[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8188-8198]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT TO SUPPORT DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
                OPERATIONS IN IRAQ FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now

[[Page 8189]]

proceed to the consideration of S. 762, which the clerk will report by 
title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 762) making supplemental appropriations to 
     support Department of Defense operations in Iraq, Department 
     of Homeland Security, and Related Efforts for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2003, and for other purposes.

  Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, before we start this supplemental, these 
are difficult times so I will take this opportunity to recognize all of 
those in uniform who are serving our country both at home and abroad 
during these wars, the war against terrorism, the war in Afghanistan, 
and the war in Iraq. I especially want to ask the Senate to keep in 
mind those who have given their lives in the defense of our country and 
in our opposition to these terrible scourges that beset us now.
  We do have a war going on, and the President, as our Commander in 
Chief, has asked for our help to provide vitally needed funds in the 
most expeditious manner possible. I have spoken to each of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff and they tell me that their money will start running 
out. For most of them, that will start in May. For the Navy, it will 
start in June. In any event, the only way to ensure these funds will be 
available and get to the services in time to meet their needs is to 
send this bill to the President before we leave Washington for the 
usual Easter recess. If we do not have it done before then, I am going 
to do my best to insist we stay here and forego the recess until we get 
this bill done. I believe that will not be necessary, and so far I have 
seen good bipartisan support to meet the objective of getting this bill 
to the President so that funds will be available to our troops. I hope 
that attitude will continue on the floor.
  The House Appropriations Committee completed its work on the version 
of this bill yesterday. They will begin consideration on the floor very 
soon. We all know that they act first on a bill of this type so we will 
have to wait. It is my hope I can ask the Senate to get this bill to 
third reading by no later than tomorrow evening so it will be ready and 
our staffs can work over this next weekend to get ready for a 
conference. I will propose that the Senate actually take this bill to 
the point where it is actually sent to conference as soon as the House 
has passed its bill so we can go to conference early next week. It is 
my sincere hope the Senate and the House will act together to get this 
bill, as I said, to the President as quickly as possible.
  The President of the United States asked for $74.7 billion in new 
budget authority in the supplemental request he sent to us. The bill 
before us provides $76.7 billion in new authority. It also contains an 
aviation relief portion that will provide both new budget authority and 
other benefits. The budget authority is $2.025 billion, and other 
benefits are $1.475 billion. The total for this bill, including the 
airline relief portion, in both new budget authority and other benefits 
then totals $78.7 billion.
  This supplemental responds to the immediate needs of the troops in 
the field, provides important international assistance to our allies, 
and tries to deal with the most vital homeland security and defense 
needs facing our Nation.
  We fully funded the President's request of $62.6 billion for defense 
efforts in prosecuting the war with Iraq. These funds will be used to 
conduct military operations in Iraq, support our coalition partners, 
and replenish crucial munition and other vital military procurement 
funds that have already been consumed in getting our troops to the war 
zones. The President's request included $30.3 billion for costs that 
were already committed or incurred. The sealift, the airlift, and 
equipping our combat forces has come at great expense.
  Last week in our hearing with Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, Senator 
Byrd and others raised concerns with respect to the Department's 
request that these funds be appropriated to what we call the Defense 
Emergency Response Fund.
  We will hear the acronym DERF on the floor. That means Defense 
Emergency Response Fund. In developing the bill before the Senate, 
Senator Byrd, Senator Inouye, and I have tried to strike a proper 
balance between congressional oversight and providing the Department 
with the necessary flexibility to prosecute the ongoing war in Iraq. 
Senator Byrd, I am sure, will speak for himself with regard to the 
flexibility in this bill. There is some flexibility for the President.
  In this bill we provided $11 billion to the Defense Department in the 
Defense Emergency Response Fund. It can be spent in response to the 
Commander in Chief's directions. It is an account to give them the 
enhanced flexibility they need to manage the conduct of the war. The 
House has provided a larger amount. I am sure we will meet in 
conference to decide what is the proper amount of flexibility necessary 
for the present Department of Defense.
  We also are proposing that the great majority of the defense funds, 
totaling nearly $51.5 billion, be appropriated into specific accounts 
for the services so that wherever possible they meet the needs 
directly. We have provided $35 billion for operation and maintenance 
activities; $13.7 billion for military personnel to maintain critical 
operation capability and readiness; and $3.7 billion to replenish 
munitions expended in combat operations.
  We have also included $500 million for the Defense Health Program to 
provide adequate care for both Active and military Reserve personnel 
and their families.
  There is another $550 million for fuel costs and $489 million for the 
Department's efforts to combat the oil well fires started by the Iraqi 
forces so far.
  This bill appropriates $1.7 billion to cover costs associated with 
classified activities undertaken in Iraq and in the global war on 
terrorism.
  We have also responded to the President's full request for $7.8 
billion for international relief and recovery efforts in Iraq, 
international support for allies in the region, and other critical 
needs to continue the fight on global terrorism. The committee's 
recommendation includes $2.4 billion for the Iraqi relief and 
reconstruction fund. That is over $2 billion for the Foreign Military 
Financing Program, which we call FMF. The bill also provides up to $9 
billion in loan guarantees to Israel, $300 million in assistance to 
Egypt, and $1 billion in assistance for Turkey. It includes the request 
for $150 million for the U.S. emergency fund for complex foreign 
crises, a new account that enables a quick response to unforeseen 
global challenges.
  Finally, the bill reimburses fiscal year 2003 foreign assistance 
accounts that Congress authorized the President to borrow from to pre-
position humanitarian assistance for Iraq.
  The bill also reflects the commitment of Congress to address homeland 
defense requirements by providing $4.6 billion, roughly $400 million 
above the President's request, for key homeland security requirements.
  We have provided the President's request of $2 billion for the Office 
of Domestic Preparedness to assist State and local governments in 
federally coordinated terrorism readiness and other security 
enhancements during this time of heightened threats.
  The committee recommendation also included $1.1 billion for the 
Department of Homeland Security for counterterrorist activities. 
Secretary Ridge has given the flexibility in this account to allocate 
funds both within and outside the Department of Homeland Security for 
terrorism preparedness and response.
  The bill also includes $580 million for the Coast Guard operations to 
enhance the protection of our ports and borders and in support of the 
Department of Defense activities in Operation Iraqi

[[Page 8190]]

