[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 2]
[Issue]
[Pages 1622-1748]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[[Page 1622]]
SENATE--Thursday, January 23, 2003
The Senate met at 10 a.m. and was called to order by the President
pro tempore (Mr. Stevens).
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The prayer this morning will be offered by
our guest Chaplain, Father Daniel P. Coughlin, the Chaplain of the
House of Representatives.
______
prayer
The guest Chaplain, Father Daniel P. Coughlin, offered the following
prayer:
Francis of Assisi wrote many years ago to the rulers of his people:
``Keep a clear eye toward life's end. Do not forget your purpose and
destiny as God's creature. What you are in His sight is what you are
and nothing more. Do not let worldly cares and anxieties or the
pressures of office blot out the divine life within you or the voice of
God's Spirit guiding in your great task of leading humanity to
wholeness. If you open yourself to God and His plan printed deeply in
your heart, God will open Himself to you.''
Lord God, may Your grace and presence be with the Members of the
Senate as they fulfill the duties of their office and serve You by
serving the people of these United States. Amen.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The President pro tempore led the Pledge of Allegiance, as follows:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
____________________
SCHEDULE
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, this morning there will be a period for
morning business until the hour of 10:45 a.m. At 10:45 a.m., the Senate
will resume consideration of H.J. Res. 2, the appropriations bill.
Under the order of last night, at 11 a.m., the Senate will proceed to a
series of up to three votes in relation to the pending amendments to
the appropriations measure. The first vote will be in relation to the
Feingold amendment No. 200 regarding expanded international military
education. The second vote will be in relation to the Mikulski
amendment No. 61 on public-private competition. The third vote will be
on the Murray amendment No. 39 regarding the community action program.
Following those votes, the managers will continue to work through any
remaining amendments. It is hoped we will be able to complete action on
this bill at a reasonable time today.
I thank the Democratic leader and whip for their assistance in
reaching short time agreements on the amendments that were offered
yesterday. We made tremendous progress over the last 36 hours. I thank
all Members of this body for their cooperation in coming to the Chamber
to offer their amendments and limiting their remarks. A great deal of
progress was made yesterday, and if we are able to continue that good
work over the course of today, I believe we will finish this bill and
complete these 11 appropriations bills sometime today.
Again, I announce to my colleagues if we complete this bill today,
there will be no session of the Senate on Friday.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, under the direction of the Democratic
leader, we have been able to move a lot of amendments. We also have
about six amendments left on this side at this stage, or maybe a couple
of others may pop up, but that is what we have. The managers of the
bill are going to try to move a bunch of amendments shortly. I think we
have an opportunity to finish this bill some time early this evening.
____________________
ORDER OF PROCEDURE
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time for
morning business be divided, with the Republicans getting the last half
and the Democrats getting the first half.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, leadership time is
reserved.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be a
period for the transaction of morning business, not to extend beyond
the hour of 10:45 a.m., with the time to be equally divided and
Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield for a moment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 1
minute on each side prior to the votes on the three amendments this
morning.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That has already been ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
____________________
QUALIFYING INDIVIDUAL PROGRAM AND THE STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE
Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I wish to use a few
moments of morning business to talk about and describe two amendments I
have proposed to the pending legislation. I hope these are amendments
that can be unanimously agreed to by all Senators. They seem to me to
make eminent sense and, clearly, are in the best interest of our
country and the people we represent.
The first amendment I wish to speak about is amendment No. 138. This
amendment, which Senator Kennedy is cosponsoring with me, would extend
a critical Federal-State program that assists low-income Medicare
beneficiaries to pay the health premiums under the Medicare Program. It
uses the Medicaid Program to do that. It is a program that was enacted
in 1997. It was slated to be reauthorized at the end of 2002, but, of
course, Congress did not enact either Medicaid or Medicare legislation
in the 107th Congress. The program was extended by the continuing
resolutions that we have enacted in the last few months. It was
extended until March 12 of this year.
The amendment I have offered will extend that program through
September 30 of this year to give us additional time to do a more
complete extension.
This program is known as the QI-1 Program. It is the Qualifying
Individual Program. It is a program within Medicaid. It is a block
grant payment to States to pay the Medicare Part B premium of $58.70
per month, and it is a program that will allow States to pay that
premium for individuals who have incomes of somewhere between $887 a
month and $997 a month, or couples with an income of $1,194 a month up
to $1,344 a month. This covers Medicare beneficiaries whose income is
between 120 and 135 percent of the Federal poverty level.
This amounts to a benefit of nearly $700 annually that many older and
disabled Americans depend upon to pay for a portion of their health
care costs
[[Page 1623]]
and items such as prescription drugs and supplemental coverage. There
are well over 120,000 people nationwide who currently rely on the QI-1
Program. These 120,000 people will be hard pressed to afford Medicare
coverage without this assistance.
In short, to prevent the erosion of existing low-income protections,
Congress needs to extend this 5-year Federal allocation for the QI-1
Program through the remainder of this fiscal year.
According to the data of the Kaiser Family Foundation, there are over
9 million Medicare beneficiaries with incomes between 100 percent of
poverty and 175 percent of poverty. Although we do not know the exact
number eligible for this particular program of Medicare beneficiaries
who are between 120 and 135 percent of poverty, we can estimate there
are at least 1 million who are eligible for the program. As I have
indicated, there are 120,000 people currently enrolled.
In my home State, for example, we have almost 1,000 New Mexicans
enrolled in the QI-1 Program. Disenrolling these low-income Medicare
beneficiaries would cost each and every one of them about $700
annually. This could have a significant impact not only on their
finances but on their health.
In a letter from the Medicare Rights Center, they give an example of
a 69-year-old widow with severe arthritis, with hypertension, with high
cholesterol, in the Nation's Capital. This woman, I refer to as Mrs. B,
does not qualify for Medicaid, yet she cannot afford premiums for a
Medicare HMO or Medigap plan. This QI-1 Program, which we are seeking
in this amendment to extend, does cover her Part B premium of over $700
per year. If she loses that assistance, she does not know how she can
make ends meet. She already struggles to buy food, make the Medicare
copayment, and purchase prescription drugs.
This is a bipartisan issue. President Bush had included QI-1
reauthorization in his fiscal year 2003 budget. Moreover, in his
confirmation testimony to be the Commissioner of the FDA, Mark
McClellan testified that the administration continues to support
reauthorization of this program. In addition, QI-1 reauthorization was
also included as part of S. 3018, the Beneficiary Access to Care and
Medicare Equity Act of 2002, which was introduced by my colleagues,
Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley, late last year.
During each and every Senate race this past fall, candidates from
both sides of the aisle promised our Nation's seniors and disabled
Medicare beneficiaries improved health coverage with the addition of
prescription drug coverage. While waiting for that to come about, low-
income Medicare beneficiaries should not be blindsided by the loss of
critically needed premium protection that the QI-1 Program provides.
I urge passage of this amendment, when we get to it, for another 6\1/
2\ months. I implore my colleagues to address the issue and to
permanently extend the program once that issue becomes appropriate to
consider.
Mr. President, another amendment I have filed, amendment No. 126, is
an amendment to provide permanent authority to operate the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is the major tool
the United States has to deal with the impact of a significant
disruption in oil supplies. Releasing oil from the SPR, as it is
referred to, in coordination with stock drawdowns with other consuming
nations pursuant to the international energy agreement, can add more
supply to a tight market, can reduce the possibility of price spikes,
and reduce the possibility of economic havoc as the United States
experienced during the Arab oil embargo.
We are currently experiencing a disruption in oil supplies from
Venezuela. We face the possibility of an additional disruption if we
wind up going to war with Iraq and during the aftermath of any conflict
in Iraq. In this context, it should be of concern to all Senators that
the current authority to draw down oil from the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve and to participate in the international energy agreement will
expire on September 30 of this year.
My amendment incorporates the exact language we agreed to last fall
between House and Senate conferees on H.R. 4, the comprehensive energy
bill. The amendment permanently authorizes the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve. It also requires filling the Reserve to 700 million or its
current capacity.
While I prefer to move this legislation through the Energy Committee,
I cannot guarantee we would complete our work and get this legislation
to the President before September 30. Therefore, I believe the prudent
thing for the Senate to do is to add this language to the omnibus
appropriations bill and deal with this matter now.
Again, I see this as a bipartisan issue, one that the administration
supports, one that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle support. I
hope very much this amendment, as well, can be added to the bill
without objection by any Senator.
I yield the floor and 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. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
FAMINE RELIEF FOR AFRICA
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I take a couple of moments to
inform the Senate what I will be doing later. Yesterday, this freshman
Senator from Florida brought forth an amendment that was a $600 million
emergency famine starvation relief amendment for sub-saharan Africa.
There was a good bit of drama that occurred in the well, because the
vote was so razor thin in difference. The final vote on a motion to
table my amendment was agreed to 48 to 46. One vote change would have
had the vote 47 to 47, and the motion to table my amendment would have
failed, which would have given me the opportunity to go on and try to
pass the amendment.
I have spoken to the substance, the reason for this amendment. There
is not a person in the Senate who has not seen sights of those children
with the spindly legs, the distended bellies, the thatched hair, and
the soulful eyes. A lot of it is caused by the lack of rain. This has
gone in cycles.
In 1985, I had the privilege of assisting my wife who had put
together the first private group, other than the NGO organizations,
responding to the famine in Ethiopia. My wife had raised the money in
Florida. I was then a Member of the House of Representatives and had
arranged for this stretch DC8 airplane. We rode the sacks of food into
Addis Ababa and went into the feeding camps to see that food was
distributed. Of course, when you see those starving children, and when
my wife had the experience of holding a near lifeless African child in
her arms, realizing in only a matter of moments that child would
expire, it makes an impression. When famine comes back to that part of
the land some 17 years later, it is hard to sit still.
Although my amendment was defeated yesterday by the razor-thin margin
of one vote, I am not going to sit still. I am going to offer that
amendment again and, fortunately, am in a parliamentary procedure by
which I can do so because a very similar amendment to the one that was
defeated yesterday had been filed by me.
For those Senators on the other side of the aisle--and there were
four or five yesterday--who have been deeply touched by personal
experiences in Africa, having seen that famine and the ravages of it on
human beings, for those five or six on the other side of the aisle, and
a score more who wanted to vote for that amendment, first, I thank you
profoundly for your votes. You know, each one of you, who you are. And
second, I want to say that we are going to have another chance. We are
going to have another chance this afternoon.
I ask Senators to examine their hearts and see if they don't think
that this is the right thing to do.
[[Page 1624]]
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
____________________
UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUEST
Mr. REID. Mr. President, to help move things along and to notify
Democrats as to whose amendment would come, I ask unanimous consent
that the Democratic amendments--and Senator Stevens may want to
intersperse these with Republican amendments, and that is his
privilege, but I ask unanimous consent that the next Democrat amendment
be that of Senator Kennedy, No. 123; Senator Clinton, No. 89; Senator
Bingaman, Nos. 126 and 138, and Senator Cantwell, No. 108.
Mr. President, I also would say on each of these our members have
agreed to time. But until the majority has seen the amendments, I am
not going to ask time limits be established, even though we have
established what our people have asked for in the way of time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from Wyoming?
Mr. THOMAS. I think probably there is no disagreement but at this
time there needs to be some more agreement from our leader, so I object
for the moment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, how much time do the Democrats have left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes forty seconds.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, all we are trying to do is move things
along. We have a right to have our amendments in the order we want. If
we want to move this bill along, as the two leaders want, we cannot
have these foolish--I know someone told the Senator to object. I am not
calling the Senator foolish--these foolish objections. I know there is
nothing that can be done because there is an objection that has been
raised, but it is too bad.
Democratic Senators should be aware this is the order we are going to
offer amendments.
Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. REID. I am happy to yield.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, have these
priorities been established already and agreed to with Mr. Stevens?
Mr. REID. Yes, I have talked to Senator Stevens. I talked to him this
morning in the presence of the majority leader.
Mr. BYRD. What the distinguished whip is trying to do is simply to
lay the prioritization in the Record, so Senators will not have to wait
around; they will know when their amendments are going to be called up?
Mr. REID. Absolutely right. We have a number of Senators who have
been waiting since yesterday or the day before to offer amendments.
This is done so they are not standing around here waiting, so there is
some kind of order in the Chamber rather than people trying to get
recognized.
Mr. BYRD. Perhaps, when Senator Stevens is back on the floor, you can
get that consent. I would hope so.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
The Senator from Wyoming.
____________________
PUBLIC-PRIVATE COMPETITION
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we would like to take the remainder of the
time that has been assigned to this side of the aisle to talk about an
amendment that would be before us this morning, the Mikulski amendment,
which has been proposed as an amendment to the bill. It has to do with
the implementation of the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act, the
FAIR Act, which was passed in 1998. It basically requires all Federal
agencies to itemize jobs that are classified as noninherently
governmental in nature, so there will be an opportunity for competition
for those kinds of activities that the private sector, in the cases
where it is appropriate, can be a competitor and can, indeed, do
generally more efficiently than having it continue, as it has, with no
competition.
In 2001 the FAIR Act inventory noted over 840,000 Federal jobs that
are noninherently governmental. Those are jobs that could be done by
contract, that could well be done by contract. There should be
opportunity for that competition to exist.
The goal, of course, of the FAIR Act is to spend taxpayers' money as
efficiently as possible, to ensure the Federal Government is not
without competition with the private sector.
I think most of us would like to have as much done in the private
sector as we reasonably can do. This, obviously, is not all the things
Government does. There are inherently governmental programs, and they
will continue to be that. The goal of the FAIR Act is to spend the
taxpayers' money as efficiently as possible to ensure the Federal
Government does not compete with the private sector. Wherever that can
be, whether it is in contracting, whether it is the kinds of things
that could be better done in the private sector, that is what we are
seeking to do.
President Bush's Competitive Sourcing Initiative asked the Federal
agencies to conduct private sector competitions in up to 15 percent of
the jobs listed in the FAIR Act inventory. Of course, that is exactly
what needs to be done, to identify these roles and then to have an
opportunity to put them into the private sector and let the Government
compete with the private sector and do it that way. It is a pretty
basic sort of philosophy and something which I think most people would
agree to do.
The amendment that has been put forth was to not allow the
administration to move forward with their plans. I will later offer a
copy of a letter that the President has sent through his
administration, saying that they are opposed to this idea, that they
want to move forward.
The fact is, during the Clinton administration, after the 1998
passage of the FAIR Act, there was very little done to implement it.
Now we have an administration that believes they ought to implement the
law as it exists, and we want to move forward in doing that.
That is what this is all about. We will be voting on that amendment
later today. It has been before the Senate several times. It has failed
before. Hopefully, it will fail again. In fact, it was put on the
appropriations bill for the Treasury Department last year and then
taken off before it became part of this bill. So there has been a
strong feeling about that, and that is what we want to pursue.
I yield the Senator from Virginia 5 minutes to comment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming, Mr.
Thomas, for his leadership. I will not repeat his eloquent explanation
of the FAIR Act. I am rising with him, and hopefully with a majority of
our colleagues, in opposition to Senator Mikulski's amendment which
would prohibit the administration from applying and enforcing efforts
to get the private sector involved where it is appropriate in various
governmental services.
This amendment would weaken the executive branch's ability to manage
the Federal Government. It would impede improvement of many of the
Government's significant commercial activities and prevent the
outsourcing of inherently nongovernmental jobs to the private sector.
It really would be one of anti-efficiency.
I think the Bush management plan has a relatively modest goal of
injecting some competition to the commercial activities performed by
the Government. I believe we ought to be encouraging, not impeding,
public-private competition reviews. Clearly, the President ought to
have the flexibility to best execute governmental functions and to
enforce important management objectives and goals, specifically in the
area of competitive sourcing.
The fact that they look at potentially competitive areas each year
doesn't mean that these jobs will go to the private sector. It only
means that there will be an analysis. It may be that the Government
functions at less cost and with better service and efficiency than the
private sector.
They also realize even if the Government continues to perform a
service or function that there are better ways of
[[Page 1625]]
doing it. We will need to be looking at ways of improving, of
innovating, of adapting and not just keep doing things the same old
way.
This amendment is opposed by large and small business enterprises all
across the country. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is opposed to this,
whose letter I will submit along with my statement.
For example, they state the time is now to create a more efficient
and effective partnership between the public and private sectors and
not to enact restrictive policies that limit funding, flexibility, and
the decisionmaking process.
We also have received letters from the Professional Services Council
which represents 140 different businesses--the CADI, Northrup-Grumman,
Lockheed, Quest, and many others. They point to what we all recognize
as the truth. Competition is the greatest and the best guarantor of
optimal performance and efficiency, and the Government's increasing
reliance on competition has proven essential to achieving both
meaningful savings and significant performance improvements.
Also, the Northern Virginia Technology Council that represents 1,600
member companies with 180,000 employees in Northern Virginia, is
opposed to this.
The Information Technology Association of America, which represents
400 corporate technology companies, is opposed to it.
In addition, there is a coalition on outsourcing and privatization
made up of small, minority, and women-owned businesses, national
security organizations, experts in technology, community, and taxpayer
groups that says do not be fooled by the hype and that urges Congress
to hold the executive branch responsible for the highest possible level
of performance and efficiency without placing procedural obstacles in
the way of achieving that goal.
The Contract Services Association also points out that many of their
members oppose this. Many of their members are small businesses,
including eight A-certified companies, small, disadvantaged businesses,
and Native American-owned firms. The goal of their Contract Services
Association is to put the private sector to work for the public good. I
ask unanimous consent that all of these letters be submitted as part of
my statement.
Perhaps as important as all of these job opportunities is the
recognition right now that this could have not only negative economic
ramifications, but that it could impact national security as well.
Indeed, at a time when our Nation is at war, the Federal Government
must have the flexibility to contract out for services.
For example, look at the Departments of Defense and Homeland
Security. What is going to be most useful for the Department of
Homeland Security is not where all these boxes are located and who is
moved from one place to the other, but the adaptation and the
utilization of enterprise systems that will allow them to analyze
volumes of information, analyze it accurately, and share it within the
institution and also with others.
Furthermore, such contracting creates more private sector jobs and
allows federal agencies to focus on their core missions, instead of
concentrating on commercial activities.
I think at this point we need to be working for the taxpayers. We
need to be increasing security. And we should be embracing advancements
in technology and have the private sector help where they can help.
Therefore, I suggest that no member of this body should support
legislation that increases the cost of government for taxpayers while
limiting the government's ability to respond to the changing economic
and security needs of the American people.
I ask unanimous consent that the letters to which I referred be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
Washington, DC, January 21, 2003.
To Members of the U.S. Senate: The U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, the world's largest business federation,
representing more than three million businesses and
organizations of every size, sector and region, offers our
strong support of H.J. Res. 2--the Fiscal Year 2003 Omnibus
Appropriations bill. Passage of this measure is critical for
continuity of existing domestic spending programs and
initiation of funding for new programs for Homeland Security.
The U.S. Chamber and the business community applaud the
Senate's resolve to wrap up the Fiscal Year 2003 spending
bills prior to the upcoming Appropriations Committee's
important work on the Fiscal Year 2004 appropriations
measures. While separate passage of the 11 remaining
individual Fiscal Year 2003 spending bills would be
preferable, we support the Senate's determination in creating
and moving this $385.9 billion spending package during this
compressed time frame. We are troubled that passage of this
important appropriations measure could be jeopardized by the
addition of several onerous policy riders to this package.
The Chamber strongly opposes any efforts to stall needed
reform of the new source review (NSR) program. The amendment
offered by Senator John Edwards (D-NC) would effectively
prohibit the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from
expending funds to implement recently promulgated changes to
the NSR program. This amendment would derail much needed NSR
reforms at a time when the courts are reviewing the
regulations.
The Edwards NSR amendment would disrupt the Clean Air Act
permitting process, and stifle economic activity during an
economic downturn by making the maintenance and expansion of
existing industrial facilities and power plants almost
impossible. The new regulations have restored some certainty
to the troubled NSR process. Congress should not interfere in
the regulatory efforts of two administrations in this way.
In addition, we specifically urge you to oppose an
amendment offered by Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) that
would prohibit the expenditure of funds by executive agencies
to establish, apply or enforce any numerical goals, targets
or quotas for public-private competitions of commercial
functions with Federal agencies. Such language would
legislatively weaken any President's authority to manage the
Federal government and effect real saving and fundamental
improvements. It is directly counter to efforts by the Bush
Administration to increase government efficiency through
competition between the public and private sectors. It would
limit the President's ability to establish goals for
outsourcing, and other procurement and acquisition workforce
initiatives. Such a prohibition could significantly limit
private sector involvement and discourage competition, which
has proven to reap significant cost savings and performance
enhancements regardless of who wins. The time is now to
create more efficient and effective partnerships between the
public and private sector, not to enact restrictive policies
that limit funding or flexibility in the sourcing decision-
making process.
We also ask you to oppose an amendment sponsored by Senator
Mark Dayton that would deny new contracts to subsidiaries of
a publicly traded corporation if the corporation is
incorporated in certain tax-advantaged foreign countries. By
imposing these bans on contracting with domestic subsidiary
corporations, Congress is seeking to discourage corporate
``inversions,'' i.e., corporate flight from U.S. tax domicile
in order to achieve tax parity with foreign competitors. We
believe Congress should be asking why our tax system is
causing corporate flight increasingly to occur.
Corporations should be free to incorporate where they
choose, without the Federal government imposing economic
penalties upon their free exercise of prudent business
decision-making, and that the U.S. Congress certainly should
not favor foreign firms over U.S. firms in the tax code.
These contract bans are a poor substitute for needed reform
of the U.S. tax code's archaic international provisions which
currently put our corporations at a competitive disadvantage
internationally and provide great incentive for them to leave
this country. We believe that the proper response should be
the undertaking of serious and overdue tax reform, such as
conversion of the U.S. tax system to one based on
territoriality, to active parity.
We also urge you to oppose the amendment offered by Senator
Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) pertaining
to cash balance plans. Cash balance plans have become popular
among both employers and employees. Because they are a
relatively new ``hybrid'' type of plan, until last month,
Treasury had not provided clear guidance to plan sponsors
about how such plans should be designed. On December 10,
2002, after more than three years of study by an interagency
task force, the Treasury Department issued proposed cash
balance plan regulations.
The Harkin/Feingold amendment would prohibit the Treasury
Department from finalizing or enforcing this rule. The
proposed regulation clarifies how cash balance plans must be
designed in order to satisfy existing laws pertaining to age
discrimination and pension accruals. While the Chamber has
concerns about certain parts of the regulations, which we
will be conveying in comments to the Treasury Department, we
do
[[Page 1626]]
not believe the appropriations process is the proper place
for enforcing pension laws and regulations.
We urge your swift consideration of the Fiscal Year 2003
Omnibus spending measure. In addition we strongly support the
concept that spending restraint is a critical component to
encouraging economic growth and long-term prosperity. Because
of the importance of fully funding our domestic spending
priorities, the U.S. Chamber may include votes on or in
relation to these issues in our annual How They Voted Ratings
for 2003.
Sincerely,
R. Bruce Josten,
Executive Vice President, Government Affairs.
____
Professional Services Council,
Arlington, VA, January 8, 2003.
Hon. Ted Stevens,
Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Stevens: I write on behalf on the 140 member
companies of the Professional Services Council (PSC), the
leading national trade association representing the Federal,
professional and technical services industry. PSC's companies
provide services including information technology, research
and development, and high-end consulting to every government
agency, and represent a significant portion of the
government's technology industrial base.
As the Senate considers the remaining FY 2003
appropriations bills, I urge you to remove Section 640 of the
Fiscal Year 2003 Treasury Appropriations bill, or any related
provision that prohibits the expenditure of funds by
executive agencies to establish, apply or enforce any
numerical goals, targets or quotas for public-private
competitions for commercial functions within agencies.
While Congress should hold the Executive Branch responsible
for the highest levels of performance and efficiency, it
should not place obstacles in the way of achieving that goal.
Section 640 prohibits the President from establishing and
enforcing important management objectives and goals,
specifically in the area of competitive sourcing, which is
one key element of his management agenda. It is an
inappropriate constraint on executive branch management and
on the President's flexibility to best execute governmental
functions. Competition is the best guarantor of optimal
performance and efficiency, and the government's increasing
reliance on competition has proven essential to achieving
both meaningful savings and significant performance
improvements.
Again, on behalf of the member companies of the PSC, and
the hundreds of thousands of working Americans who provide
support to our government every day, I urge you to remove
Section 640 of the Fiscal Year 2003 Treasury Appropriations
bill.
Sincerely,
Stan Z. Soloway,
President.
____
Northern Virginia
Technology Council,
Herndon, VA, January 23, 2003.
Hon. George Allen,
U.S. Senator,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Allen: On behalf of the more than 1,600 member
companies of the Northern Virginia Technology Council (NVTC),
I urge you to oppose an amendment offered by Senator Barbara
Mikulski that would prohibit the expenditure of funds by
executive agencies to establish, apply or enforce any
numerical goals or targets for public-private competition of
commercial functions within federal agencies.
During floor action on the FY 2003 Omnibus Appropriations
bill, Senator Mikulski intends to offer an amendment (#61)
which would prevent President Bush from setting any goals for
federal agencies as a way to save taxpayer dollars and make
the government more efficient. It is directly counter to
efforts by the Bush Administration to increase government
efficiency through competition between the public and private
sectors. This amendment would significantly limit private
sector involvement and discourage competition vital to the
technology community.
I am concerned that this amendment hinders the flexibility
of the President to efficiently manage the Federal
government. By prohibiting the President from establishing
and enforcing important management goals, specifically in the
area of competitive sourcing, this amendment inappropriately
hinders private-public competition. Competition creates the
best environment for optimal performance and efficiency. The
government's increasing reliance on competition has proven
beneficial to taxpayers, private industry and the overall
economy.
Again, on behalf of the more than 1,600 member companies
representing over 180,000 employees in Northern Virginia that
heavily rely on federal procurement contracts, I urge you to
oppose the Mikulski amendment. Our membership includes
companies from all sectors of the technology industry
including information technology, software, Internet, ISPs,
ASPs, telecommunications, bioscience, and aerospace, as well
as the service providers that provide vital support and
services to the Federal government.
Sincerely,
Bobbie Kilberg,
President.
____
Contract Services
Association of America,
Arlington, VA, January 23, 2003.
Hon. George Allen,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Allen: On behalf of the members of the Contract
Services Association of America (CSA), I urge you to vote
against an amendment offered by Senator Barbara Mikulski.
This provision would prohibit the expenditures of funds by
executive agencies to establish, apply or enforce any
numerical goals, targets or quotas for public-private
competitions for commercial functions within agencies.
I am concerned, however, that the amendment hinders the
flexibility of the President to efficiently manage the
Federal government. One long-established management tool,
used by all Presidents, is to set goals--whether it is for
outsourcing targets within the Department of Defense (as
established by the Clinton Administration), goals for
performance-based services contracting or even small business
contracting goals. Indeed, the amendment is directly counter
to efforts by the Bush Administration aimed at increasing
government efficiency through competition between the public
and private sectors.
CSA is the premier industry representative for private
sector companies that provide a wide array of services to
Federal, state, and local governments. CSA members are
involved in everything from maintenance contracts at military
bases and within civilian agencies to high technology
services, such as scientific research and engineering
studies. Many of our members are small businesses, including
8(a)-certified companies, small disadvantaged businesses, and
Native American owned firms. The goal of CSA is to put the
private sector to work for the public good.
Again, I urge you to vote against the Mikulski amendment.
Sincerely,
Gary Engebreison,
President.
____
Information Technology
Association of America,
January 23, 2003.
Hon. George Allen,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Allen: On behalf of the Information Technology
Association of America, we urge you to oppose an amendment
that Senator Barbara Mikulski will be offering today during
floor consideration of the Omnibus Appropriations bill. ITAA
appreciates your leadership in raising the IT industry's
concerns on this restrictive amendment.
As you know, this amendment would prohibit agencies from
using appropriated funds to establish, apply or enforce any
numerical goals aimed at conducting public-private
competitions for commercial functions within Federal
agencies. President Bush and his Administration would be
hampered in their efforts to promote competition and to
manage the Federal government. All future Administrations
would also face these restrictions. The Mikulski Amendment
would also undermine the intent of the new revisions to the
OMB Circular A-76, which were recently issued by the Office
of Federal Procurement Policy.
The Information Technology Association of America consists
of over 400 corporate members throughout the United States,
and a global network of 49 countries' IT associations. ITAA
members range from the smallest IT start-ups to the industry
leaders in the Internet, software, IT services, ASP, digital
content, systems integration, and telecommunications services
sectors.
Again, we urge you to vote ``No'' on this amendment and
thank you for your leadership in opposing this restrictive
amendment.
Sincerely,
Harris N. Miller,
President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia who
certainly touched on the issues involved.
I yield to my friend and colleague, the Senator from Wyoming.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the
amendment that was offered by my colleague, the Senator from Maryland.
This amendment would prohibit the administration from applying or
enforcing any numerical goals for competitive sourcing within agencies,
or converting Federal employees doing this work to private sector
contractors. This provision would prevent this President and all future
Presidents from managing Federal agencies for increased cost-
effectiveness and quality.
I want to emphasize that again.
[[Page 1627]]
It would prevent this President and all future Presidents from
managing Federal agencies for increased cost-effectiveness and quality.
That is what we are trying to do. It is good for Government. Congress
passed the first step, which was the Federal Activities Inventory
Reform Act--the FAIR Act--in 1998. That was the bill that was drafted
and sponsored and put through the process by my colleague from Wyoming,
Senator Thomas. It requires all Federal agencies to itemize jobs
classified as noninherently governmental in nature. These are positions
which potentially could be from the private sector, lessening the size
of the Federal Government, and creating more opportunities for our
economy through private business.
This is a tremendous step we have taken. It is one that recognizes we
pay Government with taxes to operate, and we provide buildings and
space for them--and a lot of other things that are kind of hidden
costs. We have said the hidden costs ought to be counted in all of
this. There ought to be competition with the private sector in all
areas where it is traditionally done.
It seems to me like a pretty basic concept. President Bush's
Competitive Sourcing Initiative requires Federal agencies to conduct
public-private competition on 15 percent of the jobs listed on the FAIR
Act inventory--that is, 840,000 jobs in 2001. That is to conduct
public-private competition on just 15 percent of these 840,000 jobs
that were listed in the inventory as being noninherently governmental
in nature.
This amendment would prevent the President from setting and enforcing
this reasonable goal. If this amendment passes, one of the losers will
be the small business community.
I host an annual procurement conference in Wyoming to encourage small
businesses to seek Federal procurement opportunities. Small businesses,
services, and products is one of the treasures we will leave in the
ground if this amendment is agreed to. We have a tremendous resource--
the small businesses out there--that can provide services in a very
competitive way. We need to make sure they have that opportunity.
I was visiting one Federal agency where they were talking about how
they were going to check on bills that were coming in for Medicare.
They were building their own program to do that. The interesting thing
is the private sector already had programs that would do thousands more
procedures than they were able to program in their first year of
programming. Their agency wasn't designed to program it. But they tried
doing it from the ground up.
I see that in agency after agency. When I take a look at this
Government Performance Results Program, that is another thing that we
put on agencies. They are supposed to tell us what they are doing, how
we will know when they get it done, and how that relates to the budget.
Congress needs to enforce that a little bit more to make sure it is
happening because it gives us tremendous insight into all of the
agencies and what their job is and the ways they are infringing on the
private sector at greater expense than what the private sector would
have. It is also resulting in some greater efficiencies in Government.
A couple of weeks ago, I visited the mint in Philadelphia. Those
people are aware of this particular amendment. They are working like
crazy to make sure they are the most competitive agency for being able
to perform that work, and I am certain that they will. It is that kind
of spirit of American competitiveness that they have at that Government
agency. They do outstanding work there. I am sure, as a result, that is
the way they will continue to handle it.
But it is an awareness that agencies have to have. President Bush's
initiative encourages Federal agencies to allow private industry--
including small business--to compete for jobs. Everybody wins because
Federal agencies can concentrate on their real goals and private
industry is encouraged at the same time.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment, allow the
administration to manage Federal agencies, and give small businesses a
chance.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Senator for his comments. Certainly, his
interest in small business activities is reflected in his comments on
this bill.
I think there are a number of reasons why we should oppose this
amendment. The administration opposes such limitations on the
management agenda. I think all of us in the Government need to push the
idea of having some vision as to where we are going and look beyond
next week but to look to the future as to what we want to do with a
number of activities that could well be in the competitive arena and to
make some plans to get those out there.
That is basically what the administration is seeking to do. Senior
advisers to the President are recommending that he veto any legislation
that challenges this management agenda. Certainly we do not want that
to happen.
Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes ten seconds remain.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my friend from
Kansas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Wyoming for
recognizing me.
I rise in opposition to the Mikulski amendment to this omnibus
appropriations bill. Succinctly put, we held a hearing 4 or 5 years ago
on this very particular point. Much of it has been covered in the
discussion and the debate so far, but if we want to have an efficient
Government, we need to allow the private sector to compete.
What we need to do as well is make sure this 47-year-old Federal
policy--which states ``the government should not be involved in
commercial activities''--is complied with and is enforced.
The goal of the FAIR Act was to eliminate the Government's direct
competition with the private sector while at the same time providing a
better utilization of taxpayer dollars. This is going both ways: So we
do not have direct competition with the private sector, which we should
not do, which is against Federal law for us to do, and at the same time
provide a better utilization of taxpayer dollars so we concentrate the
Government workers in areas where only the Government can do the work.
This seems to me to be good management and good objectives.
In 2001, the FAIR Act inventory noted that over 840,000 Federal jobs
were noninherently governmental. President Bush's Competitive Sourcing
Initiative requires Federal agencies to conduct public-private
competition on 15 percent of the jobs listed on the FAIR Act inventory.
This seems to be minimal at best.
The Mikulski amendment prohibits the President from establishing or
enforcing goals for competitive sourcing. This is not the direction in
which we should go. In addition, it would severely impede our ability
to manage the Federal Government. We need that management flexibility
at this time. Where we have budget deficits that are rising, we need to
get those down and to use every tool we have at our disposal to be able
to keep those budget deficits down as efficiently and effectively as we
possibly can.
This amendment would prevent improving the performance of the
Government's many commercial activities. We certainly do not need to do
that. The amendment goes against the congressionally mandated findings
of the Commercial Activities Panel which unanimously adopted the
principle of competition.
Competition has been good in this country. It is the basis for what
our economy is--so that things can grow based on competition.
For those reasons, I will oppose the Senator's amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used his time.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I yield the floor.
Mr. THOMAS. Our time has expired, Mr. President. I thank the Chair
for the opportunity to express these views. I urge that Members vote
against this
[[Page 1628]]
amendment when it comes before the Senate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has yielded back his time.
Mr. THOMAS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Morning business is closed.
____________________
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.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
be in a period of morning business and Senators be permitted to speak
for up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
IN HONOR OF CAPTAIN KEVIN BAKKE
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to honor a
great American and a valued public servant. Captain Kevin Bakke of the
South Dakota Highway Patrol has served the people of South Dakota for
more than 27 years. In his most recent capacity as the District One
Commander in my hometown of Aberdeen, he oversaw all the law
enforcement functions of the highway patrol for the northeastern region
of South Dakota. His affable style of leadership is respected and well-
liked by all those who know him.
