[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 4005-4017]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    MAKING FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003--
                           CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to 
consider the conference report to accompany H.J. Res. 2 under the 
previous agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will report the 
conference report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the joint 
     resolution (H.J. Res. 2) making further continuing 
     appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other 
     purposes, having met have agreed that the House recede from 
     its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate and agree to 
     the same with an amendment and the Senate agree to the same, 
     signed by a majority of the conferees on the part of both 
     Houses.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will proceed to the consideration 
of the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of February 13, 2003.)
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this is probably a historic occasion 
because we are presenting to the Senate--as my colleague, Chairman Bill 
Young, presented to the House--11 appropriations bills in one omnibus 
bill, a bill that covers the balance of this fiscal year, fiscal year 
2003.
  We are in this position because of considerations of the last 
Congress. I will not take the time of the Senate to try to discuss why 
we did not pass those bills last year, but when we commenced this year 
and I became chairman of the Appropriations Committee once again, it 
was my determination that we should proceed with those bills and make 
sure we had them completed and to the President for his signature 
before we were forced to enter into the budget process for fiscal year 
2004.
  It was a very difficult process. I want to thank my good friend and 
Chairman Bill Young in the House, who did as we requested to get the 
Senate to adopt two continuing resolutions. One we passed and it has 
extended the time for consideration of these bills. That time will 
expire on February 20. We will soon get another continuing resolution 
to take us over to, I believe, February 24, so the President will have 
a chance to review these bills before he must sign them. I do believe 
the President will sign this bill when it is received by him.
  It was early this morning that the conference report on H.J. Res. 2 
was filed in the House. I was discussing with other Members of Congress 
as early as 2 a.m. this morning some of the provisions of this bill. It 
is a very controversial bill, I know. There are many portions of this 
bill that if I were alone and had the sole right to write

[[Page 4006]]

the bill, I would not incorporate in this bill. This bill includes 11 
separate appropriations bills. The conference report includes 16 
divisions. It is a long bill.
  I see my friend from Arizona in the Chamber. I acknowledge it is a 
very difficult bill to go through in a very short period of time. I 
appreciate the consideration he and his staff are giving to the bill, 
as he usually gives to our appropriations bills.
  I see my colleague from West Virginia is in the Chamber, and when he 
is ready we will ask that the Senate turn to the consideration of the 
bill. I want to talk about some of the background of the bill before we 
begin making statements on the bill and what is in it.
  This has been a very difficult process for all of us. I want to say 
to the Senate that following the election, I outlined to our staff, and 
our staff director Steve Cortese, a process I hoped we would follow to 
get these bills passed. The Senate Appropriations Committee staff has 
been working on these 11 separate bills since the end of the year. We 
have had bipartisan cooperation. The process we followed in the Senate 
was that we had 11 teams. They were made up of the 11 subcommittees 
that would have handled the bills had they been handled individually. 
These bills were primarily the result of the interaction of the staff 
director of each of those subcommittees with the staff and the 
membership of the subcommittee.
  We took the product of those 11 teams and put them together into the 
omnibus amendment I offered to H.J. Res. 2, the one that was brought 
before the Senate. I might add that in addition, the conference report 
contains $10 billion in addition to the funds for the Department of 
Defense and intelligence community for the global war on terrorism. 
These were added to the bill. This was a reserve that was set aside by 
my great friend from West Virginia when he was chairman, a reserve for 
Defense pursuant to the request of the President as he presented the 
budget for the fiscal year 2003.
  It would be my intention to ask the Senate to proceed with statements 
pertaining to H.J. Res. 2 before it is actually received, before we go 
on the bill. I hope that meets with everyone's approval. Right now it 
is a matter of discussing the various provisions of the bill.
  There are several other legislative initiatives in the bill. They 
include $3.1 billion for drought and other agricultural disasters. 
These funds are offset by reductions in mandatory programs. Medicare 
and the TANF short-term extensions would give the Finance Committee 
time to address their matters in a reconciliation bill later this year. 
There is a .65 percent across-the-board cut to all discretionary 
accounts in this bill to assure that the total remains within the top 
line that was agreed to by myself, House Chairman Bill Young, and the 
President. That is an arbitrary line, I will admit, but in order to get 
the bill signed, if we joined them together, it was my judgment we 
could not risk a final veto from the President of the United States 
after working so hard to put them all through in one package. So we 
have worked as closely as possible with all concerned to try and make 
certain that the bills will be in a form the President could sign it.
  I have to admit I am sure he will be as disturbed about some of the 
provisions as I am myself, but I do believe all in all the bill is one 
the President should be able to sign because we have kept the 
agreement. We have stayed within the line of the requests made by the 
President of the United States for funds for fiscal year 2003.
  I will take a moment to address the total spending levels in the 
bill. Last November, Chairman Bill Young and I met with the President 
to discuss how we might complete the work on these fiscal year 2003 
bills. At that time, the President asked that we would hold to the 
total provided in his budget request, as amended by him. We asked that 
funds needed for the western firefighting be added to that total to 
address that emergency. We also agreed at that time there would be no 
emergency money per se--no amounts added to the bill above the 
President's request. The President agreed to our request that he would 
send in a supplemental request for the monies needed for the western 
fires.
  In addition, we discussed the need to fund the election reform bill 
enacted by the last Congress and respond to the severe drought facing 
Midwestern and Western States.
  To accommodate all these competing pressures, the bill I presented to 
the Senate in the form of an amendment to the second continuing 
resolution sent to the House included a 1.6 percent across-the-board 
cut to ensure the total spending did not exceed the new total we then 
faced, which was $751.325 billion.
  During consideration by the Senate, amendments were adopted that 
necessitated increasing that across-the-board cut to 2.85 percent of 
the total of the bill. That level could not be sustained, and it became 
a driving factor in our conference with the House and with the 
administration. We understood that as we went to conference. We took 
those across-the-board cuts so in conference we could discuss all the 
programs with the House and with the administration and work out an 
acceptable compromise.
  The challenge facing the conferees was to integrate all the 
priorities of both the Houses and the administration within the top 
line of the total requested by the President of the United States. Each 
of the subcommittee chairmen and ranking members managed to negotiate 
to resolve their portion of the bill. In other words, as they got to 
conference, the 11 teams were still involved with working primarily 
with their portion of this bill. Both the House and the Senate worked 
to accommodate a set of allocations that would ensure we stay within 
our fiscal goals.
  By allocations, I mean the amount of money available to each 
subcommittee for the portion of this bill and the portion of the budget 
that pertained to matters under their jurisdiction.
  During the course of these negotiations, we turned on several 
occasions to the Vice President for his counsel, consideration, and 
leadership in bridging the gaps between the Congress and the 
administration. This has been one of the most interesting periods of my 
life as a Senator, being able to work this closely with the Vice 
President, who undertook, despite the problems facing the Nation, to 
give us his attention whenever I called and whatever time I called. In 
every case, the Vice President worked hard with us to find solutions to 
the problems that beset this conference.
  The conference report, based on the give and take between the House 
and the Senate, between the Congress and the White House, meets the 
fiscal targets agreed to by both the House and the Senate. 
Discretionary spending for fiscal year 2003 will be a total now of 
$762.713 billion. That total reflects our original base of $751.325 
billion, in addition to $1.5 billion for election reform, which the 
President endorsed over the base request, and the $10 billion for the 
defense reserve.
  The White House also accepted $2.241 billion in advance 
appropriations for the 2004 education programs, which was an initiative 
we began on the floor as we tried to increase the moneys allocated to 
education under the President's No Child Left Behind education program.
  In short, we set a target which was the total amount requested by the 
administration. We met the target and we bring this bill to the Senate, 
reflecting the priorities of the administration, the House, and the 
Senate. A great deal of hard work went into this final agreement, with 
all parties making compromises--and, I must say, sacrifices--to get the 
job done.
  On my own account, as I mentioned earlier today, I was disappointed 
that a more complete resolution of the Alaska timber problem could not 
be included in this bill. There have been comments made about my trying 
to add something behind the scenes and some sort of dark way of moving 
an amendment that should not have been considered by the conference. 
There was a provision in this bill as it went to conference dealing 
with the Tongass

[[Page 4007]]

