[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1628-1711]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     MAKING FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

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

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

  Pending:

       Feingold Amendment No. 200, to restrict funds made 
     available for IMET assistance for Indonesian military 
     personnel to ``Expanded International Military Education and 
     Training'' assistance unless certain conditions are met.
       Mikulski Amendment No. 61, to prohibit funds to be used to 
     establish, apply, or enforce certain goals relating to 
     Federal employees and public-private competitions or 
     workforce conversions.
       Murray Amendment No. 39, to provide funding for the 
     community access program.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 200

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
Feingold amendment. The Feingold amendment, as my colleagues probably 
know, deals with Indonesia and makes not too subtle suggestions about 
evil doings and suggests that we can only work with them in certain 
circumstances. As one who has traveled frequently to that region, I am 
very much disturbed by the intent and the apparent direction of this 
amendment.
  It is very clear to the Government of Indonesia and its people that 
there is a legitimate terrorism threat in that country today. The 
tragic bombing in Bali, a major international tourist destination and 
the source of essential revenue in the country, brought the reality of 
terrorism squarely on the heads of the Indonesian Government. This is a 
country which, if superimposed geographically on the United States, 
would extend from San Francisco to Bermuda. It is the fourth largest 
country in the world, with the largest Muslim population in the world. 
It is also, unfortunately, home to many elements of al-Qaida and Jamaah 
Islamiyah, another Islamic terrorist group.
  The tragic bombing in Bali, with almost 300 people killed, has 
brought home to that country the real threat of terrorism, and they are 
taking that threat seriously.
  I have talked with our resources in the area, our embassies. I have 
talked with neighboring countries that are very much concerned about 
the future of Indonesia. We believe they are performing a credible and 
thorough investigation of the bombing. Arrests have been made. But the 
investigation continues and the Government is committed to arresting 
all those involved.
  Indonesia is a majority Muslim nation. Many of its citizens, 
regrettably, hear continually from extreme elements within the country 
that the United States is targeting Muslims and is anti-Islam. This 
creates a very difficult political climate for the country's moderate 
Muslim President. She is one who has visited this country. I have met 
with her on a number of occasions, and I know she understands the 
importance of our relationship and the importance of their efforts 
against terrorism.
  The country is making an effort now to investigate the terrorists who 
committed the bombing, to control the terrorism problem, and to 
strengthen the military.
  I ask, Is this the best we can offer in the Senate to encourage 
cooperation between the two countries, to pursue a warmed-over agenda, 
to embarrass the military because some activist groups are not 
satisfied with the results of the tribunals that investigated the 
outrages in East Timor?
  This is a time when we in the United States have to be serious about 
our relationship with moderate Muslim nations. We need to support the 
people within these countries who are resisting the extremists. It is a 
tremendous challenge for them to stand up to extreme voices. We should 
be supportive. We ought not to be sticking a finger in their eye. We 
ought not to be gratuitously slapping them in the face.
  In the case of Indonesia, we should encourage strengthening those 
institutions which the Government will rely on to investigate 
terrorism, apprehend terrorists, and prevent further attacks. In 
Indonesia, the only institution with that capacity is the military.
  I have talked with our Secretary of State and our Secretary of 
Defense, and I have asked them what we can do to improve our relations 
with Indonesia to assure they have the strength to resist terrorism and 
to provide their share of the role in the international battle against 
terrorism.
  What they have said, quite frankly, to bipartisan groups in front of 
them is to stop congressional interference and slurs on the Indonesia 
military. Unfortunately, rather than moving in a sensible direction to 
encourage military-to-military contact, to take actions to raise the 
standards of their military to levels we are comfortable with and to 
promote relationships between officers, we would, by adopting this 
measure, pursue a course that insults the people, strains relations, 
and will aid the extremist elements in their efforts to demonize the 
United States.
  This may be presented as a harmless amendment, one that can be 
satisfied easily by us and the Indonesians, but those people are our 
friends. Our allies in Southeast Asia take note of what we do; they 
hear our message. What we pass is loud, and it is clear; it resonates. 
It is not only a bad idea, it is dangerous.
  We need to stand up and support our friends, especially in these 
challenging times. As I have met with friendly nations in Southeast 
Asia, they have been dumbfounded that we continue to insult, denigrate, 
and downgrade Indonesia. We should be supporting them.
  This amendment is not grounded in legitimate policy concerns but, 
rather, in an ongoing interest by some to refight the East Timor battle 
year in and year out, despite the fact that East Timor is now an 
independent country. It is hollow all the way through.
  I urge my colleagues to join with me in defeating this amendment, to 
send the message that we will support moderate Islam countries, 
struggling democracies trying to fight terrorism.
  I thank the managers and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, in the interest of fairness, although I 
do agree with my friend from Missouri, I ask unanimous consent that the 
sponsor of the amendment, Senator Feingold, have 5 minutes when he 
appears.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 1629]]


  Mr. STEVENS. I see Senator Feingold is on the floor. I did make 
arrangements for Senator Feingold to have an extra 5 minutes, and I 
call that to his attention. Senator Bond has just spoken on the 
Feingold amendment. There are 5 minutes for Senator Feingold to speak, 
if he wishes to do so.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have conferred with the manager of the 
bill on what the Democrats would like to do in offering their 
amendments. I understand there will be Republican amendments 
interspersed. Our first amendment with Senator Kennedy, there has been 
a 30-minute time agreement on that; that has been agreed to. I ask 
unanimous consent that that be approved. Senator Clinton, amendment No. 
89, a time agreement of 30 minutes, evenly divided; Senator Bingaman, 
amendment No. 138, I have no time agreement on that; Senator Cantwell, 
amendment No. 108, a 30-minute time agreement; Senator Nelson, 
amendment No. 178, a 10-minute time agreement equally divided; Senator 
Corzine, amendment No. 233, I have no time agreement on that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. STEVENS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I agree we 
should set this order. We are still working on it. We hope we will have 
a chance to have an amendment on one side and then the other. I will 
come later and try to intersperse these with amendments from our side 
of the aisle when they are identified.
  Mr. REID. The only thing I would ask, Mr. President, is that there 
would be no amendments except as I have already talked about to the 
manager of the bill. The Nelson amendment----
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I will have to reserve, I think, on one 
or more of those. There may be a second-degree amendment. I don't have 
any problem with the order, but I will come back.
  Mr. REID. Then eliminate the time on the amendment. I ask that the--
  Mr. STEVENS. That is fair. We will set the order and agree on the 
time; and if there is an amendment, if there is any identified, at the 
present time, Senators are willing to set the order with that 
understanding.
  Mr. REID. Should we eliminate the time though?
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes.
  Mr. REID. Why don't we have the time applicable unless you decide to 
offer a second-degree.
  Mr. STEVENS. Very well, I don't have any problem with that. But I do 
want to reserve the right to schedule amendments from this side in 
between if Senators wish to offer amendments in this period of time.
  Mr. REID. I did mention that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. For the information of Senators, as I indicated last 
evening, we will have a series of amendments that we will offer in 
small groupings very soon. I believe we will have some amendments 
identified on our side of the aisle as soon as this first vote will 
begin. It is my understanding that the vote on Senator Feingold's 
amendment will commence at 11.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. STEVENS. Is the Senator ready to start now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. My understanding is that I am to be allotted 5 minutes 
in response to Senator Bond's comments on my amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. That was my request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair and I thank the managers for their 
fairness in light of the fact that we were going to have a minute on 
each side. I appreciate the understanding that I do want to respond to 
Senator Bond's remarks.
  Senator Bond apparently has not actually read what my amendment does 
with regard to the Indonesian military and the IMET Program. Obviously, 
there is a terrorism threat in Indonesia today, as Senator Bond 
indicated. That is one of the conditions this amendment is all about. 
It is about making sure that Indonesia cooperates with us in fighting 
terrorist attacks, such as the ones that were so awfully perpetrated on 
the people in Bali.
  What is even more troubling about Senator Bond's remarks is that he 
doesn't even mention the fact that apparently the Indonesian military 
was involved in an incident in Papua which killed American citizens.
  Are we only going to be upset when American citizens are killed in 
Yemen and Kuwait or are we going to respond and expect standards of 
help and behavior from countries when our citizens are killed in a 
place such as Indonesia?
  All this amendment does is try to make sure, as we continue our 
relationship with Indonesia--yes, a fledgling democracy--that we 
actually have accountability of that Indonesian military with which we 
would be involved. I am very troubled when we see the failure of 
cooperation with the FBI's reasonable request to deal with this awful 
murder of our citizens. We need a message to be sent clearly to the 
Indonesian Government, and in particular to the Indonesian military, 
that as the FBI returns to try to do this investigation again, we will 
get cooperation.
  The whole point here is not that we are trying to cut off military 
help and assistance; it is that there have to be two preconditions to 
make sure it is a legitimate enterprise in which to be involved. One is 
that the Indonesian Government and military has to help us in dealing 
with terrorism; secondly, they need to help us get to the bottom of 
this awful massacre that occurred.
  If Senators don't believe me, I refer them to the letter of Patricia 
Lynn Spier of Colorado, whose husband was brutally murdered in this 
incident. Ask her and the other families whether they think it is 
appropriate for the Indonesian military to investigate itself with 
regard to this incident or whether they should cooperate with the FBI.
  Despite the attempt to distort what this amendment is about, my 
amendment is simple. Until the President determines that Indonesia is 
committed to fighting terrorism and committed to cooperating and 
investigating the murder of American citizens, my amendment would deny 
Indonesia access to IMET, though it would--I emphasize this to the 
Senator from Missouri--permit access to expanded IMET courses that are 
relevant to military reforms. So, yes, we want to promote a good 
relationship with the military in Indonesia, if these preconditions are 
met. We are going to continue counter-terrorism training, expanded IMET 
sales of nonlethal defense articles, officer visits, educational 
exchanges, and port visits. We are not cutting off these items.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I have the floor, Mr. President.
  Let's be clear, because the Senator from Missouri did not mention 
this. Last August, two Americans were killed and eight were wounded in 
an ambush in West Papua, Indonesia. Indonesia's police investigated, 
and their report concluded that the Indonesian military was very likely 
responsible for the deaths of these Americans. When the investigation 
was turned over to the Indonesian military, it exonerated itself and it 
failed to fully cooperate not only with the Indonesian authorities but 
with our own FBI.
  Some may say this amendment cuts off ties to the Indonesian military 
when we need a strong coalition to fight terrorism. But nothing in my 
amendment will prohibit important national security programs, including 
counterterrorism training. Why would we hesitate? Why would we hesitate 
to condition one element--only one element--of our relationship with 
the Indonesian military on a demand that we simply get to the bottom of 
this incident? Real partners in the fight against

[[Page 1630]]

terrorism do not murder American citizens and do not conspire to cover 
up such murders.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BOND. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 24 seconds.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield to the Senator for a question.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am not speaking on the time on this side. 
I ask my colleague from Wisconsin if he has visited the area, if he has 
talked with our officials in the region, if he has talked with the 
people in governments who support us and who support Indonesia. Has he 
had the opportunity to find out what the impact of this amendment would 
be?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I have had daily contact with a wide variety of 
individuals we are concerned with, including some the Senator 
mentioned. I have been involved in this issue of Indonesia and East 
Timor for 10 years, since I have been a Member of the Senate and a 
member of the Subcommittee on Asia. I think I have a right to speak on 
this as much as the Senator from Missouri. When it comes to the deaths 
of American citizens, they should be cooperating with the FBI.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, this is exactly the wrong time to be 
taking away IMET from the Indonesian military. For 10 years they were 
prohibited from having the kind of military-to-military relationship 
with us that helps upgrade their military and teach them about human 
rights and to do the right thing regarding their own people. It took a 
long time to get IMET restored, and the leader of that effort was 
Senator Inouye of Hawaii--that bipartisan effort to get IMET restored. 
Now we would take a step in the wrong direction.
  (At the request of Mr. McConnell, the following statement was ordered 
to be printed in the Record.)
 Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I want to convey to my colleagues 
my opposition to this amendment. During the markup of the foreign 
operations bill by the full Appropriations Committee, I offered an 
amendment to restore full International Military Education and Training 
to Indonesia. I believe full participation in this important program is 
essential to maintain our partnership with Indonesia in our global 
fight against terrorism. The restriction on the participation of 
Indonesia proposed by my colleague from Wisconsin will harm our 
relationship and impede our fight against terrorism in one of the 
front-line countries of this fight. I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment. The Feingold amendment will send a message to the 
Indonesians that although we ask for their cooperation in our fight 
against international terrorism, we will not provide them with the 
training and tools necessary for that fight and view their country as 
not worthy of full participation in our international assistance 
programs. I do not believe this is the message we want to send to one 
of our critical allies. It is in our national interest to have a stable 
and democratic Indonesia and that their military is accountable and 
professional. We can work toward these goals through the participation 
of Indonesia's military in our IMET program.
  Once again, I urge my colleagues to oppose the pending amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask that a copy of the statement I made when I 
offered my amendment before the Appropriations Committee be printed in 
the Record.
  The statement follows.

       Introduction of the Amendment to Restore IMET to Indonesia

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

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

[[Page 1631]]

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

         U.S. Department of State, Assistant Secretary of State 
           for Legislative Affairs,
                                 Washington, DC, January 22, 2003.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Committee on 
         Appropriations, U.S. Senate.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to express concern about 
     the proposed amendment to the FY 03 omnibus appropriation 
     bill by Senator Feingold that restricts IMET to Indonesia. 
     The Department of State opposes this amendment, which would 
     damage important U.S. foreign policy interests in Indonesia.
       The amendment in question would limit Indonesian military 
     personnel to participation in the Expanded IMET program only, 
     absent a presidential determination ``that the Government of 
     Indonesia and the Indonesian Armed Forces are (1) 
     demonstrating a commitment to assist United States efforts to 
     combat international terrorism, including United States 
     interdiction efforts against al-Qaida and other terrorist 
     organizations, and taking effective measures to bring to 
     justice those responsible for the October 13, 2002 terrorist 
     attack on Bali, which killed U.S. citizens, and (2) taking 
     effective measures, including cooperating with the Federal 
     Bureau of Investigation, to bring to justice any member of 
     the Indonesian Armed Forces or Indonesian militia group 
     against whom there is credible evidence of involvement in the 
     August 31, 2002 attack which resulted in the deaths of United 
     States citizens, and in other gross violations of human 
     rights.''
       We share Senator Feingold's concerns on both points and 
     have been working actively with the Indonesian Government on 
     them. Indonesia is engaged in the war against terrorism--
     including a new police counter-terrorism unit that we are 
     helping to establish. Indonesia authorities are investigating 
     and prosecuting terrorists, including members of the al-Qaida 
     affiliated Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), while not sacrificing 
     newly-gained democratic freedoms. In the extremely 
     professional Bali bombing investigation, Indonesian National 
     Police investigators have detained over 30 supects to date, 
     and are cooperating with regional ASEAN neighbors to uncover 
     possible links to international terrorism. The Bali 
     investigation process has also seen good cooperation between 
     the Indonesian National Police and counterparts from the 
     Australian Federal Police, the FBI, and Scotland Yard. It is 
     also important to note that the Indonesian Police, not the 
     Indonesian Armed Forces, have the lead responsibility in this 
     and in other terrorist investigations.
       The killing of American citizens in Papua is a matter of 
     gravest importance to us. The President has directed that we 
     emphasize to the Government of Indonesia that there must be a 
     credible investigation and process of justice to avoid damage 
     to our entire bilateral relationship. We have done so at the 
     highest levels. In response to our repeated demarches, the 
     Indonesian Government has agreed to a new investigation of 
     this crime to include FBI participation. FBI agents will 
     arrive in Indonesia on January 22 to explore the terms of 
     their participation in the investigation.
       We have requested that $400,000 in FY03 IMET be provided 
     for Indonesia. If approved by Congress, this will be the 
     first time in a decade that we will have the ability to use 
     IMET as a tool to pursue our national objectives in 
     Indonesia. These objectives include strengthening Indonesian 
     cooperation in the war on terrorism, as well as supporting 
     the democratic transition in, and the territorial integrity 
     of, Indonesia. IMET assists these objectives by providing us 
     with access to the Indonesian Armed Forces, which remains 
     among the most prominent national institutions in Indonesia. 
     IMET also provides a vehicle for the United States to impart 
     our ideas about civil-military relations to foreign military 
     audiences, and to promote military reform.
       We ask that Congress proceed with its consideration of the 
     Administration's IMET request. The goals of the proposed 
     amendment by Senator Feingold are worthy and we share them. 
     But, they are now, and will remain, works in progress for 
     some time to come, not settled issues. In the interim, if 
     Congress approves our request, we will not obligate these 
     IMET funds without further consultation with Congress.
       We hope that this information assists you in your 
     consideration of this amendment. Please contact us if you 
     have any questions.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Paul V. Kelly,
                                              Assistant Secretary.

  Mr. McConnell. Mr. President, let me sum it up. The Bali bombing 
underscores that when it comes to terrorism, Indonesia is at ground 
zero, right there

[[Page 1632]]

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

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

  He further wrote:

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

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

                               Exhibit 1


                                                  U.S. Senate,

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

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

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 19 Leg.]

                                YEAS--36

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

                                NAYS--61

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Harkin
     Inouye
     Lieberman
  The amendment (No. 200) was rejected.

[[Page 1633]]


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


                            Amendment No. 39

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


                                 S-CHIP

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

[[Page 1634]]

would have some access to it and then eventually it would go back to 
the Treasury.
  We are finding out now that there are a number of States that are 
prepared to go ahead and insure these children. This program is so 
enormously important, because if you put it with the Medicaid Program, 
there is no real reason why any child in America isn't covered with 
some form of health insurance.
  I commend the Senator from Rhode Island. This program was agreed to 
and accepted in a strong bipartisan way. As author, along with my 
friend from Utah, Senator Hatch, if we had just not provided this 
provision and let the States have a little more time to implement it, 
we would have a lot more children covered. This makes a great deal of 
sense. It is focused and it is a successful program. The point the 
Senator from Rhode Island makes is that it will ensure that hundreds of 
thousands of more children will be protected with health insurance.
  I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, following on what the Senator from 
Rhode Island said, it is extremely important that we get it done 
immediately. This is a two-part problem. One is the $1.5 billion 
shortfall in this fiscal year, and the $1.6 billion in the second 
fiscal year. The States have the money. Since we did not put the 
program under Medicaid at the very beginning, States started at various 
rates. Some were faster than others. Therefore, not all the money has 
been used. Rather than return it to the Treasury where it can't help 
any child at all--we still have 8 million, or 10 million, or 12 million 
children who need to be insured. We need to do the short-term fix, 
which is what this colloquy is about. Then we need to get to a longer 
term fix in the Finance Committee. I look forward to working with 
Chairman Grassley and Chairman Baucus to mark up a bill which will 
accomplish this objective on an annual basis, and then, of course, move 
on to the next logical step, which is to include the parent or parents 
of those same children.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to join in the colloquy 
that has just been held because it comes under the jurisdiction--or at 
least some of it--of the committee that I chair.
  I thank my colleagues for their attention to this important 
children's health care policy. They are correct that something must be 
done to address the funds that have and will revert to the treasury in 
the near future. They are also correct to note the constraints within 
the omnibus bill. I strongly support the State Children's Health 
Insurance Program. It is a program that provides heath care for over 
16,000 low-income children in my state.
  Senators Chafee, Snowe, and Rockefeller are looking to address a 
necessary maintenance issue within S-CHIP. As Senator Snowe noted, I 
worked very closely with Senator Baucus, Senator Chafee, Senator 
Rockefeller, Chairman Tauzin, and Representative Dingell on a 
bipartisan, bicameral proposal that would have addressed expired S-CHIP 
funds.
  The proposal reflected a balanced approach to redistributing S-CHIP 
funding taking into account that some states are spending through their 
existing allotments and other states are ramping up their programs and 
will need additional funding in the years to come.
  This proposal did not pass the Senate last year, but it is a fair 
approach to redistributing S-CHIP funds. Unfortunately, I can not 
support including this policy at this time. The omnibus bill is a poor 
vehicle for this necessary maintenance.
  I am sympathetic to the intent of this policy, although this is 
neither the time nor the place to address this issue. The Senate and 
the House have an agreement with the Administration to keep the omnibus 
appropriation bill under $750 billion. The S-CHIP policy costs over 
$1.2 billion in budget authority in 2003. An amendment of this nature 
would break that agreement and that is simply not acceptable. I 
appreciate Senator Snowe's, Chafee's and Rockefeller's willingness to 
accept this reality.
  I assure my colleagues that I will work with them in the near future 
to update the S-CHIP redistribution policy in the near future as 
chairman of the Finance Committee. It my understanding that Senator 
Nickles, the chairman of the Budget Committee, is also interested in a 
regular order approach and that he is interested in putting money aside 
in the budget to address the needs of S-CHIP.
  With this in mind, I believe the most appropriate way to address this 
issue is to work with the Chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator 
Nickles, to secure sufficient funding for this bipartisan S-CHIP 
proposal and then to address it in the Finance Committee. I will also 
continue my work with Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Tauzin, so 
the Senate and the House can move forward in a coordinated fashion.
  I assure my colleagues that I will work with them once the budget 
resolution for fiscal year 2004 has been adopted to move legislation 
quickly through the Finance Committee that reflects a bipartisan, 
bicameral two-year agreement on S-CHIP.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I compliment the chairman of the Finance 
Committee. I will work with him. I tell the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, if these amendments had come up, we would 
have had problems. There were about three S-CHIP amendments. We will 
not do the amendments on the appropriations bill. We will work to try 
to make it possible to do them through the Budget Committee. If we did 
pass one, it would go over to the House, and the House--which did pass 
a budget, and they have exceeded their authorization--they would stop 
it. I think this is the best way to work. When we pass a new budget 
resolution, we will supersede last year's budget resolution. We will be 
able to do this in regular order through the Finance Committee.
  I look forward to working with the chairman, and also Senator Snowe, 
Senator Collins, Senator Rockefeller, and others who have strong 
interests in trying to make sure these unexpended funds that are set 
aside for S-CHIP can be appropriately used.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the State 
Children's Health Insurance Program and to thank my colleagues for 
their willingness to work with me on restoring funding to this program 
that is essential to ensuring continued health care coverage for 
America's children.
  For the past week, I have worked with my colleagues to secure this 
agreement that will restore $2.7 billion in expired, or soon to expire, 
SCHIP funding. This compromise, that has been endorsed by our Nation's 
Governors, would ensure that this funding remains in the program and 
continues to provide children with access to the care that is vital to 
their healthy development.
  I appreciate the willingness of Majority Leader Frist, Finance 
Committee Chairman Grassley and Budget Committee Chairman Nickles to 
work with us in developing this agreement. Because of their commitment 
to finding a solution, we are able to move forward with this important 
policy.
  I believe this agreement is the most appropriate way to restore the 
SCHIP funding. Because the budget resolution adopted by the House of 
Representatives does not include adequate budget authority to restore 
this funding, the floor amendment that I filed to the omnibus 
appropriations bill would be subject to a budget point of order in the 
House. Given the that this point of order would lie against the 
provision, the likelihood that the House would strip this during 
conference is great. In light of these circumstances, I believe that 
this agreement is the most appropriate way to ensure that this funding 
is restored.
  The agreement that was struck would, in exchange for withdrawing the

[[Page 1635]]

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

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

  This strong endorsement of SCHIP should act as an impetus to getting 
this policy enacted and ensuring that we do so in a timely fashion. 
Again, I appreciate the support of my colleagues and look forward to 
working with you as we move forward to enact this policy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time on 
the Kennedy amendment be 30 minutes equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KENNEDY. What was the request?
  Mr. STEVENS. My request was that the time on the Kennedy amendment be 
30 minutes equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. STEVENS. I also ask unanimous consent that the time on any 
amendment be limited to 30 minutes unless specifically requested 
otherwise by myself or the distinguished minority whip.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCAIN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I renew that request.
  Mr. McCAIN. I remove my objection.
  Mr. STEVENS. The unanimous consent request is that the time on any 
amendment be limited to 30 minutes unless specifically requested 
otherwise by myself or the minority whip.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DORGAN. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on the Clinton 
amendment numbered 89 the time be equally divided and limited to 30 
minutes, and that there be no second-degree amendments in order prior 
to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, on amendment No. 138 offered by Senator 
Bingaman, I ask unanimous consent that debate be limited to 30 minutes 
and that there be no second-degree amendment prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. I have included the Clinton amendment numbered 89 with 30 
minutes equally divided; the Bingaman amendment numbered 138 with 30 
minutes equally divided, and I would like to do the same on the 
Cantwell amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. I can't agree on the Cantwell amendment. We can agree on 
the others.
  Mr. REID. Those two will be fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 1636]]


  Mr. REID. Mr. President, staff has indicated that we were perhaps not 
clear on the Kennedy amendment. There would be no second-degree 
amendment prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.


                           Amendment No. 123

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

       The Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 123.

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

   (Purpose: To increase funding for reducing health disparities and 
                       promoting minority health)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) In General.--In addition to amounts otherwise 
     appropriated in this Act, there are appropriated 
     $584,646,000, of which--
       (1) $43,492,000 shall be made available to the National 
     Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities;
       (2) $21,015,000 shall be made available to the Office of 
     Minority Health of the Department of Health and Human 
     Services;
       (3) $15,334,000 shall be made available to the Office for 
     Civil Rights of the Department of Health and Human Services 
     for discrimination-related enforcement and allocated to 
     enforcement actions and the investigation of complaints and 
     potential violations of law relating to discrimination and 
     racial disparities in health care;
       (4) $491,500,000 shall be made available to the Department 
     of Health and Human Services for research and activities 
     under the Minority HIV/AIDS initiative; and
       (5) $13,305,000 shall be made available to the Health 
     Resources and Services Administration for Health Professions 
     Training for Diversity programs.
       (b) Office of Minority Health.--The amount appropriated 
     under subsection (a)(2), shall be made available to the 
     Office of Minority Health of the Department of Health and 
     Human Services to be used for activities including--
       (1) to undertake, through and in collaboration with the 
     Public Health Service agencies, a coordinated Federal 
     initiative to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in health, 
     particularly in the six focus areas of infant mortality, 
     cancer screening and management, cardiovascular disease, 
     diabetes, HIV/AIDS, and immunizations;
       (2) to increase funding for minority health initiatives and 
     collaborations at the multi-State, State, and local level 
     that employ proven public health strategies to reduce health 
     disparities in specific minority populations;
       (3) to expand Federal efforts and assist States in the 
     collection and analysis of health status data that includes 
     standard racial and ethnic data;
       (4) to conduct or support research on effective health 
     interventions in minority communities;
       (5) to assist in the development and dissemination of cross 
     cultural curricula for the training of health professionals;
       (6) to provide technical assistance to States to improve 
     public health infrastructures and outreach for health 
     disparity populations; and
       (7) to sponsor National Forums on African American Health 
     Care, Latino Health Care, Asian American Health Care, and 
     Native American Health Care.

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

[[Page 1637]]

closed down. And the scholarship programs which have been available to 
minority students effectively would have been drastically reduced.
  It does seem to me, after all we have heard in the debates over the 
period of the last 2 weeks, on issues of affirmative action, on issues 
of civil rights, that the one area on which we could all come together 
is these extraordinary disparities in health care that have been out 
there. These are the same disparities that have been around for the 
last 50 years and, under this omnibus bill, programs that help to 
alleviate the disparities are being cut back or abandoned in a very 
significant and important way.
  This amendment restores those funds and adds additional funding to it 
to make sure we have realistic levels of assistance to reduce 
disparities. It does seem that even though we have had debates that 
have been divisive over recent times, on issues of affirmative action 
and other judicial issues, we as a Senate ought to be able to come 
together and say that whether you are going to get care and attention 
on a particular sickness or disease should not depend on the color of 
your skin. That is what is happening.
  Mr. President, I yield myself 2 more minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham of South Carolina). Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, that is what is happening. In too many 
instances we are finding that those whose skin is not white are being 
denied medical care. They are being denied the services which are so 
essential to individuals to improve their kind of health conditions.
  This is an area we can do something about. We will have broad debates 
on other kinds of policy issues, but in terms of reducing the 
disparities and having support for the tried and true programs, this 
amendment will advance that cause. I hope we can accept it and move on.
  Mr. President, I withhold the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Does anyone yield time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and the 
time to be applied equally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, this amendment by the Senator from 
Massachusetts would increase funding by nearly $600 million. It would 
increase funding for programs at the National Center on Minority Health 
and Health Disparities, the Office of Minority Health at the Department 
of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Office for Civil Rights at HHS, 
the Department's Minority HIV/AIDS initiative, and the Health Resources 
and Services Administration's (HRSA) Health Professionals Training for 
Diversity Programs.
  I support these programs. In fact, many of these programs were 
established or authorized by legislation that I authored, including the 
Minority Health and Health Disparities Act of 2000 and the Health 
Professions Education Partnership Act of 1998.
  However, this amendment provides no offsets for these spending 
increases. At a time when we are facing significant spending pressures, 
it is irresponsible to propose such spending without specifying how to 
pay for them; and, although I support and will continue to support 
these programs, I must oppose this amendment.
  I would also note that the bill we are considering already contains 
significant increases in many of these programs, and I would commend 
Senators Stevens and Specter for their good work in this area. In fact, 
for the National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities and 
for the Office of Minority Health, the bill before us today contains 
exactly the same funding levels as the Democrats provided in their July 
2002 Labor-HHS Appropriations bill.
  In the case of Health Professions' programs in general, and the 
Health Professionals Training for Diversity program in particular, the 
bill already contains a drastic increase from that provided in the 
Democrats' July bill. For the Health Professionals Training for 
Diversity program that this amendment targets, I would point out that 
the underlying bill contains $125 million--an increase from the 
previous fiscal year--and that this program was zeroed out by the 
Democrats in July. For them to now say that we are not providing 
sufficient funding is disingenuous and disgraceful.
  I am disappointed by this attempt to politicize an important issue 
that we have successfully worked in the past to address on a bipartisan 
basis. I have made this issue of health disparities a priority over the 
past several years, and hope that, together, we can make additional 
strides in an area of health disparities in the coming year.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I have 5 minutes remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. President, I would like to call attention to the Labor-HHS 
appropriations conference report from FY 2002 on the Minority HIV/AIDS 
Initiative.
  What it shows is the appropriations for HIV/AIDS health programs for 
FY 2002--$123 million for HRSA; $96 million for CDC; $7 million for 
SAMHSA/Center for Mental Health Services; $57 million for SAMHSA/Center 
for Substance Abuse Treatment; $38 million to the Center for Substance 
Abuse Prevention; $50 million for the Office of the Secretary; $9.7 
million for the Office of Minority Health. That adds up to $381 
million.
  The Senate fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations lists $50 million 
for the Minority HIV/AIDS Initiative, Office of the Secretary. That is 
it. It is all listed in very considerable detail in this 2002 report. 
On the other hand, under this fiscal year 2003, minority HIV/AIDS has 
just the $50 million, Office of the Secretary.
  This is extremely important. The 2002 conference report illustrates 
exactly where the funding has been directed and the support for it. 
That is completely missing in this proposal.
  Our amendment addresses these issues and provides the kind of support 
which will make an important difference in reducing the disparities in 
health care in our society.
  Having listened to so many who have spoken so often in the last 
several days on civil rights, there may be differences on one issue or 
another affecting civil rights, but we should all come together on this 
issue to address the disparities in health care which exist. We should 
go beyond our differences.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does anyone yield time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 additional minute.
  What do these cuts mean? They mean 10,000 minority women and 
children, including HIV-infected pregnant women, will lose medical care 
under title IV of Ryan White; 11,000 minority patients in the hardest 
hit cities will lose lifesaving drugs and critical medical care through 
title I of Ryan White; another 5,000 minority patients will lose 
medical care funded through State governments under title II of Ryan 
White. These are just some of what will happen unless we make major 
changes in the omnibus appropriations bill, and my amendment does that.
  I withhold my remaining time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this is an important program. As a matter 
of fact, the amendment I have offered provides $130 million more than 
the minority bill in the last Congress for these same programs. In 
addition, the amendment I have offered, the omnibus amendment, provides 
over $3.1 billion for minority health, education, and training 
initiatives which was not in

[[Page 1638]]

the bill that was prepared in the last Congress when the leadership was 
on the other side of the aisle.
  This $3.1 billion is an increase of $144.3 million over the level of 
fiscal year 2002, which is the operating level now.
  Has the Senator's time expired?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes 33 seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I have 2 minutes which I will use.
  Mr. STEVENS. Would the Senator consider reserving his 2 minutes and 
have 2 minutes reserved on this side, and let's put this off? I know 
many people have left the building now for lunch. I would like to see 
this vote started at 1:15. At that time the Senator would have 2 
minutes, and I would have 2 minutes before that vote. Is the Senator 
agreeable to that?
  Mr. KENNEDY. That is fine.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield, reserving the 
right to object, it is my understanding what we are planning on trying 
to do--Senator Clinton is in the Chamber, and she is willing to offer 
her amendment. There is 30 minutes on that which would take us until 
about 12:30. I understand Senator McCain is available.
  Mr. STEVENS. It would be my hope, I say to the distinguished 
Democratic whip, that we would have a series of amendments stacked and 
start the votes at 1:15. A series of tabling motions, as a matter of 
fact, would occur at 1:15.
  Mr. REID. My only statement here, in reserving my right to object, is 
that it is good we are stacking these votes. I have no problem with 
that. But I would rather we did it when the debate on the third one 
ends.
  Mr. STEVENS. I don't have any objection to that. I think the third 
one will end when I make the motion to table.
  Mr. REID. Let's do that. Let's have Clinton. Let's have McCain.
  Mr. STEVENS. Two McCains.
  Mr. REID. There are two McCains? OK, fine. We would do those and then 
have three stacked votes.
  Mr. STEVENS. Clinton and two McCains, and we will have the vote take 
place at the end of the last of those.
  Mr. REID. I think that is appropriate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Is that agreeable with the Senator from Massachusetts?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Would the Senator be good enough to repeat?
  Mr. REID. We are going to have a series of votes starting at 
approximately 1:15, 1:30.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the leaders.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. I have not yet made the motion to table because we have 
2 minutes on a side. I will make it later. Is Senator Clinton prepared 
to proceed now?
  Mrs. CLINTON. Yes.
  Mr. STEVENS. We will put off the McCain amendment until the Senator 
has offered the amendment.


                            Amendment No. 89

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

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

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

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

[[Page 1639]]

keep up with rising health care demands while trying to invest in the 
latest lifesaving technology. They would lose roughly $1 billion, 
including over $100 million in New York alone. Medicaid DSH hospitals, 
which take care of a disproportionately high number of uninsured 
patients, would lose an additional $100 million.
  Meanwhile, this chart shows the increasing amount of uncompensated 
care that hospitals are forced to provide. Let me say a word about 
physicians, many of whom were forced to limit their Medicare practice 
due to last year's cut. This will--if we don't act, if we only 
implement what is in the omnibus bill--continue to bring about 
limitations in practice and decrease the numbers of patients who are 
served.
  Skilled nursing facilities already facing worsening nursing shortages 
would lose $700 million. That amounts to about $32 per day per 
resident. And for the average nursing facility, this amendment amounts 
to about a $117,000 annual cut. That is enough to pay for two 
registered nurses, three licensed practical nurses, or five certified 
nursing assistants.
  Home health agencies, which are so critical in allowing patients to 
be taken care of at home rather than in expensive inpatient facilities, 
would lose $500 million. These are just a few of the providers who form 
the fabric of our seniors' health care system. If we allow the fabric 
to fray, it will be much harder to weave it together again. As this 
chart shows, the fabric is already framed. Over the past year, I have 
talked to numerous providers from New York and from other States who 
are just on the brink of halting services, not only to Medicare 
patients but actually going out of business altogether. The common 
refrain I hear is that once these providers leave the Medicare system, 
they are not coming back, even if an eventual long-term solution is 
found. In other words, it is far easier, and I argue far cheaper, to 
preserve our current system and then strengthen it later than to allow 
the current system to be destroyed with the hope of rebuilding it in 
the future.
  When a critically ill patient comes into the emergency room, he is 
first seen in the ER, stabilized, then sent to surgery, if required. 
Why? Well, we all know from watching television that the ER physician 
knows that surgery will take a while. If immediate measures are not 
taken, the patient could die before the surgeon can even begin 
operating.
  What we have with Medicare right now is a critically ill system, one 
which I know requires major surgery in the very near future to 
transplant the dying patient into once again a live and vigorous one. 
But until we are ready to do that operation, we need to take immediate 
action to stabilize the system and prevent it from collapsing before we 
are able to act.
  This amendment will act as that stabilizer, will give us time to 
undertake the long-term task. I therefore urge my colleagues to support 
the amendment. Continued inaction will leave Medicare so irreversibly 
damaged that even the best healers among us will be unable to 
revitalize it. I look forward to stabilizing our patients and getting 
on to debating the right cure.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will my colleague yield for a question?
  Mrs. CLINTON. Yes.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I am happy to cosponsor this amendment. I 
will ask the Senator a question. We in New York--and I think it is true 
throughout the country--are seeing that our providers, whether they be 
hospitals or clinics or home health care, are laying off people and are 
not able to do the job anymore that they once did. There is no more fat 
in the system. We cut that out in New York in the 1980s, and then we 
did it further federally in the 1990s.
  Aside from the No. 1 job, which is to provide the best health care 
possible to our seniors and others, aren't our cutbacks in New York and 
elsewhere causing the economy to go down even further because of the 
layoffs of many people? These are some of the poorest citizens--people 
who just climbed the ladder, with health care jobs, particularly at the 
entry level, which are important to immigrants and so many others. 
Doesn't she believe her amendment might have a small stimulative effect 
on the economy, and, conversely, not doing this amendment and allowing 
the cuts to go deeper would hurt our economy throughout the country?
  Mrs. CLINTON. The Senator is absolutely correct. Health care is a 
primary provider of jobs in every State that I know of and certainly in 
the cities across the country. Our hospitals, nursing homes, home 
health programs, physicians offices are all providing employment. That 
is why it was so important that we tried to address this last year. We 
could not get past the procedural roadblocks, despite the best efforts 
of Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus. I supported their proposals. 
Now we have to act because we are on the brink of an emergency.
  I want to make sure that the modified version of the amendment with 
the offsets we have found is at the desk because there seems to have 
been some confusion.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator from New York yield?
  Mrs. CLINTON. Yes, I will yield.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from New York, it is 
not a question of whether we address this issue; it is a question of 
when and how. This is a very serious issue. It has a profound impact 
especially on rural hospitals but on all hospitals and all facilities 
that provide patient care. This Congress has to address this issue.
  I really appreciate the amendment the Senator has offered. I hope 
perhaps we can begin the process of addressing it today. If not, it has 
to be soon.
  Mrs. CLINTON. I thank the Senator from North Dakota. Clearly, if we 
do not act, doctors are going to start pulling out of Medicare in a 
month. Then we are going to have the rapid unraveling of the system, 
which we all fear. It is going to be much harder to put it together 
under the leadership of Senator Grassley and others who are addressing 
this issue.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, will the Senator from New York yield?
  Mrs. CLINTON. Yes.
  Mr. NICKLES. I heard the Senator mention a modification, but I have 
not seen it yet. I am concerned in reading page 15, section 302, about 
budget scorekeeping, that the Senator is modifying the Budget Act or 
trying to waive the Budget Act.
  Mrs. CLINTON. The Senator is correct to point that out. That is not 
in the modified amendment. I apologize; the Senator has not gotten a 
copy of the modified amendment.
  Mr. NICKLES. For the Senator's information, none of us has a copy of 
the modification. This Senator, for one, is going to be very reluctant 
to agree to anything if we are modifying the budget or waiving the 
budget.
  Mrs. CLINTON. No.
  Mr. NICKLES. I warn my colleague, she cannot be throwing up a 
modification and saying we want you to accept this when the amendment 
deals with substantive issues. The amendment deals with entitlements, 
with issues that are under the Finance Committee jurisdiction. I have 
made five speeches saying we should not be doing authorizing work on an 
appropriations bill without the appropriate committees having 
significant time to review the bill.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator. As the Senator 
knows, as often happens around here, we have been working very closely 
with staff of the Finance Committee. Many of these provisions have been 
modified, and also we were able to fully offset the costs by extension 
of the Customs user fee, knowing full well that is a concern of many of 
my colleagues with respect to how this would be paid for. I will take 
the position it is such an emergency that we should find new money, if 
necessary, to give us the time to do this in a deliberative manner. But 
we do have the offsets, and the modified amendment provides for those 
offsets.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mrs. CLINTON. Yes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Can the Senator tell me whether this amendment addresses 
the indirect medical education cost issue?