Freedom and Operation Liberty Shield. We have also supported the 
recommendation of $34 million to provide compensation to individuals 
who have sustained injuries due to our smallpox vaccination program.
  As I mentioned earlier, the bill includes a package of targeted 
relief to address the dire situation facing the aviation industry.
  I highlight the main provision in that package and I will speak at 
greater length later. In this bill is a total of $2.9 billion in relief 
for air carriers, the airlines. Specifically, the bill suspends the fee 
that both passengers and carriers pay for the 6 months of the balance 
of this current fiscal year. It will suspend this fee that is currently 
charged on the ticket taxes, but it is actually currently being borne 
by the industry because the cost of flying is so low due to competitive 
factors of the economy. It also provides $1 billion to reimburse the 
carriers for the costs incurred with the new security mandates of the 
Transportation Security Administration imposed following the terrorist 
attacks on September 11. These were unfunded mandates, and in this bill 
we fund those that have been completed since September 11 until the end 
of this fiscal year.
  The bill extends for 1 year the war risk provisions included in our 
bill in previous years. Specifically, we passed last November a bill to 
establish the Department of Homeland Security or specific insurance 
provisions for war risk in that bill. The result of this provision in 
this bill is we anticipate will save the airlines about $800 million.
  The package also includes $375 million to address security-related 
costs at our airports. I congratulate my colleague from Washington for 
bringing up this issue. Those are also unfunded mandates. They were 
funds expended by the airports to meet the requirements of the 
Transportation Security Administration, and the funds in this bill 
should reimburse airports for security readiness operating expenses and 
provide additional funding for the modification of airports necessary 
to the installation of bomb detection equipment for the balance of the 
fiscal year.
  Finally, this bill also extends unemployment benefits for an 
additional 26 weeks for qualifying aviation workers who have lost their 
jobs because of the downturn in the economy that affected the airlines.
  I see my friend is here. I don't want to speak too long, but I 
believe this bill is very important. There is no question we need the 
funds to sustain our vital military operations around the world. There 
are really three wars still going on: The war against terrorism, the 
war in Afghanistan, and the war in Iraq. This is a very serious problem 
for those overseas and for those who manage our Department of Defense. 
I think the worry over where funds are coming from to meet the 
increasing demands in the three different wars is pressing upon our 
military commanders and civilians in charge of the Department of 
Defense.
  It is my hope the Senate will be considerate in the number of 
amendments that are offered and the issues before the Senate.
  I thank the former chairman from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, for the 
insight and advice he has given to me. I do not represent that this 
bill reflects entirely his point of view, but he has been a partner, 
once again, in working with me as I tried to work with him. I do think 
he has been very instrumental in seeing to it that this bill is before 
the Senate at this time.
  I have stated to others, and I say it again publicly, one of the 
reasons I am trying to get through this bill tomorrow night is I hope 
to be with my good friend from Hawaii when he receives the recognition 
he deserves in his home State on Saturday.
  I recommend the bill to the full Senate. I urge Senators to come 
forward and identify their amendments so we can see what we can work 
out, if there are subjects that can be worked out. I admit readily 
there may be some items we have not addressed in this bill so far. I 
would very much like to do that.
  I do hope as the Senate proceeds with this bill, we keep in mind the 
fact that within instantaneous communication, I am informed that some 
of the forces that are overseas in both Afghanistan and in the Iraqi 
war watch us almost as much as we watch them. This is one bill they are 
going to watch. They are very astute young people. They understand this 
country. They understand the risks they are taking. They understand in 
particular they want this country's economy to be healthy when they 
come back.
  We must keep in mind what we are doing, continuing the expenditures 
that are extraordinary expenses brought upon this country by the events 
of September 11. During this period, I will recite some of those 
amounts that we put forward already.
  There has been a tremendous strain on our economy because of these 
three different types of wars, but they are wars that I personally 
believe we must fight. We must provide those who are fighting those 
wars everything they need to be successful and to be safe.
  I recommend this bill to the full Senate and hope we will finish it 
by tomorrow night.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I consider it an honor, I consider it a 
great honor to be able to work with the very distinguished Senator from 
Alaska, the senior Senator, the President pro tempore of the Senate, in 
bringing this bill to its present status.
  I laud the distinguished chairman of the committee for his 
extraordinary knowledge of the subject matter here that we are going to 
discuss. He has been on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense for 
a long time, where he has worked arm in arm and hand in hand with our 
very distinguished senior Senator from Hawaii, Danny Inouye, who is my 
hero. Together, these men have brought their wisdom, their dedication, 
their knowledge to great usefulness, and I thank Senator Stevens for 
his work. He also is a hero of mine. I am proud to serve with him.
  The Senator has stated that we are fighting three wars: the war in 
Afghanistan, the war on terrorism here at home, and the war in Iraq. I 
support the appropriations that we are going to recommend for all three 
wars. I do not support the policy that brought us where we are today in 
Iraq. I have no hesitancy in saying that. I can defend that position 
any time, anywhere. I am sure not everybody will agree with me, but I 
have reasons for my position. So, although I do not support the policy 
that puts our men and women in Iraq, I do support the appropriations 
for those, for the support of and the safety of those men and women in 
Iraq, and I do so wholeheartedly.
  In a short time I will speak of one young West Virginian by the name 
of Jessica Lynch. I will have more to say about her shortly.
  The Senate Appropriations Committee, under the very able leadership 
of the chairman, the distinguished President pro tempore of the Senate, 
Mr. Stevens, has unanimously reported the fiscal year 2003 supplemental 
appropriations bill. The Senate committee-reported bill totals 
$78,736,600,000 in benefits and appropriations; $4,011,600,000 more 
than the President's request. In that proposal, the President sought an 
unprecedented level of flexibility in the use of these funds. I was 
astounded at the request that the President put forth with respect to 
these ``flexibilities.'' While I understand the unique circumstance in 
which the Nation finds itself, the situation is not unprecedented--not 
unprecedented. We have been at war before many times.
  I served in this Senate and in the House in several of these wars, so 
we have been at war before. This isn't something new, the matter of 
being at war. But these ``flexibilities,'' so-called, have startled me, 
in a way. But I am not so startled either, keeping in mind the whole of 
our experience with this administration. Yes, we have been at war 
before, but the Nation never wandered--never sought to wander away from 
the Constitution, never sought to impinge upon the congressional power 
of the purse as we have seen in this instance.
  In World War II, for example, Congress passed eight supplemental 
bills to

[[Page 8191]]