Forest in Alaska. We tried to resolve the total dispute over that 
forest. That has not been possible. As I said this afternoon, I will 
address the Senate again and again and again until it is resolved.
  At the conference meeting, I was compelled to ask Senator Bond to 
withhold a more comprehensive proposal on the Missouri River, a goal he 
has sought, and sought very hard, and on which he has worked very hard. 
I know it was a very difficult thing for my great friend from Missouri.
  The House advocated language on coal company compensation that the 
Senate could not agree to. The House also accepted compromises on 
Amtrak from the positions advocated by the subcommittee chairman.
  The toughest portion to resolve was the drought relief package. I am 
deeply grateful to the efforts and leadership of Senator Cochran in 
resolving this matter and meeting the needs of those farmers devastated 
by recent droughts. His joint role as chairman of the agriculture 
subcommittee and the authorizing committee made him a pivotal figure in 
this process and brought before the Senate a proposal which I hope will 
be acceptable to all involved in farm matters.
  I know many others wish to speak at this conference report, and I 
will reserve any time that might be allocated to me. I thank the 
distinguished ranking member and our former chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd, for his partnership and 
assistance in preparing this bill for the Senate. I know he did not 
agree with the process. I know he wished we had more time to deal with 
these individuals bills. But without the work undertaken by Senator 
Byrd in the committee, reporting all the 13 bills last year, we could 
not have completed our work under the timetable we faced. It was 
because of the work he led last year that gave us the ability to deal 
with 11 different bills that had a prior approval by the Senate and 
past Congress and gave a jumping off point to play catchup with this 
process.
  I have the deepest respect for the House chairman, Congressman Young, 
and the ranking member, Congressman Obey. Their constructive approach 
and determination to finish the work, these 2003 bills, were vital to 
the conclusion of this conference.
  It is with a great deal of humbleness that I come before the Senate 
and ask the Senate to approve this conference report because I know it 
is a difficult process. We will approve the largest appropriations bill 
in the history of the United States because there are 11 together in 
one package. It is very difficult. There will be portions of this bill 
with which some people disagree; they could disagree with 1 and love 
the other 10.
  But the process here is such that if we are to do our work for the 
remainder of this year, if we are going to be able to address the year 
2004 appropriations bills, if we are going to be prepared to deal with 
the possibility of a supplemental for our men and women in uniform who 
are being deployed throughout the world, if we are going to be able to 
be partners with the administration in dealing with the crises that 
face this country in Iraq and Korea, we have to clear this deck.
  We have to make up our mind to vote for this bill. I urge every 
Member to search his or her soul about this process. It is not a 
perfect process. It is absolutely not perfect. This bill is certainly 
far from perfect, but it is the best we can do under the circumstances 
that face us. There are many people here disappointed, as I am, about 
provisions that affect their own personal State. All I can say is, 
there will be another day and perhaps we can address some of those 
provisions on an individual basis as the year goes by.
  I deeply thank the staff of the Appropriations Committee on a 
bipartisan basis. I will later ask to put all their names in the Record 
because every one of them has been involved. My staff director sent me 
an e-mail last night at 2:45. I am surprised he thought I was still 
awake to get it--but I was. But the real problem is this has been a 
product of hard labor. I hope the Senate realizes that as we proceed 
tonight.
  It is my deep hope that we will vote on this bill tonight because it 
will add 1 more day to the time that the President has to review the 
bill. It will take at least 2 days, maybe 3 days, for the enrolling 
process of this bill to take place. In all probability the President 
cannot receive this bill, if we pass it tonight, until Monday night or 
Tuesday of next week. He is entitled the time to review this; all of 
the staff have to review this before he will sign it.
  Having been part of the administration one time, I know what they 
call the ``enrolled bill process'' in the administration. Each 
department gets its time to review a bill passed by the Congress and 
present their recommendations to the Office of Management and Budget to 
be put together and given to the President for his consideration before 
he will sign a bill. That process must have time. We should accord the 
President of the United States the respect due his office, to give him 
time to review this bill. I regret deeply I did not get more time for 
my friend from Arizona to review the bill.
  As the years have gone by, we have come to appreciate each other more 
in terms of the roles we play in this process. The Senator from Arizona 
is the watchdog of the Treasury as far as this process is concerned. I 
admire and respect that as far as the Senator is concerned, and I look 
forward to comments he will make tonight.
  Mr. McCAIN. I see the Senator from West Virginia. I appreciate the 
indulgence of the Senator from West Virginia. I will take just a 
minute.
  I thank the Senator from Alaska for the hard work he and his staff 
have done. I also hope Members understand that we did not receive this 
bill until sometime late morning and it is, as the Senator from Alaska 
pointed out, the largest bill in the history of Congress. I see it 
sitting to his right. I think it is several thousand pages. I believe, 
in all candor, in order to review it, my staff would have to stay up 
all night.
  I understand the urgency of voting tonight, but I hope the Senator 
will indulge me and my staff another hour and a half for us to get 
through at least a majority of the bill, and then I would be asking for 
an hour, but I will not use a complete hour to comment on the bill. 
That way, I hope it can accommodate Members so we could have a vote 
relatively early this evening.
  We are not finished by a long shot reviewing the bill. It is the 
largest appropriation in the history of this country. At least in my 
mind, it deserves scrutiny and comment.
  I thank the Senator from Alaska. I thank the Senator from West 
Virginia.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as the ranking member on the Committee on 
Appropriations, I thank my friend, the chairman of the Senate 
Appropriations Committee, Ted Stevens, and I also thank House 
Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Young as well as the ranking 
member of the House Appropriations Committee, Representative David 
Obey, for their hard work in bringing H.J. Res. 2, a joint resolution 
making consolidated appropriations for fiscal year 2003, to the floor. 
I thank all of the conferees on both sides of the aisle and in both 
Houses for their hard work on this legislation.
  I join with my chairman in paying our respects to and thanking our 
staff people, on both sides of the aisle, who have worked long hours 
for long weeks and for long months on this bill. We are now over 4 
months into the fiscal year and the domestic agencies of our Government 
have had to operate under eight continuing resolutions. Unfortunately, 
the House of Representatives has not passed a regular appropriations 
bill since July--since July of last year. That is over 29 weeks without 
sending a regular appropriations bill to the Senate for consideration.
  I have been in these premises for more than 50 years. I have never 
seen such a performance in this half century in which I served in this 
body and the other body. I have never seen such a dismal performance.
  When Democrats were in the majority in the Senate, we produced 13 
responsible bipartisan bills. I owed, always owed and sought to give 
due credit to my distinguished colleague, the

[[Page 4008]]

Senator from Alaska, because he was always so helpful, so cooperative, 
always so courteous in his treatment toward me and I have always 
recognized that and always sought to assign due credit, proper credit 
to him and to his colleagues on that side of the aisle.
  The President's budget for fiscal year 2003 was seriously deficient 
in a number of critical domestic programs such as homeland security, 
education, veterans medical care, highway construction, and Amtrak. In 
the bills that were approved in the Senate Appropriations Committee by 
unanimous votes last summer--the votes of every Republican and 
Democrat, all 29, 15 Democrats at that time and 14 Republicans, all 29 
votes voted unanimously--we added about $11 billion or about 3 percent 
to the President's request to respond to these shortfalls.
  Regrettably, the conference agreement that the House and Senate 
Republican leadership bring before us this evening cuts back domestic 
spending by nearly $8 billion, with cuts in homeland security, land 
conservation programs, Head Start, State and local law enforcement, 
water infrastructure grants, mass transit, the National Park Service, 
embassy security, and many other programs.
  I am particularly troubled about the cuts in homeland security 
programs, given the increased threat level under which we are all now 
living. My colleagues, the security of this Nation is on thin ice. This 
administration has held back support for critical investments in 
homeland security, in police officers, in firefighters, in border, 
airport, and seaport security. As a result of this White House's 
intransigence, America is woefully unprepared to prevent or respond to 
another terrorist attack.
  In this conference report, spending for our Nation's first responders 
has been cut by $1.6 billion from the levels approved by the Senate 
Appropriations Committee last summer. Funding has also been cut for 
border security by $182 million, embassy security by $42 million, and 
for hiring COPS on the beat by $130 million, enough to hire 1,360 
police officers and other personnel.
  The American people should know that if there is a chemical or 
biological attack in their neighborhood, the odds are that the police, 
the firemen, the medical personnel who will respond may not have either 
the equipment or the training necessary to help when that help is 
needed most.
  For example, the National Fire Protection Association and FEMA 
estimate that only 13 percent of the fire departments around the 
country have fire personnel with the specialized training and equipment 
to handle chemical or biological attacks.
  Why is America so vulnerable? Because this White House is hoping to 
protect the American people on a shoestring homeland security budget, 
held together with duct tape.
  Since September 11, 2001, the President, with great fanfare, has 
signed legislation to authorize improvements in security at our 
airports, security at our ports, and on our borders. The President also 
announced a plan for State and local governments to vaccinate 10 
million first responders for a potential smallpox attack. But the 
President has not funded that effort, nor has he requested money for it 
in his budget.
  Time after time after time, the administration has talked about 
homeland security, but time after time after time the administration 
has failed to invest in homeland security.
  Add it up. Add it up. The President turned his back to $2.5 billion 
in emergency homeland security funds last August. This past fall the 
President forced $1.5 billion in cuts to homeland security initiatives 
in the appropriations bills that unanimously passed the Senate 
Appropriations Committee last July. Just last month the administration 
opposed two homeland security funding amendments which I offered on 
this floor, one for $5 billion, another for $3 billion, and the 
administration labeled these funds as ``extraneous.''
  Those are billions of dollars in homeland security protections that 
could be at work right now. Those are billions of dollars that could be 
in place today for new police and firefighter training, for expanded 
border security, for vaccines against smallpox. Those are billions of 
dollars that could be helping to protect American lives today. But time 
after time after time after time, this administration said no, calling 
those homeland security funds ``extraneous'' and ``wasteful.''
  Now, when the President signs the omnibus bill, the administration 
will proclaim with great fanfare that it held a hard line on Federal 
spending. I hope that the White House hard line will not result in 
Americans becoming hard targets for terrorists.
  No longer can we nickel-and-dime our first responders. These firemen 
and police officers and emergency medical teams simply cannot do the 
job we expect them to do, and that the American people expect them to 
do, without enough financial support from the Federal Government.
  We should not accept the alarming deficiencies in our seaport 
security--an area that many experts have identified as perhaps the 
Nation's single greatest vulnerability. We should not accept the fact 
that first responders and local doctors and nurses do not have 
sufficient training and equipment to handle wide-ranging threats 
involving madmen who may have gotten their hands on weapons of mass 
destruction. With these looming gaps, what is the administration's 
great homeland security plan?
  What will protect the American people? Will it be duct tape, plastic 
sheeting, and a new federal bureaucracy? We did not create a new 
Department of Homeland Security just to be told to buy duct tape and 
plastic.
  When it comes to fighting overseas, this administration's attitude is 
to spare no expense. In fact, the Vice President interceded personally 
over the weekend to include billions of new dollars for Defense 
Department efforts in this omnibus bill. That is all well and good. But 
when it comes to fighting the war here at home, this administration 
relies on duct tape and plastic.
  We are in new and dangerous times. No threat can be ignored. The men 
and women who send us here demand that we protect them. The fathers and 
mothers who send their children to school each morning expect us to 
invest their hard-earned dollars to keep their little ones safe. That 
is a solemn duty. It is a basic and sacred duty. When the people ask 
for our best efforts to protect them from madmen, we must not respond 
with duct tape.
  Chairman Stevens and House Appropriations Committee Chairman Young 
did all they could to produce an omnibus bill that meets the needs of 
the American people within the low spending level imposed by the 
administration.
  I believe that the most damaging result of the 2003 appropriations 
process for the Nation and for our States would be for our domestic 
agencies to be forced to operate under a continuing resolution for the 
entire fiscal year. Such a full year continuing resolution would reduce 
domestic spending by up to another $14 billion below the levels in the 
omnibus.
  Chairman Stevens of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Chairman 
Bill Young of the House Appropriations Committee, and Mr. Obey, my 
counterpart on the House side, did everything they could to avoid 
operating their Government on a continuing resolution that would go to 
the end of the fiscal year.
  Therefore, I am going to support passage of this legislation. 
However, I must raise a concern about how this legislation was 
produced. Over the past several weeks, the Appropriations Committee has 
worked to craft a conference report to include the eleven spending 
bills for fiscal year 2003 that were not concluded during the 107th 
Congress. The Appropriations Committee takes great pride in the 
bipartisan approach we have maintained over the years to produce bills 
to fund this nation's necessary programs. The bipartisan spirit of this 
Committee enables us to carefully balance the needs of all Americans 
and to successfully craft bills that, with few exceptions, are signed 
into law.
  We all recognize the unusual circumstances surrounding passage of

