total Mission Capable rate for the Air National Guard is 
19.9 decent, compared to the Active Duty's rate of 24.6 percent.
  The Kansas Air National Guard opetes one of the Air Force's two 
Engine Regional Repair Centers and the Georgia Unite Provides avionics 
systems repair for all the B-1's providing high-level expertise in 
reducing costs.
  When confronted with these figures, how can the Air Force conclude 
that the Active Duty can accomplish this mission in a more cost-
effective manner than the Air National Guard? I am pleased that 
Senators Roberts and Cleland will be calling on the General Accounting 
Office to see if this decision would make more economic sense that 
keeping the Guard flying the B-1.
  A force structure decision should never have been made without the 
guidance of a new national security blueprint. Even more important, 
such a decision should never have been made on false economic 
assumptions. We cannot afford to make hasty decisions.
  Today, I join a bipartisan group of Senators consisting of Senators 
Roberts, Cleland, Miller, Craig, and Crapo in offering an amendment to 
the 2001 Defense Supplemental Bill that will prohibit 201 funds from 
being used to carry any orders to cut or transfer the B-1. In spite of 
the Air Forces announcement, we offer this amendment to put the Air 
Force on notice that hasty decisions regrading our national security 
are unacceptable to Congress.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I understand the very difficult job the 
Appropriations Committee has faced in producing this supplemental 
appropriations bill and I commend the leadership of the committee for 
its work.
  However, it is very unfortunate that it was necessary to rescind $217 
million in critical dislocated worker funding. I hope that this will be 
a short-lived reduction and that it will be possible to eliminate this 
cut in conference. Further, I urge the committee to also reject the 
administration's proposed further $600 million reduction in training 
programs in the fiscal year 2002 appropriations.
  In the 105th Congress the Workforce Investment Act was overwhelmingly 
supported on a bipartisan basis. Few issues that we debate in Congress 
are as important to the future of this country as the lifelong 
education and training of our workforce. We live in an era of a global 
economy, emerging industries and company downsizing. It is imperative 
that our delivery of services meet the employment and educational needs 
of the 21st century.
  We now are embarking on the creation of a streamlined and vitally 
necessary workforce development system. More authority is given to 
State and local representatives of government, business, labor, 
education, and youth activities. There is a true collaborative process 
between the state and local representatives to ensure that training and 
educational services provided will be held to high standards.
  Our global economy is creating wonderful opportunities for American 
workers, but also great stress and anxiety. Today, the knowledge and 
skills workers must have on the job changes very rapidly. Companies and 
even industry segments enter and leave our States and communities with 
unprecedented speed.
  Layoffs are announced throughout the country every week as a result 
of business consolidation, financial re-organization, a changing 
marketplace or a slowing economy. For many years, the Connecticut 
economy was dependent on defense-oriented industries. Training programs 
under the Workforce Investment Act ensure that employees who are 
adversely affected by military and other downsizing will have access to 
job training and supportive services in order to acquire the skills 
needed for employment in the technology driven economy of the 21st 
century.
  Last week, Challenger, Gray and Christmas reported that U.S. 
companies cut nearly 125,000 jobs in June. The Department of Labor 
reported that new claims for unemployment benefits increased by 7,000. 
On one day alone at the end of June three separate companies announced 
plans to eliminate 800 jobs in Connecticut. In the technology sector 
alone, almost 1,000 jobs cuts have been announced in Connecticut since 
the beginning of the year.
  I urge the committee to re-evaluate these cuts to the dislocated 
worker program. Now is not the time to be short-changing our workers or 
our communities.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this is the first bill that Senator Byrd 
has handled now as chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and I in 
my new role as ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. I thank 
Senator Byrd for his courtesy. I have not seen the supplemental handled 
as fairly and evenly as this has been. We have responded to almost 
every request made by Senators from either side. I congratulate the 
Senator for this night and for the fact that the bill presented by the 
Appropriations Committee has been sustained.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I tender my thanks to my friend, Senator 
Stevens. Without his able cooperation and assistance all the way, we 
would not have completed this bill today.
  Mr. STEVENS. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays will be required after the 
clerk reads the bill for the third time.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third time and was read 
the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the consideration of H.R. 2216, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2216) making supplemental appropriations for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other 
     purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all after the 
enacting clause of H.R. 2216 is stricken, and the text of the Senate 
bill S. 1077, as amended, is inserted in lieu thereof.
  Mr. BYRD. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
the engrossment of the amendment and third reading of the bill.

[[Page 12827]]

  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read a third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, shall it pass?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Thomas) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). Are there any other 
Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 228 Leg.]

                                YEAS--98

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--1

       
     Feingold
       

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Thomas
       
  The bill (H.R. 2216), as amended, was passed.
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  Mr. GRAHAM. 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. BYRD. I move the Senate insist on its amendment to H.R. 2216 and 
request a conference with the House of Representatives, and the Chair 
be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.
  The motion was agreed to; and the Presiding Officer appointed Mr. 
Byrd, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Stevens, and Mr. Cochran conferees 
on the part of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee and the ranking member for their work on the 
supplemental. We have come a long way since we closed prior to the 
Fourth of July recess. We had indicated our desire to finish our work 
on the supplemental by Tuesday night. We have done so. I am grateful 
for that.
  We will now be taking up the Interior appropriations bill. It was my 
hope to be able to move to proceed to the appropriations bill tomorrow 
at 9:30. Some of our Republican colleagues have objected to going to 
the bill until matters pertaining to certain nominations could be 
clarified. As a result, we will not have a specific time we can 
announce that we will be going to the bill. I am hopeful we can clarify 
this matter involving nominations at the earliest possible time so that 
there will not be any objections on the other side to moving to the 
Interior bill. My hope and my expectation is that we can finish the 
bill by Thursday night. Obviously, if we have to be here on Friday to 
finish it, we will do that.
  I indicated to Senator Lott that if we have finished with the 
Interior bill on Thursday night, my expectation would be we would not 
have any rollcall votes on Friday.
  I will shortly make a unanimous consent request with regard to the 
schedule tomorrow. We are not quite prepared to do that at this time. 
But until that time, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________