[[Page 1640]]


  Mrs. CLINTON. The teaching hospitals will certainly help defray some 
of the increasing costs that are not going to be taken care of 
otherwise.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I say to the Members of the Senate, I hope 
they have listened carefully to their hospital administrators across 
their States, particularly at teaching hospitals which we count on to 
deal with some of the most complicated medical cases that are 
presented, and also hospitals that are responsible for teaching the 
next generation of specialists, including children's hospitals.
  If the Senator from New York does not prevail, I can tell her that in 
my State of Illinois, some of the very best and most important care 
will be compromised, and we will see the next generation of doctors who 
we want to be the best and brightest in America not being prepared. How 
can that be in the best interest of medical care in Illinois, New York, 
Iowa, or Oklahoma?
  I salute the Senator from New York. We have talked about a lot of 
amendments to this appropriations bill, but I wish to ask the Senator 
in closing----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from New York has 
expired.
  Mr. DURBIN. Does she believe, with the offset she has come up with, 
that we have avoided any budget complaints that this bill is not being 
paid for?
  Mrs. CLINTON. The Senator's question is absolutely pertinent. We 
worked very hard through the night addressing that point. I have been 
informed by my staff, in consultation with the Finance Committee staff, 
that the amount is offset. Clearly, as I have said, I think this is 
such an emergency that we should spend new money, but we do have such 
an offset.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from New York has 
expired.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, if there is a question before the 
Senate, I do not want to interfere.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, for the information of my colleagues, 
correct me--parliamentary inquiry--I do not believe there has been a 
modification agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There has not.
  Mr. NICKLES. The modification has a tax increase to pay for it, I 
understand that, but that may have some problems in itself. I want all 
of our colleagues to know the amendment has not been modified as of 
yet.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
modified amendment be accepted at the desk and be considered.
  Mr. KYL. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wish to pose a question to the Senator from 
New York, if I may. Do I understand the offset is with Customs user 
fees; is that correct?
  Mrs. CLINTON. Yes.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I object because the Customs user fees would 
be one of the worst offsets we could provide, given the obligations of 
the Homeland Security Department with Customs security at our borders.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority whip.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator does not have time.
  Mrs. CLINTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator does not have time.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, it is my understanding I have 15 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 13\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes, and then I 
will yield Senator Kyl 5 minutes.
  I want my colleagues to reject this amendment. I, like the Senator 
from New York, agree we need to strengthen and improve Medicare, and I 
proved that last year with a bipartisan bill on Medicare give-back. 
Working with Senator Baucus, we put together a $43 billion bill that 
would have improved health care in rural America and address many of 
the issues the Senator from New York wants to address as well.
  While I support addressing the needs of all Medicare providers, I 
cannot support doing it in this way in the amendment being proposed. We 
have to do this in a comprehensive, studied, and targeted way.
  Everyone agrees that Medicare needs improving, and most of us would 
agree that Medicare payments need to be updated, but we do not have 
agreement on how that should be done. Some, including this Senator, 
believe that at least some providers need more money, but other 
Senators who might disagree with me say that providers are doing well 
and that their funding should be reduced.
  Even very recently, we had the nonpartisan Medicare Payment Advisory 
Committee last week make recommendations to Congress calling for 
reductions in some provider payments.
  I do not take these recommendations as gospel truth, and they are not 
going to govern my decisionmaking, but I believe we have a 
responsibility in the Finance Committee to examine all of these issues 
closely. More important, the only way we get anything done in this body 
is by a bipartisan approach. So we have to build a consensus before we 
pass a one-size-fits-all policy such as the one before us. I believe 
the place to do that is the Finance Committee. We will do our homework. 
That means listening to providers, beneficiaries, and experts to craft 
payment adjustments that ensure access to services for Medicare 
beneficiaries.
  I will certainly ensure that the Finance Committee consider my 
colleague's proposal. The two Medicare provisions in this omnibus bill 
are limited in time and duration. They target the cases with the most 
widespread support--physicians as well as rural and small urban 
hospitals--while we can do it. These two items stand the best chance of 
being preserved through conference and in negotiation with the White 
House.
  If this bill turns into some sort of Christmas tree for additional 
health care provisions, then the reality is that these provisions are 
likely to come out of the bill entirely, and we will not be helping 
anybody. Consequently, particularly doctors are going to have to wait 
until spring or summer. Let's not let the best be the enemy of the 
good.
  That is why I suggest we keep with the compromise in the bill and 
expect our committee, which we will do, to bring forth recommendations.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, to inform my colleague from New York, at 
least at this point I have not decided to object to a unanimous consent 
to modify her amendment, but I am concerned about the amendment. I am 
concerned about the modification, of which I have just now received a 
copy. I think I have the first copy on this side of the aisle.
  These are entitlement changes. They are expensive and they affect a 
lot of people.
  I will also tell my colleague from New York, there are a lot of us 
who have a lot of interest in a whole lot of these provisions. Being on 
the Finance Committee, I have worked with a lot of provider groups that 
have an interest in Medicare modifications and updates. This should go 
through the Finance Committee, and it should be bipartisan. Ninety-
some-odd percent of the Medicare adjustments that have ever been made 
since Medicare's inception have been bipartisan.
  I might mention that when I read language we are going to waive the 
budget and/or now we are going to raise taxes, that is not bipartisan; 
that is not working together.
  I reserve the right to object on the modification, but I say to my 
colleagues, this is the type of bill that should have regular order, 
should go through the committees, should be bipartisan through the 
committees, with input from all members of those committees, instead of 
being on an appropriations bill where we have not had a chance to 
thoroughly analyze it to a greater degree.

[[Page 1641]]

  I think we have some mutual objectives that can be accomplished in 
short order, but I do not believe this is the right way to do it today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eight and a half minutes.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Okay. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Arizona and 
then 3\1/2\ minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I have already objected to the modification 
of the amendment because it includes an offset of U.S. Customs Service 
fees. I have talked to the Senator from New York about my commitment to 
try to find a way in the Finance Committee to develop a plan very early 
in this year to find the reimbursement capability for the health care 
providers that are included within her amendment because I have in the 
past cosponsored legislation which would provide for adequate 
reimbursement to all of the health care professions.
  To set the record straight, we have ensured in this legislation that 
the cut that was going to take place in physician reimbursements will 
not take place. Additionally, there is funding for the rural hospitals. 
That will be done because those were the emergency requirements that we 
deal with in this legislation.
  In addition to that, the add-ons to the reimbursements to all of the 
other providers that are the subject of the amendment of the Senator 
from New York are set to expire. It is my intention to work with the 
Senator from New York to find a way to ensure that we can continue 
those add-ons. That can be done in the Finance Committee, and I am 
hopeful we will be able to do that.
  The first point I want to make is that the true emergency--the 
physicians--is being taken care of in this legislation. The expiration 
of the add-ons is something I will work on with the Senator from New 
York to try to accomplish, but we cannot do it by offsetting Customs 
user fees. At a time when we are asking the Customs Department to aid 
us in the war on terror at our borders and they are stretched as thin 
as they can possibly be stretched, it would be the absolute wrong thing 
to do. In talking with the Senator from New York, I am sure she agrees 
that if this is, in fact, what would happen, this would not be a 
necessarily good thing, that the funding that ordinarily would accrue 
to the Customs Service would not necessarily accrue to the Customs 
Service if an offset is permitted for this particular program.
  I will quote two things from a statement before the Terrorism 
Subcommittee last year. Bonni Tischler, the Acting Director of the 
Customs Service, testified, and I will quote a couple of things she 
said. I asked her about the effect of an offset on Customs user fees. 
She said: My personal opinion is it would severely hamper us.
  Later on she said: Yes, we would be severely hampered in how we 
operated.
  Then in a letter from the Customs Service from the Acting 
Commissioner which was sent to all of us--it was actually a memorandum 
from the Under Secretary for Enforcement--the point was that it would 
negatively impact the available funding from the Customs Service.
  I think my bone fides are pretty good. I helped to defeat a proposal 
of my chairman, Chairman Grassley, which was also going to be using the 
Customs user fees as an offset. This is the wrong way to achieve what 
may well be good objectives, and therefore I was constrained to object.
  We are all in agreement that we cannot allow the reimbursements to 
physicians to be cut in March. We are taking care of that in this 
legislation. In addition, we should try to find ways to prevent the 
add-ons, or the other health care providers, from not continuing to be 
in effect throughout the next year. It is my commitment to try to work 
with the Senator from New York in a way to ensure that happens as part 
of the Finance Committee deliberations probably on the Medicare 
legislation.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Iowa, Mr. 
Grassley, controls the time; is that right?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. The Senator from Arizona used his 5 minutes, and I have 
yielded 3\1/2\ minutes to Senator Santorum.
  Mr. REID. I ask for 30 seconds.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Of my time?
  Mr. REID. Yes.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. If it is not more than 30 seconds and we can get the 
show on the road, let's do it.
  Mr. REID. I say to everyone on that side of the aisle, we are going 
to have a vote on this amendment one way or the other. It is not that 
hard to do. So I think rather than having two votes, we should have 
one. I suggest that as the votes have gone in the last week or so, they 
have not been too favorable for us, and I do not know what the fear is 
of having a vote. We are going to have a vote sometime today. I thank 
the Senator very much for the 30 seconds.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the remaining time to the Senator from 
Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator from Iowa. I take this opportunity 
today to keep the Senate updated as to the ``spendometer'' that is 
flying now at a very high rate of speed as a result of the last few 
amendments. We have been going through all the different amendments, 
and now they are at such a level I will not detail them all, but as of 
the last time I spoke with this chart, we were at $341 billion. That 
was yesterday at about this time. So within a 24-hour period, we have 
gone from $341 billion added to the deficit, with the inclusion of the 
amendments that have yet to be voted on--which are the Clinton, the 
Kennedy, the Cantwell, and the Bingaman amendments--with those votes we 
will be almost to the grand total of a half a trillion dollars in new 
spending being proposed over the next 10 years by Members on the other 
side of the aisle.
  These are additions to the baseline which CBO will score as an amount 
that will be added to with inflation, plus the interest costs of 
carrying this additional deficit.
  So when we hear the other side talk about how we cannot afford any 
relief for the taxpayer, we cannot afford any economic stimulus package 
because we will add to the deficit, this is money they want to add to 
bills that should have been passed 3 months ago.
  In a matter of a month or two, we will consider the 2004 budget. I 
suspect we will see amendments probably double or triple this amount to 
add to the 2004 budget on top of what they wanted to add to the 2003 
budget. We are looking at an enormous expansion of Government that has 
been voted on almost unanimously by the Members on the other side of 
the aisle. Some of them, I agree, have been voted by us and I condemn 
us for the ones that we have voted for, but they have been rather small 
amounts of money.
  I argue that we are heading down a path of Government growth in 
spending that is simply not sustainable in this economy, and we need to 
focus on growing the economy, not growing Government.
  This is a fundamental difference between the two sides of the aisle. 
We are about growing the economy through putting more money out in the 
private sector. They are about growing the Government in the last week 
to the tune of almost a half trillion dollars in new spending over the 
next 10 years.
  That is fine. If they want to go out to the American public and say 
we think the answers to the economic woes this country is suffering are 
going to be met with more Government spending to the tune of a half 
trillion dollars over the next 10 years, go out and make the case, but 
do not make the case that we do not have money to help this economy 
grow because we are concerned about deficits.
  No one who proposes half a trillion dollars in new spending--and, by 
the way, votes for it almost unanimously--can make a legitimate claim 
that they are worried about deficits. One cannot be worried about 
deficits and vote unanimously, almost to a person on

[[Page 1642]]

the other side, for almost half a trillion dollars in new spending over 
the next 10 years. It is inconsistent. It is not honest.
  Let's be consistent. We are either for more spending, we are for 
higher deficits, or we are for growth in the economy. That is the 
difference between the two parties. Let's face the facts.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa retains 20 seconds.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I enjoyed very much the speech of my 
colleague from Pennsylvania, but it has almost no relevance to what is 
going on here at all. It was good for the amusement of the Chamber, but 
those numbers bear no relationship to the amendments that have been 
offered.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania adds up some tote board scoring of 
costs that bear no relationship to the amendments on which we voted. 
These amendments were not spending for 10 years. These amendments were 
to restore cuts that have been made in the budget for this year. This 
does not have anything to do with spending for 10 years from now, or 5 
years from now. So all those cumulative totals bear no relationship to 
what has occurred in the Senate.
  The concern with deficits of the Senator from Pennsylvania is 
interesting, but it is a change for him because he supported the 
massive tax cuts that have opened up this chasm, where we have gone 
from a projection 2 years ago of $5.6 trillion of surpluses over the 
next decade to now being $2 trillion in the hole. Where was he in his 
concern for deficits then?
  The assertion that each of these items that have been voted on can be 
totaled is erroneous as well. We cannot just take each of these 
amendments, every one of them which has been defeated, and total them. 
One amendment is offered, it is defeated. That money cannot be treated 
as though it has been spent. That is what the Senator from Pennsylvania 
has done. It defies logic. It defies reason. It defies the facts.
  These amendments were not offered in total. They were offered one at 
a time. As they were defeated, another amendment was offered. So you 
cannot total them. And you certainly cannot make 10-year totals from 
any of them because they are 1-year pending proposals.
  I am happy to yield to my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota has the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. If I might ask a question, it has been interesting to 
hear this discussion. I saw the tote board.
  Mr. McCAIN. What is the regular order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the understanding of the Chair, based on 
previous conversations, that we were to proceed with the Senator from 
Arizona and the offering of his amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. If I might ask the Chair, the Senator from North Dakota 
sought recognition, was granted recognition, the Senator from North 
Dakota still has the floor; is that not the case?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. CONRAD. That is correct. And I have yielded to my colleague, the 
Senator from North Dakota, for a question.
  Mr. DORGAN. If I might ask a question, the discussion was quite 
interesting. I will be very brief.
  Our colleague said our position is to grow Government. I am wondering 
if growing Government would be something that occurs as a result of 
proposals that dramatically increase the Federal deficit. Is it the 
case that those who would propose and support policies that 
dramatically increase the deficit, such as a $1.7 trillion tax cut or 
$690 billion tax cut, all of which is borrowed, is it the case that 
would target the growth of the economy?
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, deficits inhibit growth and hurt the 
economic strength of the country. That is undeniable.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 214

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of our conservation organizations 
     and the millions of members and supporters we represent, we 
     urge you to support the McCain-Dayton Devils Lake amendment 
     to the Omnibus Appropriations Bill for FY 2003. That 
     amendment would remove an anti-environment, anti-

[[Page 1643]]

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

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

                                             Canadian Embassy,

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

     Hon. Bill Young,
     Chairman, Appropriations Committee, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Young: I understand that you will soon be 
     considering the Administration's request for $6.6 million in 
     emergency supplemental funding for preconstruction activities 
     related to the Corps of Engineers' proposed construction of 
     an outlet from Devils Lake, North Dakota, to the Sheyenne 
     River. I am writing to express the strong opposition of the 
     Government of Canada and the Province of Manitoba to a 
     project that could lead to transfers of water, potentially 
     carrying non-native biota, including fish diseases, from 
     Devils Lake into the Red River and Hudson Bay basin, a result 
     that the International Joint Commission concluded in 1977 
     could have ``irreversible and catastrophic'' consequences for 
     Manitoba's commercial fishing industry.
        While Canada sympathizes with North Dakota's problems with 
     Devils Lake flooding, it cannot agree to a solution that 
     poses a genuine threat to Canadian water resources, as well 
     as to those of other states. There are alternative, internal 
     solutions available to North Dakota, including the 
     construction of additional flood protection works and the 
     pursuit of upper basin storage approaches. Canada urges that 
     additional funds not be provided for the Devils Lake outlet 
     project unless and until all of the issues it raises are 
     thoroughly addressed through studies repeatedly mandated by 
     Congress, and following meaningful consultation with Canada 
     under the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty.
       There is little question that an outlet to the Sheyenne 
     River from Devils Lake would adversely affect water quality 
     in the Red River (into which the Sheyenne flows), due to the 
     high level of total dissolved solids, sulphates and 
     bioaccumulation of mercury in Devils Lake water. The initial 
     work done by the Corps of Engineers has raised serious doubts 
     about the possibility of operating an outlet in compliance 
     with existing US water quality standards. Water quality in 
     the Red River at the point where it flows into Canada has 
     already failed to meet established objectives, according to 
     the International Joint Commission. Additional, poor quality 
     water from Devils Lake would require municipalities which use 
     the Red River as their drinking water source to increase 
     their level of treatment, and incur increased costs.
       Although the US Fish and Wildlife Service's preliminary 
     review in May 1999 did not address the impact of an outlet on 
     the Red River, it concluded that ``the combination of high 
     total dissolved solids (TDS), sulfates, and chlorides (plus 
     unknown levels of other toxic or harmful constituents) would 
     likely devastate the freshwater aquatic life in the Sheyenne 
     River.'' The US Fish and Wildlife Service also concluded that 
     the ``introduction of Devils Lake water into the Sheyenne 
     River will significantly degrade water quality, increase 
     erosion and sedimentation, and result in conditions 
     detrimental to aquatic mollusks, such as freshwater mussels, 
     pill clams, and snails.'' We understand that these concerns 
     are shared by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 
     and contribute to opposition to the outlet from Governor 
     Ventura and Senator Wellstone.
       In addition to the impact on downstream water quality and 
     its effect on aquatic species, Canada is especially concerned 
     about the potential transfer of unknown biota from Devils 
     Lake to the Red River. While there is some knowledge of the 
     large fish species, very little is understood at this time 
     about microscopic organisms in either system such as fish 
     pathogens, viruses, etc. As you know, there are many examples 
     of prior man-made connections between major watersheds 
     causing severe regional and international problems because of 
     biota transfer, including the introduction of the sea lamprey 
     into the Great Lakes, the spread of zebra mussels to dozens 
     of states, and the invasion by round gobies (which are 
     displacing perch in Lake Michigan) of the Mississippi River 
     and Missouri River watersheds. Zebra mussel management in the 
     Great Lakes alone costs over $3 billion per year. President 
     Clinton recognized the seriousness of this national problem 
     last year in his Executive Order on Invasive Species. If a 
     Devils Lake outlet to the Sheyenne River is constructed, it 
     will provide a permanent route for existing and future non-
     native biota to move into the Hudson Bay basin.
       From a technical standpoint, there is serious doubt that an 
     outlet with the proposed capacity would have any demonstrable 
     effect on the level of Devils Lake. After thorough review, 
     the Corps of Engineers announced in a June 1999 press release 
     its conclusion that an outlet is not the necessary or 
     appropriate solution, at this time, and recommended a review 
     of alternatives. Restoration of drained wetlands is one 
     possibility. As Devils Lake has no natural outlet, its high 
     levels may well have been exacerbated by the amount of run-
     off from drained wetlands in the basin.
       If the proposed outlet is nevertheless constructed and 
     found ineffective, this could result in pressure to increase 
     the flows, thereby increasing the volume of water flowing 
     into the Red River and Hudson Bay basin, and exacerbating 
     future flooding and water quality problems in both the United 
     States and Canada.
       Of critical concern to Canada, Manitoba and US opponents of 
     the outlet is the link between the Bureau of Reclamation's 
     Garrison Diversion Unit and the stabilization of water levels 
     in Devils Lake. It is well known that water level 
     stabilization in Devils Lake was one of the original goals of 
     the Garrison project. Public statements by both local 
     government officials in the Devils Lake basin and by the 
     North Dakota congressional delegation clearly indicate that 
     this has been their long-term goal. While gaining an outlet 
     to Devils Lake is their immediate objective, once water 
     levels recede naturally following the end of the present wet 
     cycle--as they have historically--their next goal will be to 
     create an inlet to raise the lake level using water diverted 
     from the Missouri River. It is important to note that less 
     than ten years ago, North Dakota was examining proposals to 
     construct an inlet to Devils Lake from the Missouri River 
     because of concerns with low water levels. This objective has 
     remained evident in State of North Dakota literature on the 
     Garrison Diversion and on Devils Lake. This raises once again 
     Canadian and other concerns over inter-basin biota transfer 
     that caused such controversy over the Garrison Diversion 
     before the 1986 Reformulation Act.
       The potential for imminent overflow of Devils Lake to the 
     Red River basin in minimal. U.S. federal agencies had 
     concluded in

[[Page 1644]]

     1999 that, even with the previous rate of lake level 
     increase, such an overflow would not occur naturally for 
     another 10-18 years, and that planning for such an event 
     would not have to begin for another five or six years. This 
     year, it is predicted there will be a decrease in level for 
     the first time in several years, further supporting that 
     conclusion. This allows sufficient time for serious and 
     thoughtful examination of all potential alternatives and a 
     thorough assessment of environmental impacts.
       For all these reasons, Canada is very concerned that the 
     Corps of Engineers has proposed in its Supplemental Fiscal 
     Year 2000 request, and in its request for Fiscal Year 2001, 
     the deletion of language contained in the last several Energy 
     and Water Development Appropriations Acts that requires a 
     showing of an emergency need and economic justification 
     before construction can proceed. Canada urges that those 
     restrictions, which among other things require compliance 
     with U.S. environmental laws and obligations under the 
     Boundary Water Treaty of 1909, remain intact.
       I would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have 
     regarding Canada's position on the Devils Lake outlet or the 
     Garrison Diversion project.
           Yours sincerely,
                                                 Raymond Chretien,
                                                       Ambassador.

  Mr. McCAIN. In part it reads:

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

  I have had extended conversations with both Senators from North 
Dakota. I do not claim to have extensive education and expertise on 
this issue. I think it is serious when we have these concerns by Canada 
and neighboring States and there is not a cost-benefit analysis.
  My friends from North Dakota point out that it is under the way in 
which that cost-benefit analysis is conducted. With a basin such as 
this, that catches water and does not release water, as happens in the 
case of rivers, this is very difficult, if not impossible, to do. I 
still believe we should be able to fashion some kind of formula to find 
out what the cost-benefit ratio is.
  I also point out that, thanks to the good efforts of the Senators 
from North Dakota, $350 million has been spent in the last several 
years, raising highways and relocating individuals who live in 
proximity to Devils Lake.
  There are concerns raised. I think the concerns are serious. I also 
assured my colleagues from North Dakota that I will send my staff out 
to North Dakota.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. McCAIN. I will be glad to yield.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator entertain a time agreement now?
  Mr. McCAIN. I would like to wait, if it is agreeable to the Senator 
from Alaska. I understand the senior Senator from Minnesota is on his 
way. If you could give me about 3 or 4 minutes?
  Mr. STEVENS. All right. Thank you.
  Mr. McCAIN. The senior Senator, as well as the junior Senator, from 
Minnesota, have views on this issue. I would not like to enter into a 
time agreement until such time as they at least are consulted. But I am 
sure they would be agreeable to a reasonable time limit.
  I did discuss with my colleagues from North Dakota that I sent staff 
out to Devils Lake to further look at this situation. I understand and 
appreciate their long involvement--I understand 9 years--in this issue. 
I would be more than willing to learn more about this issue.
  At this time, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, first of all, I thank our colleague from 
Arizona for taking the time to listen to our concerns, because this is 
a disaster of staggering proportion in our State. Let me just say it is 
the unanimous view of every elected official in the State of North 
Dakota, every single one, Republican and Democrat, that we must deal 
with this unfolding crisis.
  Here is what has happened to this lake. This lake, by the way, is 
three times the size of the District of Columbia. This is a massive 
lake. It has risen dramatically, some 26 vertical feet, since 1992. It 
started rising then and, as you can see, it has been straight up since 
then. This is a flood unlike any other in our Nation's history. The 
reason for that is that there are only two closed basins in the entire 
United States. The drainage basin for this lake is the size of the 
State of Massachusetts. This lake, if it continues uncontrolled, will 
reach the size of the State of Rhode Island. That is not just 
conjecture. That has happened two times in history. Those two times 
were at times when North Dakota and Minnesota were unpopulated.
  Already the cost to the Federal Government already of this lake 
rising has been over $350 million. Threatened structures have been 
moved. Highways have been raised. A massive dike protecting the town of 
Devils Lake has been increased twice already. The Federal Government is 
poised to raise it again. So the hard reality is that unless more is 
done, we face a catastrophic event.
  The year before last, 50 miles outside this basin, there was an event 
where 18 inches of rain fell in 1 day. If that event had occurred 50 
miles to the west, this lake would have gone up, according to the Corps 
of Engineers' calculations, by 3 feet, perhaps even more. That probably 
would have overwhelmed the road system, because we now have roads 
acting as dams, protecting homes, protecting people from catastrophic 
loss. If that event would have occurred in the middle of the night, it 
is entirely likely that lives would have been lost.
  The consequences of a failure to act here are enormous. This lake, 
which is already three times the size of the District of Columbia, has 
had an uncontrolled release out of the east end twice before in its 
history. If it happened again, it would be devastating to the hundreds 
of thousands of people downstream.
  I remind our colleagues, the first ones downstream are the people in 
North Dakota, in the towns of Valley City, Fargo, and Grand Forks.
  We have insisted that water quality has to be met with any outlet 
procedure. The provision in this bill provides that the funds shall not 
become available unless the Secretary of the Army determines that an 
emergency exists with respect to the need for an outlet and reports to 
Congress that the construction is technically sound, environmentally 
acceptable, and in compliance with the National Environmental Policy 
Act; provided further that the justification for the emergency outlet 
shall be fully described, including the analysis of benefits and costs 
to which the Senator from Arizona referred. There will be a requirement 
that a cost-benefit analysis is done. Provided further that the plans 
for the emergency outlet shall be reviewed and, to be effective, shall 
contain assurances provided by the Secretary of State that the project 
will not violate the treaty between the United States and Great Britain 
relating to the boundary waters between the United States and Canada.
  We have attempted to be environmentally sensitive and cost-friendly 
to American taxpayers, but also to respond to this burgeoning crisis in 
the Devils Lake Basin, a crisis that has already cost the taxpayers of 
the United States $350 million. If the growth of this lake continues, 
it has the prospect of costing the American taxpayers hundreds and 
hundreds of millions of dollars more.

[[Page 1645]]

  We have already had to buy out an entire town. We have already had to 
buy out the town of Church's Ferry.
  The next town on the list is Minnewaukan. There is the lake. It has 
already eaten up the playing field of the high school there. That is 
all under water. This entire town is now threatened.
  American taxpayers have already had to buy out Church's Ferry. Next 
is Minnewaukan, and if this continues, Devils Lake, a town of 10,000, 
would potentially fall into the requirement of having to be bought out. 
The cost of that to the American taxpayers would be billions of 
dollars. That is the hard reality.
  Let me close with this photo. We like to say this is the luckiest 
fellow in North Dakota because he just escaped the advancing flood. 
This is a lake that, as one Federal official came out and said: My God, 
this looks like an ocean. Indeed, it is huge, three times the size of 
the District of Columbia. If it continues to grow, we will see complete 
devastation for hundreds and hundreds of thousands of acres and for 
hundreds of thousands of people.
  This is a picture of a home having to be burned because it was in 
line with the floodwaters before it could be moved. Of course it would 
have created a serious health hazard had it been allowed to go into the 
water. So homes all across this area had to be burned and hundreds have 
had to be moved.
  This project needs to go forward to protect human life and to prevent 
a disaster of stunning proportion. If this lake escapes uncontrolled 
out of the east end, as it has twice in our history, we expect that the 
downstream people would have a very serious adverse health effect.
  I asked one time, when I heard repeatedly the Corps of Engineers talk 
about the health effects that would occur, the illness that would be 
the result of an uncontrolled release of the water out of the east end, 
what kind of health problems would occur? They explained the water 
systems downstream cannot handle the dissolved salts that are in this 
lake. If it went out of the east end of the lake uncontrolled, 
thousands of people downstream would be made ill.
  There are many things that need to be done. Additional storage in the 
upper basin, millions of dollars have been spent on that. Moving 
threatened structures, raising roads, millions of dollars have been 
spent on that. Raising the dike protecting Devils Lake, tens of 
millions of dollars have been spent on that.
  But one part of an overall strategy to deal with this crisis is to 
provide for an outlet. As the Senator from Arizona correctly states, 
there is no assurance that will solve the problem, but it is our best 
hope to prevent a catastrophe of truly stunning proportion, one that 
would not only adversely affect the people of North Dakota but the 
people of Minnesota and the people of Canada as well.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dorgan 
be recognized for 5 minutes, Senator Dayton for 10 minutes, Senator 
McCain for 2 minutes, and following that the debate on this be ended.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the vote will occur 
at 1:15 on the Kennedy amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote be 
moved to 1:45.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my colleague has pretty much covered this 
subject.
  Let me say to my colleague from Arizona that I understand he raised 
some concerns to which I think Senator Conrad has responded. I 
appreciate the manner in which Senator McCain has raised this issue. 
This is not an issue that is irrelevant to others. It is very important 
to others. It is important to our neighbors. It is important to the 
State of Minnesota. It is important to the neighboring country of 
Canada to the north. It is important to the American taxpayers. It is, 
obviously, important to my colleague from Arizona. I don't dismiss 
concerns people have raised about these issues.
  I want to say--as my colleague, Senator Conrad, said--that it is not 
our intention to build an outlet from the lake itself in a manner that 
injures anyone. We don't come to this project saying we would like to 
have a project for our State. This is not something we are anxious to 
do because we believe this project would be something that would be a 
feather in our cap. We come to this because we have a lake that has 
been chronically flooding for a long time.
  As was mentioned earlier, there are only two closed basins in this 
country. One is the Great Salt Lake and the other is Devils Lake. The 
upper basin of Devils Lake is the size of the State of Massachusetts. 
Water funnels down from that basin into Devils Lake. This picture 
doesn't do justice to the lake. But it does show what is happening 
here. What used to be a road and commerce and opportunity in this area 
of our State that is very important to us is now flooded--inundated--
with water. This extends over to an Indian reservation called the 
Spirit Lake Nation.
  I recall one day driving around with the tribal chairman of the 
Spirit Lake Nation with a man named Elmer White. Elmer is dead now. 
Elmer passed away a couple of years ago. He said: Our elders told us 
the water was coming. He said: All of these roads that are no longer 
passable and all of these roads that are now inundated with water, our 
elders told us this was going to happen.
  What happened is we stranded part of this Indian reservation. We have 
had to make substantial investments in roads in order to get people to 
hospitals. They have to move around and meander in strange ways on 
backroads.
  This flooding has been chronic and very difficult. Frankly, I don't 
expect anybody to understand lake flooding until they have seen it. My 
notion of a flood is almost always the notion of the Red River Valley 
flood or some other flood that I have seen on television someplace. 
There is a coursing and a gushing river--a virtual torrent and wall of 
water. It sweeps houses and trees and cattle downstream in a rush of 
water and in a roar of noise. Then, 12 hours later, or 24 hours later, 
or 48 hours later, the river is back in its banks, in all its calm. 
That is what river flooding is. That is what we think of with flooding.
  This lake has increased 26 feet in height in the last 9 years. It has 
gobbled up more and more land.
  One of the things we have to do to respond--not because we want to 
but because we must in order to protect others--is try to take some 
pressure off that lake and do it without hurting anyone else. If we 
don't take pressure off that lake with a measured outlet, what is going 
to happen is, if that water continues to rise, it goes over the divide 
naturally in an uncontrolled way and you have people living 
downstream--yes, in North Dakota our big population centers, but also 
up in Canada--and the worst quality water is going to make literally 
hundreds of thousands of people sick--North Dakotans, Minnesotans, and 
Canadians. That is what will happen in an uncontrolled release of water 
over the divide if we don't do something to reduce the risk.
  That is what this proposed outlet is about.
  I have a couple of final points. This outlet cannot be built unless 
it meets all environmental standards. Under the NEPA Act, the studies 
are ongoing. The studies must be done.
  Second, this cannot be built and we cannot do anything unless we 
pledge--as we have and unless our country determines as it has--that we 
will not violate the boundary waters treaty with Canada. We don't 
intend to take a problem that exists here and foist that problem on 
someone else; certainly not on our constituents living downstream, not 
on our neighbors, not on Minnesotans, and not on the Canadians.
  This is a project that is critically necessary to reduce risks.
  I understand my colleague from Arizona and the questions he has 
raised.

[[Page 1646]]

We had a long meeting this morning. I hope we will be able to resolve 
all of these issues. But I believe this project is critically important 
to a whole lot of folks who have been victimized by chronic floods that 
came and stayed--by lake flooding that has been devastating to this 
region of the country. We must find a way to reduce the risk for the 
people who live in this region, for the American taxpayer--especially 
for people who live downstream who would be the recipients and victims 
of an uncontrolled release of water if we don't do something to take 
the pressure off this lake.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Minnesota for taking on so many of the responsibilities here, and for 
his involvement in the balance of our portfolios in Minnesota. I 
welcome the Chair.
  I don't like to disagree with my colleagues from North Dakota. We 
have an excellent working relationship. In fact, our two States--other 
than fighting over hockey players--generally get along pretty well on 
everything else, and particularly on this matter related to the water 
management. We have worked cooperatively on water problems in most 
cases over the last couple of decades because it is absolutely 
necessary to get something accomplished. Minnesota shouldn't be 
foisting problems on North Dakota that are not of its creation and that 
exacerbate their situation. We in Minnesota would ask the same of our 
friends across the border in North Dakota. In this case, that is 
exactly what would happen.
  I am very disappointed that my colleagues from North Dakota have 
chosen to try to insert this funding into the appropriations bill 
authorizing a $100 million project that I am told did not go before the 
Senate committees. It hasn't had that review. It hasn't gone through 
the normal Senate process. It has been instead snuck into this measure.
  I thank the distinguished Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, for his 
vigilance in this matter. I am going to read bills as carefully and as 
thoroughly as the Senator from Arizona does because he does a 
phenomenal job at identifying these attempts to circumvent our Senate 
process.
  In 1999--this preceded my time in the Senate--according to the 
Record, the States of Minnesota and North Dakota, along with the 
Canadian Government, which may not have been in complete accord, worked 
out language that was reflected in the 1999 bill which set forth basic 
procedures that would have to be followed before this project could 
move forward.
  That language says very specifically, among other things, that the 
economic justification for this emergency outlet shall be prepared in 
accordance with the principles and guidelines for economic evaluation 
as required by regulations and procedures of the Army Corps of 
Engineers for all flood projects.
  I am told the project itself does not meet those requirements. 
Minnesota projects have been turned down by the Army Corps of Engineers 
because of the cost-benefit analysis. The costs exceed the benefits. In 
this area, we were told that the project would have a cost benefit of 
0.37 percent. According to the EPA, that is an understatement because 
it fails to take into account the environmental damage that would 
ensue.
  The solution, according to my colleagues, is to waive that 
requirement and have them report on a cost-benefit analysis but not 
have to apply the same standard or measure that is applied to the other 
projects in Minnesota and other States across the country, which would 
circumvent the will of the Congress in terms of how these projects are 
managed, and to make it consistent across the Nation.
  The funding would then allow water to be diverted initially to North 
Dakota but then into the Red River, which is the common boundary 
between Minnesota and North Dakota, and within the site of severe 
flooding in recent years, which included cites that are on the 
Minnesota and North Dakota border. But also, then, at the very northern 
part, as we border Canada, the river diverts from North Dakota--the 
Rainy River--and runs across our northern border.
  I wish I could show my colleagues this picture. It is of this last 
summer, the flooding that occurred in Roseau, MN. The entire city was 
under water--everything except the Polaris manufacturing plant, which 
employs 1,800 people in the northwestern corner of our State. If that 
had been flooded, the company's loss would have been just so 
devastating to the region; its cost is almost incalculable. It was 
within half an inch of flooding entirely and only because the entire 
city gave up on their homes and went to sandbags. Just down the river 
in Warroad, MN, the dikes were an inch from overflowing and flooding 
the entire city.
  So anything that would divert water from anywhere else and put that 
water downstream into Minnesota poses a grave risk to our State. That 
is the reason our Department of Natural Resources has opposed it, along 
with local officials throughout Minnesota.
  There are also concerns about the effect in terms of the solidity of 
the water in Devils Lake. Because of its own problems, it is much 
different in quality and characteristic from water elsewhere.
  So, again, they are going to solve their problem by passing it on to 
us. I think, again, this is grotesquely unfair and unwarranted.
  This project is opposed by not only the State of Minnesota but by the 
Environmental Protection Agency. We have castigated EPA recently--some 
of us--in some of their decisions. In this case, EPA stands four square 
with the environmental organizations in opposing this project.
  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife oppose it. The State of Minnesota, the 
Canadian Government, the Great Lakes Commission, Taxpayers for Common 
Sense, the National Wildlife Federation, Minnesota Conservation 
Federation, the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy--just about 
everybody opposes it except for North Dakota. I understand the reasons 
that the North Dakota Senators would want to accomplish this project 
but not at Minnesota's expense, not at the violation of our procedures 
here, not at the circumvention of the way we send legislation through 
our committees and the governmental relations we have between North 
Dakota and Minnesota and Canada.
  We are attempting to work constructively to solve these problems. 
This is not the way to do that. I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
measure.
  I also point out that the Army Corps of Engineers, which is the very 
entity that would be carrying out this project, itself has indicated 
that it would not favor proceeding at this time. It was, I expect, the 
decision of the Chief of Engineers, Robert Flowers, of the Army Corps 
of Engineers, in August of last year, who announced he would not 
approve the environmental impact statement because the Corps had not 
given adequate consideration to the project's potential for serious 
environmental damage. He recommended that the International Joint 
Commission be given the opportunity to examine the report.
  That unwillingness to proceed--again, a Federal Government agency 
doing its job properly, as instructed by the rules and regulations of 
laws passed by Congress and the rules and regulations that itself 
promulgated--brought this project to a halt. So now we are going to 
circumvent that entire professional judgment here in the Senate.
  Mr. President, I conclude my remarks at this point, but I ask for the 
yeas and nays on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona has 2 minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield my 2 minutes to the Senator from 
North Dakota, Mr. Conrad.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.