[[Page 4009]]

most of the fiscal year 2003 appropriations bills. Still, I am pleased 
to report that the general rule of bipartisan cooperation among the 
members and staff of this Committee has continued to prevail and, 
thereby, we have before us now a conference report that strives to 
provide fair treatment for all Senators, at least in terms of the 
regular 2003 appropriations provisions.
  However, notwithstanding the bipartisanship exhibited at the 
subcommittee level, there have been some serious problems encountered 
in the formulation of the conference agreement on the omnibus 
appropriations legislation.
  Today's headline in The Washington Post reads, ``GOP Wraps Up 
Spending Package.'' There is some truth to that statement. Behind 
closed doors, the Senate Majority Leader, the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, and the Chairmen of the House and Senate 
Appropriations Committees met and settled on a number of the big 
issues. Vice President Cheney provided the administration's views.
  At these partisan meetings, decisions were made on such issues as the 
overall top line total of the omnibus appropriations legislation, the 
size of the across-the-board cut, the matter of environmental riders 
and the substance of the $3.1 billion drought package, along with the 
offsets from the previously enacted farm bill that were included at the 
insistence of the White House. These farm bill offsets became necessary 
when the White House refused to raise the top line by $3.1 billion to 
accommodate the mandatory spending in the drought package.
  More specifically, Division N of omnibus legislation includes a title 
to provide disaster assistance for farmers and ranchers due to drought 
and related conditions. This item was included in the bill passed by 
the Senate in January. However, when this bill went to conference, this 
item was not made part of the normal bipartisan conference process. In 
fact, no appropriations subcommittee was even involved in the 
conference negotiation on disaster assistance. Rather, it seems, the 
entire negotiation was conducted by the majority authorization 
committees, and no discussions with minority appropriations or 
authorization committee staff ever occurred until the final product was 
presented to the Appropriations Committee just as the finishing touches 
to the overall omnibus appropriations legislation were being made.
  In summary, with no Democrats in the room, the House and Senate 
Republican leadership designed a program that assessed the $3.1 billion 
offset against a farm program which one of our colleagues had labored 
for 5 years to get enacted. The House and Senate Republican leadership 
chose to cut domestic programs by nearly $8 billion from the bi-
partisan bills approved by the Appropriations Committee last summer. 
There also was no discussion of the decision to include an arbitrary 
across-the-board cut on domestic programs.
  The package was approved by the House and Senate Republican 
leadership and given to the Appropriations Committees to be laid into 
the omnibus legislation. The conferees never met to approve the final 
conference report.
  This is no way to develop legislation. When minority Senators are 
excluded from discussions, it has the effect of disenfranchising the 
millions of American citizens who are represented by those Senators 
like myself.
  There is not much we can do about this problem now. We are faced with 
the alternative of operating on a continuing resolution for the rest of 
the year--which I don't want to do, which Chairman Stevens, Chairman 
Young, and Mr. Obey have labored valiantly to avoid--which would have 
the effect of reducing domestic spending by up to another $14 billion 
below the levels in the omnibus legislation.
  It is my hope that in the future there will be a resumption of full 
bipartisan cooperation for all items that are included in any 
appropriations bill. If members want to add items to an appropriations 
bill that are the product of an authorization committee, that committee 
must adhere to the bipartisan standards of the Appropriations 
Committee. If they choose not to do so, I strongly suggest that they 
find a legislative vehicle other than an appropriations bill on which 
to attach their measure.
  Again, I thank the truly distinguished chairman of the Senate 
Appropriations Committee, Mr. Stevens, for his cooperation, for his 
many courtesies towards me and towards my colleagues on this side of 
the aisle, and for his friendship and the friendship of all members of 
the Appropriations Committee on both sides of the aisle.
  I also thank the staff of the committee. I cannot find the words to 
adequately express my deep appreciation to the staff people on this 
committee. They work hard. They work long hours. They work long weeks. 
They work weekends and are away from their families. And they labor 
under very difficult conditions in order to help to bring to the 
chairman and the ranking member of the full committee a measure which 
can then be brought to the floor and voted on. These staff people 
performed admirably under tight deadlines, especially during the last 6 
weeks.
  I look forward to working with my colleague, Mr. Stevens, on the 
fiscal year 2004 appropriations process which will begin very soon.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, I commend the 
distinguished Senator from West Virginia for an excellent statement and 
associate myself with his remarks. They were extremely well put.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished friend for his 
comments. And I thank him always for his statecraft, for his handiwork 
in the development of legislation on the floor, and for his courage and 
ability to stand up for what he believes.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from West 
Virginia, who really is a role model for so many of us. I thank him.
  Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss the provisions in 
the omnibus spending bill, adopted unanimously by the Senate earlier, 
that will protect the privacy and civil liberties of each and every 
law-abiding American citizen.
  I am going to discuss this over the next few minutes. I see the 
distinguished chairman of the full committee, Senator Stevens, in the 
Chamber. Before I begin my remarks, I wish to express my appreciation 
to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. He and his staff have 
been so gracious and so kind with respect to this issue.
  The program I am going to discuss, the Total Information Awareness 
Program, is the most far-reaching and most expansive program of 
surveillance ever proposed. Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye, in 
particular, with the help of Senator Byrd and Senator Feinstein, and 
Senator Grassley, colleagues on both sides of the aisle, worked very 
closely with me.
  But we simply would not have this amendment in the legislation, it 
would not be bipartisan, if Senator Stevens had not been working with 
us. Because he is in the Chamber, I particularly thank my colleague for 
all his help.
  Mr. President, and colleagues, the amendment I am going to discuss 
tonight would prohibit spending for technology research and development 
in the Total Information Awareness Program, or TIA, unless the 
Department of Defense reports to the Congress on its plans for the 
technology.
  The provision also establishes proper congressional oversight of this 
surveillance program by requiring explicit congressional approval for 
deployment of any Total Information Awareness technology that would be 
used to spy on U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.
  The Defense Department itself has had a virtual database--and I will 
quote--that was described as ``a new kind of extremely large, 
omnimedia, virtually centralized and semantically rich information 
repository.'' In my mind, such a novel and broadly proposed program--a 
program that has fingers snaking into so many areas of Americans' 
lives--is a textbook case of

[[Page 4010]]

a program that needs vigorous congressional oversight.
  In recent days, the Department of Defense and the Defense Advanced 
Research Project Agency, or DARPA, have announced the formation of two 
oversight boards for the TIA Program--one within the Total Information 
Awareness Program and another Federal advisory board. In my view, this 
is a positive development. It indicates that they understand the 
growing concern of the American people about the Total Information 
Awareness Program.
  But I am very pleased that Chairman Stevens and the conferees shared 
my view, and that is that the establishment of these panels in no way 
reduces the need for congressional oversight of the Total Information 
Awareness Program. The conferees understood that these oversight 
boards, while useful, are not an argument for abdicating the 
responsibility of the Congress on this issue.
  As I mentioned, this has been a bipartisan effort with Senators 
Feinstein and Reid--the distinguished Senator from Nevada is in the 
Chamber, Mr. Reid--who have been very helpful. Suffice it to say, not 
one Member of Congress--no one in the Senate, no one in the other body, 
Democrat or Republican--has disagreed with the proposition of our 
amendment, and that is that it is the responsibility--indeed, the 
duty--of this Congress to insist on oversight of the Total Information 
Awareness Program. Not one Senator said: Look, Congress does not need 
to put brakes on the most far-reaching Government surveillance effort 
ever proposed.
  On the contrary, what Congress said was: We are going to insist that 
this program is not going to be allowed to grow unchecked and 
unaccountable. In fact, it is the duty of the Congress to protect the 
civil liberties and privacy of the people we represent. The call for 
strong safeguards has come through loud and clear, and that call has 
been recognized in the conference.
  One publication in my home State, the Newport News-Times, put it very 
well. I will quote it. That publication said:

       Just visiting the web site of what is affectionately billed 
     as [the Total Information Awareness Program] is a trip into a 
     future we hope not to meet. If our government still believes 
     in the sanctity of the constitution this week, let's hope for 
     the President's signature.