During his 27 years as a law enforcement officer, Captain Bakke has
served in various posts throughout the State of South Dakota. His
talents were widely recognized by his peers and colleagues alike.
Kevin Bakke began his law enforcement career in 1975 as a trooper in
Rapid City, was promoted to squad sergeant in Huron, and then to
lieutenant in Aberdeen. Most recently, he has served capably as one of
four captains in the South Dakota Highway Patrol.
Captain Bakke's absence will leave a void in the highway patrol, as
many will miss his quick smile and skillful leadership. The citizens of
South Dakota have been in good hands under Captain Bakke's protection.
As he retires from the South Dakota Highway Patrol, I want to commend
him for his extraordinary service to the people of our State, and to
wish him the best in his new endeavors with the Transportation Security
Administration.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTHY HOUSING'S 10TH ANNIVERSARY
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the National
Center for Healthy Housing as it celebrates its 10th year of protecting
children from residential environmental hazards while preserving the
supply of affordable housing.
The National Center for Healthy Housing was founded in 1992 as the
National Center for Lead-Safe Housing to address the No. 1
environmental health problem facing our Nation's children, childhood
lead poisoning, and the threat that lead paint posed to the
preservation of our Nation's affordable housing stock. Since its
inception, the center has become our country's preeminent source of
technical and practical information on reducing the threat of lead
paint hazards in housing. The center was responsible for publishing the
first comprehensive technical guidelines for evaluating and controlling
lead paint hazards in housing, which are still being used today. The
center conducted a scientific evaluation of 14 projects funded by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development, (HUD), Lead-Based Paint
Hazard Control Grant program. The evaluation yielded important
information about the effectiveness of lead hazard control treatments
and the results continue to inform national lead poisoning prevention
policy. The center also published a groundbreaking scientific study on
the relationship between settled lead dust levels and blood lead levels
in children. It was this study that highlighted the insidious nature of
the hazardous dust generated from lead-based paint.
Despite its many research accomplishments, the center is perhaps best
known for its unique ability to translate scientific research and
Government regulations into results. When HUD published its final lead-
safe housing regulation 2 years ago, communities expressed concern
about the lack of trained personnel to carry out the rule's
requirements. In response, the center administered training to over
14,000 individuals across the country, enabling them to perform the
lead-related services required by the rule. When local housing programs
expressed a need to better understand the rule's requirements and how
to incorporate them into the Community Development Block Grant and HOME
programs, the center provided training to over 2,000 housing program
staff in over 40 communities.
Today, as the National Center for Healthy Housing, the center
continues its commitment to childhood lead poisoning prevention and is
expanding its expertise to other environmental hazards in the home such
as mold, allergens, and other irritants.
As we celebrate the center's 10th anniversary, I would also like to
pay tribute to its founding director, Nick Farr. Mr. Farr retired last
October after a long and distinguished career in both the public and
private sectors. Much of his professional experience was in the areas
of housing finance, housing and urban development, and housing-based
lead poisoning prevention. A graduate of Yale Law School, Mr. Farr
spent the 1950s and early 1960s in private practice. In 1962, Mr. Farr
joined the Agency for International Development at the U.S. Department
of State as Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Near East and South
Asia economic assistance programs. Five years later, President Lyndon
Johnson appointed him Director of the Model Cities Administration at
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. In the 1970s, Mr.
Farr was a New York University law professor before joining the U.S.
Department of Commerce as General Counsel to the Economic Development
Administration in 1977. In 1979, Mr. Farr was appointed General Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development at the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development. Then in the 1980s, Mr.
Farr was Executive Director of the California Housing Finance Agency,
Executive Vice President of the Wells Fargo Mortgage Company in
California, and Vice President for Field Services at The Enterprise
Foundation. During his tenure with The Enterprise Foundation, Mr. Farr
served on the board of directors of a nonprofit housing developer based
in Baltimore that focused on creating affordable, lead-safe housing
units. As a result of his service on this board and his accumulated
professional experience, in 1992, Mr. Farr conceived of, and created,
the National Center for Lead-Safe Housing. As the founding director of
the center, Mr. Farr helped spearhead a variety of public and private
initiatives to protect our Nation's children from residential lead
hazard exposures.
I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Nick Farr's legacy and the
profound impact that the National Center for Healthy Housing has had
and continues to have on the creation and maintenance of safer and
healthier affordable housing for low-income families across our Nation.
____________________
ON LIBYA'S CHAIRMANSHIP OF THE U.N. HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the selection
of Libya this week to head the U.N. Human Rights Commission. Libya's
taking the helm of the U.N. Human Rights Commission makes a mockery of
that institution and deprives the U.N. and the world at large of
credible leadership from that position at a critical time.
It is a well established fact that Libya's totalitarian regime under
Muammar al-Qadhafi has had an abysmal human rights record and has been
a leading state sponsor of terrorism. The most widely publicized
incident was the 1988 bombing of Pan American Airways flight 103 that
resulted in 270 deaths. The Iran Libya Sanctions Act, ILSA, was
extended until August 2006
[[Page 1712]]
due to such support for terrorism, attempts to acquire weapons of mass
destruction, and belligerency over territorial claims. I was proud to
author the ILSA extension in the last Congress.
The Libyan government must improve its standing in the international
community by ceasing support to terrorists and moving towards a more
democratic system. Under current circumstances, however, this
chairmanship will be sadly devoid of leadership by example. Libya's
ascendancy to the chairmanship of the Commission has dealt an appalling
blow to the cause of human rights and to the credibility of that U.N.
body.
Last week my great friend and colleague, Chuck Schumer, the senior
Senator from New York, urged Secretary Powell to do all that he could
to prevent this travesty.
I ask unanimous consent to have this letter from Senator Schumer and
me printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, January 16, 2003.
Hon. Colin L. Powell,
Secretary of State,
Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Powell: We were greatly troubled to learn
that Libya has been nominated by the African delegation to
lead the U.N. Human Rights Commission and stands to
potentially assume that key leadership role in a vote at the
UN on Monday, January 20. We share the opinion of our
respected colleague from the House International Relations
Committee that Libya's ascendancy to that position would deal
a significant blow to the cause of human rights.
Libya, under Muammar al-Qadhafi, has an abysmal human
rights record and has been a leading state sponsor of
terrorism. The most widely publicized incident was the 1988
bombing of Pan American Airways flight 103 that resulted in
270 deaths. As you are well aware, the Iran Libya Sanctions
Act (ILSA) was extended until August 2006 due to such support
for terrorism, attempts to acquire weapons of mass
destruction, and belligerency over territorial claims.
We hope that the Libyan government will improve its
standing in the international community by ceasing support to
terrorists and moving towards a more democratic system. Under
current circumstances, however, Libya's taking the helm of
the UN Human Rights Commission would make a mockery of that
institution and deprive the UN and the world at large of
credible leadership on human rights at a critical time.
We believe that your personal leadership may be required to
secure an acceptable outcome in the vote next Monday. Toward
that end, we urge you to speak out on the human rights
situation in Libya and to consider interceding with relevant
delegations so that wisdom might prevail.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look
forward to continuing to work with you, and appreciate your
consistent efforts to promote respect for human rights.
Sincerely,
Gordon H. Smith.
Charles E. Schumer.
____________________
STOLEN FIREARMS, ARMING THE ENEMY
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, last month Americans for Gun Safety, an
organization which seeks to educate Americans on existing gun laws and
new policy options for reducing access to guns by criminals and
children, released a report entitled Stolen Firearms, Arming the Enemy.
This report examines the effect of stolen guns on communities.
According to the report, nearly 1.7 million firearms have been reported
stolen since 1993. These stolen guns are frequently used later in
committing crimes and fuel the black market for guns. Most of the
estimated 170,000 guns stolen each year are never recovered.
The accessibility of stolen firearms was earlier highlighted by a
1997 Department of Justice survey of 33,731 state prison inmates. The
survey found that nearly 10 percent of the inmates used a stolen
firearm to commit the crime that put them in prison.
The Americans for Gun Safety report points to several factors that
contribute to a state's firearm theft rate, such as gun ownership
rates, overall crime rates, and safe storage laws. The report notes
that the eighteen states with safe storage laws had firearm theft rates
nearly 30 percent below that of States without safe storage gun laws.
Additionally, over the last 10-year period, theft rates declined by at
least 47 percent in States with safe storage laws compared to 30
percent in States without such laws.
As the Americans for Gun Safety report illustrates, safe storage laws
can help prevent criminals from gaining access to firearms. Federal
safe storage laws aimed at protecting children may have the added
benefit of preventing gun theft. Last Congress, I cosponsored Senator
Durbin's Children's Firearm Access Prevention Act. Under this bill,
adults who fail to lock up loaded firearms or unloaded firearms with
ammunition can be held liable if a weapon is taken by a child and used
to kill or injure him or herself or another person. The bill also
increases the penalties for selling a gun to a juvenile and creates a
gun safety education program that includes parent-teacher
organizations, local law enforcement and community organizations. This
bill is similar to legislation President Bush signed into law as
Governor of Texas. I believe this is a simple common sense step we can
take to reduce gun violence and gun-related crime. I support this bill
and I hope the Senate will act on it during this Congress.
____________________
LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2001
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for
hate crimes legislation. In the last Congress Senator Kennedy and I
introduced the Local Law Enforcement Act, a bill that would add new
categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence
of any kind is unacceptable in our society.
I would like to describe a terrible crime that occurred October 7,
2001 in Mira Mesa, CA. A man of Indian descent was knocked out with a
baseball bat in what was described as a hate crime linked to the
September 11 backlash. The victim told police he was walking beside the
road when he heard someone yell an ethnic slur. He was then hit on the
head and knocked unconscious. A woman came to his aid and told him he
had been hit by two white males with an aluminum baseball bat. The
victim was treated at a local hospital.
I believe that Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to
defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Local Law
Enforcement Enhancement Act is a symbol that can become substance. I
believe that by passing this legislation and changing current law, we
can change hearts and minds as well.
____________________
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I wish to address the importance of
maintaining a commitment to affirmative action in college admissions
programs.
President Bush, unfortunately, took our nation a step backward when
he announced last week that his administration would file an amicus
curiae brief with the Supreme Court opposing the admissions policies of
the University of Michigan. The President apparently believes that
college admissions decisions should never consider the race of
applicants, even though he also says that he supports the pursuit of
campus diversity.
In 1978, in University of California v. Bakke, the Supreme Court
ruled that campus diversity can be a ``compelling governmental
interest'' that justifies reasonable, narrowly tailored affirmative
action programs at universities. The Supreme Court said that colleges
and universities cannot use quotas to achieve campus diversity, but
affirmed that campus diversity can be a worthy goal of college
admissions policies. In December 2002, the Supreme Court, for the first
time since its Bakke decision, agreed to review two cases that
challenge a university's affirmative action programs--Grutter v.
Bollinger, which involves the admissions program at the University of
Michigan Law School, and Gratz v. Bollinger, which involves the
undergraduate admissions program at the University of Michigan.
Some, including President Bush, have criticized affirmative action
programs in higher education, like those in place at the University of
Michigan, as ``quota'' programs. They are simply
[[Page 1713]]
wrong. These affirmative action programs do not set quotas or numerical
targets for admitting a certain number of students of a particular race
or ethnicity. In fact, the Bakke decision long ago prohibited colleges
from employing a quota system. So, for President Bush to suggest that
this is a question of whether to support a quota system is a
mischaracterization of the issue before the Court.
Some critics have also wrongly stated that affirmative action
programs admit students primarily on the basis of race. According to
the Washington Post, the President stated that the University of
Michigan's admissions system selected students ``primarily on the basis
of the color of their skin.'' But again, this is simply not an accurate
description of the current law or of how students are admitted to the
University of Michigan.
Rather, in most affirmative action programs for college or graduate
school admissions, race is simply one of numerous factors that can be
considered by admissions officers to create a diverse student body. For
example, under the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions
policy, the University considers the entire background of the
applicant. Students are evaluated on a 150 point scale to determine
their fitness for admission. The vast majority of these points--110 of
150 points--are awarded based on academic achievement. That means
grades, test scores, and curriculum. The University also considers
other factors like leadership, service, and life experiences. Only 20
points can possibly be awarded on the basis of race. A student who is
socioeconomically disadvantaged can also earn 20 points but students
cannot earn 20 points for both race and being socioeconomically
disadvantaged. Thus, the University does not have a quota or numerical
target for minority students, nor does the University admit students
primarily on the basis of race.
Like the University of Michigan, most colleges and universities
generally give academic records--such as college grades and
standardized test scores, the caliber of high school attended, and the
rigor of the student's chosen curriculum--the greatest weight in
determining whether a student gains admission. But other factors--such
as extracurricular activities, race, athletic talent, geographic
diversity, or whether students are related to alumni--are also
frequently given consideration in the college admissions process. Many
colleges give preferences to the children of alumni, and these
preferences will often work to the disadvantage of people of color. So,
race can be a factor but is not the sole factor in determining
admission to college.
I am especially disappointed in the Bush Administration's decision to
oppose affirmative action programs because the President has said that
he is committed to equal educational opportunities for all America's
children. The President has said that education is one of his top
priorities. Yet, he has now turned his back on many of the students he
promised to help. By submitting an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme
Court favoring the abolition of affirmative action programs, the
President sends the message that he opposes creating higher education
opportunities for minority students, who do not always have the same
educational opportunities at the secondary school levels as white
students.
I might add, that I believe Congress also has an important
responsibility to ensure equal access to higher education. I strongly
believe that Congress can do more to ensure that students meet the
costs of today's college education. That is why Senator Collins and I
have recently called for a doubling of Pell Grant funding by 2010. Pell
grants are an important support for all low income students, regardless
of race. In fact, if it were not for the Pell grant program, many low
income students would not have the chance to attend college at all.
The Pell grant, however, does not cover what it once did. The price
of a college education at both public and private institutions has
increased dramatically. Congress needs to increase the funding of the
Pell grant program to keep up with the increasing costs of higher
education.
One of the greatest strengths of our nation is its pursuit of equal
educational opportunities for all students. Our nation's colleges and
universities are the envy of the world for their rigorous curricula and
high-caliber professors, but also for their enriching experience of
learning in an environment with students who represent a range of
racial, ethnic, and social and economic backgrounds representing every
part of America, if not the world. I am deeply disappointed that the
President decided to put the government of the United States of America
on the wrong side of the case where the Supreme Court will address this
crucial issue. I hope that the Court will affirm the importance of
campus diversity and uphold affirmative action admissions policies that
allow colleges and universities to achieve this important diversity.
____________________
THE NOMINATION OF GOVERNOR TOM RIDGE AS SECRETARY OF THE HOMELAND
SECURITY DEPARTMENT
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the nomination of
Governor Tom Ridge to head the newly created Department of Homeland
Security. Although I support his confirmation, I would like to
elaborate on my expectation that Governor Ridge will be responsive to
Congressional committees as he carries out his duties.
As the ranking member on the Senate Environment and Public Works
committee, I have been deeply concerned about the creation of this new
department. I voted against the legislation creating the Homeland
Security Department in part because of concerns about the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, role in the new organization and its
ability to carry out its mission once moved into the Department. The
Environment and Public Works Committee, EPW, will continue to have
oversight of FEMA within the new department. I fully expect Governor
Ridge to answer any and all questions we may have about FEMA's new role
in a responsive and timely fashion.
I also expect the Department to act to protect our chemical and
nuclear plants from attack and to support legislation such as S. 157,
the Chemical Security Act sponsored by Senator Corzine and myself in
the 108th Congress, and favorably reported by the EPW Committee in the
107th Congress as S. 1602, and S. 1746, the Nuclear Security Act
sponsored by Senator Reid and reported favorably by the EPW Committee
in the 107th Congress.
Governor Ridge expressed his concern about these important security
issues in testimony before the EPW Committee on July 10, 2002, stating,
``The fact is, we have a very diversified economy and our enemies look
at some of our economic assets as targets. And clearly, the chemical
facilities are one of them.'' The Washington Post published a letter on
Sunday, October 6, 2002 from Governor Ridge and Administrator Whitman
expressing the commitment of the Bush Administration to reduce the
vulnerability of America's chemical facilities to terrorist attack. In
this letter the Governor stated that voluntary efforts alone are not
sufficient to provide the level of assurance Americans deserve. I agree
with the Governor and expect his engagement in the development of
legislation to address this issue.
As Senator Levin pointed out in Governor Ridge's confirmation hearing
before the Government Affairs committee last week, language contained
in section 214 of the implementing legislation for the Homeland
Security Department could be interpreted to exempt from disclosure any
information included in a voluntary submission, including evidence of
illegal activity such as hazardous waste dumping. Further information,
even if discovered independently of the submission, could not be used
in any action against that company. Even a Member of Congress would be
prevented from taking any action with that information.
In other words, this language could give substantial legal shelter to
companies acting illegally. The potential
[[Page 1714]]
environmental consequences of this are enormous.
While I note the potential for this interpretation, I do not believe
it is the correct interpretation, and I was heartened to hear that
Secretary Ridge shares my views on this. In last week's confirmation
hearing, he said, ``That certainly wasn't the intent, I'm sure, of
those who advocated the Freedom of Information Act exemption--to give
wrongdoers protection, or to protect illegal activity. And I'll
certainly work with you to clarify that language.''
I agree with the Secretary that ambiguities in this language must be
clarified to make clear that it is only the physical document being
submitted to the Department of Homeland Security that is intended to be
protected by this provision. Records generated elsewhere or by other
means, even if they contain similar or identical information to that
which was submitted to Homeland Security, would not be affected by this
provision but would continue to be treated under existing Freedom of
Information Act provisions or other applicable law. This allows
confidentiality of the information voluntarily submitted to Homeland
Security, while still allowing other Government agencies to proceed
with their duties under existing law. It also allows the public
continued access to information to which it has traditionally been
entitled under our public information laws.
I look forward to working with Governor Ridge as he assumes his new
post.
____________________
GLOBAL AIDS
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, yesterday, I was pleased to join Senators
Durbin, DeWine and others in sponsoring an amendment to increase
funding to fight AIDS around the world. It is imperative that we do all
we can to stem the spread of this deadly and devastating disease.
The latest statistics tell a grim story: The AIDS epidemic claimed
more than 3 million lives in 2002, and an estimated 5 million people
acquired the human immunodeficiency virus, HIV, in 2002, bringing to 42
million the number of people globally living with the virus. While we
are most familiar with the presence of AIDS in Africa, especially sub-
Saharan Africa, AIDS is rapidly expanding throughout Eastern Europe,
Asia and the Caribbean. By 2010, it is estimated that approximately 40
million children worldwide will have lost one or both of their parents
to HIV/AIDS.
The amendment adopted by the Senate would increase our commitment to
the United States Agency for International Development's Child Survival
and Health Programs Fund by $180 million. Of that amount, $100 million
is for a U.S. contribution to the United Nations Global Fund to Fight
AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, and $25 million is available for
transfer to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control to help in the
prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS. This amount will bring the total
U.S. contribution for Fiscal Year 2003 in the fight against global AIDS
to $1.525 billion. While this is a far cry from the $2.5 billion sought
by the international health community to meet the needs of
international organizations working to eradicate AIDS and individual
countries grappling with soaring HIV infection rates, it is the least
we can do.
The current Administration has asserted on a number of occasions that
the U.S. government is prepared to play a leadership role in the fight
against the spread of HIV/AIDS. Yet earlier this year, the President
chose not to spend $200 million which was included in the Fiscal Year
2002 emergency supplemental for the U.N. Global Fund to Fight AIDS. It
is no surprise that the international community questions our
commitment to this fight. Leadership requires more than rhetoric. It
requires that we commit our fair share of resources so we can fully
participate in a larger, more comprehensive international effort to
regain control of this crisis.
I am pleased my colleagues supported this amendment.
____________________
AMERICA'S PLACE IN THE WORLD
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, yesterday I gave an address to the
World Affairs Council in Los Angeles, CA on America's role in the
world. I ask unanimous consent to print my address in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Today America faces four great international challenges:
the war on terror, the situation in Iraq, the Israel-
Palestinian dispute, and the crisis in North Korea. These
four present challenges to our Nation greater than any our
Nation has faced in decades.
With respect to the ongoing war on terror, which centers
around Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida, I can report substantial
progress. The United States with its allies and the Northern
Alliance succeeded in dispersing the Taliban government and
putting al-Qaida operatives on the run. The government of
Hamid Karzai is reasserting control over Afghanistan,
although the going is difficult.
The security situation in Afghanistan is improving. We have
7,500 troops on the ground, and our allies, 5,000; they are
providing security until the new government of Afghanistan is
able to train military and police.
And, as a final action in the last Congress, a new
Department of Homeland Security has been created to better
coordinate efforts to safeguard the American people from
terrorist attacks.
On the negative side, however, Osama bin Laden and many of
his senior lieutenants are most probably still alive, along
with hundreds, and possibly thousands of followers. They
remain extremely dangerous.
And while Mullah Omar and the Taliban have been removed
from power, they lurk in the remote areas of Afghanistan
along the border with Pakistan and wait for a sign of
weakness so they can return.
Bottom line, if we are to be successful in the war on
terror, it is critical that Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar, and
other senior Taliban and al-Qaida operatives be brought to
justice.
So, we must stay the course in Afghanistan. And wherever
the war on terror takes us, we must not allow ourselves to
get distracted or take our eye off the ball.
We must ensure that the Afghan economy and infrastructure
are rebuilt. We must protect this fledgling democracy so it
can survive and the Afghan people can flourish.
Just last week, Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of
Defense, said from Kabul that ``stability and security'' must
be the goal. I agree.
Internationally, we must relentlessly pursue those who
would use terror to destroy us. That must be our mission and
it must be sustained until the job is finished.
With regard to Iraq, let me begin by saying categorically
that no information has been presented to the Senate to date
to connect Iraq to 9-11 or to any al-Qaida terrorist attack.
Nevertheless, Vice President Cheney laid the groundwork for
a preemptive U.S. military strike against Iraq in a major
speech last August 26, stating that Iraq either is, or would
imminently be, a nuclear power.
But he provided no evidence to back up this accusation
either publicly to the American people or privately, on a
classified basis, to the Senate. He was, I believe, laying
the ground work for a unilateral and preemptive attack on
Iraq.
Then, however, in a welcome shift of position, the
President went to the United Nations on September 12 and
strongly urged the Security Council to compel Iraqi
compliance with the 16 resolutions Iraq has defied over the
past 11 years.
The President has repeatedly stated that the United States
will lead ``a coalition of the willing'' to compel Iraq's
compliance. In September, it appeared that the President had
turned away from a unilateral course of action to a
multilateral one. That was good and welcome news.
On October 10, I voted for a Senate Resolution that would
have required the President to return to the Security Council
for a vote before launching a military strike against Iraq.
That resolution was defeated.
Subsequently, and based on the President's support for
acting in concert with the UN Security Council, I joined 76
of my colleagues and voted to support a resolution
authorizing the President to use of force to compel
compliance if necessary.
Since November 24, the UN inspection teams have inspected
Iraqi facilities that produce chemicals and pharmaceuticals,
Saddam's palace compounds, health care centers, water plants,
and numerous other facilities where old records, prior
inspections, or intelligence indicate chemical, biological or
nuclear weapons or missiles might either be made or secreted.
The International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, is also in
the process of doubling the number of inspectors.
On December 7, Iraq gave the United Nations a 12,000-page
account of its chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile
programs.
And on December 28, Iraq provided the UN inspectors with
the list of Iraqis participating in its weapons programs.
[[Page 1715]]
January 27 is a key date. On that day, the findings of the
IAEA inspectors will be detailed, and any discrepancies
between what they have found thus far and Iraq's earlier
declaration should be revealed.
Inspections to date have produced no evidence sufficient to
clearly establish continuing culpability in the production of
weapons of mass destruction.
However, Iraq is not yet cooperating fully with the UN
inspectors as the Security Council demanded. Saddam may well
be up to his old tricks, moving weapons or other
incriminating evidence from place to place. The history is a
sordid one.
If there is clear evidence that Iraq is continuing an
illegal program to produce weapons of mass destruction; or
has submitted inaccurate or false information regarding its
nuclear and biological programs; or has secret programs,
facilities, or stockpiles; then the administration should
make it public.
And, if there is hard evidence of weapons of mass
destruction, then the Security Council must take immediate
action to compel compliance, including using force, if
necessary. And I would support such action.
But the massive increase of U.S. troops in the Persian Gulf
appears to be an indication that regardless of the findings
of the UN inspectors the President may well intend to use
military force to bring about regime change in Iraq. This is
deeply disturbing.
I strongly believe that the arms inspectors must be allowed
to complete their task, to report back to the UN Security
Council, and the Security Council must then consider action.
In the meantime, Iraq is effectively contained and
prevented from developing weapons of mass destruction. It is
not an imminent threat to its neighbors or the United States.
And there is no need for precipitous action under these
circumstances.
A preemptive unilateral attack against a Muslim nation may
well create a divide between the U.S. and the Muslim world so
deep and wide that it will bring with it negative
consequences for decades.
There are efforts being made behind the scenes by Arab
nations to achieve a peaceful regime change. These efforts
should be given the opportunity to succeed. What is the rush
to bring the tragedy of war?
If Iraq can be successfully contained and disarmed and war
can be avoided, if the deaths of innocent people can be
prevented, then that must be our course. War must be a last
resort.
Let me make a few comments about one additional issue
before discussing North Korea: A solution must be found to
the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, and soon.
Unfortunately, it has not been, in my view, a high enough
priority for the administration. As long as the Israeli-
Palestinian crisis escalates, the risks of catastrophe remain
unabated. Yet, one of the few things that most Israelis and
most Palestinians agree on is that the United States is a
unique third party capable of advancing the peace process.
Peace between Israel and the Palestinians is clearly in the
U.S. national interest and would produce broader benefits as
well: it would increase cooperation in the Islamic world in
the war on terror; it would help us secure assistance from
the Islamic world in pressuring Saddam Hussein to disarm; and
it would restore credibility and momentum worldwide for
American diplomacy and influence.
Right after the January 28th Israeli election, I believe
President Bush should name a very senior and experienced
person to be his personal emissary dealing with the Israeli-
Palestinian crisis. The Israeli-Palestinian problem demands
more creative and higher-level attention by the United
States. It must be solved. Time is running out.
Now, with regard to North Korea I believe the situation is
more menacing than that in Iraq. It presents a substantial
and real danger to stability throughout the Asia-Pacific
region and could ultimately directly threaten the United
States.
North Korea possesses a much more advanced nuclear weapons
program than Iraq, and it has been assessed that North Korea
may already possess nuclear capability.
North Korea also has a missile delivery system, and once
the third stage of the Taepo Dong missile is completed and
operational, North Korea could strike any place in the United
States.
Also, North Korea has: expelled all international
inspectors and equipment; withdrawn from the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty; restarted its plutonium processing
plants; moved thousands of plutonium rods out of locked safe
storage back into the nuclear production line; and is
enriching uranium for nuclear weapon purposes.
The country and leadership are isolated, the economy is a
failure and even the most basic necessities of life such as
electricity, sanitation, and food are lacking. People are now
starving by the thousands.
I had the opportunity in December to helicopter to the
Demilitarized Zone, DMZ, where General LaPorte, our 4-star
general in command, pointed out North Korean troop
concentrations: 70 percent of the 1.2 million-man North
Korean army is deployed along the DMZ, with enough heavy
artillery to be able to substantially damage Seoul, killing
millions. And there are reports that nerve agents may also be
deployed along the DMZ.
Since my visit in December, the 800,000 forward-deployed
North Korean troops have been placed on high alert and are
prepared to move instantly.
North Korea, isolated with its failing economy, has clearly
placed its total focus, not on feeding its people, but in
developing its military, its missiles and its nuclear
capability, all in defiance of treaties it has signed.
I believe the blame for precipitating this crisis lies
squarely with North Korea, which clearly violated the agreed
framework by beginning the surreptitious development of
nuclear capacity.
But it also appears clear to me that the administration's
handling of events on the Korean Peninsula over the past 2
years, as well as its broader foreign policy rhetoric and
statements, have served, ironically, to fuel North Korea's
paranoia and made the situation much more difficult to
manage.
First, the administration failed to endorse President Kim
Dae Jung's ``Sunshine Policy'' when President Kim visited the
White House in March 2001. This move was perceived as a major
humiliation in South Korea, helped set the stage for the
rising tide of anti-Americanism, and was seen as a sign by
the North that the administration was intent on a policy of
isolation and confrontation.
Second, in January of 2002, the administration issued its
Nuclear Posture Review, which states that there are certain
situations in which the United States would contemplate and
perhaps engage in a first use of nuclear weapons. One of the
scenarios in this review included North Korea.
Third, in September 2002 the administration issued its
National Security Strategy, which states that the United
States reserves the right to strike preemptively, even
without an imminent threat, if the administration believes
another nation poses a threat to the United States.
And fourth, including North Korea as part of the ``axis of
evil'' in the 2002 State of the Union address, along with
statements by the President saying that he loathed Kim Jong
Il, calling him names, and saying that he deliberately
starved his own people, all helped fuel North Korea's
paranoia and belligerence.
Meanwhile, one other troubling aspect of the Korean crisis
is the growing anti-American sentiment in South Korea.
The new President, Roh Moo Hyun, won the election in an
atmosphere of anti-Americanism. And in some quarters, our
37,500 troops stationed there are increasingly unwelcome.
The anti-American sentiment has been galvanized by the
accidental deaths of two young Korean girls, run down by a
large tank-like tracked vehicle on a narrow road while the
girls were walking to a birthday party. A major outcry arose
after the two servicemen driving the vehicle were acquitted
in U.S. military court on charges of negligent homicide.
The situation on the Korean Peninsula offers no easy
solution.
So I am pleased to see that after so many weeks of refusing
to negotiate directly, the administration has now opened the
door to high level discussions. This is a welcome and
imperative change. It is the only acceptable course. And its
result may well determine the effectiveness of diplomatic
efforts in this crisis.
There must be direct and multilateral discussions between
North and South Korea, Japan, China, and Russia as well as
the United States. The solution is everyone's business and
the responsibility of the leaders of all nations.
Much of what the administration has done since September 11
to safeguard U.S. security interests has been necessary and
right. I have supported these efforts.
I believe that the administration has been correct in
identifying the threat of the proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction, especially if they fall into the hands of
terrorists, as one of the top challenges facing U.S. foreign
policy.
But in Iraq and North Korea, the administration has been
pursuing two very different, and at times contradictory,
approaches, which, in the process, has confused and angered
many of our closest friends and allies.
With Iraq, the administration is beating the drums of war.
With North Korea, it is pursuing multilateral diplomacy and a
peaceful resolution of the crisis.
But these two crises are similar in many respects, and thus
the question remains: can diplomacy be an effective tool in
this new century to stay the ambitions of those states which
seek nuclear weapons? Or is the use of force our only
recourse?
I believe that the administration's current policy towards
North Korea is more likely to produce a peaceful and
acceptable outcome than its policy towards Iraq.
If you look at the different approaches to each of these
problems alongside the administration's broader foreign
policy statements and rhetoric, it is no wonder why serious
questions about America's role in the world have been raised
both here and abroad.
The administration's emphasis on unilateral action; its
dismissal of international law, treaties, and institutions;
and its dominant focus on military power as put forward
[[Page 1716]]
in the Doctrine of Preemption, the rationale for unilateral
preemptive attack; the National Security Strategy, which aims
to make the United States the preponderant and
unchallengeable military power in the world; and the Nuclear
Posture Review, which states scenarios in which the United
States would engage in a first use of nuclear weapons, even
against the non-nuclear states, are particularly troubling.
Taken at face value, these positions mean the United States
holds for itself the right to strike another sovereign
nation, to wage war, if you will, even in the absence of an
immediate threat, but based solely on the perception of a
sufficient threat.
Despite administration efforts to downplay the actual
wording in these documents, they are, in my view,
unnecessarily provocative and dangerous.
I believe now, more than ever, that Teddy Roosevelt had it
right, ``walk softly and carry a big stick.''
As a presidential candidate in 2000, George W. Bush spoke
eloquently about the need for America to conduct itself with
humility in international affairs. I remember him saying
during the second Presidential debate on October 11, 2000:
``If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us; if we're a
humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us. And our nation
stands alone right now in the world in terms of power, and
that's why we've got to be humble, and yet project strength
in a way that promotes freedom.''
Yet, one of the things I have found in the trips I have
made abroad in the past year is that our allies across the
globe increasingly believe that the United States is anything
but humble.
They feel the United States does not listen to its allies,
has shown disregard for treaties and international
organizations, and has become increasingly unilateral.
As a result, we have lost much of the good will that
followed the 9/11 attacks.
The preeminent position America occupies in the world today
rests only in part on our military and economic strength.
In large part, it is also due to our moral influence and
our unquenchable quest for truth, justice, and freedom, our
belief that ``all (people) are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights,
that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness.''
And regardless of whether one views Iraq or North Korea as
the bigger threat, one thing they both have in common is that
the United States is much more likely to be successful in
dealing with them and safeguarding our own national security
interests if we are able to act in concert with our friends
and allies.
So we stand today at an important decision point in the
history of our Nation and the world: Will the United States
turn away from the successful bipartisan tradition of
supporting a world ordered by law, and pursue instead a
unilateralist path?
Or will we recommit our Nation to the achievement of
workable democratic structures, to law and diplomacy, and to
constructive leadership that produces coalitions to bring
about just solutions?
There may be times, when all else fails, that unilateral
American military action will be necessary, and Iraq may be a
case in point. However, in my view, that has not been
established. War must only be a last resort.
But the spirit of our foreign policy should not be the
establishment of American hegemony, any more than we would
want to see the establishment of al-Qaida's vision of a new
radical fundamentalist Islamic world.
More importantly, I strongly believe that a foreign policy
oriented towards cooperation and consultation will, in the
long run, prove to be a more effective guarantor of U.S.
national security than one of unilateralist impulse and
confrontation.
____________________
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
______
SEPTEMBER 11 COMMISSION
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, this past November, after
extensive discussions, the Congress authorized the establishment of a
commission to investigate the event surrounding the September 11
terrorist attacks. This commission should play a critically important
role by allowing us to better understand the events surrounding this
national tragedy and to better prepare against the threats of similar
attacks in the future. The commission's work is also essential for the
thousands of families who lost loved ones on September 11, and who want
better information about what happened on that fateful day, and who
want to ensure that all those responsible are held accountable. These
families have suffered tremendous losses and they deserve our support.
I am very concerned, however, that the commission may lack the
resources needed to do the job right. So far, in defense appropriations
bill for Fiscal Year 2003, Congress has appropriated only $3 million
for the commission. From all indications, this is grossly inadequate.
And if we fail to supplement this with additional funding, we would not
only be disgracing the memory of the victims of September 11, but we
could be jeopardizing the future safety of all Americans.