respond to the needs of our Armed Forces. This is what I said the other 
day during the appropriations hearing, the Appropriations Committee 
hearing on this bill, when Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was before the 
committee. I said: Why all these flexibilities?
  I called them ``flexibilities'' because the Secretary of Defense, in 
his opening statement, used the word ``flexibility'' seven times.
  I said: We fought previous wars. Why do we need these 
``flexibilities'' now? I said: Congress can pass additional 
supplementals. That has been done before.
  In World War II, for example, Congress passed eight supplemental 
bills to respond to the needs of our Armed Forces and there is little 
reason, in my view, why this war in Iraq should require more 
flexibility for the administration than was granted during World War II 
to administrations.
  This Republic rests on a system of checks and balances: three 
branches, two legislative Houses, and separate powers--shared powers, 
mixed powers. Our system reflects the hundreds of years of history 
behind it.
  I said hundreds--yes. Yes, Mr. President, you didn't hear me wrongly. 
Our system reflects the hundreds of years behind it, going back to the 
Revolutionary War; going back to colonial days; going back to the 
history of the Englishmen who fought and bled and gave their lives in 
the struggle against tyranny, in the struggle against a monarchy that 
sought to gather all power unto itself.
  The roots of our Constitution go back even to the Magna Carta, 1215. 
This is not a Constitution that came about just in 1787. Its roots go 
back 1000 years--and the blood of Englishmen is on it, as is the blood 
of our forefathers here in this, our country.
  In our Madisonian system, divided power may not be as expedient as 
some would like. That is stating it well: not as expedient as some 
would like. I say it again. I will state it more loudly: In our 
Madisonian system, divided power may not be as expedient--hear me now 
down at the White House--may not be as expedient as some would like, 
but it guarantees the American people's liberties. Quite simply, our 
representative form of democracy depends upon power divided and power 
shared.
  The Constitution grants to the Congress the authority to appropriate 
funds and the solemn responsibility to exercise that authority wisely. 
And for us to agree to the many sweeping grants of new, so-called 
``flexible'' authority sought by this administration would be to 
abdicate--to abdicate--that heavy constitutional responsibility. We 
have a duty to the American people to exercise the authorities granted 
to Congress in our Constitution, and we have a duty to those Framers, 
those men who wrote the Constitution, to keep faith with them and to 
honor and respect and uphold and support and defend that Constitution 
against all enemies foreign and domestic.
  In the case of this bill, and for the many years ahead, it will take 
maximum effort to preserve the prerogatives of the legislative branch. 
I hope my colleagues will understand that. I hope they will hear that. 
And the Record will be there for those of our future colleagues to 
read.
  Let me say that again. I say it to my colleagues. I hope my 
colleagues will remember: In the case of this bill, and for the many 
years ahead, it will take maximum effort on the part of our colleagues 
today, and those who will serve in this Chamber in the future, to 
preserve the prerogatives of the legislative branch.
  Now, when it comes to the executive branch, we will always find those 
in the executive branch who will uphold, who will extol, and who will 
seek to add to the powers of the executive branch. The same can be said 
for the judicial branch. The judicial branch will always speak out for 
the protection of the constitutional authorities given to it.
  But what about the legislative branch? This is the one branch in the 
three in which we will find increasingly--I might say, based on my 50 
years in Congress--we will find increasingly those in the legislative 
branch who are always ready to stand up for the executive branch for 
whatever power grabs it may have in mind, and they will seek to defend 
that executive branch and to push its desires. I am sorry to say, it is 
usually about half of the legislative branch that is willing to do 
that, depending on what party is in power and what party controls the 
two Houses of the legislative branch. And I regret this.
  As I look back over my 50 years here, I have seen great, great 
changes in the way the Members of the legislative branch view their 
role under the Constitution. Sometimes I wonder if they have read the 
Constitution lately. I am sorry to say I don't think our Constitution 
means a great deal to some of those who have served in this branch. 
They seem to think this is a monarchy and that we have a king. I look 
at the future with grave concerns, as I think about the changes I have 
seen sweep over this branch of Government.
  Twenty-four hours a day, 365 days every 3 years, 366 days the 4th 
year, out there always is the executive branch. And it is awake. It 
seeks power. It seeks to aggrandize the authorities to itself. It is 
always awake. It is never sleeping.
  Members of the legislative branch are here, they recess, they go to 
the four points of the compass. They are not always here. They are not 
always alert to the protection of the authorities of this branch of 
Government. And at this time, and under this administration, I have to 
say, I have seen more of that than ever before.
  Members must understand their institutional role. Citizens must 
understand their Constitution and value the congressional role in 
protecting their freedoms. This is another thing that gives me 
concern--sorrow in many ways. All too few citizens think about the role 
they play and the responsibilities that are theirs under the 
Constitution.
  Leaders in the Congress itself must guard its prerogatives. I have 
been a leader in this body. I have been majority leader. I have been 
minority leader. I have been President pro tempore and chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee. And I have never lost sight of the fact I 
must help to guard the prerogatives, the authorities, the powers that 
are enumerated in the Constitution, the powers that devolve upon this 
body, its duties, its responsibilities.
  So leaders in the Congress itself must guard its prerogatives and 
resist succumbing to expediency, to political expediency, and to 
partisanship.
  While I fully support the funding in this legislation for the men and 
the women engaged in battle in Iraq, I do not support additional grants 
of authority to this administration, or to any other administration, 
that would infringe upon the congressional power of the purse. That is 
the greatest power. The power of the purse is the greatest power in 
existence under this constitutional system.
  As Cicero, that great Roman Senator, said: ``There is no fortress so 
strong that money cannot take it.'' ``There is no fortress so strong 
that money cannot take it''--the power of the purse.
  Senator Stevens and I, together with the subcommittee chairmen and 
ranking members, have worked, in most cases, to improve the President's 
supplemental budget request.
  We have eliminated or significantly reduced most of the sweeping 
grants of new authority requested by this administration while still 
providing very limited flexibility where appropriate.
  More specifically, for defense the bill includes $62.6 billion, the 
full amount of the budget request, to cover the costs related to 
military operations against Iraq and to sustain the continuing global 
war on terrorism. The budget request proposes that $59,863,200,000 of 
the amount for national defense would be included in the unallocated 
Defense Emergency Response Fund. The Defense Appropriations 
Subcommittee, the full Appropriations Committee, and the Congress 
rejected this type of transfer account in the fiscal year 2002 
supplemental, rejected it in the fiscal year 2003 Defense 
appropriations bill, and rejected it in the defense chapter of the 
fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations bill.

[[Page 8192]]