  All across the Nation, Americans have said that while a vigorous 
response to terror is necessary, a system designed to spy on Americans 
in America is not. It is not only unnecessary, it is contrary to the 
freedoms that the war on terror aims to protect.
  The total information awareness concept requires keeping track of 
individuals and understanding how they fit into models. For instance, 
does a seemingly innocent individual conduct himself or herself 
according to a pattern that terrorists have exhibited in the past?
  To find out whether any current U.S. citizens fit the model of a 
terrorist living among us, the Total Information Awareness Program 
would develop a way to integrate the databases that already track our 
daily lives--bank records, online purchases, and travel plans, for 
instance. Once integrated, these disparate databases would serve as one 
giant repository of information on most or all of the computer-linked 
transactions an individual makes. Then you run the models, then you 
make a judgment of who looks like a terrorist. TIA's technology would 
give any Federal agency the capability to develop risk profiles for 
millions of Americans as they look for questionable conduct.
  When I first heard about this program--I am sure there are many 
others who came to think this as well--when you hear this initially, 
you say, this sounds like a good idea. If you snoop on everybody all 
the time, you are more likely to spot a few criminal someones at the 
moment they are up to no good. But the fact is, the police can't just 
stop someone on the street and frisk them for no reason. Current 
privacy law is supposed to prohibit private companies and the 
Government from rummaging through your online records.
  Unfortunately--and this is what you learn when you look at the total 
information proposal in depth--as it stands, the Total Information 
Awareness Program would use technology to pick regular Americans up by 
the ankles and shake them to see if anything funny falls out.
  Now, I understand that terrorists are not going to hang a shingle 
outside their hideaways announcing they have set up shop. They are not 
technological simpletons. And I know, as a member of the Intelligence 
Committee, that extraordinary times such as this call for extraordinary 
measures to track down these terrorists. I do not take a back seat to 
anyone with respect to tracking down terrorists.
  I believe one of the most important things I have been able to do as 
a Member of this body is to write the Terrorist Identification 
Classification System, a bipartisan effort, that became law in the last 
session, that allows us, on an ongoing basis, to watchdog terrorists, 
the Mohammed Attas of the world. But there is a clear line between 
something that allows for tracking individuals where there is a known 
track record of terrorist activity--suspicious activity linked to 
terrorism--and, in effect, standing by while the Government shines an 
indiscriminate spotlight into the private lives and dealings of law-
abiding Americans in this country on their own soil.
  It is a question of striking a balance. The Terrorist Identification 
Classification System is an appropriate approach for the Government to 
take in seeking to weed out terrorism.
  The Total Information Awareness Program is over the line. It is 
invading the civil liberties of law-abiding Americans on U.S. soil. 
That is why the conferees have wisely chosen to impose checks on it. 
The intention of the Total Information Awareness Program and those who 
support it is undoubtedly to protect the America that we love. But the 
reality is that the program as proposed encroaches on the freedoms that 
make us love America in the first place.
  Millions of Americans understand that. They have made it clear that 
they don't want this program to move forward unchecked and 
unaccountable, and that is why there has been such an outcry about it.
  A few weeks ago I stood with a coalition in a room not far from this 
sacred Chamber that does not flock together all that often: Americans 
for Tax Reform, the Eagle Forum two groups that are certainly 
conservative by anybody's calculus stood with the American Civil 
Liberties Union and a variety of groups that would be considered 
liberal, as they supported efforts to put vigorous oversight in place 
over this program. Suffice it to say, in my time in the Congress, I 
have never seen a program that has generated more ideological concern 
across the political spectrum. We have seen Democrats, Republicans, 
liberals, and conservatives all saying this is a program that warrants 
vigorous oversight and scrutiny by elected officials.
  Just because the administration has promised in recent days to 
institute oversight panels and to not use their awesome power for 
nefarious purposes, does not mean that future leaders would not abuse 
this program. So what we have said is that we are not going to let this 
program move forward without first ensuring permanent safeguards and 
protections that without them would threaten Americans not just today 
but many years in the future.
  Some who advocate this program will say that the concerns of Members 
of Congress and others are overblown. Some say the program will not do 
what I described and it doesn't threaten the privacy of American 
citizens in the way that first appears. I hope that is the case. If 
that is the case, if in fact the Total Information Awareness Program 
does not threaten the civil liberties and privacy rights of the 
American people, then the folks over at the Defense Department need to 
come to the Congress and make that clear.
  They need to do what they have not done to date, and that is to 
explain more about what this program will do and how it will do it.
  The fact is, this body is in the dark about the Total Information 
Awareness

[[Page 4011]]

Program, the most expansive and far-reaching surveillance program ever 
proposed. Congress has not been informed as to what safeguards and 
constitutional protections would be in place when this program goes 
forward. Therefore, my view is this Congress has no choice but to 
pursue answers and explanations before allowing the program to proceed. 
That is what our amendment to the omnibus spending bill does, and that 
is what the conferees have wisely chosen to do.
  My view is that these are reasonable provisions. The amendment calls 
on the Department of Defense to explain in a report to be delivered to 
the Congress within 90 days what technology they intend to develop and 
what they intend to do with it. Then the amendment further states that 
when any technology is developed for this program, it may not be 
developed without the express approval of the Congress. If the Total 
Information Awareness Program is something that is less invasive or 
smaller in scope or different than I have described, then the 
administration will have an opportunity to tell us.
  This amendment does not prevent those who support the program as 
initially outlined to have the chance to come back and show why 
additional threats warrant additional action. What this amendment does 
is ensure that if this program moves forward, it does so in a fashion 
that is sensitive to American freedoms, sensitive to constitutional 
protections and safeguards, while still ensuring that our country can 
fight terrorism.
  Finally, it all comes down to how we come forward and address a 
special task. What we must do now is to be vigilant, to make sure we 
are doing what is necessary to fight terrorism, but not approve actions 
or condone actions that could compromise the bedrock of this Nation--
our Constitution.
  I thank my colleagues, particularly Senators Stevens, Inouye, 
Feinstein, Grassley, Reid, and others, who said repeatedly that 
Congress should not shirk its obligation. The conferees who were 
appointed to reconcile this spending bill had a unique opportunity to 
defend the Constitution and the United States. That is what we are 
elected to do. That is what we get election certificates for. They 
answered that call. For that, I offer the thanks of Oregonians and all 
Americans for whom civil liberties remain so special and precious 
tonight.
  I yield the floor.


                 Telecommunications Training Institute

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I want to speak about the United States 
Telecommunications Training Institute (USTTI).
  The statement of the managers accompanying the fiscal year 2003 
Omnibus Appropriations Act, H.J. Res. 2, recommends $500,000 for USTTI 
compared to $1,000,000 that was included in the Senate bill. However, 
this funding level is the result of a misunderstanding between my 
office, Senator McConnell's office, and Senator Inouye's office. The 
Foreign Operations Subcommittee was under the impression that Senator 
Inouye wanted $500,000 for USTTI, as had been the case in prior years. 
However, Senator Inouye is sure that he had informed the Subcommittee 
that he wanted $1,000,000 for this organization. Does the senior 
Senator from Hawaii agree with my recollection?
  Mr. INOUYE. I do. I would add that I have strongly supported USTTI 
for a number of years, and have worked successfully with this 
subcommittee to get funding for it. I would ask the Senator from 
Vermont if the amount that is provided for USTTI in H.J. Res. 2 is a 
ceiling, or is it his understanding that USAID may provide additional 
funding for this organization if it is justified?
  Mr. LEAHY. USAID could provide additional funding to USTTI, if it is 
justified. Moreover, members of the House and Senate subcommittee give 
great weight to the views of the senior Senator from Hawaii, and I have 
little doubt that additional accommodation could have been made at the 
conference if this misunderstanding had not occurred.
  Mr. INOUYE. I am informed that USTTI is in need of additional funds 
to accommodate a range of important training programs that it 
implements. Would Chairman McConnell and Senator Leahy support the 
provision of additional funds to USTTI?
  Mr. LEAHY. I would support additional funding, and would encourage 
USTTI to discuss their specific needs with USAID. I have a short note 
from Chairman McConnell,  also indicating his support for this project, 
and I ask unanimous consent that it be 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, February 13, 2003.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     U.S. Senator,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Pat: Please know that I support additional funding to 
     the United States Telecommunications Training Institute 
     (USTTI)--at the Senate reported level of $1,000,000.
       I would appreciate your conveying my support for this 
     funding level to our friend and colleague from Hawaii.
       Thank you for your kind consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Mitch McConnell,
                                            United States Senator.