[[Page 1647]]


  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank, again, Senator McCain, and I 
thank my colleague, Senator Dayton. He is here defending his 
constituency as he sees it. I just want to assure him of a couple of 
things.
  No. 1, on this notion that we are asking for a different standard of 
measuring the cost-benefit test, that is true. And the reason is that 
the standard that applies in the law has no relevance to what is 
happening in North Dakota. The standard that applies in the law is 
designed to deal with river flooding, where the water comes and the 
water goes, and once the damage has been done you can rebuild.
  That is not the circumstance here. That is why everyone who has 
examined this circumstance has said the standard cost model is 
irrelevant.
  Mr. DAYTON. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield, but if I can just finish my thought.
  What is required here is to understand this is cumulative damage as 
this lake continues to rise. That is why we have had to raise this dike 
twice, and the Federal Government is poised to raise it a third time. 
That is why the roads have had to be raised twice. That is why hundreds 
of threatened structures have had to have been moved. More will have to 
be done. And the cumulative cost continues to grow.
  Second, on the question of flooding in Minnesota, we share the border 
with Minnesota. We are not going to do anything that will make the 
flooding worse for our own people. We share the border with Minnesota. 
We will do nothing to hurt Minnesota or North Dakota because that would 
not be in our constituency interest.
  Finally, we have to meet NEPA. That is what our amendment provides. 
That is what is in this law. We have to meet the National Environmental 
Policy Act. We have to meet the Boundary Waters Treaty with Canada. But 
we should not be blocked, either, by Canada refusing to make a joint 
referral to the IGC, which they have done for more than a year.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I understand I have a minute remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, then I will entertain questions from my 
colleagues from North Dakota in return.
  I will point out, I was not here in 1999, but my two colleagues from 
North Dakota were. I do not know the circumstances under which this 
language was adopted. That requires the Army Corps of Engineers to 
undertake exactly the same kind of cost-benefit analysis for this 
project as it does for others. If that was not applicable then, I do 
not know why that was not raised in 1999 or 2000 or 2001.
  Contrary to what the Senator implied, the language in this amendment 
does not set up a different standard. It weighs the standard. It simply 
says the Army Corps of Engineers will describe the cost benefit. It is 
not going to have any standard it has to meet whatsoever other than the 
fact that that analysis is done.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DAYTON. When I finish my thought.
  In terms of the two States, I cannot explain why, since we do share a 
common border, our departments of natural resources view it 
differently, although the interests are different. But I know for a 
fact that part of that is because of the severe flooding which we 
shared in 1997 in East Grand Forks and Grand Forks and Fargo and 
Moorhead.
  But also, as I indicated, in the last 2 years Minnesota farmers have 
been devastated in the northwestern part of the State and the cities 
there have been flooded after the river diverts from the North Dakota-
Minnesota border.
  We have circumstances that are different; therefore, the interests of 
our States differ. That is exactly the reason why Minnesota and North 
Dakota and Canada should be working cooperatively on this and not have 
one State go off on its own trying to finagle something which I think 
undermines the trust and working relationship.
  I will yield for a question.
  Mr. DORGAN. I just point out, if this were to injure downstream 
citizens in your State or ours, I would not support it. We do not 
intend to foist a problem that exists in this basin on any other 
constituency anywhere.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DAYTON. In the judgment of Minnesota, that is what you are doing.
  I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to table the Senator's amendment and ask for the 
yeas and nays on that tabling motion. And I ask unanimous consent that 
vote take place following the vote on Senator Clinton's amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). Without objection, the vote will 
take place after the Clinton amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, Senator McCain has another amendment. It 
is my understanding that the parties have agreed to a 20-minute time 
agreement equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona.


                           Amendment No. 230

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

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

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

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

       On page 263, beginning with ``$346,437,000,'' in line 24, 
     strike through line 6 on page 264 and insert ``$331,687,000, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That the 
     Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, 
     using $250,000 of the funds provided herein, is directed to 
     continue environmental review and project plans for the Yazoo 
     Basin, Yazoo Backwater Pumping Plant, Mississippi.''.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to reduce 
funding for the Yazoo Pump Project in Yazoo Basin, MS. I believe the 
project is wasteful and environmentally harmful. It has not been 
subjected to standard responsible environmental or economic assessment. 
And although it was touted as a flood control project, the Yazoo pumps 
are not designed to save homes and lives. Instead, in my view, the 
pumps are specifically designed to drain wetlands so that large 
landowners can increase agricultural production on marginal lands, the 
majority of which are irreplaceable wetlands.
  In fact the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has indicated this 
project will likely be subject to a Clean Water Act veto because the 
project will drain and damage more than 200,000 acres of significant 
wetlands in the Mississippi flyway. That is more than three times the 
number of wetlands lost across the country in an entire year from all 
causes. It is more than seven times as many wetlands as the Corps 
allows private developers to destroy in an entire year nationwide under 
the Clean Water Act section 404 permit program.
  Wetlands drained will include more than 31,000 acres currently 
enrolled in the Wetlands Reserve and Conservation Reserve programs 
which the Federal taxpayers already have paid more than $30 million to 
protect. Tens of thousands of acres of forest and wetlands located on 
Federal and State lands will also be damaged. But the harm won't end 
there. The pumps will alter the hydrology of the entire 925,000-acre 
project area and of the Dear Creek,

[[Page 1648]]

Steele Bayou, Little Sunflower, and Big Sunflower Rivers that flow 
through that area. The project also encourages increased pesticide use 
in an area of the country already plagued by significant toxic 
contamination.
  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has also opposed the project due 
to the severity of the ecological harm it will cause.
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the opposition 
statement of the EPA.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                U.S. Environmental


                                            Protection Agency,

                                    Atlanta, GA, January 19, 2001.
     Hon. Louis Caldera,
     Secretary of the Army,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Caldera: While there has been extensive 
     communication between the Environmental Protection Agency 
     (EPA) and the Corps of Engineers regarding the Yazoo 
     Backwater Pumping Plant, we are writing to express directly 
     to you the depth of our concern with the environmental 
     consequences of the Corps proposal. It would alter the 
     hydrology of over 200,000 acres of ecologically significant 
     wetlands. It would drain wetlands currently enrolled in the 
     Conservation Reserve Program and the Wetlands Reserve 
     Program, wetlands being managed as mitigation for previously 
     constructed projects in the region, and wetlands on national 
     forest, national wildlife refuge, and state lands. Moreover, 
     an independent evaluation has found serious flaws in the 
     Corps' cost-benefit analysis for this project. Our objections 
     are intensified because the unacceptable environmental 
     impacts are avoidable.
       The Yazoo Backwater Pumping Plant would work against the 
     progress that has been made in reducing the losses of our 
     nation's wetlands resulting from the hard work of the Army 
     Corps, other agencies, and our non-federal partners. Just 
     last week Secretaries Babbitt and Glickman announced that the 
     net wetland loss rate has been reduced to less than 60,000 
     acres per year across the entire U.S., which puts in 
     perspective the massive scale of the wetlands at risk because 
     of the Yazoo project.
       The Corps has not responded to our concerns that the 
     project exceeds the Congressional authorization. The Flood 
     Control Act of 1941, upon which the Corps derives its 
     authority to construct the Yazoo Pumps, prohibits the 
     draining of lands below the 90 foot elevation. This 
     prohibition has never been removed or altered. The 
     recommended plan, however, proposes to drain lands well below 
     the 90 foot elevation with significant adverse environmental 
     impacts. Over approximately 150,000 acres of forested and 
     cropped wetlands will be adversely impacted by draining below 
     the authorized elevation.
       Explicit Congressional authorization would be required 
     before the Corps could proceed with the project or seek a 
     Clean Water Act exemption, and any such authorization would 
     be subject to the cost share requirements of 33 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 2213.
       Because of the environmental effects, EPA strongly opposes 
     Congressional authorization of the project as proposed. We 
     hope that the Department of Army would share our objections.
       We are reiterating EPA's offer to work with the Corps to 
     develop an alternative to meet project objectives, while 
     avoiding the significant level of environmental damage 
     associated with the Corps proposal. Other federal agencies 
     with programs that could be part of an alternative approach, 
     including the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the 
     Natural resources Conservation Service, and the U.S. Fish and 
     Wildlife Service have also expressed their willingness to 
     cooperate with the Corps in exploring less environmentally 
     damaging alternatives.
       Thank you for your interest and involvement in this 
     important issue. If your wish to discuss this matter, please 
     contact John Meagher at 202-260-1917.
           Sincerely,
     J. Charles Fox,
       Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.
     John Hankinson,
       Regional Administrator, EPA Region IV.
  Mr. McCAIN. The controversy surrounding this project is not limited 
to the environmental harm the pumps will cause. An independent economic 
analysis conducted by a highly respected economist, who also chairs the 
National Academy of Sciences panel, shows that the Yazoo pumps cannot 
be economically justified. It shows that the Corps has overstated just 
the agricultural benefits of the project by $144 million. It also shows 
that the Corps of Engineers is asking Federal taxpayers to spend well 
over $180 million simply to help large landowners earn more farm 
subsidy payments.
  Those subsidies are already substantial. In just the 2-year flood 
plain of the project area, where 150,000 acres of wetlands will be 
damaged, 51 landowners split $15.3 million on Federal farm subsidies in 
the 6 years from 1996 to 2001. One of those landowners received $2.7 
million during that time while four others received more than $1 
million each.
  Perhaps the worst thing about this project is that each and every 
benefit could be achieved in a way that would avoid each and every 
impact we are talking about. Nonstructural measures, including the 
purchase of conservation and flowage easements and targeted flood 
proofing of buildings, could reduce flood damages in the region. This 
alternative has been suggested for years but has been brushed aside by 
the Corps. The Corps has not finished its environmental review of this 
project, has not finished the feasibility study for this project, and 
it has not issued a record of decision. The Corps of Engineers has far 
to go to satisfy its planning requirements. The draft environmental 
review was so flawed that it was given the lowest possible rating by 
the EPA.
  This makes any directive to enter into a continuing contract for the 
pumps supply contract entirely premature. Given the widespread 
opposition to this project, the detailed and scientifically supported 
challenges to the Corps project analysis, and the ecosystemwide harm 
this project will cause, Congress would do an enormous disservice to 
taxpayers and the environment to direct the Corps to begin 
construction.
  This amendment would allow the planning process to proceed without 
interference. It would ensure we don't short circuit the ongoing 
environmental and physical review of this project that could destroy an 
entire ecosystem and cause taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  At the moment, there is not.
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment of 
the distinguished Senator from Arizona. Let me point out that there has 
been a lot of discussion over the last several years about the impact 
of the Yazoo Backwater project.
  The Corps of Engineers several years ago undertook a reevaluation of 
this project which was authorized over 40 years ago. As a matter of 
fact, it is a part of a very large Mississippi River and tributaries 
project. This is one of the last parts of that authorized project to be 
constructed. Because it is one of the last projects to be constructed, 
an intense amount of scrutiny has been devoted to the project. That is 
just fine. That is an appropriate thing for people who are concerned 
and interested in the environment and in agricultural production and in 
the lives and well-being of the people who live in this area.
  The point is, the project is not going to authorize the drainage of 
any new wetlands. There will be no new lands cleared of bottom lined 
hardwood for this project. There will be a small amount of land 
cleared, 38 acres, in order to construct the project. But 62,500 acres 
of existing agricultural land will be reforested. There will be new 
habitat created, way beyond what exists now.
  The purpose of this project is not to create new agricultural 
opportunities in this part of the Mississippi Delta, but it is to save 
lives. It is to prevent damage to existing infrastructure such as roads 
and bridges. It is to prevent the flooding of schools and hospitals and 
businesses. It is to address the concerns of people who want the 
project to proceed, such as those who visited my office last week when 
they heard there might be an amendment to strike the money to begin 
this construction project.
  These were not big shot farmers. These were poor people who have

[[Page 1649]]

homes and businesses in Mayersville and in Sharkey County in the area 
where this project will be constructed.
  I am hopeful that the Senate will reject this amendment. It is an 
amendment designed to cut money the committee put in the bill, $14.5 
million. It will cut almost all of that money.
  The Corps of Engineers is nearing the point where they will be able 
to enter into contracts for design and construction of the project and 
to do some real estate activities that are necessary before the 
construction is actually begun.
  I urge the Senate to carefully look at the facts. I will include for 
the Record 5 pages of misconceptions and the facts that prove those 
misconceptions to be erroneous. I hope Senators will take the time to 
look at them and to read these factual statistics and information as 
relevant to this project. I ask unanimous consent that a document 
entitled ``Yazoo Backwater Area, Mississippi'' be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   Yazoo Backwater Area, Mississippi

       The Corps of Engineers initiated the reevaluation of flood 
     control plans for Mississippi's Yazoo Backwater Area, a 
     1,550-square-mile portion of the state's flood-prone lower 
     Delta region. The goal of the study was to provide protection 
     to businesses, infrastructure, and people of the area, while 
     notably improving the future of the region's environment.
       Extensive coordination with customers and stakeholders took 
     place over the course of the study to find a solution that 
     addressed both the economic and environmental needs of the 
     Backwater Area. The Corps spent several years in a consensus 
     building process among environmental agencies and economic 
     interests in the Mississippi Delta. The effort resulted in a 
     multi-purpose approach that addresses the desire for a 
     balance between flood control, environmental restoration, and 
     the concerns of the private landowners in the Yazoo Backwater 
     area.
       As a part of our public involvement program, it is the goal 
     of the Vicksburg District to provide the public with 
     unbiased, factual information about the Yazoo Backwater 
     Project. A considerable amount of inaccurate and/or 
     incomplete information is currently being circulated about 
     this proposed project.
       The following misconceptions were selected based on the 
     comments we received since the release of our draft report.
       Misconception 1: Contrary to federal policy, the Yazoo 
     Pumps are designed to drain wetlands to increase agricultural 
     production on lands that have always flooded.
       Facts: The structural features of the Yazoo Backwater Area 
     Project are designed to lessen flooding in the Lower Delta 
     for those flood events that exceed a one-year flood. While 
     the lessening of flooding would possibly increase production 
     on existing agricultural lands, Federal agricultural policy 
     remains in place, which would preclude the clearing and 
     draining of any wetlands. In addition, the non-structural 
     flood control feature of the proposed project provides for 
     increasing bottomland hardwood wetland habitat by converting 
     up to 62,500 acres of lands currently in agricultural 
     production to forest lands.
       Misconception 2: The project will drain and damage 200,000 
     acres of wetlands, two times the number of acres destroyed 
     each year across the country by all public and private 
     projects combined.
       Facts: The wetland resources in the project area would be 
     increased by 23% under the proposed plan. The Yazoo Backwater 
     Area Project includes both a structural and non-structural 
     feature. The structural feature, the pumping plant, would not 
     change flooding on 62,500 acres of farmed or prior converted 
     wetlands or the 142,000 acres of bottomland hardwoods that 
     are now flooded by the 1-year flood. These lands would 
     continue to be flooded. The Corps of Engineers would purchase 
     conservation easements on up to 62,500 acres of farmed or 
     prior converted wetlands from willing sellers and reforest 
     this land. Lands above the 1-year flood plain would receive 
     reduced levels of flooding. In this area, there could be some 
     increase in the level of production on these lands and there 
     could be some shifting of crop types by the farmers; however, 
     no additional land would be cleared.
       Misconception 3: The project would not make a single home 
     free from flooding.
       Facts: There are 1,441 homes that would be impacted under 
     existing conditions by a 100-year flood. The average value of 
     these homes is approximately $36,000. With the implementation 
     of the proposed Yazoo Backwater Area Project, over 1,000 of 
     these homes would be free from flooding by the 100-year 
     event.
       The proposed project would lower the elevation of the 100-
     year flood by 4 to 4\1/2\ feet. For example, if a flood 
     similar to the 1973 flood occurred again, those homes that 
     had 4 to 4\1/2\ feet of water in them in 1973 would no longer 
     be flooded. Those homes and structures that had more than 
     4\1/2\ feet of water would still have water in them; however, 
     they would not be flooded as deep or for as long.
       The Eagle Lake area would see significant reductions in 
     flooding. Almost all residences in this area would be 
     protected from the 100-frequency flood event. Only 5 of the 
     homes would still be subjected to the 100-year flood, but 
     even these 5 homes would benefit overall from the lessened 
     flooding. Flooding in other communities in the project area 
     would also be reduced significantly. No homes in the towns of 
     Cary, Valley Park, Anguilla, Rolling Fork, Mayersville, or 
     Hollandale would be flooded by the 100-year flood with the 
     project in place.
       Flooding impacts even those residents whose homes have not 
     flooded in the past. Those residents have to contend with 
     significant flooding of roads and bridges. Flooding of roads 
     in the area disrupts transportation of children to schools, 
     causes access problems for emergency vehicles, and creates 
     problems for area residents in their daily lives. It becomes 
     difficult to get to the supermarket for food, or to see a 
     doctor or dentist. This proposed project would help to 
     alleviate much of the flooding of area roads and bridges.
       Misconception 4: This project would promote increased 
     pesticide and fertilizer use in a region already plagued by 
     toxic contamination.
       Facts: With the reforestation of up to 62,500 acres of 
     cropland, an increase in the usage of agricultural chemicals 
     associated with implementation of the recommended Yazoo 
     Backwater Project is unlikely. No additional land would be 
     cleared for agricultural production.
       Misconception 5: The project would waste millions of tax 
     dollars to increase agricultural production when the federal 
     government is spending billions on farm subsidies and on 
     taking excess croplands out of production.
       Facts: The amount of agricultural cropland in the Yazoo 
     Backwater Area would be reduced, not increased. In the case 
     of the Yazoo Backwater Area, the proposed project would not 
     change the flood patterns on the 62,500 acres of cropland or 
     the 142,000 acres of bottomland hardwoods in the 1-year 
     floodplain. These lands would still flood as they have in the 
     past. The Federal government would offer to purchase 
     conservation easements from willing sellers on these 62,500 
     acres of cropland and where these easements are purchased, 
     the agricultural intensification benefits associated with 
     this project would be limited to either increasing the amount 
     of a crop grown per acre of remaining cropland or switching 
     to grow a more valuable crop on the remaining cropland.
       Misconception 6: The project is wasteful because it 
     benefits a few people at tremendous taxpayer expense.
       Facts: In addition to local benefits, the project would 
     also provide additional national benefits. Everyone who uses 
     stores, schools, roads, medical facilities, or owns 
     businesses and farms would benefit. The project as proposed 
     would reverse the prior clearing of bottomland hardwood 
     forests in this important area by replanting up to 100 square 
     miles of the alluvial flood plain, which accounts for 
     approximately 20% of farmland that is now in use. Such local 
     benefits would be accomplished over and above a return of 
     $1.48 in economic benefits to the country for every $1 
     invested.
       Misconception 7: The pumps would destroy some of the best 
     remaining bottomland hardwood forest in the lower Mississippi 
     River basin, which provide habitat for bald eagles, 
     alligators, bobcat, deer, and the threatened Louisiana black 
     bear.
       Facts: The construction of the pump plant would result in 
     the loss of a 38-acre tract of forested land. No additional 
     clearing would be required for implementation of the project 
     and no additional clearing is expected due to project 
     implementation. The reforestation of up to 62,500 acres of 
     agricultural lands would provide a significant environmental 
     benefit to the backwater area. This land use conversion from 
     agricultural to bottomland hardwoods would result in a 
     significant increase in environmental habitat by connecting 
     fragmented tracts of forested land. This reforested land 
     would also create a significant buffer between agricultural 
     activities and the aquatic environment, which would result in 
     improved water quality in the lower Delta.
       The project calls for raising low water levels during the 
     summer months, which would provide more wildlife habitat. The 
     excessive low water stages on the Mississippi River 
     experienced over the past two summers would have resulted in 
     an extreme hardship on the terrestrial and aquatic 
     environment had it not been for the operation of the Steele 
     Bayou Structure. Water was ponded approximately 20 feet 
     higher than that of the Mississippi River. The entire basin 
     would have essentially dried up if it were not for the 
     structure and the series of weirs in Steele Bayou constructed 
     by the Corps. The proposed project would allow for increased 
     stages to even further reduce the hardship on aquatic 
     habitat.
       Separate habitat-based analyses for waterfowl, wetland, 
     terrestrial, and aquatic resources, have documented both the 
     positive and negative impacts to the environment

[[Page 1650]]

     from the recommended plan. These studies showed that 
     terrestrial resources would increase 17 percent, wetland 
     resources would increase 23 percent, and aquatic resources 
     would increase 19 percent; however, waterfowl resources would 
     decrease 42 percent. The waterfowl decrease is the result of 
     a reduction in foraging habitat with the reforesting of 
     agricultural lands. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has 
     indicated that the reforestation of agricultural lands is 
     more important to waterfowl than the loss of foraging habitat 
     since sufficient foraging habitat would remain in the area.
       Misconception 8: The project would damage productive lakes 
     and swamps that support hunting, fishing, and ecotoursim 
     industry.
       Facts: The pump project would not drain the delta. The 
     pumps would only operate during flood conditions when the 
     Steele Bayou Control Structure gates are closed and water 
     levels are above evaluation 87. At this level, there are 
     still about 170,000 acres that remain flooded on a yearly 
     basis. The pump would be used to reduce flooding for only the 
     more serious events.
       Misconception 9: The pumps would be used for all floods.
       Facts: The pump feature of the project is designed to 
     remove only that water which is above elevation 87.0 and 
     trapped behind the closed gates of the Steele Bayou 
     Structure. The Steele Bayou Structure gates are closed only 
     when the Mississippi River is at flood stage to prevent 
     backwater flooding into the protected area. Should the water 
     level be above elevation 87.0 while the gates of Steele Bayou 
     Structure are open, it is unlikely the pump would be utilized 
     because normal gravity flow would occur.
       Misconception 10: The Vicksburg District is behind in its 
     mitigation requirements for other projects.
       Facts: The Yazoo Backwater project requires no compensatory 
     mitigation. Several other projects under construction by the 
     Vicksburg District do require compensatory mitigation; the 
     Vicksburg District is committed to fulfilling all of its 
     authorized mitigation requirements. Lands required for 
     mitigation by the Vicksburg District are from willing sellers 
     and must meet certain environmental criteria such as use as a 
     moist soil area or frequency of flooding prior to purchase. 
     The lands purchased to meet this mitigation requirement are 
     acquired concurrent with project construction. As of June 
     2000, the Vicksburg District has purchased 82,050 acres of 
     mitigation lands for all projects requiring land acquisition. 
     This acreage is 12,450 acres more than the amount required to 
     be concurrent with construction of our projects.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Lott, is 
recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I, too, rise in opposition to this amendment 
and support the funds that are provided in this section of the energy 
and water appropriations bill for the Yazoo Backwater Pump Project. I 
thank the committee for the time they spent on this project and for the 
funds they provided. Actually, they have a lot of knowledge about this 
project because it is not new.
  Let me take a minute to add a few points to the very good points my 
colleague, the senior Senator from Mississippi, already made. First of 
all, the Great Flood of 1927 that hit the Mississippi Delta covered 
27,000 square miles, killed more than 500 people, and left 700,000 
people homeless.
  In response to this event and because water from 41 percent of the 
United States drains through the Delta--I was listening to the 
discussions about the Devil's Lake project in North Dakota and thinking 
that the drainage begins way up there, but it all winds up down in this 
funnel-like area of the Mississippi Delta. Being aware of that, 
Congress passed the Flood Control Act of 1929 making flood protection 
in the Mississippi River Valley a Federal responsibility.
  The Yazoo Pump Project was actually authorized in 1941 as a part of 
this overall effort. So, you see, this is not something that hasn't 
been considered and worked on for years and years. The point was made 
earlier that the Corps of Engineers hasn't finished its review. I 
wonder, how long does it take? Year after year, these people who live 
in this area are threatened with floods, as are their homes and 
businesses and hospitals, as the Senator pointed out. It is a very 
dangerous situation.
  This pump actually will protect 1,000 homes--not just a few rich 
farmers, as has been alleged, but 1,000 homes, and includes, very 
importantly, the reforestation of over 62,000 acres currently in 
agricultural production.
  This is a win-win situation. It protects the people from flooding 
while restoring large amounts of land to natural habitat. I thought 
that was what we should be trying to do.
  This is a project that is being moved forward very carefully. The 
funding here is slightly short of $15 million. So it is being done 
incrementally and in a way that will include the ability to improve 
this natural habitat.
  This pumping plant, by the way, is not unique. There are currently 15 
similar plants in operation throughout Arkansas, Louisiana, and 
Mississippi within 200 miles of the Yazoo pump. In fact, the W.G. 
Huxtable Pump in Arkansas is almost the same size as the Yazoo but 
drains only half the acreage of the Yazoo. The Yazoo will protect 2.6 
million acres, while the Huxtable plant drains only 1.3 million acres.
  This project has bipartisan support from Democrats such as 
Congressman Bennie Thompson, who has been there and looked at the 
damage and the threat to the people. He supports this project, as do 
Democratic State elected officials.
  Aside from that type of statistic, I think the most important thing 
is the human side of this. Year after year--and it is almost every year 
that people have water in their homes. You cannot believe what it is 
like. I was looking at some of the pictures being shown earlier with 
the Devil's Lake project. We can show you the same type of pictures 
from Mississippi--people with sandbags around their houses and the 
water is up above the porch level. These are hard-working, mostly poor 
people in this area of the Mississippi Delta--five counties right down 
at the end of the funnel, really.
  By the way, in most of these counties, the African-American 
population is the majority--the lowest is 54 percent, up to as much as 
71.8 percent. The delegation Senator Cochran referred to who came to 
see us was led by Ms. Ruby Johnson of Cary, MS. She met with us to talk 
about these projects. She had a delegation of five. All five of them 
were African Americans who literally were concerned about being able to 
continue to live there. They were talking about how their kids have 
left the Delta and can't come back. They cannot attract businesses and 
industry because of, among other things, the threat of the flooding 
year in and year out. They told us stories about having to put their 
children in boats to take them to school when the water is rising. They 
told us of fearing snakes, which find their way into their homes after 
the waters recede.
  The Federal Government has made a promise to these good people. This 
project has been delayed, analyzed, and criticized in the media. 
Special interest groups are saying it is not being done in an 
environmentally sound way. It is. A project like this one which will 
provide flood protection while restoring thousands of acres to its 
natural habitat should be held up as a model for future environmental 
projects.
  I urge defeat of this amendment and support of the Yazoo Backwater 
Pump. If we don't, we are going to end up with five counties in this 
area that will have no people and no opportunity for a decent living, 
or any kind of business, or economic development. We can have all of 
these in this area if only we keep the promises first made by the 
federal government over 70 years ago. The people of the Mississippi 
Delta have waited long enough.
  So I appreciate the opportunity to speak, and I plead for my 
colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona has 4\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I know of no two Members of the Senate who 
have worked harder on behalf of their constituents than my friends from 
Mississippi. I also understand that they have special problems and 
special needs in one of the least economically well-off parts of 
America. I understand their dedication to this and other efforts they 
have made on behalf of their constituents.
  It is with that understanding that I still oppose this project. It 
has nothing to do with the admiration and respect I have for both of my 
dear friends.

[[Page 1651]]

  Mr. President, I hope this amendment will be sustained by my 
colleagues. I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is yielded back.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we are going to proceed to a vote on four 
amendments soon. There is an agreement for 2 minutes on each side 
before Kennedy amendment No. 123.
  I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes before the Clinton 
amendment No. 89, which will follow the Kennedy amendment. And then on 
the McCain amendment No. 214, I have already made a motion to table 
that amendment. The yeas and nays are in order. I move to table the 
McCain amendment No. 230, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
the Kennedy amendment, the votes on all three succeeding amendments be 
limited to 10 minutes each.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I want to say 
a couple things to the manager. First of all, the Clinton amendment--
have you moved to table that?
  Mr. STEVENS. No.
  Mr. REID. There is a question as to whether or not she is going to be 
able to modify. Senator Nickles is not in the Chamber.
  Mr. STEVENS. It is my hope that she will be able to modify the 
amendment. We are trying to work that out. I have not asked for the 
yeas and nays on the Clinton amendment yet.
  Mr. REID. I also say that we have been through this and we are trying 
to limit the votes to 10 minutes. We hope the majority leader will 
condense the votes to 10 minutes; otherwise, we are going to be here 
really late tonight.
  Mr. STEVENS. We are saying 10 minutes. I think the Senate will see 
what 10 minutes means this afternoon. If we are going to finish, we 
must stick to that. So there will not be voting beyond 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Senator Kennedy has 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 123

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

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 20 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

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

                                NAYS--46

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

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


                            Amendment No. 89

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senate will now consider Senator 
Clinton's amendment numbered 89, with 2 minutes on each side. I ask 
that Senator Nickles take the time on our side.
  I remind the Senate that all votes now will be 10 minutes for the 
rest of the afternoon, and 10 minutes means 10 minutes. If we are to 
finish this evening, we cannot go on and on and on with these 
amendments. Ten minutes means 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise in support of my amendment. I 
urge the Senate to take action now because, in the event we do not 
freeze the cuts that would go into effect, we will be facing disastrous 
impacts throughout our Nation with respect to our physicians, our home 
health agencies, our skilled nursing homes, our Medicare+Choice 
programs, our teaching hospitals, our community hospitals, our rural 
hospitals--all of which

[[Page 1652]]

need to keep up with inflation and increasing costs and demands.
  If you look across our country you can see specifically the amount of 
money that our hospitals and all of our other health care providers 
will lose if we do not take this action now to freeze these cuts before 
they go into effect on the first of March.
  This amendment provides for the freeze. It also provides for a 2-
percent increase for physicians who otherwise are going to be leaving 
Medicare.
  I really appreciate the commitment we have received from the Finance 
Committee to address this issue. We will all be working diligently to 
ensure we do address it. But in the meantime, our system is 
deteriorating. The quality of service is decreasing. The numbers of 
providers are not there to take care of the increased demand, and I 
urge the Senate to take this intermediary step to vote this 6-month 
action while we try to fix the program.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the Senate is not order in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first I want to make sure from the 
Senator from New York this is the original proposal, not the modified 
proposal?
  Mrs. CLINTON. Yes, it is the original proposal.
  Mr. NICKLES. I urge our colleagues to vote to sustain a budget point 
of order that I will raise in just a moment. This is a bill that should 
go through appropriate order, regular order. This is an entitlement 
program. These are big changes. These are changes we should do in the 
Finance Committee. These are changes for which we have bipartisan 
support in the Finance Committee, many, but they have to be worked out.
  This is an amendment many of us saw just moments ago. It deals with 
billions of dollars--actually I think it is about $4.1 billion.
  The chairman of the Finance Committee and also the ranking member of 
the Finance Committee did a fix for doctors, but there are a lot of 
other provisions we need to consider, dealing with some of the 
provisions mentioned by the Senator from New York, but they need to be 
dealt with in a bipartisan way through the regular order through the 
committee. If we are going to bypass all the committees all the time, 
maybe we don't need to have committees. Those on the Finance Committee 
who have been working on this issue would like to have some input on it 
as well.
  Therefore, the pending amendment by Senator Clinton includes an 
increase in mandatory spending and, if adopted, would certainly 
increase the deficit. Therefore I raise a point of order pursuant to 
section 207 of H. Con. Res. 68, the fiscal year 2000 budget resolution 
as amended by S. Res. 304 from the 107th Congress.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask to speak using leader time for 
approximately 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, before doing that, I would be happy to 
yield to the Senator from New York. Was she about to respond?
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. Majority Leader, I was going to move to waive the 
relevant section of the Budget Act and ask for the yeas and nays, but 
let me wait until you are finished.
  Mr. FRIST. It would be more appropriate for you to go ahead.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Pursuant to section 207(C) of H. Con. Res. 68, the 
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2000, I move to 
waive section 207(B) of that concurrent resolution for purposes of the 
pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Using leader time, I just want to make a very brief 
comment because this is a very important issue, an important issue to 
the many seniors who are listening to this debate, and individuals with 
disabilities, the physicians, the hospitals, the health care providers.
  It is very clear to me that health care providers today are being 
inadequately paid under the Medicare Program, and that is why I, as has 
been pointed out earlier, regret the fact that we finished, adjourned 
the 107th Congress, without passing legislation to provide seniors with 
prescription drug coverage and have more comprehensive strengthening of 
the Medicare system.
  But now, once we get finished with some of the unfinished business 
such as the appropriations bills, we have a new Congress, we have new 
leadership, and we absolutely will address strengthening Medicare head 
on, including provider payments, including a prescription drug benefit 
package for our seniors and individuals with disabilities.
  This particular amendment has not been considered by the Finance 
Committee. There are urgent needs that we are addressing in the 
underlying Stevens amendment. It has been mentioned one of those is a 
flattening of this decrease in payments that we have seen for doctors 
over time, by freezing what otherwise would be a 4.4-percent cut for 
physicians. The underlying Stevens amendment addresses that.
  What the Senator from New York has proposed--part of that is contrary 
to the specific recommendations of MEDPAC, which is the advisory 
commission specifically set up for us, in terms of learning what we 
should be doing. A package such as this, as the Senator from Oklahoma 
pointed out, does deserve careful vetting, careful consideration. We 
simply have not had that opportunity to date.
  Let me make it clear once again. My priority as majority leader, as a 
physician, is to address in a comprehensive way, legislation that will 
do things such as provide access to seniors, strengthen and improve the 
Medicare Program, as well as address provider payments, which this 
particular amendment attempts to do. I look forward to working with my 
Finance Committee colleagues. I do want this to go through the Finance 
Committee where we can have careful vetting and consideration as we 
develop this legislation which will strengthen Medicare.
  In closing, I urge Senators to vote no to waive the Budget Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I hadn't intended to speak, but I will be 
brief, and I will use some of my leader time to do so. Let me say three 
things.
  First, I don't know that there is a greater crisis in our country 
today than in what we are witnessing with providers in rural and urban 
areas alike. Whether it is doctors or nurses, facilities, nursing 
homes--the crisis is as severe as any that I have seen in our lifetime.
  Secondly, there are those who say this process ought to go through an 
appropriate legislative process, the way we would normally do things. I 
couldn't agree more that the legislative process is a good one and we 
ought to respect it.
  But we have talked about providing relief, now, for years. There is a 
great deal in this bill that we are now supporting that had nothing to 
do with the legislative process or committee consideration. This is an 
emergency that has to be addressed. I don't know how much longer we can 
wait. Of course, it is always better to go through the committee 
process, and where that is possible we ought to do so. But this doesn't 
preclude going through the committee process as we look at this issue 
over and over again in the coming months and years.
  So it is critical we send the right message. At least the Senate 
ought to go on record today that, at this point, with as difficult a 
time as our health care industry is having, with the crisis we are 
facing at the provider level, at the facility level, at the 
institutional level--throughout our country--we need to say without 
equivocation that we are going to be partners in fixing it. There is no 
better time to do that than right now. There is no better message to 
send than the one we can send with

[[Page 1653]]

this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
waive. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have the authority of the leader to 
yield 1 minute to me on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am trying to finish this bill tonight. We are trying 
to get this bill into conference with the House and to settle the 11 
bills that were not passed last year, for whatever reason they were not 
passed.
  This, with all due respect to the Senator from New York, is a Finance 
Committee amendment. It would require the Ways and Means and Finance 
Committees to meet, separate from us, in conference. It is not 
something that belongs on this bill. This is an appropriations bill. 
For years we had points of order that would take these out of our 
consideration, but I urge the Senate not to do this. There are a whole 
series of other amendments coming up just like this one that deal with 
other subjects from other committees. They are legislative amendments.
  We are going to finish this tonight by saying we are passing an 
appropriations bill or we are going to sit here and debate other 
legislative items that should go to Finance or Energy or other 
committees all night.
  I urge that the Senate vote no on this motion. I hope we will table 
the other ones because we will have a series of them unless people 
listen to us. Let us get out of here tonight.
  I might add one little thing. In my lifetime, we have never met 
before the State of the Union Message. Do you know why? Because 
Presidents in the past were just like this one--trying to figure out 
what should be in the State of the Union Message and what should be in 
the budget. This President can't decide what should be in the State of 
the Union Message because we haven't yet finished last year's budget. I 
hope we can go home tonight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The 
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the 
Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Lieberman), are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 41, nays 56.

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 21 Leg.]

                                YEAS--41

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

                                NAYS--56

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Harkin
     Inouye
     Lieberman
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 41, the nays are 
56. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained, and the amendment fails.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How long did that 
vote take?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fourteen minutes.


                           Amendment No. 214

  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield my minute to the Senator from 
Minnesota, Mr. Dayton.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona whose 
vigilance brought this matter to light.
  This project is opposed by those who are supposed to carry it out, 
the Army Corps of Engineers, the chief engineer of which, last August, 
said this project does not meet environmental standards. It does not 
meet the cost-benefit analysis standards that are applied to every 
other water diversion project across the country.
  So that North Dakota solution is, I am sorry to say: Well, let's 
waive the standards and waive the tests. So we would not have a cost-
benefit analysis requirement. They do one, but it would not account for 
anything. And they pass this problem on to Minnesota and to Canada, 
both of which oppose this project. The Canadian Government is opposed, 
the State of Minnesota is opposed, the EPA is opposed, the Army Corps 
of Engineers is opposed, the major environmental groups in this area 
are opposed, everyone is opposed to this project, except for the State 
of North Dakota, which wants to pass this problem on to Minnesota.
  That is why I ask my colleagues to join in opposition.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition to the 
amendment?
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the time in opposition is on our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, what has just been stated is not the case. 
The Corps of Engineers is not opposed to this project. They have been 
working on this project for years. EPA has not registered opposition to 
this project. We have met with the Director.
  Let me show my colleagues the problem we face. We have a lake called 
Devils Lake that has risen 26 vertical feet since 1992. The Federal 
Government has already had to spend $350 million raising roads, raising 
protective dikes, and moving threatened structures and populations. The 
Corps of Engineers has determined that if we have to continue to buy 
out communities--we have already had to buy one; the water is lapping 
at the edge of a second town--if we have to buy out the town of Devils 
Lake, it will cost billions of dollars.
  The answer is, more storage in the upper basin and outlet.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. CONRAD. I urge my colleagues to support the tabling motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The 
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), the 
Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 62, nays 34, as follows:

[[Page 1654]]



                      [Rollcall Vote No. 22 Leg.]