Mr. President, in recent days, my staff and I have discussed the
operation of this important investigatory commission with several of
the appointed commissioners, both Democrats and Republicans. They have
explained that the $3 million appropriated so far appears woefully
insufficient to meet the commission's anticipated needs this fiscal
year. in fact, actual needs for FY2003 probably will exceed $6
million--more than twice the amount approved by the Congress.
Mr. President, the responsibilities of the September 11 commission
are much broader than the other commissions and it is simply
unreasonable to expect the commission to function effectively with only
$3 million. After all, that's $2 million less than the funding received
by a 1996 commission to look into the issues surrounding legalized
gambling.
Think about that: $5 million to study gambling, $3 million to study
the worst terrorist attack in the history of this country. That simply
does not make sense.
Mr. President, it is important to remember that this commission has
responsibilities and requirements that go far beyond those of any other
commission in U.S. history. There are unique and expensive logistical
requirements, including the hiring of expert staff with high-level
security clearances. The commission must secure real estate appropriate
for top secret discussions, and provide high-level security of its
employees and its information systems.
In order to complete the work of this important commission thoroughly
and on time, more resources will be needed during this fiscal year, and
in the future.
Mr. President, I am hopeful that if the Congress considers a
supplemental appropriations bill later this year, that legislation will
include needed additional resources for the commission.
In fact, I had prepared an amendment to this bill to increase funding
for the commission by $3 million. However, after a conversation with
Governor Tom Kean, chair of the commission, I have decided not to
introduce my amendment at this time. Rather, I will wait until a formal
budget is drawn up by the commission.
I want to assure my colleagues, however, that I will not stop
fighting for increased funding for the commission until I am convinced
that the September 11 commission has received the funding that it needs
to investigate the worst attack on American soil in our history. This
matter is simply too important to do anything less.
____________________
MIKE EVANS
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to one of the
most dedicated public servants and loyal staff members I have had the
privilege to work with. Mike Evans has served me with deliberation,
dedication, and distinction for 18 years and I, the people of Montana,
the United States Senate, and our nation are the better for it.
Mike began his career as my legislative assistant for tax policy in
1983. As many in this chamber will recall, that was a time of great
debate in the Finance Committee. We had passed a major tax cut in 1981.
The following year, a soaring budget deficit was demanding attention.
By the time Mike came on board, not only was the Finance Committee
dealing with ``revenue raisers,'' to use the language of the day, but
tax simplification was the hottest topic on the Finance Committee's
agenda. Mike guided me through the controversies with his usual
enthusiasm and attention to detail. In fact, he was so impressive that
he soon became my legislative director, and expanded his
responsibilities to include overseeing my work on the Agriculture and
Environment and Public Works Committees.
Perhaps his most significant accomplishment during his time with the
[[Page 1717]]
EPW Committee was seeing the Clean Air Act of 1990 through the
legislative process and into law. I was Chairman of the Environmental
Pollution Subcommittee then and Mike was my right arm--and sometimes my
eyes and ears, too!
Getting that bill through the EPW Committee, the Senate floor, and
then conference with the House was an arduous task. But Mike was there
all the way. Through the seemingly endless markups, through the
backroom negotiations off the Senate floor, and through the midnight
conferences with the House, Mike was always ready with the right
arguments, the necessary supporting materials, and, most important, his
sage advice. That bill was a significant advance in the protection of
public health and the cleanup of our environment. Mike's contributions
to the bill will be long remembered.
In 1991, the lure of the Preston Gates law firm proved too much and
he returned to the firm from whence he came. But when I became Chairman
of the Environment and Public Works Committee in 1993, I succeeded in
luring him back into public service. Mike became my General Counsel on
the EPW Committee, integrally involved with the reauthorization of the
Clean Water Act, the Superfund law, and the Endangered Species Act. We
weren't always successful, but Mike provided the legal underpinnings of
our efforts.
It is as a lawyer that Mike's true talents show through. He not only
masters the statutory construction and case law on any point with
ease--or at least so it seems to me--but he is renowned among the staff
for his ability to footnote material. I recall on several occasions
getting memos from him where there was not a word of the memo on a
page. Rather, the page was filled with footnotes! I told him that I
appreciated a good footnote or two as much as the next lawyer, but next
time he should save them for our opponents!
Mike is respected and admired by his colleagues. He was always
willing to spend time with other staff to review legal arguments,
provide advice and direction, and sometimes just be a sounding board. I
was told that Mike's stature among his peers increased beyond measure
when he revealed to the other staff that when reading bill language,
subclause two is pronounced ``subclause two'' and not, as was the
apparent custom, ``two little eye.''
Mike's attention to detail was perhaps most apparent when it came to
the rules. First, he updated the EPW Committee rules and religiously
filed away each application so that the Committee would have a file of
precedents on which to refer.
It was in the defense of those EPW Committee rules that Mike became a
small legend. In particular, he staunchly defended the Committee rule
that prohibited the naming of public buildings for any living
individual under the age of 70. But, lest you think Mike is perfect,
even his best oratorical skills and most reasoned argument in defense
of the rule were never a match for the political imperative involved in
a naming bill. Mike lost every single one of those arguments!
When I took over as the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee in
2001, Mike moved over as the Deputy Staff Director and Chief Counsel.
Once again, Mike took responsibility for updating the Committee rules
and establishing a record of precedents.
Mike not only mastered committee rules, he mastered the Senate rules.
On his last day in the Senate, the Senate Parliamentarian noted that
Mike was always prepared when he made a parliamentary inquiry. And, for
the record, I have to warn the Senate Parliamentarian that Mike
prepared comprehensive, annotated references for the Finance Committee
staff and provided what is now affectionately known as ``The Mike
Evans' Procedure Seminar.''
Ironically, despite his respect of the rules, last year he was thrown
off the Senate floor with a bipartisan gaggle of Finance Committee
staff for being too noisy. I believe Senator Dayton presided over the
ouster.
I have always respected a person that can manage both the demanding
responsibilities of Senate staff while also caring for a growing
family. And Mike has certainly done both. We were fortunate to be part
of Mike's life as his family expanded from two--he and his wife
Maureen--to six, with the addition of their four beautiful children:
Sean, Christopher, Aselefech and Adanech. We have watched their
children grow up and every step has been a reflection of their
incredible parents.
Mike also found time to be one of the best read staffers I have ever
known. I have no doubt that his counsel has been greatly strengthened
by his acquaintanceship with thoughts and history beyond the reach of a
single individual. And, his literary interests are not limited to
reading. He is a most prolific author. As with most staff, he has done
more than his share of floor statements. And as a lawyer, he has
drafted the occasional law review article. But his talents also extend
to poetry, including the occasional rhyming remembrance of triumphs and
things best left unsaid when a staff member departs.
Suffice it to say, Mike fancies himself a music impresario. He feels
it is his duty to bring music to ``the people.'' Some of that music is
even good. Mike has been known to wear Bob Marley T-shirts in the
office over the weekend and sing Bruce Springsteen lyrics at the drop
of a hat. In fact, when he discovered that one of the Finance Committee
interns house-sat for Bob Dylan, the intern was suddenly spending more
time in intense discussions with Mike.
Mike truly believes in the dignity and responsibilities of public
service. He understands that when it comes to working in the Senate, as
Bruce Springsteen would say, ``the door's open but the ride ain't
free.'' So, while he leaves the Senate staff to return to private
practice at Preston Gates, I know that he will retain his commitment to
service, to his family, to his colleagues, and to his country.
Every President, every member of Congress, every staff person in the
United States Congress must first swear to support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic, to bear true faith and allegiance to the same and to
faithfully discharge the duties of the office. Mike Evans lived by this
oath every day of his public service in the Senate.
Mike follows the rules: The Senate rules. The Committee rules. And
the rules by which he lives his life--loyalty, diversity, fairness,
honesty, and compassion, coupled with an unexpected, yet sharp sense of
humor.
Mr. President, I thank Mike for his dedication and the nearly two
decades for which I have been fortunate enough to benefit his counsel
and friendship. May we all follow his example, to have the wit to
discover what is true and the fortitude to practice what is
good.
____________________
POPCORN
Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, in 1996 the Congress promised
agriculture producers that they would no longer be penalized for
heeding market signals and raising crops the market demanded.
Two-hundred farmers in my home State of Missouri responded to strong
domestic and foreign demand and planted acres of popcorn. Now, with the
passage of the 2002 farm bill, these producers are greatly
disadvantaged compared to farmers that stayed with traditional program
crops.
Under the provisions of the 2002 farm bill, producers who opted to
grow popcorn since 1996 on acreage traditionally dedicated to program
crops or soybeans are severely penalized if they attempt to update
their program acreage history or yield history.
Unless corrected, this will cause a substantial, potential loss to
both farm income and land value. I believe that this problem should be
corrected in the most expeditious manner, as the April 15 deadline for
signup into the new farm programs is quickly approaching. Senator Lugar
and I have introduced an amendment to allow producers to include
popcorn in their program base acres. I am grateful to managers on both
sides for addressing this issue in a managers amendment.
[[Page 1718]]
The correction is simple. Popcorn is simply treated as a variety of
the traditional corn for the purposes of determining bases and yields.
I urge my colleges to support my amendment and allow the Department of
Agriculture to consider popcorn equivalent to corn for the purpose of
computing base acreage. There are 278,000 acres of land nationwide
normally devoted to production of popcorn. We should not penalize those
who farm this land because they believed the promises of the 1996 act.
Popcorn growers in Missouri and across the Nation deserve equitable
treatment when determining base acres.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO MR. CLAY SWANZY
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I want to take a few moments
today to make some remarks in appreciation for the Alabama
Congressional delegation's most senior staff member, Mr. Clay Swanzy.
Originally from Greensboro, AL, one of Alabama's most charming towns,
Clay retired in November after 31 years of service to the U.S.
Congress.
Mr. Swanzy has served on the congressional staff of three different
distinguished Alabama congressmen: former Congressmen Jack Edwards of
Mobile and Bill Dickinson of Montgomery, and most recently Congressman
Terry Everett of Enterprise. He was known on the staff of each
congressman for his hard work, dedication to duty, and loyalty. In
1971, former Congressman Jack Edwards hired Clay away from his position
as a political reporter for the Mobile Press Register to become his
press secretary in Washington. Clay remained with Congressman Edwards
until Congressman Bill Dickinson of Montgomery offered him a position
as his chief of staff. In 1993, when Congressman Dickinson retired,
Clay remained in Washington as the chief of staff for Dickinson's
successor, Congressman Terry Everett.
After managing Congressman Everett's office for 10 years, Clay
decided to retire from public service in Washington and return to
Alabama.
Clay always enjoyed working behind the scenes, outside the glare of
the political spotlights. His departure is a loss for the Second
Congressional District and the State of Alabama. All who knew and
worked with him will miss him.
On more than one occasion I have sought and received good advice from
Clay. During his years of service he has learned much. He never panics,
and always thinks clearly and with compassion for those involved. He is
a strong leader, but one who leads by wisdom, thoughtfulness, insight
and grace rather than threats or bluster. The people of Alabama have
benefited greatly from his leadership. I, as well as many other
government officials, have benefited greatly from his service. Clay has
always been a leader among Alabama's delegation staff. They have valued
his judgment, insight, and experience.
We will certainly miss Clay, but he has earned his retirement. As
proof that his long tenure in Washington has not turned his head, I am
pleased to note that he has chosen to make his retirement home, back in
Alabama, in beautiful Baldwin County. Clay, we thank you for your
friendship and service and wish you Godspeed.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF PEG BRADLEY'S BIRTHDAY
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of Peg
Bradley upon her fiftieth birthday. She is a woman with a kind heart,
diverse interests and great abilities. She is one of the most
remarkable people with whom I served in State government. In a State as
small as ours, her dedication and tenacity have become legendary. She
truly embodies the best of Delaware. I consider it a privilege to have
known her and an even greater privilege to have worked closely with her
on Delaware's education reforms in the decade of the 1990s.
Just 50 years ago, Peg was born in Kansas to O. Wayne and Wilma
Gordon. While her journey to Delaware took her many places in the years
preceding it, when she arrived at the University of Delaware in the
late 1960s, she found her true home. With her diploma in hand, Peg
embarked upon a career that would set the tone for education
innovations throughout the State of Delaware and across the Nation.
The proud mother of three children, Kirsten, Carrie and Cort, and the
grandmother to 4-year-old Xavier, Peg lives her life through the eyes
of children.
While Peg learned and honed her craft teaching elementary school
children, she really made her mark when she opened and became the first
Director of the Preschool at Concordia Lutheran Church. Then, in 1992,
Peg ran for State Representative as a Democrat in the most Republican
District in the State of Delaware and won. During her 2 years in the
State House, she sponsored legislation that dramatically expanded Head
Start opportunities for Delaware youngsters and began drawing attention
to the important role that the first few years of a child's life play
in their ability to learn and go on to live productive lives.
Peg served as my education adviser during most of my 8 years as
Governor. She was instrumental in helping me work my education reform
proposals through the legislature, through the education community, and
through the public from their infancy to implementation. She worked
tirelessly to ensure that the reforms we made reflected what was best
for Delaware's children. Today, Delaware has rigorous academic
standards, the ability to measure objectively student progress toward
those standards, and real accountability, in no small part because of
Peg Bradley's stewardship and persistence. Part of her legacy is the
consistent improvement in academic performance at all grade levels in
Delaware in core subjects like math, English, language arts and
science.
Together, along with the support of the legislature, the business
community, many parents and educators, we amassed a record of
innovative accomplishments, including unprecedented support for charter
schools and public school choice; standards-based education, statewide
testing and accountability. She even persuaded me to support a public
school choice bill written by a certain State Senator named Rick Hauge.
Just last week they celebrated their first wedding anniversary.
Peg helped me win battles that seemed daunting. In doing so, she won
the grudging respect of more than a handful of cynics along the way.
More than almost anyone else, Peg Bradley helped shape the legacy of my
administration and change the face of education in Delaware.
Peg was an invaluable advisor, mentor, and resource to me throughout
the last decade. She takes pride in her work and has made hundreds of
educators and parents proud to work alongside of her. During the time
that I was chairman of the National Governors' Association, we focused
a good deal of our attention on raising student performance. Peg's
assistance to me during that stressful time was invaluable and afforded
her with an opportunity to play a significant role on a national stage.
Today, I rise both to celebrate this milestone moment in Peg's life
and to shine a spotlight on her momentous commitment and countless
contributions to the community. She is living proof that a life filled
with good works is a good life indeed. I thank her for her friendship,
congratulate her on her first 50 years and wish her and her husband
Rick only the very best in the years that lie ahead.
____________________
CHAMPIONS OF GOLF--THE FORD FAMILY
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I want to share with my
colleagues an article in Golf Journal about the Ford family from my
hometown of Charleston, South Carolina. Since 1927, the Ford family has
won a number of golf tournaments including 10 Azalea Invitationals, 10
South Carolina or Carolina Amateur crowns, 20-some city titles and 50
club championships. I am proud to recognize this talented family, and I
ask that this article be reprinted in the Record.
The article follows:
[[Page 1719]]
[From Golf Journal, Jan.-Feb., 2003]
Model Tee Fords
(By Rich Skyzinski)
The Fords of Charleston, S.C., much like the Kennedys of
Massachusetts or the Baldwins of Hollywood, have a family
tradition. For nearly a century, one generation after another
has been reared by a philosophy handed down much like an old
family recipe. The motto on the family crest ought to read,
If you want to be good at something, play golf.
Role models have never been lacking. If any Ford
demonstrated a desire for golf, he or she didn't need to look
far for inspiration or instruction. Good golf genes have
blessed generations, dating most notably to the second of
five men named Frank Cordes Ford. Now 98, Frank Sr. (actually
the second FCF) was the most accomplished of the Fords, and
he can prove it. He can still rattle off a lot of the
stories, in rapid-fire fashion: the games with Bob Jones,
Harry (Lighthorse) Cooper, Henry Picard and Craig Wood; how
he won a dollar bill (signed and framed) from Horton Smith;
the day he one-upped the great Ben Hogan by hitting a 4-wood
to within eight inches of the hole after Hogan hit a 3-wood
shot to eight feet from virtually the same fairway location.
If ever a forebear set a standard for his progenies to
shoot at, it's Granddaddy (Frank Sr.). He made sure any
challenger was in it for the long haul. How else could you
top his record of seven South Carolina Amateur crowns (and
three runner-up finishes), four Azalea Invitational
victories, 11 Charleston City titles and 18 Country Club of
Charleston championships?
``The Ford family is known, certainly in the city and
probably around the state, because of golf,'' says Bert
Atkinson, 1991 U.S. Mid-Amateur runner-up and a C.C. of
Charleston member. ``I think it's probably always been that
way.''
If you are a Charleston golfer, at one time or another, a
Ford has beaten you. Since 1927, family members have won 10
Azaleas, 10 South Carolina or Carolinas Ams, 20-some city
titles and 50 club championships, give or take a few. An
extra room would be needed for all the junior, mid-amateur
and team trophies.
How did this all start? Tommy Ford, one of Granddaddy's
three sons, claims it was not planned.
``No family ever gets together and says, `Here is what
we're going to do,''' says the 58-year-old. ``It comes to
you; you deal with it. If you become good, you try to live up
to it. When you play well, the headlines start to reinforce
this idea that you're living up to your dad's records. And
all of a sudden you are, not that you ever tried. But you're
fulfilling a pattern that started 60 years ago.''
Granddaddy speaks from the other side of the equation. ``I
think they saw the fun I got out of golf,'' he allows, ``and
maybe some of them wanted to play because they thought it
would be fun. Most of them worked pretty hard at it.''
It isn't ``a guy thing,'' either. Granddaddy's mother, Anne
(Sissie) Ford, who moved to Charleston following her
husband's death in 1918, won the C.C. of Charleston Women's
championship in 1927. A year later, she lost in the final to
her daughter, Anne Ford Melton.
And family members also are quick to credit Granddaddy's
wife, Betsy. She was a caring, nurturing mentor who made the
game what it should be for kids: fun. She also was an
accomplished player, collecting a half-dozen club
championships and two city titles.
Betsy, who died in 1998, and her husband played different
roles in advancing the family tradition. She had a deep love
for the game and passed it down to scores of youngsters. She
helped her three sons and any grandchildren or great-
grandchildren who wanted to play the game and was involved in
many club and city youth programs. Once a youngster became
proficient enough to break 80, Granddaddy would begin to
share his passion and try to light their competitive fires.
``I don't remember any pressure or push, other than the
brilliance of a mother, who believed that we should know a
little about the game at the age we were,'' Tommy says.
``There was a nudge towards lessons during the summer, but it
was also, `Go hunting. Do whatever you want to do' from
her.''
Sarah (Mahony) Ford Rijswijk, Frank Jr.'s widow, adds,
``She said, `If you marry into the Ford family, dear, you'd
better play golf.' . . . I thought they were a little nuts
because I played tennis. But I took up golf and Betsy was the
one who led me into the game. She was the most wonderful
teacher. She had a beautiful swing, classic, and was one of
the few people I know who was really interested in your game,
everybody's game. She really helped everybody. She was the
consummate golfer.''
Betsy's favorite classroom was the par-3 11th hole at the
Country Club of Charleston. The hole is a classic Seth Raynor
design with the green elevated some 10 or 12 feet and sharp
drop-offs on each side. Betsy, a.k.a. Granny, would take a
youngster to the bottom of the slope in front of the green
and show them how to chip with a 7-iron. They would practice
that shot over and over until the youngster could bump a shot
into the hillside with an artisan's touch.
It's been more than 40 years since Frank III was tutored
there by his grandmother but, he says, ``I remember that to
this day. She taught me to chip, and I've never chipped with
a wedge or a sand wedge like so many guys do. I'm going to
grab my 7-iron because that's what she taught me.''
Even if a youngster had only a passing interest in the
game, Betsy made her mark. Billy Ford, her middle son,
recalls going out for a round with his son, Billy Jr., whom
he thought was a novice, but evoked a double take with his
confident practice swing on the first tee.
``Where'd you learn that?'' his father asked.
``Granny,'' he replied proudly. ``Granny taught me.''
Betsy rarely commented on any of the youngsters' successes,
but they could sense her pride when they did well.
``She could instill desire, which I think is a hard thing
to do,'' says Sarah. ``I won my first club championship and I
beat her, and I think she was happier about it than I was.''
Granddaddy himself was introduced to the game at age 15, by
his mother and an uncle who lived in Canada. But he learned
swing basics from a group of African-American caddies in
Summerville, S.C. ``They used to say, `This is how you hold
the club. This is the way you stand,''' he recalls.
He developed a tendency to sway during his backswing
instead of pivoting, but there was little anyone could do to
change this; after all, the swing worked for him. There was a
time when the club's head professional was Henry Picard,
later a Masters and PGA Championship winner. Picard had what
was considered one of the finest swings in the game, but not
even he could convince Granddaddy.
``He said, `I'm going to get you out of this swaying,''' he
remembers. ``I said, `Now Henry, listen. Don't try to give me
any lessons because you can do whatever you want, but I'm not
going to change my swing.'
``He said, `Okay,' and never again told me how to do it.''
Granddaddy carried that insistence with him to the cement
and concrete business. Tommy tells a story of his dad trying
to sell a prospective customer cement at 20 cents a bag, only
to be told, ``I don't need any cement.'' Ford lowered the
price to 15 cents a bag and, receiving the same reply, went
to 10 cents and then to a nickel.
``The customer finally said he couldn't afford not to buy
it at that price and Dad got a customer for life,'' Tommy
concludes. ``He was the same way in golf as in business. He
wanted to make every sale, and he wanted to win every time he
stepped onto the golf course.''
Granddaddy confined most of his playing to a local and
regional level because he had a business to run. He qualified
for the only U.S. Amateur he entered, in 1934 at The Country
Club in Brookline, Mass., losing in the third round. He
played until he was 90, then gave away his clubs one day
after he shot 45 for nine holes. Atkinson, who played with
him that day, remembers the exchange afterward.
``I said, `That's pretty good playing, Mr. Ford.'''
Atkinson says. ``He put his arm around me and said, `Yeah,
but if I was 30 years younger I would have beaten you guys
butt good.'''
None of Granddaddy's three sons were as passionate about
the game as their father. Tommy blossomed into an
accomplished player later in life, with seven club
championships and a handful of senior titles. Billy was a
good junior player and captain of the University of North
Carolina golf team in 1953, but hasn't competed much since.
Frank Jr., who died at age 44 in a 1974 Eastern Airlines
plane crash, played little competitive golf.
If the old man's competitive fires were passed down, most
of them found their way to Frank III, who has qualified for
nearly a dozen U.S. Amateurs and four U.S. Mid-Amateurs, and
his son, Cordes (Frank Cordes Ford IV), a 26-year-old law
student at the University of South Carolina with his own
collection of trophies. In 1996, Cordes completed a rare
double when he won the Carolinas Amateur a week after Frank
III took the state am. ``They're the two that have the desire
to go out there,'' says Sarah, ``They want to win.''
By contrast, Billy says, ``I'm not trying to win anything
anymore, just have a nice golf day.''
Which isn't to say the patriarch's presence has not been
felt. Billy once was about to close out a match at Biltmore
Forest Country Club in Asheville, N.C., when Granddaddy came
up to him, put his arm around the teenager and said, ``Son,
this is where I won my war bond.''
``Everything's fine. I've got 20 feet for birdie, but I got
it back to here,'' says Billy, imitating a putting stroke,
``and just locked; couldn't move it. It exploded in my hand,
went past the hole about 15 feet. I three-putted that, snap-
hooked it on 16, hit a limb coming out of the woods on 17.
Before I knew it, I went from 5 up with five to play to 1 up
with one to play. It's funny now, but I was in tears then.''
Because of the family's countless successes, there's an
assumption throughout the Carolinas that Fords should be
accomplished players simply because of their last name.
``I felt like I was supposed to play better than whatever I
did,'' says Billy. ``There was certain pressure on me,
sure.''
[[Page 1720]]
Tommy, who's a decade younger than his brother, adds:
``Your identity is golf, because you grew up seeing golf and
that's what you gravitated to. But I maintain you do the best
you can for your own expectations, not necessarily for this
family tradition thing. I never wanted to win tournaments to
extend my father's streak.''
Tommy is said to have the best swing in the family. People
in Charleston often call him ``sweet-swingin' Tommy Ford.''
``The `sweet-swingin' does not always live up to people's
expectations,'' he says. ``They know I'm Frank Ford's son so
they think I am good. They remember what you've accomplished.
You carry that expectation with you more so because of Daddy,
Billy, Frank--the trickle-down effect of the background of
winning. People view us as winners because that's what they
remember Daddy doing, Frank doing, Billy doing. They expect
us to be hard to beat. That's a little bit difficult
sometimes.''
Frank III's sister, Anne Ford Strickland, lived near
Winston-Salem, N.C., for years and says the difference in the
pressure she felt was palpable. ``I never felt anything up
there,'' she insists. ``Part of it may have been because I
had my married name. people didn't know me by Ford.''
The Fords have never called attention to their exploits.
Sometimes, even family members are unaware of them. Anne
played in a C.C. of Charleston girls' program with Beth
Daniel, who went on to become an LPGA Hall of Famer and a
favorite of Anne's son David. Looking through Anne's
scrapbooks, David came upon a newspaper clipping about his
mom's victory over Daniel in a junior club championship in
the mid-1960s.
``You beat Beth Daniel?'' he asked, eyes widening.
What do you expect? She is a Ford.
____________________
EXECUTIVE AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS
The following communications were laid before the Senate, together
with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, which were referred
as indicated:
EC-711. A communication from the Acting Principal Deputy
Associate Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and
Listing of Hazardous Waste, Final Exclusion (FRL7432-8)''
received on January 6, 2003; to the Committee on Environment
and Public Works.
EC-712. A communication from the Acting Principal Deputy
Associate Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Clean Air Interim Approval of the Alternative Permit
Program; Territory of Guam (FRL743-5)'' received on January
6, 2003; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-713. A communication from the Acting Principal Deputy
Associate Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for
Designated Facilities and Pollutants; The District of
Columbia; Control of Emission from Emissions from Existing
Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerator (HMIWI) Units
(FRL7434-7)'' received on January 6, 2003; to the Committee
on Environment and Public Works.
EC-714. A communication from the Acting Principal Deputy
Associate Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for
Designated Facilities and Pollutants; the District of
Columbia, and the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Control
of Emission from Existing Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
(FRL7434-9)'' received on January 6, 2003; to the Committee
on Environment and Public Works.
EC-715. A communication from the Acting Principal Deputy
Associate Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for
Designated Facilities and Pollutants; Delaware, the District
of Columbia, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Control of
Emissions from Existing Commercial/Industrial Solid Waste
(CISWI) Incinerator Units (FRL7434-3)'' received on January
6, 2003; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-716. A communication from the Acting Principal Deputy
Associate Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for
Designated Facilities and Pollutant; Delaware, the District
of Columbia, Allegheny County and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;
Control of Emissions from Existing Small Municipal Waste
Combustion Units (FRL7434-5)'' received on January 6, 2003;
to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-717. A communication from the Acting Principal Deputy
Associate Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``TSCA Inventory Update Rule Amendments (FRL6767-4)''
received on January 6, 2003; to the Committee on Environment
and Public Works.
EC-718. A communication from the Acting Principal Deputy
Associate Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Process for Exempting
Quarantine and Preshipment Applications of Methyl Bromide
(FRL7434-1)'' received on January 6, 2003; to the Committee
on Environment and Public Works.
EC-719. A communication from the Acting Assistant General
Counsel for Regulations, Office of the General Counsel,
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,
Department of Education, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``National Institute on Disability
and Rehabilitation Research--Alternative Financing Program''
received on January 8, 2003; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
EC-720. A communication from the Regulations Coordinator,
Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``HHS exchange
visitor Program; Request for waiver of the two year Foreign
Residence Requirement (0991-AB21)'' received on December 17,
2002; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
EC-721. A communication from the Director, Policy and
Research, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Allocation
of Assets in Single-Employer Plans; Valuation of Benefits and
Assets; Expected Retirement Age'' received on January 10,
2003; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
EC-722. A communication from the Director, Policy and
Research, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Benefits
Payable in Terminates Single-Employer Plans; Allocation of
Assets in Single-Employer Plans; Interest Assumptions for
Valuing and Paying Benefits'' received on January 10, 2003;
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
EC-723. A communication from the Director, Policy and
Research, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Disclosure
to Participants; Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-
Employer Plans'' received on January 10, 2003; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
EC-724. A communication from the Director, Regulations
Policy and Management, Department of Health and Human
Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
entitled ``Medical Devices; Reclassification of the
Absorbable Polydioxanone Surgical Suture (Doc. No. 99P-
5589)'' received on January 10, 2003; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
EC-725. A communication from the Director, Regulations
Policy and Management, Department of Health and Human
Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
entitled ``Bioavailability and Bioequivalence Requirements;
Abbreviated Applications; Final Rule (RIN0910-AC47)''
received on January 10, 2003; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
EC-726. A communication from the Acting Director of
Communications and Legislative Affairs, Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Privacy Act Regulations''
received on January 10, 2003; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
EC-727. A communication from the Acting Director of
Communications and Legislative Affairs, Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report entitled ``Annual Reports for Fiscal Years 1996-1998
and 1999-2001'' received on January 10, 2003; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
EC-728. A communication from the Secretary of Education,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report entitled ``National
Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity
Annual Report Fiscal Year 2002'' received on January 10,
2003; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
EC-729. A communication from the Chairman, Federal Housing
Finance Board, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report
entitled ``Federal Housing Finance Board Office of the
Inspector General Semiannual Report for the period April 1,
2002-September 30, 2002''; to the Committee on Governmental
Affairs.
EC-730. A communication from the Chair, Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report entitled ``Inspector General's Report to Congress and
Management's report for the period ended September 30, 2002''
received on January 10, 2002; to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.
EC-731. A communication from the Secretary of Education,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of the Semiannual
Report of the Inspector General of the Department of
Education in the period ending September 30, 2002; to the
Committee on Governmental Affairs.
EC-732. A communication from the Director, Office of
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, transmitting, pursuant
to law, the report relative to internal management
[[Page 1721]]
controls during fiscal year 2002; to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.
EC-733. A communication from the President, United States
Institute of Peace, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report
relative to Consolidated Financial Statements and Additional
Information pursuant to the Inspector General Act of 1978; to
the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
EC-734. A communication from the Inspector General,
Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of the Fiscal Year 2002 Inventory of Commercial
Activities, received on January 10, 2003; to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.
EC-735. A communication from the Inspector General, General
Services Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
Audit Report Register for the period ending September 30,
2002, received on January 10, 2003; to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.
EC-736. A communication from the Secretary of Commerce,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of the Inspector
General's Semiannual Report to Congress for the period ending
September 2002, received on January 10, 2003; to the
Committee on Governmental Affairs.
EC-737. A communication from the Chairman, National Science
Board, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Semiannual report
of the Inspector General of the National Science Board
covering activities for the period of April 1, 2002 through
September 30, 2002, received on January 2, 2003; to the
Committee on Governmental Affairs.
EC-738. A communication from the Director of Engineering,
Maintenance and Operations, The American Battle Monuments
Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report
relative to the activities for Fiscal Year 2002; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
EC-739. A communication from the Chairman, Dwight D.
Eisenhower Memorial Commission, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report relative to the activities of the
Commission's first year of activity; to the Committee on
Rules and Administration.
____________________
PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS
The following petitions and memorials were laid before the Senate and
were referred or ordered to lie on the table as indicated:
POM-7. A resolution adopted by the General Assembly of the
State of Pennsylvania relative to cancer and biomedical
research; to the Committee on Finance.
House Resolution No. 668
Whereas, Cancer is a leading cause of morbidity and
mortality in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and throughout
the nation; and
Whereas, Cancer is disproportionately a disease of the
elderly, with more than half of all cancer diagnoses
occurring in persons 65 years of age or older, who are thus
dependent on the Medicare program for provision of cancer
care; and
Whereas, Treatment with anticancer drugs is the cornerstone
of modern cancer care, and elderly cancer patients must have
access to potentially life-extending drug therapy, but the
Medicare program's coverage of drugs is limited to injectable
drugs or oral drugs that have an injectable version; and
Whereas, The nation's investment in biomedical research has
begun to bear fruit with a compelling array of new oral
anticancer drugs that are less toxic, more effective and more
cost-effective than existing therapies, but because such
drugs do not have an injectable equivalent, they are not
covered by Medicare; and
Whereas, Noncoverage of these important new products leaves
many Medicare beneficiaries confronting the choice of either
substantial out-of-pocket personal costs or the selection of
more toxic, less effective treatments that are covered by the
program; and
Whereas, Medicare's failure to cover oral anticancer drugs
leaves at risk many beneficiaries suffering from blood-
related cancers like leukemia, lymphoma and myeloma, as well
as cancers of the breast, lung and prostate; and
Whereas, Certain members of the Congress of the United
States have recognized the necessity of Medicare coverage for
all oral anticancer drugs and introduced legislation in the
107th Congress to achieve that result (H.R. 1624; S. 913):
Therefore be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania respectfully urge the Congress
to adopt legislation requiring the Medicare program to cover
all oral anticancer drugs; and be it further
Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to
the President of the United States, members of the Congress,
the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the
Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services.
____
POM-8. A resolution adopted by the General Assembly of the
State of Pennsylvania relative to memorializing September 11
as ``National Day of Life Appreciation and Freedom.''; to the
Committee on Governmental Affairs.
House Resolution No. 685
Whereas, The terrorist atrocities of September 11, 2001,
against United States landmarks and citizens have united our
nation in grief, remembrance and respect for the freedoms we
enjoy; and
Whereas, The Congress of the United States convened in
special session at Federal Hall in New York City on September
6, 2002, to honor victims of the terror attacks and
demonstrate national unity; and
Whereas, Americans and citizens around the globe marked the
first anniversary of the terror attacks in public ceremonies,
including reading the names of victims at Ground Zero, and
through private observances and spontaneous tributes; and
Whereas, Despite the shock and loss of the attacks,
survivors, witnesses and bereaved family members pursue the
work of rebuilding their lives and creating appropriate
memorials to honor the dead; and
Whereas, In the face of continued threats against us,
public officials endeavor to safeguard our communities and
our democracy; and
Whereas, Our strength rests in the continuity of our
national life and the inherent resilience which enabled
recovery from other painful events in our history and
empowers our progress toward a safe, peaceful and stable
future for our children: therefore be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania memorialize the Congress to
declare September 11 as ``National Day of Life Appreciation
and Freedom''; and be it further
Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to
the President, the Presiding Officers of each House of
Congress and each member of the Congress.
____
POM-9. A resolution adopted by the Legislature of the State
of California relative to retirement security and savings; to
the Committee on Finance.