                        Technical Clarification

  Ms. MIKULSKI: Madam President, I would like to bring to his attention 
an inaccuracy in the manager's statement, and ask for a technical 
clarification. As the Senator is aware, the manager's statement 
includes language on a project within the Department of Commerce/
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Marine 
Fisheries Service/Habitat Conservation Research and Management Services 
account: ``Chesapeake Bay Oyster Research'' for $2 million.
  Will the chair recognize that $2 million included in the Department 
of Commerce/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)/
National Marine Fisheries Service/Habitat Conservation Research and 
Management Services account for ``Chesapeake Bay Oyster Research'' is 
actually for ``oyster restoration'' activities in the Chesapeake Bay?
  Mr. GREGG. The Senator from Maryland is correct. The committee 
included these funds in the National Marine Fisheries Service account 
to, in part, further oyster restoration and replenishment efforts in 
the Chesapeake Bay. It is the committee's expectation that NOAA will 
use the sums indicated for oyster restoration efforts in the Chesapeake 
Bay.


                         Intent of Section 211

  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I want to take a moment to clarify an 
issue that may lead to some confusion with respect to the intent of 
section 211 of the Commerce, Justice, State title of this bill. The 
Statement of Managers incorrectly states that two foreign cruise ships 
will be allowed to reflag under U.S. registry for operations in the 
U.S. coastwise trade. This was a drafting error and should have stated, 
to reflect the bill language, that three ships will be allowed to 
reflag to U.S. registry. I simply want to confirm with my friend from 
Alaska that the bill language is controlling.
  Mr. STEVENS. My friend from Hawaii is correct. The bill language is 
the law and controls the operation of the provision. I regret that the 
Statement of Managers was incorrectly drafted. It should have reflected 
that three cruise ships will be allowed to reflag under U.S. registry.
  Mr. INOUYE. I thank my friend for that clarification and for all of 
his hard work on this bill.
  Mr. HARKIN. One of the key provisions of the bipartisan Farm Security 
and Rural Investment Act of 2002 signed into law by President Bush last 
year was a significant new conservation initiative called the 
Conservation Security Program (CSP) which will, if properly 
implemented, significantly improve conservation practices and result in 
cleaner air and water.
  I want to clarify the intent of provisions related to this program 
included in this conference report and actions that will be taken to 
preserve current law provisions. First, it is my understanding that it 
was the intention of the conferees that the CSP be implemented and 
operated according to the terms of the 2002 farm bill. Second, it is

[[Page 4012]]

my understanding that the provisions in this conference report were 
only intended to apply to years following expiration of this measure 
and were not intended in any way to modify operation of the program 
prior to the beginning of fiscal year 2008. Third, it is my 
understanding that as soon as possible this year a conference report 
that is expected to become law will be brought before the Senate that 
contains provisions that assure that the CSP will operate as 
established and intended in the 2002 farm bill for the duration of that 
bill.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I understand the Senator from Iowa's concerns. I intend 
that the provisions of the conference report relative to this program 
would not have any effect on the operation of the program during the 
life of this farm bill. I would be pleased to work with him to insure 
that the program funding is restored.
  Mr. STEVENS. I also concur with the statements of the chair and 
ranking member of the Agriculture Committee about the intent of 
provisions included in this conference report related to the CSP. It 
was not our intention, in any way, to modify the operation of this 
program prior to the beginning of fiscal year 2008. I join Senator 
Cochran in my determination to resolve this matter in an appropriate 
conference report this year. He has my commitment to work with my 
colleagues to assure that the Senate acts at the earliest possible date 
this year on a conference report that is expected to become law that 
will assure that the CSP operates as established and intended in the 
2002 farm bill for the duration of that bill.
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Conservation Security Program was an important part 
of the 2002 farm bill. It holds tremendous potential to help our 
farmers and ranchers clean up the environment. I, too, concur that the 
Senator from Iowa's statements about the intent of this conference 
report. I truly appreciate the bipartisan commitments of my colleagues 
to ensure that the CSP is implemented and operated as we intended.
  Mr. FRIST. I look forward to working with my colleagues in this 
regard.


                   funding for the oglala sioux tribe

  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, it is my understanding that the omnibus 
appropriations bill includes $300,000 for the Oglala Sioux Tribe to 
automate the functions of the tribe's court system. I would like to 
enter into a colloquy with my colleague from South Carolina regarding 
this funding, which is included in the Omnibus Appropriations bill.
  It is my understanding that the funding in question is intended to be 
used by Cangleska, Inc., a non-profit organization located on the Pine 
Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota that is dedicated to the 
prevention of domestic violence and sexual assault, to help enhance the 
capacity of the Oglala Sioux Tribe to arrest, prosecute, and 
rehabilitate offenders.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes, that is correct.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senior Senator from South Carolina for his 
clarification regarding this matter.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, I rise today to express my deep 
disappointment with the so-called drought aid provisions included by 
the White House and Republican leadership in the fiscal year 2003 
omnibus appropriations bill.
  Coincidentally, 1 year ago the Senate first adopted drought aid--as 
part of the Senate farm bill--to cover losses experienced by farmers 
and ranchers in 2001. At that time, 68 Senators joined me and voted in 
bipartisan cooperation to support the victims of drought. However, one 
year ago was also the first time the administration voiced in the 
strongest possible terms their opposition to emergency aid for farmers 
and ranchers. The White House declared that assistance to farmers and 
ranchers had to be cannibalized from the farm bill--a position never 
before taken by any administration with respect to a natural disaster. 
As Mother Nature turned the hands of time in 2002, the drought 
conditions became even more persistent. By autumn, more than half the 
counties in the U.S. were affected by drought conditions and ``ground 
zero'' unfortunately was the Northern Plains of South Dakota and our 
neighboring states. In fact, the drought dealt so much damage to the 
South Dakota economy that South Dakota State University estimated the 
total economic loss to reach nearly $2 billion. Senator Daschle and I 
led an effort in the Senate to enact emergency legislation providing at 
least $6 billion for farmers and livestock producers who experienced 
crop and forage losses in 2001 and 2002. Our drought relief plan was 
consistent with the approach Congress would always take with respect to 
the aftermath of a natural disaster--our relief was emergency in nature 
because droughts, floods, fires, and hurricanes are historically 
addressed by emergency assistance. Despite the clear need for emergency 
aid, the White House hard-line prevailed last year and multiple efforts 
to enact drought relief were defeated by White House foot soldiers in 
Congress.
  I firmly believe that in order to help agricultural producers coping 
with the drought, the relief must be comprehensive. But the plan 
advanced in the omnibus today shortchanges producers in a number of 
ways. First, the relief plan written by Vice President Cheney and House 
and Senate Republicans provides inadequate aid for losses occurring in 
either 2001 or 2002, but not both. Second, the $3.1 billion offered in 
the omnibus does not adequately cover the severe crop and forage losses 
producers suffered as a result of the drought. Third, cutting the new 
Conservation Security Program (CSP) in the farm bill to pay for the 
disaster aid is a terrible precedent to set. When a hurricane damages 
the Gulf Coast or an earthquake occurs in California, the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) budget is not raided, rather 
emergency aid is provided to natural disaster victims. A drought is no 
different, and it's a crippling mistake to cut the farm bill in order 
to pay for a drought emergency. Fourth, the special-interest provisions 
slipped into the omnibus drought plan by Republican authors leaves much 
to be desired. While the proposal that Senator Daschle and I advanced 
would cover all crop losses, the omnibus makes special grants to cotton 
and tobacco farmers. Moreover, the omnibus contains a special section 
to address hurricane losses and $10 million to the State of Texas. This 
simply is not fair.
  How did White House and Republican negotiators find the farm bill 
funds to pay for this woefully inadequate disaster aid? I am told they 
asked the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to revise the estimated 
cost of the CSP. CBO's re-estimate reportedly grew the cost of the new 
conservation program to around $6.8 billion over ten years. This level 
is substantially above CBO's initial estimate of the cost of the CSP--
$2 billion over 10 years. I am very disappointed that Republicans 
employed a budget gimmick to inflate the cost of the CSP in order to 
launder funds through the program and pay for disaster aid. This entire 
process is a dis-service to farmers, ranchers, and conservationists and 
is sure to create hard feelings among these groups. According to the 
Congressional Research Service (CRS), not in three decades has a 
program in the farm bill been cut in order to pay for a natural 
disaster. This historically outrageous move to eliminate money from a 
conservation program in the farm bill to address a drought emergency 
may prove a precedent that hurts farmers, ranchers, and the environment 
for years to come. It is terribly short-sighted and I cannot support 
such a step.
  Less than 6 months ago, 77 Senators joined Senator Daschle and I in 
support of $6 billion in drought aid for farmers and ranchers suffering 
losses in 2001 and 2002. Today, it appears producers will get less than 
half of what they need and pay the price in the long run with a cut to 
the farm bill. I am disappointed that nearly thirty of my colleagues in 
the Senate dropped their support for comprehensive and emergency 
drought aid totaling $6 billion in order to satisfy the White House for 
half that much.
  My record on drought relief for farmers and ranchers is clear. On 
three occasions in the last Congress, the Senate passed relief that 
would have compensated all drought victims for their