                                YEAS--62

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

                                NAYS--34

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

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Baucus
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Lieberman
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, what is the next amendment?


                           Amendment No. 230

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question recurs on a motion to table the 
McCain amendment No. 230.
  Mr. STEVENS. May we have order? The Senator has time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I understand I have 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment would eliminate $14.5 
million for construction activities for the Yazoo Pump Station in 
Mississippi. It would require the completion of feasibility studies, 
environmental review, and the economic analysis that is required of 
other core projects.
  If the project proceeds unimpeded, there are 200,000 acres of 
environmentally sensitive wetlands that would be destroyed and a host 
of other environmental problems that will ensue.
  It is telling that the other Federal agencies charged with evaluating 
projects and protecting the Nation's environment are opposed to the 
project. The EPA has given, in the core analysis of this project, its 
lowest possible rating. And the analysis also revealed that the costs 
of the project far outweigh the benefits, questions that should be 
answered before this project proceeds. I urge my colleagues not to 
table the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, Senators should understand this is a 
project that actually protects the environment in a more aggressive way 
than it would have without the project being funded. Mr. President, 
62,500 acres of farmland will be reforested under this project, when 
this project is complete. This is money that begins a process of 
developing, design, and construction. It is at the early stage of work.
  There are homes, hospitals, schools, businesses, roads, and bridges 
that are flooded but for the construction of this project. It will get 
worse rather than better. These are mostly poor people who are affected 
in this area of Mississippi.
  I urge the Senate to reject this amendment and vote aye on a motion 
to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute 
while I explain the process.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. This is the last of the stacked votes. After this vote 
is over, we will start the process of bringing before the Senate the 
amendments we have on both sides agreed to accept in groups. We expect 
that will take an hour or so to accomplish. As I understand it, between 
4 and 5 there will be a briefing. We have asked for no votes during 
that time.
  I think Members know if their amendment is going to be accepted. If 
there is anyone on either side who intends to ask for a vote on an 
amendment, I urge them to notify either me or the Senator from Nevada, 
and we will then, hopefully, have a process to get those amendments 
voted upon before 6 o'clock.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Nevada 
have a minute also.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Mikulski offered an amendment 
earlier in the proceedings. There was some hope we could work that out. 
We have not been able to do that.
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is right. I thought it was worked out. 
During this vote, we will try our best to work it out.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I say to the very cooperative Senator 
from Alaska, we have not been able to work out our amendment because of 
a disagreement with OMB. Our colleagues have been most collegial, but 
we have not been able to work it out. We have been able to work out the 
nurses amendment, but I do not believe we have been able to work out 
the civil service quota amendment.
  Mr. REID. The question is, Should we dispose of that after this vote?
  Mr. STEVENS. If we do not dispose of it, it will be the first vote 
when we come back at 5 o'clock.
  Mr. REID. I also say, because there are a lot of Members in the 
Chamber now, we have scrubbed our side quite well. I have amendments 
still by Senators Bingaman, Cantwell, Nelson, Lautenberg, Durbin, Dodd, 
Landrieu, and Wyden. They know the numbers of those amendments. I think 
that is all we have. I hope that is all we have. That is eight. Even if 
we have 10 minutes a side--my colleagues can add it up themselves--it 
is going to be quite a long night. I hope this is all. If it is not, we 
need to know right away.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table amendment No. 230. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the 
Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 67, nays 30, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 23 Leg.]

                                YEAS--67

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Talent
     Thomas
     Warner

                                NAYS--30

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

[[Page 1655]]



                             NOT VOTING--3

     Harkin
     Inouye
     Lieberman
  The motion was agreed to.


                             Change of Vote

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


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

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


                           amendment no. 165

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

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

              office of the president pro tempore emeritus

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

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

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


                            amendment no. 23

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

       On page 820, strike lines 3 through 13.


                            amendment no. 70

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

       At the appropriate place add the following:


                      united states postal service

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


                            amendment no. 96

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

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

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

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


                           amendment no. 113

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

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

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

[[Page 1656]]




                           amendment no. 190

     SEC.   . SALARIES.

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


                           amendment no. 174

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

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


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

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


                            amendment no. 46

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

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

     SEC.   . WEST COAST GROUNDFISH FISHERY CAPACITY REDUCTION.

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


                            amendment no. 72

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

       At the appropriate place in the joint resolution, insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __. In addition to the funds provided elsewhere in 
     this joint resolution, the following sums are appropriated, 
     out of any

[[Page 1657]]

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


                           amendment no. 100

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

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


                           amendment no. 159

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


                           amendment no. 160

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


                           amendment no. 191

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


                           amendment no. 233

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

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


                           amendment no. 107

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

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

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


                       Methamphetamine Reduction

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

[[Page 1658]]

extraordinary burden on our communities and our law enforcement 
agencies. Vermont could use the money provided by this program to help 
local governments address this crisis.
  Rural States face unique problems in their efforts to reduce crime, 
with small numbers of law enforcement officers responsible for 
protecting widely-dispersed communities. As drugs and violent crime 
have become more prevalent in remote regions of our Nation, law 
enforcement officers in those areas have seen their jobs become 
increasingly difficult. This program, which States would administer 
with the assistance of the National Crime Prevention Council, would 
help State and local law enforcement by promoting innovation in the 
development of crime-fighting technology and by funding the development 
of statewide strategic plans, including performance targets to ensure 
the funding is well-spent.
  This program will provide crucial assistance to rural States. I thank 
Senators Stevens, Byrd, Gregg, and Hollings for accepting it as part of 
the managers' package. In addition, I urge the conference committee 
that will reconcile the House and Senate-passed bills to retain this 
provision, and give rural States assistance they so desperately need.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 191, As Modified

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


                           Amendment No. 138

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

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

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


                           amendment no. 138

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

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

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

[[Page 1659]]

  In a letter from the Medicare Rights Center, they gave an example of 
the kind of person who is affected by this amendment. The example was a 
69-year-old widow with severe arthritis, hypertension, and high 
cholesterol who lives here in our Nation's Capital. This woman, 
referred to as Mrs. B, does not qualify for Medicaid, yet she cannot 
afford premiums for a Medicare HMO or a Medigap plan. The QI-1 Program 
does cover her Part B premium of over $700 per year. If she loses that 
assistance, as she will unless the amendment we are offering here is 
adopted--if she loses that assistance, she does not know how she could 
make ends meet since she already struggles to buy food, to pay her 
Medicare copayment, and to purchase prescription drugs. As I indicated 
before, in order to qualify for this payment which she is now 
receiving, she cannot have an income of over $997 per month.
  This is a bipartisan issue. President Bush has included the QI-1 
reauthorization in his fiscal year 2003 budget. When we had the 
confirmation hearing in the Health and Education Committee on the new 
Commissioner for the Food and Drug Administration, Mark McClellan, he 
testified that the administration continues to support the 
reauthorization of this program.
  In addition, QI-1 reauthorization was also included in S. 3018, which 
is the Beneficiary Access to Care and Medicare Equity Act. This was a 
bill that Senators Grassley and Baucus introduced late last year.
  During every Senate race around this country last fall, candidates on 
both sides of the aisle promised our Nation's seniors and disabled 
Medicare beneficiaries improved health coverage with the addition of a 
prescription drug benefit. While they are waiting for us to enact that 
prescription drug benefit, low-income Medicare beneficiaries should not 
be blindsided by the loss of critically needed premium protection that 
is provided in the QI-1 Program.
  I urge the passage of this amendment to extend the program another 
6\1/2\ months. I urge my colleagues to join me in addressing the issue 
on a more permanent basis in the coming months. There are at least 
120,000 low-income Medicare beneficiaries who are counting on us.
  Let me also respond very briefly to some comments my colleague from 
Pennsylvania made earlier, where he said all of these amendments that 
are being offered are new money.
  This is not new money. This is an existing program. It is a program 
that has been in place for 5 years. There are 120,000 individuals out 
there who are depending upon us continuing to assist them in making 
these Medicare premium payments. This is not an example of growing 
government, as was suggested. This is an example of maintaining a 
benefit for low-income seniors and disabled individuals in our society.
  Let me indicate a few of the numbers we are talking about in 
different States so my colleagues have a sense of what is involved.
  In the State of Alabama, there are 9,817 individuals currently 
receiving this benefit; in the State of Arizona, there are 5,620; in 
the State of Florida, there are 13,769; in the State of Kentucky, 
4,329; Louisiana, 5,596; New Jersey, 7,214; North Carolina, 9,059; 
Ohio, 8,362; and Oklahoma, 3,169. There are many individuals who depend 
upon this payment. The correct thing to do, and the right thing to do, 
is for us to adopt this amendment.
  How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute 10 seconds.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of our time on 
that amendment and ask unanimous consent that it be set aside 
temporarily so Senator Cantwell might present her amendment.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Cantwell has agreed to bring up 
amendment No. 104 with 20 minutes equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. May I ask what the unanimous consent request is?
  Mr. REID. Cantwell for 20 minutes.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I would still have the initial minute or so?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. REID. One minute prior to the vote.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Washington.


                           Amendment No. 108

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

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

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


                           amendment no. 108

     (Purpose: To increase appropriations for workforce investment 
                              activities)

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

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

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

[[Page 1660]]

is how they make the programs effective. In fact, if this amendment 
does not pass today and we do not make a decision to restore these 
cuts, over 65,000 job training opportunities will be lost in America.
  To further bolster this notion of the fact that these cuts really 
will take effect and have full impact, I point out to my colleague the 
GAO study on this very issue on whether the States were spending their 
workforce investment dollars. In fact, quoting from the report, it 
said:

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

  What does this mean? It means that GAO is saying there is no magic 
slush fund. If we make this cut today, we will actually see a cut in 
reduction in programs.
  Some of my colleagues ask: What is so serious about that? Maybe we 
need a little belt tightening. I point out to my colleagues that we are 
going through rough economic times. Actually retraining workers who are 
then rehired by a company to add to their bottom-line profitability is 
a good economic stimulus package. As Stephanie Powers, CEO of the 
National Association of Workforce Boards, wrote me:

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

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

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

  If the same colleagues who signed this letter will vote for this 
amendment today, we can put this issue to rest and give the American 
workers the kind of job training and skills they need.
  This amendment will accomplish a stimulus for our economy that is 
much needed. It will make sure that we don't say no to workers and no 
to the businesses that are looking for help, and it will make sure that 
we will say yes to tomorrow's economic opportunities for all of us. I 
urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, how much time does Senator 
Cantwell have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes three seconds.
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of Senator 
Cantwell's amendment and the Workforce Investment Act program amount 
she is seeking. The bottom line is workforce training in a time when 
our economy is in a recession. One of the things we want to do is, when 
people are thrown of work, we want to get them retrained with skills so 
they can obtain work. So that is what this is all about.
  This funding that we are trying to restore was already provided in 
the Senate Appropriations Committee-passed bill; but subsequently, with 
these across-the-board cuts, it has been severely nicked, to the tune 
of what we are trying to restore.
  Why do we want to restore this amount, other than because of the 
commonsense answer that you want to provide job training for folks out 
of work? It assists workers who lose their jobs as a result of 
circumstances beyond their control. It helps Americans gain an element 
of self-sufficiency.
  This is not the time to cut funding for programs that give Americans 
the tools, the guidance, and the skills they need to handle these 
problems.
  I am very much a proponent of this Workforce Investment Act because I 
have seen what it can do. I have seen the workforce centers in Florida. 
We have about four. I have been to one of those centers. And what do 
they do? They train young people to have a saleable skill in the job 
market. And they have an incredible success rate of placing 80 percent. 
And those 80 percent are in jobs that last some number of months. That 
is an incredible success rate.
  Since its inauguration way back in 1964, the Job Corps has provided 
over 2 million disadvantaged youth with the integrated, academic, 
vocational, and social skills training they needed to gain 
independence.
  In closing, I wish to share an e-mail I recently received from an 
organization committed to providing education to young adults down in 
Tampa. This is what the e-mail said:

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

  These are real results, results that may not be duplicated if we do 
not continue to invest in providing employment training and opportunity 
for disadvantaged Americans.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired.
  Who yields time in opposition?
  All time in support of the amendment has been utilized.
  Who yields time in opposition?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment be 
set aside, the time reserved as it is now, pending another amendment to 
be offered and debated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Does the Senator from Wyoming wish to speak on the 
Cantwell amendment?
  Mr. ENZI. Yes.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, how much time remains on the Cantwell 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eight minutes nine seconds.

[[Page 1661]]


  Mr. STEVENS. I yield the Senator from Wyoming such time as he wishes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. ENZI. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. President, the amendment before us is the Workforce Investment 
Act amendment which appropriates an additional $678 million for 
programs under title I of the Workforce Investment Act. It has some 
money for all of the different processes: youth activities, employment 
and training activities, opportunity grants, and Job Corps.
  The managers' amendment to the omnibus appropriations bill provides 
$5.12 billion for training and employment services. That is $144.3 
million above the budget request. Of this total amount, the bill 
provides $1.38 billion for dislocated worker activities.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Employment, Safety and Training, I 
have been a strong supporter of the Workforce Investment Act. In fact, 
I have joined with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in efforts 
to provide sufficient funding for the Workforce Investment Act.
  Therefore, I have to carefully explain why I am opposing this 
amendment. Let me be clear, I am not questioning the importance of job 
training in these difficult economic times, nor am I questioning the 
importance of the Workforce Investment Act as our Federal workforce 
development system. However, I am opposing an amendment that increases 
funding without offsetting such increased amounts. I am opposing an 
amendment that increases funding by $678 million that is not targeted 
to the individuals who are most in need of job training and assistance. 
Of the $678 million increase in funding, only $206.1 million will go to 
dislocated worker programs, those individuals who are most in need of 
assistance to get back to work.
  The President's economic stimulus proposal gives $3.6 billion to fund 
personal reemployment accounts to individuals who need the most help 
getting back to work. These accounts can be used for job training, 
child care, transportation, or other expenses associated with finding a 
new job. These accounts will be administered through the Workforce 
Investment Act's One-Stop Career Center. The personal reemployment 
accounts proposed by the President are both targeted and flexible, 
unlike the amendment before us.
  Most importantly, the Workforce Investment Act is up for 
reauthorization this year. My subcommittee will shortly be commencing 
hearings on the reauthorization. During the reauthorization process, we 
will be considering funding issues for the Workforce Investment Act to 
determine how resources are most effectively used for people who need 
it most. This is not the time to address these issues. We need to 
complete our work on fiscal year 2003 appropriations now. The time to 
address the Workforce Investment Act is during the reauthorization of 
the bill this coming year which will be one of my priorities as 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Employment, Safety, and Training.
  Again, I encourage my colleagues to oppose the amendment. It is not 
offset. It is new money. It is not directed toward the problem, and we 
will be doing reauthorization.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask Democratic Senators Lautenberg, Dodd, 
Wyden, and Kohl to come to the floor. We have amendments that need to 
be offered, and we have now an hour. If we don't do that, it will be an 
extra hour or more we will have to work later tonight.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, on the Cantwell amendment, what is the 
time situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes fifty seconds remain for the 
opponents.
  Mr. STEVENS. Does Ms. Cantwell have any time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield back the remainder of our time. I move to table 
the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that amendment be set aside 
until a time agreed upon by the two managers after 5 o'clock.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


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

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


                            amendment no. 98

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


                            amendment no. 99

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

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


                           amendment no. 162

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

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


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

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


                            amendment no. 35

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

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


                            amendment no. 52

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

                      TITLE IV--TANF AND MEDICARE

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

[[Page 1662]]




                            amendment no. 58

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

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

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


                            amendment no. 87

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

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


                           amendment no. 220

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . FUNDING FOR AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS.

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


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

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


                            AMENDMENT NO. 26

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

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


                            amendment no. 48

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

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

     SEC. 3__. SUSQUEHANNA GREENWAY, MARYLAND.

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


                            amendment no. 92

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

       On page 772, strike lines 10 through 23.


                            amendment no. 69

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

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


                           amendment no. 224

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

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


                            amendment no. 48

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is to 
redirect funding that was made available in the Transportation Equity 
Act for the 21st Century for the construction of a pedestrian and 
bicycle bridge across the Susquehanna between Havre de Grace and 
Perryville, MD to a related project.
  During a tour of Havre de Grace and Perryville in April 1998, the 
mayors of the two towns and members of the Lower Susquehanna Heritage 
Greenway Committee, briefed me on the Heritage Greenway plan and 
expressed a hope that the two towns would one day be connected by a 
pedestrian/bicycle bridge. There are three bridges spanning the 
Susquehanna River at U.S. Route 1, I-95 and U.S. Route 40, but for 
safety reasons Maryland State Highway Administration policy prohibits 
pedestrian/bike traffic on these bridges. The Lower Susquehanna 
Greenway Resource Report dated January, 1994 identified the need to 
link greenway trails along the river in Harford and Cecil Counties via 
a river crossing and identified a potential crossing site which would 
utilize the old Route 40 piers that parallel the existing Amtrak 
bridge.
  In order to help facilitate construction of a pedestrian and bicycle 
bridge at this site, Senator Mikulski and I succeeded in getting a 
provision included in TEA-21 which provided $1.25 million for this 
project. Using a portion of the funds, the State Highway Administration 
conducted an engineering analysis of the existing piers and determined 
that the piers could not support such a bridge without significant and 
costly structural and other

[[Page 1663]]

improvements. Since that time the Susquehanna Heritage Greenway 
Committee has been examining other options, including a ferry boat and 
a pedestrian/bicycle bridge crossing further upstream. My amendment 
would give the committee additional flexibility to undertake these 
potential crossing alternatives and related Lower Susquehanna Heritage 
Greenway projects. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


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

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


                            amendment no. 59

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

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


                            AMENDMENT NO. 37

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

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

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


                            AMENDMENT NO. 38

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

[[Page 1664]]



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

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


                            amendment no. 42

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

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

     ``SEC. 210. CIVIL PENALTIES.

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


                            amendment no. 49

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

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

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

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


                            Amendment No. 84

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

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

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


                           amendment no. 128

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

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


                           amendment no. 161

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


                           amendment no. 206

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

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

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

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


                             Price-Anderson

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

[[Page 1665]]

  I am pleased that this matter is finally being handled in the Omnibus 
Appropriations bill with the inclusion of the House and Senate 
compromise language of my amendment.


                            Amendment No. 49

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


                            amendment no. 59

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of an amendment 
that was offered by my colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden.
  I want to begin with a USA Today article from February 27, 2002 
entitled ``Bush Cheney Champion Privacy--for themselves'' by Tony 
Mauro.
  The article describes how the administration is very concerned about 
protecting privacy when it comes to protecting their meetings to 
develop an energy policy for our Nation. As Mr. Mauro writes, ``Cheney 
and Bush want privacy for their conversations, but not for anyone 
else's.''
  This article also sheds light on how the administration places a 
premium on privacy. Unfortunately, its leaders seem to value secrecy 
mainly to protect themselves from embarrassing revelations or to 
protect their corporate cronies from public scrutiny.
  And yet while the White House was fighting vigorously to prevent the 
American people from getting access to government records, the 
administration was working arduously to ensure that government would 
have unprecedented access into the personal lives of the American 
people through electronic records.
  Today, my colleague from Oregon is offering an amendment to ensure 
that such a program does not go forward unless the privacy of the 
American people is assured.
  This week, many of my colleagues have joined me in speaking on civil 
rights and civil liberties. I feel strongly that we must defend the 
civil liberties of Nevadans and all Americans, including their 
fundamental right to privacy.
  After September 11, our Nation was forced to reflect on the freedoms 
we so often take for granted.
  Americans have accepted many restrictions on those freedoms, because 
they recognized some limits were necessary to provide security against 
terrorists and other realistic threats, and because they believed these 
restrictions would be administered justly.
  So we tolerate waiting several hours to board airplanes, because we 
know it necessary to check our luggage more rigorously than ever 
before.
  But the program my distinguished colleague from Oregon is describing 
concerns me, and I have heard from many Nevadans expressing their 
opposition to the White House plan unless we have greater assurances 
that it will not infringe upon our precious privacy.
  Senator Wyden's amendment aims to curtail the Total Information 
Awareness program being funded at the Defense Advanced Research 
Projects Agency, which is an effort to develop a digital description of 
each and every one of us, available in nanoseconds.
  This digital ``you'' will be made up of every credit card purchase, 
every bank transaction, every driver's license application, every court 
record, and every library book loan you ever borrowed.
  The Federal Government will store all this information--ready to be 
processed in a moment's notice.
  Sound like a good idea?
  I don't think so for a very simple reason: No one has figured out how 
this information is going to be protected, so that you don't become the 
victim of an overzealous Government snoop.
  The Total Information Awareness program is doing nothing to protect 
that privacy. Instead of being an electronic Fort Knox, TIA is going to 
be a gold mine for privacy violations.
  In fact, the White House decided to pick a John Poindexter to run the 
project. He may be a brilliant man, but he was also convicted of lying 
to Congress in the Iran-Contra scandal.
  How are we supposed to believe a man who lied to Congress when he 
tells us that your privacy is safe--that this clearinghouse of 
confidential computer records won't be used improperly?
  There other problems. Just look at the way this agency will work.
  All the research to build this computer web will be done by 
contractors--businesses who are allowed to market, sell and distribute 
their work for commercial development.
  That means the same technology the government is developing to snoop 
on your video rentals could be used by the video rental companies to 
peek on your publicly available government records.
  You can bet the companies who buy this technological peeping tom 
won't be using it to protect the public good, but merely to pad their 
corporate profits.
  Your privacy is not a privilege but a principle that must be 
protected.
  Senator Wyden's amendment is an important and necessary step to 
prevent the Federal Government from trampling your privacy while still 
allowing the Federal Government to protect us against terrorists.


                            amendment no. 59

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, as the Senate moves forward on the Omnibus 
Appropriations bill, I wish to explain in greater detail the amendment 
I first discussed the other day. I offered this amendment with Senators 
Feinstein, Reid, Boxer, and Corzine to establish clear and unambiguous 
congressional oversight over the Pentagon's Office of Total Information 
Awareness, TIA. It is an amendment on which I have worked with 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and I want to especially 
recognize the invaluable guidance Senator Inouye has provided us in 
crafting this amendment.
  It is an amendment that would limit the scope of the Office of Total 
Information Awareness. This is a program that is now being directed by 
retired Admiral John Poindexter, the former National Security Adviser 
to former President Reagan. It is one that raises a number of important 
issues that have arisen in our country since the horrific events of 9/
11.
  Let me be clear. The amendment does not kill the program; rather, the 
amendment shifts the burden to the executive branch to make the case 
for the program. The amendment would restrict funding for the program 
unless

[[Page 1666]]

the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General and the Director of 
Central Intelligence send to Congress within 60 days a report answering 
a series of questions about the TIA program, or the President certifies 
to Congress in writing that that cessation of TIA's research and 
development work would endanger U.S. national security. Further, the 
amendment would prohibit DOD from sharing this technology with any 
Federal agency that wishes to deploy or implement it until the 
Secretary of Defense informs Congress about the element of the 
program's technology that would be deployed and the intended method and 
scope of the deployment, and an authorization and an appropriations law 
have been enacted to provide for the specific deployment or 
implementation.
  Given the fact that our country is engaged in fighting a war against 
an enemy without boundaries, clearly we must, as a nation, take steps 
that constantly strive to balance the rights of our citizens against 
the need to protect the national security of our Nation.
  My concern is the program that is being developed by Mr. Poindexter 
is going forward without congressional oversight and without clear 
accountability and guidelines. That is why I think it is important for 
the Senate, as we reflect on the need to fight terrorism while 
balancing the need to protect the rights of our citizens, to emphasize 
how important it is that a program like this be subject to 
congressional oversight, and that there be clear accountability.
  On the Web site of this particular program, the Total Information 
Awareness Program, is cited a Latin slogan--``Knowledge is power''--
something we would all agree with, and it states:

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

  The ``centralized grand database'' would enable the federal 
government to look at the education, financial, travel, medical, and 
other activities of U.S. citizens, and develop risk profiles for 
millions of Americans in the quest to examine questionable conduct and 
certainly suspicious activity that would generate concern for the 
safety of the American people. Our country must fight terrorists, but 
America should not unleash virtual bloodhounds to sniff into the 
personal financial, medical, and other records of millions of 
Americans.
  I am of the view the Senate has a special obligation to be vigilant 
in this area so we do not approve actions or condone actions by this 
particular office that could compromise the bedrock of this Nation: our 
Constitution.
  I sit on the Senate Intelligence Committee. I know it is a difficult 
job to find and maintain the proper balance between constitutional 
rights and the need to thoroughly track down every valid lead on 
terrorism, but I will tell you, I think it is critically important that 
the Senate have oversight over this program, and we make sure there is 
not a program of what amounts to virtual bloodhounds.
  We need to make sure there are guidelines and rules so that there has 
to be, for example, evidence there is activity that could threaten the 
country before additional intrusive steps are taken and, second, that 
there are safeguards in place at a time when it is possible, because of 
modern technology and new databases, to share information very quickly.
  The fact is much of this information is already being shared in the 
private sector, and that is why so many Americans are troubled about 
the prospect of losing privacy right now. What is of concern to many 
about the Office of Total Information Awareness is it will take the 
current policies that threaten the privacy of the American people and 
magnify those problems, given the fact we have not been informed as to 
what safeguards and constitutional protections would be in place when 
this program goes forward.
  I am of the view that the Senate must act to suspend this massive 
data-mining project unless and until the executive branch comes forward 
to make the case for it and Congress determines whether the proposed 
benefits of this technology come at too high a price to the privacy and 
personal liberty of U.S. citizens.
  Clearly, to fight terrorism, we have to have the confidence of the 
American people. In doing so, we must protect their rights. My concern 
is the Office of Total Information Awareness, as it is constituted 
today, tips that balance against the procedural safeguards that are 
needed to protect the rights of millions of Americans while fighting 
terrorism.
  That is why I and my distinguished colleagues believe Congress must 
act now to limit the scope of the TIA office. The amendment will ensure 
that as this program is developed in its early days it is done in a 
fashion that is sensitive and respectful of constitutional protections 
and safeguards, while still ensuring that our Nation can continue to 
fight terrorism.
  In closing, I again thank the distinguished ranking member of the 
Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee for his generous assistance.


                            amendment no. 59

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

[[Page 1667]]

aside temporarily. It is not in the package.


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

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


                     amendment no. 49, as modified

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

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

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


                     amendment no. 128, as modified

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


                            Amendment No. 74

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send amendment No. 74 to the desk, 
which I introduce on behalf of the distinguished majority leader, to 
reinforce the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security in 
applying criteria to designate college- and university-based centers 
for homeland security research.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we are not doing 
this en bloc, that this is standing alone?
  Mr. STEVENS. This is one item standing alone.
  Mr. REID. We have no objection to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

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

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


                            amendment no. 74

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

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


                           Amendment No. 137

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

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

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


                           amendment no. 137

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

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

     SEC. __. HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES.

       (a) Decreased Cost-Sharing Requirement.--Section 507(c) of 
     the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (16 
     U.S.C. 470a note) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(1) Except'' and inserting the following:
       ``(1) In general.--Except'';
       (2) by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and inserting 
     ``paragraphs (2) and (3)'';
       (3) by striking ``(2) The Secretary'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(2) Waiver.--The Secretary'';
       (4) by striking ``paragraph (1)'' and inserting 
     ``paragraphs (1) and (3)''; and
       (5) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Exception.--The Secretary shall not obligate funds 
     made available under subsection (d)(2) for a grant with 
     respect to a building or structure listed on, or eligible for 
     listing on, the National Register of Historic Places unless 
     the grantee agrees to provide, from funds derived from non-
     Federal sources, an amount that is equal to 30 percent of the 
     total cost of the project for which the grant is provided.''.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 507(d) of the 
     Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (16 
     U.S.C. 470a note) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Pursuant to'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--Under''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Additional funding.--In addition to amounts made 
     available under paragraph (1), there is authorized to be 
     appropriated from the Historic Preservation Fund to carry out 
     this section $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2003 
     through 2008.''.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank the managers for working with us 
on this amendment. I believe it has been accepted now on both sides. I 
ask for 2 minutes to explain the amendment, and I think we are prepared 
to accept it.

[[Page 1668]]


  Mr. STEVENS. I have no objection to 2 minutes for the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, as you may know, as the Chairman knows, 
there is currently a very important program--it is not a large program, 
but it is a very important program to historically Black colleges and 
universities within the parameters of our Historic Preservation Fund. 
It helps these universities, as they come up with private sector 
dollars, to match the authorization that our program creates. It gives 
them an opportunity to preserve these historic buildings, which are of 
tremendous significance to this Nation, for our heritage, our culture, 
and the current educational needs of over 300,000 students who attend 
these fine institutions.
  This amendment by Senator Lieberman and myself and many others on 
both sides of the aisle basically reauthorizes the program. It expands 
it from $5 million a year to $10 million a year, an authorization for 5 
years to $50 million, reduces the match from 50 percent to 30 percent, 
without adding any money to the current bill. It is strictly an 
authorization.
  This amendment reflects two bills that passed both the House and the 
Senate that reflect this language. It has broad-based support and would 
be very helpful to these universities.
  I thank the managers for working this out. I urge adoption of the 
amendment.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am proud to join with Senator 
Landrieu in offering this amendment to provide historic preservation 
funding for Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Sixteen of us 
from both parties sponsored similar legislation last session, which 
passed the Senate as well as the House. But the two pieces did not come 
together in the closing days of the session.
  American history has been a constant, if not always consistent, march 
toward an ideal. That ideal is equal opportunity for all.
  In every generation, it has taken the work of pioneers to open the 
gates of the American community to people who had previously been 
excluded. We have seen it happen with one immigrant group after 
another. Pioneers have stepped forward when others would not, to 
defiantly state, in effect, that we as a nation will not be defined by 
surface characteristics. We will look deeper and try harder. The 
pioneers have held us to our national promise, and reminded us that 
America and Americanism are not about where you came from, what 
language you speak, what religion you practice, or what you look like, 
but about belief in basic ideals of responsibility, opportunity and 
community.
  Historically Black Colleges and Universities have been such pioneers 
for generations, and they continue today to help America become its 
best self.
  In April of this year, I went to Allen University in Columbia, SC to 
talk about reforming higher education to help more Americans at all 
income levels not only go to college, but graduate--and get a good job 
when they do. Today, about 30 percent of undergraduates at 4-year 
colleges are minorities. That is an increase of 10 percent over the 
last 10 years. HBCUs have helped expand that access to college. 
However, we are still living in a country where if you are white, you 
are twice as likely to obtain a bachelor's degree by the time you're 24 
than if you are African American. And if you are wealthy, you are five 
times more likely to actually get a bachelor's degree than if you are 
from a low-income family. In other words, we don't have equal 
opportunity--not yet.
  Historically Black Colleges have always held us to the high human 
standards to which America deserves to be held--and to which our people 
demand we be held.
  Today, America has over 100 Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities, which educate about 300,000 undergraduate students and 
thousands of graduate, professional and doctoral students.
  In fact, 8 of the top 10 producers of African-American engineers are 
HBCUs. And 42 percent of all the PhDs earned each year by African 
Americans are earned by graduates of HBCUs.
  Despite playing such a central role in our economy, society, and 
culture, HBCUs have been physically eroding for years. In 1998, the 
National Trust for Historic Preservation reported that most of the 
HBCUs in the United States are showing serious signs of neglect. The 
trust said that campus landmarks are decaying and college grounds are 
badly in need of attention. And a 1998 General Accounting Office report 
estimated that in HBCUs nationwide, there were more than 700 historic 
buildings in disrepair.
  That is why I am proudly sponsoring this amendment to provide more 
restoration funding for historic sites at Historically Black Colleges 
and Universities throughout the Nation.
  These beautiful, architecturally significant structures are in most 
cases over a hundred years old, and were often built using the help of 
the students themselves. Their architectural beauty is a sign of 
something deeper--the fact that they have served as critical portals of 
opportunity for African Americans throughout our history. That is why 
they deserve our strong protection and sensitive preservation.
  I saw this firsthand. When I visited Allen University, I went to 
Arnett Hall--a building that had been transformed from an eyesore into 
a beautiful and stately facility with the help of Federal funds. In the 
past, students and faculty would walk into the hall and get the message 
that we as a nation were neglecting these historic treasures. Now, they 
absorb the message that we consider historically black colleges and 
universities central to our history and to our future.
  Thanks in no small part to these institutions, the overarching 
history of African Americans in this country has been not a tragedy, as 
it once was, but a brilliant movement toward dignity, inclusion, 
freedom, and opportunity.
  That is the right message for African Americans and all Americans.
  In closing, I would also like to reiterate that this amendment is not 
new. Bills providing historic preservation funding to Historically 
Black Colleges and Universities unanimously passed both Houses at the 
end of last year. By approving this amendment, we will clean up last 
year's unfinished business. Please join with me and Senator Landrieu to 
adopt this amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Louisiana. I am 
prepared to ask that amendment be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 137) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CORNYN). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, what is the regular order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a motion to table the Cantwell 
amendment, and the yeas and nays have been ordered on that motion.
  Mr. STEVENS. Following that, there are two other amendments that 
would be the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. First, the Bingaman 
amendment, followed by the Mikulski amendment.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state his inquiry.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend, the manager of the bill, it is my 
understanding that the matter that recurs now is Mikulski?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a pending motion to table the 
Cantwell amendment.

[[Page 1669]]


  Mr. REID. I say, then, for the benefit of Senators, we have Mikulski, 
Bingaman, and Cantwell that are now pending, and we are going to 
dispose of Cantwell now. What would be the parliamentary order after 
that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Bingaman amendment would be next, and then 
the Mikulski amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it would be my intention to attempt to 
adopt the Bingaman amendment without a recorded vote. We will see how 
that happens. May we proceed with the Cantwell vote now?


                           Amendment No. 108

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

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 24 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

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

                                NAYS--48

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Harkin
     Inouye
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 138

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


                            Amendment No. 61

  Mr. STEVENS. The third amendment was the amendment of Senator 
Mikulski. I inquire if there is a modification at the desk?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I believe there is a unanimous consent.
  Mr. STEVENS. Let me ask unanimous consent that we proceed to Senator 
Mikulski's amendment and that it be in order to offer, if a second-
degree amendment is agreed to, it be in order for her to offer a 
further second-degree perfecting amendment, and that there be 20 
minutes equally divided between Senators Thomas and Mikulski prior to a 
vote in relation to this amendment.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, we need consent that the 
Mikulski amendment, the order with respect to that, be vitiated first. 
There is an order already in effect in that regard.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am afraid I didn't read the whole unanimous consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The only agreement was barring the second-
degree amendments, which the Senator has addressed.
  Mr. REID. That will be fine.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask that that unanimous consent request be withdrawn 
and I be permitted to offer a different one.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The unanimous consent request is withdrawn.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that the order----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. May we have order, please.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that the order with respect to 
the Mikulski amendment be vitiated and that Senator Thomas be 
recognized to offer a perfecting second-degree amendment regarding 
public-private competition; provided further that there be a 20-minute 
period for debate equally divided between Senators Thomas and Mikulski 
prior to a vote in relation to the second-degree amendment. I further 
ask that following that debate time, the Senate proceed to a vote in 
relation to the Thomas amendment. I further ask consent that if the 
second-degree amendment is agreed to, Senator Mikulski be recognized in 
order to offer a further second-degree perfecting amendment, provided 
there be 20 minutes for debate equally divided between Senators Thomas 
and Mikulski prior to the vote in relation to that amendment; finally, 
if the Thomas second-degree amendment is not agreed to, the Senate 
proceed immediately to vote in relation to the Mikulski first-degree 
amendment and, notwithstanding the drafting of the Mikulski amendment, 
if it were adopted, the first-degree amendment would be subject to 
further amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BYRD. Reserving the right to object, it was my understanding we 
were going to have three rollcall votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Yes. I say to the Senator, one of them was approved by 
voice vote, so this is the third vote.
  Mr. BYRD. This is the third vote. But this new request, what is this?
  Mr. REID. This is to set up the order of debate on the Mikulski 
amendment which is going to be second-degreed by Senator Thomas. This 
is something we have worked on almost all day. So there will be two 
votes on the Mikulski amendment, one on Thomas and one on Mikulski.
  Mr. BYRD. For the moment, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, is there any way--if I can 
get the attention of the Senator from Wyoming and the Senator from 
Maryland--is there any way we could save 10 minutes by having 15 
minutes between each of them rather than 20?
  Mr. THOMAS. Yes, that is fine.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I didn't hear the Senator.
  Mr. REID. We have 40 minutes. I am asking if we can reduce that to 15 
on each rather than 20, for a total of 30.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Yes.
  Mr. REID. I ask that that be agreed to: Rather than 20 minutes on 
each, it be 15 on each of the amendments for debate.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I stated earlier that for the moment I 
object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is objection.
  Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page 1670]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I renew the Stevens request, as amended by me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. STEVENS. As what?
  Mr. REID. The time.
  Mr. STEVENS. OK.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Wyoming.