Assembly Joint Resolution No. 6
Whereas, It has become increasingly apparent that many
working individuals face challenges that make it difficult
for them to maximize their retirement savings and plan
adequately for their retirement; and
Whereas, Current law could be amended to encourage and
facilitate increased retirement savings and retirement
planning; and
Whereas, The 106th Congress considered H.R. 1102, the
Retirement Security and Savings Act of 2000, which
subsequently failed passage; and
Whereas, The Retirement Security and Savings Act of 2000
would have increased the amount of deductible contributions
workers could make each year to an Individual Retirement
Account, commonly known as an IRA, with special accelerations
allowed for individuals 50 years of age and older; and
Whereas, The Retirement Security and Savings Act of 2000
would have increased the dollar limit on deductions for
participation in tax-deferred retirement plans, tax-sheltered
annuities, and deferred compensation plans under Sections
401(k), 403(b), and 457 of Title 26 of the United States
Code; and
Whereas, The Retirement Security and Savings Act of 2000
would have repealed the laws that require the coordination of
contributions to a plan under Section 457 of Title 26 of the
United States Code with contributions to other such plans;
and
Whereas, The Retirement Security and Savings Act of 2000
would have revised and clarified existing law to enhance
pension fairness for women; and
Whereas, The Retirement Security and Savings Act of 2000
would have increased pension portability by allowing
distributions from IRAs, tax-deferred retirement plans, tax-
sheltered annuities, and deferred compensation plans under
Sections 401(k), 403(b), and 457 of Title 26 of the United
States Code to be rolled over to other plans or arrangements,
including a surviving spouse's plans or arrangements; and
Whereas, The Retirement Security and Savings Act of 2000
would have allowed a participant in a state or local
government plan to exclude from gross income certain direct
transfers of funds if they were used to purchase permissive
service credits under the plan or to repay certain
contributions: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Assembly and Senate of the State of
California, jointly, That the Legislature of the State of
California respectfully requests that the President of the
United States and the Congress of the United States enact
legislation containing provisions similar to the Retirement
Security and Savings Act of 2000; and be it further
Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit
copies of this resolution to the President and Vice President
of the United States, the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, the Majority Leader of the Senate, and each
Senator and Representative from California in the Congress of
the United States.
____
POM-10. A resolution adopted by the Legislature of the
State of California relative to forest resources; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Assembly Joint Resolution No. 25
Whereas, California is blessed with 40 million acres of
forests that provide economic, consumer, environmental, and
aesthetic benefits indispensable to our quality of life; and
[[Page 1722]]
Whereas, Preservation of those forestlands for fish and
wildlife habitat, recreation, water quality, and open-space
uses is a priority for all Californians and depends upon good
forest management practices to ensure sustainable forests;
and
Whereas, Good forest management integrates the nurturing,
sustainable harvesting, and replanting of forests and
conservation of soil, air, water, wildlife, fish habitat, and
aesthetics; and
Whereas, Approximately 85 percent of California's water
originates in forested watersheds; and
Whereas, Good Forest management requires cooperation among
landowners, forest products enterprises, scientists,
government, forest residents and visitors, and consumers of
wood products; and
Whereas, 16 million acres of California forests contain
productive forestlands available to provide a sustainable
supply of building materials, paper, furniture, medicines,
and other important products; and
Whereas, Forest-based enterprises have been an important
component of California's economy for more than 150 years,
supporting jobs, families, businesses, and entire rural
communities throughout the state while providing significant
tax revenues to government; and
Whereas, California was the first state to establish a
multiagency, discretionary environmental review and approval
process for timber harvesting on private lands in the United
States; and
Whereas, Wood, a readily available and commonly used
building product that is renewable, recyclable, reusable, and
biodegradable, is critical to society's ability to meet the
public's demand for housing; and
Whereas, Forest-based enterprises and professionals agree
that they have a responsibility to be good stewards of the
environment and are committed to continuing to improve upon
modern, scientifically sound approaches that ensure maximum
conservation and renewal of our forests: Now, therefore, be
it
Resolved by the Assembly and Senate of the State of
California, jointly, That the Legislature of the State of
California recognizes the important role that sustainably
managed forests and products from those forests will continue
to play in meeting the needs of the citizens of California;
and be it further
Resolved, That the Legislature encourages good forest
practices to ensure the conservation, maintenance, and
enhancement of a productive and stable forest environment
that protects water quality, wildlife resources, and rural
communities; and be it further
Resolved, That the Legislature confirms its support for
economically and environmentally sound management practices
that ensure the sustainability of our forests as well as
future supplies of essential products for our forests; and be
it further
Resolved, That the Legislature memorializes the Congress to
similarly declare its encouragement of public and private
investment in economically and environmentally sound
management practices that ensure sustainable forests for the
benefit of present and future generations; and be it further
Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit
copies of this resolution to President and Vice President of
the United States, to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, and to each Senator and Representative from
California in the Congress of the United States.
____
POM-11. A resolution adopted by the Legislature of the
State of California relative to labor negotiations by
California waterfront workers; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Assembly Joint Resolution No. 37
Whereas, California ports are a crucial part of the global
and local economies, and the labor negotiations that concern
their operations are closely watched by businesses and
governments; and
Whereas, The jobs in California ports are of high quality,
due to agreements that have been negotiated over the last
fifty year by the Pacific Maritime Association (PMA) and
organized labor; and
Whereas, The legal, established collective bargaining
process, including the right to strike, is a right of the
waterfront union members under the National Labor Relations
Act of 1935; and
Whereas, The Bush administration has announced, through
Department of Labor officials, that it may invoke a national
economic emergency in order to forestall a strike under the
Taft-Hartley Act, or may use the National Guard to prevent
such a strike; and
Whereas, The use of this power, or even the announcement of
the intentions to use it, will and has upset what has been,
up until now, a level playing field between management and
labor: Now therefore, be it
Resolved by the Assembly and Senate of the State of
California, jointly, That the Legislature of the State of
California opposes any action by the President and the
administration that would impose a Taft-Hartley injunction
against waterfront unions, would remove union workers from
coverage by the National Labor Relations Act, or would send
military personnel to the West Coast docks to assist in a
lockout of waterfront union workers; and be it further
Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transit
copies of this resolution to the President and Vice President
of the United States, to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, and to each Senator and Representative from
California in the Congress of the United States.
____
POM-12. A resolution adopted by the Legislature of the
State of California relative to airport security workers; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Assembly Joint Resolution No. 39
Whereas, The Aviation and Transportation Security Act
(Public Law 107-71) established the Transportation Security
Administration within the Department of Transportation, to be
administered by the Under Secretary of Transportation for
Security; and
Whereas, Under the act, the Under Secretary is responsible
for day-to-day security screening operations for passenger
air transportation, including the screening of passenger
baggage; and
Whereas, Under the act, the Under Secretary is responsible
for developing standards for the hiring, training, testing,
and retention of security screening personnel; and
Whereas, Under the act, the qualification standards require
that security screeners be citizens of the United States; and
Whereas, The Under Secretary assumed responsibility for
airport security on February 19, 2002, and all security
screening personnel that are not United States citizens will
be terminated by November 19, 2002; and
Whereas, A large percentage of security screening personnel
at several airports in California are not United States
citizens; and
Whereas, In the bay area alone, approximately 1,200
security screeners, most of whom are of Filipino descent,
will lose their jobs as a result of the requirement that
security screeners must be United States citizens, with no
demonstrable showing that this will improve safety or
security; and
Whereas, The vast majority of security screeners that are
not citizens of the United States are legal immigrants from
nations that have long been friends or allies of the United
States and their countries having fought alongside our
soldiers during wartime; and
Whereas, The vast majority of security screeners that are
not citizens of the United States have either applied for
citizenship or are prevented from applying for citizenship as
a result of punitive immigration policies; and
Whereas, Immigrant security screeners are not to blame for
the September 11, 2001, disaster, and punitive action against
those immigrants who are not a security risk creates and
inflames ill feelings for this country abroad: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved by the Assembly and Senate of the State of
California, jointly, That the Legislature of the State of
California memorializes the President and the Congress of the
United States to suspend or eliminate the requirement that
security screeners be citizens of the United States, and
instead provide that those individuals must meet the same
immigration requirements as persons who serve in the National
Guard; and be it further
Resolved, That the President and the Congress should act to
ensure that any legal immigrant that has applied for
citizenship should be allowed to keep his or her security
screening job, absent evidence showing that they are a
security or criminal risk; and be it further
Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit
copies of this resolution to the President and Vice President
of the United States, to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, and to each Senator and Representative from
California in the Congress of the United States.
____
POM-13. A resolution adopted by the Legislature of the
State of California relative to federal proposal to devolve
the administration of the unemployment insurance system; to
the Committee on Finance.
Assembly Joint Resolution No. 42
Whereas, Unemployment insurance has been the bedrock of the
social safety net for workers who have been laid off and are
seeking jobs and is the first line of defense during economic
downturns; and
Whereas, Unemployment insurance not only provides vital
income support to laid off workers, but also stabilizes the
local, state, and national economies because the benefits
workers receive are invested back into the community; and
Whereas, President Bush's proposal would destroy the
federal-state partnership on which the unemployment insurance
system is founded and would eliminate the historic role of
the federal government in both ensuring that administrative
financing keeps pace with ever-changing workload needs and
assuring that the program is implemented consistently across
the country; and
Whereas, Although the administration proposes to provide
much-needed additional ``Reed Act'' funding for state
unemployment programs, under the proposal states would
receive no federal aid to fund the administrative costs of
the unemployment insurance system after 2006; and
Whereas, President Bush's proposal would reduce federal
administrative payments that
[[Page 1723]]
will result from the reduction in the Federal Unemployment
Tax Act (FUTA) flat tax from $56 per worker per year to $14
per year; and
Whereas, This proposal would force California to raise
taxes or find other state general funds to administer the
unemployment insurance program; and
Whereas, President Bush's proposal would jeopardize the
federal government's ability to help our state respond to
economic downturns by drastically reducing the funding now
dedicated to the federal unemployment trust funds; and
Whereas, The federal proposal would do nothing to help
states cope with the challenges of expanding and modernizing
their unemployment insurance systems, including ensuring that
more low-wage workers are covered when they become
unemployed; Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Assembly and Senate of the State of
California, jointly, That the Legislature of the State of
California urges the President and Congress of the United
States to abandon the federal proposal to devolve the
administration of the unemployment insurance system. The
Legislature also urges the President and Congress of the
United States to instead work with the state to ensure that
the state receives a greater level of workload-based federal
appropriations for administrative financing, and to provide
new dedicated federal funding to help the state cover the
workers who are now having the most difficulty collecting
unemployment benefits; and be it further
Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit a
copy of this resolution to the President of the United States
and to each Senator and Representative from California in the
Congress of the United States.
____
POM-14. A resolution adopted by the Legislature of the
State of California relative to veterans; to the committee on
Veterans' Affairs.
Assembly Joint Resolution No. 50
Whereas, The United States presently has a population of
over 25 million veterans from its previous wars. The majority
of that veteran population is from World War II and the
Korean War; and
Whereas, The World War II and Korean War veteran population
is presently over 70 years of age, and that group is passing
away at the rate of 1,000 veterans per day; and
Whereas, The United States government has acknowledged its
responsibility to provide medical care or compensation for
medical problems, as well as other benefits, to those
veterans who served their country in time of war; and
Whereas, The United States Department of Veterans Affairs
is charged with administering the federal benefits program
for veterans; and
Whereas, When a veteran passes away with a claim pending
against the Department of Veterans Affairs, the claim
essentially ends with the veteran's passing regardless of how
long the claim had been pending; and
Whereas, Dying while waiting is unacceptable for American
veterans; and
Whereas, There presently exists a backlog of over 601,000
claims submitted by veterans. This backlog has persisted for
several years, with some claims outstanding for one year or
more; and
Whereas, A significant portion of these claims involve
World War II and Korean War veterans, and despite determined
efforts by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs
to eliminate this backlog, the backlog continues; and
Whereas, There exists a trained group of individuals known
as county veterans service officers located in 37 of the 50
states, representing 700 counties and a workforce of over
2,400 full-time local government employees; and
Whereas, These county veterans service officers were
established in 1945 after World War II for the purpose of
helping returning veterans reenter civilian life, and have
continued to do so for all veterans of all wars since then;
and
Whereas, These county veterans service officers are highly
trained individuals who have continued to provide assistance
to all veterans for over 50 years and are already familiar
with the United States Department of Veterans Affairs claims
policies and procedures; and
Whereas, For example, in California, county veterans
service officers annually assist California's veterans obtain
monetary benefits in excess of $150 million by assisting
these veterans in filing over 50,000 claims annually with the
United States Department of Veterans Affairs; and
Whereas, This claims processing backlog needs to be
urgently reduced while our World War II and Korean War
veterans are still with us; and
Whereas, The United States Department of Veterans Affairs
could enter into a partnership with state and local
governments to utilize these highly trained county veterans
service officers to eliminate the present claims processing
backlog, by expanding the county veterans service officers'
role; and
Whereas, This would be a cost-effective way of reducing the
claims processing backlog by eliminating the need for a
substantial increase in federal employees; and
Whereas, These county veterans service officers, as
represented by the California Association of County Veterans
Service Officers and the National Association of County
Veterans Service Officers, have offered to assist the United
States Department of Veterans Affairs in exchange for block
grants to the various states based upon each state's veteran
population to compensate county veterans service officers for
their expanded role: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Assembly and Senate of the State of
California, jointly, That the Legislature of the State of
California urges the Congress of the United States and the
President to support and enact legislation that would
establish a federal/state partnership to use the knowledge
and skills of the local county veterans service officers to
assist the United States Department of Veterans Affairs in
eliminating the veterans claims processing backlog in order
that America's veterans can take advantage of the benefits
that the United States has authorized for them for their
faithful and loyal service to a grateful nation; and be it
further
Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit
copies of this resolution to the President and Vice President
of the United States, to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, the Majority Leader of the Senate, and to
each Senator and Representative from California in the
Congress of the United States.
____
POM-15. A resolution adopted by the Legislature of the
State of California relative to a national memorial; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Assembly Joint Resolution No. 52
Whereas, On September 11, 2001, United Airlines Flight 93
while en route to San Francisco with 40 passengers and crew
aboard was hijacked by terrorists; and
Whereas, The passengers and crew on the flight,
understanding that the intention of the hijackers was to fly
the plane into a target in the nation's Capitol, consulted
with each other and their families about what action to take;
and
Whereas, The passengers moved to stop this heinous act of
terrorism, even at the cost of their lives, in an act of
extraordinary bravery and self-sacrifice that resulted in the
fatal crash of Flight 93 in Somerset County, Pennsylvania;
and
Whereas, The passengers and crew, some of whom were
California residents, will forever be remembered and are
memorialized in this resolution. The crew included: Jason
Dahl, Leroy Homer, Jr., Lorraine G. Bay, Sandra W. Bradshaw,
Wanda A. Green, Ceecee Lyles, and Deborah Ann Jacobs Welsh.
The passengers included: Christian Adams, Todd Beamer, Alan
Beaven, Mark Bingham, Deora Bodley, Marion Britton, Thomas E.
Burnett, Jr., William Cashman, Georgine Rose Corrigan,
Patricia Cushing, Joseph Deluca, Patrick ``Joe'' Driscoll,
Edward Porter Felt, Jane C. Folger, Colleen L. Fraser, Andrew
Garcia, Jeremy Glick, Lauren Grandcolas, Donald F. Greene,
Linda Gronlund, Richard Guadagno, Toshiya Kuge, Hilda Marcin,
Waleska Martinez, Nicole Miller, Louis J. Nacke II, Donald A.
Peterson, Jean Hoadley Peterson, Mark ``Mickey'' Rothenberg,
Christine Snyder, John Talignani, Honor Elizabeth Wainio and
Kristin Gould White; and
Whereas, Legislation (H.R. 3917) has been introduced to
designate the crash site as a National Memorial that will
honor the final resting place of the people of Flight 93 who
were courageous and heroic in giving their lives to bring
down the airplane. The legislation reads, in part, ``the
crash site is a profound symbol of American patriotism and
spontaneous leadership of citizen-heroes''; and
Whereas, The designated National Memorial will honor the
heroism of the Californians who were among the passengers and
crew, demonstrating our commitment to the families, friends,
neighbors, and colleagues of the victims that the legacy of
their loved ones will endure for generations; and
Whereas, The National memorial will remind future
generations of the unmatched courage of those aboard Flight
93 and inspire the nation to work for a world at peace and
free of terrorism: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Assembly and Senate of the State of
California, jointly, That the Legislature of the State of
California requests the Congress and President of the United
States to enact H.R. 3917 to designate a National Memorial at
the crash site of Flight 93 in Somerset County, Pennsylvania
to pay tribute to and honor the true heroes of this nation;
and be it further
Resolved. That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit
copies of this resolution to the President and Vice President
of the United States, to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, the Majority Leader of the Senate, and to
each Senator and Representative from California in the
Congress of the United States.
____
POM-16. A resolution adopted by the Legislature of the
State of California relative to the Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) program; to the Committee on Finance.
Whereas, The United States Congress must reauthorize the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program by
October 1, 2002; and
[[Page 1724]]
Whereas, States are achieving success under TANF because
states have the flexibility to design appropriate, effective
programs that move people into work and support vulnerable
children. Under TANF, California has decreased families'
dependence on welfare, increased work rates and wages, and
improved the well-being of children; and
Whereas, Welfare reauthorization should help states like
California build on their unprecedented success at moving
people off welfare; and
Whereas, Devolution was a core principle in welfare reform.
The TANF block grant allows each state to design the most
effective and appropriate programs for moving families from
welfare to work. Under TANF, California welfare recipients
are working more hours than ever before and California has
nearly tripled the number of welfare recipients who are
working; and
Whereas, The flexibility offered in current federal law has
permitted California to make the well-being of children its
highest priority. Under current federal law, California
ensures that poor children have a basic level of subsistence,
regardless of their parents' immigration status or ability to
meet participation requirements; and
Whereas, Current federal law supports the fact that
different strategies are needed for families facing different
barriers to work. Today, California's counties develop
welfare-to-work plans, work program, and participation
requirements that are tailored to each family's unique
circumstances. Current federal law permits California's
counties to develop programs that are sensitive to state and
country labor markets and employment rates; and
Whereas, Since 1997, when the TANF program was created, the
value of the TANF block grant has significantly diminished
due to inflation. If TANF funding continues at current
levels, the inflation-adjusted value of the block grant in
2007 would be approximately 22 percent less than its original
value in 1997; and
Whereas, California is using all of its TANF block grant,
yet faces a projected shortfall in its TANF program. At the
same time, California faces a budget deficit of $24 billion,
increasing the importance of adequate federal funding; and
Whereas, Child care is central to states' efforts to move
families into work. Under TANF, states have helped many
parents find and keep jobs, secure child care, and overcome
personal barriers to work. As work participation requirements
rise, so must state resources to meet families' corresponding
child care needs; and
Whereas, Despite states' success in moving many families
off welfare, many families still on aid have numerous and
complex barriers to joining the workforce. States want to
move these families into work as quickly as possible, but
recognize that families with difficulties, such as domestic
violence, learning disabilities, and mental illness, must
receive supportive services to address these barriers to
work; and
Whereas, California is currently being penalized by the
federal government for failure to implement a statewide
automated child support system due to system failure on the
part of the project's original vendor. California has paid
nearly $300 million in penalties from the state's General
Fund and, upon completion of the statewide automation system,
will pay total penalties of approximately $1.3 billion.
California has entered into a corrective action plan with the
United States Department of Health and Human Services and is
in full compliance with the plan; and
Whereas, Federal child support automation penalties have
served the important purpose of capturing the attention of
California and have resulted in significant restructuring to
establish a reliable approach to securing a statewide
automated child support system; and
Whereas, Governor Davis and the California Legislature have
made a strong commitment to improving the state's child
support program that has resulted in historically high levels
of child support collections: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Assembly and Senate of the State of
California, jointly, That to build on the success of welfare
reform, in reauthorization of the TANF program, the
California Legislature urges federal policymakers to maintain
state flexibility to spend TANF funds. Given states'
demonstrated success using this flexibility, this central
premise of welfare reform should not be compromised in
welfare reauthorization; and be it further
Resolved, In TANF reauthorization, the California
Legislature urges federal policymakers to maintain state
flexibility to provide a safety net to vulnerable children;
and be it further
Resolved, In TANF reauthorization, the California
Legislature urges federal policymakers to maintain state
flexibility to design the most effective ways to move people
into work. State flexibility in designing work programs
should not be compromised in welfare reauthorization; and be
it further
Resolved, In TANF reauthorization, the California
Legislature urges federal policymakers to adjust the TANF
block grant for inflation. Freezing the TANF block grant at
current levels is not adequate to maintain even current
program levels because inflation has eroded the value of the
block grants. Welfare reauthorization is an opportunity for
the federal government to address this funding inadequacy;
and be it further
Resolved, In TANF reauthorization, the California
Legislature urges federal policymakers to recognize states'
needs to provide ongoing supportive service. Welfare
reauthorization should help states provide child care and
supportive services, as they are substantial defenses in
permanently keeping families off welfare; and be it further
Resolved, In TANF reauthorization, the California
Legislature urges federal policymakers to base the year on
which the federal child support automation penalties are
assessed to the 1997-98 fiscal year, the year prior to
penalties first being imposed. This will ensure that states
do not incur additional penalties because of increased
investments in the administration of their child support
programs; and be it further
Resolved, In TANF reauthorization, the California
Legislature urges federal policymakers to give states the
option to reinvest federal child support automation penalties
back into their child support programs and automation
efforts. This will ensure that states continue to concentrate
on the deficiencies that contribute to automation
implementation delays and subsequent penalties; and be it
further
Resolved, In TANF reauthorization, the California
Legislature urges federal policymakers to simplify the child
support distribution rules to allow more money to reach
families while also reducing California's system procurement
cost and assisting in an earlier completion of the stateside
automated system.
Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit
copies of this resolution to the President and Vice President
of the United States, to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, to the Majority Leader of the Senate, and to
each Senator and Representative from California in the
Congress of the United States.
____
POM-17. A resolution adopted by the New Jersey State Senate
relative to medicare program providing coverage for all anti-
cancer drugs; to the Committee on Finance.
Senate Resolution No. 65
Whereas, Cancer is a leading cause of morbidity and
mortality in New Jersey and throughout the nation; and
Whereas, Cancer is disproportionately a disease of the
elderly, with more than half of all cancer diagnoses
occurring in persons 65 years of age or older, who are
dependent on the federal Medicare program for provision of
cancer care; and
Whereas, Treatment with anti-cancer drugs is the
cornerstone of modern cancer care and elderly cancer patients
must have access to potentially life-extending drug therapy,
but the Medicare program's coverage of drugs is limited to
injectable drugs or oral drugs that have injectable version;
and
Whereas, The nation's investment in biomedical research has
begun to bear fruit with a compelling array of new oral anti-
cancer drugs that are less toxic, more effective and more
cost-effective than existing therapies but, because these
drugs do not have an injectable equivalent, they are not
covered by the Medicare program; and
Whereas, Non-coverage of these important new products
leaves many Medicare beneficiaries confronting the choice of
either substantial out-of-pocket personal costs or selection
of more toxic, less effective treatments that are covered by
the program; and
Whereas, Medicare's failure to cover oral anti-cancer drugs
leaves at risk many beneficiaries who suffer from blood-
related cancers such as leukemia, lymphoma and myeloma, as
well as cancers of the breast, lung and prostrate; and
Whereas, Certain members of the United States Congress have
recognized the necessity of Medicare coverage for all oral
anti-cancer drugs and have introduced legislation in the
107th Congress to achieve that result, namely, H.R. 1624 and
S. 913: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate of the State of New Jersey.
1. This House respectfully memorializes the Congress of the
United States to adopt legislation requiring the Medicare
program to cover all oral anti-cancer drugs.
2. Duly authenticated copies of this resolution, signed by
the President of the Senate and attested by the Secretary of
the Senate, shall be transmitted to the President of the
United States, the Secretary of Health and Human Services of
the United States, the Administrator of the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services, the presiding officers of the
United States Senate and the House of Representatives, and
each of the members of the Congress of the United States
elected from the State of New Jersey.
____
POM-18. A resolution adopted by the Pennsylvania House of
Representatives relative to projected State revenue shortfall
for fiscal year 2003-2004; to the Committee on Finance.
House Resolution No. 694
Whereas, The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania anticipates a
$1.8 billion revenue
[[Page 1725]]
shortfall for the 2003-2004 fiscal year due to the economic
downturn, which could rise substantially due to additional
State costs for homeland security and the loss of other State
revenues due to tax cut provisions included in Federal
economic stimulus legislation; and
Whereas, Because of the loss of revenue as a result of the
recession and the new demands for public services since
September 11, 2001, State and local governments are facing
deep cuts in vital public services, including public health
systems, education and health care; and
Whereas, The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is currently
experiencing a 5.4% unemployment rate; and
Whereas, The numbers of displaced workers increase the
demand for additional Medicaid coverage and other essential
safety net services and place additional strain on the
existing budget deficit; and
Whereas, State and local spending accounted for close to
12% of our nation's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2000, the
slowing of state economies having affected all industries;
and
Whereas, Medicaid, though provided through a Federal-state
partnership, accounts for approximately 16% of the
Commonwealth budgets; and
Whereas, If no additional Federal funding is received by
Pennsylvania, we will be forced to reduce benefits and
eligibility to our most vulnerable citizens; and
Whereas, The Federal Medicaid Assistance Percentage (FMAP)
provides an efficient means to distribute aid to states with
minimal administrative costs; therefore be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania urge the Congress to pass a
temporary increase in Medicaid funding to provide immediate
aid to states facing deficit budgets and increased costs to
their Medicaid programs; and be it further
Resolved, That the House of Representatives urge the
Congress to quickly pass the State Budget Relief Act of 2001,
H.R. 3414, or any temporary increase in Medicaid funding to
assist our State in its budget crisis; and be it further
Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to
the presiding officers of each house of Congress, to the
Pennsylvania congressional delegation and to Governor Mark S.
Schweiker.
____
POM-19. A resolution adopted by the Senate of the State of
Delaware relative to providing Medicare coverage for all
anti-cancer drugs; to the Committee on Finance.
Senate Resolution No. 21
Whereas, cancer is a leading cause of morbidity and
mortality in the State of Delaware and throughout the Nation;
and
Whereas, cancer is disproportionately a disease of the
elderly, with more than half of all cancer diagnoses
occurring in persons age 65 or older, who are thus dependent
on the federal Medicare program for provision of cancer care;
and
Whereas, with treatment using anti-cancer drugs being the
cornerstone of modern cancer care, elderly cancer patients
must have access to potentially life-extending drug therapy,
but the Medicare program's current coverage for anti-cancer
drugs is limited to injectable drugs or oral drugs that have
an injectable version; and
Whereas, the nation's investment in biomedical research has
begun to bear fruit with a compelling array of new oral anti-
cancer drugs that are less toxic, more effective and more
cost-effective than existing therapies, but, because such
drugs do not have an injectable equivalent, they are not
covered by Medicare; and
Whereas, non-coverage of these important new products
leaves many Medicare beneficiaries confronting the choice of
either substantial out-of-pocket personal costs or selection
of more toxic, less effective treatments that are covered by
the program; and
Whereas, Medicare's failure to cover oral anti-cancer drugs
leaves at risk many individuals suffering from blood-related
cancers like leukemia, lymphoma, and myeloma, as well as
cancers of the breast, lung, and prostate; and
Whereas, certain members of the United States Congress have
recognized the necessity of Medicare coverage for all oral
anti-cancer drugs and introduced legislation in the 107th
Congress to achieve that result (H.R. 1624; S. 913):
Now, Therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate of the 141st General Assembly of the
State of Delaware, That the Congress of the United States is
hereby respectfully requested to enact legislation extending
coverage under the Medicare program for oral as well as
injected anticancer drugs, and be it further
Resolved, That certified copies of this Resolution be
transmitted to the President of the United States, the
President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the
United States House of Representatives, members of Delaware's
congressional delegation, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, and the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare
and Medicaid Services.
____
POM-20. A resolution adopted by the City of Miami, State of
Florida relative to Federal election monitoring; to the
Committee on Rules and Administration.
Resolution No. 02-1014
Be It Resolved by the Commission of the City of Miami,
Florida:
Section 1. The City Attorney is directed to request the
United States Department of Justice to monitor voting in the
City of Miami at the November 5, 2002 election to assure the
rights of individuals to vote.
Section 2. The City Commission states that the City of
Miami does not allege fraud or misconduct, but seeks to
assure the integrity of the United States' democratic system.
Section 3. The City Clerk is directed to transmit a copy of
this Resolution to President George W. Bush, Vice-President
Richard B. Cheney, Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert,
Senators Bill Nelson and Bob Graham, all the members of the
United States House of Representatives for Miami-Dade County,
the United States Department of Civil Rights, Governor Jeb
Bush, the Miami-Dade County Board of County Commissioners,
Mayor Alex Penelas, and Supervisor of Elections David Leahy.
Section 4. This Resolution shall be come effective
immediately upon its adoption and signature of the Mayor
____
POM-21. A resolution adopted by the Township of Washington,
Warren County, New Jersey relative to the phrase ``one nation
under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance; to the Committee on
Rules and Administration.
Resolution No. 2002-104
Whereas, on June 26, 2002 the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declared the Pledge of
Allegiance unconstitutional as it violates the Establishment
Clause of the Constitution because it includes the phrase ``.
. . one Nation under God . . . ;'' and
Whereas, from its very inception, references to the Deity
and the Deity's importance to this nation have been included
in our most sacred founding documents and political
statements, from the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of
Independence, the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln's Second
Inaugural Speech, and through the current crises of September
11, 2001; and
Whereas, THE PHRASE ``. . . one nation under God . . .''
has been an unchallenged and cherished part of the Pledge of
Allegiance and has been a part of the fabric of Washington
Township's Life; and
Whereas, the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights states
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion; and
Whereas, by the aforesaid phrase, the Founding Fathers were
referring to the establishment of a supported church or
religion as existed at that time in the several nations of
Europe, and not to references to in communal ceremonies; and
Whereas, references to Deity in official government
documents, speeches and mottoes, including the Pledge of
Allegiance, have long been a long established tradition and
manifestly do not constitute the meaning of ``an
establishment of religion'' as intended by the Founding
Fathers; and
Whereas, the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court violates
this sacred right by forbidding citizens to enunciate the
phrase in question, and as the controversy has the potential
for reaching the U.S. Supreme Court and could directly impact
the citizens of Washington Township; and
Whereas, the overwhelming majority of Americans and
Washington Township residents, support the inclusion of this
phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance, and share our outrage,
and no one is under any compulsion to recite that portion of
the Pledge of Allegiance under dispute should they wish to
exclude it: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, by the Township Committee of the Township of
Washington, Warren County, State of New Jersey as follows:
1. This Committee condemns in the strongest terms possible
this imprudent decision by the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit;
2. That this decision is an egregious example of the
arbitrary and unconstitutional abuse of powers by the Federal
Courts;
3. That the Committee urges all elected Warren County
officials to effectuate whatever actions may be necessary to
nullify this decision;
4. That all of the Washington Township schools be
encouraged and urged to continue recitation of the Pledge of
Allegiance in its current format in all their classes;
5. That a copy of this resolution be sent to the President
of the United States, the Honorable George W. Bush, the Vice-
President of the United States, the Honorable Richard Cheney,
and to all our elected officials both Federal and State;
6. That a copy of this resolution be sent to all the Board
of Chosen Freeholders in the State of New Jersey and to all
the Municipal Governing Bodies in the County of Warren,
urging them to adopt and distribute similar resolutions
addressing this execrable decision;
7. That this Committee, in order to demonstrate it's
commitment to the principles expressed herein, hereby
approves the posting of a copy of the Pledge of Allegiance
including especially the phrase ``ONE NATION
[[Page 1726]]
UNDER GOD'' in its Township Meeting Room.
____
POM-22. A resolution adopted by the Borough of Moonachie,
New Jersey relative to the phrase ``one nation under God'' in
the Pledge of Allegiance; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Resolution No. 02-169
Whereas, on June 26, 2002 the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declared the Pledge of
Allegiance unconstitutional as it violates the Establishment
Clause of the Constitution because it includes the phrase ``.
. . one nation under God. . .'', and
Whereas, references to the Deity have been included in most
sacred founding documents, speeches, mottoes, and political
statements including the most recent crisis of September 11,
2001; and
Whereas, the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights states
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion; and
Whereas, the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court violates
this sacred right by forbidding citizens to express the
phrase in question and has the potential to directly impact
the citizens of Moonachie and the entire Bergen County; and
Whereas, the majority of Americans and Moonachie residents
support the inclusion of this phrase in the Pledge of
Allegiance and no one is required to recite that portion of
the Pledge of Allegiance under dispute should they wish to
exclude it: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Mayor and Council of the Borough of
Moonachie as follows:
1. The Mayor and Council object to the recent decision by
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit;
2. That this decision is an example of an arbitrary and
unconstitutional abuse of powers by the Federal Courts:
3. That the Mayor and Council urges all of our elected
officials to take whatever actions may be necessary to
nullify this decision;
4. That all of our schools be encouraged and urged to
continue to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in it current
format in all of their classes;
5. That a copy of this resolution shall be sent to the
President of the United States, the Honorable George W. Bush,
the Vice President of the United States, the Honorable
Richard Cheney, and to all of our elected officials, both
Federal and State;
6. That a copy of this resolution shall also be sent to all
the Municipal Governing Bodies in the County of Bergen as
well as the Bergen County Board of Chosen Freeholders, urging
them to adopt and distribute a similar resolution.
____
POM-23. A resolution adopted by the Township of Oldmans,
New Jersey relative to the phrase ``one nation under God'' in
the Pledge of Allegiance; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Resolution No. 2002-69
Whereas, on June 26, 2002 the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declared the Pledge of
Allegiance unconstitutional as it violates the Establishment
Clause of the Constitution because it includes the phrase
``one Nation under God'' and
Whereas, from its very inception, references to te deity
and the Deity's importance to this nation have been included
in our most sacred founding documents and political
statements, from the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of
Independence, the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln's Second
Inaugural Speech, and through the current crises of September
11, 2001; and
Whereas, the phrase ``one Nation under God'' has been an
unchallenged and cherished part of the Pledge of Allegiance
and has been a part of the fabric of Oldmans Township life
for almost 50 years; and
Whereas, the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights states
Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of
religion; and
Whereas, by the aforesaid phrase, the Founding Fathers were
referring to the establishment of a state supported church or
religion as existed at that time in the several nations of
Europe, and not to references to God in communal ceremonies;
and
Whereas, references to Deity in official government
documents, speeches and mottoes, including the Pledge of
Allegiance, have been a long established tradition and
manifestly do not constitute the meaning of ``an
establishment of religion'' as intended by the Founding
Fathers; and
Whereas, the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court violates
this sacred right by forbidding citizens to enunciate the
phrase in question, and as the controversy has the potential
for reaching the U.S. Supreme Court and could directly impact
the citizens of Oldmans Township; and
Whereas, the overwhelming majority of Americans and Oldmans
Township residents, support the inclusion of this phrase in
the Pledge of Allegiance, and share our outrage, and no one
is under any compulsion to recite that portion of the Pledge
of Allegiance under dispute should they wish to exclude it:
Now therefore, be it
Resolved by the Township Committee of the Township of
Oldmans as follows:
1. The Oldmans Township Committee condemns in the strongest
terms possible this imprudent decision by the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
2. That this decision is an egregious example of the
arbitrary and unconstitutional abuse of powers by the Federal
Courts.
3. The Oldmans Township Committee urges all of our elected
Salem County Officials to effectuate whatever actions may be
necessary to nullify this decision.