[[Page 4013]]

loss. Unfortunately, each time objections from the White House and the 
House Republican leadership stopped this aid from making it to 
producers. South Dakota's farmers and ranchers deserve better and for 
this reason I will not support the so-called drought aid in the 
omnibus.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, the Senate is now considering and will 
soon adopt the omnibus conference report on H.J. Res. 2. I will vote 
for the conference report. I know from my work on the Appropriations 
Committee that this bill represents a genuine effort by many in both 
bodies to finally finish the fiscal year 2003 appropriations bill.
  I want to begin my remarks by thanking our leader on this side, 
Senator Robert Byrd. Senator Byrd was the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee when the fiscal year 2003 appropriations 
process began. He steered all 13 appropriations bills through the 
committee with bipartisan support from every member of the committee. 
Senator Byrd was instrumental in putting this conference report 
together. I know the Senator has many concerns about this bill. I share 
many of his concerns and particularly those regarding the many cuts to 
homeland security in this bill. The Senator has been a leading voice 
for homeland security funding and I look forward to working closely 
with him in the days ahead as this body works on this important issue.
  I also want to acknowledge and thank the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee. We are here tonight because of the determined 
leadership of Senator Ted Stevens. I know many of my colleagues did not 
want to see the Congress agree to fund the government with a continuing 
resolution for the rest of the fiscal year. This would have represented 
a huge failure on the part of the Congress, setting a dangerous 
precedent for the legislative branch's working relationship with the 
Executive Branch. Chairman Stevens is a tough but fair chairman. I 
appreciate the work he has put in to manage and successfully complete 
this very unusual process.
  I appreciate the inclusion of funding for many projects and programs 
that directly benefit the environment and natural resources in my 
beautiful home State. The bill includes funding for salmon recovery 
work from the Elwha River in northwest Washington to the Snake River in 
southeast Washington and nearly every community between. Funding is 
also provided to fight the Spartina infestation in Willapa Bay and to 
acquire important ecological lands around the State. However, while I 
am very grateful for my colleagues willingness to support my work to 
secure this funding, I must express my dismay over anti-environmental 
provisions included in the bill and its failure to adequately fund the 
conservation trust fund created 3 years ago.
  The conference considered many different provisions related to the 
Tongass National Forest which sought to strip away environmental 
considerations in the management of the forest. I appreciate the 
conference removing these provisions, but wish the one remaining 
provision could have also been deleted.
  Also of concern to me is a provision retained in the omnibus that 
significantly expands the Forest Service's stewardship contracting 
program. This had been a pilot project intended to see if the 
stewardship contracts were a constructive tool in addressing forest 
health issues. The problem with the provision in the bill is that it 
creates a permanent program before we have received any data from the 
pilot projects already authorized. There is simply no data yet in upon 
which to make the decision to provide unlimited expansion of the 
program. I want to make clear that I support the pilot program and 
believe stewardship contracting could be a valuable tool in addressing 
forest health issues, but in order for this to be a valuable tool, it 
must be one that has the trust of Congress and citizens. There is 
simply not enough data to have created that trust yet.
  There are many great accomplishments in this bill. I am particularly 
proud of the work we did in the transportation title. The Senate worked 
very hard to keep my amendment to fund the Community Action Program or 
CAP at $120 million for the fiscal year. I appreciate the Senate's hard 
work to stand for this small program that is making a difference all 
across the country. This bill provides increased funding for a number 
of education programs. Importantly, education programs like Head Start 
are exempted from any across the board cuts associated with this bill.
  As we conclude the fiscal year 2003 appropriations process, I hope we 
can move forward on the coming fiscal year with a renewed commitment to 
finish all 13 appropriations bills on time. We will need the help of 
our House colleagues and of course, the administration is an important 
contributor to the appropriations process too. We must avoid a repeat 
performance of fiscal year 2003.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I rise today to thank the 
conferees for helping the City of Boca Raton, FL, and the County of 
Palm Beach, FL, begin to deal with the bio-terrorist attack on the 
American Media Building in October of 2001, and the death of Robert 
Stevens, who worked in the building, due to anthrax.
  That building remains closed off with 24-hour security, still 
infested with anthrax, within a short distance of homes, schools, and 
other office buildings. But, now the U.S. Congress has authorized the 
General Service Administration to receive title to the building within 
12 months of enactment of the omnibus bill.
  The residents of Boca Raton and the surrounding communities will be 
relieved to know that, with this language in the omnibus bill help is 
on the way. I am confident that the General Service Administration, the 
Florida Congressional Delegation and the owners of the American Media 
Building will be able to carry out the language in the omnibus bill and 
transfer the building to GSA or another appropriate agency to rid south 
Florida of this public health hazard.
  The omnibus language provides for a report by GSA to Congress within 
270 days of enactment of the bill describing the expected agreement 
between GSA and the owners of the American Media Building regarding the 
transfer of the property to the Federal Government.
  The language further requests that a public health risk be shown. The 
local public health officials and the Governor of Florida both have 
acknowledged that the AMI Building poses a public health threat. And 
since it is the first attack of its kind in the United States, the 
amount of danger posed is still unknown.
  Another provision talks about the liability of the owner of the 
property. It is logical that the owner of the building would remain 
liable until title is transferred to the Federal Government.
  All of these provisions can be easily worked out to reach an 
agreement on the transfer of this building to the Federal Government.
  And, as this process moves forward, I know that each party will carry 
out their responsibilities under this language with the utmost 
integrity and with the concerns of the residents of Palm Beach County 
in mind. I look forward to monitoring the parties' progress toward an 
agreement.
  In fact, I encourage the parties to meet on a regular basis with 
members of the Florida delegation so that this issue is resolved in the 
most efficient manner.
  As we all live with the increased threat of a chemical or biological 
attack, we need to keep in mind that a biological attack is not a mere 
threat to south Florida and it is not something that occurred in the 
past and was taken care of--the anthrax attack remains.
  Let us employ the powers of the Federal Government as the Founding 
fathers intended.
  In Federalist Paper No. 23, Alexander Hamilton outlined the four 
principal reasons why the Federal Government was formed.
  And the very first reason was for the common defense--national 
security. An attack from an unknown source was perpetrated on this 
community and the

[[Page 4014]]

Federal Government has the power and the expertise to protect and 
safeguard these citizens.
  I look forward to the day when I can walk on the Senate floor and 
declare that this community is finally free of anthrax.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I want to alert you and my fellow 
Senators to a particularly egregious rider that was included in the 
omnibus appropriations conference report. After the conference 
committee met and behind closed doors, this special interest rider will 
gut the organic standards just recently enacted by U.S. Department of 
Agriculture.
  I understand this special interest provision was inserted into the 
bill on behalf of a single producer who essentially wants to hijack the 
``organic'' certification label for his own purposes. He wants to get a 
market premium for his products, without actually being an organic 
product.
  This provision will allow producers to label their meat and dairy 
products ``organic'' even though they do not meet the strict criteria 
set forth by USDA, including the requirement that the animals be fed 
organically grown feed. This approach was considered and outright 
rejected by USDA last June. The entire organic industry opposed this 
weakening of the organic standards. If beef, poultry, pork and dairy 
producers are able to label their products as ``organic'' without using 
organic feed, which is one of the primary inputs, then what exactly is 
organic about the product?
  This provision is particularly galling because so many producers have 
already made the commitment to organic production. For most, this is a 
huge financial commitment on their part. I have already heard from some 
large producers General Mills, Tyson Foods--around the country who are 
enraged by this special loophole included for one company that does not 
want to play by the rules.
  I am also very disappointed that just because one company could not 
create this loophole to the organic rule in public during the USDA 
process, the Republican leadership decided to bury it within the 2-foot 
tall spending bill. It was done behind closed doors after the 
conference committee met in public.
  I will be introducing legislation today to strike this rider from the 
Omnibus Appropriations Act and I hope to move it through Congress 
quickly before it does gut the organic meat and dairy industry. We need 
to send a message to all producers that if you want to benefit from the 
organic standards economically, you must actually meet them. When I 
included the ``The Organic Foods Production Act'' in the 1990 farm 
bill, it was because farmers recognized the growing consumer demand for 
organically produced products, but needed a tool to help consumers know 
which products were truly organic and which were not. The act directed 
USDA to set minimum national standards for products labeled ``organic'' 
so that consumers could make informed buying decisions. The national 
standard also reassured farmers selling organically produced products 
that they would not have to follow separate rules in each state, and 
that their products could be labeled ``organic'' overseas.
  The new standards have been enthusiastically welcomed by consumers, 
because through organic labeling they now can know what they are 
choosing and paying for when they shop. This proposal to weaken the 
organic standards would undermine public confidence in organic 
labeling, which is less than a year old.
  Getting the organic standards that are behind the ``USDA Organic'' 
label right was a long and difficult process, but critically important 
to the future of the industry. Along the way, some tried to allow 
products treated with sewer sludge, irradiation, and antibiotics to be 
labeled ``organic.'' The public outcry against this was overwhelming. 
More than 325,000 people weighed in during the comment period, as did 
I. The groundswell of support for strong standards clearly showed that 
the public wants ``organic'' to really mean something. Those efforts to 
hijack the term were defeated and this one should be too.
  Consumers and producers rely on the standard. I hope members will 
cosponsor my bill and send a message to special interests that they 
cannot hijack the organic industry through a rider on the spending 
bill. This provision is an insult to organic producers and to consumers 
around the country.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I would like to express my concerns 
about a provision that has been buried in the fiscal year 2003 spending 
package. The language would make contract air traffic control (ATC) 
tower construction costs eligible for Airport Improvement Program (AIP) 
funding.
  On the face of it, this provision looks acceptable. The concept of 
making contract ATC towers eligible for Federal assistance under AIP 
has wide support in Congress. Many small and rural airports lack an ATC 
tower and do not share the safety benefits of having an air traffic 
controller to assist aircraft on takeoff and landing. Pilots at these 
airports are on their own, responsible for seeing and avoiding traffic. 
A number of smaller airports would like to use AIP funding to build a 
tower but are barred under current law. If these airports can make 
critical safety upgrades with this funding, they should have that 
option.
  The problem with the provision included in the fiscal year 2003 
omnibus bill is that while it would properly allow small airports to 
use AIP money to build new or replacement FAA contract towers, it would 
also allow airports that built contract ATC towers after October 1, 
1996, to be eligible for reimbursement of their construction costs. The 
Federal Government already pays to operate these towers, and as a 
condition of this assistance, these airports agreed that the government 
would not pay the cost of constructing them.
  This reimbursement would affect at least 21 contract towers that were 
previously built and provide up to $25 million in total for these 
airports from current AIP funding. In this era of having our Federal 
resources limited by reduced revenues and the expense of ensuring the 
security of our homeland, it is irresponsible for this Congress to 
provide funds from the AIP program to reimburse these airports for 
costs that have already been accounted for.
  The AIP program is vital to the safety, security and capacity needs 
of our Nation's airways. I am hopeful that we will carefully consider 
the potential ramifications of this issue as we proceed later this year 
with the reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I want to recognize the hard work of my 
Senate colleagues, especially Senator Stevens, for putting together a 
conference report for our consideration tonight.
  Last year the Senate Appropriations Committee under the leadership of 
my distinguished colleague from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, reported 
all 13 appropriations bills. Those bills formed the basis of the 
omnibus bill we are considering tonight. Unfortunately, this bill makes 
unwise reductions in many of the most important areas of our Federal 
Government, including education and homeland security. This bill also 
includes a provision that would make reckless changes to our Nation's 
forest management policy. This rider--which would provide the long-term 
authorization to contract the management and unfettered harvesting of 
national forests to timber companies--was so controversial when it was 
proposed in the farm bill that Democrats removed the entire forestry 
title rather than take it.
  Rather than write individual timber contracts, the Forest Service has 
engaged in pilots of this stewardship idea for the last few years. It 
is a process by which the normal limits on contracting are avoided and 
timber companies are given broad leeway to harvest;
  Some 84 stewardship contract pilots have so far been approved; none 
are complete; none have been evaluated to see if they meet the claim 
that the timber industry ``stewards'' are managing the pilots well;
  Despite the fact that pilots haven't been evaluated, this rider 
contains a broad authorization for stewardship contracting;