                 Amendment No. 246 To Amendment No. 61

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

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

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

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

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, this is a second-degree amendment to the 
underlying amendment. We discussed this amendment this morning and 
delayed a vote in hopes of coming to a compromise over some of the 
concerns that were raised. For nearly 2 hours the administration 
officials, my staff, Senator Collins' staff, Senator Brownback, and 
Senator Mikulski worked to find a way to address these concerns. 
Unfortunately, the Senator from Maryland did not agree with that.
  So I am offering this amendment. The compromise was reached that the 
administration believes allows the Government, the President, to 
continue setting important management goals for the public-private 
competition. What this is, of course, is allowing for the FAIR Act, 
which was passed in 1998, to continue to be effective, where we can go 
through and list those items that are not inherently governmental and 
have some competition for those items in the private sector so we can 
have certainly a more efficient Government. This is the way we think we 
ought to do it.
  This amendment would allow for the restrictions on the quotas. But 
when there has been study, when there has been a real approach to what 
can be done and the kinds of activities that fit, then we can move 
forward.
  The complaint here on the amendment has simply been because of 
setting quotas. Quotas does not mean that people will be replaced by 
private enterprise, but, rather, areas that are not inherently 
governmental will be used.
  I turn now to the Senator from Maine for her comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Maryland has 
raised a very legitimate point about the use of arbitrary quotas or 
numerical targets to guide the contracting-out activities of Federal 
agencies. It seems to me that having one target for every agency may 
well be counterproductive and not result in the greatest efficiencies.
  On the other hand, I am concerned that the amendment of the Senator 
from Maryland may have some unintended consequences. It could be read 
as rejecting the notion of ever having competitive contracting, to see 
whether a specific function is best performed in-house or contracted 
out to the private sector.
  I am also concerned that it could have an impact on other laws, 
although I know that is not the intent of the Senator from Maryland.
  We have consulted with the General Accounting Office and have come up 
with some language to try to deal with this. I do want to assure the 
Senator from Maryland, as the new chairman of the Governmental Affairs 
Committee, I want to work with her to try to resolve this issue because 
the issue she has brought to our attention is a legitimate one. So I 
hope to continue, in my new capacity, to work with her, to work with 
the Senator from Wyoming, to work with the Senators from Virginia who 
have also expressed concerns about this issue.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I yield now to the Senator from Ohio.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I----
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: First, I 
recognize that the Senator has time. But I didn't know if we were going 
to alternate speakers. Does the Senator from Wyoming intend to use all 
of his 15 minutes and then turn it over to me?
  I am sorry. I don't want to in any way deny the Senator from Ohio his 
right to speak. Usually one side makes an argument, and then the other 
replies, and then go back. Are we not doing that?
  Mr. THOMAS. I understood we had 15 minutes to present our point of 
view and that the others would present their point of view.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. This discussion will be on my time. But usually when we 
have a time allocation we go back and forth. Is the Senator from 
Wyoming going to take all of his 15 minutes and then give me all of 
mine? Is that the way we are going to do it?
  Mr. THOMAS. That was my understanding.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will say that there is no agreement 
to go back and forth. The Senator from Ohio has the floor at the 
moment.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, the Senator from Ohio has the right to 
speak, but it was not part of the agreement. I was just referring to 
the usual and customary behavior in the Senate.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would also announce that the 15 
minutes was to be evenly divided----
  Ms. MIKULSKI. No. We didn't.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On each amendment.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. When do I get my time? There are 15 minutes on each 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct--evenly divided on each 
amendment by 7\1/2\ minutes.
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, how much time do we have on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes twenty seconds remain.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. I thank the Chair.
  First, I share the concerns of the Senator from Maryland about this 
problem, and I want to do everything in my power as chairman of the 
subcommittee on Government oversight and work toward dealing with the 
solution to the problem that is being presented.
  According to the best information I have, this amendment would 
circumvent the administration's prerogative in the executive branch by 
prohibiting the administration from managing the Federal Government's 
competitive sourcing process. It would repeal initiatives passed on a 
bipartisan basis over the past 10 years, including the Government 
Performance Act.
  The amendment would prohibit agencies from developing and 
implementing strategic plans allowing Federal employees to focus on 
high-priority activities, and it would prevent agencies

[[Page 1671]]

from increasing efficiencies, lowering costs, implementing innovation 
and technology, and it would prevent agencies to meet their agency 
missions.
  Additionally, the President has said that if this provision were in 
the Treasury-Postal appropriations, he would veto the bill.
  We tried to work out a compromise based on some of these concerns 
that he had. We thought that it met the concerns of the Senator from 
Maryland. Unfortunately, it did not.
  I urge that we vote no on her amendment and yes on the amendment we 
are proposing today--understanding this will not solve the problem and 
that we will need to deal with it throughout the remainder of the year.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, do I have time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming has 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. THOMAS. I would like to turn to the Senator from Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming for his 
leadership. I rise in support of his amendment, and, as the Senator 
from Ohio said, in opposition to the amendment of the Senator from 
Maryland.
  My friends and colleagues, we need to always, as a government, be 
looking at new ways of adopting innovation and have improvements--
whether it is our national security or homeland defense. There are many 
ideas, many systems, and many programs in the private sector that can 
perform more efficiently and better for the American people. We need to 
examine those.
  I think the Bush administration's proposal is very modest and 
reasonable, and it is supported by a variety of private sector groups. 
The Mikulski amendment is opposed by a broad range of organizations, 
such as the Northern Virginia Technology Council, the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce, the Professional Services Council, the Contract Services 
Association, and many others.
  For small businesses, large businesses, disadvantaged businesses, 
minority-owned businesses, let us care about the jobs in the private 
sector. Let us also care about those governmental services that are 
essential for our security, but let us make what we are procuring the 
best for all Americans.
  I ask my colleagues to support the amendment of Senator Thomas and 
oppose the amendment of the Senator from Maryland.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Maryland is recognized for 7\1/2\ minutes.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise with vigor to unabashedly oppose 
the amendment of the Senator from Wyoming. The reason I do is that he 
reintroduces the words ``quota'' and ``target.''
  The amendment of the Senator from Wyoming essentially says that a 
``target'' or a ``goal'' is to be considered--``target, target, quota, 
quota.'' I thought we didn't like targets and quotas. I am surprised 
that the Senator from Wyoming is so enthusiastic about them.
  Under the Thomas amendment, Federal managers will still be forced to 
meet arbitrary quotas for privatization without real criteria, 
rationales, or consideration. Under the Thomas amendment, the goal is 
to get a quota or a target--not better government.
  Let us be very clear. My original amendment never did seek the end to 
privatization. Privatization must be based on thoughtful criteria as 
established by the Congress in the FAIR Act.
  Let us privatize Federal jobs where appropriate, but let us keep a 
strong, independent Federal workforce.
  I want to deal with the very valid issues raised by the Senator from 
Maine. I agree. I wanted to modify my amendment. I wanted to modify my 
amendment by adding what is now in the first paragraph in the Thomas 
amendment, which I agree to--that nothing in this section would prevent 
any agency of the executive branch from subjecting work performed by 
the Federal Government employees to be contracted out to public or 
private competition.
  I wanted to do that this morning. The Senator from Wyoming would not 
agree to that modification. We went into a dialog. In the dialog, the 
Senator from Maine, again, offered a very constructive recommendation--
that nothing in this section would limit the use of such funds under 
the Government Performance Act.
  I was willing to go with that. If we had agreed to that, we could 
have agreed to that modification this morning and Senators could be 
heading home tonight. But, no, OMB had to get into the act. They 
insisted that this paragraph say, unless there has to be a target or 
quota. Sure. They say based on research and sound analysis.
  Let me tell you. When the fox is guarding the hen house, I don't care 
what accounting system they have. They are still going after targets 
and they are still going after quotas. That is why I object to the 
amendment of the Senator from Wyoming.
  I would love to have agreed to the original two paragraphs that I 
think would have met the very valid concern of the other side.
  I salute those on the other side who are reformers. But, no, we 
didn't go that route.
  I am still opposing it. Anything with the word ``target'' in it and 
anything with the word ``quota'' in it. I am fighting today. I am 
fighting all night, if I have to. I will fight tomorrow, and I will 
fight on until the end of the 108th Congress.
  I am not going to destroy the integrity of the civil service system 
with arbitrary quotas and with arbitrary and capricious targets. We are 
going to do this right. We are going to do it under the law. We are not 
going to turn Federal managers into bounty hunters.
  How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland has 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am voting in favor of Senator 
Mikulski's amendment and against Senator Thomas' amendment because the 
Thomas amendment provides for quotas. I favor contracting out where 
there is an individual analysis that saves the Federal Government money 
and maintains appropriate quality. I have consistently opposed quotas 
in school admissions and employment and I similarly oppose quotas in 
this situation.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I hope when we do another process such 
as this and enter into negotiations and when the negotiation is over we 
don't come back and offer something that had been rejected as an 
amendment.
  I am disappointed that this amendment is being offered. That is 
politics. Everyone has a right to offer their amendments. I accept the 
offer of the Senator from Maine and the Senator from Ohio for the long 
haul and for discussion.
  This is very serious. We do know we need a modernized civil service. 
We do know we need to reform. But we do not need targets and quotas 
where OMB has said itself, get rid of 127,000, 500,000 jobs this year. 
So 127,000 people? Who are we going to get rid of? Let's start with the 
Nobel prize winners at NIH. Who needs them? They can go off to the 
private sector. Good-bye. Who needs a Nobel prize winner for finding 
the cure for Alzheimer's? Maybe we could contract out Customs officers. 
Maybe we could go to rent-a-cop agencies.
  Or what about those secretaries who keep the agencies going--like the 
one who went to my high school who has worked for the FBI for nearly 50 
years in Baltimore, who has helped keep the FBI going, such as when the 
FBI was out trying to find the sniper who killed several Marylanders 
and people from Northern Virginia.
  I don't know what is so hostile about Federal employees. If we want 
to save money in pensions, and if we want to save money in health care, 
that is another issue. But bounty hunters? No. Maybe bounty hunters are 
OK when you go after predators, but I don't think the Federal employees 
should be subjected to bounty hunters.
  Guess who else is opposed to this amendment. Federal managers, 
because they say all they are going to be doing is paperwork to be able 
to justify this.

[[Page 1672]]

  I could elaborate. Everybody knows I am opposed to the Thomas 
amendment because it is just a dressed-up version of going after 
quotas, which I tried to stop in the first place.
  Mr. President, I know that it is getting late. I think we ought to 
have a vote on this. If I prevail, by defeating the Thomas amendment, 
we are done. If not, I am going to come back and have another say.
  Mr. President, I yield all of my time back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) and the 
Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 25 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

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

                                NAYS--48

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

       
     Harkin
     Inouye
  The amendment (No. 246) was agreed to.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Maryland is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 247

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

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

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

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

       In lieu of the language proposed to be inserted insert the 
     following:
       Sec.   . None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by an Executive agency to establish, apply, or 
     enforce any numerical goal, target, or quota for subjecting 
     the employees of the agency to public-private competitions or 
     converting such employees or the work performed by such 
     employees to private contractor performance under the Office 
     of Management and Budget Circular A-76 or any other 
     Administrative regulation, directive, or policy. This section 
     shall take effect one day after the date of this bill's 
     enactment.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I believe we can move expeditiously 
along on this debate. Might I inquire from the Presiding Officer the 
amount of time we have to debate this amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland has 7\1/2\ minutes, 
and the Senator from Wyoming has 7\1/2\ minutes.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, my amendment is the original amendment that I had 
pending this morning. It seeks to maintain the integrity of the civil 
service system by making sure that civil service is never subjected to 
bounty hunters looking to get rid of their jobs through arbitrary and 
capricious targets and quotas. It makes sure that the civil service 
never lapses into cronyism or political patronage.
  My amendment prevents Federal agencies from establishing or applying 
arbitrary targets or quotas for the contracting out of Federal jobs.
  I want to be clear that my amendment does not prohibit privatization. 
Privatization can continue to go forth as established by Congress in 
the FAIR Act of 1998. It allows contracting out. I don't object to 
that. What I object to is targets, quotas, and bounty hunters. Firstly, 
this is the smallest Federal workforce since the 1960s. Next, we are at 
war. We are fighting a war against terrorism. We also created a new 
agency called Homeland Security. Lastly, we are facing the largest 
number of potential retirees from civil service in over 30 years.
  Don't we want a civil service? I am proud of the civil service. 
Members of my family have been part of the Federal civil service. My 
brother-in-law was a librarian, I have a sister who was a secretary, 
and I am a Senator. I believe if we are going to recruit and retain the 
people we need, we need to make sure we do not embark upon this 
arbitrary, capricious, hostile, and predatory behavior. That is not the 
way to govern. That is not the way to inspire. That is not the way to 
recruit, and it is certainly not the way to retain.
  It is not that Barbara Mikulski is opposed to this; Federal managers 
are opposed to this amendment. They are concerned that they are going 
to be writing lots of justifications on how to retain jobs. They want 
to fight for America. They want to fight for or perform the missions of 
their agencies. We went from an era of patronage politics. Now we are 
embroiled in an atmosphere of partisan politics. I wish we could get 
back to performance-based politics, sound civil service, good reform, 
some of the ideas being proposed by the other side of the aisle, 
looking at what should be contracted out, which would maintain the 
mission of the agency, give value to the taxpayer but dignity to the 
Federal employee.
  So what is wrong with that? I will tell you why the amendment is 
being opposed. What we want to be able to do is allow the privatization 
to occur under the laws that now exist.
  The FAIR Act of 1998 and the 76-OMB circular that was established in 
the 1960s in the Kennedy-Johnson era is what I want.
  My amendment simply prohibits the arbitrary and capricious 
contracting out by saying:

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

  That is all it says.
  If you are for quotas, vote for this. If you are for targets, vote 
for this. If you are for arbitrary and capricious decisionmaking, go 
ahead and do it. Who is going to hire these people? Are we going to 
create new corporations?
  What about all those guys who worked for Enron? Maybe they could get 
into ``let's hire a public employee and privatize.'' And all the guys 
from WorldCom, maybe when they get out on parole they could start a new 
agency to pick up these Federal employees.
  I do not know for the life of me why we are so hostile to Federal 
employees. We have less of a workforce now, and we are asking them to 
fight for America; we are asking them to work for missions, the 
agencies. We took away their privileges in homeland security, and now 
we are going to take away their jobs.
  Mr. REID. I ask to be made a cosponsor.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator from Nevada for asking to be a 
cosponsor. I reserve such time as I may have.

[[Page 1673]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President I remind my colleagues that the amendment 
this body just agreed to contains word for word the amendment of the 
Senator from Maryland. However, it goes on to explain that as we go 
through the 76 process; it is not the quotas that matter. That is what 
gives some guidance to management. What you have to do is study the 
issue and make sure that is the appropriate place.
  It seems to me we ought to be looking a little bit ahead instead of 
being defensive about big Government and everyone working in the big 
Government. We all like Government. We like the employees. They do a 
good job. The point is, do you want an efficient Government or one that 
continues to grow and pays no attention to efficiency and has no 
competition? What we are talking about is a bill that was passed in 
1998 which said we are going to list those functions within the Federal 
Government that are not specifically governmental, that could be done 
outside the Government, and compete.
  I cannot imagine what is wrong with the idea of having competition, 
what is wrong with the idea of being more efficient. They are still 
jobs. We are not taking away jobs. They may be moving to the private 
sector where they can compete and do that particular function of 
Government more efficiently.
  The idea that we just sit here and defend civil service because they 
are working--it disturbs me when we talk about secretaries. This does 
not have anything to do with secretaries. This has to do with those 
functions in Government that can be done by contracting with the 
private sector. There are a lot of those functions, and there are a lot 
of those functions that are already in place.
  We need to go ahead with what we have done. I suppose it is somewhat 
philosophical: If you do not like the private sector, if you do not 
like competition or like to create opportunities for people to compete, 
then I suppose that is the way you feel.
  There are a number of reasons to oppose the amendment.
  The administration worked at this compromise. The administration and 
OMB said they are going to suggest to the President that if this 
provision passes, that the bill be vetoed. Senior advisers are 
recommending the President veto any legislation that challenges a 
management agenda to be more efficient.
  By the way, before this appropriations bill was passed, this 
amendment was taken out. It was in there, and it was defeated last 
year. This is not the first time we have dealt with this issue, and 
each time it has been defeated because most of us think competition is 
a good idea. Most of us think efficiency is a good idea. Most of us 
think we ought to keep Government as small as we can and get the job 
done that way.
  Therefore, I urge we defeat this amendment that is before us and 
continue to move ahead with the opportunity for the Federal Government 
to carry out a plan of more efficiency and a plan that passed in the 
Congress to do that.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Is the Senator yielding back all his time?
  Mr. THOMAS. I am yielding back.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Excuse me?
  Mr. THOMAS. I yield back my time. I am sorry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator wish to be recognized?
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland has 2 minutes 28 
seconds. The Senator from Wyoming has 4 minutes 44 seconds.
  The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Mikulski 
amendment. As we focus on this after having previously accepted the 
amendment of the Senator from Wyoming, let me share with my colleagues 
the views of people who would be affected by this in the private 
sector.
  The Information Technology Association of America recognizes that as 
a result of this amendment, rather than promote competition and better 
management of the Federal Government, the Bush administration would 
face restrictions. There are many companies in the ITAA. There are 
large companies, some small startups, as well as industry leaders in 
software and the Internet. All of these companies would be denied 
opportunities or hampered by this amendment and therefore urge us to 
vote no.
  Other associations, such as the Northern Virginia Technology Council, 
which consists of 1,600 members and 180,000 employees, urge us to vote 
no as well. Bobbie Kilberg, the president, says this amendment would 
significantly limit private sector involvement and discourage 
competition vital to the technology community.
  The Contract Services Association of America, an industry 
representative for private sector companies that provide services to 
the Federal, State, and local governments--they include small 
disadvantaged businesses, Native American-owned businesses, section 
8(a)-certified companies--wants to have those folks working for the 
public good.
  The Professional Services Council recognizes that we want to hold the 
executive branch responsible for efficient management of services and 
looks at this amendment as one that would harm the ability of the 
administration to do so.
  The Chamber of Commerce of the United States looks at this issue in a 
way with which I agree, and that is, that this is the time to create 
more efficient and effective partnerships between the public and 
private sectors, not to restrict policies that limit funding or 
flexibility in sourcing and decisionmaking processes.
  We talk about homeland security. It is very important. Many wonderful 
public servants will be involved in homeland security, but what is 
really going to help homeland security is the adaptation, the 
utilization of technologies from enterprise services that allow them to 
analyze the volumes of information, share it within those agencies, 
also with other agencies in a secure way, and with State and local 
governments.
  It is important that in this time when we are worrying about the cost 
of Government and worrying about the taxpayers, we should not be 
limiting the ability of our Government to respond to changing economic 
and security needs of the American people.
  While I understand the heartfelt sincerity of the Senator from 
Maryland, I think there are a lot of people we need to be worried 
about, and let's make sure we are providing the very best of services 
to the people of this country.
  Competition has always been good. It has made it better. Let's adapt, 
let's innovate, and let's move forward in a principled way. I ask my 
colleagues to defeat this amendment. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. I guess we are going to use this time. I might as well 
join in.
  I want to read a part of a communication from OMB:

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

  Talking about this amendment--

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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time controlled by the Senator from 
Wyoming has expired.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today in support of an amendment 
offered by Senator Mikulski regarding the use of quotas in contracting 
out Government jobs. The administration

[[Page 1674]]

has put forth proposals requiring that a specified number of jobs 
usually performed by Federal employees be contracted out to private 
companies each year. Senator Mikulski's amendment would prevent any of 
the funding in the omnibus appropriations bill to be used in the 
enforcement of these quotas.
  The administration states that this is an issue of efficiency. I 
disagree. There is no evidence that contracting out Federal Government 
jobs saves the Government time or money. In fact, the opposite is often 
true, the Federal Government is overcharged for less efficient work by 
private companies, work that could be done more efficiently and more 
effectively by Federal employees. Too often, jobs are simply contracted 
out without a proper public-private competition, and without continued 
monitoring of whether any cost savings actually results. Furthermore, 
by requiring that a set number of Federal jobs be contracted out each 
year, the jobs may be contracted out without any regard to cost 
savings.
  In addition, national security is now of vital importance to our 
Nation. We must take a close look at the implications of contracting 
out to ensure that our national interests are being protected. We need 
Federal employees to do these jobs, jobs that are not suited to the 
private sector. Indeed, Federal employees are now screening baggage at 
our Nation's airports, one of the most vital roles in this 
unprecedented time. Requiring that a certain number of Federal jobs be 
contracted out each year could result in the contracting out of jobs 
vital to our national security.
  I firmly believe that the United States Government should not 
contract out jobs merely for the sake of ``reducing'' the Federal 
workforce. Nor should we show a preference to contract employees over 
our dedicated public servants who have demonstrated such determination 
and commitment in this difficult time. I urge my colleagues to support 
Senator Mikulski's amendment and oppose the use of quotas in the 
contracting out of jobs already ably performed by our Federal 
employees.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support Senator Mikulski's 
amendment to prohibit arbitrary, ``one-size-fits-all'' privatization 
quotas for Federal agencies. Under the amendment, agencies would still 
be able to compete, convert, and contract out Federal activities, but 
on a case-by-case basis, with the goal of maximizing quality and cost-
efficiency.
  Under the OMB quotas, Federal departments and agencies are encouraged 
to privatize five percent of their jobs now, and 50 percent by next 
year. The administration's current policy will lead to the 
privatization of 850,000 jobs, nearly half the Federal workforce.
  Fair competition and contracting out can be effective when used in 
the right way. But, this quota system imposes a blanket mandate on all 
Federal agencies, without taking into account individual agency needs. 
Agencies are not all alike. It may be appropriate to contract out the 
construction of military equipment or the mowing the lawn. But, many 
Americans will have serious concerns about contracting out the food 
inspections conducted by the Department of Agriculture, or the tax 
audits performed by the Internal Revenue Service. It makes no sense to 
impose the same privatization policy on every agency.
  The Government has a responsibility to provide its services 
efficiently and effectively and with accountability. Under the 
administration's quota system, a broad range of sensitive and critical 
activities could be privatized without accountability, including some 
that could put our national security at risk. Those who safeguard our 
borders and those who repair our planes, ships, and tanks should be 
held accountable for their work.
  Despite the growing reliance on private contractors, Federal agencies 
today do not have a method in place to hold contractors accountable. 
Many of us have deep concerns about privatizing so much of the Federal 
workforce in the absence of reliable and comprehensive measures to 
determine the quality of the tens of billions of dollars of work 
performed by private contractors. There are no mechanisms to track the 
quality of service contracting. Some agencies served by contractors 
today do not even know which services are being provided by 
contractors.
  In addition, privatization under the administration's current quota 
system can occur without competition. Many Federal jobs will be lost, 
with no opportunity for the Federal employees to compete and 
demonstrate their efficiency. Currently, when Federal jobs are opened 
to competition, Federal workers are hired more than half the time. It 
makes no sense to privatize work that Federal workers can do more 
efficiently. The administration's proposal gives an unacceptable 
preference for private contractors over public workers.
  The administration's proposal will reduce the standard of living for 
large numbers of Federal workers, since contractors have incentives to 
reduce costs by offering inferior compensation. According to the 
Economic Policy Institute, one in ten contractor employees earns less 
than a living wage. When work is privatized, displaced Federal workers 
are likely to lose their health benefits and their security for the 
future.
  Several groups have voiced their opposition to the administration's 
plan. The Federal Managers Association, which represents the 
executives, managers, and supervisors in the Federal government, has 
stated its support for the Mikulski amendment. As the association 
states, the amendment will ``provide Federal agencies and departments 
with the ability to use competition to truly benefit the American 
people and not require competition for the sake of fulfilling quotas.'' 
Even the Commercial Activities Panel, comprised largely of contractors, 
opposes the privatization plan because it believes that such decisions 
require informed judgements and analyses that consider the specific 
needs of each agency.
  The Mikulski amendment will preserve the high standards which make 
Government responsive to the needs of our citizens, and I urge the 
Senate to support it.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I strongly support the amendment offered by 
Senator Mikulski that would prevent Federal agencies from establishing, 
applying, or enforcing any numerical goal, target, or quota for the 
contracting out of Federal jobs. The Mikulski amendment is identical to 
language that passed the House by a large, bipartisan margin and was 
included in the House fiscal year 2003 Treasury appropriations.
  I was very troubled by the Office of Management and Budget's 
directive to contract out 850,000 jobs over the next 3 years. I was 
concerned because the OMB privatization quotas encourage agencies to 
privatize Federal employee jobs without public-private competition, 
which is unfair both to the affected employees as well as the 
taxpayers. In fact the OMB quotas force agencies to privatize Federal 
employee jobs that even Federal managers believe should continue to be 
performed by reliable Federal employees.
  Senator Mikulski's amendment is reasonable and fair. It allows for 
the contracting out of Federal employee jobs, but it prevents jobs from 
arbitrarily being privatized. Instead it will ensure that thoughtful 
criteria are established before Federal employee jobs are given away. 
This is an issue of fundamental fairness, and about establishing a fair 
and reasonable process.
  I strongly support Senator Mikulski's amendment and I urge my 
colleagues to vote for it.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I want to make a few quick points. 
First, my amendment, word for word, was voted for in the House of 
Representatives. I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle and 
to my very good friend, the Senator from Virginia, that this amendment 
was offered by two Congressmen from Virginia, Moran and Wolf. This 
amendment passed the House 261 to 166. Tom Davis, Jo Ann Davis, and 
Frank Wolf voted for this. I might also note that the Presiding Officer 
voted for it when he was in the House. So it had bipartisan support.
  I wish we had that bipartisan support. I wish the people who voted 
for it

[[Page 1675]]

in the House would vote for it now that they are in the Senate. That is 
No. 1.
  No. 2, who would be contracted out? OMB has told the agencies, 
127,500 people by the end of 2003. They are going to go for the largest 
numbers in the quickest way. It is going to be clerical. It is going to 
be support. It is going to be the mail. It is going to have a 
tremendous impact on people of color who have worked their way into 
Federal civil service.
  If one reads the Federal Managers Magazine, they have said the VA has 
said it is going to have a tremendous impact, they fear, on their 
diversity. The same has also been said by other agencies.
  Again, I am not looking for quotas in diversity anymore than I am 
looking for quotas in contracting out, but I want us to know who is 
going to be affected. It is not going to be that high-tech software 
engineer.
  I believe that just as the Northern Virginia High Tech Council has 
offered great ideas and ingenuity through their members, so has 
Maryland. We understand that.
  Let's look at NIH. Let's look at FDA. Who is going to be contracted 
out there? Is it really going to be the Nobel prize winner? No. It is 
going to be a lot of folks who do the thankless day to day work who are 
going to be contracted out.
  Now, my colleagues also need to know, I fear for national security. 
In many of these agencies, it is going to be the blue-collar jobs, such 
as the electricians, the people who are the facility managers, and 
others.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Maryland has 
expired.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Vote yes on Mikulski.
  Mr. REID. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.
  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 247. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the 
Senator from Hawaii, (Mr. Inouye), and the Senator from Massachusetts, 
(Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 26 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

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

                                NAYS--50

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

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


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

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I now offer a series of amendments, and 
after I name them I will ask that they be considered en bloc: Amendment 
No. 112 offered by Senator Bunning and Senator Santorum--these are 
modifications at the desk that have been cleared on both sides--
amendment No. 6 by Senator Coleman; amendment No. 83 by Senator Reid; 
amendment No. 85 by Senator Reid; amendment No. 131 by Senators Harkin, 
Durbin, and Landrieu; amendment No. 136 by Senator Mikulski and others; 
amendment No. 144 by Senator Santorum; amendment No. 156 by Senator 
Domenici; amendment No. 172 by Senators Landrieu and Snowe; amendment 
No. 150 by Senator Murkowski and myself; amendment No. 199 by Senators 
Durbin and Hutchison; amendment No. 186, which is a sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution by Senator Bond; amendment No. 142 by Senator Reid; 
amendment No. 178 by Senator Nelson of Florida; amendment No. 57 by 
Senator McCain--that is the Korea sense-of-the-Senate resolution--
amendment No. 167 by Senator Byrd; amendment No. 166 by Senator Byrd--
that is the China commission--and amendment No. 188 by Senator Dodd.
  To my knowledge, we have no objections to any of those.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, 112 has not been cleared on this side.
  Mr. STEVENS. No. 112 was cleared. We showed that to you. It was the 
one modified by your subcommittee.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I think the Korea resolution sense of the 
Senate was in that list that the chairman read.
  Mr. STEVENS. It was.
  Mr. KYL. I wanted to speak for 5 minutes on that.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator make the statement after we adopt this 
package?

[[Page 1676]]


  Mr. KYL. Sure.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, could I just ask----
  Mr. STEVENS. I still have the floor, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has the floor.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Not wishing to object, I ask if any disposition has 
been made on amendment 126.
  Mr. STEVENS. We have not been able to clear that one yet. It is not 
in this package. We have another series in a package. There is another 
package coming later.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I will wait for the remaining package. If not, I will 
ask for a vote on it.
  Mr. STEVENS. We will confer with the Senator.
  I now ask unanimous consent that the series of amendments that I have 
referred to be modified in accordance with the submissions that are at 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, what is the consent request?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a unanimous consent request that the 
amendments as presented at the desk be agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Modified in accordance with the way we presented them to 
the desk. I, first, want to modify them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent they be 
considered en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, before they are agreed to, I have to work 
out a situation on amendment No. 112.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask, then, that No. 112 be taken out of this package.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. It will be at the desk, and we will consider it later.
  I ask unanimous consent that these amendments be considered en bloc 
and agreed to en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to en bloc, as follows:


                      amendment no. 6, as modified

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

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


                     amendment no. 83, as modified

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


                     amendment no. 85, as modified

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


                     amendment no. 131 as modified

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

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


                     amendment no. 136 as modified

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

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


                     amendment no. 144 as modified

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

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


                     amendment no. 156 as modified

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

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


                     AMENDMENT NO. 172 AS MODIFIED

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

       On page 397, line 12, delete all after ``fund'','' through 
     ``opportunities'' on line 17, and insert in lieu thereof:
       , not less than $8,000,000 may be made available for 
     programs to support women's development in Afghanistan, 
     including girl's and women's education, health, legal and 
     social rights, economic opportunities, and political 
     participation: Provided further, That of the funds provided 
     in the previous proviso, $5,000,000 may be made available to 
     support activities directed by the Afghan Ministry of Women's 
     Affairs including the establishment of women's resource 
     centers in Afghanistan, and not less than $1,500,000 should 
     be made available to support activities of the National Human 
     Rights Commission of Afghanistan: Provided further, That one 
     year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
     of State shall submit a report to the appropriate 
     congressional committees that details women's development 
     programs in Afghanistan supported by the United States 
     Government, and barriers that impede women's development in 
     Afghanistan.


                     AMENDMENT NO. 199 AS MODIFIED

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


                     AMENDMENT NO. 150 AS MODIFIED

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

[[Page 1677]]

     of-way for the Trans-Alaska Pipeline and related facilities.


                     amendment no. 186, as modified

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

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

     SEC. 1 __. MISSOURI RIVER.

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


                     amendment no. 142, as modified

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

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

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

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

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


                     amendment no. 178, as modified

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

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


                      AMENDMENT NO. 57 AS MODIFIED

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

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

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


                     amendment no. 167 as modified

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

       At the appropriate place insert the following:

     SEC. __. TREATMENT OF ABANDONED MINE RECLAMATION FUND 
                   INTEREST.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, any interest credited to the fund established by section 
     401 of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 
     (30 U.S.C. 1231) shall be transferred to the Combined Fund 
     identified in section 402(h)(2) of such Act (30 U.S.C. 
     1232(h)(2)), up to such amount as is estimated by the 
     trustees of such Combined Fund to offset the amount of any 
     deficit in net assets in the Combined Fund. No transfers made 
     pursuant to this section shall exceed $24,000,000.
       (b) Prohibition on Other Transfers.--Except as provided in 
     subsection (a), no principal amounts in or credited to the 
     fund established by section 401 of the Surface Mining Control 
     and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1231) may be 
     transferred to the Combine Fund identified in section 
     402(h)(2) of such Act (30 U.S.C. 1232(h)(2)).
       (c) Limitation.--This section shall cease to have any force 
     and effect after September 30, 2004.
  Amendment no. 166, as modified

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

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

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

       (a) Appropriations.--There are appropriated, out of any 
     funds in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $1,800,000, 
     to remain available until expended, to the United States-
     China Economic and Security Review Commission.
       (b) Name Change.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1238 of the Floyd D. Spence 
     National Defense Authorization Act of 2001 (22 U.S.C. 7002) 
     is amended--
       (A) in the section heading by inserting ``ECONOMIC AND'' 
     before ``SECURITY'';
       (B) in subsection (a)--
       (i) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``Economic and'' before 
     ``Security''; and
       (ii) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``Economic and'' before 
     ``Security'';
       (C) in subsection (b)--
       (i) in the subsection heading, by inserting ``Economic 
     and'' before ``Security'';
       (ii) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``Economic and'' before 
     ``Security'';
       (iii) in paragraph (3)--
       (I) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting 
     ``Economic and'' before ``Security''; and
       (II) in subparagraph (H), by inserting ``Economic and'' 
     before ``Security''; and
       (iv) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``Economic and'' before 
     ``Security'' each place it appears; and
       (D) in subsection (e)--
       (i) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``Economic and'' before 
     ``Security'';
       (ii) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``Economic and'' before 
     ``Security'';
       (iii) in paragraph (3)--
       (I) in the first sentence, by inserting ``Economic and'' 
     before ``Security''; and
       (II) in the second sentence, by inserting ``Economic and'' 
     before ``Security'';
       (iv) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``Economic and'' before 
     ``Security''; and
       (v) in paragraph (6), by inserting ``Economic and'' before 
     ``Security'' each place it appears.
       (2) References.--Any reference in any Federal law, 
     Executive order, rule, regulation, or delegation of 
     authority, or any document of or relating to the United 
     States-

[[Page 1678]]

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


                     amendment no. 188, as modified

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

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

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, Senator Lautenberg has 5 minutes on his 
amendment on the Superfund.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the Senator wants to call up amendment 
No. 112 now, he can.
  Mr. STEVENS. Very well.


                     Amendment No. 112, As Modified

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

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

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


                     amendment no. 112 as modified

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

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

     SEC. __. GRANTS FOR PURCHASE OF ULTRASOUND EQUIPMENT.

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


                     Amendment No. 192, As Modified

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

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

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


                     amendment no. 192 as modified

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

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

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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized for 
7\1/2\ minutes.

[[Page 1679]]


  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair.
  The authorization level under the Superfund law for this year is 
$11.5 billion. The bill before us provides $1.27 billion. Of that 
amount, 50 percent comes from the Superfund trust fund and the rest 
comes from general revenues.
  There is now about $120 million in unobligated funds left in the 
Superfund trust fund. My amendment takes $100 million of that and adds 
it to the $1.27 billion so that we can increase the number of 
contaminated sites we will be cleaning up, but also to give some 
encouragement to a group of highly trained professionals so they can 
look to a continuation of a career that has been devoted to getting 
these sites cleaned up.
  My amendment doesn't fully fund the program, but because the average 
cost of cleanup in a normal Superfund site is $12 million, this $100 
million could help protect eight more communities from contaminated 
ground water and toxic soil in their neighborhoods.
  From the beginning, an important principle of Superfund has been that 
those responsible for the contamination should pay for the cleanup. The 
polluters--not the general public--should pay.
  In keeping with this principle, my amendment draws only from the 
trust fund, not from general revenues.
  Unfortunately, it seems that some have lost sight of the ``polluter 
pays'' principle at the heart of the Superfund program.
  In the appropriations bill before us, taxpayers, not polluters, would 
pay for 50 percent of the cleanup program. This simply isn't fair to 
our Nation's taxpayers.
  But the ``polluter pays'' principle is fair. It has worked, and it 
should be preserved. Yet the tax on petroleum and chemical products--
the sources of contamination at most Superfund sites--has been allowed 
to lapse. We need to reauthorize the funding source and reinstate a 
dependable revenue stream for the program, but that is a debate for 
another day. In the interim, we have to do more with what we have.
  In the 4 years leading up to the year 2000, an average of 87 
Superfund were being cleaned up each year. Since then, the number has 
dropped by half: 42 sites cleaned up in 2001 and 47 sites cleaned up in 
2002. This isn't acceptable nor is it responsible.
  Adequate funding for Superfund is a very serious matter for the 
people of my home State of New Jersey. My State has 113 hazardous waste 
sites on the National Priority List (NPL)--more than any other State.
  But I would quickly point out this isn't simply an urban-State 
problem. The largest Superfund site in the country right now is in 
Coeur d'Alene, ID, one of the most beautiful States in our country. And 
yet there is this blight in their midst. And we see the same thing in 
Montana, another rural mountain State, so beautiful with nature's 
blessing.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Sure.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to thank the 
Senator from New Jersey and say how wonderful it is, for anyone who 
cares about the environment and of cleaning up the environment, to have 
him back.
  This is a very important amendment. Superfund sites are all over the 
country in almost every single State. They hurt our people. They are 
dangerous to our children. They have to be cleaned up.
  The Senator is right. Polluter pays is the way we ought to go with 
these funds. So I just wanted to rise to thank my friend.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California. 
We have worked diligently together to try to turn these Superfund sites 
from environmental and health hazards into productive properties for 
the affected communities.
  I yield to the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I commend the Senator for the amendment. 
It is a crime that we have not been utilizing the Superfund the way it 
should be utilized. The Senator is putting it back on track. I commend 
the Senator for his efforts.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. CORZINE. Will my colleague from New Jersey yield?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes. I yield to my colleague.
  Mr. CORZINE. I just want to reinforce and reemphasize how important 
this is in our State of New Jersey with the 113 sites. By the way, 
there is an increasing sense--scientific sense, data sense--that we are 
having a high incidence of cancer in areas that surround these sites.
  This is a health problem. It really is something that needs to be 
addressed. I think my colleague from New Jersey is doing exactly the 
right thing to bring this issue forward.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank my distinguished colleague.
  Mr. President, nationally, one in four Americans lives within 4 miles 
of an NPL site. That is unacceptable. Contaminated sites endanger our 
environment, they endanger our health, they endanger our economy.
  We have money in the trust fund. We should use it. We desperately 
need to clean up these sites and make them safe and productive again, 
especially for the sake of the communities that surround them. Having 
these blighted locations throughout our country is simply that; it is a 
plague on these communities. We ought to get on with transforming them 
from wastelands into industrial, commercial, and residential sites that 
benefit everybody.
  This amendment is cosponsored by several of my colleagues, including 
Senator Corzine, Senator Boxer, Senator Kennedy, Senator Biden, Senator 
Clinton, Senator Nelson of Florida, Senator Jeffords of Vermont, 
Senator Kerry, and Senator Schumer.
  Mr. President, I hope we will be able to use these funds for the 
purpose intended: cleaning up more Superfund sites faster in the coming 
year. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Lautenberg 
amendment. I look over and see both Senators from Louisiana here. I can 
assure you that money is not just the answer. I remember at Bossier 
City there was a site that the Federal Government was going to clean 
up. It was going to cost X dollars. I don't remember the exact amount, 
but I didn't know this amendment was going to come up. After we spent 
quite a bit of time, we found that the responsible parties were willing 
to do it under State supervision. All of the parishes agreed to it. All 
of the citizens, neighborhood groups, agreed to it. Yet they were still 
going to do it. We ended up forcing this through and cleaning it up for 
one-half the amount of money and in one-half of the time.
  We need to reform the Superfund system. I would argue with my good 
friend from Idaho, I think we have the largest Superfund problem in Tar 
Creek in the State of Oklahoma.
  I will not yield to my friend because I think I need my time.
  But I would say this: We have spent about $100 million on it over the 
last 15 years, and it has not resolved the problem. We want to reform 
the system. We need to reform the system. And, of course, there are no 
offsets. So I know that will mean something to some of the people.
  But let's go ahead, give our committee a chance, give Senator Chafee, 
whose subcommittee has the jurisdiction, a chance to go in here and do 
a better job rather than pouring money on a system that is not working 
today.
  Now I will yield----
  Mr. CRAIG. One minute.
  Mr. INHOFE. One minute to the Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. The superfund site in Coeur d'Alene, ID, that the Senator 
from New Jersey referred to, 3 years ago was touted to cost $1 billion 
to clean up. As a result of a cooperative State plan, in conjunction 
with EPA--the first unique plan of this kind, designed under a new 
State commission; and our new Director Whitman has signed off on it--
that same area can be cleaned up and meet all of the standards for less 
than $300 million over a 12-year to 15-year period.