4. That the Oldmans Township School be encouraged and urged
to continue recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in its
current format in all their classes.
5. That a copy of this resolution be sent to the President
of the United States, the Honorable George W. Bush, the Vice
President of the United States, the Honorable Richard Cheney,
and to all our elected officials, both federal and state.
6. That a copy of this resolution be sent to the Salem
County Board of Chosen Freeholders and to all the Municipal
Governing Bodies in the County of Salem, urging them to adopt
and distribute similar resolutions addressing this execrable
decision.
7. The Oldsman Township Committee, in order to demonstrate
its commitment to the principles expressed herein, hereby
approves the posting of a copy of the Pledge of Allegiance
including especially the phrase ``ONE NATION UNDER GOD'' in
its Township Committee Meeting Room until December 21, 2002.
____
POM-24. A resolution adopted by the Elsinboro Township,
Salem County, New Jersey relative to the phrase ``one nation
under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
Resolution No. 2002-37
Whereas, on June 26, 2002 the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declared the Pledge of
Allegiance unconstitutional as it violates the Establishment
Clause of the Constitution because it includes the phrase ``.
. . one Nation under God . . .''; and
Whereas, from its very inception, references to the Deity
and the Deity's importance to this nation have been included
in our most sacred founding documents and political
statements, from the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of
Independence, the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln's Second
Inaugural Speech, and through the current crises of September
11, 2001, and
Whereas, the phrase ``. . . one Nation under God . .
.'' has been an unchallenged and cherished part of the Pledge
of Allegiance and has been a part of the fabric of Elsinboro
Township life for almost 50 years; and
Whereas, the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights states
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion; and
Whereas, by the aforesaid phrase, the Founding Fathers were
referring to the establishment of a state supported church or
religion as existed at that time in the several nations of
Europe, and not to references to God in communal ceremonies;
and
Whereas, references to Deity in official government
documents, speeches and mottos, including the Pledge of
Allegiance, have been a long established tradition and
manifestly do not constitute the meaning of ``an
establishment of religion'' as intended by the Founding
Fathers; and
Whereas, the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court violates
this sacred right by forbidding citizens to enunciate the
phrase in question, and as the controversy has the potential
for reaching the U.S. Supreme Court and could directly impact
the citizens of Elsinboro Township; and
Whereas, the overwhelming majority of Americans and
Elsinboro township residents, support the inclusion of this
phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance, and share our outrage,
and no one is under any compulsion to recite that portion of
the Pledge of Allegiance under dispute should they wish to
exclude it: Now, therefore be it
Resolved by the Township Committee of the Township of
Elsinboro as follows:
1. The Elsinboro Township Committee condemns in the
strongest terms possible this imprudent decision of the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
2. That this decision is an egregious example of the
arbitrary and unconstitutional abuse of powers by the Federal
Courts.
3. The Elsinboro Township Committee urges all of our
elected Salem County Officials to effectuate whatever actions
may be necessary to nullify this decision.
4. That the Elsinboro Township School be encouraged and
urged to continue recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in
its current format in all their classes.
5. That a copy of this resolution be sent to the President
of the United States, the Honorable George W. Bush, the Vice-
President of the United States, the Honorable Richard Cheney,
and to all our elected officials, both federal and state.
6. That a copy of this resolution be sent to the Salem
County Board of Chosen Freeholders and to all the Municipal
Governing Bodies in the County of Salem, urging them to adopt
and distribute similar resolutions addressing this execrable
decision.
7. The Elsinboro Township Committee, in order to
demonstrate its commitment to the
[[Page 1727]]
principles expressed herein, hereby approves the posting of a
copy of the Pledge of Allegiance including especially the
phrase ``ONE NATION UNDER GOD'' in its Township Committee
Meeting Room until December 31, 2002.
____
POM-25. A resolution adopted by the Borough of Butler, New
Jersey relative to the phrase ``one nation under God'' in the
Pledge of Allegiance; to the Committee on Rules and
Administration.
Resolution No. R2002-119
Whereas, on June 26, 2002, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declared the Pledge of
Allegiance unconstitutional as it violates the Establishment
Clause of the Constitution because it includes the phrase ``.
. . one nation under God . . .'', and
Whereas, from its very inception, references to the Deity
and the Deity's importance to this nation have been included
in our most sacred founding documents and political
statements, from the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of
Independence, the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln's Second
Inaugural Speech, and through the current crises of September
11, 2001; and
Whereas, the phrase ``. . . one nation under God . . .''
has been an unchallenged and cherished part of the Pledge of
Allegiance and has been a part of the fabric of Morris County
life for almost 50 years; and
Whereas, the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights states
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion; and
Whereas, by the aforesaid phrase the Founding Fathers were
referring to the establishment of a state supported church or
religion as existed at that time in the several nations of
Europe, and not to references to God in communal ceremonies;
and
Whereas, references to the Deity in official government
documents, speeches and mottoes, including the Pledge of
Allegiance, have been a long established tradition and
manifestly do not constitute the meaning of ``an
establishment of religion'' as intended by the Founding
Fathers; and
Whereas, the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court violates
this sacred right by forbidding citizens to enunciate the
phase in question, and as the controversy has the potential
for reaching the U.S. Supreme Court and could directly impact
the citizens of the Borough of Butler; and
Whereas, the overwhelming majority of Americans and Morris
County residents, support the inclusion of this phrase in the
Pledge of Allegiance, and share our outrage, and no one is
under any compulsion to recite that portion of the Pledge of
Allegiance under dispute should they wish to exclude it: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, by the Major and Council of the Borough of
Butler, New Jersey, as follows:
1. This Mayor and Council condemns in the strongest term
possible, this imprudent decision by the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit;
2. That this decision is an egregious example of an
arbitrary and unconstitutional abuse of powers by the Federal
Courts;
3. That the Mayor and Council urges all of our elected
Morris County officials to effectuate whatever actions may be
necessary to nullify this decision:
4. That all of our Morris County schools be encouraged and
urged to continue recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in
its current format in all their classes;
5. That a copy of this resolution be sent to the President
of the United States, the Honorable George W. Bush; to the
Vice-President of the United States, the Honorable Richard
Cheney, and to all our elected officials, both federal and
state;
6. That a copy of this resolution be sent to all the other
Municipal Governing Bodies in the County of Morris, urging
them to adopt and distribute similar resolutions addressing
this execrable decision.
____
POM-26. A resolution adopted by the City of Buffalo, state
of New York relative to Buffalo's CDGB allocation; to the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Resolution No. 184
Whereas, HUD Assistant Secretary Roy Bernardi has informed
Mayor Masiello that the City of Buffalo will be losing
approximately $1.825 million in CDBG funding in its 2003
allocation (#11, CCP 10/15/02-``HUD CDBG Fiscal Year 2003
Allocation'');
Whereas, According to Mr. Bernardi, this funding cut is
mandated by HUD's funding formula, which is based on the 2000
census data of poverty, housing overcrowding and pre 1940
housing; and
Whereas, According to HUD's ``CDBG Program Description'',
CDBG funds may be used to ``benefit persons of low and
moderate income, aid in the prevention or elimination of
slums or blight, or meet other community development needs of
particular urgency'';
Whereas, It defies logic and fact that the City of Buffalo
should see a decrease in funding, given its ongoing devotion
in the areas of poverty and housing; and
Whereas, As in other urban areas throughout the country, it
is very likely that Buffalo suffered an undercount of both
its population and level of poverty in the 2000 census; and
Whereas, Buffalo's need for CDBG funding exists in greater
measure that ever before, and a cut at this time would be
particularly egregious given the City's projected deficit of
$228 million for fiscal year 2003/04; and
Whereas, For the sake of Buffalo's impoverished
communities, where hope is running short, it is imperative
that our Congressional delegates work effectively and
urgently to restore Buffalo's CDBG funding cut;
Now, therefore, Be It Resolved That:
This Common Council requests the WNY Congressional
delegation to insure that the City of Buffalo's CDBG
allocation for 2003 is restored to at least the 2002 level,
whether by appealing flaws in the formula that mask Buffalo's
need, or by building an alliance to increase total CDBG
funding nationwide; and
Now, Therefore, Be It Further Resolved That:
This Common Council requests the WNY Congressional
delegation members to file a response to this request with
the Council
c/o the City Clerk, 1308 City Hall, Buffalo, NY 14202, as
soon as possible, outlining any ways in which City officials
and others can support their strategy to restore CDBG
funding; and
Be It Finally Resolved That:
The City Clerk be directed to send certified copies of this
resolution to Congress members Slaughter, Quinn, and LaFalce,
Senator Schumer and Clinton, the Clerk of the Senate, the
Speaker of the House, HUD Secretary Martinez and President
Bush.
____
POM-27. A resolution adopted by the Michigan State Senate
relative to the Hunting Heritage Protection Act; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Senate Resolution No. 281
Whereas, Hunting is an activity that is enjoyed by millions
of people across Michigan and our entire country. Unlike some
recreational pursuits, however, hunting provides a direct
link to the outdoors heritage of our nation and is a sport
that is closely tied to the quality of our natural resources.
The benefits of hunting extend far beyond economic
considerations. This reality is especially appreciated by the
people of Michigan; and
Whereas, Recreational hunting continues to be an important
way people relate to the outdoors, even in our modern
society. Hunters and hunting organizations are among the most
dedicated supporters of sound wildlife management and
conservation practices. Fees from licenses contribute to
programs that maintain unique resources for future
generations; and
Whereas, In an effort to perpetuate our country's hunting
heritage, Congress has been considering legislation that
would take steps to ensure that hunting remains a key part of
wildlife management on federal lands. This legislation, the
Hunting Heritage Protection Act, provides that federal lands
will be open to hunting, with specific exceptions. Federal
agencies with authority on public lands are to support and
enhance hunting within applicable laws and regulations. The
legislation includes provisions to ensure that there is no
net loss of land available for hunting as future land
decisions are made; and
Whereas, Michigan has a long history of respect for the
role that sound wildlife management can play in preserving
unique recreational resources. Our citizens have strongly
supported moves to protect our woods, waters, and wildlife.
Federal legislation to ensure that hunting remains part of
our national heritage reflects the will of our state: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate, That we memorialize the Congress of
the United States to enact the Hunting Heritage Protection
Act; and be it further
Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to
the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the
United States House of Representatives, and the members of
the Michigan congressional delegation.
____
POM-28. A resolution adopted by the Michigan State Senate
relative to funding for efforts to prevent the invasion of
the Asian carp into the Great Lakes; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
Senate Resolution No. 282
Whereas, Aquatic species from outside the Great Lakes that
have become established here have significantly altered the
ecology of this treasured freshwater resource. The lamprey,
zebra mussel, and goby are the best known of these exotic
invaders. The costs, from municipalities that have to
maintain water systems to those who make their living on the
lakes through recreation or other businesses, represent an
enormous economic drain. Most importantly, these species can
seriously upset the delicate balance of nature in ways we may
not fully understand for decades; and
Whereas, Another invasion species is close to entering the
Great Lakes. The Asian carp, a large, voracious fish imported
to the Mississippi Valley region to clean certain vegetation
and snails from commercial fish farming operations, has been
making its way up the Chicago Ship and Sanitary Canal and is
apparently getting close to Lake Michigan. Offices in the
Great Lakes area and from the International Joint Commission
have called for Congress to support measures to keep this
threat out of the Great Lakes; and
[[Page 1728]]
Whereas, One of the strategies proposed to prevent the
Asian carp from entering Lake Michigan is an electric
dispersal barrier near Chicago. Congress has been considering
appropriations that would provide for the United States Corps
of Engineers to implement the dispersal barrier project.
Delays in this effort jeopardize further the long-term health
of the Great Lakes; Now, therefore be it
Resolved by the Senate, That we memorialize the Congress of
the United States to provide funding for efforts to prevent
the invasion of the Asian carp into the Great Lakes; and be
it further
Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to
the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the
United States House of Representatives, and member of the
Michigan congressional delegation.
____
POM-29. A resolution adopted by the City of Salem, New
Jersey relative to the phrase ``one nation under God'' in the
Pledge of Allegiance; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Resolution No. 02-150
Whereas, on June 26, 2002 the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declared the Pledge of
Allegiance unconstitutional as it violates the Establishment
Clause of the Constitution because it includes the phrase ``.
. . one Nation under God . . .''; and
Whereas, from its very inception, references to the Deity
and the Deity's importance to this nation have been included
in our most sacred founding documents and political
statements, from the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of
Independence, the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln's Second
Inaugural Speech and through the current crises of September
11, 2001; and
Whereas, the phrase ``. . . one Nation under God . . .''
has been an unchallenged and cherished part of the Pledge of
Allegiance and has been a part of the fabric of the City of
Salem life for almost 50 years; and
Whereas, the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights states
``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion; and
Whereas, by the aforesaid phrase, the Founding Fathers were
referring to the establishment of a state supported church or
religion as existed at that time in the several nations of
Europe, and not to references to God in communal ceremonies;
and
Whereas, references to Deity in official government
documents, speeches and mottos, including the Pledge of
Allegiance, have been a long established tradition and
manifestly do not constitute the meaning of ``an
establishment of religion'' as intended by the Founding
Fathers; and
Whereas, the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court violates
this sacred right by forbidding citizens to enunciate the
phrase in question, and as the controversy has the potential
for reaching the U.S. Supreme Court and could directly impact
the citizens of the City of Salem; and
Whereas, the overwhelming majority of Americans which
includes the residents of the City of Salem, support the
inclusion of this phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance, and
share our outrage, and no one is under any compulsion to
recite that portion of the Pledge of Allegiance under dispute
should they wish to exclude it: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of
Salem, County of Salem, and State of New Jersey as follows:
1. The Mayor and Common Council condemns in the strongest
terms possible this imprudent decision by the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
2. That this decision is an egregious example of the
arbitrary and unconstitutional abuse of powers by the Federal
Courts.
3. The Mayor and Common Council of the City of Salem urges
all of our elected Salem County Officials to effectuate
whatever actions may be necessary to nullify this decision.
4. That the Salem City School System be encouraged and
urged to continue recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in
its current format in all their classes.
5. That a copy of this resolution be sent to the President
of the United States, the Honorable George W. Bush, the Vice-
President of the United States, the Honorable Richard Cheney,
and to all our elected officials both federal and state.
6. That a copy of this resolution be sent to the Salem
County Board of Chosen Freeholders and to all the Municipal
Governing bodies in the County of Salem, urging them to adopt
and distribute similar resolutions addressing this execrable
decision.
7. The Mayor and Common Council of the City of Salem, in
order to demonstrate its commitment to the principles
expressed herein, hereby approves the posting of a copy of
the Pledge of Allegiance including especially the phrase
``ONE NATION UNDER GOD'' in its Council Meeting Room until
December 31, 2002.
____
POM-30. A resolution adopted by the Humboldt County
Democratic Central Committee, City of Eureka, State of
California relative to the use of force against Iraq; to the
Committee on Foreign Relations.
A Resolution
Whereas the Humboldt County Democratic Central Committee is
responsible for representing the values and interests of
Democratic voters in Humboldt County;
Whereas members of the Humboldt County Democratic Central
Committee are publicly elected and constitute a diverse body
of community leaders with demonstrated knowledge of civic
issues and commitment to public service;
Whereas there are over 30,000 registered Democratic voters
in Humboldt County, making the Democratic Party the largest
civic organization on California's North Coast;
Whereas the possibility of war between the United States of
America and the Republic of Iraq is a matter of great concern
to Humboldt County Democrats;
Whereas the consequences of such a war could include the
loss of American lives, the deaths of innocent Iraqi
civilians, damage to United States diplomatic relations with
countries throughout the Arab and Muslim world, diminished
cooperative international efforts to reduce international
terrorism, dangerously high global energy prices, and
increased ethnic and religious violence in the Middle East;
Whereas a congressional authorization for the President to
use force that would result in the overthrow of another
government is tantamount to a declaration of war, a power
constitutionally reserved to Congress, and one which cannot
be deferred or delegated to the President;
Whereas embarking on such a war without broad international
support and participation defies international laws and
standards of decent, civilized behavior;
Whereas, the United States and the international community
have not yet exhausted peaceful means to resolve the issues
of Iraqi compliance with United Nations Security Council
resolutions, which if successful, would provide knowledge
about the true extent of potential threats posed by Iraq;
Whereas the Administration has failed to justify the human
and financial cost of attacking Iraq, which must be based on
either an objectively imminent threat posed by Iraq or a
preeminent role that Iraq plays in supporting terrorism;
Whereas the use of force by the United States against
another government under these circumstances undermines the
democratic principles of this great republic to uphold
justice, liberty and human rights;
Whereas the sudden and relentless emphasis on this issue by
the Republican Party, the President and his administration
just before a critical national election diverts public
attention away from other vitally important issues including
corporate fraud, the growing national debt, health care
reforms and preserving Social Security: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Humboldt County Democratic Central
Committee hereby opposes the preemptive use of force or a
Congressional resolution authorizing such a use of force
against Iraq or any sovereign nation without independently
verified evidence of an imminent threat, due consideration of
the short- and long-term consequences noted above, and the
exhaustion of all peaceful means to remedy the situation; be
it further
Resolved, That the Humboldt County Democratic Central
Committee calls upon the President and his administration to
fully participate in international collaborative efforts to
peacefully ensure Iraqi compliance with United Nations
resolutions; and be it further
Resolved, That the Humboldt County Democratic Central
Committee calls upon our elected officials to pursue domestic
policies that reduce our dependence on energy imports and
support foreign policies that consistently respect and
support human rights, national sovereignty, and international
efforts to reduce poverty; and be it further
Resolved, That copies of this resolution be sent to our
elected officials, the local media and civic organizations.
____
POM-31. A resolution adopted by the City of Miami, State of
Florida relative to human rights violations in Afghanistan;
to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Resolution No. 02-860
Whereas, the abuse of women and children in Afghanistan and
Pakistan and other countries under the leadership of
fundamentalist regimes has been well documented by nations,
international human rights organizations and the media,
particularly since the take-over of Afghanistan by the
Taliban; and
Whereas, these women and children continue to suffer from
the deprivation and violation of their civil and human rights
and be subjected to violence, repression and abuse; and
Whereas, the City of Miami Commission on the Status of
Women has set out in its Position Statement/Paper its
condemnation of the treatment of women and children in
Afghanistan and Pakistan; and
Whereas, the City Commission wishes to strongly urge the
government of the United States, and any other nations or
authorities responsible for the status and treatment of
women, to review the Position Statement/Paper of the City of
Miami Commission on the Status of Women: Now, therefore, be
it
Resolved by the Commission of the City of Miami, Florida:
[[Page 1729]]
Section 1. The recitals and findings contained in the
Preamble to this Resolution are adopted by reference and
incorporated as if fully set forth in this Section.
Section 2. The United States government and any other
nations or authorities responsible for the status and
treatment of women are strongly urged to review the Position
Statement/Paper of the City of Miami Commission on the Status
of Women which condemns the treatment of women and children
in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Section 3. The City Clerk is directed to transmit a copy of
this Resolution to President George W. Bush, Vice-President
Richard B. Cheney, Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert,
Senators Bob Graham and Bill Nelson, all members of the
United States House of Representatives for Miami-Dade County,
the United States Department of State, the United States
Department of Justice, the United Nations High Commissioner,
and all Consulate Generals based in the City of Miami and
Miami-Dade County.
Section 4. This Resolution shall become effective
immediately upon its adoption and signature of the Mayor.
City of Miami Commission on the Status of Women Position Paper
Condemning the Treatment of Women and Children in Afghanistan and
Pakistan
The abuse of women in Afghanistan and Pakistan and other
countries under the leadership of fundamentalist regimes has
been documented for several years, particularly since the
take-over of Afghanistan by the Taliban.
Prior to the takeover by the Taliban in 1996, women
throughout Afghanistan enjoyed some degree of freedom. The
Taliban institutionalized the sort of discrimination the
entire world has now soundly condemned. Women comprised some
70% of school teachers, 50% of civilian workers, and 40% of
doctors in Kabul.
Women have been banished to a bare existence, denied most
schooling, adequate medical care, and any means to support
themselves. It is estimated that the illiteracy rate among
women is now 90%. Many women and children have died seeking
medical care of any sort. It is also estimated by
international organizations that there exist some 40,000
widows in Afghanistan. Though exempt from some of the edicts
of the past government, they have been left with few means to
support and feed themselves and their children.
Women and their male supporters have been publicly beaten
and frequently killed by the ``Religious Police'' in their
attempts to enforce their version of the law.
Many women have continued to pursue education and medicine
in secret, teaching in secret home schools, and doctors have
had to practice medicine under extreme restrictions as to
their dress and the patients they may treat.
A recent article in the Miami Herald declared that in spite
of the ``loya jirga'' (or ``grand council'' that was in
progress in Afghanistan to choose the country's current and
future leaders, in practice, women who speak out and fail to
wear the traditional clothing mandated in the past, are still
prime targets of the local warlords and their followers and
are thus unable to fully participate in the rebuilding
process. Recently, a relief agency trucking supplies into the
mountains was stopped and a female relief worker raped by the
``soldiers.'' Many of the warlords who control the areas of
worst abuse are the same warlords who are participating in
the ``loya jirga'' and have obtained positions of authority
in the new government. Women who are working for progress and
healing are subject to retribution at all levels.
In Pakistan and India, women have also historically been
subject to repression and laws which treat them as less than
property.
1. The United States government must come out even more
strongly in support of women and children in Afghanistan and
Pakistan and the Non-Governmental Organizations that strive
to support them.
2. In spite of the passage of the Afghanistan Women and
Children Relief Act of 2001 by Congress, more funding and
more support must be forthcoming. The United States was the
driving force behind the liberation of the countries in
question from extremist rule, and must be the leading force
assisting in the remediation of these atrocities.
3. The governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan should be
encouraged to clearly and publicly condemn all acts of
violence against women. They should develop and implement
policies and disseminate materials to promote women's safety
in the community and in detention.
4. The governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan should
prohibit all acts of violence against women and establish
legal protection. They should review existing laws such as
the ``Hudood Ordinance'' (which criminalizes extra-marital
sex, including adultery, fornication and rape outside of a
valid marriage) and add additional protections and penalties.
5. The governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan must
investigate all allegations of violence against women and
prosecute and punish those found to be responsible.
6. In Afghanistan, women must be reintroduced into open
society with all the protections we in the West enjoy. Women
doctors must be allowed to go back to work. Women teachers
must be allowed to teach and schools must be allowed past the
8th grade.
7. Women must be made equal citizens as far as enlightened
religious practice allows. Prior regimes in Afghanistan
allowed women great latitude in society. That must be
restored.
8. The United States must fully support all United Nations
efforts to end all forms of discrimination against women, and
monitor these efforts on an ongoing basis and report to the
people of the United States on progress achieved.
____
POM-32. A resolution adopted by the City of Belvedere State
of New Jersey relative to supporting Israel in the campaign
against terrorism; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Resolution
Whereas, the United States of America was struck by suicide
terrorists on September 11, 2001, in attacks that killed
thousands of U.S. citizens, destroyed the World Trade Center
in New York City, damaged the Pentagon, and purposefully
incinerated four commercial aircraft by turning those planes
into suicide missiles; and
Whereas, the government of the United States and the
military of this country are currently involved in an
international and domestic effort of historic proportions to
curb terrorism against this country and assist our friends
and allies who are engaged in similar efforts; and
Whereas, the State of Israel, the closest ally of the
United States in the Mideast and the only democratic nation
in that region, has experienced a brutal spate of suicide
terrorist attacks against civilizations in the last year by
groups sponsored or given safe harbor by the Palestinian
Authority and its Chairman, Yasser Arafat, and substantially
assisted by our nations in the region such as Iraq and Iran;
and
Whereas, an attack against the civilian population by
terrorists of one country is an attack on civilizations in
all countries and the increased use of suicide bombers is a
new form of terrorism that threatens civilians everywhere;
and
Whereas, the Warren County Board of Chosen Freeholders
laments the tragic loss of life experience by the Israeli
people during the recent hostilities in the Mideast: Now,
therefore be it
Resolved by the Warren County Board of Chosen Freeholders:
That the Warren County Board of Chosen Freeholders on
behalf of the citizens of Warren County stands behind those
efforts of our President that support the government and
people of Israel in this time of crisis in the Mideast.
That the Warren County Board of Chosen Freeholders on
behalf of the citizens of Warren County supports the State of
Israel and her citizens in the campaign against terror and in
the effort to root out the terrorist infrastructure currently
protected by and encouraged by the Palestinian Authority and
other nations in the region still at war with the State of
Israel.
That the Warren County Board of Chosen Freeholders on
behalf of the citizens of Warren County call upon all Arab
nations committed to and desirous of peace to take action by:
abstaining from monetarily rewarding attacks on innocent
citizens; encouraging accountability in the peace process by
facilitating the establishment of democratic institutions of
government in the Palestinian Authority to insure enforcement
of peace if and when it is brokered; halting the use of state
media and state education systems to fomet religious hatred
and anti-Semitism; and encouraging the Palestian Authority to
place in leadership people capable and willing to negotiate
and consummate a permanent peace accord.
That the Warren County Board of Chosen Freeholders on
behald of the citizens of Warren County urges our President
and our Congress to support the State of Israel in its effort
to live in peace and security, minimize to the greatest
extent loss to innocents and to withstand pressure from those
who would appease or accommodate terrorism in any form or at
any place.
That a copy of this resolution be distributed to the
President of the United States, the Honorable George W. Bush,
to the Vice President of the United States, the Honorable
Richard Cheney, and to all our elected officials, both
federal and state.
____________________
EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
The following executive reports of committees were submitted:
By Mr. GREGG for the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions.
*Celeste Colgan, of Texas, to be a Member of the National
Council on the Humanities for a term expiring January 26,
2008.
*Jewel Spears Brooker, of Florida, to be a Member of the
National Council on the Humanities for a term expiring
January 26, 2008.
*Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, of Georgia, to be a Member of the
National Council on the Humanities for a term expiring
January 26, 2008.
[[Page 1730]]
*Stephen McKnight, of Florida to be a Member of the
National Council on the Humanities for a term expiring
January 26, 2008.
*Sidney McPhee, of Tennessee, to be a Member of the
National Council on the Humanities for a term expiring
January 26, 2008.
*Lawrence Okamura, of Missouri, to be a Member of the
National Council on the Humanities for a term expiring
January 26, 2008.
*Marguerite Sullivan, of the District of Columbia, to be a
Member of the National Council on the Humanities for a term
expiring January 26, 2008.
*Stephen Thernstrom, of Massachusetts, to be a Member of
the National Council on the Humanities for a term expiring
January 26, 2008.
*David Hertz, of Indiana, to be a Member of the National
Council on the Humanities for a term expiring January 26,
2008.
*Terry L. Maple, of Georgia, to be a Member of the National
Museum Services Board for a term expiring December 6, 2005.
*Phyllis C. Hunter, of Texas, to be a Member of the
National Institute for Literacy Advisory Board for a term of
two years.
*Blanca E. Enriquez, of Texas, to be a Member of the
National Institute for Literacy Advisory Board for a term of
three years.
*Douglas Carnine, of Oregon, to be a Member of the National
Institute for Literacy Advisory Board for a term of three
years.
*Stanley C. Suboleski, of Virginia, to be a Member of the
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission for a term
of six years expiring August 30, 2006.
*W. Scott Railton, of Virginia, to be a Member of the
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission for a term
expiring April 2, 2007.
By Mr. McCAIN for the Committee on Commerce, Science and
Transportation.
*Asa Hutchinson, of Arkansas, to be Under Secretary for
Border and Transportation, Department of Homeland Security.
*Nomination was reported with recommendation that it be confirmed
subject to the nominee's commitment to respond to requests to appear
and testify before any duly constituted committee of the Senate.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the
first and second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:
By Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mr. Lugar, and
Mr. Hatch):
S. 205. A bill to authorize the issuance of immigrant visas
to, and the admission to the United States for permanent
residence of, certain scientists, engineers, and technicians
who have worked in Iraqi weapons of mass destruction
programs; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. ROBERTS (for himself, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Hatch,
Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. Kyl):
S. 206. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to clarify the treatment of incentive stock options and
employee stock purchase plans; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. SMITH:
S. 207. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to provide a 10-year extension of the credit for producing
electricity from wind; to the Committee on Finance.
By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 208. A bill to require the Secretary of Homeland
Security to develop and implement a plan to provide security
for cargo entering the United States or being transported in
intrastate or interstate commerce; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Cornyn,
Mr. Levin, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Fitzgerald,
and Mr. Allen):
S. 209. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to waive the income inclusion on a distribution from an
individual retirement account to the extent that the
distribution is contributed for charitable purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.
By Mr. BINGAMAN:
S. 210. A bill to provide for the protection of
archaeological sites in the Galisteo Basin in New Mexico, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Domenici):
S. 211. A bill to establish the Northern Rio Grande
National Heritage Area in the State of New Mexico, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Brownback, and Mr.
Domenici):
S. 212. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior
to cooperate with the High Plains States in conducting a
hydrogeologic characterization, mapping, modeling and
monitoring program for the High Plains Aquifer, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Domenici):
S. 213. A bill to clear title to certain real property in
New Mexico associated with the Middle Rio Grande Project, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Domenici):
S. 214. A bill to designate Fort Bayard Historic District
in the State of New Mexico as a National Historic Landmark,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Bond, Mr. Leahy,
Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Gregg, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Johnson,
Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Breaux, and Mr. Feingold):
S. 215. A bill to authorize funding assistance for the
States for the discharge of homeland security activities by
the National Guard; to the Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. EDWARDS:
S. 216. A bill to authorize the National Institute of
Standards and Technology to develop improvements in building
and fire codes, standards, and practices to reduce the impact
of terrorist and other extreme threats to the safety of
buildings, their occupants, and emergency responders, and to
authorize the Department of Homeland Security to form a task
force to recommend ways to strengthen standards in the
private security industry, stabilize the workforce, and
create a safer environment for commercial building and
industrial facility occupants; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mr. Lautenberg):
S. 217. A bill to reinstate felony penalties for licensed
gun dealers who fail to maintain records of sales; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Hollings,
and Mr. Kerry):
S. 218. A bill to amend the Coastal Zone Management Act; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself and Mr. Specter):
S.J. Res. 5. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to
the Constitution of the United States relating to
contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
____________________
SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS
The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were
read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:
By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. McCain, Mr. DeWine,
Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Durbin, Mr.
Domenici, Mr. Specter, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Cochran,
Mrs. Murray, Mr. Allen, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Fitzgerald,
Mr. Akaka, Mr. Dodd, and Ms. Landrieu):
S. Res. 25. A resolution designating January 2003 as
``National Mentoring Month''; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
____________________
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS
s. 68
At the request of Mr. Inouye, the name of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Durbin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 68, a bill to amend title
38, United States Code, to improve benefits for Filipino veterans of
World War II, and for other purposes.
s. 85
At the request of Mr. Lugar, the names of the Senator from Kansas
(Mr. Roberts) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) were added as
cosponsors of S. 85, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to provide for a charitable deduction for contributions of food
inventory.
s. 138
At the request of Mr. Rockefeller, the name of the Senator from
California (Mrs. Feinstein) was added as a cosponsor of S. 138, a bill
to temporarily increase the Federal medical assistance percentage for
the medicaid program.
s.j. res. 4
At the request of Mr. Hatch, the name of the Senator from Ohio (Mr.
Voinovich) was added as a cosponsor of S.J. Res. 4, A joint resolution
proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States
authorizing Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag
of the United States.
s. con. res. 1
At the request of Mr. Sarbanes, the name of the Senator from Rhode
Island (Mr. Reed) was added as a cosponsor of S. Con. Res. 1, A
concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress that
[[Page 1731]]
there should continue to 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.
amendment no. 33
At the request of Mr. Craig, the names of the Senator from Colorado
(Mr. Campbell) and the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Coleman) were added
as cosponsors of amendment No. 33 proposed to H.J. Res. 2, a joint
resolution making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year
2003, and for other purposes.
amendment no. 39
At the request of Mrs. Murray, the name of the Senator from Delaware
(Mr. Biden) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 39 proposed to
H.J. Res. 2, a joint resolution making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes.
amendment no. 59
At the request of Mr. Wyden, the names of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Durbin), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from
South Dakota (Mr. Daschle) and the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton)
were added as cosponsors of amendment No. 59 proposed to H.J. Res. 2, a
joint resolution making further continuing appropriations for the
fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes.
amendment no. 89
At the request of Mr. Johnson, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 89 proposed to H.J. Res. 2, a joint resolution making
further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for
other purposes.
amendment no. 108
At the request of Mr. Johnson, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 108 proposed to H.J. Res. 2, a joint resolution making
further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for
other purposes.
amendment no. 108
At the request of Ms. Cantwell, the names of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr.
Bingaman), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), the Senator from
California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr . Akaka), the
Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Maryland (Mr.
Sarbanes), the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) and the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. Daschle) were added as cosponsors of amendment
No. 108 proposed to H.J. Res. 2, supra.
amendment no. 126
At the request of Mr. Bingaman, the names of the Senator from New
Mexico (Mr. Domenici) and the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu)
were added as cosponsors of amendment No. 126 proposed to H.J. Res. 2,
a joint resolution making further continuing appropriations for the
fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes.
amendment no. 127
At the request of Mr. Durbin, the name of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 127
proposed to H.J. Res. 2, a joint resolution making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes.
amendment no. 131
At the request of Mr. Harkin, the names of the Senator from Minnesota
(Mr. Dayton), the Senator from Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln), the Senator
from Arkansas (Mr. Pryor), the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and
the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici) were added as cosponsors of
amendment No. 131 proposed to H.J. Res. 2, a joint resolution making
further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for
other purposes.
amendment no. 135
At the request of Mr. Talent, the name of the Senator from Nebraska
(Mr. Nelson) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 135 proposed to
H.J. Res. 2, a joint resolution making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes.
amendment no. 136
At the request of Ms. Mikulski, the names of the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the
Senator from Washington (Ms. Cantwell), the Senator from Oregon (Mr.
Smith), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts) and the Senator from
Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu) were added as cosponsors of amendment No. 136
proposed to H.J. Res. 2, a joint resolution making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes.
amendment no. 137
At the request of Mr. Lieberman, the names of the Senator from
Louisiana (Mr. Breaux) and the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes)
were added as cosponsors of amendment No. 137 proposed to H.J. Res. 2,
a joint resolution making further continuing appropriations for the
fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes.
amendment no. 137
At the request of Mr. Lott, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 137 proposed to H.J. Res. 2, supra.
amendment no. 138
At the request of Ms. Collins, her name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 138 proposed to H.J. Res. 2, a joint resolution making
further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for
other purposes.
amendment no. 138
At the request of Mr. Kennedy, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 138 proposed to H.J. Res. 2, supra.
amendment no. 138
At the request of Ms. Landrieu, her name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 138 proposed to H.J. Res. 2, supra.
amendment no. 138
At the request of Mr. Bingaman, the names of the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton) and the
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings) were added as cosponsors of
amendment No. 138 proposed to H.J. Res. 2, supra.
amendment no. 163
At the request of Mr. Harkin, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 163 proposed to H.J. Res. 2, a joint resolution making
further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for
other purposes.
amendment no. 167
At the request of Mr. Specter, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 167 proposed to H.J. Res. 2, a joint resolution making
further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for
other purposes.
amendment no. 172
At the request of Ms. Landrieu, the names of the Senator from
California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Maine (Ms. Collins) and
the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) were added as cosponsors of
amendment No. 172 proposed to H.J. Res. 2, a joint resolution making
further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for
other purposes.
amendment no. 174
At the request of Mr. Akaka, the name of the Senator from West
Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No.