[[Page 4015]]

  It allows the Forest Service to pay contractors with trees rather 
than appropriated money, hence increasing incentive for harvest of 
large trees and making the Forest Service more directly dependent on 
timber sales.
  Currently the Forest Service supervises sales, marking trees for cut; 
under this proposal, oversight is gone. It would be up to the timber 
company to decide what to cut. The rider enables the Forest Service to 
allow timber companies to take over large swaths of public forests by 
affording giving them long term management authority as part of these 
contracts. This is an important issue that deserves the full debate and 
consideration of the Senate. I am disappointed that it was included in 
this must-pass spending measure.
  I also want to discuss in detail some of the funding priorities in 
this bill. This funding bill provides $4.5 billion less in funding for 
homeland security and emergency responders than the appropriations 
bills passed by the Senate last year. Just last year, we passed a bill 
to create a new Department of Homeland Security. Republicans and 
Democrats came together to approve the largest reorganization of the 
Federal Government in decades. Without sufficient funding that new 
agency won't translate into improved safety on the ground, in our 
neighborhoods, cities and rural areas. This is an issue that is 
particularly important for my State of Nevada. We have one of the most 
important facilities and some of the most talented personnel for 
training emergency responders.
  Just today, one of the managers of this program spoke to me about how 
many trainers they would be able to train this year with the 
$35,000,000 approved by the Senate. He told me that he could train 
8,000 emergency responders this year. This facility at the Nevada Test 
Site is one of five counter-terrorism training facilities that formed a 
consortium several years ago. Together these five facilities could 
train nearly 35,000 first responders with the amount of money the 
Senate provided. Every $4,000 less we spend is one less first responder 
we train. These are the police and firefighters in communities 
throughout the country. These are the emergency responders who are 
already overworked by the increased threat level we are experiencing. 
These are the first responders who still are not sure how to change 
their patrols and activities in response to the elevated orange threat 
level. They need to know. They need to be trained.
  Instead of the $35 million approved by the Senate, the final 
conference report agreed to provide $20 million for the training. While 
this is a large amount of funding, it will only meet a small portion of 
the need for training. I hope as the year continues that the 
administration will request additional funds to ensure that at least 
one member of every police, fire and emergency response unit in the 
country receives homeland security training.
  I also want to comment on the funding this bill provides for 
education. Every person who wants to get an education in Nevada, and 
throughout the country, deserves to have the opportunity to get one. 
Whether we are talking about the 230,000 students in the Clark County 
Public Schools or the 11,000 students who attend Truckee Meadows 
Community College, every person who wants an education in Nevada, and 
throughout the country, deserves one.
  During the last Congress, we worked together in a bipartisan fashion 
to pass a sweeping education reform bill. This bill showed the best of 
what the Congress can do when Republicans and Democrats work together. 
This omnibus bill does not live up to the promise of that crucial bill. 
Instead of ensuring that we leave no child behind, this bill leaves 
much to fund.
  In summary, I again want to thank my colleagues for their tireless 
effort to complete this conference report for our consideration this 
evening. This bill does not do enough to ensure every American can live 
up to his or her potential. We have an obligation to provide our states 
with a clean, safe environment, a secure homeland, and the ability to 
educate every person. This bill could do more to accomplish these 
goals, and next year, I hope we will do that.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, America is on high alert. This is no 
time to shortchange our security at home. Yet, that is precisely what 
this bill does.
  Simply creating a new bureaucracy for homeland security is not 
enough. We must increase protection at our borders, provide the Coast 
Guard with additional resources, and provide more security at our 
ports. We must also assist local authorities to prepare for the worst. 
Our homes will not stay safe with duct tape alone. Our communities need 
help to fund law enforcement personnel, firefighters, rescue workers, 
and medical personnel.
  Today, I asked mayors in Massachusetts whether the Federal Government 
is doing its share to help local communities with homeland security. 
Not one--not one--has received sufficient help from the Bush 
administration to meet local homeland security needs. Mayor Fred Kalisz 
of New Bedford tells me that since the Bush administration declared a 
Code Orange emergency last week, he has posted a 24-hour police 
presence at his small local airport. And he ordered round-the-clock 
security for a tanker that is docked in New Bedford's harbor. The 
budget crisis in Springfield, MA, forced Mayor Michael Albano to cut 76 
police officers and 57 firefighters from the city payroll. Police, 
fire, and rescue officers in Springfield are stretched to the limit to 
cover continuing duties with fewer officers. Springfield simply cannot 
afford the additional duties of homeland security without federal help. 
The same is true in Worcester, where Mayor Timothy Murray is facing 
cuts to his police and firefighting force by more than ten percent. And 
his officers not only fight crime in Worcester, but they have 
protection duties with a strategic reservoir near Worcester as well as 
major rail hub. And the city of Boston has already spent $2.6 million 
in scarce city funds for homeland security.
  These local officials care about their communities. They are doing 
all they can amid an avalanche of budget cuts just to meet the ongoing 
needs of their citizens. It is unfair of the Bush administration and 
the federal government to leave them high and dry in the face of 
terrorist threats at home. Despite promises of funding from Washington 
to help with these urgent needs, he has received nothing--and this bill 
provides no new money beyond what administration promised long ago, and 
has yet to deliver. Washington must do more--much more--to be a real 
partner with our local cities and communities to protect our citizens.
  I am also deeply concerned that this bill is yet another leap in the 
Republican campaign to undermine years of progress in protecting our 
environment. This bill contains provisions that allow the 
indiscriminate logging of irreplaceable forests, and lays the seeds for 
the destruction of one of our country's greatest natural treasures, the 
Arctic National Wildlife Reserve.
  In addition, while I commend the fact that this bill represents a 
step forward on education, and rejects the administration's anti-
education budget, I believe that parents and teachers and students 
across the country will agree that more should have been done. 
Education is about fulfilling the hopes and dreams of the next 
generation. And it is about the security and economic future of 
America.
  For these reasons I oppose this bill.
  I ask that unanimous consent that a recent Boston Globe article that 
describes what our mayors are doing with little or no Federal help to 
meet homeland security needs in their communities be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 [From The Boston Globe, Feb. 9, 2003]

Security Costs Rise for Local Officials, Terrorism Alert Puts a Strain 
                               on Budgets

                   (By Megan Tench and Jenna Russell)

       With the nation on heightened alert for terrorist attacks, 
     Massachusetts officials said yesterday that the added 
     responsibility will tax local budgets already facing a fiscal 
     crisis.
       The Bush administration hiked the terror alert to the 
     second-highest level on Friday