[[Page 1680]]

  Now, $300 million versus $1 billion is a heck of a lot of money. 
Because of these new cooperative relationships and State plans--that 
past EPAs refused to negotiate and bring States into the process--but 
because we are now doing that, I agree with the Senator from Oklahoma, 
there is great opportunity for reform. You just don't throw money at 
these problems. You resolve them in new, creative ways, and still meet 
standards for clean water and clean air.
  Mr. INHOFE. I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Idaho 
because we do have two of those devastating sites.
  I yield whatever time I have to the Senator from Missouri.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, in addition to the arguments that the 
distinguished Senators from Oklahoma and Idaho made about the need to 
revise the Superfund law, let me simply point out that this amendment 
would add $100 million more to Superfund spending. You can call it 
coming from the Superfund trust fund, but it is still spending, and it 
still scores against the budget. It goes over the agreement that we had 
with the President.
  The current bill funds Superfund activities and cleanup at $1.273 
billion for fiscal year 2003. This is what the administration 
requested, and that is what is needed.
  The Superfund cleanups are adequately funded.
  Does my colleague from Oklahoma wish to add anything further?
  Mr. INHOFE. Yes. We are in the process of making some major changes. 
You heard from the Senator from Idaho the improvements that have been 
made there. And this is one of the main agenda items.
  So I urge the defeat of the Lautenberg amendment and yield to the 
Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will you give me 1 minute?
  Mr. INHOFE. Sure.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I want to tell the Senate, 10 years ago I made a speech 
downtown to 350 people. They were anxiously paying attention. I said: 
It is this year we are going to reform that crazy fund where we can't 
get anything done. The money is piling up and chemicals don't get 
cleaned up--the Superfund. I am looking to make sure I never go back to 
that group because it has been 10 years, and I don't want them to ask 
me what happened. Maybe it will happen next year.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I listened with interest to the 
comments of my colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time does 
the Senator from New Jersey have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey has 52 seconds 
remaining. The Senator from Oklahoma has 2 minutes 30 seconds.
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, no one would suggest that we shouldn't 
look for more efficient ways to do things with regard to the Superfund 
program. And there is always redress, unfortunately, to the court if 
one wants it. But the Superfund Program has been working: 87 sites a 
year, on average, were being cleaned up, up until the year 2000; over 
800 sites in all. That is pretty darn good. We learned how to do it. 
The program is working. To deprive it now is really not what ought to 
be happening. I am sure citizens across this country would agree with 
us: More money, more cleanups. That is what we want out of the 
Superfund Program.
  I yield back whatever time remains.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have to argue with my good friend from 
New Jersey. If he wants to use the Superfund Program as an example of a 
program that has been working, then we don't have any problems around 
here because it hasn't been working. We have been working on making 
major changes. We are going to make major changes.
  I yield back the time and move to table the Lautenberg amendment. I 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) and the 
Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 27 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

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

                                NAYS--45

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

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


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

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


                            AMENDMENT NO. 10

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       (a) The Administrator of General Services shall accept all 
     right, title and interest in the property described in 
     subsection (b), if

[[Page 1681]]

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


                            amendment no. 28

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

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


                            amendment no. 47

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

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


                     AMENDMENT NO. 65, AS MODIFIED

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

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


                            amendment no. 88

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

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

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

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


                           amendment no. 110

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

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

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

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


                           amendment no. 139

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

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

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

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


                           amendment no. 155

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

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


                           amendment no. 201

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

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


                           amendment no. 218

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

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


                           amendment no. 151

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

[[Page 1682]]

     all of its assets to a settlement Trust only if such assets 
     represent two-thirds or more of the fair market value of the 
     Native Corporation's total assets.
       ``(B) Section ___ of P.L. _ (43 U.S.C. 1629e) is amended by 
     striking subsection (B) and inserting in its place the 
     following:
       ``(B) shall give rise to dissenters rights to the extend 
     provided under the laws of the State only if:
       ``(i) the rights of beneficiaries in the settlement Trust 
     receiving a conveyance are inalienable; and ``(ii) a 
     shareholder vote on such transfer is required by (a)(4) of 
     section 1629b of this title.''


                            amendment no. 50

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

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

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

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


                            amendment no. 34

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

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


                           amendment no. 126

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

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


                   ``authorization of appropriations

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

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

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

              ``Part D--Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve

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

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

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

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


                           amendment no. 158

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


                           amendment no. 158

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


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

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

[[Page 1683]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to en bloc, as follows:


                            Amendment No. 33

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

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

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

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



                     Amendment No. 102, as modified

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

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

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

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



                           Amendment No. 205

       (Purpose: to improve the administration of price supports)

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

     SEC. 7__. PRICE SUPPORT ADJUSTMENTS.

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


                           amendment no. 236

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

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

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

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


                           amendment no. 243

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

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

     SEC. 7__. RURAL HOUSING SERVICE.

       Title III of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 
     Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     2001, is

[[Page 1684]]

     amended in the first paragraph under the heading ``rural 
     housing insurance fund program account (including transfer of 
     funds)'' under the heading ``Rural Housing Service'' (114 
     Stat. 1549, 1549A-19) by inserting before the period at the 
     end the following: ``: Provided further, That after September 
     30, 2002, any funds remaining for the demonstration program 
     may be used, within the State in which the demonstration 
     program is carried out, for fiscal year 2003 and subsequent 
     fiscal years to make grants, and to cover the costs (as 
     defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget and 
     Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 661a)) of loans 
     authorized, under section 504 of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 
     U.S.C. 1474)''.


                     amendment no. 135, as modified

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. CORN.

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


                     amendment no. 116, as modified

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

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


                     Amendment No. 226, As Modified

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

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


                     Amendment No. 163, As Modified

          (Purpose: To provide funding for bioenergy program)

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


                     Amendment No. 187, As Modified

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

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


                     Amendment No. 62, As Modified

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


                           amendment no. 238

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

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


                           amendment no. 129

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

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

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


                           amendment no. 129

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

[[Page 1685]]

  This amendment was part of a more comprehensive proposal that Senator 
Bond and I put forth last Congress. One part was to use more accurate 
data and a more predictive cost model, and the other was to transfer 
money from the STAR program to the 7(a) loan program. That legislation 
had the bipartisan support of then-Budget Committee Chairman Conrad, 
then-ranking Member Domenici and Senators Landrieu, Snowe, Harkin, 
Hollings and Byrd. It was approved by the Office of Management and 
Budget and voted out of the Senate by unanimous consent. Unfortunately, 
politics kept it from passing the House. This Congress, our incoming 
Chair, Senator Snowe, has quickly taken up where Senator Bond left off, 
re-introducing last year's bill, now S. 141, to correct the program's 
subsidy rate model. I thank her for her swift work and for joining me 
today in offering this amendment. I ask all my colleagues to vote in 
favor of this amendment.
  In closing, I want to thank Chairwoman Snowe, Senator Bond, Senator 
Conrad, Senator Domenici, Congressman Manzullo, and Congresswoman 
Velazquez for their previous and continued efforts in this fight for 
small businesses. In addition, I would like to thank the countless 
small business groups, from NAGGL and NADCO to the small business 
coalition lead by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which included among 
many others, the National Black Chamber of Commerce, National Small 
Business United, and the American Bankers Association, for their hard 
work and support with regard to this matter.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                     amendment no. 226, as modified

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


                  provo airport control tower funding

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


                      summer food service program

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


                               Section 32

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have two amendments at the desk that are 
intended to address a critical shortage in nutrition funding for 
schools, food banks and soup kitchens brought about by the Bush 
administration's decision to pay for Federal farm disaster assistance 
using funds available to the Secretary of Agriculture under Section 32 
of the Act of August 24, 1935.
  Since 1935, the so-called Section 32 program has provided the means 
for the Secretary of Agriculture to assist farmers and ranchers by 
purchasing surplus commodities, which are then used to help poor 
Americans by providing emergency food assistance to those in need. It 
creates a ``win-win'' situation allowing us to help our farmers while 
feeding the hungry.
  Section 32 is the primary source of federal funding for purchases of 
food distributed to the needy through schools, state and tribal 
governments, food banks, soup kitchens, and other charitable 
institutions. Last year, USDA surplus food donations to the needy 
through Section 32 totaled more

[[Page 1686]]

than $250 million. And the President's budget for 2003 called for $215 
million in Section 32 surplus food donations this fiscal year.
  On October 10 of last year, Senator Tom Harkin and I wrote to 
Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman seeking assurances that federal 
funding for these programs would not be diminished this fiscal year due 
to the Bush Administration's use of Section 32 to pay for the Livestock 
Compensation Program. We were concerned that this maneuver--taking some 
$752 million out of Section 32--would constrain the Secretary's ability 
to provide the needed and historic levels of funding for federal 
emergency food assistance programs.
  The Secretary never responded to our letter, but White House and USDA 
officials met with hunger program advocates and assured them there 
would not be cuts in federal emergency food assistance. Senator Harkin 
and I found this quite remarkable, because it appeared evident from the 
beginning that the Bush Administration had over- committed its Section 
32 funds. According to the President's own budget figures, it was clear 
that Section 32 funds would be depleted once the Livestock Compensation 
Program (LCP) was implemented and that was before a $185 million cost 
over-run was reported by USDA in early December, bringing the cost of 
the LCP program to $937 million.
  According to the President's budget submissions and information 
provided by USDA, an estimated $5.9 billion in funding will be 
available for Section 32 during fiscal year 2003. This includes 
approximately $5.8 billion in new appropriations and approximately $92 
million in carryover funds. Taking the original estimate of $752 
million out of Section 32 to fund the Livestock Compensation Program 
leaves only $5.148 billion to meet the Department's other obligations 
under Section 32. That amount is not enough to fully-fund the child 
nutrition programs and meet the Department's other obligations under 
Section 32.
  In fiscal year 2003, to meet requirements of the Richard B. Russell 
School Lunch Act $4.746 billion was scheduled to be transferred from 
Section 32 directly into the child nutrition programs' cash account and 
$400 million was budgeted to purchase commodities for the child 
nutrition programs. In addition, $75 million was budgeted to be 
transferred to the Commerce Department for fisheries activities; and 
$25 million is needed for Agriculture Marketing Service administrative 
expenses. These expenditures alone exceed the level of funding 
available in Section 32 after the LCP program is implemented, leaving 
no funding food banks, soup kitchens and the like.
  I understand that the Administration has since shifted monies among 
various accounts, and was able to alleviate some of the pressure on 
Section 32 by tapping the Commodity Credit Corporation to pay for a 
portion of the commodity purchases for the School Lunch Program. This 
allowed USDA to come closer to balancing its books and freed up some 
money for emergency food assistance, but a gap still remains.
  In a December 3 letter to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the 
Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry, Secretary Veneman acknowledged that even after shifting funds 
among various accounts, USDA would be able to donate no more than $125 
million worth of surplus commodities to food banks, soup kitchens, etc. 
this year.
  That is half of last year's level and roughly $90 million less than 
budgeted for by the President.
  It is a sad fact that this food is sorely needed. According to USDA, 
in 2002 more than 33.6 million Americans were food insecure--at risk of 
hunger. Nearly 25 million of them turned to charities that operate food 
banks or soup kitchens for food. Sixty-two percent of the people 
requesting emergency food assistance were members of families--children 
and their parents. Thirty-two percent of the adults requesting food 
assistance were employed. Of those people seeking emergency food 
relief, more than one-third (36 percent) had to choose between buying 
food or paying for housing. Many seniors have to choose between 
purchasing food or purchasing prescription drugs. For many Americans, 
wages and pensions have simply not risen enough in the last years to 
cover the increased cost of living, and food has become unaffordable.
  These cuts couldn't have come at a worse time. With the weak economy 
and increased joblessness, demand for emergency food assistance is 
rising. A recent survey by U.S. Conference of Mayors found that during 
the past year requests for emergency food assistance in our nation's 
cities increased by an average of 17 percent-the sharpest increase in 
10 years--with 83 percent of the cities registering an increase.
  Now is not the time to reduce federal emergency food assistance 
funding. Now is the time to increase federal emergency food donations, 
not decrease them.
  In his amendment, Senator Cochran provided an additional $250 million 
for surplus commodity purchases, largely addressing this year's 
shortfall. If these funds are fully utilized to provide emergency food 
assistance this fiscal year, then I would agree that at least this 
year's problem has been adequately addressed. However, I am concerned 
that the Administration might elect not to use these funds this year.
  And so I ask Senator Cochran and Senator Kohl whether they will 
entertain a question regarding the intended use of these funds.
  Is it the Senators' intention and understanding that the $250 million 
made available in the Cochran amendment for the Section 32 program be 
used to provide emergency food assistance to those in need this fiscal 
year?
  Mr. COCHRAN. As the language in section 205 of my amendment that was 
adopted by the Senate yesterday states, these funds would only be 
available for surplus removals and would restore funds in the Section 
32 account that were used for other purposes this fiscal year.
  Mr. KOHL. That is my understanding. I share your concern that the 
Administration might elect not make these purchases, and it would be my 
hope that the House and Senate conferees agree on language ensuring 
that these purchases are made this fiscal year.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I will be glad to work with the Senator from Wisconsin 
and the Senator from Vermont to address their concerns during the 
Conference.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Senators for their assurances. In light of 
this, I will withdraw my amendments.
 Mr. HARKIN. I would like to associate myself with the remarks 
of Senator Leahy regarding the restoration of Section 32 funds that 
were depleted to finance the Administration's ad-hoc program to provide 
emergency aid to livestock producers.
  On two separate occasions last year, the Senate passed provisions on 
strongly bipartisan votes to provide disaster assistance for our 
Nation's farmers and ranchers. Rather than acknowledging the need for 
this emergency disaster assistance legislation, the Administration 
devised a program of limited help to livestock producers and thereby 
put in jeopardy Federal assistance for the school lunch and other 
domestic nutrition and hunger relief programs this fiscal year and 
possibly next.
  The Administration funded the Livestock Compensation Program through 
the use of Section 32 funds. Section 32 provides funds for school lunch 
and other domestic nutrition and hunger relief programs. Further, 
through Section 32 purchases of surplus commodities--such as fruits, 
vegetables and portk--USDA is able to support producers and provide 
food to child nutrition programs, soup kitchens and food banks, and 
Indian reservations.
  When the LCP was announced, the Administration estimated the program 
would use $752 million from Section 32. However, due to the ``open 
ended'' nature of the LCP and an under-estimate of its projected cost, 
as of December 3 the program had drained an additional $185 million--
for a total of $937 million--from Section 32. Even at the $752 million 
level, it was apparent that the Administration had over-committed the 
resources of the Section 32 account by several hundred million dollars.
  Use of such a large amount of Section 32 funds diverted resources 
away

[[Page 1687]]

from other agricultural producers who benefit from use of Section 32 
for the traditional purpose of removing surpluses from the market. The 
shortfall in Section 32 funds also jeopardizes child nutrition programs 
that depend on bonus commodities as well as The Emergency Food 
Assistance Program which relies on surplus commodities to supply soup 
kitchens and food banks and the Food Distribution Program on Indian 
Reservations.
  As a result of the current economic downturn, State, local and 
private contributions to food banks and other emergency nutrition 
facilities are declining while demand for emergency food assistance is 
on the rise. In fact, a recent U.S. Conference of Mayors report shows 
that the need for emergency food assistance has increased by a sharp 19 
percent this year. Pulling back on the Federal commitment to domestic 
food assistance programs run by faith-based and other institutions at 
this time would be unjustified and irresponsible.
  I therefore commend Senator Cochran for including an additional $250 
million in Section 32 funds in his disaster assistance amendment. If 
used carefully, this amount should be sufficient, although a larger 
amount would have been justified. It is essential that Senate and House 
conferees protect the intended use of these funds. I join my colleague, 
Senator Leahy, in requesting that the Administration be directed to use 
these funds for surplus removals and restoration of funds in the 
Section 32 account that were diverted to other purposes this fiscal 
year.


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

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

[[Page 1688]]

Stabenow each have their time after final passage and that Senator 
Coleman be added for 5 minutes.
  Mr. REID. Senator Stabenow has a sense-of-the-Senate amendment that 
has to be part of the package, so I ask that she be allowed to do hers 
right now.
  Mr. STEVENS. Senator Stabenow may proceed now.
  Mr. REID. Five minutes is what she has agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, Senator Stabenow seeks 5 minutes on a 
matter of the sense of the Senate regarding instructions to conferees.
  Mr. REID. It has been cleared on both sides.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator be recognized 
for 5 minutes at this time and I regain control of the floor after 
that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Does the Senator from Minnesota object?
  Mr. DAYTON. May I inquire, I was not clear on the sequence. Will we 
have the opportunity to make our remarks before the vote on final 
passage?
  Mr. STEVENS. The request is that the other Senators speak after final 
passage. Two Senators have a plane to catch to go on a very important 
mission for the Senate and they need to leave.
  Mr. DAYTON. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Michigan.


                           Amendment No. 248

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, and I 
ask unanimous consent that it be considered in lieu of my motion to 
instruct the conferees that is already at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

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

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


                           amendment no. 248

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

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE.

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


                           AMENDMENT NO. 207

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

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

           TITLE __--OTTAWA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPLEX

     SEC. __01. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. __02. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) International refuge.--The term ``International 
     Refuge'' means the Detroit River International Wildlife 
     Refuge established by section 5(a) of the Detroit River 
     International Wildlife Refuge Establishment Act (16 U.S.C. 
     668dd note; 115 Stat. 894).
       (2) Refuge complex.--The term ``Refuge Complex'' means the 
     Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge Complex and the lands and 
     waters in the complex, as described in the document entitled 
     ``The Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the Ottawa National 
     Wildlife Refuge Complex'' and dated September 22, 2000, 
     including--
       (A) the Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge, established by the 
     Secretary in accordance with the Migratory Bird Conservation 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 715 et seq.);
       (B) the West Sister Island National Wildlife Refuge 
     established by Executive Order No. 7937, dated August 2, 
     1937; and
       (C) the Cedar Point National Wildlife Refuge established by 
     the Secretary in accordance with the Migratory Bird 
     Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715 et seq.).
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.

[[Page 1689]]

       (4) Western basin.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``western basin'' means the 
     western basin of Lake Erie, consisting of the land and water 
     in the watersheds of Lake Erie extending from the watershed 
     of the Lower Detroit River in the State of Michigan to and 
     including Sandusky Bay and the watershed of Sandusky Bay in 
     the State of Ohio.
       (B) Inclusion.--The term `western basin' includes the Bass 
     Island archipelago in the State of Ohio.

     SEC. __03. EXPANSION OF BOUNDARIES.

       (a) Refuge Complex Boundaries.--
       (1) Expansion.--The boundaries of the Refuge Complex are 
     expanded to include land and water in the State of Ohio from 
     the eastern boundary of Maumee Bay State Park to the eastern 
     boundary of the Darby Unit (including the Bass Island 
     archipelago), as depicted on the map entitled ``Ottawa 
     National Wildlife Refuge Complex Expansion and Detroit River 
     International Wildlife Refuge Expansion Act'' and dated 
     September 6, 2002.
       (2) Availability of map.--The map referred to in paragraph 
     (1) shall be available for inspection in appropriate offices 
     of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
       (b) Boundary Revisions.--The Secretary may make such 
     revisions of the boundaries of the Refuge Complex as the 
     Secretary determines to be appropriate--
       (1) to facilitate the acquisition of property within the 
     Refuge Complex; or
       (2) to carry out this title.
       (c) Acquisition.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary 
     may acquire by donation, purchase with donated or 
     appropriated funds, or exchange the land and water, and 
     interests in land and water (including conservation 
     easements), within the boundaries of the Refuge Complex.
       (2) Consent.--No land, water, or interest in land or water 
     described in paragraph (1) may be acquired by the Secretary 
     without the consent of the owner of the land, water, or 
     interest.
       (d) Transfers From Other Agencies.--Administrative 
     jurisdiction over any Federal property that is located within 
     the boundaries of the Refuge Complex and under the 
     administrative jurisdiction of an agency of the United States 
     other than the Department of the Interior may, with the 
     concurrence of the head of the administering agency, be 
     transferred without consideration to the Secretary for the 
     purpose of this title.
       (e) Study of Associated Area.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the Director 
     of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, shall conduct 
     a study of fish and wildlife habitat and aquatic and 
     terrestrial communities in and around the 2 dredge spoil 
     disposal sites that are--
       (A) referred to by the Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority 
     as ``Port Authority Facility Number Three'' and ``Grassy 
     Island'', respectively; and
       (B) located within Toledo Harbor near the mouth of the 
     Maumee River.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall--
       (A) complete the study under paragraph (1); and
       (B) submit to Congress a report on the results of the 
     study.

     SEC. __04. EXPANSION OF INTERNATIONAL REFUGE BOUNDARIES.

       The southern boundary of the International Refuge is 
     extended south to include additional land and water in the 
     State of Michigan located east of Interstate Route 75, 
     extending from the southern boundary of Sterling State Park 
     to the Ohio State boundary, as depicted on the map referred 
     to in section __03(a)(1).

     SEC. __05. ADMINISTRATION.

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

     SEC. __06. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary--
       (1) to acquire land and water within the Refuge Complex 
     under section __03(c);
       (2) to carry out the study under section __03(e); and
       (3) to develop, operate, and maintain the Refuge Complex.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 143

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

       On page 80, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
       (a) Study on the Sale of Milk Into California.--Within 90 
     days, the Secretary shall report to Congress on the economic 
     impacts to California dairy farmers from handlers or 
     processors of Class I milk products in the Las Vegas-Nevada-
     Arizona region selling milk or milk products into the 
     California state order.
       (b) Exemption of Milk Handlers From Minimum Price 
     Requirements.--Section 8c(5) of the Agricultural Adjustment 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 608c(5)), reenacted with amendments by the 
     Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (as amended by 
     subsection (a)), is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(N) Exemption of milk handlers from minimum price 
     requirements.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     subsection, prior to January 1, 2005 no handler with 
     distribution of Class I milk products in the Arizona-Las 
     Vegas marketing area (Order No. 131) or Pacific Northwest 
     Marketing Order (Order No. 124) shall be exempt during any 
     month from any minimum milk price requirement established by 
     the Secretary under this subsection if the total distribution 
     of Class I products within the Arizona-Las Vegas marketing 
     area or the Pacific Northwest Marketing area of any handler's 
     own farm production exceeds the lesser of--
       ``(i) 3 percent of the total quantity of Class I products 
     distributed in the Arizona-Las Vegas marketing area (Order 
     No. 131); or the Pacific Northwest Marketing area (Order No. 
     124); or
       ``(ii) 5,000,000 pounds.''.
       (c) Exclusion of Clark County, Nevada From Federal Milk 
     Marketing Orders.--
       (1) In general.--Section 8c(11)(C) the Agricultural 
     Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 608c(11)(C)), reenacted with 
     amendments by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act

[[Page 1690]]

     of 1937, is amended by striking the last sentence and 
     inserting the following: ``In the case of milk and its 
     products, Clark County, Nevada shall not be within a 
     marketing area defined in any order issued under this 
     section.''.
       (2) Informal rulemaking.--The Secretary of Agriculture may 
     modify an order issued under section 8c of the Agricultural 
     Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 608c), reenacted with amendments by 
     the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, to 
     implement the amendment made by paragraph (1) by promulgating 
     regulations, without regard to sections 556 and 557 of title 
     5, United States Code.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion on to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to pose a question to my 
esteemed colleague from Montana. It is my understanding that the fiscal 
year 2003 Senate Appropriations Interior Subcommittee report contains 4 
million dollars allocated for the Next Generation Lighting Initiative. 
Is that correct?
  Mr. BURNS. You are correct Senator. Four million dollars is in the 
report for this purpose which originated from a request to the Interior 
Appropriation Subcommittee in the form of a Dear Colleague letter dated 
April 23, 2002, initiated by both Senator DeWine and yourself, which 
contains 22 bipartisan signatures.
  Mr. DeWINE. Senator Bingaman, as you know my state of Ohio is 
considered the home to the lighting industry, and from the start, I 
have been a strong supporter of the Next Generation Lighting 
Initiative. I feel it is important that for the record, there is a good 
understanding by the executive branch on the legislative history of the 
Next Generation Lighting Initiative. Would you please be so kind as to 
share with us its history?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I would be glad to. The Next Generation Lighting 
Initiative was first introduced as S. 166 in the 107th Congress. It was 
then included in H.R. 4, the Comprehensive Energy Bill, as amended by 
the Senate, which then went into conference with the House. 
Unfortunately, the energy bill failed in conference, but the Next 
Generation Lighting Initiative, and nearly the entire R&D authorization 
title were conferenced with the House. This agreed upon R&D 
authorization title, with the Next Generation Lighting Initiative, is 
now found in H.R. 238, as introduced by the House Science Committee in 
the 108th Congress.
  Mr. DeWINE. Senator Bingaman, did we not introduce this conference 
language as a bill this Congress?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Yes, it is now S. 167.
  Mr. BURNS. My esteemed colleagues, Senators Bingaman and DeWine, I 
wish to thank you both for sharing with me the legislative history of 
the Next Generation Lighting Initiative, and I hope this is of aid to 
the Department of Energy as it manages this project. It will be useful 
background to my subcommittee as it performs its oversight duties in 
the upcoming year.


                clean water partnership for the americas

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


                     sawtooth nat. recreation area

  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, would the distinguished Chairman of the 
Subcommittee yield for a colloquy regarding Land and Water Conservation 
Funds for Idaho?
  Mr. BURNS. I would be pleased to yield to the Senator to discuss this 
important issue.
  Mr. CRAPO. First allow me to commend the Chairman and Ranking Member 
of the Subcommittee for their leadership and hard work on this bill. 
The Committee has had to make difficult decisions with scarce resources 
and have worked hard to do so in a fair manner. I appreciate Chairman 
Burns and Ranking Member Byrd's effort and diligence.
  Idaho is a state of spectacular natural beauty and wildlife habitat. 
One jewel within the Gem State is the Sawtooth National Recreation 
Area, SNRA. The SNRA is a national treasure enjoyed by locals and 
visitors to Idaho alike. The opportunity to preserve important parts of 
its pristine beauty is available through the purchase of scenic 
easements. Further, when the SNRA was established nearly thirty years 
ago, a commitment was made to private property owners to secure 
easements.
  In the past, funding has been inadequate to complete the easement 
purchases. However, in recent years, with the support of the Chairman 
and Ranking Member, we have been a renewed interest in completing the 
purchase of relevant easements within the SNRA. Idaho is grateful for 
the committee's support in obtaining these easements.
  It is expected that $3 million in Fiscal Year 2003 will fulfill the 
easement needs in the SNRA. Unfortunately, funding for easements in the 
SNRA was not included in the committee-passed bill. I recognize the 
subcommittee is operating under significant financial restraints and 
not all worthy projects can be funded. Yet, it is my hope the Chairman 
and ranking member can revisit their important project in the 
conference.
  Again, I am grateful the committee has previously responded to the 
opportunities to use land and water conservation funds to acquire 
easements in the SNRA to protect the valuable habitats and scenic 
values. Support for easements in the SNRA are locally-driven, with 
wide-spread support and anxious willing-sellers. Completion of this 
project will address the concerns of private property owners and 
protect this wonderful resource for all Americans to enjoy.
  I would ask the Chairman and ranking member if they would work with 
me in conference to evaluate this request, with an eye toward inclusion 
in the conference report.
  Mr. BURNS. I appreciate Senator Crapo's interest in the Sawtooth 
National Recreation Area. I understand this is an important issue to 
the Senator and would be happy to work with him so that the acquisition 
of these easements will be considered in conference.
  Mr. BYRD. I too appreciate Senator Crapo's devotion to the SNRA. I am 
pleased we have been able to provide funding for this worthy project in 
the past and are near completion.
  I look forward to working with the Senator during the conference.
  Mr. CRAPO. I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member.
  Mr. BENNETT. The chairman may be aware that drought in the west has 
caused record low water levels in Lake Powell at Glen Canyon National 
Recreation Area. Does the chairman agree that the National Park Service 
should use funds available in its repair and rehabilitation account to 
address the recreation infrastructure needs that have arisen because of 
these low water levels?
  Mr. BURNS. I agree with the Senator that the service should make 
every effort to address these recreation infrastructure needs, 
including boat ramp extensions and intermediate pump stations, using 
resources in the repair and rehabilitation account or other appropriate 
funding sources.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the chairman.

[[Page 1691]]




                         ergonomics regulation

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


                          wildlife management

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished 
managers of the bill in a brief colloquy, and commend them, along with 
the distinguished junior Senator from Montana, for providing 
substantial la mounts of funding in recent years for wildlife 
conservation efforts at the State level. As you know, United States 
laws and policies place the primary responsibility for implementing 
wildlife management programs in the hands of the 50 States, but 
effective implementation depends on Congress providing consistent and 
adequate funding to the States. For decades, such Federal funding has 
focused primarily on- and been largely responsible for- enormously 
successful programs ensuring conservation and sustainable use of 
important wildlife species hunted or fished by the millions of 
sportsmen across America. At the same time, the population of many non-
game species has fallen dramatically over the past thirty years due in 
great measure to the lack of focus of Federal resources on the 
conservation of these species prior to their decline.
  The bottom line it that it is in the Federal interest to continue our 
partnership with the States and provide adequate funding so we can 
maintain the population of these non-game species of wildlife before 
they near endangered status, which is far more costly to correct.
  Funding for the Fish and Wildlife Service State and Tribal Wildlife 
Grants Program for Fiscal Year 2003 has fallen to dangerously low 
levels in the current bill. I ask the managers of the bill to give 
every consideration to addressing this issue to the best of their 
ability when this important program is considered in conference with 
the House of Representatives. I yield the floor to my distinguished 
colleague from Arkansas.
  Mr. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I strongly support the remarks of my 
friend from Virginia. The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program 
provides States with the resources critically needed for foresighted 
and cost effective wildlife conservation and restoration efforts. These 
funds will enable the States to probatively plan and implement their 
wildlife management strategies for game and non-game species in 
cooperation with landowners to their mutual benefit. I, too, would ask 
the managers of the bill to give serious consideration to significantly 
increase the funding for this critical program as it is considered in 
conference.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senators from 
Virginia and Arkansas for their support of this important program to 
assist States in implementing effective programs to ensure conservation 
and sustainable use of game and non-game species. As this program is 
considered in conference, I will give every consideration to the 
request of the Senators from Virginia and Arkansas, and keep their 
views in mind as we negotiate a final omnibus appropriations bill.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. president, I, too, thank the Senators from Virginia and 
Arkansas for raising this issue and for their strong support of State 
wildlife conservation efforts, I will give every consideration to this 
request as we discuss this program during a conference with the House 
of Representatives.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to thank chairman Burns and 
Ranking Member Byrd for their support of the National Park Service 
Rivers and Trails Conservation Assistance Program. I see the Chairman's 
Committee report has included language requiring the Park Service to 
give careful consideration to applications for assistance for the Ohio 
River Trail, the Fanno Creek Greenway Trail and the Tuscaloosa Nature 
Preserve and Hiking Trail. I would like to also bring the trail 
redevelopment project at Charles Towne Landing to your attention.
  Charles Towne Landing in Charleston, SC, was the first successful 
European/African settlement in South Carolina between 1670 and 1680. It 
is one of four original settlement sites remaining in the United 
States. In 1971, the State of South Carolina designated the site as a 
State Park comprised of 663 acres, of which 196 acres are high ground 
and 467 acres are salt marsh and freshwater lagoons. Three trails make 
up over 6 miles of paths which edge freshwater lagoons and wetlands. 
When these trails were originally constructed in 1970 no consideration 
was given to disability access, erosion control or archaeological 
cultural resources. Today, the trails are in a serious state of 
disrepair. Would the Chairman and Ranking Member agree that the Rivers 
and Trails Program is ideally suited to provide technical assistance to 
Charles Towne Landing in their trail redevelopment efforts?
  Mr. BYRD. The Senator from South Carolina is correct. The Rivers and 
Trails Program provides significant benefits to local governments and 
organizations for river restoration, the preservation of open space, 
and the development of trail and greenway networks. Certainly, the 
staff's technical expertise in ecologically sensitive trail 
construction would be appropriate for the Charles Towne Landing 
project.
  Mr. BURNS. I concur. The National Park Service should give careful 
consideration to the Charles Towne Landing application as well as the 
others.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member 
of the Subcommittee for their attention to this matter and, again, 
appreciate their support.


                              BYRNE GRANTS

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


                            hydrogen economy

  Mr. WYDEN. Senator Gordon Smith and I would like to discuss an 
important element of the Department of Energy's Hydrogen Fuel Cells and 
Infrastructure Program. This program is preparing the country for the 
next energy revolution--what many refer to as the ``hydrogen economy.'' 
It will establish an energy infrastructure for America based on 
abundant and domestically produced hydrogen, which will be used to fuel 
our powerplants, our homes, and our automobiles. The Senator's 
leadership, and that of the Congress as a whole, has strengthened the

[[Page 1692]]

program over the past few years. However, there is one area on which 
the House and Senate have not yet achieved a consensus, an area that 
Senator Smith and I believe is important for establishing one early 
element of the hydrogen economy.
  I am referring to fuel cells, and specifically the Proton Exchange 
Membrane, or P-E-M fuel cell. Is the Senator aware that this technology 
is being developed by American companies for widespread applications, 
including homes and automobiles, but that before it may be used broadly 
in these applications, the fuel cell must be greatly improved and made 
affordable?
  Mr. REID. That is my understanding. Would you please explain further?
  Mr. SMITH. The Congress and the DOE have partnered with the U.S. fuel 
cell industry, beginning with the space program and continuing today, 
to develop and demonstrate fuel cells. Early commercial fuel processors 
that generate the hydrogen for fuel cells are being marketed tested by 
our industrial partners, as are P-E-M fuel cell powerplants. They need 
to be improved and demonstrated in niche markets. Then their costs will 
reduce substantially. As this scenario plays out, as it has so many 
times with the introduction of revolutionary new technology supported 
by the Federal Government, the very large residential and automotive 
markets will adopt fuel cells. It is then that America will achieve a 
significant level of independence from overseas sources.
  Mr. REID. That is very helpful. Is it possible that there will be 
near-term niche markets such as hospitals, aircraft control centers, or 
other buildings that cannot tolerate power failure?
  Mr. WYDEN. That is correct. However, at the current pace of 
development it will be at least a decade before fuel cell systems are 
available in any significant numbers for large markets. Meanwhile, 
Japan and the European countries are investing more in fuel cell 
development than the U.S. is investing, and we are losing our 
leadership in this area. Japan's investment last year alone was three 
times that of the DOE.
  Senator Smith and I agree that U.S. fuel cell companies are ready to 
demonstrate P-E-M fuel cell powerplants that will serve the niche 
markets, and can accelerate the introduction of fuel cells to markets 
in the near term and the larger markets in the mid term. Would the 
Senator agree that there is an exciting opportunity here?
  Mr. REID. Yes, and what does the Senator recommend be done?
  Mr. WYDEN. We suggest that the Congress approve $4 million for 
continued development and validation of advanced P-E-M fuel cells and 
metal membrane fuel purification technologies in the Energy & Water 
appropriations measure.
  Mr. REID. Do other funding communities support an acceleration of 
these technologies?
  Mr. SMITH. Yes. The Interior Appropriations Conference, directed DOE 
to provide the plan and rationale for increasing the pace of fuel cell 
public-private partnerships in the fiscal year 2002 report.
  Mr. WYDEN. Senator Smith and I appreciate the Senator's consideration 
of our request. We thank him for the opportunity for this exchange, and 
his continued leadership for the advancement of energy technologies 
important to our Nation.


               southeast louisiana flood control project

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


                  Provo Airport Control Tower Funding

  Mr. HATCH. Would the distinguished Chairman of the Transportation 
Subcommittee, my good friend, the Senator from Alabama, yield for a 
question?
  Mr. SHELBY. I would be glad to.
  Mr. HATCH. My office was recently visited by the mayor of Provo in my 
home state of Utah. He reiterated to me the importance of erecting a 
control tower to handle an unusually large volume of air traffic coming 
into and out of the airport.
  My colleagues may not be aware of this, but Provo's airport currently 
does not have a tower--even though it is the second most used airport 
in the state, providing a much needed training ground for new pilots 
and a landing area for corporate jets that keeps them out of the Salt 
Lake City International Airport traffic flow.
  It is my understanding that there are 143,000 operations at this 
airport per

[[Page 1693]]

year. I share the concern of Mayor Lewis Billings and the citizens of 
Provo that this type of airport traffic with no control tower is very 
unsafe and, in the past, has led to a crash and a number of near 
misses.
  Mr. SHELBY. I would just note for the Senator from Utah that the 
Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee has already allotted 
$666,000 for this project in the fiscal year 2003 appropriations bill.
  Mr. HATCH. I am very appreciative to the Senator from Alabama and the 
other Appropriations Committee members for this and I know it will be 
very helpful to the effort. However, I understand the House 
appropriation for this same project currently stands at $1 million 
which would really help the City of Provo get this project underway. I 
am also very appreciative for the Appropriations Committee's vigilance 
in keeping the budget to an absolute minimum and restraining 
superfluous spending. I only ask that the good Senator from Alabama try 
to work in conference to recede to the House number.
  Mr. SHELBY. I thank my colleague for making me aware of his interest 
in this project. I know you recognize that we have a great many 
requests for funding and we are working hard to provide the appropriate 
levels for each one within budget constraints. I will be mindful of the 
Senator's interest in this project during conference deliberations with 
the House.