174 proposed to H.J. Res. 2, a joint resolution making further
continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other
purposes.
amendment no. 176
At the request of Mr. Schumer, the names of the Senator from West
Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) and the Senator from Washington (Mrs.
Murray) were added as cosponsors of amendment No. 176 intended to be
proposed to H.J. Res. 2, a joint resolution making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes.
amendment no. 178
At the request of Mr. Corzine, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 178 proposed to H.J. Res. 2, a joint resolution making
further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for
other purposes.
amendment no. 178
At the request of Mr. Dayton, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 178 proposed to H.J. Res. 2, supra.
amendment no. 178
At the request of Mr. Domenici, his name was added as a cosponsor of
[[Page 1732]]
amendment No. 178 proposed to H.J. Res. 2, supra.
amendment no. 178
At the request of Mr. Durbin, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 178 proposed to H.J. Res. 2, supra.
amendment no. 178
At the request of Mrs. Dole, her name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 178 proposed to H.J. Res. 2, supra.
amendment no. 187
At the request of Ms. Mikulski, her name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 187 proposed to H.J. Res. 2, a joint resolution making
further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for
other purposes.
amendment no. 188
At the request of Mr. Dodd, the names of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords),
the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
Daschle) and the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) were added as
cosponsors of amendment No. 188 proposed to H.J. Res. 2, a joint
resolution making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year
2003, and for other purposes.
amendment no. 192
At the request of Mr. Kerry, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 192 proposed to H.J. Res. 2, a joint resolution making
further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for
other purposes.
amendment no. 199
At the request of Mrs. Hutchison, her name was added as a cosponsor
of amendment No. 199 proposed to H.J. Res. 2, a joint resolution making
further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for
other purposes.
amendment no. 214
At the request of Mr. Coleman, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 214 proposed to H.J. Res. 2, a joint resolution making
further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for
other purposes.
amendment no. 214
At the request of Mr. Dayton, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 214 proposed to H.J. Res. 2, supra.
amendment no. 236
At the request of Mr. Harkin, the name of the Senator from Wisconsin
(Mr. Kohl) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 236 proposed to
H.J. Res. 2, a joint resolution making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes.
____________________
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mr. Lugar, and Mr.
Hatch):
S. 205. A bill to authorize the issuance of immigrant visas to, and
the admission to the United States for permanent residence of, certain
scientists, engineers, and technicians who have worked in Iraqi weapons
of mass destruction programs; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, on October 7, 2002, the President of the
United States said something very important about United Nations
inspections in Iraq. He said: ``Clearly, to actually work, any new
inspections . . . will have to be very different. . . . To ensure that
we learn the truth, the regime must allow witnesses to its illegal
activities to be interviewed outside the country--and these witnesses
must be free to bring their families with them so they are all beyond
the reach of Saddam Hussein's terror and murder. And inspectors must
have access to any site, at any time, without pre-clearance, without
delay, without exceptions.''
The President was right on the money about inspections. This is how
to get the information the world needs on Saddam Hussein's weapons of
mass destruction. Inspections are vital to stripping him of those
banned weapons.
The United Nations responded properly to the President's challenge.
On November 8, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1441, which
provided: . . . that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate,
unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all,
including underground areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records,
and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as
immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials
and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the
mode or location of UNMOVIC's or the IAEA's choice pursuant to any
aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may
at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may
facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside
of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such
interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi
government.''
The inspectors are given unprecedented authority. But how are they to
implement it? Where will those weapons scientists and their families
go, once they've told the truth about Saddam's weapons programs? They
can't go home again. And at least in the short run, there will be no
safe haven in the region for people who reveal Saddam's most terrible
secrets.
Maybe some can go to Europe, although both al Qaeda cells and
Saddam's agents have operated there. Maybe some can go to Canada, or to
South America.
If the United States wants the world to show resolve in dealing with
Saddam Hussein, however, then we must take the lead in admitting those
people who have the courage to betray Saddam's nuclear, chemical,
biological or missile programs. We have a large country in which to
absorb those people, and, for all our problems, we have the best law
enforcement and security apparatus to guard them.
What we do not have is an immigration system that readily admits
large numbers of persons who were involved with weapons of mass
destruction, have aided a country in the sop-called ``axis of evil,''
and are bringing their families. I introduced legislation last October,
therefore, to admit to our country those personnel, and their families,
who give critical and reliable information on Saddam's programs to us,
to the United Nations, or to the International Atomic Energy Agency. On
November 20, the Senate passed an amended version of that bill, S.
3079, with the strong support of the Administration; but there was not
enough time for the House of Representatives to act on the legislation.
Two months have passed since inspections were resumed in Iraq. The
new inspectors are gaining experience, as well as actionable
intelligence from the United States and other countries. They are
beginning to find unreported weapons; and every weapon destroyed is a
weapon that will never be used to cause mass destruction or to attack
U.S. forces.
But inspectors have had a hard time getting truthful information from
the Iraqis they interview. Saddam Hussein terrorizes his people,
including his weapons scientists, so effectively that they are afraid
to be interviewed in private, let alone outside the country. They know
that even the appearance of cooperation could be a death sentence for
themselves or their families.
To overcome this obstacle, and to discover and dismantle Saddam
Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, UNMOVIC and the IAEA must
interview relevant persons securely and with their families protected,
even if they protest publicly against this treatment. Hans Blix may
dislike running ``a defection agency,'' but that could be the only way
to obtain truthful information about Saddam's weapons of mass
destruction. The protests of those interviewed can actually be helpful,
as they prevent Saddam from knowing which of his personnel may be
willing to tell the truth once they and their families are given a
secure environment.
The United States must help UNMOVIC and the IAEA to create that
secure environment. So, today I am re-introducing the Iraqi Scientists
Immigration Act.
I am joined by my esteemed colleague on the Judiciary Committee,
[[Page 1733]]
Senator Specter of Pennsylvania, who co-sponsored the original bill,
and also by the chairmen of the Foreign Relations Committee and the
Judiciary Committee Senator Lugar of Indiana and Senator Hatch of Utah.
I have been assured, moreover, that the Administration remains eager to
see this bill enacted. This bill is not political. Rather, it is a
bipartisan effort to help the President succeed in forcing Iraq to
destroy all its weapons of mass destruction capabilities.
I urge my colleagues to support quick action on this legislation.
Iraqis will not come forward unless we offer protection to them and
their families. Those who are willing to provide truthful information
will merit our protection. And their information will help disarm
Saddam Hussein; it will save lives if we have to go to war; and it
could even help us to disarm Saddam without a war.
Current law includes several means of either paroling non-immigrants
into the United States or admitting people for permanent residence,
notwithstanding their normal inadmissibility under the law. These are
very limited provisions, however, and they will not suffice to
accommodate hundreds of Iraqi scientists and their families.
The legislation that I am re-introducing, the ``Iraqi Scientists
Immigration Act of 2003,'' will permit the Attorney General, on a case-
by-case basis in coordination with the Secretary of State and the
Director of Central Intelligence, to admit a foreigner and his family
if such person: has worked in an Iraqi program to produce weapons of
mass destruction or the means to deliver them; is willing to supply or
has supplied critical and reliable information on that program to an
agency of the United States Government; may be willing to supply or has
supplied such information to United Nations or IAEA inspectors; and
will be or has been placed in danger as a result of providing such
information.
The Attorney General will also have the authority to give legal
permanent resident status to persons who provide the promised
information.
Finally, this legislation will be limited to the admission of 500
scientists, plus their families. If it works and we need to enlarge the
program, we can do so.
The important thing to do now is to give our country the initial
authority, and to give United Nations inspectors the ability to
reassure Saddam's nuclear, chemical, biological and missile experts
that they and their families will be protected if they help the world
to bring those programs down.
President Bush, other world leaders, and the inspectors in Iraq are
trying to disarm a tyrant whose arms programs make him a danger to
world peace. And they are trying to do this without going to war, even
as we prepare to wage that war if necessary. We owe it to the
inspectors to give them every chance to succeed. We owe it to the
President to give him the tools he needs to help those inspectors. We
owe it to Iraq's people and its neighbors to do everything we can to
dismantle its weapons of mass destruction programs. And we owe it to
our own people to do all we can to achieve that end peacefully, and
with international support.
This bill is a small, but vital step toward those ends. I urge my
colleagues to give it their immediate attention and support.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 205
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Iraqi Scientists Immigration
Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. ADMISSION OF CRITICAL ALIENS.
(a) Nonimmigrant Category.--Section 101(a)(15) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (U);
(2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (V)
and inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(W) Subject to section 214(s), an alien--
``(i) who the Attorney General determines, in coordination
with the Secretary of State, the Director of Central
Intelligence, and such other officials as he may deem
appropriate, and in the Attorney General's unreviewable
discretion, is an individual--
``(I) who has worked at any time in an Iraqi program to
produce weapons of mass destruction or the means to deliver
them;
``(II) who is in possession of critical and reliable
information concerning any such Iraqi program;
``(III) who is willing to provide, or has provided, such
information to the United States Government;
``(IV) who may be willing to provide, or has provided, such
information to inspectors of the United Nations or of the
International Atomic Energy Agency;
``(V) who will be or has been placed in danger as a result
of providing such information; and
``(VI) whose admission would be in the public interest or
in the interest of national security; or
``(ii) who is the spouse, married or unmarried son or
daughter, parent, or other relative, as determined by the
Attorney General in his unreviewable discretion, of an alien
described in clause (i), if accompanying or following to join
such alien, and whose admission the Attorney General, in
coordination with the Secretary of State and the Director of
Central Intelligence, determines in his unreviewable
discretion is in the public interest or in the interest of
national security.''.
(b) Limitations and Conditions Applicable to ``W''
Nonimmigrants.--Section 214 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (m) (as added by section
105 of Public Law 106-313), (n) (as added by section 107(e)
of Public Law 106-386), (o) (as added by section 1513(c) of
Public Law 106-386), (o) (as added by section 1102(b) of the
Legal Immigration Family Equity Act), and (p) (as added by
section 1503(b) of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act)
as subsections (n), (o), (p), (q), and (r), respectively; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(s) Numerical Limitations and Conditions of Admission and
Stay For Nonimmigrants Admitted Under Section
101(a)(15)(W).--
``(1) Limitation.--The number of aliens who may be admitted
to the United States or otherwise granted status under
section 101(a)(15)(W)(i) may not exceed a total of 500.
``(2) Conditions.--As a condition for the admission, and
continued stay in lawful status, of any alien admitted to the
United States or otherwise granted status as a nonimmigrant
under section 101(a)(15)(W), the nonimmigrant--
``(A) shall report to the Attorney General such information
concerning the alien's whereabouts and activities as the
Attorney General may require;
``(B) may not be convicted of any criminal offense
punishable by a term of imprisonment of 1 year or more after
the date of such admission or grant of status;
``(C) must have executed a form that waives the
nonimmigrant's right to contest, other than on the basis of
an application for withholding of removal or for protection
under the Convention Against Torture, any action for removal
of the alien instituted before the alien obtains lawful
permanent resident status;
``(D) shall cooperate fully with all requests for
information from the United States Government including, but
not limited to, fully and truthfully disclosing to the United
States Government all information in the alien's possession
concerning any Iraqi program to produce weapons of mass
destruction or the means to deliver them; and
``(E) shall abide by any other condition, limitation, or
restriction imposed by the Attorney General.''.
(c) Adjustment of Status.--Section 245 of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) is amended--
(1) in subsection (c)--
(A) by striking ``or'' before ``(8)''; and
(B) by inserting before the period ``or (9) an alien who
was admitted as a nonimmigrant described in section
101(a)(15)(W)'';
(2) by redesignating subsection (l), relating to ``U'' visa
nonimmigrants, as subsection (m); and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(n) Adjustment to Permanent Resident Status of `W'
Nonimmigrants.--
``(1) In general.--If, in the opinion of the Attorney
General, a nonimmigrant admitted into the United States (or
otherwise provided nonimmigrant status) under section
101(a)(15)(W)(i) has complied with section 214(s) since such
admission or grant of status, the Attorney General may, in
coordination with the Secretary of State and the Director of
Central Intelligence, and in his unreviewable discretion,
adjust the status of the alien (and any alien who has
accompanied or followed to join such alien pursuant to
section 101(a)(15)(W)(ii) and who has complied with section
214(s) since admission or grant of nonimmigrant status) to
that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if
the alien is not described in section 212(a)(3)(E).
[[Page 1734]]
``(2) Record of admission; reduction in visa numbers.--Upon
the approval of adjustment of status of any alien under
paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall record the alien's
lawful admission for permanent residence as of the date of
such approval and the Secretary of State shall reduce by one
the number of visas authorized to be issued under sections
201(d) and 203(b)(4) for the fiscal year then current.''.
(d) Waiver Authority.--Section 212(d) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)) is amended by
inserting after paragraph (1) the following new paragraph:
``(2) The Attorney General shall determine whether a ground
of inadmissibility exists with respect to a nonimmigrant
described in section 101(a)(15)(W). The Attorney General, in
the Attorney General's discretion, may waive the application
of subsection (a) in the case of such a nonimmigrant if the
Attorney General considers it to be in the public interest or
in the interest of national security.''.
(e) Conforming Amendment.--Section 248(1) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1258(1)) is amended
by striking ``or (S)'' and inserting ``(S), or (W)''.
SEC. 3. WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION DEFINED.
(a) In General.--In this Act, the term ``weapon of mass
destruction'' has the meaning given the term in section
1403(1) of the Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction
Act of 1996 (title XIV of Public Law 104-201; 110 Stat. 2717;
50 U.S.C. 2302(1)), as amended by subsection (b).
(b) Technical Correction.--Section 1403(1)(B) of the
Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996
(title XIV of Public Law 104-201; 110 Stat. 2717; 50 U.S.C.
2302(1)(B)) is amended by striking ``a disease organism'' and
inserting ``a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those
terms are defined in section 178 of title 18, United States
Code)''.
______
By Mr. SMITH:
S. 207. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
a 10-year extension of the credit for producing electricity from wind;
to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to
encourage a more environmentally friendly electricity future for the
United States.
The bill I am introducing would provide for a ten-year extension of
the tax credit for producing electricity from wind. I believe that an
extension of this length will provide stability to this important
emerging energy sector.
For the past several years, we have provided short-term extensions,
sometimes retroactively, of this important tax incentive. The result
has been that investors and utilities have been hesitant to commit the
capital necessary to bring wind projects on line.
A major European wind turbine manufacturer had planned to build its
first U.S. manufacturing facility in Portland, OR. The plant was
expected to provide over 1,000 family-wage jobs once operational.
Unfortunately, last November, the corporation announced it would put
those plans on hold and lay off more than 500 employees. This happened
at a time when Oregon already had one of the highest unemployment rates
in the country.
The main reason given for putting on hold this facility was the
failure of the Congress to clarify the production tax credit for wind
energy. Slow demand in this economic downturn was also cited.
However, our economy is going to rebound. And when it does, the
demand for electricity will increase. There is already over 180
megawatts of installed wind energy capacity, with another 150 megawatts
of planned development. The Stateline Wind Energy Project, which
straddles the Oregon-Washington border, has over 263 megawatts of
installed capacity, making it the largest wind farm to date in the
western United States.
When the Senate passed national energy legislation last year, there
was a strong, bipartisan commitment to renewable energy resources. We
can use the tax code to encourage the development of clean, renewable
sources of electricity and a new generation of advanced technology
vehicles. These vehicles can reduce our reliance on imported oil
because their fuel efficiency is greatly improved and there are lower
emissions of greenhouse gases and ozone-forming pollutants.
I have always held that if we use technology wisely, we can improve
our environmental stewardship while maintaining our human stewardship
and the standard of living we enjoy in this great Nation.
I would urge my colleague to join me in cosponsoring this important
legislation.
______
By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 208. A bill to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to
develop and implement a plan to provide security for cargo entering the
United States or being transported in intrastate or interstate
commerce; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation aimed
at closing the dangerous cargo security loophole in our Nation's
aviation security network.
In the wake of September 11 terrorist attacks, with the passage of
the Aviation and Security Act of 2001, we reinvented aviation security.
We overturned the status quo, and I am proud of the work we did. We put
the Federal Government in charge of security and we have made
significant strides toward restoring the confidence of the American
people that it is safe to fly.
We no longer have a system in which the financial ``bottom line''
interferes with protecting the flying public. We also addressed the
gamut of critical issues, including baggage screening, additional air
marshals, cockpit security, and numerous other issues.
But there is more work to be done. We must not lose focus. If we are
to fully confront the aviation security challenges we face in the
aftermath of September 11, we must remain aggressive. We need a ``must-
do'' attitude, not excuses about what ``can't be done,'' because we are
only as safe as the weakest link in our aviation security system.
I believe one of the most troubling shortcomings, which persists to
this day, is lax air cargo security infrastructure in this country.
According to the GAO, a full 22 percent of all the cargo shipped by air
in this country in 2000 was shipped on passenger flights and typically
half of the hull of every passenger plane is filled with cargo. The
Department of Transportation Inspector General has recommended that
current air cargo controls be tightened, particularly the process for
certifying freight forwarders and assessing their compliance with
security requirements, and has warned that the existing screening
system is ``easily circumvented.'' This must not be allowed to stand.
Moreover, according to a Washington Post report last summer, Internal
Transportation Security Administration documents warn of an increased
risk of an attack designed to exploit this vulnerability because TSA
has been focused primarily on meeting its new mandates to screen
passengers and luggage.
This is clear evidence that cargo security needs to be bolstered. And
time is not on our side. We must act now. The bill I am introducing
today is designed to tackle this issue by directing the TSA to submit a
detailed cargo security plan to Congress that will address the
shortcomings in the current system.
And while TSA is designing and implementing this plan, my bill would
require interim security measures to be put in place immediately. The
interim security plan would include random screening of at least 5
percent of all cargo, an authentication policy designed to ensure that
terrorists are not able to impersonate legitimate shippers, audits of
each phase of the shipping process in order to police compliance,
training and background checks for cargo handlers, and funding for
screening and detection equipment.
On September 11, terrorists exposed the vulnerability of our
commercial aviation network in the most horrific fashion. The Aviation
and Transportation Security Act of 2001 was a major step in the right
direction, but we must always stay one step ahead of those who would
commit vicious acts of violence on our soil aimed at innocent men,
women, and children.
This bill is designed to build on the foundation we set in 2001. I
urge my colleagues to join me in addressing this critical matter.
______
By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Cornyn, Mr.
[[Page 1735]]
Levin, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Fitzgerald, and Mr. Allen):
S. 209. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to waive
the income inclusion on a distribution from an individual retirement
account to the extent that the distribution is contributed for
charitable purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation
today that will enhance and encourage charitable giving in the United
States. The Charitable IRA Rollover Act will allow individuals to
rollover assets from an Individual Retirement Account, or ``IRA,'' to a
charity without incurring income tax consequences.
One of my priorities has been to promote charitable giving and expand
the role charities and faith-based institutions play in addressing
social problems in the United States. I hope this legislation moves us
further in that direction.
Government alone cannot solve society's most serious problems. In
fact, government social programs often fail in their missions. The old
welfare system is a perfect example of what often goes wrong when
government tends to throw money at a problem.
Under the old system, while trying to help people, government
actually encouraged them to stay on welfare. It encouraged out-of-
wedlock births and discouraged fathers from living at home. Many of
these unintended consequences were addressed with the welfare reform
bill, which will be reauthorized this year. The success of these
reforms are evident in welfare rolls, which have now dropped by half
across the United States.
But government is not the solution. Charities change hearts and lives
and have a superior track record to the government in tackling social
ills.
America's top charities address a broad range of problems. From the
Salvation Army to the Boys and Girls Clubs, and the American Cancer
Society to the Red Cross, each plays a role in improving America's
health, education and welfare. Their success has been documented. It
has been demonstrated that mentors in the Big Brothers/Big Sisters
program can cut drug abuse by 50 percent.
Charitable giving is an American tradition. Americans appreciate the
role of charities and are actively involved in many philanthropic
causes. Nearly half of all Americans volunteer in some capacity on a
regular basis, including nearly 25 percent of Americans who are active
volunteers in religious affiliated organizations. That is why it is
logical to use faith-based organizations as a means of accomplishing
objectives which can be more personal and tailored to the individual in
need.
The legislation I am introducing today helps these organizations by
making it easier for people to make charitable contributions.
Individuals age 59\1/2\ and older will be able to move assets without
penalty from an IRA directly to a charity or into a qualifying deferred
charitable gift plan, such as a charitable remainder trust, pooled
income fund or gift annuity. Current law requires taxpayers to first
withdraw the IRA proceeds and pay taxes on them before contributing the
remaining funds to a charity. While current law allows taxes on the
withdrawal to be offset somewhat by the current charitable deduction,
this ability is limited.
Americans currently hold more than $2 trillion in assets in IRAs, and
nearly 40 percent of American households have IRAs. This bill would
allow senior citizens who have provided well for their retirement to
transfer IRA funds to charities without the government taking a slice.
This will cut bureaucratic obstacles and disincentives to charitable
giving and unlock a substantial amount of new funds that could flow to
America's charitable organizations.
The time for promoting charitable giving has come.
This proposal benefits everyone involved. Individuals will be able to
give more of their savings to charities of importance to them.
Charities will benefit from increased philanthropy, enabling them to
continue their important work. Those needing help will have increased
access to services from these charities. And the government will have
to take care of fewer of those in need as charities are better able to
assume that burden.
This is not a partisan proposal. It is a common sense way to remove
obstacles to charitable giving. Senators Durbin and Levin are original
co-sponsors of this legislation. I look forward to working with them,
the White House and many other colleagues to pass this bill. I hope the
Senate will join in this effort to provide a valuable source of
philanthropy for our nation's charities.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Charitable IRA Rollover Act
of 2003.''.
SEC. 2. TAX-FREE DISTRIBUTIONS FROM INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT
ACCOUNTS FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES.
(a) In General.--Subsection (d) of section 408 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to individual
retirement accounts) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(8) Distributions for charitable purposes.--
``(A) In general.--No amount shall be includible in gross
income by reason of a qualified charitable distribution from
an individual retirement account to an organization described
in section 170(c).
``(B) Special rules relating to charitable remainder
trusts, pooled income funds, and charitable gift annuities.--
``(i) In general.--No amount shall be includible in gross
income by reason of a qualified charitable distribution from
an individual retirement account--
``(I) to a charitable remainder annuity trust or a
charitable remainder unitrust (as such terms are defined in
section 664(d)),
``(II) to a pooled income fund (as defined in section
642(c)(5)), or
``(III) for the issuance of a charitable gift annuity (as
defined in section 501(m)(5)).
The preceding sentence shall apply only if no person holds an
income interest in the amounts in the trust, fund, or annuity
attributable to such distribution other than one or more of
the following: the individual for whose benefit such account
is maintained, the spouse of such individual, or any
organization described in section 170(c).
``(ii) Determination of inclusion of amounts distributed.--
In determining the amount includible in the gross income of
any person by reason of a payment or distribution from a
trust referred to in clause (i)(I) or a charitable gift
annuity (as so defined), the portion of any qualified
charitable distribution to such trust or for such annuity
which would (but for this subparagraph) have been includible
in gross income--
``(I) shall be treated as income described in section
664(b)(1), and
``(II) shall not be treated as an investment in the
contract.
``(iii) No inclusion for distribution to pooled income
fund.--No amount shall be includible in the gross income of a
pooled income fund (as so defined) by reason of a qualified
charitable distribution to such fund.
``(C) Qualified charitable distribution.--For purposes of
this paragraph, the term `qualified charitable distribution'
means any distribution from an individual retirement
account--
``(i) which is made on or after the date that the
individual for whose benefit the account is maintained has
attained age 59\1/2\, and
``(ii) which is made directly from the account to--
``(I) an organization described in section 170(c), or
``(II) a trust, fund, or annuity referred to in
subparagraph (B).
``(D) Denial of deduction.--The amount allowable as a
deduction under section 170 to the taxpayer for the taxable
year shall be reduced (but not below zero) by the sum of the
amounts of the qualified charitable distributions during such
year which would be includible in the gross income of the
taxpayer for such year but for this paragraph.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce, along with
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, the charitable IRA Rollover Act of 2003.
We have introduced this legislation in the last two Congresses. Senator
Hutchison and I sincerely hope that this legislation will finally
become law this year.
The IRA Charitable Rollover Act has the support of numerous
charitable organizations across the United States. The effect of this
bill would be to
[[Page 1736]]
unlock billions of dollars in savings Americans hold and make them
available to charities. Our legislation will allow individuals to roll
assets from an Individual Retirement Account into a charity or a
deferred charitable gift plan without incurring any income tax
consequences. Thus, the donation would be made to charity without ever
withdrawing it as income and paying tax on it.
Americans currently hold about $2 trillion in assets in IRAs. This
represents over one-fifth of Americans' total retirement market assets
and will likely grow due to the increased contribution limits enacted
as part of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of
2001. Recent studies show that assets of qualified retirement plans,
such as IRAs, comprise a substantial part of peoples' net worth. Many
of these individuals would like to give a portion of these assets to
charity, but are reluctant to do so because of the tax consequences.
Under our current law, if money from an IRA is transferred to a
charitable organization or into a charitable remainder trust, donors
are required to recognize that as income. Therefore, absent the changes
called for in the legislation, the donor will have taxable income in
the year the gift is funded. This is a huge disincentive contained in
our complicated and burdensome tax code. This legislation will unleash
a critical source of funding for our Nation's charities. This
legislation will provide millions of Americans with a commonsense way
to remove obstacles to private charitable giving.
Under the Hutchison-Durbin plan, an individual, upon reaching age
59\1/2\, could move assets penalty- and tax-free from an IRA directly
to charity or into a qualifying deferred charitable gift plan--e.g.
charitable remainder trusts, pooled income funds and gift annuities. In
the latter case the donor would be able to receive an income stream
from the retirement plan assets, which would be taxed according to
normal rules. Upon the death of the individual, the remainder would be
transferred to charity tax free.
There are numerous supporters of this legislation including the Art
Institute of Chicago, the University of Chicago, the Field Museum, the
Catholic Diocese of Peoria, Northwestern University, the Chicago
Symphony Orchestra, Georgetown University, and others. There are over
100 groups in Illinois alone that support this sensible legislation.
I hope the Senate will join in this bipartisan effort to provide a
valuable new source of philanthropy for our Nation's charities. I hope
that our colleagues will cosponsor this important piece of legislation
and that it will be enacted into law this year. I thank the Senator
from Texas, Senator Hutchison, for working with me and my staff in this
effort.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN.
S. 210. A bill to provide for the protection of archaeological sites
in the Galisteo Basin in New Mexico, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to again introduce
legislation to protect several important archaeological sites in the
Galisteo Basin in New Mexico. This bill identifies approximately two
dozen sites in northern New Mexico which contain the ruins of pueblos
dating back almost 900 years. When Coronado and other Spanish
conquistadors first entered what is now New Mexico in 1541, they
encountered a thriving Pueblo culture with its own unique tradition of
religion, architecture and art, which was influenced through an
extensive trade system. We know that these sites remain occupied up
through the Pueblo revolt in 1680. After that, the sites were deserted,
although we still don't know why they were abandoned, after over 700
years of continuous use.
Through these sites, we have the opportunity to learn more not only
about the history and culture of these Pueblos, but also about the
first interaction between European and Native American cultures. The
Cochiti Pueblo, in particular, is culturally and historically tied to
these sites, which have tremendous historical and religious
significance to the Pueblo. I am grateful for the continued support of
the Pueblo de Cochiti for this legislation. This bill has strong local
support, including the Santa Fe Board of County Commissioners, the City
of Santa Fe, and the Archdiocese of Santa Fe. I would also like to
thank the Archaeological Conservancy for its efforts over the past
several years to identify and protect many of these sites, and in
helping with this legislation.
Many of these archaeological sites are on Federal land administered
by the Bureau of Land Management. BLM archaeologists have already
provided extensive background research on many of these sites, and I
was pleased that the agency supported a similar bill I introduced in
the previous Congress. Last Congress the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee held a hearing on this bill in Santa Fe. It was clear from
that hearing that there is strong local support for protecting these
sites. In fact nobody testified in opposition to the bill, at either
the Santa Fe or Washington hearings.
This bill simply authorizes the BLM to work in a cooperative manner
with interested landowners to protect sites on Federal and non-Federal
lands. Last Congress we included several provisions to make clear that
the bill did not infringe on private property rights.
Although the bill is non-controversial, we have been unable to get
the legislation passed through both the House and Senate, although last
Congress I was pleased that bill was favorably reported by the Energy
and Natural Resources Committee and passed by the Senate as part of a
larger public lands bill. In the years since I first introduced this
bill, many irreplaceable archaeological resources have been lost,
whether by vandalism, erosion, or other means. Enactment of the
Galisteo Basin Archaeological Sites Protection Act will allow us to
take the steps necessary to protect these resources and to allow for
improved public understanding and interpretation of these sites.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 210
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of
Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Galisteo Basin
Archaeological Sites Protection Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(1) the Galisteo Basin and surrounding area of New Mexico
is the location of many well preserved prehistoric and
historic archaeological resources of Native American and
Spanish colonial cultures;
(2) these resources include the largest ruins of Pueblo
Indian settlements in the United States, spectacular examples
of Native American rock art, and ruins of Spanish colonial
settlements; and
(3) these resources are being threatened by natural causes,
urban development, vandalism, and uncontrolled excavations.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to provide for the
preservation, protection, and interpretation of the
nationally significant archaeological resources in the
Galisteo Basin in New Mexico.
SEC. 3. GALISTEO BASIN ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROTECTION SITES.
(a) In General.--The following archaeological sites located
in the Galisteo Basin in the State of New Mexico, totaling
approximately 4,591 acres, are hereby designated as Galisteo
Basin Archaeological Protection Sites:
Name Acres
Arroyo Hondo Pueblo..................................................21
Burnt Corn Pueblo...................................................110
Chamisa Locita Pueblo................................................16
Comanche Gap Petroglyphs............................................764
Espinoso Ridge Site.................................................160
La Cienega Pueblo & Petroglyphs.....................................126
La Cienega Pithouse Village.........................................179
La Cieneguilla Petroglyphs/Camino Real Site.........................531
La Cieneguilla Pueblo................................................11
Lamy Pueblo..........................................................30
Lamy Junction Site...................................................80
Las Huertas..........................................................44
Pa'ako Pueblo........................................................29
Petroglyph Hill.....................................................130
Pueblo Blanco.......................................................878
Pueblo Colorado.....................................................120
Pueblo Galisteo/Las Madres..........................................133
Pueblo Largo.........................................................60
Pueblo She..........................................................120
Rote Chert Quarry.....................................................5
San Cristobal Pueblo................................................520
San Lazaro Pueblo...................................................360
[[Page 1737]]
San Marcos Pueblo...................................................152
Upper Arroyo Hondo Pueblo............................................12
________
Total Acreage.................................................4,591
(b) Availability of Maps.--The archaeological protection
sites listed in subsection (a) are generally depicted on a
series of 19 maps entitled ``Galisteo Basin Archaeological
Protection Sites'' and dated July, 2002. The Secretary of the
Interior (hereinafter referred to as the ``Secretary'') shall
keep the maps on file and available for public inspection in
appropriate offices in New Mexico of the Bureau of Land
Management and the National Park Service.
(c) Boundary Adjustments.--The Secretary may make minor
boundary adjustments to the archaeological protection sites
by publishing notice thereof in the Federal Register.
SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL SITES.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall--
(1) continue to search for additional Native American and
Spanish colonial sites in the Galisteo Basin area of New
Mexico; and
(2) submit to Congress, within three years after the date
funds become available and thereafter as needed,
recommendations for additions to, deletions from, and
modifications of the boundaries of the list of archaeological
protection sites in section 3 of this Act.
(b) Additions Only by Statute.--Additions to or deletions
from the list in section 3 shall be made only by an Act of
Congress.
SEC. 5. ADMINISTRATION.
(a) In General.--
(1) The Secretary shall administer archaeological
protection sites located on Federal land in accordance with
the provisions of this Act, the Archaeological Resources
Protection Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C. 470aa et seq.), the Native
American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C.
3001 et seq.), and other applicable laws in a manner that
will protect, preserve, and maintain the archaeological
resources and provide for research thereon.
(2) The Secretary shall have no authority to administer
archaeological protection sites which are on non-Federal
lands except to the extent provided for in a cooperative
agreement entered into between the Secretary and the
landowner.
(3) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to extend the
authorities of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of
1979 or the Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act to private lands which are designated as an
archaeological protection site.
(b) Management Plan.--
(1) In general.--Within three complete fiscal years after
the date funds are made available, the Secretary shall
prepare and transmit to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources of the United States Senate and the Committee on
Natural Resources of the United States House of
Representatives, a general management plan for the
identification, research, protection, and public
interpretation of--
(A) the archaeological protection sites located on Federal
land; and
(B) for sites on State or private lands for which the
Secretary has entered into cooperative agreements pursuant to
section 6 of this Act.
(2) Consultation.--The general management plan shall be
developed by the Secretary in consultation with the Governor
of New Mexico, the New Mexico State Land Commissioner,
affected Native American pueblos, and other interested
parties.
SEC. 6. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.
The Secretary is authorized to enter into cooperative
agreements with owners of non-Federal lands with regard to an
archaeological protection site, or portion thereof, located
on their property. The purpose of such an agreement shall be
to enable the Secretary to assist with the protection,
preservation, maintenance, and administration of the
archaeological resources and associated lands. Where
appropriate, a cooperative agreement may also provide for
public interpretation of the site.
SEC. 7. ACQUISITIONS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to acquire
lands and interests therein within the boundaries of the
archaeological protection sites, including access thereto, by
donation, by purchase with donated or appropriated funds, or
by exchange.
(b) Consent of Owner Required.--The Secretary may only
acquire lands or interests therein with the consent of the
owner thereof.
(c) State Lands.--The Secretary may acquire lands or
interests therein owned by the State of New Mexico or a
political subdivision thereof only by donation or exchange,
except that State trust lands may only be acquired by
exchange.
SEC. 8. WITHDRAWAL.
Subject to valid existing rights, all Federal lands within
the archaeological protection sites are hereby withdrawn--
(1) from all forms of entry, appropriation, or disposal
under the public land laws and all amendments thereto;
(2) from location, entry, and patent under the mining law
and all amendments thereto; and
(3) from disposition under all laws relating to mineral and
geothermal leasing, and all amendments thereto.