[[Page 4016]]

     as Attorney General John Ashcroft cited an ``increased 
     likelihood'' that the Qaeda terror network would attack 
     Americans, noting that hotels and apartment buildings were 
     possible targets.
       However, Congress's failure in the last session to provide 
     additional funding for security for cities and towns prompted 
     criticism from several Massachusetts mayors as they attempted 
     to cope with increased security mandates at a time of state 
     aid reductions.
       ``Obviously there are targets that need to get additional 
     attention, but the fact of the matter is that this is a major 
     concern,'' Worcester's Mayor, Timothy P. Murray, said 
     yesterday.
       ``We have thousands of police and firefighters out there, 
     yet the president and the Congress failed to supply, equip, 
     and fund these departments,'' Murray said.
       Like other municipal leaders around the state, Salem Mayor 
     Stanley Usovicz Jr. said cities and towns are on the front 
     line in the war on terrorism, but have not received the money 
     they need to keep up the fight.
       ``I think everybody is willing and quite able to do their 
     jobs, but no one at the federal and the state level 
     understands that there is a bill to be paid,'' he said. ``We 
     are at war, and . . . I don't know how anyone can fight a war 
     without giving money to the front lines. They cannot continue 
     to ask for more without paying for it.''
       Still, few residents voiced concern yesterday over the 
     possibility of attacks, which officials said could target 
     Jewish communities or institutions.
       ``We heard about that on the news, but we are not afraid. 
     We feel safe,'' said George Ullevinov, a Reading resident who 
     was touring the Holocaust Memorial in Boston yesterday with 
     his family.
       Authorities believe that terrorists connected to Al Qaeda 
     could be planning to time an attack or attacks with the end 
     of the five-day Muslim holy period of the Hajj, the 
     pilgrimage to Mecca, which began yesterday.
       Officials have been particularly concerned about the use of 
     a ``dirty bomb,'' which would use conventional explosives to 
     disperse radioactive material, but they also cited the 
     possibility of suicide bombings and assassinations.
       ``Well, we can't run and hide under the bed,'' said Boston 
     resident Philip West, as he checked his luggage with American 
     Airlines at Terminal B at Logan Airport yesterday. West, a 
     helicopter pilot, was headed to Dallas for a pilot's 
     convention.
       ``We have to go out,'' he said. ``I believe if it's our 
     time to go, it's our time to go.''
       At Logan, tighter security was visible, with more State 
     Police and trained dogs on patrol and more car inspections on 
     entry to airport garages, during curbside stops, and an 
     additional roadblocks on airport roads.
       The increased presence seemed to comfort Dorchester 
     resident Marlene Francis, who, along with her 4- and 10-year 
     old children, was preparing for a flight to Jamaica.
       ``I believe in the security people here, and I try not to 
     think about these things because I am traveling with my 
     children,'' Francis said, as she waited in line at a security 
     checkpoint. ``What's meant to be will be.''
       At malls and hotels in and around Boston, security 
     directors were reluctant to discuss what precautions they 
     were taking. Law enforcement and transportation officials 
     also were reticent about the heightened alert.
       FleetCenter managers urged ticket holders to arrive an hour 
     early for a Bruins game yesterday to comply with added 
     security procedures, including the use of metal detectors at 
     entrances. And the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority 
     also increased security to reflect the orange alert, 
     according to spokesman Joseph Pesaturo.
       The Coast Guard also stepped up patrols around Boston, a 
     spokeswoman said, and the Massachusetts Water Resources 
     Authority increased security and patrols at key spots around 
     the state's water supplies.
       Bridges also became a focus of attention. ``We've 
     instructed our maintenance people who patrol the roads on a 
     daily basis to be extra vigilant and keep an eye out for any 
     stalled vehicles, particularly near bridges,'' said Jon 
     Carlisle, a spokesman for the Executive Office of 
     Transportation and Construction.
       Boston's mayor, Thomas M. Menino, could not be reached for 
     comment on the terrorism response yesterday. However, Menino, 
     who also serves as president of the US Conference of Mayors, 
     expressed concerns about the cost of the fight against 
     terrorism during his address to the Greater Boston Chamber of 
     Commerce two months ago.
       There, Menino announced that he is assembling a national 
     coalition of state and local officials to urge Congress to 
     pass the security funding measure as part of Bush's federal 
     budget proposal when lawmakers return next month.
       Boston has spent $2.6 million in extra security since Sept. 
     11 terror attacks, Menino said. It's unclear how much the 
     city would reap if the federal package were approved.
       ``This is money we were promised for police and fire and 
     terrorism protection,'' he said in his address. ``We cannot 
     allow Congress to keep fiddling while the states and cities 
     burn their reserves and exhaust their funds.''
       Other local officials echoed that sentiment.
       ``It's a very difficult situation. There are no additional 
     dollars,'' said New Bedford's mayor, Frederick M. Kalisz, 
     whose city is bracing for substantial cuts.
       ``The alert requires a certain level of patrol visibility 
     at our airport and waterfronts, and the federal dollars just 
     haven't come down to local governments yet,'' he said. ``In a 
     time of taxed dollars, we have to increase the patrols with 
     local patrol officers that we use in our neighborhoods.''
       In Springfield, Mayor Michael Albano said 57 firefighters 
     will receive layoff notices by Monday, in addition to the 76 
     police officers he just laid off. Albano said the state 
     budget cuts hurt more than the failure of the federal 
     government to fund local security.
       Downsizing police and fire departments ``is inconsistent 
     with national policy, and it should be inconsistent with 
     state policy,'' he said. ``The governor has weakened our 
     front lines during a national alert.''
       Eric Fehrnstrom, a spokesman for Governor Mitt Romney, said 
     federal, state, and local governments ``should spend whatever 
     is necessary'' to protect local cities and towns. ``There has 
     to be more federal involvement,'' he said. ``Governor Romney 
     will stand shoulder to shoulder with the state's mayors in 
     making sure they receive adequate federal dollars to respond 
     to the needs of our local communities.''
       After the boost in the national alert, Romney flew back to 
     Boston two days early from an Olympics anniversary 
     celebration in Utah, to make sure he would be here in the 
     event of an emergency, Fehrnstrom said.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the fiscal year 
2003 omnibus appropriations bill. I oppose this bill because it is a 
significant step backward from the bills that the Appropriations 
Committee reported last year unanimously.
  The most troubling departure from these committee-passed bills is in 
the critical area of homeland security. Compared to the levels 
unanimously approved last year by the Senate Appropriations Committee, 
this bill makes deep cuts in the Transportation Security 
Administration, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, community 
policing, FEMA disaster assistance, the DOT Office of Domestic 
Preparedness, firefighter grants, port security, American embassy 
security, and many other homeland security needs.
  The agricultural disaster assistance provisions in bill are also of 
great concern to my State of South Dakota and many other States. The 
provisions provide limited assistance to producers by cutting important 
conservation assistance in the Farm Bill. The provisions provide only 
half the assistance needed to address the scope of natural disaster 
across the country. Finally, the provision provides assistance to 
select producers who did not suffer from natural disasters. The Senate 
voted three times last year for a measure that would have compensated 
all drought victims for their loss. Unfortunately, objections by the 
White House and the House Republican leadership stopped this aid from 
making it to producers.
  I am also very concerned about the anti-environmental provisions in 
the bill. One provision would dramatically expand the forest 
stewardship contracting program until 2013. This provision would 
eliminate the current cap on pilot projects and require the Forest 
Service and the Bureau of Land Management to open up more than 70 
million acres to potential logging. The timber companies, not the 
Forest Service, would pick the trees to be harvested. In addition, the 
bill would eliminate judicial review for the Tongass National Forest 
land management plan; remove language protecting the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge; exempt the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System from 
environmental review; and cut funding for important conservation 
programs.
  For these reasons, I oppose this conference report and urge my 
colleagues to oppose it as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks of 
the distinguished majority leader, the Senate proceed to vote on the 
adoption of the conference report with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Madam President, before we vote I will take a minute to 
outline the schedule. This will be the last vote prior to the 
Presidents Day recess. The

[[Page 4017]]

Senate will be in session tomorrow. However, no rollcall votes will 
occur during Friday's session.
  At the conclusion of Friday's business, we will adjourn until Monday, 
February 24, under the order. At noon on Monday, February 24, Senator 
Chambliss will deliver George Washington's Farewell Address. Following 
the address, the Senate will resume consideration of the Estrada 
nomination. In addition, on February 24, we will consider S. 151, the 
Protect Act. Members should expect to vote on passage of that bill at 
approximately 5:30. I will notify all Members when the exact time is 
locked in.
  I thank all Members for their cooperation during this busy period. 
Again, this will be the last vote before the recess. The vote will be 
conducted in a few minutes, and the Senate will be in session tomorrow.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, will the majority leader yield for a 
question?
  Mr. FRIST. Yes.
  Mr. REID. Can Members be assured that there will be no vote prior to 
5:30 on the Monday we come back?
  Mr. FRIST. That assurance will be given.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back for debate on the 
conference report?
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask that the time of the ranking member 
be yielded back.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield back all time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference 
report. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. I announce that the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the 
Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Vermont 
(Mr. Leahy) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``no''.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 76, nays 20, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 34 Leg.]

                                YEAS--76

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

                                NAYS--20

     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Pryor
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Graham (FL)
     Kerry
     Leahy
     McConnell
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. FRIST. 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.

                          ____________________