                     BIA SCHOOL OPERATIONS FUNDING

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, as the Senate considers the fiscal year 
2003 omnibus appropriations bill, Interior Chapter, I would like to 
engage the distinguished Senator from West Virginia in a colloquy 
regarding the School Operations Budget for the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs. As the Chairman knows, the current language of the Senate 
omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003 eliminates $11.9 
million in increased funding the administration requested for these 
schools.
  As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I understand very well 
the difficult task the Chairman faced in putting the Interior bill 
together under the difficult budget constraints we are operating under 
for the upcoming fiscal year. However, the 185 Bureau-funded schools 
rely solely on the Federal Government for funds to provide an education 
to about 50,000 Indian children.
  I suspect that the funding level for school operations in the Senate 
bill reflects the Chairman's wise desire to reject the administration's 
ill-advised ``School Privatization Initiative.'' I commend him for 
rejecting the School privatization Initiative, but I hope we might find 
a way to still retain the programmatic increases requested by the 
administration for Student Transportation, Administrative Cost Grants 
and facility operations, as well as to restore the $2 million reduction 
proposed by the administration for instructional programs through the 
Indian School Equalization Program.
  The House bill uses the funds targeted for the privatization 
initiative to make the increases outlined above. I respectfully request 
the Chairman's assurance that he will do his best to accept the House 
bill's level of funding for the School Operations budget of the Bureau 
of Indian Affairs when we go to conference, and I will be as helpful as 
I can as a conferee on this matter.
  Mr. BYRD. I understand the concern of my colleague regarding this 
matter and thank you for raising it. The Committee realizes the 
importance of funding for these schools that rely on the Federal 
Government for 100 percent of their funding. I can assure the Senator 
that the Committee is supportive of the Bureau of Indian Affairs school 
system, and I will do what I can to see that higher levels of funding 
for School Operations are provided during conference with the House.


            TRIBAL SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM

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


                  Advanced Housing Research Consortium

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I request the Senate's support and 
assistance on a funding item of importance to the University of North 
Dakota and other universities involved in the consortium for advanced 
housing research.
  Several years ago, my state experienced extreme flooding in the Red 
River Valley. These floods destroyed thousands of homes in my state. 
After

[[Page 1694]]

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


                  next generation lighting initiative

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to pose a question to my 
esteemed colleague from Montana. It is my understanding that the fiscal 
year 2003 Senate Appropriations Interior Subcommittee report contains 
$4 million allocated for the next generation lighting initiative? Is 
that correct?
  Mr. BURNS. You are correct, Senator. Four million dollars is in the 
report for this purpose which originated from a request to the Interior 
Appropriations Subcommittee in the form of a dear colleague letter 
dated April 23, 2002, initiated by both Senator DeWine and yourself, 
which contains 22 bipartisan signatures.
  Mr. DeWINE. Senator Bingaman, as you know my State of Ohio is 
considered the home to the lighting industry, and from the start, I 
have been a strong supporter of the next generation lighting 
initiative. I feel it is important that for the record, there is a good 
understanding by the executive branch on the legislative history of the 
next generation lighting initiative. Would you please be so kind as to 
share with us its history?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I would be glad to. The next generation lighting 
initiative was first introduced as S. 1166 in the 107th Congress. It 
was then included in H.R. 4, the comprehensive energy bill, as amended 
by the Senate, which then went into conference with the House. 
Unfortunately, the energy bill failed in conference, but the next 
generation lighting initiative, and nearly the entire R&D authorization 
title were conferenced with the House. This agreed upon R&D 
authorization title, with the next generation lighting initiative, is 
now found in H.R. 238, as introduced by the House Science Committee in 
the 108th Congress.
  Mr. DeWINE. Senator Bingaman, did we not introduce this conference 
language as a bill this Congress?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Yes, it is now Senate Bill 167.
  Mr. BURNS. My esteemed colleagues, Senators Bingaman and DeWine, I 
wish to thank you both for sharing with me the legislative history of 
the next generation lighting initiative, and I hope this is of aid to 
the Department of Energy as it manages this project. It will be useful 
background to my subcommittee as it performs its oversight duties in 
the upcoming year.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, while I appreciate the desire of my 
colleagues to complete the omnibus fiscal year 2003 appropriations bill 
early in the session of this Congress, this rush to complete the bill, 
unfortunately, allows for the addition of certain riders that should 
have greater scrutiny prior to being added under the cover of darkness. 
Of particular concern to me is section 329, which would eliminate 
consideration of the record of decision for the 2002 Supplemental 
Environmental Impact Statement for the 1997 Tongass Land Management 
Plan, forest plan, from the Forest Service's administrative appeal 
process and judicial review.
  The inherent values of the Tongass National Forest to the American 
public cannot be understated. As the Nation's largest national forest, 
17 million acres, located in southeast Alaska, it contains large tracts 
of pristine lands that are presently unprotected from future management 
activities. This is the last vestige for species that once roamed the 
Lower 48 States uninterrupted by the designs of humans. The Tongass is 
home to the American eagle, grizzly bears, a variety of fish species, 
including the Chinook, Coho, and Sockeye salmon to name a few, that 
once flourished in the rivers throughout the United States and numerous 
plant and wildlife species both common and unique.
  Section 329 is opposed by many Alaska and national environmental 
organizations. Over 170,000 Americans commented on the agency's 2002 
Draft EIS, which recommended no new wilderness on any of the 9.7 
million acres of Tongass roadless areas. Over 95 percent of those 
commenting urged the agency to recommend more wilderness protection for 
the Tongass.
  While there is a time and place for the appropriate management of any 
national forest, making that determination of when and where needs to 
include the public in the decisionmaking process. Whereas, 
collaboration and public involvement play an integral role in the 
development of any forest plan, at times there is the need for an 
objective review to ensure that the public's concerns have been 
addressed. Removing these reviews, either through the agency's 
established appeals process or by the court, undermines the basic 
intent of allowing for public involvement in the management of the 
public's lands.
  It has taken numerous years to develop the Tongass Forest Plan; this 
should not be viewed negatively, but as a reflection of the public's 
passion for this national treasure. The court told the Forest Service 
in a previous order to go back to the drawing board. This determination 
was due to the lack of additional lands into the National Wilderness 
Preservation System. This court decision resulted in the 2002 
Supplemental EIS, which now my colleague proposes to bypass both the 
agency's internal review process and the judicial system. It is as 
though he is saying ``trust us, we will get it right this time.'' It is 
not a matter of right or wrong, but a matter of due process that we 
need to ensure has been adhered to, to ensure that the American 
public's concerns have been heard on the management of their national 
lands.
  This amendment would set a dangerous precedent for the entire 
national forest system by essentially giving the Forest Service a free 
pass to write the record of decision however they like because it 
cannot be reviewed. I urge my colleagues to remove the language and 
instead let the review process work as it is intended to occur.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am extremely disappointed that this 
bill contains a 15-year reauthorization of the Price-Anderson Act, 
which indemnifies the commercial nuclear power industry and limits the 
industry's liability in the event of an accident. This act, which has 
provided such protections for the nuclear power industry for some 45 
years, needs to be revisited and seriously reconsidered--particularly 
in the wake of the events of September 11, 2001. It is my hope that 
such consideration will still be given by the Senate Committee on 
Environment and Public Works, the Committee of jurisdiction of which I 
am proud to be a member, despite the reauthorization of the Act on page 
1027 of this 1052-page bill--a reauthorization which has not been 
debated at all of the floor or in Committee this Congress.
  In addition to increased security concerns at nuclear powerplants as 
a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, there are 
additional issues that warrant further debate before this act is 
reauthorized. Recently, the General Accounting Office found

[[Page 1695]]

that liability limits under the Price-Anderson Act are not adequate to 
provide for compensation of victims in all nuclear accident scenarios--
not to mention the kind of event we experienced in New York on 
September 11, 2001. Also, questions have been raised as to whether the 
Price-Anderson Act includes sufficient protections to deal with the 
currently deregulated energy industry--whether the act would operate as 
intended and ensure that nuclear powerplant operators are able to 
provide compensation in the event of an accident up to the act's 
limits.
  A recent study has concluded that under the act, limited liability 
corporations and multi-tiered holding companies that own nuclear 
powerplants may be able to effectively shield their intermediate and or 
parent corporations from financial responsibilities under the Price-
Anderson Act and thereby walk away from Price-Anderson obligations 
without jeopardizing other assets. The use of these relatively new 
corporate structures for ownership of nuclear powerplants raises 
questions about the respective obligations of subsidiary, intermediate, 
and parent corporations to make the payments required under the 
provisions of the Price-Anderson Act--questions that should be resolved 
before the act is reauthorized for a 15-year period.
  In addition, there is increasing cause for concern regarding the 
general safety and security of our Nation's nuclear powerplants. A 
recent report by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) Inspector 
General found that ``NRC appears to have informally established an 
unreasonably high burden of requiring absolute proof of a safety 
problem . . . before it will act to shut down a power plant.'' In 
addition, the NRC recently ruled that the risk of terrorism is too 
speculative to be considered when making nuclear reactor licensing 
decisions. And a recent survey of NRC employees shows that a third of 
employees question the Commission's commitment to safety, and almost 
half say that they do not feel safe speaking up in the NRC. While 
almost 90 percent of the agency's executive-level employees answered 
favorably to questions regarding the Commission's commitment to safety, 
less than two-thirds of those in the mid-level ranks answered 
similarly, according to recent press reports about the employee survey.
  In addition, reports have been issued that show security guards at 
nuclear powerplants are over-worked and under-trained, that the guards 
themselves do not feel that they are getting the support they need to 
do their jobs right. In fact, a January 2002 report commissioned by 
Entergy, the owner of the Indian Point nuclear power plant in New York, 
found that only 19 percent of security guards at Indian Point 2 stated 
that they could ``adequately defend the plant after the terrorist event 
of September 11th.''
  For these and other reasons, I strongly oppose the inclusion of this 
15-year reauthorization of the Price-Anderson Act in this legislation. 
I remain committed to a thoughtful reconsideration and debate of this 
act as it pertains to the commercial nuclear power industry, and look 
forward to addressing this and other issues related to nuclear 
powerplants, including the important issue of nuclear powerplant 
security, in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee this 
Congress.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I intended to offer an amendment to 
address fundamental concerns that a provision in this bill 
discriminates against children in need of special education services 
because they happen to live in the District of Columbia. That provision 
imposes a limitation of $3,000 on how much the District of Columbia may 
pay per case in attorney's fees to plaintiffs who prevail in litigation 
brought against the District of Columbia public schools under the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, in order to enroll 
their children in special education services.
  I would prefer that we eliminate section 135 from the bill entirely. 
Congress should not impose restrictions on the District of Columbia's 
use of local funds. If someone is raising a child with a serious 
learning disability and wants that child evaluated for enrollment in a 
special education program, we have provisions in the law across America 
governing access to services. This law provides for the awarding of 
reasonable attorney's fees at prevailing community rates to parties who 
prevail in their due process proceedings. It is only in the District of 
Columbia that some Members of Congress want to unfairly limit the 
amount paid to those attorneys. These same Congressmen and Senators 
would never impose such limitations on their own States and districts. 
In last year's Senate appropriations bill for the District of Columbia, 
the Senate overwhelmingly supported an amendment I offered to soften 
the impact of a $2,500 attorney fee limitation by designating certain 
situations in which such a cap would not apply.
  I have been engaged in extensive discussions with my colleague, 
Senator Hutchison, the chief proponent of section 135, which have led 
to a modification of that provision. The nature and amount of attorney 
fees in special education cases brought under IDEA raise serious 
questions about both the adequacy of in-school programs to serve 
special education students and some aggressive activities of certain 
attorneys and firms. The modification raises the limit on the amounts 
which may be paid to $4,000 per action. It also precludes the payment 
of the fees of any attorney or firm whom the chief financial officer of 
the District of Columbia determines to have a pecuniary interest, 
either through an attorney, officer, or employee of the firm, in any 
special education diagnostic services, schools, or other special 
education service providers.
  I note that this bill mandates that the chief financial officer of 
the District of Columbia require disclosure by attorneys in IDEA cases 
of any financial, corporate, legal, board memberships, or other 
relationships with special education diagnostic services, schools, or 
other special education service providers before paying any attorney's 
fees. The chief financial officer may also require attorneys in special 
education cases to certify that all services billed in special 
education were rendered. The bill also directs that the chief financial 
officer will prepare and submit quarterly reports to the Committees on 
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives on the 
certifications and the amount paid by the government of the District of 
Columbia, including the District of Columbia public schools, to 
attorneys in cases brought under IDEA. The bill further allows the 
inspector general of the District of Columbia to conduct audits of the 
certification to ensure attorney compliance.
  I endorse the committee report's strong recommendation that the 
council of the District of Columbia, in cooperation with the Mayor of 
the District of Columbia and the District of Columbia school board, 
develop legislation to address conflicts of interest in special 
education cases.
  I hope these provisions will produce needed accountability. I hope 
these provisions will help prevent manipulative practices by a few 
which unfortunately denigrate the honest, dedicated work of the vast 
majority of the attorneys who devote their careers to serving 
vulnerable families and children through legal representation in 
special education placement cases.
  It is my expectation that the reauthorization of the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act and reform efforts by the District of 
Columbia Public Schools will make the imposition of caps on how much 
the District of Columbia may pay in attorney's fees in IDEA cases 
unnecessary in subsequent appropriations bills.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I voted in support of the Edwards 
amendment to delay the implementation of the EPA's final rule on New 
Source Review for six months for the purpose of ascertaining the impact 
on air quality and human health. There has been significant controversy 
and uncertainty about the effects of this rule. I believe in this case 
we need to have an independent assessment in order to assure the public 
that this regulatory change will not jeopardize existing air quality or 
human health.
  Given that the rule represents a significant change in national clean 
air

[[Page 1696]]

policy, we should have this essential information in hand at this final 
phase of the rule-making process. However, we haven't seen any thorough 
or independent analysis of the pertinent data or a definitive 
assessment of impacts.
  I have stated my strong view on the issue of global climate change 
that we have sufficient information to move forward to define effective 
measures to address this most serious environmental problem. In order 
to move forward responsibly with this significant change of air 
emissions regulation, we apparently need additional scientific 
information.
  I am struck by the extent of disagreement over the effects of this 
change amongst air quality experts, members of the regulated community, 
air quality regulators on the federal, state, and local levels, and 
environmental groups. I believe the federal taxpayers who pay for this 
regulatory program, in terms of both dollars and health impacts, would 
want Congress to approve the implementation of this new regulatory 
regime only if we are certain the costs are commensurate with the 
benefits.
  At this point, there is significant confusion on this score. The EPA 
has testified that 50 percent of the facilities that are now subject to 
the Clean Air Act's technology requirements would fall out of those 
requirements under the rule changes. A number of reputable studies 
indicate that emissions will increase as a result. The argument has 
also been made by the Administration and others that air quality will 
improve because facilities would be encouraged to install new, more 
energy-efficient technology.
  This amendment provides a six month period for an independent panel 
of scientific experts to give us the information that we need in order 
to assert that this policy change will benefit the public and the 
environment, as well as the regulated community. Once we have this 
information, we should move forward decisively to either put the final 
rule in place or reject this approach.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                                U.S. Congress,

                                 Washington, DC, January 23, 2003.
     The Hon. Ted Stevens,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Defense, Committee on 
         Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     The Hon. Daniel K. Inouye,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Defense, Committee on 
         Appropriations, U.S. Senate Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Stevens and Ranking Member Inouye: We very 
     much appreciate your efforts on behalf of including in the 
     FY03 Omnibus Appropriations bill an amendment we have worked 
     on relating to the Department of Defense Total Information 
     Awareness Program.
       We wish to let you know that as the Senate moved toward 
     final passage of the Omnibus Appropriations bill this 
     afternoon, our office continued to be engaged in a discussion 
     with other interested offices about the wording of the 
     language in Sec. 111(c)(2)(B) of Amendment No. 59 affecting 
     the scope of the Office of Total Information Awareness. 
     Questions have been raised that the wording of this 
     subsection of the amendment, as adopted, could be interpreted 
     to inhibit lawful foreign intelligence activities. That is 
     not the intent of the amendment, and to correct the problem 
     we propose to strike in that subsection (B) all after the 
     word ``activities.'' We are committed to working jointly with 
     you to address this concern through enactment of this change 
     in conference.
       Again, we appreciate your willingness to include a 
     provision establishing strong Congressional oversight over 
     this program, and look forward to working with you to correct 
     the language to reflect our intent more accurately.
           Sincerely,
     Charles E. Grassley.
     Ron Wyden.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, after six continuing resolutions to keep 
the Federal Government operating and more than 3 months into the new 
fiscal year, the appropriations process for fiscal year 2003 is finally 
coming to an end. Of the 13 appropriations bills that were required to 
be passed and enacted into law last year to fully fund programs for 
fiscal year 2003, only two were passed and enacted. The 11 remaining 
bills have been bundled up in this so-called ``omnibus'' appropriations 
legislation.
  And once again, as in past years, we are faced with voting on a 
massive legislative package without adequate time for thorough review 
and debate. The 1,052-page bill before us, which appropriates 
approximately $400 billion, was not made available for review at 9:00 
p.m. on the night before the first full day of debate on the bill. The 
managers submitted for the Record what would have been the committee 
reports for the 11 bills encompassed in this omnibus, but it was not 
available for review until debate on this bill was well under way. Have 
members and their staffs even spent the time to learn what is contained 
in this monstrous vehicle?
  When will we ever learn? I hope that the 108th Congress brings with 
it a renewed spirit of bipartisan cooperation. In the last Congress, 
such cooperation took a backseat to election year politics, partisan 
bickering, and ill-advised parliamentary tactics that had the effect of 
further polarizing this body. If we continue on this troubled path, we 
will be in the same situation 1 year from now. And again, this will be 
at the cost of the American taxpayer.
  During times of threats to our national security, it has been common 
practice to ask Americans to sacrifice to protect our homeland. 
However, today some believe it appropriate to merely craft this 
appropriations bill with little regard for the severe security and 
fiscal challenges confronting our Nation. We are on the verge of a 
possible war, and our economy is in distress. So what are we 
appropriating scarce resources for? Orangutans, pig waste, and sea 
otter commissions.
  There is approximately $11 billion in pork-barrel spending and a 
number of legislative riders that are riddled throughout this bill. In 
fact, Congressional earmarks reached their highest level during the 
last fiscal year, increasing 32 percent from the previous year. The 
multitude of unrequested funding earmarks buried in this 1,052-page 
bill will undoubtedly further burden American taxpayers. While the 
amounts associated with each individual earmark may not seem 
extravagant, taken together, they represent a serious diversion away 
from Federal programs that have undergone the appropriate merit-based 
selection process.
  As I discussed earlier today, one of the most egregious riders we 
consistently see in appropriation bills are the Army Corps of 
Engineers's water projects. Water projects have become synonymous with 
pork because of the habitual authorization of these projects in 
appropriation bills. These water projects continue to be slipped into 
appropriation bills without congressional consideration as to their 
effects on the environment and without going through established 
project evaluation procedures.
  Today's Washington Post reports that the Yazoo Pump project in 
central Mississippi--which would involve building the world's largest 
hydraulic pumping plant--would authorize $15 million to drain 200,000 
acres of wetlands that is home to both waterfowl and rare plants. The 
sole purpose of this project is to drain environmentally sensitive 
wetlands for agricultural production. Touted as a ``flood control 
project,'' the Yazoo pump is not designed to save homes or land but to 
drain the wetlands for soybean and cotton production. More importantly, 
$30,000 of federal taxpayer money has already been spent to preserve 
these wetlands because of their unique features as a bird sanctuary. At 
a minimum, we should allow the EPA to complete its study of this 
project--environment review is still ongoing. In fact, in the draft 
environmental review, the EPA gave the Yazoo the lowest possible rating 
calling the project ``flawed and inadequate.'' If this project could 
not proceed forward on the merits, why should Congress give its 
blessing to it in a rider to an omnibus appropriation bill?
  The next project, located in Devil's Lake, North Dakota not only 
authorizes a wasteful and highly controversial project but the rider 
also exempts the project from standard evaluation procedures. Today's 
Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that the rider provides $100 million 
for pipeline into the

[[Page 1697]]

Sheyenne River, which flows into the Hudson Bay. Because of widespread 
water quality concerns on connecting rivers and lakes, there is strong 
opposition to this project from the Canadian government, the States of 
Missouri and Minnesota, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the EPA, 
national conservation organizations and environmental groups in North 
Dakota. Despite this opposition and the complex ecological issues 
raised by this project, funding has been authorized and standard 
language requiring the Corps to evaluate the merits of the project has 
been omitted. The bottom line: If this project was ever assessed on its 
merits, it would likely never survive.
  The report language for this bill directs the Agency for 
International Development to provide at least $2.5 million to the 
Orangutan Foundation located in Indonesia. The foundation likes to call 
the orangutan ``the neglected ape.'' Luckily for them, they are not 
being neglected by the Appropriations Committee. And, the appropriators 
not only like orangutans, they also are fond of gorillas. The Committee 
gave $1.5 million to groups like the Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund. Mr. 
President, why stop at giving special preference to these two primates? 
What about the other members of the animal kingdom? Which brings us to 
the lowly catfish and its heretofore unknown relation to the cow. In 
the emergency disaster relief section of this bill, a provision was 
included that would qualify catfish farmers for livestock compensation 
payments. As my colleagues know, the livestock compensation program is 
a Federal farm program that compensate eligible livestock producers--
such as owners of beef and dairy cattle, sheep, goats, or certain 
breeds of buffalo--who have suffered losses or damages as a result of a 
severe drought.
  While I often take issue with various farm policies that 
disproportionately benefit large agribusiness of farms at the expense 
of small farmers and taxpayers, or those that compromise American 
agricultural trade commitments, this effort to compensate catfish 
farmers from a farm program that is intended for livestock stands out. 
I am certain that catfish proponents will offer a dozen different 
explanations to justify this provision. However, not even hog, poultry, 
or horse producers are eligible under the livestock compensation 
program. Why should catfish then get livestock payments? Mr. President, 
when did a catfish become analogous to a cow?
  Catfish farmers are hardly left out in it the cold--they are eligible 
for other types of emergency assistance from USDA. Also, in the recent 
2002 farm bill, domestic catfish proponents were successful in banning 
all catfish imports by requiring that foreign catfish be labeled as 
something other than catfish. It seems very clear to me that catfish 
farmers do not want to compete on a fair basis, domestically or abroad, 
and are willing to double-dip into disaster-relief funding intended for 
other farmers in need. Mr. President, let's remove this extraneous 
provision and let livestock be livestock, not catfish.
  Other interesting earmarks include: $200,000 for the Anchorage People 
Mover in Alaska; $250,000 for the Mary Baldwin College in Staunton, 
Virginia for the Center for the Exceptionally Gifted; now they really 
are exceptionally gifted; $1.5 million for WestStart's Vehicular 
Flywheel Project in the State of Washington; an extra $1 million for 
the National Center for the Ecologically-based Noxious Weed Management 
at Montana State University; $600,000 to treat waste on small swine 
farms in South Carolina; $1 million for a DNA bear sampling study in 
Montana; $100,000 for the Alaska Sea Otter Commission; $300,000 to the 
Southern Regional Research Center at New Orleans, LA, for termite 
detection systems, evaluation of wood products for protecting building 
materials, and bait technology; $200,000 to study seafood waste at the 
University of Alaska; $300,000 for Old Stoney feasibility study in 
Wyoming; $650,000 for grasshopper and Mormon cricket activities in the 
State of Utah;
  I am pleased to see that $1.5 billion was added to this legislation 
to supplement the $50 million that was originally appropriated to fund 
the recently-passed ``Help America Vote Act.'' However, I am concerned 
that this funding has only been added as a common pool and not 
designated according to the legislation that Congress passed last year. 
For example, the bill would not explicitly fund the program to improve 
accessibility for disabled voters at the poling places. I urge my 
colleagues to address this discrepancy in the House-Senate Conference.
  I believe it is beneficial that the Senate address physician and 
hospital fee schedules under Medicare. Recent Medicare physician fee 
reductions have forced many doctors across the Nation to reduce 
Medicare patients, leaving seniors without access to the care they 
need. Similarly, rural hospitals, particularly in my home State of 
Arizona, have experienced an unfair imbalance in payment schedules 
compared to their urban counterparts. Although our Nation's health care 
providers would benefit from provisions under this bill, I do not 
believe that appropriations bills are the venue for such legislative 
language. I am also concerned about giving hospitals and doctors well 
over $1 billion in additional funds from Medicare, without providing 
seniors with a much needed prescription drug benefit.
  There are numerous provisions in this bill that circumvent the clear 
jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee. Perhaps the most egregious 
example is section 211 of Division B, which would grant new life to an 
already failed shipbuilding project that has cost the American taxpayer 
over $185 million, and give it to a foreign-owned corporation. I've 
already expressed my opposition to this special interest provision. But 
there are a host of other items that I wish to discuss.
  Another section of the bill would allow a narrow class of airports to 
exclude air carriers that may want to provide scheduled air service. It 
is my understanding that this is so narrowly tailored that it benefits 
just one airport--Centennial Airport in Colorado.
  Another provision would allow an airport to give Airport Improvement 
Program money back to the FAA enabling the agency to hire staff to 
speed up environmental reviews of that airport's projects. This is an 
area in which the Commerce Committee took action last year, and we will 
continue to monitor and pursue further action this year, should it be 
necessary. Appropriations bills are not the proper nor the traditional 
vehicles that should be used to address the AIP.
  This bill also earmarks $1.2 billion for New Starts under the transit 
program. I find this set of earmarks to be particularly egregious. The 
earmarks do not just direct the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to 
spend the appropriated funds on pet projects in certain States, they 
also actually change the recommendations that FTA has made regarding 
which projects should be funded and the level of funding each project 
should receive in fiscal year 2003. Mr. President, when are we going to 
allow the FTA to do its job? The FTA, not the appropriators, should 
determine which projects have merit and should be funded.
  This bill also would limit funding for the number of Coast Guard flag 
officers to 37. While the Coast Guard is authorized under title 14 to 
have 48 flag officers, it currently has 37 on active duty. But as the 
Coast Guard grows in size to meet its new homeland security missions, 
its authorized flexibility to promote additional flag officers would be 
severely restrained under this bill. If there is a concern that the 
Coast Guard has too many flag officers, then that concern should be 
addressed through the committee of jurisdiction--the Commerce 
Committee.
  The bill provides $48.7 million for the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting for costs related to digital program developed associated 
with the transition of public broadcasting to digital broadcasting. 
This is $23.7 million more than the President's request, and it was not 
considered by the Commerce Committee, which is the authorizing 
committee. More importantly, I don't believe that Congress is 
exercising sound fiscal policy when we make a decision

[[Page 1698]]

to appropriate millions of dollars to publicly funded television 
stations so that they may purchase the latest in digital technology. 
Rather the Corporation for Public Broadcasting should come before the 
authorizing committee to have a discussion with members on how to best 
achieve the goals of public broadcasters and ensure that taxpayer 
dollars are being spent wisely.
  The bill appropriates $100 million for fisheries disaster assistance. 
Of this, $35 million is for direct assistance to the State of Alaska, 
for any person, business, or town that has experienced an economic 
hardship even remotely relating to fishing. This money is in addition 
to the $20 million for developing an Alaskan seafood marketing program.
  Of the remainder, $35 million is for the shrimp industries of the 
Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic, to provide far-reaching assistance 
to these fisheries. $20 million is provided for voluntary capacity 
reduction programs in the Northeast and West Coast groundfish 
fisheries. $5 million is for Hawaiian fishermen affected by fishing 
area closures. And, 5 million for the blue crab fisheries affected by 
low harvest.
  The bill provides these handouts without requiring any accountability 
on how the money is actually spent. Moreover, the allocations were made 
without offering any form of justification. How much federal money do 
these regions really need, if any? If these needs are legitimate, how 
do they compare to the needs of other regions? We may never know, 
because these appropriations circumvented every stage of committee 
review. We have no basis for determining how necessary this is or 
whether or not this is sound policy.
  Another provision authorized the Secretary of Commerce to award 
grants to encourage individuals to travel to the United States and 
establishes the United States Travel and Tourism Promotion Advisory 
Board; $50 million is appropriated to implement this section. This is 
yet another example of inserting authorizing language in an 
appropriations bill, and providing an enormous amount of money for an 
initiative that has not yet been fully examined and discussed by the 
Senate Commerce Committee.
  The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that the Federal 
Government had a budget deficit of about $109 billion during the first 
quarter of fiscal year 2003. That is significantly more than the $35 
billion shortfall recorded over the same period last year. And all 
forecasts project growing deficits for as far as the eye can see.
  Our current economic situation and our vital national security 
concerns illustrate that we need more than ever to prioritize our 
Federal spending. While I commend members of the Appropriations 
Committee for holding down spending to the level recommended by the 
President, some of these provisions, as is the case in virtually all 
appropriations legislation, serve no national priority. My friends on 
the committee are no doubt tired of hearing me say this, but I am 
obliged to do so; we can and we must do better.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I strongly support the amendment offered 
yesterday by Senator Bill Nelson and several others to increase funding 
for emergency relief in Africa by $600 million in fiscal year 2003. I 
could not be present for the vote on this amendment, but I would have 
voted for it if I were able to. This additional funding is urgently 
needed to address a mounting famine that has put an estimated 38 
million people at risk for starvation in Ethiopia, Eritrea, and six 
southern African countries.
  Because the President submitted his fiscal year 2003 budget request 
nearly a year ago--before the famine reached its current magnitude--the 
omnibus appropriations bill we are now debating does not provide 
adequate resources both to counter this humanitarian crisis and to fund 
ongoing programs in Africa to assist poor and displaced persons. The 
United States has generally provided more than half of the food aid 
required to address this kind of crisis. The proposed $600 million in 
additional funding is needed to reach the one-half mark and forestall 
further destruction in southern and eastern Africa.
  The ripple effects of this kind of famine go far beyond the millions 
of Africans who are directly affected. Because severe famine can force 
families to leave their homes--sometimes even their countries--in 
search of better conditions and to resort to other desperate measures, 
it can cripple economic progress and threaten political stability 
throughout the affected regions. Ultimately, a crisis of this magnitude 
can imperil even our own security. We have an obligation to the people 
of Africa and to our own citizens to provide the resources necessary to 
address this emergency.


                     emerald ash borer infestation

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we have before the Senate the Omnibus 
Appropriations bill. This bill funds a wide array of vital programs, 
but this bill does not address a relatively new problem that is 
affecting the ash tree population in Southeast Michigan.
  I am talking about the Emerald Ash Borer, an Asian beetle that most 
likely traveled to Michigan on wooden shipping pallets. An invasive 
species, the Ash Borer is rapidly destroying ash trees in southeastern 
Michigan and as it spreads will do so nationwide. In the time that it 
has been in Michigan, the Ash Borer has already killed 6 million trees. 
Ironically, this invasive pest has the potential to wipe out the very 
tree that was planted to replace the elm trees that succumbed to Dutch 
Elm Disease.
  Ms. STABENOW. My good friend and fellow Senator from Michigan is 
correct; the Emerald Ash Borer has the ability to destroy our nation's 
urban forests. The threat is so great that the Departments of 
Agriculture for Indiana and Ohio as well as the Province of Ontario, 
all of which border Michigan, have published warnings about the Ash 
Borer even though it is not known to have spread from Michigan, yet.
  Currently, an Interagency Invasive Species Task Force including the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Michigan State University, Michigan 
Technological University, and the Michigan Department of Agriculture is 
working to analyze this problem. As such the task force has placed a 
quarantine on 13 counties in southeastern Michigan.
  Mr. KOHL. I thank my friends from Michigan for bringing this problem 
to the Senate's attention. I understand that the Emerald Ash Borer may 
pose a very real threat to the health of our Nation's urban forests.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is imperative that the Animal Plant Health Inspection 
Service (APHIS) take a vital role addressing this problem. It is my 
expectation that APHIS will conducted surveillance into this problem 
and develop a containment strategy that will lay the groundwork for the 
eradication of this invasive species.
  Ms. STABENOW. Having APHIS report on these efforts to Congress would 
greatly assist us as we seek to assist with the eradication of this 
pest and as we seek funds to help contain and eradicate the Emerald ash 
borer.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I appreciate the concerns expressed by my colleagues, 
and I assure them that this subcommittee recognizes the horrible 
effects that the Emerald Ash Borer has had on Southeastern Michigan and 
the potential it has to devastate our nation's Ash tree population. We 
will work with them to address this problem.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Committee Report to the fiscal year 
2003 Interior Appropriations bill recommends a $2 million increase in 
technology deployment for the Clean Cities program and recognizes the 
work of the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition to increase E-85 fueling 
capacity.
  I appreciate the Subcommittee's recognition of the important 
environmental, energy, and economic security benefits that would result 
from expanding our nation's E-85 fueling capacity. I would also like to 
thank Senator Byrd for the Subcommittee's recognition of the work being 
done by the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition to increase E-85 fueling 
capacity. E-85 is a form of alternative transportation fuel consisting 
of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. It will help reduce 
America's dependence on foreign oil.
  Currently, there are over 2 million vehicles in the national vehicle 
fleet that are capable of using E-85 fuel. The

[[Page 1699]]

use of E-85 in these vehicles has the potential to reduce foreign oil 
imports by 34 million barrels a year, while adding $3 billion to total 
farm income and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
  On March 18, 2002, 10 colleagues and I sent a letter to the chairman 
and ranking member requesting that $2 million be designated to install 
additional E-85 fueling capacity across the country and to begin an E-
85 educational awareness effort in cooperation with the Nation's 
automakers.
  It is my hope that, as this bill goes to conference with the House, 
the Subcommittee would work to provide funding to expand the deployment 
of E-85 fueling capacity, which is important for my State and the 
Nation.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on Christmas Eve, the Department of Labor 
quietly announced that it would discontinue the Mass Layoff Statistics 
program, which collects data and reports on large layoffs involving 50 
or more employees. It's obvious from the timing of the announcement 
that the administration hoped few would notice this embarrassing 
attempt to conceal bad news about the economy.
  Since President Bush took office two years ago, the economic well-
being of America's families has dramatically deteriorated. Yet the 
administration continues to support economic policies that neglect the 
basic needs of working men and women, and lavish excessive tax breaks 
on the wealthiest taxpayers.
  The unemployment rate has risen, while wages have stagnated. Income 
inequality has increased, while stock portfolios and 401(k)s have 
declined.
  The poverty rate has increased to its highest level in nearly a 
decade, while household incomes have fallen and home foreclosures have 
reached their highest rate in 30 years.
  Hard-working families are suffering. Nearly 8.6 million workers are 
now unemployed, 2.6 million more than when President Bush took office. 
Companies are more likely to continue to layoff workers than create new 
jobs. Now is not the time to conceal information about layoffs and 
other important economic data from the public.
  The mass layoff statistics are one of the best measures we have to 
understand the impact on workers of changes in the economy. In the wake 
of the September 11 tragedies, the mass layoff statistics were used to 
give us a clear picture of the economic damage that resulted from 
terrorist attacks. Many businesses, particularly those in downtown 
Manhattan, were directly affected by the horrific attacks and were 
forced to layoff many workers.
  The Bureau of Labor Statistics added non-natural disasters as a 
reason for mass layoffs in its report, and these layoffs became one of 
the few available figures on individuals hurt economically by the 
attacks.
  Similarly, in the wake of the Enron, WorldCom and other corporate 
scandals, the statistics revealed the tens of thousands of layoffs that 
followed. WorldCom had 20,000 layoffs. At Arthur Andersen, 7,000 
workers were laid off. At Global Crossing, 9,000 workers were laid off, 
and Enron laid off 4,000 workers.
  The Mass Layoff Statistics program is respected as one of the most 
accurate signs of the industries has been described as the best, easy-
to-understand overview of which industries in the greatest distress and 
the workers bearing the burden.
  Unfortunately, history is repeating itself. In 1992, in a time of an 
earlier economic downturn, the first President Bush also canceled the 
Mass-Layoffs Statistics program.
  It was reinstated by President Clinton, and has continued to provide 
important information. Economic policy officials, state and local 
workforce investment boards, state unemployment insurance directors, 
job training agencies, job placement organizations, and researchers 
rely on this data, and they deserve to have it.
  The National Association of State Workforce Agencies has sent a 
letter to Secretary Chao urging the Department of Labor to reinstate 
the program. As the letter says: ``The states have come to rely on this 
information as an economic indicator and a tool for operational 
decisions on service delivery and funding allocations for dislocated 
worker programs.''
  The Mass Layoff Statistics program provides accurate, timely 
information about the industries that are involved in large layoffs. It 
provides clear guidance on how to allocate resources, set economic 
priorities, and respond to the urgent needs of the local communities 
affected.
  I am pleased that the Senate has accepted my amendment to restore the 
$6.6 million in funding needed by this program. This is great news for 
the State and local governments that rely on this information, the 
economists who use this data and the American public, which has a right 
to know the truth about our economy.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise to express my disappointment that 
the funding level for the State Wildlife Grants Program has been 
decreased dramatically. This program is essential in our Nation's 
efforts to conserve fish and wildlife, because it focuses on preventing 
species from becoming threatened or endangered. Due to constraints in 
this bill, the Senate had funded this important program at $40 million 
less than the House level of $100 million. Now, in the omnibus, this 
program is funded at an even lower level of $45 million. This is quite 
disappointing. And there will be additional across-the-board cuts which 
will hurt programs such as this one even more.
  Today, more than 1000 species are listed as federally threatened or 
endangered. The State Wildlife Grant Program helps provide resources to 
State agencies like the North Dakota Game and Fish Department to 
prevent further decline in fish and wildlife.
  In this time of fiscal constraints it is important to recognize that 
this program will actually save taxpayer dollars. Efforts to bring a 
species back from the brink of extinction are quite difficult and 
expensive. The old adage ``an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of 
cure'' is most appropriate in this case. These funds allow States to 
address such conservation problems before they become even more costly. 
Thus, these funds simultaneously save both wildlife and taxpayer 
dollars.
  There is growing recognition of North Dakota's national importance as 
a key breeding area for migratory birds, especially grassland species. 
Baird's sparrow and Sprague's pipit are two priority species that are 
found in my State in greater abundance than most other places. If we 
can work now to maintain healthy grasslands, we can ensure that 
ranchers can continue to work this land, as well as ensure the survival 
of these birds. This is possible when we work early to prevent problems 
rather than waiting for a species to become listed and endangered.
  The State Wildlife Grants program has the support of our Nation's 
leading sportsmen and environmental organizations as evidenced by a 
letter delivered to each Senator earlier this year. This includes a 
broad range of conservation interests such as Pheasants Forever, 
Audubon, Defenders of Wildlife, National Wildlife Federation, and the 
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Notably, all 
50 state fish and wildlife agencies, including the North Dakota Game 
and Fish Department, support this program.
  Because of this nationwide support, and our own understanding of the 
program's commonsense approach to conservation, 28 Senators--myself 
included--signed a letter requesting an increase from the fiscal year 
2002 base of $85 million.
  I hope we will be able to increase the funding for this important 
program in conference and that we will be able to work across the aisle 
to restore much needed funding for this program. In fact, I hope we 
will be able to restore this funding to the $100 million level that was 
previously provided by the House.
  The funding provided for the State Wildlife Grants program in this 
bill will significantly help conserve declining wildlife, but a 
significantly stronger commitment from the Federal Government is 
essential to address mounting conservation needs and, therefore, I am 
extremely disappointed that this funding has been cut even below the 
previous Senate level. Instead, I support the House position that 
provides greater funding for this critical program.