SEC. 9. SAVINGS PROVISIONS.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed--
(1) to authorize the regulation of privately owned lands
within an area designated as an archaeological protection
site;
(2) to modify, enlarge, or diminish any authority of
Federal, State, or local governments to regulate any use of
privately owned lands;
(3) to modify, enlarge, or diminish any authority of
Federal, State, tribal, or local governments to manage or
regulate any use of land as provided for by law or
regulation; or
(4) to restrict or limit a tribe from protecting cultural
or religious sites on tribal lands.
SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to carry out this Act.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Domenici):
S. 211. A bill to establish the Northern Rio Grande National Heritage
Area in the State of New Mexico, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation
to establish the Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area in northern
New Mexico. I am pleased that Senator Domenici is again joining me in
sponsoring this bill. The Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area
will be established as part of a collaborative effort between local
residents, Indian tribes, businesses and local governments, who are
working together to preserve the area.
By establishing the Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area, I
hope to commemorate the significant but complex heritage of northern
New Mexico communities and Indian tribes, from the pre-Spanish
colonization period to present day. Establishing a National Heritage
Area will benefit the northern New Mexico communities, local residents,
students, and visitors, as well as help the local protection and
interpretation of the unique cultural, historical, and natural
resources of northern New Mexico.
Last Congress, similar legislation was considered and favorably
reported from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and passed
by the Senate by unanimous consent as part of a comprehensive heritage
area bill. Unfortunately, the House was not able to consider the bill
prior to the sine die adjournment of the Congress. Since the bill is
non-controversial and has already passed the Senate, it is my hope that
we will be able to move it through the Committee and to the floor as
soon as possible.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 211
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of
Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Northern Rio Grande National
Heritage Area Act''.
SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.
The Congress finds that--
(1) northern New Mexico encompasses a mosaic of cultures
and history, including eight Pueblos and the descendants of
Spanish ancestors who settled in the area in 1598;
(2) the combination of cultures, languages, folk arts,
customs, and architecture make northern New Mexico unique;
(3) the area includes spectacular natural, scenic, and
recreational resources;
(4) there is broad support from local governments and
interested individuals to establish a National Heritage Area
to coordinate and assist in the preservation and
interpretation of these resources;
(5) in 1991, the National Park Service study Alternative
Concepts for Commemorating Spanish Colonization identified
several alternatives consistent with the establishment of a
National Heritage Area, including conducting a comprehensive
archaeological and historical research program, coordinating
a comprehensive interpretation program, and interpreting a
cultural heritage scene; and
(6) establishment of a National Heritage Area in northern
New Mexico would assist local communities and residents in
preserving these unique cultural, historical and natural
resources.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this Act--
(1) the term ``heritage area'' means the Northern Rio
Grande Heritage Area; and
(2) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the
Interior.
[[Page 1738]]
SEC. 4. NORTHERN RIO GRANDE NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA.
(a) Establishment.--There is hereby established the
Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area in the State of
New Mexico.
(b) Boundaries.--The heritage area shall include the
counties of Santa Fe, Rio Arriba, and Taos.
(c) Management Entity.--
(1) The Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area, Inc., a
non-profit corporation chartered in the State of New Mexico,
shall serve as the management entity for the heritage area.
(2) The Board of Directors for the management entity shall
include representatives of the State of New Mexico, the
counties of Santa Fe, Rio Arriba and Taos, tribes and pueblos
within the heritage area, the cities of Santa Fe, Espanola
and Taos, and members of the general public. The total number
of Board members and the number of Directors representing
State, local and tribal governments and interested
communities shall be established to ensure that all parties
have appropriate representation on the Board.
SEC. 5. AUTHORITY AND DUTIES OF THE MANAGEMENT ENTITY.
(a) Management Plan.--
(1) Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of
this Act, the management entity shall develop and forward to
the Secretary a management plan for the heritage area.
(2) The management entity shall develop and implement the
management plan in cooperation with affected communities,
tribal and local governments and shall provide for public
involvement in the development and implementation of the
management plan.
(3) The management plan shall, at a minimum--
(A) provide recommendations for the conservation, funding,
management, and development of the resources of the heritage
area;
(B) identify sources of funding.
(C) include an inventory of the cultural, historical,
archaeological, natural, and recreational resources of the
heritage area;
(D) provide recommendations for educational and
interpretive programs to inform the public about the
resources of the heritage area; and
(E) include an analysis of ways in which local, State,
Federal, and tribal programs may best be coordinated to
promote the purposes of this Act.
(4) If the management entity fails to submit a management
plan to the secretary as provided in paragraph (1), the
heritage area shall no longer be eligible to receive Federal
funding under this Act until such time as a plan is submitted
to the Secretary.
(5) The Secretary shall approve or disapprove the
management plan within 90 days after the date of submission.
If the Secretary disapproves the management plan, the
Secretary shall advise the management entity in writing of
the reasons therefore and shall make recommendations for
revisions to the plan.
(6) The management entity shall periodically review the
management plan and submit to the Secretary any
recommendations for proposed revisions to the management
plan. Any major revisions to the management plan must be
approved by the Secretary.
(b) Authority.--The management entity may make grants and
provide technical assistance to tribal and local governments,
and other public and private entities to carry out the
management plan.
(c) Duties.--The management entity shall--
(1) give priority in implementing actions set forth in the
management plan;
(2) coordinate with tribal and local governments to better
enable them to adopt land use policies consistent with the
goals of the management plan;
(3) encourage by appropriate means economic viability in
the heritage area consistent with the goals of the management
plan; and
(4) assist local and tribal governments and non-profit
organizations in--
(A) establishing and maintaining interpretive exhibits in
the heritage area;
(B) developing recreational resources in the heritage area;
(C) increasing public awareness of, and appreciation for,
the cultural, historical, archaeological and natural
resources and sits in the heritage area;
(D) the restoration of historic structures related to the
heritage area; and
(E) carrying out other actions that the management entity
determines appropriate to fulfill the purposes of this Act,
consistent with the management plan.
(d) Prohibition on Acquiring Real Property.--The management
entity may not use Federal funds received under this Act to
acquire real property or an interest in real property.
(e) Public Meetings.--The management entity shall hold
public meetings at least annually regarding the
implementation of the management plan.
(f) Annual Reports and Audits.--
(1) For any year in which the management entity receives
Federal funds under this Act, the management entity shall
submit an annual report to the Secretary setting forth
accomplishments, expenses and income, and each entity to
which any grant was made by the management entity.
(2) The management entity shall make available to the
Secretary for audit all records relating to the expenditure
of Federal funds and any matching funds. The management
entity shall also require, for all agreements authorizing
expenditure of Federal funds by other organizations, that the
receiving organization make available to the Secretary for
audit all records concerning the expenditure of those funds.
SEC. 6. DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY.
(a) Technical and Financial Assistance.--The Secretary may,
upon request of the management entity, provide technical and
financial assistance to develop and implement the management
plan.
(b) Priority.--In providing assistance under subsection
(a), the Secretary shall give priority to actions that
facilitate--
(1) the conservation of the significant natural, cultural,
historical, archaeological, scenic, and recreational
resources of the heritage area; and
(2) the provision of educational, interpretive, and
recreational opportunities consistent with the resources and
associated values of the heritage area.
SEC. 7. SAVINGS PROVISIONS.
(a) No Effect on Private Property.--Nothing in this Act
shall be construed--
(1) to modify, enlarge, or diminish any authority of
Federal, State, or local governments to regulate any use of
privately owned lands; or
(2) to grant the management entity any authority to
regulate the use of privately owned lands.
(b) Tribal Lands.--Nothing in this Act shall restrict or
limit a tribe from protecting cultural or religious sites on
tribal lands.
(c) Authority of Governments.--Nothing in this Act shall--
(1) modify, enlarge, or diminish any authority of Federal,
State, tribal, or local governments to manage or regulate any
use of land as provided for by law or regulation; or
(2) authorize the management entity to assume any
management authorities over such lands.
(d) Trust Responsibilities.--Nothing in this Act shall
diminish the Federal Government's trust responsibilities or
government-to-government obligations to any federally
recognized Indian tribe.
SEC. 8. SUNSET.
The authority of the Secretary to provide assistance under
this Act terminates on the date that is 15 years after the
date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this Act $10,000,000, of which not more than
$1,000,000 may be authorized to be appropriated for any
fiscal year.
(b) Cost-Sharing Requirement.--The Federal share of the
total cost of any activity assisted under this Act shall be
not more than 50 percent.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Brownback, and Mr. Domenici):
S. 212. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
cooperate with the High Plains States in conducting a hydrogeologic
characterization, mapping, modeling and monitoring program for the High
Plains Aquifer, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that
has significance for the entire Great Plains region of our Nation. It
will establish a program for the hydrogeologic characterization,
mapping, modeling and monitoring of the High Plains Aquifer, which
extends from Wyoming to New Mexico and Texas. This legislation was the
subject of a hearing last Congress before the Water and Power
Subcommittee of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. It
is the same as legislation that was unanimously agreed to by the full
Senate last year. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Brownback and
Domenici in introducing this bill.
The High Plains Aquifer, which is comprised in large part by the
Ogallala Aquifer, extends under eight states: Colorado, Kansas,
Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming. It is
experiencing alarming declines in its water levels. This aquifer is the
source of water for farmers and communities throughout the Great Plains
region. The legislation I am introducing today is intended to ensure
that sound and objective science is available with respect to the
hydrology and geology of the High Plains Aquifer.
This bill, the ``High Plains Aquifer Hydrogeologic Characterization,
Mapping, Modeling and Monitoring Act,''
[[Page 1739]]
would direct the Secretary of the Interior to develop and carry out a
comprehensive hydrogeologic characterization, mapping, modeling and
monitoring program for the High Plains Aquifer. The Secretary is
directed to work in conjunction with the eight High Plains Aquifer
States in carrying out this program. The U.S. Geological Survey and the
States will work in cooperation to further the goals of this program,
with half of the available funds directed to the State component of the
program.
A reliable source of groundwater is essential to the well-being and
livelihoods of people in the Great Plains region. Local towns and rural
areas are dependent on the use of groundwater for drinking water,
ranching, farming, and other commercial uses. Yet many areas overlying
the Ogallala Aquifer have experienced a dramatic depletion of this
groundwater resource. The problem we are confronting is that the
aquifer is not sustainable, and it is being depleted rapidly. This
threatens the way of life of all who live on the High Plains.
The bill I am introducing today would help ensure that the relevant
science needed to address this problem is available so that we will
have a better understanding of the resources of the High Plains
Aquifer. I ask that my colleagues join me in once again supporting this
bill.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 212
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of
Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``High Plains Aquifer
Hydrogeologic Characterization, Mapping, Modeling and
Monitoring Act''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
For the purposes of this Act:
(1) Association.--The term ``Association'' means the
Association of American State Geologists.
(2) Council.--The term ``Council'' means the Western States
Water Council.
(3) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of
the United States Geological Survey.
(4) Federal Component.--The term ``Federal component''
means the Federal component of the High Plains Aquifer
Comprehensive Hydrogeologic Characterization, Mapping,
Modeling and Monitoring Program described in section 3(c).
(5) High Plains Aquifer.--The term ``High Plains Aquifer''
is the groundwater reserve depicted as Figure 1 in the United
States Geological Survey Professional Paper 1400-B, titled
``Geohydrology of the High Plains Aquifer in Parts of
Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South
Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming.''.
(6) High Plains Aquifer States.--The term ``High Plains
Aquifer States'' means the States of Colorado, Kansas,
Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas and
Wyoming.
(7) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(8) State Component.--The term ``State component'' means
the State component of the High Plains Aquifer Comprehensive
Hydrogeologic Characterization, Mapping, Modeling and
Monitoring Program described in section 3(d).
SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT.
(a) Program.--The Secretary, working through the United
States Geological Survey, and in cooperation with
participating State geological surveys and water management
agencies of the High Plains Aquifer States, shall establish
and carry out the High Plains Aquifer Comprehensive
Hydrogeologic Characterization, Mapping, Modeling and
Monitoring Program, for the purposes of the characterization,
mapping, modeling, and monitoring of the High Plains Aquifer.
The Program shall undertake on a county-by-county level or at
the largest scales and most detailed levels determined to be
appropriate on a state-by-state and regional basis: (1)
mapping of the hydrogeological configuration of the High
Plains Aquifer; and (2) with respect to the High Plains
Aquifer, analyses of the current and past rates at which
groundwater is being withdrawn and recharged, the net rate of
decrease or increase in High Plains Aquifer storage, the
factors controlling the rate of horizontal and vertical
migration of water within the High Plains Aquifer, and the
current and past rate of change of saturated thickness within
the High Plains Aquifer. The Program shall also develop, as
recommended by the State panels referred to in subsection
(d)(1), regional data bases and groundwater flow models.
(b) Funding.--The Secretary shall make available fifty
percent of the funds available pursuant to this title for use
in carrying out the State component of the Program, as
provided for by subsection (d).
(c) Federal Program Component.--
(1) Priorities.--The Program shall include a Federal
component, developed in consultation with the Federal Review
Panel provided for by subsection (e), which shall have as its
priorities--
(A) coordinating Federal, State, and local, data, maps, and
models into an integrated physical characterization of the
High Plains Aquifer;
(B) supporting State and local activities with scientific
and technical specialists; and
(C) undertaking activities and providing technical
capabilities not available at the State and local levels.
(2) Interdisciplinary Studies.--The Federal component shall
include interdisciplinary studies that add value to
hydrogeologic characterization, mapping, modeling and
monitoring for the High Plains Aquifer.
(d) State Program Component.--
(1) Priorities--Upon election by a High Plains Aquifer
State, the State may participate in the State component of
the Program which shall have as its priorities hydrogeologic
characterization, mapping, modeling, and monitoring
activities in areas of the High Plains Aquifer that will
assist in addressing issues relating to groundwater depletion
and resource assessment of the Aquifer. As a condition of
participating in the State component of the Program, the
Governor or Governor's designee shall appoint a State panel
representing a broad range of users of, and persons
knowledgeable regarding, hydrogeologic data and information,
which shall be appointed by the Governor of the State or the
Governor's designee. Priorities under the State component
shall be based upon the recommendations of the State panel.
(2) Awards.--(A) Twenty percent of the Federal funds
available under the State component shall be equally divided
among the State geological surveys of the High Plains Aquifer
States to carry out the purposes of the Program provided for
by this title. In the event that the State geological survey
is unable to utilize the funding for such purposes, the
Secretary may, upon the petition of the Governor of the
State, direct the funding to some other agency of the State
to carry out the purposes of the Program.
(B) In the case of a High Plains Aquifer State that has
elected to participate in the State component of the Program,
the remaining funds under the State component shall be
competitively awarded to State or local agencies or entities
in the High Plains Aquifer States, including State geological
surveys, State water management agencies, institutions of
higher education, or consortia of such agencies or entities.
A State may submit a proposal for the United States
Geological Survey to undertake activities and provide
technical capabilities not available at the State and local
levels. Such funds shall be awarded by the Director only for
proposals that have been recommended by the State panels
referred to in subsection (d)(1), subjected to independent
peer review, and given final prioritization and
recommendation by the Federal Review Panel established under
subsection (e). Proposals for multistate activities must be
recommended by the State panel of at least one of the
affected States.
(e) Federal Review Panel.--
(1) Establishment.--There shall be established a Federal
Review Panel to evaluate the proposals submitted for funding
under the State component under subsection (d)(2)(B) and to
recommend approvals and levels of funding. In addition, the
Federal Review Panel shall review and coordinate the Federal
component priorities under subsection (c)(1), Federal
interdisciplinary studies under subsection (c)(2), and the
State component priorities under subsection (d)(1).
(2) Composition and Support.--Not later than 3 months after
the date of enactment of this title, the Secretary shall
appoint to the Federal Review Panel: (1) three
representatives of the United States Geological Survey, at
least one of which shall be a hydrologist or hydrogeologist;
and (2) four representatives of the geological surveys and
water management agencies of the High Plains Aquifer States
from lists of nominees provided by the Association and the
Council, so that there are two representatives of the State
geological surveys and two representatives of the State water
management agencies. Appointment to the Panel shall be for a
term of 3 years. The Director shall provide technical and
administrative support to the Federal Review Panel. Expenses
for the Federal Review Panel shall be paid from funds
available under the Federal component of the Program.
(f) Limitation.--The United States Geological Survey shall
not use any of the Federal funds to be made available under
the State component for any fiscal year to pay indirect,
servicing, or Program management charges. Recipients of
awards granted under subsection (d)(2)(B) shall not use more
than 18 percent of the Federal award amount for any fiscal
year for indirect, servicing, or Program management charges.
The Federal share of the costs of an activity funded under
[[Page 1740]]
subsection (d)(2)(B) shall be no more than 50 percent of the
total cost of that activity. The Secretary may apply the
value of in-kind contributions of property and services to
the non-Federal share of the costs of the activity.
SEC. 4. PLAN.
The Secretary, acting through the Director, shall, in
consultation with the Association, the Council, the Federal
Review Panel, and the State panels, prepare a plan for the
High Plains Aquifer Comprehensive Hydrogeologic
Characterization, Mapping, Modeling and Monitoring Program.
The plan shall address overall priorities for the Program and
a management structure and Program operations, including the
role and responsibilities of the United States Geological
Survey and the States in the Program, and mechanisms for
identifying priorities for the Federal component and the
State component.
SEC. 5. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Report on Program Implementation.--One year after the
date of enactment of this Act, and every 2 years thereafter
through fiscal year 2011, the Secretary shall submit a report
on the status of implementation of the Program established by
this Act to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of
the Senate, the Committee on Resources of the House of
Representatives, and the Governors of the High Plains Aquifer
States. The initial report submitted by the Secretary shall
contain the plan required by section 4.
(b) Report on High Plains Aquifer.--One year after the date
of enactment of this Act and every year thereafter through
fiscal year 2011, the Secretary shall submit a report to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate, the
Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives, and
the Governors of the High Plains Aquifer States on the status
of the High Plains Aquifer, including aquifer recharge rates,
extraction rates, saturated thickness, and water table
levels.
(c) Role of Federal Review Panel.--The Federal Review Panel
shall be given an opportunity to review and comment on the
reports required by this section.
SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary for each of the fiscal years 2003 through 2011 to
carry out this Act .
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Domenici):
S. 213. A bill to clear title to certain real property in New Mexico
associated with the Middle Rio Grande Project, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the
Albuquerque Biological Park Title Clarification Act with the support of
my colleague Senator Domenici. This bill, which passed the Senate
during the 107th Congress, would assist the City of Albuquerque, by
clearing its title to two parcels of land located along the Rio Grande.
More specifically, it would allow the City to move forward with its
plans to improve the properties as part of a Biological Park Project, a
city funded initiative to create a premier environmental educational
center for its citizens and the entire State of New Mexico.
The Biological Park Project has been in the works since 1987 when the
City began to develop an aquarium and botanic garden along the banks of
the Rio Grande. The facilities constitute just a portion of the overall
project. In pursuit of the balance of the project, the City, in 1997,
purchased two properties from the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy
District, (MRGCD), for $3,875,000. The first property, Tingley Beach
has been leased by the City from MRGCD since 1931 and used for public
park purposes. The second property, San Gabriel Park, has been leased
by the City since 1963, and also used for public park purposes.
In the year 2000, the City's plans were interrupted when the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation asserted that in 1953, it had acquired ownership
of all of MRGCD's property associated with the Middle Rio Grande
Project. The United States' assertion called into question the validity
of the 1997 transaction between the City and MRGCD. Both MRGCD and the
City dispute the United States' claim of ownership.
This dispute is delaying the City's progress in developing the
Biological Park Project. If the matter is simply left to litigation,
the delay will be both indefinite and unnecessary. Reclamation has
already determined that the two properties are surplus to the needs of
the Middle Rio Grande Project. Moreover, the record indicates that
Reclamation had once considered releasing its interest in the
properties for $1.00 each. Obviously, the Federal interest in these
properties is low while the local interest is very high. This bill is
narrowly tailored to address this local interest, affecting only the
two properties at issue. The general dispute concerning title to
project works is left for the courts to decide.
I hope my colleagues will work with me to help resolve this issue
which is important to the citizens of my State. While much of what we
do here in the Congress is complex and time-consuming work, we should
also have the ability to move quickly when necessary and appropriate to
solve local problems caused by Federal actions. I therefore urge my
colleagues to support this legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 213
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of
Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Albuquerque Biological Park
Title Clarification Act''.
SEC 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that:
(1) In 1997, the City of Albuquerque, New Mexico paid
$3,875,000 to the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District to
acquire two parcels of land known as Tingley Beach and San
Gabriel Park.
(2) The City intends to develop and improve Tingley Beach
and San Gabriel Park as part of its Albuquerque Biological
Park Project.
(3) In 2000, the United States claimed title to Tingley
Beach and San Gabriel Park by asserting that these properties
were transferred to the United States in the 1950's as part
of the establishment of the Middle Rio Grande Project.
(4) The City's ability to continue developing the
Albuquerque Biological Park Project has been hindered by the
United States claim of title to these properties.
(5) The United States claim of ownership over the Middle
Rio Grande Project properties is disputed by the City and
MRGCD in Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. John W. Keys, III, No.
CV 99-1320 JP/RLP-ACE (D. N.M. filed Nov. 15, 1999).
(6) Tingley Beach and San Gabriel Park are surplus to the
needs of the Bureau of Reclamation and the United States in
administering the Middle Rio Grande Project.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to direct the
Secretary of the Interior to issue a quitclaim deed conveying
any right, title, and interest the United States may have in
and to Tingley Beach or San Gabriel Park to the City, thereby
removing the cloud on the City's title to these lands.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) City.--The term ``City'' means the City of Albuquerque,
New Mexico.
(2) Middle rio grande conservancy district.--The terms
``Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District'' and ``MRGCD'' mean
a political subdivision of the State of New Mexico, created
in 1925 to provide and maintain flood protection and
drainage, and maintenance of ditches, canals, and
distribution systems for irrigation and water delivery and
operations in the Middle Rio Grande Valley.
(3) Middle rio grande project.--The term ``Middle Rio
Grande Project'' means the works associated with water
deliveries and operations in the Rio Grande basin as
authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1948 (Public Law 80-
858; 62 Stat. 1175) and the Flood Control Act of 1950 (Public
Law 81-516; 64 Stat. 170).
(4) San gabriel park.--The term ``San Gabriel Park'' means
the tract of land containing 40.2236 acres, more or less,
situated within Section 12 and Section 13, T10N, R2E,
N.M.P.M., City of Albuquerque, Bernalillo County, New Mexico,
and described by New Mexico State Plane Grid Bearings
(Central Zone) and ground distances in a Special Warranty
Deed conveying the property from MRGCD to the City, dated
November 25, 1997.
(5) Tingley beach.--The term ``Tingley Beach'' means the
tract of land containing 25.2005 acres, more or less,
situated within Section 13 and Section 24, T10N, R2E,
N.M.P.M., City of Albuquerque, Bernalillo County, New Mexico,
and described by New Mexico State Plane Grid Bearings
(Central Zone) and ground distances in a Special Warranty
Deed conveying the property from MRGCD to the City, dated
November 25, 1997.
SEC. 4. CLARIFICATION OF PROPERTY INTEREST.
(a) Required Action.--The Secretary of the Interior shall
issue a quitclaim deed conveying any right, title, and
interest the United States may have in and to Tingley Beach
and San Gabriel Park to the City.
[[Page 1741]]
(b) Timing.--The Secretary shall carry out the action in
subsection (a) as soon as practicable after the date of
enactment of this title and in accordance with all applicable
law.
(c) No Additional Payment.--The City shall not be required
to pay any additional costs to the United States for the
value of San Gabriel Park and Tingley Beach.
SEC. 5. OTHER RIGHTS, TITLE, AND INTERESTS UNAFFECTED.
(a) In general.--Except as expressly provided in section 4,
nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect any right,
title, or interest in and to any land associated with the
Middle Rio Grande Project.
(b) Ongoing Litigation.--Nothing contained in this Act
shall be construed or utilized to affect or otherwise
interfere with any position set forth by any party in the
lawsuit pending before the United States District Court for
the District of New Mexico, No. CV 99-1320 JP/RLP-ACE,
entitled Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. John W. Keys, III,
concerning the right, title, or interest in and to any
property associated with the Middle Rio Grande Project.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Domenici):
S. 214. A bill to designate Fort Bayard Historic District in the
State of New Mexico as a National Historic Landmark, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my
colleague Senator Domenici, legislation to designate Fort Bayard in New
Mexico as a National Historic Landmark.
Fort Bayard is significant not only for the role it played as a
military post in fostering early settlement in the region, but for its
role as a nationally important tuberculosis sanatorium and hospital.
During the 99 years spanning its establishment in 1866 through its
closing as a Veterans Administration hospital in 1965, Fort Bayard
served as the most prominent evidence of the Federal Government's role
in southwestern New Mexico. Fort Bayard has recently been listed on the
National Register of Historic Places in recognition of the historical
significance of the site.
From 1866 to 1899, Fort Bayard functioned as an Army post while its
soldiers, many of them African-American, or Buffalo Soldiers, protected
settlers working in the nearby mining district. These Buffalo Soldiers
were a mainstay of the Army during the late Apache wars and fought
heroically in numerous skirmishes. Like many soldiers who served at
Fort Bayard, some of the Buffalo Soldiers remained in the area
following their discharge. Lines of headstones noting the names of men
and their various Buffalo Soldier units remain in the older section of
what is now the National Cemetery. In 1992, these soldiers were
recognized for their bravery when a Buffalo Soldier Memorial statue was
dedicated at the center of the Fort Bayard parade ground. It gradually
became apparent that the Army's extensive frontier fort system was no
longer necessary. By 1890, it was clear that the era of the western
frontier, at least from the Army's perspective, had ended. Fort Bayard
was scheduled for closure in 1899.
Even as the last detachment of the 9th U.S. Cavalry prepared to
depart the discontinued post, new federal occupants were arriving at
Fort Bayard. On August 28, 1899, the War Department authorized the
surgeon-general to establish a general hospital for use as a military
sanatorium. This would be the first sanatorium dedicated to the
treatment of officers and enlisted men of the Army suffering from
pulmonary tuberculosis. At 6,100 ft. and with a dry, sunny climate, the
fort lay within what proponents of climatological therapy termed the
``zone of immunity.'' By 1919, the cumulative effect of over 15 years
of construction and improvement projects was the creation of a small,
nearly self-sufficient community.
In 1920, the War Department closed the sanatorium and the United
States Public Health Service assumed control of the facility. A second
phase occurred in 1922 when a new agency, the Veterans' Bureau, was
created within the Treasury Department and charged with operating
hospitals throughout the country whose clientele were veterans
requiring medical services. As a result, in the summer of 1922 the
United States General Hospital at Fort Bayard was transferred to the
Veterans' Bureau and became known as United States Veterans' Hospital
No. 55. Its mission of treating those afflicted with tuberculosis,
however, remained the same.
By 1965, there was no longer a need for a tuberculosis facility
located at a high elevation in a dry climate, and the Veterans'
Administration decided to close the hospital in that year. However, in
part because of the concerns of the local communities that depended
upon the hospital, the State of New Mexico assumed responsibility for
the facility and 484 acres of the former military reservation. Since
then, the State has used it for geriatric, as well as drug and alcohol
rehabilitation and orthopedic programs. Because of the extensive
cemetery dating to the fort and sanatorium eras at Fort Bayard, the
State of New Mexico transferred 16 acres in 1975 for the creation of
the Fort Bayard National Cemetery, administered by the Veterans'
Administration.
For these and many other reasons, I believe it is clear that Fort
Bayard is historically significant and merits recognition as a National
Historic Landmark. Fort Bayard illuminates a rich and complex story
that is important to the entire nation.
Last Congress identical legislation was considered and favorably
reported by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and included in
a larger package of public land bills which passed the Senate by
unanimous consent. Since there is broad local support for the bill, and
it has already received the approval of the Senate, it is my hope that
we can expeditiously consider the bill this year.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 214
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of
Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Fort Bayard National
Historic Landmark Act''.
SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.
The Congress finds that--
(1) Fort Bayard, located in southwest New Mexico, was an
Army post from 1866 and 1899, and served an important role in
the settlement of New Mexico;
(2) among the troops stationed at the fort were several
``Buffalo Soldier'' units who fought in the Apache Wars;
(3) following its closure as a military post, Fort Bayard
was established by the War Department as general hospital for
use as a military sanatorium;
(4) in 1965 the State of New Mexico assumed management of
the site and currently operates the Fort Bayard State
Hospital;
(5) the Fort Bayard historic site has been listed on the
National Register of Historic Places in recognition of the
national significance of its history, both as a military fort
and as an historic medical facility.
SEC. 3. FORT BAYARD NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK.
(a) Designation.--The Fort Bayard Historic District in
Grant County, New Mexico, as listed on the National Register
of Historic Places, is hereby designated as the Fort Bayard
National Historic Landmark.
(b) Administration.--
(1) Consistent with the Department of the Interior's
regulations concerning National Historic Landmarks (36 C.F.R.
Part 65), designation of the Fort Bayard Historic District as
a National Historic Landmark shall not prohibit under Federal
law or regulations any actions which may otherwise be taken
by the property owner with respect to the property.
(2) Nothing in this Act shall affect the administration of
the Fort Bayard Historic District by the State of New Mexico.
SEC. 4. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
State of New Mexico, may enter into cooperative agreements
with appropriate public or private entities, for the purpose
of protecting historic resources at Fort Bayard and providing
educational and interpretive facilities and programs for the
public. The Secretary shall not enter into any agreement or
provide assistance to any activity affecting Fort Bayard
State Hospital without the concurrence of the State of
Mexico.
(b) Technical and Financial Assistance.--The Secretary may
provide technical and financial assistance with any entity
with which the Secretary has entered into a cooperative
agreement under subsection (a) in furtherance of the
agreement.
[[Page 1742]]
SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to carry out this Act.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Bond, Mr. Leahy, Mr.
Lieberman, Mr. Gregg, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Johnson, Mrs. Clinton,
Mr. Breaux, and Mr. Feingold):
S. 215. A bill to authorize funding assistance for the States for the
discharge of homeland security activities by the National Guard; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to
give the National Guard an enhanced role in homeland security. I am
pleased that Senators Bond, Leahy, Lieberman, Gregg, Murray, Johnson,
Clinton, Breaux, and Feingold join me as cosponsors of the bill.
In essence, the bill would permit each governor to create a homeland
security activities plan for the National Guard in his or her State,
and authorize the Secretary of Defense to provide oversight and funding
for such plans.
The legislation is modeled after the existing successful National
Guard counterdrug program, which was established under 32 U.S.C. sect.
112.
Under this program, the National Guard is used to provide support to
law enforcement to help stop illegal drugs from being imported,
manufactured, and distributed, and in supporting drug demand reduction
programs.
The bill is supported by the co-chairs of the Senate National Guard
Caucus, the National Governors' Association, the Adjutants General
Association of the United States, the National Guard Association of the
United States, and National Guardsmen across the country.
Giving the Guard an enhanced role in homeland security makes sense
because the Guard connects local communities to the Federal Government,
is located in almost every American community, and has the
capabilities, legal authority, and structure to help respond to attacks
on the homeland.
In addition, such an enhanced role would return the National Guard
more to what was envisioned by the founders of this country.
Colonial militias protected their fellow citizens from Indian attack,
foreign invaders, and later helped win the Revolutionary War.
And during the 19th century, the militia provided the bulk of the
troops during the Mexican war, the early years of the Civil War, and
the Spanish-American War.
It was not until 1903 that Congress passed legislation to increase
the role of the National Guard as a Reserve force for the U.S. Army
Now, the National Guard has a dual Federal/State mission. In their
role as State militias, Guard units are often activated for homeland
duty under Title 32 and thus come under the command of the State
governor.
In this status, they are exempt from the Posse Comitatus Act, which
generally restricts law enforcement to civil authorities, and thus are
used as the armed forces' primary provider of support to civil
authorities.
The National Guard's access to military command and control,
discipline, training, and equipment also makes it well suited to
coordinate with and aid police, fire, medical, and other emergency
responders.
The Army National Guard maintains over 3,000 armories around the
Nation and the Air National Guard has 140 units throughout the United
States.
There are about 460,000 National Guard members that train throughout
the year, 353,000 Army National Guard and 106,000 Air National Guard.
The approximate numbers of National Guard in individual States run
from about 1,000 to 21,000, and vary according to the population of the
State and recruitment efforts.
In light of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and
Pentagon as well as the October 2001 anthrax attacks on Congress and
the media, many of us have come to believe that the National Guard
should play a more central role in responding to terrorist attacks,
particularly those with weapons of mass destruction.
In fact, the Guard has already played an important role in helping
respond to these attacks, not only at the site of the attacks but also
at airports, around the Capitol, and elsewhere.
For example, the National Guard currently has a number of Civil
Support Teams that assess a suspected weapon of mass destruction event,
advise first responders, and facilitate the assistance of additional
military forces, if needed.
The National Guard is well-suited to performing an enhanced homeland
security mission for many reasons. These reasons include that the fact
the Guard is already: deployed in communities around the country;
integrated into existing local, State, and regional emergency response
networks; has ties with key players in local, State, and Federal
government; is not bound by the Posse Comitatus Act while serving in
Title 32 status and thus has maximum flexibility; is responsible for
and experienced with homeland security missions, including air
sovereignty, disaster relief, responding to suspected weapons of mass
destruction events, and counterdrug operations; has existing physical,
communications, and training infrastructure throughout the U.S.; has
existing training facilities, distance learning training networks, and
a number of highly skilled individuals who have left active forces; and
helps preserve constitutional balance between State and Federal
sovereign interests, given its unique dual State/Federal role.
Moreover, Department of Defense reviews and reports, including the
2001 Quadrennial Defense Review and Reserve Component Employment 2005
Study, have made clear that the National Guard should have an expanded
role in homeland security.
Other experts agree. The Hart-Rudman and Gilmore terrorism
commissions as well as the recent Hart-Rudman Terrorism Task Force have
recommended that the National Guard be given a more direct role in the
war on terrorism.
In sum, this legislation is a sensible, efficient way to make our
country safer from terrorism. I look forward to working with my
colleagues to pass it.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 215
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Guaranteeing a United and
Resolute Defense Act of 2003'' or the ``GUARD Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. FUNDING ASSISTANCE FOR HOMELAND SECURITY ACTIVITIES
OF THE NATIONAL GUARD.
(a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 32, United States Code,
is amended by inserting after section 112 the following new
section:
``Sec. 112a. Homeland security activities
``(a) Funding Assistance.--(1) The Secretary of Defense may
provide funds to the Governor of a State who submits to the
Secretary a homeland security activities plan satisfying the
requirements of subsection (b).
``(2) To be eligible for assistance under this subsection,
a State shall have a homeland security activities plan in
effect.
``(3) Any funds provided to a State under this subsection
shall be used for the following:
``(A) Pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities,
travel, and related expenses, as authorized by State law, of
personnel of the National Guard of the State for service
performed for the purpose of homeland security while not in
Federal service.
``(B) Operation and maintenance of the equipment and
facilities of the National Guard of the State that are used
for the purpose of homeland security.
``(C) Procurement of services and the purchase or leasing
of equipment for the National Guard of the State for use for
the purpose of homeland security.