  In this supplemental, the amount allocated to the Defense Emergency 
Response Fund has been reduced from the request of approximately $59.9 
billion to $11,019,000,000. The remainder of the funds, some $49 
billion, have been allocated to the specific appropriations accounts. 
This is an improvement over the budget request, but I call the 
attention of my colleagues to the fact that on an annualized basis, it 
amounts to a blank check for more than $20 billion--on an annual basis. 
Because the taxpayer has a right to know how this $11 billion will be 
used, this so-called flexibility gives me great concern. I hope we will 
get away from these DERFs. I am concerned about them.
  The administration's supplemental request sought $1.4 billion for the 
Department of Defense to allow the Secretary of Defense to allocate 
funds to reimburse and otherwise pay nations that have provided support 
primarily for the global war on terrorism. Most of the funding is 
anticipated to be for Pakistan. In the past, the Senate Appropriations 
Committee has taken a position that such reimbursement could take place 
only in response to vouchers presented to the Department of Defense for 
reimbursement for activities conducted on behalf of the global war on 
terrorism. This supplemental bill again includes this provision. In 
addition, we require 15-day advance notification prior to obligation.
  The President sought $150 million to be paid at the discretion of the 
Secretary of Defense to indigenous forces abroad. We have one Secretary 
of State; we don't need two. A similar proposal was rejected by 
Congress last year. It has been rejected again in this legislation.
  The administration wanted to increase the Department of Defense 
reprogramming authority from an annual amount of $2 billion to 2.5 
percent of its total budget, a staggering sum which would exceed $9 
billion. I expressed opposition to this large new grant of authority to 
the Department of Defense. I expressed my appreciation and compliments 
to the chairman, Senator Stevens, for the fact that he has brought us a 
bill that reins in the administration, tightens up the limitation so 
that rather than provide an unprecedented $9 billion transfer 
authority, the legislation before us includes a $3.5 billion transfer 
authority.
  The administration also sought authority to expend any funds from the 
defense cooperation account that may be received from other countries 
for the prosecution of the war against Iraq or the reconstruction of 
Iraq without first having these funds appropriated by Congress. The 
administration wanted to get away from that. They wanted a free hand 
with no strings attached.
  During the first gulf war, Congress appropriated those funds after 
they were received. Let me repeat that. During the first gulf war, 
Congress appropriated those funds after they were received. The 
legislation before us takes the same approach and preserves the 
prerogatives of the Congress and of the people. No new authority is 
granted. Any funds collected from foreign countries for reconstruction 
of Iraq or for any other purposes will remain in the Treasury under 
this bill, unless appropriated by law. That is the way it should be.
  The administration requested similar extraordinary grants of 
authority for the Secretary of Homeland Security, for the Attorney 
General, and for the Office of the President. More specifically, the 
Secretary of Homeland Security would receive $1.5 billion for a new 
counterterrorism fund for transfer to any Department of Homeland 
Security agency. The Attorney General would receive $500 million for 
transfer to any Justice Department organization for terrorism-related 
activities. The President would receive $2,443,300,000 for Iraq 
reconstruction and relief, without even as much as a reporting 
requirement. So they not only want no strings attached, they don't want 
to have to make any report--an absolutely free hand in expending the 
taxpayers' money.
  We must all remember, we are having to borrow all this money. The 
taxpayers are going to have to pay interest on all this money. When our 
soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines get home, they are going to 
be paying interest on the money that has been borrowed to send them 
across the ocean. Each proposal, if the administration had its way, 
would leave the Congress out of the decisionmaking process in the 
allocation of the funds--no details, no explanation.
  In the case of the Iraq reconstruction funds, the President proposes 
to spend the money ``notwithstanding any other provision of law.''
  With regard to the funds to be provided to the President for the 
reconstruction of Iraq, the supplemental before the Senate stipulates 
that funds may not be transferred to the Department of Defense, and 
that all funds available under this appropriation shall be subject to 
the regular prior notification procedures of at least 5 days in advance 
of the obligation of the funds. The funds will be used for feeding and 
food distribution, water and sanitation infrastructure, electricity, 
transportation, telecommunications, and other such humanitarian 
activities.
  With regard to the $500 million for the Attorney General, the 
legislation has been improved to require that these funds be subject to 
the regular reprogramming process. Likewise, the funds provided to the 
Secretary of Homeland Security also require prior approval notification 
of the committee under the usual reprogramming procedures, which are 
long-established and long-respected by the Congress and the executive 
branch.
  Overall, the President requested over $9 billion for aid to foreign 
countries and for the State Department. Yet his request for homeland 
security programs is only $3.8 billion, $3.8 billion for homeland 
security he requested; while, on the other hand, he requested over $9 
billion for aid to foreign countries and for the State Department. The 
Secretary of Homeland Security has said that another terrorist attack 
in America is inevitable. He has said attacks, such as the attacks of 
September 11, are long-term threats that will not go away. If there is 
one lesson we should learn from 9/11, it is that terrorist attacks on 
our Nation can no longer be viewed as distant threats from across the 
oceans. The enemy may attack our troops or citizens overseas or it may 
attack civilians here at home. So we must provide all of the necessary 
resources to support our troops overseas. But we must also provide 
significant homeland security resources now to meet the real needs that 
have been overwhelmingly authorized by Congress and signed into law by 
the President for port security, airport security, border security, and 
nuclear security.
  When it comes to funding homeland security initiatives, partisan 
politics has no place. Protecting a vulnerable nation is a duty that we 
all must shoulder together. Congress knows the needs at the local 
level, and Congress has tried time and time again to address those 
needs. The administration's request takes a step in the right 
direction, but at this time, when the Nation is acutely aware of the 
increased threat of terror attacks at home, one step is not enough. We 
must do more to address the critical vulnerabilities all across the 
country. We live under an orange alert, a heightened concern for 
terrorist attack. The American people are nervous about safety at home. 
I know I am nervous about safety here at home. That apprehension 
ripples through our economy. We read about it every day in the Wall 
Street Journal, the New York Times, the Washington Post. We should all 
have an interest in doing what we can to secure obvious vulnerabilities 
and allay citizen concerns.
  To that end, I hope to work on a bipartisan effort, as this bill 
moves forward, to responsibly invest in first responders, in 
protections at our airports and seaports, and in other areas to better 
ensure the safety of Americans at home.
  Let me again congratulate the chairman of the committee, the 
distinguished President pro tempore, and let me thank all the members 
of the Appropriations Committee, especially the ranking member of the 
Defense Subcommittee, Mr. Inouye, for their cooperation in bringing 
this bipartisan

[[Page 8193]]

legislation to the floor of the Senate. I expect its speedy passage, 
and I hope for its speedy passage. I join with the chairman in hoping 
to complete this bill in the Senate by tomorrow evening, or sometime 
tomorrow.
  I congratulate the excellent staff we have for their hard work, 
especially Jim Morhard, the newly appointed staff director for the 
majority. Let me also thank my own two excellent staff persons, Terry 
Sauvain, and Charles Kieffer, for their dedication, hard work, and the 
long hours.
  For certain, this legislation is not perfect and it is susceptible to 
improvement. I expect and hope to assist in such improvement over the 
next few days as the Senate proceeds to work its will on this important 
legislation, as it goes to and returns from conference. I thank all 
Senators.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The Senator from Alaska.


                           Amendment No. 435

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I want the Senate to be on notice--this 
is an issue we have to face. I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 435.
       Sec.  Section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) The National Debt Ceiling of the United States shall 
     be increased by the total amount of funds appropriated by Act 
     of Congress for the Department of Defense, Department of 
     Homeland Security or any other Agency of government to 
     prosecute the war against terrorism, the war in Afghanistan, 
     the war in Iraq, since September 11, 2001.


                           Amendment No. 436

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be temporarily set aside. I will discuss it soon. I have 
another amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for himself and Mr. 
     Inouye, proposes an amendment numbered 436.
       At the end of chapter 3 of title I, add the following:
       Sec. __. (a) Increase in Imminent Danger Special Pay.--
     Section 310(a) of title 37, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``$150'' and inserting ``$225''.
       (b) Increase in Family Separation Allowance.--Section 
     427(a)(1) of title 37, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``$100'' and inserting ``$200''.
       (c) Expiration.--(1) The amendments made by subsections (a) 
     and (b) shall expire on September 30, 2003.
       (2) Effective on September 30, 2003, sections 310(a) of 
     title 37, United States Code, and 427(a)(1) of title 37, 
     United States Code, as in effect on the day before the date 
     of the enactment of this Act are hereby revived.