[[Page 1700]]




                                smallpox

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished majority 
leader and chairman for their commitment to enhancing America's 
preparedness for bioterrorism. We have worked together successfully for 
many years to help America prepare more effectively for the threat of 
biological attack. The Nation is embarking on a program to vaccinate 
millions of health care and emergency workers against the threat of a 
potential biological attack using smallpox, and I look forward to 
working with the distinguished majority leader and chairman to ensure 
that this program is conducted in a way that properly protects the 
health and safety of those receiving the vaccine.
  Mr. FRIST. I appreciate the Senator's comments. I believe that we are 
all in agreement on the importance of a smallpox immunization program 
to our national security, and I look forward to working with the 
Senator and with Chairman Gregg to ensure the success of a smallpox 
immunization program.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I have offered an amendment to the current legislation 
that would provide funding for a program to compensate those who suffer 
injuries from the smallpox vaccine, and to provide States, localities 
and cities with funding to implement the vaccination program. I 
understand from my colleagues that, while they are unable to support 
this amendment, they are willing to work with me on legislation that 
would provide appropriate compensation for those who may be injured by 
the vaccine.
  Mr. GREGG. I appreciate the Senators' interest in this area, and I 
believe we should work to pass legislation to provide appropriate 
compensation. I have scheduled a hearing in the Health, Education, 
Labor and Pensions Committee for next week that I hope will delve into 
many of the questions we must address in crafting the appropriate 
policy in this area. We are all in agreement that we should work to 
address this issue in a timely manner, and I will work with the Senator 
and leaders to ensure prompt consideration in the committee and on the 
floor of the Senate of such legislation.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I am sure that my colleagues appreciate that 
implementing the smallpox plan will impose significant costs on many 
communities. We should provide additional resources to allow 
communities to implement the plan without having to curtail other 
important health priorities.
  Mr. GREGG. I will do my best to see that appropriate funding is 
provided later in the year.
  Mr. FRIST. I join my colleagues in their comments, and I am committed 
to bringing legislation to provide appropriate compensation to the 
floor promptly and to address legitimate funding needs.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank my colleagues for their commitment to address 
these issues.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wish to speak about an amendment that 
I have offered to get behind the nurses and patients in this country. 
My amendment would provide $20 million in this bill to fund programs 
created by last year's bipartisan Nurse Reinvestment Act to recruit and 
retain nurses. I'm pleased that my amendment has been accepted by the 
managers of this appropriations bill. I thank Senators Stevens, Byrd, 
Specter, and Harkin for working with me to include my amendment in the 
Senate fiscal year 2003 appropriations bill.
  My amendment is a down payment. It has the support of 17 bipartisan 
cosponsors. The Nurse Reinvestment Act is an important bipartisan 
accomplishment from the last Congress. Republicans and Democrats came 
together to make this down payment to address the nursing shortage, a 
crisis that impacts patient care across the country. Now Congress must 
provide the funds to make these nurse recruitment and retention efforts 
a reality.
  America is facing a nursing shortage and it will only get worse. 
Today, there are about 126,000 nurse vacancies in hospitals alone 
nationwide. This number does not even include the nurses needed in 
nursing homes, home health agencies, schools and other sites. In my 
home state of Maryland, about 15.6 percent of the nursing jobs are 
vacant in hospitals. More than 2,000 full-time nurses are desperately 
needed.
  In 2000, there was a shortage of 110,000 registered nurses in this 
country. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, this 
number will: more than double by 2010 to 275,000; more than quadruple 
in 2015 to 507,000; and reach 808,000 in 2020.
  The demand for nurses will increase as the 78 million baby boomers 
get older and start to need more health care. The nursing shortage 
comes at a time when nurses are being asked to do more: hospitals 
caring for more critically ill patients; nurses receiving small pox 
vaccinations and giving small pox vaccinations to patients; and the 
nurses in military reserves called into active duty.
  Most importantly, this nursing shortage affects patient care. Nurses 
are on the front lines of health care everyday in hospitals, nursing 
homes, and home health agencies. A study published last year in the New 
England Journal of Medicine found that nursing shortages in hospitals 
are associated with a higher risk of complications and even death for 
patients.
  Last year, Congress passed the bipartisan Nurse Reinvestment Act as a 
down payment to help recruit and retain nurses, a first step to help 
address the nursing shortage. This bill alone will not solve the 
nursing shortage. It does not address the fact that nurses are 
underpaid, overworked, and undervalued.
  The Nurse Reinvestment Act does three things. First, it helps bring 
men and women into the nursing profession by making nursing education 
more affordable. It provides scholarships and loan repayments in 
exchange for two years of service in areas that need nurses the most.
  Second, the Nurse Reinvestment Act helps keep nurses in the 
profession by providing additional education and training opportunities 
and programs to empower nurses. It provides financial assistance to 
pursue advanced degrees and training such as fostering mentoring 
programs, internships and residencies, as well as specialized geriatric 
care training. It also supports programs to encourage collaboration 
with other health care professionals and promote nurse involvement in 
decision-making. Finally, it increases the number of faculty in nursing 
education programs by forgiving loans in exchange for a commitment to 
teach in a nursing school.
  Last year, Congress put nursing recruitment and retention as a 
priority in our federal lawbooks. But this will be a hollow opportunity 
if Congress does not fund the Nurse Reinvestment Act this year. 
Congress must now put the Nurse Reinvestment Act as a priority in the 
federal checkbook. Funding the Nurse Reinvestment Act in 2003 has 
bipartisan support from 37 Senators. I also want to thank Senators 
Kennedy, Kerry, Jeffords, Clinton, Murray, Rockefeller, Corzine, 
Lieberman, Collins, Sarbanes, Lautenberg, Johnson, Biden, Cantwell, 
Smith, Roberts, and Landrieu for cosponsoring my amendment.
  My amendment is endorsed by the American Nurses Association, American 
Association of Colleges of Nursing, National League for Nursing, 
Emergency Nurses Association, American Association of Community 
Colleges, American College of Nurse Practitioners, National Association 
of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners, Oncology Nursing Society, and the 
Maryland Nurses Association. Numerous other groups support funding the 
Nurse Reinvestment Act in 2003 including the American Hospital 
Association, American Health Care Association, and the Federation of 
American Hospitals. But most importantly, this amendment has the 
support of patients who want to have nurses when they need them. 
Patients across the country are depending on the Congress to help them.
  This is my third nursing shortage as a United States Senator. I want 
to help find solutions so that it is the last nursing shortage. I thank 
my colleagues for their support. I strongly urge the House and Senate 
conferees on this bill to keep this $20 million to fund the Nurse 
Reinvestment Act in the

[[Page 1701]]

conference report. Patients, nurses, and health care facilities across 
the country are depending on your support.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by my 
colleague, Senator Larry Craig, which I am proud to cosponsor along 
with the entire Northwest delegation. This amendment would provide an 
additional $700 million in borrowing authority for the Bonneville Power 
Administration, BPA, which will allow the agency to make much-needed 
improvements in our region's transmission grid, modernizing lines and 
reducing bottlenecks. The borrowing authority will also allow BPA to 
fund new conservation and renewable energy initiatives and make 
improvements at existing hydroelectric facilities, to make them more 
efficient and fish friendly.
  This amendment is consistent with current law, advances many of our 
shared, bipartisan energy policy goals, and represents a sound 
investment for U.S. taxpayers. I would also point out to my colleagues 
that this amendment is similar to legislation passed as part of the 
Senate energy bill last spring, which contained $1.3 billion in 
additional BPA borrowing authority. Further, it is consistent with the 
President's budget request for Fiscal Year 2003, which provided $700 
million for this purpose.
  The Bonneville Power Administration--created in 1937 under the 
Bonneville Project Act--has historically been one of the primary 
economic engines of the Pacific Northwest. Today, BPA owns and operates 
75 percent of the high-voltage transmission system in the region, 
consistent with principles of non-discriminatory open access. My 
colleagues may be interested to learn that among BPA's various 
statutory responsibilities included in the Pacific Northwest Power 
Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 is that the agency must ``assure 
the Pacific Northwest of an adequate, efficient, economical and 
reliable power supply.''
  Even more specifically, the Federal Columbia River Transmission 
System Act of 1974 stipulates that the BPA Administrator ``shall 
operate and maintain the Federal transmission system within the Pacific 
Northwest and shall construct improvements, betterments, and additions 
and replacements of such system within the Pacific Northwest as he 
determines are appropriate and required to: . . . maintain the 
electrical stability and electrical reliability of the Federal system . 
. .''
  The additional borrowing authority provided in this amendment will 
enable Bonneville to uphold these crucial responsibilities. It is also 
important to note that this infrastructure investment is one for which 
U.S. taxpayers would be repayed, with interest. As my colleagues may 
know, BPA makes payment to the U.S. Treasury on an annual basis--from 
revenues it collects from northwest ratepayers. BPA expenditures thus 
do not place any long-term burden on appropriated or trust fund 
activities. Indeed, the principal on all BPA capital-borrowing costs is 
fully repaid, with legally-required, market-determined interest.
  Like most of the country, transmission investment in the northwest 
has lagged behind demand. No major new transmission lines have been 
constructed in our region since 1987. In the meantime, Northwest loads 
have been growing steadily at a rate of 1.8 percent per year. This load 
growth, combined with deregulation of wholesale power markets, has 
given rise to a 2 percent per year rise in traffic on the transmission 
system.
  In addition, the Northwest Power Pool has estimated that winter peak 
load will have grown from 59,972 megawatts in 1998 to 66,952 megawatts 
by 2008 or, by 12 percent. But at the present rate of transmission 
investment--without the improvements this amendment will allow--the 
system will have grown from only 61,415 circuit miles in 1998 to 62,325 
circuit miles in 2008--or, by 2 percent. In short, regional 
transmission is not keeping up with load growth.
  To remedy this situation--and in keeping with its statutory 
obligations--BPA has identified 26 groups of needed transmission 
projects, for construction and energization over the next 5 to 6 years. 
The first nine, some of which are already underway, would address the 
most critically constrained pathways in our area.
  The construction of additional transmission will reduce existing 
bottlenecks, reinforce the system to assure minimal conformance with 
reliability standards for major load centers such as Seattle, Portland 
and Spokane, and ultimately allow the integration of more than 5,000 
megawatts of new generation. I would also like to point out that this 
amendment will aid in the acquisition of new conservation and renewable 
energy sources, as well as make capital improvements on the 31-project 
federal hydroelectric system--all of which are extremely important 
components of BPA's multi-faceted public purposes.
  This amendment will enhance the reliability of the northwest 
electricity grid--and, by extension, the western transmission system as 
a whole. It is consistent with the missions this body set out for the 
Bonneville Power Administration, dating back to 1937 and in the 
legislative history spanning the 66 intervening years. And it 
represents good energy policy today, which is why FERC Chairman Pat 
Wood--in hearings before the Senate Energy Committee last year--voiced 
his strong support for an increase in BPA borrowing authority.
  I thank Senator Craig for bringing this amendment to the floor today, 
as well as all of my Northwest colleagues. I believe it has been a 
tremendous team effort that has spanned both a couple of years and the 
jurisdictions of the Senate Energy, Budget and of course Appropriations 
Committees. I would also like to thank the Chairmen and Ranking Members 
of those Committees for their support today.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I discussed an item in the Energy 
Conservation account with the distinguished managers of the Interior 
Appropriations chapter of this bill. I believe that the reliable, 
efficient, and clean generation of electricity is vital to the American 
economy. The Congress has made important investments in fossil energy 
research to improve the efficiency and reduce emissions of large, 
central power generation technologies. In recent years the 
Appropriations Committee has recommended increases in what, I believe, 
are complementary and equally important technologies that generate 
power on a smaller, distributed generation scale.
  These smaller technologies, including microturbines, fuel cells, 
reciprocating engines and industrial turbines, range in size from only 
a few hundreds of kilowatts up to 30 megawatts and offer many benefits. 
For example, fuel cells and microturbines can be deployed in urban 
areas to provide power where the construction of additional 
transmission and distribution lines is not practical because of the 
crowded conditions. Ironically, these same systems are well suited for 
use in rural areas, as well, where the cost of constructing electric 
lines to serve only a few customers may be prohibitive.
  These onsite power generation systems are highly reliable. They are 
not vulnerable to power line failures caused by weather or manmade 
circumstances. Moreover, their smaller scale often allows distributed 
energy technologies to be located in areas where exhaust heat from the 
generators can be utilized rather than released into the atmosphere. 
When used in a combined heating and or cooling mode, distributed energy 
devices can attain efficiencies in excess of 80 percent.
  The wise research investments recommended by the Committee will help 
conserve our important domestic energy resources, reduce environmental 
emissions, and help American companies and their employees maintain 
U.S. leadership in global markets for these technologies. I compliment 
the Senators from Montana and West Virginia for their leadership in 
this allocation of scarce resources available to the Committee.
  Through the National Accounts Energy Alliance, the natural gas 
industry has worked closely with leading commercial and industrial 
companies who

[[Page 1702]]

are logical candidates to use these distributed energy technologies as 
they become ready for testing in the market place. This is a 
partnership between government and the private sector. It marries the 
technology developers with the technology users such as major grocery 
stores, restaurant chains, and building developers. Most important, the 
Alliance serves to ensure that market requirements are fully understood 
by those who develop the technologies and that field testing in 
specific applications, which is essential to market acceptance and 
technology improvement, is an integral part of the development process.
  Mr. President, I understand that the House-passed version of the 
Fiscal Year 2003 Department of the Interior and Related Agencies 
Appropriations bill included $3 million for this ``applications 
integration.'' The Senate Committee report passed last summer is not 
specific about how the Department should allocate funds to the National 
Accounts Energy Alliance. I would hope that in conference we could 
accept the specific funding level provided in the House report for 
applications integration including the National Accounts Energy 
Alliance.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota for 
his kind words as a member of the Interior subcommittee.
  The Senator is correct. The House has recommended $3 million for 
``applications integration.'' I say to the Senator that he is always a 
strong and compelling advocate and that I will endeavor to give his 
request every favorable consideration within the limitations that will 
confront the conferees on this bill.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from North Dakota 
for bringing this matter to our attention. I, too, will work with him 
during the conference in support of his request.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senators.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I had planned to offer an amendment to 
eliminate a dangerous anti-environmental rider that was slipped into 
this bill. I am not going to offer that amendment today because I 
believe the best strategy is to strip it in conference.
  However, I want to take just a couple of minutes to let my colleagues 
know about this rider and to explain the bad precedent we would be 
setting.
  In the National Forest Management Act, Congress requires a review of 
roadless areas for possible designation as wilderness areas. Under the 
National Environmental Protection Act we also require that this process 
involve the public and the right to appeal those decisions.
  In 1997 a management plan for the Tongass National Forest was 
proposed that did not adequately address the question of wilderness 
designations. In response, a federal district court in Alaska ordered 
the Forest Service to complete a supplemental evaluation of possible 
wilderness areas. The Draft was released in May of 2002, with 8 
alternatives. The administration's preferred alternative was no 
additional wilderness areas. A final recommendation is due to be 
released in February. At that point, the public has the opportunity to 
appeal the agency's decisions through the administrative process, and 
if necessary to make use of the courts.
  Section 329 of the Interior Appropriations section of this bill would 
eliminate judicial and public oversight of U.S. Forest Service 
wilderness recommendations in the Tongass National Forest. In doing so, 
it waives two key environmental laws--laws that protect the right of 
the public to be involved in decision-making--the National 
Environmental Protection Act and the National Forest Management Act. 
This language will prevent the public, the states and the localities of 
their right to participate in the decision-making process.
  Even more egregious, section 329 prohibits any judicial review or 
appeal of a decision on the Tongass Land Management Plan--a decision 
that has not even been made. So, before we know what the decision is, 
this section says there can be no more public input and no judicial 
review. This is a very bad precedent.
  Judicial and public oversight are an intrinsic part of the process of 
environmental decision-making. In fact, the laws that govern management 
of our public lands are built on these principles of judicial and 
public oversight. These are our public lands, and we all have a right 
to take part in deciding how they are managed, how they are protected, 
and how they are exploited. Stripping away the ability of the American 
people to take part in the process is contrary to the spirit of our 
laws.
  One hundred years ago, Republican President Teddy Roosevelt 
established the Tongass National Forest in Alaska with the support of 
the Alaskan people. For the last hundred years we have managed the 
Tongass in concert with the wishes of the public because we have had 
public participation.
  This rider ignores history, it ignores our environmental laws and it 
creates dangerous precedent.
  It is dangerous because it is a back door attempt to silence the 
public. It is dangerous because it is a back door attempt to override 
our laws, laws passed by this Congress after extensive debate. It is 
dangerous because it is a backdoor attempt to eliminate the normal 
checks and balances that are inherent in our system. And it is a 
dangerous thing for those of us who have pristine lands in our states.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise to express opposition to a provision 
in the bill that syphons off critically needed enforcement funds in 
order to create an unnecessary bureaucracy.
  The bill instructs the Secretary of Labor to create an Office of 
Pension Participant Advocacy. Committee language indicates that this 
office is to serve as a career ombudsman in the Department to advise 
Congress and the administration on necessary changes in policies to 
address problems affecting pension participants. It would also be 
charged with coordinating public and private efforts to assist 
participants and provide meaningful information.
  At this time of heightened concern for pension plan stability, it 
makes no sense to curtail the enforcement budget of the Pension & 
Welfare Benefits Administration (PWBA). President Bush had requested an 
additional $3 million for enforcement and compliance activities. This 
bill takes that $3 million and puts it instead in the separate 
Management account to create a new, unnecessary office.
  With every new corporate scandal, pension plan stability is put in 
doubt, and the PWBA is called into action. There is every reason to 
believe that Fiscal Year 2003 will be one of the agency's busiest 
every. Yet the money needed for enforcement has been diverted to create 
a new bureaucracy that duplicates current functions.
  Since the collapse of Enron, more Americans than ever have learned of 
the important and effective work of the PWBA. We all hailed the 
agency's action in ousting the Enron pension plan board of trustees, 
and putting outside experts in their place. The PWBA's profile has 
never been higher, and its needs have never been greater. Now is the 
time to fund pension plan enforcement.
  If this provision in the appropriations bill is allowed to become 
law, pension plan participants will be the losers. Enforcement efforts 
by the Department of Labor in their behalf will be curtailed. The money 
for enforcing their claims will have been diverted to decorate new 
offices for bureaucrats.
  As the chairman of the authorizing Committee for the Department of 
Labor, I am strongly opposed to efforts to restructure an important 
function of the Department. Likewise, I object to efforts to divert 
resources away from needed investigations, compliance efforts, and 
participant education. I oppose the creation of an Office of Pension 
Participant Advocacy at this time and in this manner.
  It must be recognized that the creation of such an Office is already 
within the management prerogative of the Secretary of Labor. She could 
create a separate office under current authority and resources. The 
proposal in the committee report language in essence micro-manages the 
Department.

[[Page 1703]]

  The proposed functions of the Office of Pension Participant Advocacy 
are duplicative of the ongoing functions of Pension and Welfare 
Benefits Administration (PWBA) of the Department of Labor.
  Today there are more than 100 highly trained and dedicated Benefits 
Advisors working out of PWBA's national office and 15 field offices 
located throughout the country. In 1996, PWBA had only 12 Benefits 
Advisors all located in the national office.
  The creation of this team of Benefits Advisors represents a serious 
commitment on the part of the Department to protecting the rights of 
and helping workers obtain the benefits to which they are entitled.
  The Benefits Advisors handled 170,000 inquiries in 2001 and recovered 
over $64 million in benefits for participants and beneficiaries through 
informed individual dispute resolution. Over $250 million have been 
obtained through this informal process over the last five years. These 
dollars are separate from any amounts recovered through the formal 
investigative process.
  Complaint referrals from PWBA's benefits advisors have become the 
best source of investigative case leads. If a complaint from an 
individual appears to indicate a fiduciary violation by the plan or a 
matter that impacts several participants and not just one individual, 
then that inquiry is referred to an investigator.
  According to statistics from the PWBA, last year 1,263 investigations 
were opened as a result of referrals from the Benefits Advisors; 1,238 
investigations were closed with over $111 million in monetary results.
  The proposed research functions of the Office of Pension Participant 
Advocate also duplicate important research of the General Accounting 
Office and investigations of the Department's Inspector General.
  It is premature to establish an Office of Pension Participant 
Advocacy since it is the subject of ongoing legislative debate. Last 
year, the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee narrowly 
reported out a pension reform bill that included a section creating an 
office of Pension Participant Advocacy with wider scope than is 
included in this appropriations bill. This year, the Democrat pension 
bill, S. 9, fails to include this controversial and unnecessary 
bureaucracy.
  The ERISA Industry Committee makes the point quite succinctly in a 
letter to every Senator: ``the creation of a new office in the federal 
government should be subject of full debate in the light of day. New 
government bureaucracy should not be established by adding provisions 
to appropriations bills, the language of which is unavailable to the 
public until after Committee consideration.'' I share their concerns.
  Therefore, it is inappropriate through this bill to divert and 
restructure the important work of the Department of Labor in protecting 
workers' pensions. I regret the manner in which this provision was 
added to this legislation and I will work to oppose it at every turn.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I submitted an amendment to extend the 
authority for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve, SPR, is the major tool the United States has to deal with the 
impact of a significant disruption in oil supplies. Current 
authorizations to the President to release or drawdown oil from the SPR 
will expire on September 30, 2003.
  Release of oil from the SPR, in coordination with stock drawdowns 
with other consumer nations is done pursuant to the International 
Energy Agency's International Energy Program, IEP, Agreement. Actions 
taken under this agreement seek to add more supply to a tight market, 
reducing the possibility of price spikes and economic havoc that oil 
markets experienced during such incidents as the Arab oil embargo. 
Decisions to withdraw crude oil from the SPR during an energy emergency 
are made by the President under the authorities of the Energy Policy 
and Conservation Act.
  It is important to extend the SPR authority on this legislation. 
While it may be possible to move legislation through the Energy 
Committee, there is no guarantee that a separate bill would be 
completed and on the President's desk before September 30. Therefore, 
the prudent thing for the Senate to do is to add this language to the 
Omnibus Appropriation bill. Such precautionary action has already been 
taken with regard to Price Anderson authority which does not expire 
until the end in 2004.
  My amendment incorporates the exact language that was agreed to last 
fall by the House and Senate conferees on H.R. 4, the comprehensive 
energy bill.
  The amendment:
  Permanently authorizes the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and our 
participation in the International Energy program.
  Codifies current Administration policy that the reserve be filled to 
700 million barrels which is its current capacity. This does not affect 
the Administration's discretion to adjust the timing and extent of fill 
in light of market conditions.
  Permanently authorizes the Northeast Heating Oil Reserve program.
  Current market disruptions such as political unrest in Venezuela and 
the potential threat of a war with Iraq have already led to unusually 
high oil prices and talk of potentially tapping the SPR. In the current 
market context, operation of the SPR should be a top concern to all 
Senators.
  For the benefit of my colleagues, I thought I would talk a little 
about the current situation regarding oil production in two important 
oil producing states--Venezuela & Iraq. The current uncertainty over 
production in Venezuela and the possibility of war with Iraq has 
contributed to the high oil prices we see today.
  On December 2, oil workers opposed to Venezuelan President Chavez, 
initiated a general strike, now in its 53rd day. The strike has nearly 
shut down the government-owned oil company PdVSA. Production has 
dropped from 2.7 million barrels per day to less than half a million. 
At the same time, world oil prices, currently at a 2-year high, have 
risen more than $8 per barrel, or 30 percent since the strike began. 
Oil market experts attribute half of the price increase to the 
political unrest and production uncertainty in Venezuela.
  The U.S. imports a significant amount of Venezuelan crude. Roughly 16 
percent of U.S. imports come from Venezuela, or what on average amounts 
to more than a million barrels per day, according to the EIA. In the 
absence of Venezuelan imports, U.S. refiners have had to dip into their 
own inventory stocks and resort to using other crudes. Absent 
Venezuelan imports, the U.S. has increased its import of Iraqi crude in 
the last month.
  Even though OPEC overproduction helped cushion the strike's impact at 
the outset, U.S. refiners had to turn to their own inventories and to 
Iraqi crude to make up for lost imports. Those inventories are already 
below normal operational inventory level.
  Even if the strike were to end today, experts are unsure how long it 
will take to bring Venezuelan crude production back to its pre-strike 
level of three million barrels per day. It is unclear how carefully the 
oil wells in PdVSA's fields were shutdown during the strike. If the 
wells were shut down improperly, it may take more than six months to 
bring them back online.
  Although some strikers have returned to work and the government 
succeeded in pumping up light crude production, Venezuela has not been 
able to restart production of its trademark heavy crude. To add to the 
uncertainty, Venezuela's Central Bank closed the country's foreign 
exchange market on Wednesday frustrating oil operators' ability to 
convert currency. The reliability of Iraqi crude supplies going forward 
is also uncertain.
  The threat of war with Iraq has contributed to unusually high oil 
prices and talk of potentially tapping into the SPR. This region's 
importance to the stability of not only U.S. but also world markets 
cannot be understated.
  Iraq represents 6 percent of U.S. petroleum imports and the Persian 
Gulf region represents 25 percent. If military conflict disrupts oil 
imports from

[[Page 1704]]

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

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

  Now, one may think that was yesterday and this is today. Yet, I am 
here to tell you that while the Taliban may no longer be in power, 
their legacy remains. For instance, a September 26, 2002 Washington 
Post article detailed what it is like for a woman to give birth to a 
baby in a ``Taliban-free'' Afghanistan. Even now, women continue to be 
banned by their husbands and fathers from giving birth in hospitals or 
receiving medical care during labor. Even if they are able to access 
care, there is often no care to be had. As a result, women are forced 
to have babies on a dirt floor with no help from anyone but their 
untrained female relatives.
  Young girls traveling to schools on country roads are systematically 
beaten and raped by roadside bandits. Only 11 percent of girls can read 
and write and only 16 percent of women over 16 years old are literate 
and yet young girls are prevented by violence from getting the 
education they need. This cannot continue. If we hope to see the roots 
of democracy take hold and flourish in Afghanistan, then we must be 
willing to make a long term commitment to restoring justice and 
equality for all.
  I am sad to report that a lot has been said about our level of 
commitment to the Afghan people, but so far, there has been more talk 
than action. On October 4, 2001, President Bush pledged that ``America 
will stand strong and oppose the sponsors of terror. And America will 
stand strong and help those who are hurt by those regimes.'' Three 
months later, he confirmed this commitment in saying, ``Thanks to our 
military and our allies and the brave fighters of Afghanistan, the 
Taliban regime has come to an end. Yet our responsibilities to the 
people of Afghanistan have not ended.'' Two months later, he sent a 
budget to Congress that did not have one red penny for aid to 
Afghanistan.
  I am glad that my colleagues in the Senate, on both sides of the 
aisle, understand that actions speak louder than words. In July, the 
Senate Appropriations Committee passed a bill that included $150 
million in military and humanitarian aid to Afghanistan. The bill 
before us now goes even farther, including a total of $220 million in 
aid. I would like to thank the Chair and ranking member of the 
subcommittee, Senators McConnell and Leahy for their leadership in this 
regard. In offering this amendment, Senator Snowe and I propose that we 
go even one step further. What it does is proposes that while the 
amount of money appropriated is, of course, important to the overall 
success of our efforts in Afghanistan, so is the way in which it is 
spent.
  Its purpose is twofold. First, it reserves $8 million, approximately 
10 percent of the total funds appropriated for humanitarian aid, for 
programs to support women's development in Afghanistan, including 
girls' and women's education, health, legal and social rights, economic 
opportunities, and political participation. These programs should be 
long term in nature and invest in infrastructure development in 
Afghanistan. What I mean by this is, there are two ways to address the 
lack of women's health in this country, you can set up temporary 
immunization and nutrition centers or you can help build a women's 
health center and train physicians to work there. I am certain that 
USAID is doing the former, but I would like to suggest that we need to 
do more of the latter. This amendment is designed to move us in that 
direction.
  Secondly, this amendment is structured in such a way to ensure that 
these funds are channeled through women-focused, women-run governmental 
and nongovernmental organizations. As you can imagine, the women of 
Afghanistan are more likely to access the services and support 
necessary to ensure their long-term economic independence and health if 
they trust that the person providing the service is not the enemy. Even 
during the Taliban regime, it was women's organizations, run by 
extremely brave Afghani women, who were fighting to protect women from 
violence and death. It will take time before the women there are able 
to trust in their government to protect and provide for their needs.
  I am proud of this amendment. It is the first step in a road with 
many steps. I thank the Chair and the ranking member for their 
leadership and foresight in agreeing to accept it. I look forward to 
working with committee and with USAID to ensure that we use this money 
to ``onward the reform of our times.''
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I oppose the passage of H.J. Res. 2, the 
Omnibus Appropriations Resolution, because it does not provide 
appropriate levels of funding for the important priorities facing our 
Nation. First, the Republican majority and the Bush administration have 
set an arbitrary cap on spending that is inadequate to meet the needs 
of our Nation with respect to

[[Page 1705]]

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

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

  If we are to reduce income inequality in this country, then we must 
support students who are academically prepared to attend college, but 
do not have the financial means to do so on their own. Unfortunately, 
this funding was not included in the spending bill we are considering 
today. Our Nation's schools and our children deserve better.
  Today, we are not meeting our promises to our veterans. The 
Department of Veterans Affairs--VA--has consistently received 
inadequate resources to meet rising medical costs and a growing demand 
for its health services. In November 2001, Secretary of Veterans 
Affairs Principi identified a $400 million funding shortfall for fiscal 
year 2002. As a result of this shortfall, more than 300,000 veterans 
throughout the country are on waiting lists for medical care, and many 
must wait 6 months or longer for an appointment to see medical staff. 
Although Congress provided $417 million for veterans health care as 
part of the FY 2002 emergency supplemental spending bill, passed in 
July 2002, the President

[[Page 1706]]

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

[[Page 1707]]

towards expanding other successful programs and creating new innovative 
programs, like CAP, to address the needs of this vulnerable population.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, third reading.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the 
amendments and third reading of the joint resolution.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed, and the joint resolution 
to be read the third time.
  The joint resolution was read the third time.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I yield to the majority leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, shortly we will be having our last vote of 
the evening on passage of the appropriations bill. I congratulate our 
two managers, and I thank all of our Members for their cooperation.
  I will outline what our schedule will be so Members can plan. The 
Senate will be in a pro forma session on Friday. No business will be 
conducted tomorrow. The Senate will not be in session on Monday. We 
will next convene on Tuesday.
  As a reminder, the President will deliver his State of the Union 
Address on Tuesday evening and Senators are asked to be in the Chamber 
beginning at 8:30 that evening. I expect there will be several 
important nominations available for consideration next week.
  In addition, there may be other legislative matters and therefore 
rollcall votes are possible during next week's session. I do not 
anticipate any rollcall votes prior to Wednesday of next week. There 
will be further announcements as scheduling of those votes becomes more 
clear.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The joint resolution having been read the third time, the question 
is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) and the 
Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 69, nays 29, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 28 Leg.]

                                YEAS--69

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

                                NAYS--29

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

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

[[Page 1708]]

countryside foraging in various places. That helps me understand the 
logic of designating the catfish as livestock.
  My friend, Mr. Enzi of Wyoming, said he heard that trout can easily 
die in certain conditions. Trout can easily die. Certainly the same 
could be said about catfish. That could take place with catfish as 
well.
  I often take issue with various farm policies that disproportionately 
benefit large agribusinesses or farms at the expense of small farmers 
and taxpayers or those who compromise American agricultural trade 
commitments. This effort to compensate catfish farmers from a farm 
program intended for livestock stands out. I am certain that catfish 
proponents will offer a dozen different explanations to justify this 
provision. But hogs, poultry, and horse producers are not eligible 
under the livestock compensation program. I wonder why catfish should 
get livestock payments when those worthy animals are excluded, such as 
hogs, poultry, or horses.
  I think it is important for us to recognize that we have now a new 
category of livestock; and that is catfish. Catfish lovers, and I count 
myself as one, all over America will be very grateful to know not only 
are they a tasty treat, but they are eligible for disaster payments so 
that we can keep Americans supplied with catfish under any 
circumstances, drought or no drought.
  Also, in the recent 2002 farm bill, domestic catfish proponents were 
successful, as I mentioned, in banning all catfish imports by requiring 
foreign catfish be labeled as something other than catfish.
  I want to mention a few others and make a couple of comments about 
them.
  Included in the bill are earmarks, among many others, such as 
$200,000 for the Anchorage People Mover in Alaska. Strangely, as I have 
mentioned in the past on numerous occasions, you will find many 
earmarks that are designated for the great state of Alaska; $250,000 
for the Mary Baldwin College in Staunton, VA, for the Center for the 
Exceptionally Gifted. Now, my dear friends, they are exceptionally 
gifted because they have just received $250,000 for the exceptionally 
gifted. Not many colleges around the country are as lucky and 
exceptionally gifted as the young men and women at the Mary Baldwin 
College in Staunton, VA. And $1.5 million for WestStart's Vehicular 
Flywheel Project in the State of Washington.
  One of the unfortunate aspects about an appropriations bill is that 
quite often, or most of the time, there is not an explanation. As I 
remember flywheel projects, it seems to me that was a perpetual motion 
machine. But it is something on which I think we should continue to 
make an effort. So we have decided to gift WestStart's--I don't know 
who WestStart's is. I know they are located in the State of 
Washington--$1.5 million to continue that effort. And $1 million for 
the National Center for the Ecologically Based Noxious Weed Management 
at Montana State University.
  I think families all over America that have noxious weeds in their 
yards would be pleased to know that we are continuing a multimillion-
dollar effort over a many-year period of time at the uniquely qualified 
Montana State University to try to get rid of these noxious weeds, or 
at least manage them, because I don't think they claim to remove 
noxious weeds. It is just a management program.
  There is $600,000 to treat waste on small swine farms in South 
Carolina. I don't know if that means for small animals or small farms; 
that was not designated--perhaps both. It is in South Carolina. Since 
it is only $600,000, we all know it is chicken feed.
  But my favorite--I will get to my favorite--again, strangely enough, 
$100,000 for the Alaska Sea Otter Commission.
  There is $300,000 to the Southern Regional Research Center at New 
Orleans, LA, for termite detection systems, evaluation of wood products 
for protecting building materials, and bait technology.
  Bait technology is something that all of us who love to fish will be 
very interested in hearing about. As we all know, for those of us who 
love to fish, bait technology is an intricate and very difficult 
challenge. So I can certainly see why the Southern Regional Research 
Center in New Orleans, LA, would be qualified.
  There is $200,000 to study seafood waste at the University of Alaska. 
``Seafood waste''--I am not exactly sure what that means, but I am sure 
it is an important study.
  There is $300,000 for the Old Stoney feasibility study in Wyoming. 
Old Stoney, he has been in there before--Old Stoney. And, again, I am 
not sure exactly what Old Stoney is. I think he is a building, but I am 
not sure. And I don't know what the feasibility or nonfeasibility is of 
Old Stoney.
  There is $650,000 for grasshopper and Mormon cricket activities in 
the State of Utah. I don't know exactly what activities the Mormon 
crickets engage in and grasshoppers, but they are going to have 
$650,000 to engage in their activities.
  Finally, because my colleagues are waiting to speak, there is $1 
million for a DNA bear sampling study in Montana. I have to repeat 
that: $1 million for a DNA bear sampling study in Montana.
  Up to this time, in my limited knowledge and experience, I had only 
known that DNA studies were to determine paternity in the commission or 
noncommission of a crime. But perhaps there are other uses. And I am 
not really familiar with a lot of the bears that live up in Montana. 
But this is really quite a remarkable study--a remarkable study--$1 
million.
  And I don't know how many bears there are in Montana, but I wonder if 
probably that amount of money is very significant, because I think it 
would be very hard to hire people who are eager to go out and get a DNA 
sample from a grizzly bear. In fact, I would be very interested in 
knowing the methodology as to how this DNA sampling is obtained from 
these grizzly bears.
  So I wish them all luck up there in Montana. We will eagerly await 
the results of the DNAs of these bears. And any of them that have been 
guilty of the commission of some serious crime, I am certain it will 
help us in identifying them. I do agree that it is very difficult to 
tell one from another. So that is probably why the DNA is warranted 
here, as I am sure the Senator from Alaska would allege and the good 
folks up in Montana who have been plagued with a lack of ability to 
identify the bears according to their DNA now for several generations.
  So I do believe, in a moment of seriousness, we really need to 
scrutinize some of these appropriations items more carefully. They do 
amount to a great deal of money. Again, I see this legislating on 
appropriations continuing, which I think is an unfortunate practice.
  I congratulate the distinguished manager of the bill with the 
efficiency and dispatch in which he handled the legislation today. I 
congratulate him for his hard work in providing much needed funding so 
we can now begin next year's efforts. And I look forward to being able 
to do this 13 times in the coming year rather than just once or twice.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield to the Senator from 
Arizona concerning a sense-of-the-Senate amendment.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, that was a very enlightening speech, but I 
wonder how long the Senator wishes to speak. There are several others 
who want to speak. I understand it is only for 3 minutes; therefore, I 
will not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Amendment No. 57, As Modified

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

[[Page 1709]]

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


                      Amendment No. 6, As Modified

  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I know it is late, but I did want to say 
a few words about Paul and Sheila Wellstone before we left today.
  I am deeply gratified one of the first subjects that brings me to my 
feet in this Chamber is the memory of Paul and Sheila Wellstone.
  I knew them both well. I was their mayor. I campaigned for them. I 
campaigned against them. At times I agreed with them, and at times I 
strongly disagreed with them. It is a

[[Page 1710]]

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

[[Page 1711]]

  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________