``(b) Homeland Security Activities Plan Requirements.--The
homeland security activities plan of a State--
``(1) shall specify how personnel and equipment of the
National Guard of the State are to be used in homeland
security activities and include a detailed explanation of the
reasons why the National Guard should be used for the
specified activities;
``(2) shall describe in detail how any available National
Guard training facilities, including any distance learning
programs and projects, are to be used;
``(3) shall include the Governor's certification that the
activities under the plan are
[[Page 1743]]
to be conducted at a time when the personnel involved are not
in Federal service;
``(4) shall include the Governor's certification that
participation by National Guard personnel in the activities
under the plan is service in addition to training required
under section 502 of this title;
``(5) shall include a certification by the Attorney General
of the State (or, in the case of a State with no position of
Attorney General, a civilian official of the State equivalent
to a State attorney general) that the use of the National
Guard of the State for the activities proposed under the plan
is authorized by, and is consistent with, State law;
``(6) shall include the Governor's certification that the
Governor or a civilian law enforcement official of the State
designated by the Governor has determined that any activities
to be carried out in conjunction with Federal law enforcement
agencies under the plan serve a State law enforcement
purpose; and
``(7) may provide for the use of personnel and equipment of
the National Guard of that State to assist the Directorate of
Immigration Affairs of the Department of Homeland Security in
the transportation of aliens who have violated a Federal or
State law prohibiting terrorist acts.
``(c) Examination and Approval of Plan.--The Secretary of
Defense shall examine the adequacy of each homeland security
activities plan of a State and, if the plan is determined
adequate, approve the plan.
``(d) Annual Report.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall
submit to Congress each year a report on the assistance
provided under this section during the preceding fiscal year,
including the activities carried out with such assistance.
``(2) The annual report under this subsection shall include
the following:
``(A) A description of the homeland security activities
conducted under the homeland security activities plans with
funds provided under this section.
``(B) An accounting of the funds provided to each State
under this section.
``(C) An analysis of the effects on military training and
readiness of using units and personnel of the National Guard
to perform activities under the homeland security activities
plans.
``(e) Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed as limiting the authority of any unit of
the National Guard of a State, when such unit is not in
Federal service, to perform law enforcement functions
authorized to be performed by the National Guard by the laws
of the State concerned.
``(f) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) The term `Governor', in the case of the District of
Columbia, means the commanding general of the National Guard
of the District of Columbia.
``(2) The term `homeland security activities', with respect
to the National Guard of a State, means the use of National
Guard personnel, when authorized by the law of the State and
requested by the Governor of the State, to prevent, deter,
defend against, and respond to an attack or threat of attack
on the people and territory of the United States.
``(3) The term `State' includes the District of Columbia,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin
Islands.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 1 of such title is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 112 the following new
item:
``112a. Homeland security activities.''.
______
By Mr. EDWARDS:
S. 216. A bill to authorize the National Institute of Standards and
Technology to develop improvements in building and fire codes,
standards, and practices to reduce the impact of terrorist and other
extreme threats to the safety of buildings, their occupants, and
emergency responders, and to authorize the Department of Homeland
Security to form a task force to recommend ways to strengthen standards
in the private security industry, stabilize the workforce, and create a
safer environment for commercial building and industrial facility
occupants; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, as we all know, when terrorists struck
America on September 11, 2001, the greatest loss of life occurred when
the World Trade Center's two towers fell. These two towers were symbols
of America's strength and prosperity, and they were reduced to rubble
by the two massive blows.
As we continue securing America against terrorist attacks, we need to
give more attention to the security of large buildings, especially
skyscrapers and arenas. There are approximately 500 skyscrapers in the
United States that are regularly occupied by at least 5000 people, and
there are 250 major arenas and stadiums that hold many times more.
These buildings will be primary targets of potential terrorist attack.
We must do more to ensure that these buildings are secure.
That is why I am introducing today the Building Security Act of 2003.
The bill does two things: first, it supports the research and funding
we need so that buildings can withstand extreme assaults, including
terrorist attacks. Second, the bill takes steps so that buildings will
be guarded by a security workforce that is adequately prepared to
respond to these dangers.
Consider the construction of large buildings. Today, many older
buildings lack fire retardants and blast-resistant materials that can
save hundreds of lives in a disaster. As a result of the study of the
attack on the Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995, we know that
design changes that would have increased building costs by only 1 to 2
percent might have saved as many of 85 percent of the people killed in
that attack. The early reports on the World Trade Center collapse have
suggested that the two towers could have endured the impact of the
planes, but that the extraordinary heat generated by the explosions
weakened the steel structure of those buildings. Advanced technologies
in building construction would surely have slowed their collapse. On
the positive side, we know that improvements in the construction of the
Pentagon mitigated the loss of life; the plane struck the Pentagon on
the one side of the building where the windows were blast-resistant and
the structural columns had been reinforced. Those changes likely saved
many lives.
There are new, better construction practices and materials out there,
but we are not using them as much as we should. Part of the reason is
that today, our Nation's brightest scientists and most innovative
companies do not have the resources needed to research, create, and
implement these practices. We must enable these people to develop new
methods and materials, and help industry meet the higher standards we
need, and we must do all that as quickly and efficient as possible.
The bill I introduce today will provide $40 million for the National
Institutes of Science and Technology, or NIST, to help improve
construction standards. The needed research is happening now, but it
needs to move much more quickly. This legislation will do three things:
1. undertake an intensive national research effort to determine both
how to build strong buildings, and how to improve building codes and
standards; 2. specifically research the question of how to ensure that
these higher standards are actually met, whether by mandates, tax
credits, or other incentives; and 3. provide technical guidance to
builders in adopting the new standards and codes.
We also must address standards for private security officers. Our
country's buildings are staffed by almost two million private security
officers. While they have the critical responsibility of preventing
emergencies and protecting building occupants from harm, these officers
are often inadequately trained or compensated to do so. The industry
suffers from low retention, deficient training, and meager salaries.
The job turnover rate within the private security industry is as high
as 300 percent per year. Recent studies show that 4 in 10 private
security officers report no new security measures in their buildings
since September 11, and 7 in 10 report that their buildings never
conduct evacuation and emergency drills. And over half of the States
have no clear oversight for their respective private security
industries, nor do they have standards or screening requirements for
new hires.
This legislation authorizes a review of the private security industry
by a commission in the Department of Homeland Security that includes
all those with critical knowledge of the industry. The commission is
tasked with establishing industry guidelines and standards and
developing a means to implement those guidelines and standards in a
timely way.
Our Nation's buildings have been targeted before, and I believe that
they will be targeted again. We must do
[[Page 1744]]
much more to make these buildings secure. This bill is important step
in the right direction.
______
By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mr. Lautenberg):
S. 217. A bill to reinstate felony penalties for licensed gun dealers
who fail to maintain records of sales; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that could
have a large impact on reducing gun violence in this country.
Last fall, two snipers terrorized the Washington, D.C. metropolitan
area, killing ten victims and wounding others including children. Among
the weapons used by the snipers was a high powered military-style
assault rifle known as a Bushmaster XM15. Following the arrest of
sniper suspects John Mohammed and John Lee Malvo, this weapon was
linked to killings in Maryland, Virginia,Louisiana, and Alabama.
Agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms traced the
Bushmaster weapon to a Tacoma, Washington gun dealership, the Bull's
Eye Shooter Supply. Investigators even found the empty box in which the
weapon was shipped.
But What the agents did not find was any record of the sale of the
weapon because the gun dealer did not keep adequate records. If the gun
was bought from Bull's Eye, we do not know when because there is no
record of the Sale. There is no record of a gun application or a
background check for John Mohammed. Had a background check been carried
out, John Mohammed would not have obtained the weapon because a
domestic violence restraining order had been field against him.
What is the weapon was stolen? If the owner of Bull's Eye had kept
proper records and followed Federal law, he would have reported the
weapon missing or stolen when it disappeared from the store. The
knowledge that a Bushmaster XM15 was missing from a Tacoma area weapons
store could have greatly aided investigators looking into the case.
The sloppy recordkeeping for this particular weapon was not an
isolated case. it has been learned that inspectors had uncovered
record-keeping violations in audits at Bull's Eye in 1998, 2000 and
2001. A total of 160 missing guns could not be accounted for in the
2000 audit.
This type of shoddy recordkeeping is dangerous. A small percentage of
licensed dealers are responsible for a disproportionate number of crime
guns. Specifically, 1.2 percent of all licensed gun dealers are
responsible for the original sale of 57 percent of all firearms used in
crimes, according to data from the ATF.
Gun dealers are not being punished when they ignore Federal
recordkeeping laws. Why? Because in 1986, the National Rifle
Association pushed a law through Congress that significantly weakened
penalties for poor recordkeeping reducing maximum jail time for five
years to one year. This meant that the crime was reduced from a felony
to a misdemeanor. With this change, the undermanned and underfunded
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Federal prosecutors simply
could not afford to bring cases against gun dealers for misdemeanor
violations.
It is time we restore record keeping violations to a felony and that
is what my bill does. It is not a new gun law. It is merely making the
penalties tougher for violations for existing law. Regardless of
whether you support or oppose additional gun laws, we all agree that we
need strong enforcement of existing laws. My bill would make
enforcement easier and tougher. I hope my colleagues will support this
common-sense legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the
bill and a letter of support from the Violence Policy Center be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 217
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REINSTATEMENT OF CRIMINAL FELONY PENALTIES FOR
FAILURE TO MAINTAIN RECORDS OF FIREARMS SALES.
Section 924(a)(3) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``one year'' and inserting ``5 years''.
____
Violence Policy Center,
Washington, DC, January 21, 2003.
Hon. Barbara Boxer,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Boxer: The Violence Policy strongly endorses
your legislation to reinstate felony penalties for firearm
recordkeeping violations. That this legislation is urgently
needed is highlighted by the circumstances surrounding the
tragic Washington-area sniper shootings. Bull's Eye Shooter
Supply, the gun dealer in Washington state from which the
snipers acquired their Bushmaster XM15 assault rifle, had no
record of the gun leaving its inventory. The store simply
could not account for the disposition of the gun used to kill
10 and wound three in a shooting spree that terrorized the
Washington metropolitan area.
This is not surprising taking into account the feeble
penalties that currently apply to gun dealers who fail to
keep adequate records. Your legislation would simply restore
the felony penalty that applied until legislation backed by
the National Rifle Association reduced it to a misdemeanor in
1986.
At the time, the Reagan Administration agreed that reducing
recordkeeping violations to a misdemeanor was a dangerous
idea. In 1986, the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
and Firearms (ATF) identified this penalty change as a
``weakness'' of the legislation in which it was included. In
a memorandum to the Department of the Treasury's Assistant
Secretary for Enforcement, the ATF Director wrote, ``By
reducing all licensee recordkeeping violations to
misdemeanors, serious violations could not be adequately
prosecuted and punished, i.e., a dealer's sale of firearms
off-record and his willful refusal to make or maintain any
required record could only be prosecuted as misdemeanors.''
It's time to put the teeth back in dealer recordkeeping
enforcement. The Violence Policy Center strongly supports
swift passage of the Boxer legislation to reinstate felony
penalties for failure to maintain records of firearms
transfers.
Sincerely,
M. Kristen Rand,
Legislative Director.
______
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Hollings, and Mr.
Kerry):
S. 218. A bill to amend the Coastal Zone Management Act; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to support the Coastal Zone
Enhancement Reauthorization of 2003. I am pleased to have bipartisan
support for this bill and to be joined by the Chair and Ranking
Democrats of the Commerce Committee and the Subcommittee on Oceans and
Fisheries. Senators McCain, Hollings, and Kerry have been instrumental
in developing the wide range of support for this bill and I appreciate
their interest in improving the way we manage our Nation's valuable
coastal and marine resources.
In 1972, Congress responded to concerns over the increasing demands
being placed on our Nation's coastal regions and resources by enacting
of the Coastal Zone Management Act. These pressures have greatly
increased since the Act was originally authorized.
Although the coastal zone only comprises 10 percent of the contiguous
U.S. land area, nearly 53 percent of all Americans live in these
coastal regions, and more than 3,600 people are relocating there
annually. This small portion of our country supports approximately 361
sea ports, contains most of our largest cities, and serves as critical
habitat for a variety of plants and animals.
This bill reauthorizes and makes a number of important improvements
to the Coastal Zone Management Act. Under the authorities in this Act,
coastal States can choose to participate in the voluntary Federal
Coastal Zone Management Program. States then design individual coastal
zone management programs, taking their specific needs and problems into
account, and then receive Federal matching funds to help carry out
their program plans. State coastal zone programs manage issues ranging
from public access to beaches, to protecting habitat, to coordinating
permits for coastal development.
As a voluntary program, the framework of the CZMA provides guidelines
[[Page 1745]]
for State plans to address multiple environmental, societal, cultural,
and economic objectives.
The health of our coastal zone is vitally important not only to the
multitude of plants and animals that inhabit this area, but also to the
people and communities that are dependent on it for their livelihood.
For example, coastal areas provide habitat for more than 75 percent of
the U.S. commercial fisheries and 85 percent of the U.S. recreational
fisheries. In turn, the commercial fishing industry, along with value-
added services included, contributes $40 billion to the U.S. economy
each year. Recreational fishing adds another $25 billion to the
economy.
The Coastal Zone Management Program can be used to help balance the
conservation of fish stocks with the demands that we place on coastal
areas. In my State of Maine, a $150,000 study of the State's cargo
needs led to a $27 million bond issue for cargo port improvements. As a
result, Bath Iron Works built a new $45 million facility, creating
1,000 new jobs. Similar work needs to be done with our fishing ports so
that when fisheries stock rebound, the fishermen will be able to
realize the returns.
Unfortunately our precious coastal resources are being threatened by
environmental problems, including non-point source pollution. Although
the States are currently taking action to address this problem under
existing authority, the Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization of
2003 encourages, but does not require them to take additional steps to
combat these problems through the Coastal Community Program.
This initiative provides States with the funding and flexibility
needed to deal with their specific non-point source pollution problems.
The States will have the ability to implement local solutions to a
broad array of local problems. Many States are actively engaged in non-
point source pollution programs and all can benefit from this new tool.
I'm proud to say that Maine has risen to the challenge and already
spends close to 30 percent of its funding on such activities. This has
led to the reopening of hundreds of acres of shellfish beds and the
restoration of fish nursery areas. Even with these successes, Maine is
looking forward to this new opportunity to do more.
The Coastal Community Program in this bill also aids States in
developing and implementing creative initiatives to deal with problems
other than on-point source pollution. It increases Federal and State
support of local community-based programs that address coastal
environmental issues, such as the impact of development and sprawl on
coastal uses and resources. This type of bottom-up management approach
is critical.
The Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization of 2003 significantly
increases the authorization levels for the Coastal Zone Management
Program, allowing States to better address their coastal management
plan goals. The bill authorizes $135.5 million for fiscal year 2003,
$141 million for fiscal year 2005 and increases the authorization
levels by $5.5 million each year through fiscal year 2008. This
increase in funding is necessary to allow the coastal programs to reach
their full potential.
Additionally, the Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization of 2003
increases authorization for the National Estuarine Research Reserve
System, NERRS, to $13 million in fiscal year 2004 with an additional $1
million increase each year through fiscal year 2008. NERRS is a network
of reserves across the country that are operated as a cooperative
federal-state partnership.
Currently, there are 25 reserves in 22 States. They provide an
important opportunity for long-term research and education in these
ecosystems. Additional funds will help strengthen this nationwide
program which has not received increased funding commensurate with the
addition of new reserves.
I would like to address a very serious problem facing the Coastal
Zone Management Program that we have tried to rectify in this bill. The
Administrative Grant program, section 306, serves as the base funding
mechanism for the States' coastal zone management programs. The amount
of funding each State receives is determined by a formula that takes
into account both the length of the coastline and the population of
each State.
However, since 1992, the Appropriations Committee has imposed a two
million dollar cap per State on Administrative Grants. This was an
attempt to ensure equitable allocation to all the participating states.
Over the past eight years appropriations for Administrative Grants have
increased by $19 million, yet the $2 million cap has remained. The
result has been an inequitable distribution of these new funds. By
fiscal year 2000, 13 States had reached this arbitrary $2 million cap.
These 13 States account for 83 percent of our Nation's coastline and 76
percent of our coastal population.
It is not equitable to have the 13 States with the largest coastlines
and populations stuck at a two million dollar cap, despite major
overall funding increases. While smaller States have enjoyed additional
programmatic success due to an influx of funding, some of the larger
States have stagnated.
In an attempt to reassure members of the Appropriations Committee
that a fair distribution of funds can occur without this hard cap in
place, I have worked with Senator Hollings to develop language that has
been included in this bill that directs the Secretary of Commerce to
ensure that equitable increases or decreases between funding years for
each State. It further requires that States should not experience a
decrease in base program funds in any year when the overall
appropriations increase.
I would like to thank Senator Hollings for his assistance in
resolving this matter and his commitment over the years to ensuring
that the States are treated fairly.
The Coastal Zone Management Program enjoys wide support among all of
the coastal states due to its history of success. This support has been
clearly demonstrated by the many members of the Commerce Committee who
have worked with me to strengthen this program over the past several
years.
I would like to thank Senator Kerry, the Ranking Democrat of the
Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee for his hard work and support of this
bill. I would also like to express my appreciation to Senator McCain,
the Chairman of the Commerce Committee, and Senator Hollings, the
Ranking Democrat of the Committee, for their support of this measure
and for their willingness to discharge this bill out of the committee
so that we may begin working with our colleagues in the House of
Representatives to enact this critical piece of legislation.
This is a solid, reasonable, and a realistic bill that enjoys
bipartisan support on the Commerce Committee. It is time that we now
turn to legislation reauthorizing a program with a long track record of
preserving our coastal environment while allowing sensible development.
I am pleased to support this legislation that will provide the States
with the necessary funding and framework to meet the challenges facing
our coastal communities in the 21st century. I urge my colleagues to
support it.
____________________
SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS
______
SENATE RESOLUTION 25--DESIGNATING JANUARY 2003 AS ``NATIONAL MENTORING
MONTH''
Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. McCain, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Bingaman, Mr.
Brownback, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Specter, Ms. Mikulski, Mr.
Cochran, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Allen, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr.
Akaka, Mr. Dodd, and Ms. Landrieu) submitted the following resolution;
which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary:
S. Res. 25
Whereas mentors serve as role models, advocates, friends,
and advisors to youth in need;
Whereas numerous studies and research document that mentors
help youth augment social skills and emotional well-being,
improve cognitive skills, and plan for the future;
Whereas, for some youth, having a caring adult mentor to
turn to for guidance and encouragement can make the crucial
difference between success and failure in life;
[[Page 1746]]
Whereas 17,600,000 youth, nearly half the youth population,
want or need mentors to help them reach their full potential.
Whereas there exists a large ``mentoring gap'' of unmet
needs, as evidenced by the fact that just 2,500,000 youth are
in formal mentoring relationships, leaving 15,000,000 youth
still in need of mentors;
Whereas the celebration of National Mentoring Month will
institutionalize the Nation's commitment to mentoring and
raise awareness of mentoring in various forms;
Whereas a month-long focus on mentoring will tap into the
vast pool of potential mentors and motivate adults to take
action to help a youth;
Whereas National Mentoring Month will encourage
organizations of all kinds--businesses, faith communities,
government agencies, schools, and other organizations--to
engage their constituents in mentoring; and
Whereas the celebration of that month would above all
encourage more people to volunteer as mentors, to the benefit
of the Nation's youth: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, that the Senate--
(1) designates the month of January 2003 as ``National
Mentoring Month''; and
(2) requests that the President issue a proclamation
calling upon the people of the United States and interested
groups to observe the month with appropriate ceremonies and
activities that promote awareness of and volunteer
involvement with youth mentoring.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege today to join my
colleagues in submitting a resolution recognizing January 2003 as
National Mentoring Month. Business, community and media leaders have
formed a coalition to raise public awareness about the importance of
taking time to make a real difference in the life of a child.
Under the impressive leadership of the National Mentoring Partnership
and the Harvard School of Public Health, the coalition is sponsoring an
advertising campaign to explain the benefits of mentoring for children
and mentors alike: Each of us has had adults who have made a positive
difference for us, family, teachers, coaches, clergy, neighbors or
caring friends who were there to listen and offer guidance. Each of us
has the opportunity to offer that same gift to young persons today.
Each week with many of my colleagues in the Senate, I read with an
elementary school student in the District of Columbia in the Everybody
Wins program. During our lunchtime sessions, my first grade partner and
I share good books and stories. Whether mentors choose reading programs
or some other activity, these times are dedicated to listening and
responding to the child's needs. Mentors have busy lives, and every
child needs to know that we can make time for them.
In States across this country there are long lists of young persons
waiting for mentors. This important project will connect new mentors to
these waiting children, and enhance the quality of their lives. I urge
the Senate to approve it.
____________________
AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED
SA 246. Mr. THOMAS proposed an amendment to amendment SA 61
proposed by Ms. Mikulski (for herself, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr.
Dorgan, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Feingold,
Mr. Johnson, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kohl, and Mrs. Murray) to the
joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other
purposes.
SA 247. Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself and Mr. Reid) proposed an
amendment to amendment SA 61 proposed by Ms. Mikulski (for
herself, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Akaka, Mr.
Bingaman, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kohl,
and Mrs. Murray) to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra.
SA 248. Ms. STABENOW proposed an amendment to the joint
resolution H.J. Res. 2, supra.
____________________
TEXT OF AMENDMENTS
SA 246. Mr. THOMAS proposed an amendment to amend SA 61 proposed by
Ms. Mikulski (for herself, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Durbin, Mr.
Akaka, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kohl,
and Mrs. Murray) to the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further
continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003 and for other
purposes; 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.
______
SA 247. Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself and Mr. Reid) proposed an amendment
to amendment SA 61 proposed by Ms. Mikulski (for herself, Mr. Sarbanes,
Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Feingold, Mr.
Johnson, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kohl, and Mrs. Murray) to the joint
resolution H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing appropriations for
the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; as follows:
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.
______
SA 248. Ms. STABENOW proposed an amendment to the joint resolution
H.J. Res. 2, making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal
year 2003, and for other purposes; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
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 L 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)).
____________________
PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Rhonda
Sinkfield of the Finance Committee staff be accorded floor privileges
during the duration of debate on H.J. Res. 2.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Murali
Raju, a fellow from my office, be granted the privilege of the floor
for the duration of the debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
EXECUTIVE SESSION
______
EXECUTIVE CALENDAR
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following
nominations on the Executive Calendar: Nos. 2 through 16, and 19.
I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed,
the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, any statements
relating to the nominations be printed in the Record, the President be
immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return
to legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The nominations were considered and confirmed, as follows:
ARMY
The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Army to the grade indicated while assigned to a
position of importance and responsibility under the title 10,
U.S.C., section 601:
[[Page 1747]]
To be lieutenant general
Lt. Gen. George W. Casey, Jr.
The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Army to the grade indicated while assigned to a
position of importance and responsibility under title 10,
U.S.C., section 601:
To be lieutenant general
Lt. Gen. John P. Abizaid
NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES
Celeste Colgan, of Texas, to be a Member of the National
Council on the Humanities for a term expiring January 26,
2008.
Jewel Spears Brooker, of Florida, to be a Member of the
National Council on the Humanities for a term expiring
January 26, 2008.
Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, of Georgia, to be a Member of the
National Council on the Humanities for a term expiring
January 26, 2008.
Stephen McKnight, of Florida, to be a Member of the
National Council on the Humanities for a term expiring
January 26, 2006.
Sidney McPhee, of Tennessee, to be a Member of the National
Council on the Humanities for a term expiring January 26,
2008.
Lawrence Okamura, of Missouri, to be a Member of the
National Council on the Humanities for a term expiring
January 26, 2008.
Marguerite Sullivan, of the District of Columbia, to be a
Member of the National Council on the Humanities for a term
expiring January 26, 2008.
Stephen Thernstrom, of Massachusetts, to be a Member of the
National Council on the Humanities for a term expiring
January 26, 2008.
David Hertz, of Indiana, to be a Member of the National
Council on the Humanities for a term expiring January 26,
2006.
Terry L. Maple, of Georgia, to be a Member of National
Museum Services Board for a term expiring December 6, 2005.
NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR LITERACY
Phyllis C. Hunter, of Texas, to be a Member of the National
Institute for Literacy Advisory Board for a term of two
years. (New Position)
Blanca E. Enriquez, of Texas, to be a Member of the
National Institute for Literacy Advisory Board for a term of
three years. (New Position)
Douglas Carnine, of Oregon, to be a Member of the National
Council Institute for Literacy Advisory Board for a term of
three years. (New Position)
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Asa Hutchinson, of Arkansas, to be Under Secretary for
Border and Transportation, Department of Homeland Security.
(New Position)
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Senate has just confirmed the
appointment of Asa Hutchinson to serve as the Under Secretary for
Border and Transportation Security at the Department of Homeland
Security. This is a very important position within the newly created
Department, and one that encompasses far-reaching responsibilities.
Therefore, I am pleased the Senate was able to move expeditiously on
this confirmation so that Congressman Hutchinson can be in his position
when the new Department officially begins operation tomorrow, January
24.
The Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security is charged
with critical duties, including: preventing the entry of terrorists and
the instruments of terrorism into the United States; securing the
borders, territorial waters, ports, terminals, waterways, and air,
land, and sea transportation systems of the United States;
administering U.S. customs laws; establishing national immigration
enforcement policies and priorities; carrying out INS immigration
enforcement functioning; and administering the granting of visas or
other forms of permission to enter the United States.
With these duties will go jurisdiction over many existing government
units, including the United States Customs Service of the Department of
the Treasury, the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, of the
Department of Transportation, the Federal Protective Service of the
General Services Administration, the Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center of the Department of the Treasury, and the Office for Domestic
Preparedness of the Office of Justice Programs of the Department of
Justice.
Security policies are intertwined with safety policies, and many of
the Under Secretary's functions are closely linked to other agencies of
the federal governmental, such as the modal administrations responsible
for transportation safety at the Department of Transportation. Further,
many duties overseen by the Under Secretary have been and will continue
to be performed by the Coast Guard. All of these functions will have to
be carefully coordinated under Congressman Hutchinson's leadership.
The Under Secretary will face many difficult challenges, including
those associated with the very serious situation at our southern
border. For example, Arizona has been a leading gateway for illegal
immigrants into the U.S. since the mid-1990s. Illegal immigrants are
dying along on our borders. The attrition rate for Border Patrol Agents
and INS inspectors has reached alarming levels. We have reached the
point where we now have private citizens taking up arms and forming
militia groups to patrol the border because they feel the federal
government has failed to protect them. Just yesterday, the Wall Street
Journal reported about the death of a U.S. Park Ranger in Arizona who
was killed last August along the border, the fourth ranger killed in
the line of duty since 1990. Further, uncompensated emergency and
medical care provided to undocumented immigrants has left many border
hospitals on the verge of financial ruin. Leadership and attention must
be paramount in any effort undertaken by the Under Secretary to
adequately address the wide range of border security issues, including
how to ensure adequate resources are deployed for enforcement purposes.
Yesterday, the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee held
its hearing to consider Congressman Hutchinson's nomination. We
unanimously approved his nomination earlier today. The new Under
Secretary will certainly have our Committee's full support as he takes
on the many great challenges that he will face in his new position. The
American public is very fortunate to have such a fine, capable,
hardworking citizen agree to take on the immense responsibilities
associated with this public service position.
I urge my colleagues' swift confirmation of Congressman Hutchinson.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senate today considers the nomination
of Asa Hutchinson to become the first Undersecretary of Border and
Transportation Security for the Department of Homeland Security. I will
vote for this nomination, but not without reservations.
In addition to his service as head of the Drug Enforcement
Administration, most of us in the Senate also know Asa Hutchinson from
the substantial amount of time he spent on the floor of the Senate a
few years ago during the impeachment trial of President Clinton. He and
I were both involved in the deposition phase of that trial, and
although we reached opposite conclusions on the question of
impeachment, I found him to be a skilled attorney and advocate for his
position, and a very likable colleague.
Because of my respect for him, I expedited his 2001 nomination to
head the DEA. I noticed a hearing only days after becoming chairman of
the Judiciary Committee, held the hearing the following week, and
scheduled a committee vote for the earliest possible time. I then
worked with Senator Daschle to have the full Senate consider his
nomination as quickly as possible.
In his role as administrator, I believe he has done many things well.
I do, however, have two concerns I would like to express today.
At his confirmation hearing to head the DEA, I asked Mr. Hutchinson
whether the Federal Government should make it a priority to prosecute
people who distribute marijuana to ill people in States that have
legalized marijuana for medicinal use. He said he wanted to work with
the Attorney General and develop an appropriate policy to reflect the
Federal-State tensions involved in the issue. If such a policy was
developed, I am unaware of it. In practice, the DEA under Administrator
Hutchinson's leadership took a very tough line against the use of
marijuana for medical purposes, launching a number of raids in
California against individuals and groups that were operating in
compliance with California law.
[[Page 1748]]
In Vermont, we are experiencing severe and growing problems with
heroin abuse and our law enforcement officers face extraordinary
burdens, it is problems like that that should be a priority for the
DEA. Administrator Hutchinson's decision to use substantial Federal
resources to crack down on the use of marijuana by ill people strikes
me as setting the wrong priority, and certainly a different priority
than he identified at his hearing.
I am also concerned by recent reports that Administrator Hutchinson
made extensive use of Government planes at significant taxpayer expense
for public appearances, while previous administrators flew commercially
for similar events. If these reports are true, he would not be the
first member of the Department of Justice to make questionable use of
taxpayer dollars for travel. Similar questions were raised in 2001
about Attorney General Ashcroft's reliance on chartered planes. In
addition, Hispanic agents have criticized Mr. Hutchinson for allowing
the expiration of a committee that had been formed to brief the
administrator on the concerns of Hispanic agents. I have not had the
opportunity to discuss these accusations with him and his confirmation
hearing for this post was not held before the Judiciary Committee. I
would encourage Mr. Hutchinson to take affirmative steps to run an
inclusive agency.
In his new position, Mr. Hutchinson will be responsible for ensuring
that our borders are safe. I have worked extensively to strengthen our
northern border, particularly since the terrorist attacks of September
11, 2001. I know that the personnel who protect our border are
excellent, and I also know that they need more help. That is why I
included provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act to triple INS and Customs
personnel at the northern border, and to invest in improved technology
and equipment to monitor the border. I look forward to working closely
with Mr. Hutchinson to ensure that these provisions are finally and
fully implemented and our borders are secure.
____________________
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
return to legislative session.
____________________
____________________
ORDERS FOR FRIDAY, JANUARY 24, AND TUESDAY, JANUARY 28, 2003
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:45
a.m., Friday, January 24, for a pro forma session only. I further ask
consent that immediately upon convening at 9:45, the Senate
automatically adjourn over until 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, January 28. I
further ask consent that on Tuesday, following the prayer and the
pledge, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the Journal of
proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be
reserved for their use later in the day, and there then be a period for
morning business until 12:30, with the time equally divided and with
Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each. Further,
I ask that the Senate recess from the hours of 12:30 to 2:15 for the
weekly policy luncheons to meet; further, that when the Senate
reconvenes at 2:15, there be a period of morning business until the
hour of 5 o'clock, again, with the time equally divided and with
Senators limited to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PROGRAM
Mr. COLEMAN. As announced earlier, the Senate will be in a pro forma
session tomorrow--no business will be conducted--there will be no
session on Monday, and the Senate will reconvene on Tuesday. The Senate
will be in a period of morning business on Tuesday. Also as a reminder,
the President will deliver his State of the Union Address on Tuesday.
Members are asked to be in the Senate Chamber no later than 8:30 on
Tuesday evening.
The majority leader has announced that there will be no rollcall
votes prior to Wednesday of next week. The Senate could consider any
legislative or executive matters that become available.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 9:45 A.M. TOMORROW
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, if there is no further business, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the
previous order.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 9:31 p.m., adjourned until
Friday, January 24, 2003, at 9:45 a.m.
____________________
CONFIRMATIONS
Executive nominations confirmed by the Senate January 23, 2003:
NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES
CELESTE COLGAN, OF TEXAS, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL
COUNCIL ON THE HUMANITIES FOR A TERM EXPIRING JANUARY 26,
2008.
JEWEL SPEARS BROOKER, OF FLORIDA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
NATIONAL COUNCIL ON THE HUMANITIES FOR A TERM EXPIRING
JANUARY 26, 2008.
ELIZABETH FOX-GENOVESE, OF GEORGIA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
NATIONAL COUNCIL ON THE HUMANITIES FOR A TERM EXPIRING
JANUARY 26, 2008.
STEPHEN MCKNIGHT, OF FLORIDA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
NATIONAL COUNCIL ON THE HUMANITIES FOR A TERM EXPIRING
JANUARY 26, 2006.
SIDNEY MCPHEE, OF TENNESSEE, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL
COUNCIL ON THE HUMANITIES FOR A TERM EXPIRING JANUARY 26,
2008.
LAWRENCE OKAMURA, OF MISSOURI, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
NATIONAL COUNCIL ON THE HUMANITIES FOR A TERM EXPIRING
JANUARY 26, 2008.
MARGUERITE SULLIVAN, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO BE A
MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL ON THE HUMANITIES FOR A TERM
EXPIRING JANUARY 26, 2008.
STEPHAN THERNSTROM, OF MASSACHUSETTS, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
NATIONAL COUNCIL ON THE HUMANITIES FOR A TERM EXPIRING
JANUARY 26, 2008.
DAVID HERTZ, OF INDIANA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL
COUNCIL ON THE HUMANITIES FOR A TERM EXPIRING JANUARY 26,
2006.
TERRY L. MAPLE, OF GEORGIA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL
MUSEUM SERVICES BOARD FOR A TERM EXPIRING DECEMBER 6, 2005.
NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR LITERACY
PHYLLIS C. HUNTER, OF TEXAS, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL
INSTITUTE FOR LITERACY ADVISORY BOARD FOR A TERM OF TWO
YEARS.
BLANCA E. ENRIQUEZ, OF TEXAS, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR LITERACY ADVISORY BOARD FOR A TERM OF
THREE YEARS.
DOUGLAS CARNINE, OF OREGON, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL
INSTITUTE FOR LITERACY ADVISORY BOARD FOR A TERM OF THREE
YEARS.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
ASA HUTCHINSON, OF ARKANSAS, TO BE UNDER SECRETARY FOR
BORDER AND TRANSPORTATION, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY.
THE ABOVE NOMINATIONS WERE APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE
NOMINEES' COMMITMENT TO RESPOND TO REQUESTS TO APPEAR AND
TESTIFY BEFORE ANY DULY CONSTITUTED COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE.
IN THE ARMY
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES ARMY TO THE GRADE INDICATED WHILE ASSIGNED TO A
POSITION OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 601:
To be lieutenant general
LT. GEN. GEORGE W. CASEY, JR.
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES ARMY TO THE GRADE INDICATED WHILE ASSIGNED TO A
POSITION OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 601:
To be lieutenant general
LT. GEN. JOHN P. ABIZAID