                   Modification to Amendment No. 436

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, there is a typing error in the first 
line of amendment No. 436. It should be ``chapter 3,'' and it appears 
``chapter 2.'' I ask that the typing error be amended.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I raise this subject of combat pay, or 
pay for imminent danger. Having received such combat pay in World War 
II, I have been interested in this issue. During the gulf war in 1991, 
when combat pay was $110 a month, we raised that to $150 a month. Right 
after that war, the imminent danger pay was made permanent at $150. It 
has gone up 40 percent since 1991. We suggest it go up 50 percent to 
$225 a month. With regard to family separation and allowance, it is 
currently $100. We recommend it go up 100 percent to $200.
  That is an expensive proposition. The cost of this for the balance of 
the year is $375 million, and the cost for a full year will be $650 
million. This is a reachback amendment. It covers everyone from the 
time they were exposed to imminent danger. For family separation, it is 
the same, from the time they were separated.
  I know there is a controversy, and I have had a little discussion 
with the Senator from Illinois. As I told the Senator, there are 
probably--I believe this is the case--more families in Alaska connected 
with the military than any other State in the Union, as the current 
occupant of the chair knows.
  On the other hand, the moneys we have to have for modernization, for 
munitions, and for many other items come out of the same account. This 
is the operations and maintenance account. This bill already contains a 
massive amount, $30.3 billion, to replace in that account what has 
already been spent in mobilizing the military, including, by the way, 
the amount that has been spent so far for paying imminent danger pay at 
the rate of $150 a month. It is an issue we should address, but we 
ought to keep in mind that what is going to happen after this war is 
this will become permanent. It is a new base and it is a staggering 
increase in cost for personnel. I fully support it. As a matter of 
fact, I wish I could say we have nothing but billionaires in this 
country, and we could pay these people what they really deserve for 
being overseas, what their families really deserve when one or both 
parents are overseas.
  As a practical matter, there has to be a reasonable balance in what 
we are doing. This subject can be reviewed by the Armed Services 
Committee later. We have the 2004 bill coming, and we can have this 
discussion again. I believe we ought to take this action and be as 
reasonable as possible in doing it.
  I know there is a difference of opinion. I hope the Senate will agree 
to this amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Warner be added as an original 
cosponsor to this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask the distinguished Senator of the 
Armed Services Committee to review it. I raised this at one of the 
first hearings we had before the Appropriations Committee. I raised the 
question of what to do about imminent danger special pay. The 
Department has not given us a recommendation yet. I think they have 
other things in mind right now, but we have in mind the families in 
particular.
  I spent some time with families in Alaska this last weekend, an 
enormous number of military families. Not one of them raised the 
question of imminent danger pay. Not one of them raised the question of 
their family separation pay. I was with literally 200 or 300 members of 
the armed services over the weekend at a special recognition in 
Fairbanks, AK, for the members who serve in the armed services.
  I think this is the right thing to do, and I think this is the right 
time to do it, but I hope the Senate will do it right and not just have 
a figure that is pulled out of the air. These are figures that 
represent an increase, again, of 50 percent for imminent danger pay and 
a 100-percent increase for the family allowances on a monthly basis. I 
think that is very reasonable under the circumstances.
  If there are additional amounts that should be provided, I welcome 
the Department of Defense so informing me. I do believe the Senate 
ought to agree with it without debate. As I said, if the Armed Services 
Committee and our Appropriations Committee believe more is needed as we 
go on, if this war goes on, God forbid, into fiscal year 2004, then we 
should address it.
  Again, I say, in all sincerity, we are doing a lot of things for our 
military families, and I think they are all wonderful. When I was 
overseas, I did not talk to my family for over 18 months. Now a 
military person can call his or her family every day, thanks to Senator 
McCain. They have absolute assurance of instant communication whenever 
they can get to a phone.
  I remember seeing one young man who was wounded, and the embedded 
journalist had a satellite phone. He asked: Would you like to call home 
and tell them you are all right? And we all watched him call his 
family. That is the wonder of technology.
  These are the realities of money, and our job is to manage the money 
of the United States. The first amendment I put in was to raise the 
debt ceiling of the United States because of what we have had to do 
since September 11. I want people to think about--and Senators should 
think about--the hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money

[[Page 8194]]

we have spent so far because of September 11.
  Let's stay reasonable as we continue to increase that spending. We 
have to pass that amendment. We are going to have to raise the debt 
ceiling of the United States. Other people want to pick a figure out of 
the air. I say let's raise it by the amount of what we have already 
authorized to be spent in these three wars and homeland security. That 
seems to me to be reasonable. I will debate that one later, but right 
now I think this is a reasonable request in the Senate: Increase the 
imminent danger pay by 50 percent, increase the overseas allowance for 
families and the family separation allowance by 100 percent. I hope the 
Senate will support this move. It is a reasonable thing to do.
  I call on the Department of Defense to come up with some basic 
studies as to what is necessary. It may be that portions of that family 
separation allowance should be bifurcated. These are all volunteers 
now. In the past, we went to war with draftees. Most of us did not have 
families. During World War II, it was a rare thing to meet somebody who 
was a married person. Now, practically all of them are married. As a 
matter of fact, in some instances, such as the families I visited over 
the weekend, I remember distinctly talking to three different couples 
who are both in the armed services. When they go overseas, they get two 
family separation allowances, and necessarily so. This may not be 
enough in some of these circumstances, but I think it is the duty of 
the Department of Defense to come up with a recommendation for a 
permanent solution to this problem. There is no question that the $150 
we had in place has not been adjusted now since 1997, and it should be. 
This is the time to adjust it. I think this is a reasonable adjustment, 
50 percent for the imminent danger pay, $100 for the family separation 
allowance.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                 Amendment No. 437 to Amendment No. 436

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

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 437 to amendment No. 436.

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       In the amendment strike all after the first word and insert 
     the following:
       (a) Increase in Imminent Danger Special Pay.--Section 
     310(a) of title 37, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``$150'' and inserting ``$250''.
       (b) Increase in Family Separation Allowance.--Section 
     427(a)(1) of title 37, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``$100'' and inserting ``$250''.
       (c) Expiration.--(1) The amendments made by subsections (a) 
     and (b) shall expire on September 30, 2003.
       (2) Effective on September 30, 2003, sections 310(a) of 
     title 37, United States Code, and 427(a)(1) of title 37, 
     United States Code, as in effect on the day before the date 
     of the enactment of this Act are hereby revived.

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, as copies of the amendment are being 
made, I say to my colleagues that my amendment raises the combat pay, 
imminent danger pay for the soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and 
coast-guardsmen presently in combat from the figure of $225 a month 
suggested by Senator Stevens to $250 a month, and the family separation 
allowance from $200 a month to $250 a month.
  I have spoken to my colleagues, whom I respect very much and whom I 
acknowledge to be certainly doing the very best they can with an 
extraordinary bill at an extraordinary time, and urge them to consider 
this new figure. I have not pursued my original request, which was $500 
a month for both, nor a modification of it of $400 a month. I have come 
down to what I consider to be a reasonable increase in light of the 
reality of the circumstances.
  I do not know that any person in the Senate will stand before us and 
argue that he is going to find complaints from military families about 
this family separation allowance or even about combat pay. Thank God we 
have the very best people in America serving in our military. Their 
families are at home keeping the families together, praying for their 
safe return. They are not importuning and begging this Congress for 
more money. That has not happened. God bless them for not putting 
pressure on us to deal with that. But let us accept the reality of our 
responsibility. We have a responsibility not just to pass resolutions 
in support of the troops. We have a responsibility beyond the kind 
words which we offer in debate in this Senate. We have a specific 
responsibility to these men and women in uniform and their families.
  Look at what they are facing. They are facing the separation of 
families, which undoubtedly has to be traumatic and difficult. They are 
trying to raise their children in a circumstance that may be more 
challenging than ever because of the need for child care costs, which 
certainly are extraordinarily large even under the best circumstances. 
They are dealing sometimes with activated reservists and guardsmen who 
have left a good paying job and are now on military pay, taking a 
substantial economic cut. That is why I have started this debate. That 
is why I offered the amendment on the budget resolution. And that is 
why I bring this issue up today.
  I hope when my colleagues consider what I am offering today, they 
will remember the vote we cast last week. Last week, I asked my 
colleagues, with the support of Senator Warner, Senator Chambliss, and 
Senator Landrieu, to entertain an increase in combat pay and an 
increase in family separation allowance. I asked that $2 billion be set 
aside for that purpose in the budget resolution, and the record vote in 
this Senate was 100 to 0. That is a rare unanimous vote of the Senate 
in support of something that everyone agreed needed to be done.
  Now let's look at what I am offering today. The cost of $250 a month 
in combat pay and the cost of $250 a month in family separation 
allowance comes to barely $500 million for the remainder of this year. 
That shows that I am really coming with a request that is a little more 
than one-fourth of what the Senate approved by a 100-to-0 vote last 
week.
  So why would we stand here and say unanimously, by a 100-to-0 vote, 
that we are willing to spend four times as much in support of military 
personnel and now a week later, when the bill comes before us, we are 
saying, no, we will not?
  I say to my friend from Alaska, I thank him for acknowledging the 
need for an increase but I want him to seriously consider the second-
degree amendment which I have offered. This amendment does not reach my 
original goal of $500 or a compromise of $400 a month but comes to $250 
a month, which we are offering the families of servicemen who are 
struggling with childcare costs, additional medical expenses, the need 
to deal with additional family pressures. That is not too much for us 
to give. The current reimbursement of $100 is inadequate. Going to $250 
is not extravagant at all. It is important that we do it.
  For combat pay, let me quickly add, there is no amount of money we 
could pay our men and women in uniform that would compensate them for 
putting their lives on the line for our country, but I hope what we do 
today will be an important message and symbol to them that we not only 
stand with them when it comes to holding our flag and saying kind words 
on the Senate floor but we stand with them when it comes to combat pay 
and imminent danger pay.
  When we look at the images of men and women on the television risking 
their lives, the prisoners of war, and all the horrors they face, $250 
a month in combat pay seems like something this Senate should approve 
without controversy, and $250 a month for their family back home should 
not be controversial. It is, in fact, an effort to accept the reality 
of family obligations.
  Senator Danny Inouye, one of my heroes in the Senate, last year gave 
a speech which I recall today as we stand

[[Page 8195]]

and talk about this issue. He reminded us that back in World War II, 
when he served with such great distinction, over 80 percent of the men 
and women in uniform were not married, they were single. Today, we know 
that 60 percent of those serving in the Iraqi war, Afghanistan, and in 
combat zones have families back home. The face of the military has 
changed. Where family separation allowance used to apply to a very 
small group for very limited expenses, families today have additional 
expenses.
  A year or two ago, I had a detailee in my office from the U.S. Army, 
MAJ Pat Sargeant, who works with medical evacuation now and is 
currently serving our country with his wife. He recently sent an e-mail 
to my office. He noted an article in the Army Times, which said: 
``Legislators set out to boost war pays.''
  The article stated I had sponsored an amendment to include an 
increase in monthly imminent danger pay from $150 to $250 and family 
separation allowance from $100 to $250.
  Pat Sargeant--wherever you are--sent me the greatest note and said: 
You cannot believe what it did to morale for us to hear that the 
Members of Congress were going to try to help our families and try to 
help the individuals involved.
  Let's stand together today on a bipartisan basis for all the States, 
as we did last week; 100 to 0 should be the vote in favor of $250 a 
month for combat pay, $250 a month for family separation allowance. 
That is a reasonable amount. It is not an exorbitant amount.
  Some have argued that is just for the remainder of this fiscal year; 
we may have to face this expense in the future. I say, so be it. So be 
it. If we are going to activate guardsmen and reservists, if we are 
going to ask the men and women in uniform in this country to risk their 
lives, the first obligation we have is to them and their families 
before we discuss the myriad of other issues that will come before the 
Senate.
  In this supplemental appropriations bill, there is a substantial 
amount of money to pursue this war in Iraq. I believe it will receive a 
unanimous vote in the Senate. There is also $9 billion in this bill for 
foreign aid, which I will support.
  Put in perspective what we are asking for: $500 million first and 
foremost to the men and women in uniform and to their families. That is 
not an unreasonable request in a bill that may total $80 billion; $500 
million for the men and women in uniform so that $250 a month in combat 
pay will be there for them, $250 a month will be there to help their 
families get through this very difficult time.
  I hope the Senators who have considered this issue will consider my 
second-degree amendment in friendly terms and accept it so we can vote 
for this on a bipartisan basis. The Senate should stand together. I 
urge my colleagues to accept the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I must state my surprise at the 
distinguished chairman having offered an amendment that would provide 
for an open-ended increase in the national debt. I didn't even know 
this was going to happen. No one spoke to me about this. Yet this is 
open ended.
  I had hoped to finish this bill tomorrow night, by tomorrow night. I 
don't think that I would ever offer an amendment of this nature without 
consulting with my colleague.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BYRD. I yield.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am sorry. It is my memory we discussed that ceiling 
problem and the Senator said he did not want to take it up.
  Mr. BYRD. I don't have that memory.
  Mr. STEVENS. We don't have the same memory, as a practical matter.
  I understand the Senator's position. I did introduce it and set it 
aside because I wanted people to understand I believe it is my duty to 
see to it that this subject is addressed during the consideration of 
this bill. I am informed we will reach this problem sometime in June, 
July, or August, unless we do lift the debt ceiling. I do not think we 
can go through this period of war and have that hanging out there and 
be a subject that might constrain defense spending.
  What I have done is introduced an amendment to this bill that says we 
will increase the debt ceiling by the amount we have spent since 
September 11 to meet the interests of our Department of Defense, 
homeland security, and reaction to September 11. If the Senator says 
that is open ended, I don't think it is open ended. I can figure it out 
fast and we will be glad to put the number in there if that will 
satisfy the Senator's objection. I do think it will be an interesting 
debate. We, undoubtedly, will have to raise the question, but based on 
our long friendship, I sincerely apologize if my memory is incorrect.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, ours has been a long friendship. It is 
going to continue. But I expect to be a partner in this fight. I expect 
to be told at least by the chairman that he anticipates calling up an 
amendment of this nature.
  A point of order would lie against this amendment. That would have 
been the very reaction I would have had if he had mentioned such an 
amendment to me. I would say a point of order might lie against it.
  Mr. STEVENS. Unless it is perfected as the Senator suggests in terms 
of a problem with regard to the money.
  Mr. BYRD. That constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill.
  Mr. STEVENS. The whole bill is legislation.
  Mr. BYRD. Well, I know.
  I hope in the future I will not be taken by this kind of surprise.
  Mr. STEVENS. I repeat my apology. My memory is we discussed whether 
we should address it, the debt ceiling.
  Mr. BYRD. When did we discuss it; I ask where did we discuss it?
  Mr. STEVENS. In my office, sir.
  I apologize. I have addressed this with several other Senators. I 
apologize and I have taken it upon myself to say it is my error, but 
the amendment is there and it is my duty to raise the subject of the 
debt ceiling.
  Mr. BYRD. Well, that is quite all right, but I would at least like to 
know in advance that it is being done, that is No. 1.
  No. 2, this is an open-ended increase in the debt ceiling.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BYRD. I yield.
  Mr. STEVENS. That is the reason I introduced it and had it set aside 
so we could address the question of whether we should make it a closed 
subject. We can calculate that amount right now. But it may be changed 
before this bill is over. The bill keeps going up. It is already up 
more than the President asked for, and I believe it to be another $5 or 
$6 billion before we get the bill to conference.
  In any event, the problem is, what are we going to do? Do we proceed 
with the three wars we have going up on, and then, my God, we may not 
be able to do that because if we do that we will exceed the debt 
ceiling.
  The President has the power--under food and forage--to start spending 
money. We have a program for other purposes, for the conduct of these 
three wars. I take the position he should not be constrained at all by 
a debt ceiling. It is my duty to raise that debt ceiling.
  Again, I apologize to my friend. I would like to address, when the 
Senator is finished, Senator Durbin's comment about the pending 
amendment. This is not the pending amendment.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I have spoken to the manager of the bill 
and the ranking member, Senator Byrd, and I am going to speak on an 
amendment I will offer at some subsequent time. Senator Stevens has 
indicated the amendment that is the first one

[[Page 8196]]

that was offered here today will not be discussed until after we have 
the cloture vote on the Estrada nomination. That will be at around 2 
o'clock. After that time, we will again discuss that, if necessary.
  Madam President, as I indicated, at some subsequent time, I will 
offer an amendment. The Democratic leader has indicated he wants just a 
few amendments offered. He has gone over the amendments he feels would 
be appropriate, and this is one of them.
  So I would just simply say, if you watch television--as we all do 
every night--you see the explosions going off in Baghdad and other 
places in Iraq. Lights coming up, flashes--they go away very quickly. 
These violent occurrences we see on television are tiny, little babies 
compared to what this amendment is all about.
  A nuclear explosion makes everything that has happened in Iraq appear 
as if it is nothing. For everything that has happened in Iraq to this 
point, one nuclear explosion would be far more devastating than 
everything that has taken place throughout the country of Iraq these 
past 2 weeks.
  We have some knowledge in Nevada of the violence of a nuclear 
explosion. For those who have been to the Nevada test site, as you 
drive through the very remote area, you see holes in the ground that 
are bigger than the United States Capitol, where a nuclear explosion 
has taken place--bigger than the United States Capitol.
  You see where they have done aboveground tests. They still have the 
remnants of a small town that was destroyed. There are parts of it 
left, but not much.
  And then throughout the desert, where you do not see the large holes 
bigger than the United States Capitol, there are almost 1,000 
indentations in the land where shafts have been sunk and these nuclear 
devices set off far in the ground, thousands of feet into the ground--
not hundreds, thousands of feet in the ground--but yet the ground 
settles. And as you drive through it, it is like the landscape of the 
moon.
  And then, things you cannot see are the tunnels. There are tunnels 
all over those mountains in the Nevada test site, where scores of 
nuclear explosions have been set off. We cannot see the devastation 
that takes place inside the earth, but it has taken place.
  We were concerned here in the Capitol when Senator Daschle's office 
was anthraxed. Somebody sent him some poisonous material, and it took 
millions of dollars to clean up the building the anthrax was in, the 
Hart Office Building--millions of dollars. It took several months to 
clean that up.
  We hear so much about dirty bombs. The explosion in most dirty bombs 
would not be real big. It would be plenty big, but not as big as what I 
have described at the Nevada test site. But one dirty bomb would so 
contaminate a building, a neighborhood, a community, that it would be 
basically useless for scores of years.
  The amendment I am going to offer provides $400 million to the 
Department of Energy to safeguard nuclear weapons and nuclear material 
in the United States and throughout the world.
  I want to make sure that Members in the Senate understand what I am 
doing, what this amendment is attempting to do. The amendment provides 
$300 million for the Nuclear Nonproliferation Program and $100 million 
in additional funding to the Department of Energy to fund enhanced 
safeguards and security programs at the Nation's nuclear weapons 
laboratories and plants, at environmental management cleanup sites 
throughout the Nation, and at DOE Office of Science laboratories. All 
of these sites are home to nuclear material which needs to be 
protected.
  There are large amounts of money in the supplemental appropriations 
package for the Department of Homeland Security. And I supported that. 
It is for first responder training and chem-bio detection and related 
activities. It is a good thing. There will be efforts made to increase 
that.
  However, most of our Nation's nonproliferation activities and nuclear 
detection activities are not housed within the Department of Homeland 
Security. These activities are funded under the National Nuclear 
Security Administration, a semiautonomous organization within the 
Department of Energy. The administration request for nonproliferation 
and nuclear security was zero--nothing.
  The broad authority to transfer funds to meet homeland security needs 
would placate me a little bit if it were not for the fact that the 
transfer authority is only available within the Department of Homeland 
Security, and the Department of Homeland Security is not in a position 
to transfer funds to the National Nuclear Security Administration for 
nuclear nonproliferation or security activities.
  This is really a big concern. The GAO issued a Weapons of Mass 
Destruction report last week concerning the faltering cooperation the 
United States is receiving from Russia in terms of securing fissile 
nuclear material, and other weapons of mass destruction, in the former 
Soviet Republics. After years of effort, the United States is still 
struggling to get access to most locations where nuclear material is 
stored. The ramifications of this report should frighten everyone. More 
importantly, it is time for Congress to get moving on doing something 
about this problem.
  We have not even talked much about it, let alone done anything about 
it. It is incumbent upon this and all future administrations to get the 
material secured as quickly as possible just as it is critical to 
ensure that we do a better job protecting nuclear material in the 
country. However, since September 11, it has been like pulling teeth, 
for lack of a better description, to get this administration to request 
supplemental funding to better secure nuclear material at our weapons 
labs and plants, DOE sites, and other laboratories run by the 
Department of Energy.
  The administration has paid little heed to calls from within the 
Department to do a better job of transporting this stuff safely. Last 
year, the Department requested hundreds of millions of dollars but OMB 
simply wouldn't approve anything other than $26 million. In response, 
Congress appropriated $300 million in contingent emergency funding. The 
President refused to release this.
  These moneys go to making a safer world. The reason we are doing this 
is to try to make sure that homeland security really means something 
and we have a program to do something about nuclear materials.
  The neglect we have shown as a country is frightening. I am grateful 
to my colleagues and good friends, Senators Domenici and Stevens, for 
adding almost $100 million to this supplemental for many activities 
about which I have spoken. They also added $54 million in additional 
safeguards for Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation 
facilities. That was important. My amendment seeks to build on that 
base. This amendment pays for everything in the underlying amendment 
Senator Domenici worked to put in this and then funds many additional 
activities that are crucial to our Nation's efforts to keep nuclear 
materials safe and secure.
  The $400 million in this amendment is spread out as follows: The 
largest proportion of this money goes to nuclear detectors at mega-
seaports around the world, not here in the United States necessarily. 
The global shipping system can deliver a containerized weapon of mass 
destruction more accurately than a missile from the Soviet Union, 
according to the Department of Energy. This isn't something I am making 
up. Vessels move 90 percent of our warfare fighting material and the 
bulk of goods our Nation purchases from abroad. Current U.S.-based 
systems for protecting radioactive weapons are not oriented toward when 
a port itself is a target of a weapon of mass destruction.
  The Department of Energy has performed an analysis of shipping in the 
United States and has identified 60 foreign mega-seaports overseas 
where goods/containers from many nations first go before they are 
shipped to the United States. DOE indicates that, for example, about 10 
percent of all containers shipping to the United States

[[Page 8197]]

go through Hong Kong and about 6 percent go through Shanghai and 
Singapore.
  DOE has developed nuclear detectors that can be given to port 
authorities in such mega-seaports in conjunction with U.S. Customs 
which provide port-wide alert of nuclear material. Detecting and 
impounding illicit nuclear material before it is even sent to the 
United States provides the best protection we can get.
  We have the technology; it is just expensive. This amendment would 
pay for our going to Shanghai, to Singapore, to Hong Kong, these mega-
ports where we get so much of our material, and determine if any of 
those shipments are nuclear in nature before they get here.
  DOE is in the process of deploying the first radiological detection 
system to a foreign mega-seaport, but it has no funds appropriated in 
the 2003 fiscal year or even budgeted for 2004 to do this. They are in 
the process of deploying, but you can't deploy if you have no money. 
This additional $135 million would provide protection for nine mega-
seaports. It would not get all of them, but it would get the big ones. 
This would be for a total of 10--the 1 they are trying to work out and 
the 9. This additional money would allow screening of approximately 
half of all containerized shipping entering the United States. Right 
now, we basically check none of it. This amendment would allow us to 
check 50 percent of it. This is something that is vitally important.
  I talked about dirty bombs; radiological dispersal devices is the 
technical name. On March 11, Secretary Abraham addressed an 
International Atomic Energy Agency meeting, which he initiated to 
discuss the menace of radiological dispersal devices, with over 600 
people from 100 nations in attendance. It was our meeting, the United 
States of America. The use of radioactive sources for peaceful purposes 
is widespread. They have many beneficial industrial, agricultural, 
research, and medical applications, but terrorists also may seek such 
devices for their radiological content to construct dirty bombs and 
cause panic and economic disruption by spreading radioactive material 
over a wide area and detonating high explosives. I repeat, what 
happened in the Hart Building with anthrax is nothing compared to any 
dirty bomb.
  The Secretary said at that international gathering:

       ``It is our critically important job to deny terrorists the 
     radioactive sources they need to construct such weapons. The 
     threat requires a determined and comprehensive international 
     response. Our governments must act, individually and 
     collectively, to identify all the high-risk radioactive 
     sources that are being used and have been abandoned.'' The 
     Secretary told the conference ``We are ready to assist other 
     interested countries to speed the needed improvements, and we 
     want to begin immediately.''

  I am sure his heart was in the right place, but he had no ability to 
deliver on the statement he made to this conference.
  He went on to say:

       We are prepared to work with other countries to locate, 
     consolidate, secure, and dispose of high risk radiological 
     sources by developing a system of national regional 
     repositories to consolidate and securely store these sources.

  The administration has never requested a penny for this purpose. It 
seems now that this supplemental appropriations bill is where we should 
make the Secretary's offer of assistance to the international community 
credible.
  This bill calls for $20 million for nonproliferation assistance to 
nations other than the former Soviet Union. The Materials, Protection, 
Controls, and Accounting Agency nuclear nonproliferation programs to 
date have only targeted nations of the former Soviet Union. There is no 
money to do anything about it, to assist countries all over the world, 
especially in Southeast Asia--no money. Obviously, the point is made 
there.
  We have $20 million in this bill for funds that are needed to develop 
the analytical capability to determine the nature and origin of a 
stolen nuclear weapon or captured improvised nuclear device or what 
happened and who did it in the event of nuclear detonation on U.S. 
soil.
  We need research and development. If a nuclear device is found, we 
need to be able to determine what kind of a device it is, how it will 
detonate, how to defuse it. We have $20 million, a relatively small 
amount, the Department needs to improve material and radiochemical 
analysis methods, the sampling and modeling of nuclear explosion 
debris, and the implications of nuclear weapons design.
  Our weapons labs around this country have the best scientists in the 
world. I have been to the weapons labs: Livermore, Sandia, Los Alamos. 
They have the best and the brightest. But they can't do anything to 
help us unless they have money to do the research. That is what this 
will do.
  In this amendment, we have $15 million for nuclear nonproliferation 
verification, $12 million for nonproliferation assistance to Russian 
strategic rocket forces. What is this amount? Certain elements of the 
Russian military prefer to deal with our Department of Energy rather 
than the Department of Defense. For example, all work by the United 
States to secure Russian Navy warheads has been done by DOE. The fiscal 
year 2004 budget proposes for the first time for DOE to assist the 
Russian strategic rocket force ICBMs to secure its weapons. It contains 
funds to secure 2 of the first 10 most viable sites. Additional funds 
in the supplemental would start the program much earlier and increase 
the number of sites to be protected.
  I have worked with Senator Domenici for many years, as the ranking 
member and chairman--going back and forth--of the Energy and Water 
Subcommittee on Appropriations. We have the responsibility to take care 
of our nuclear weapons. Large amounts of money are appropriated every 
year. We in the United States appropriate large sums of money to make 
sure our nuclear stockpile is safe and reliable. A nuclear stockpile is 
not like storing a car. It is not like storing canned goods. These 
weapons have elements that go bad, and you need to constantly review, 
examine these weapons to find if they are safe and reliable. The 
Russians know this. But they have not had the resources to help. It is 
in our best interest to work with them, with Nunn-Lugar and other such 
methods, to try to help them make their stockpile safe and reliable. 
Here is $12 million for additional funds that, as I have indicated, 
would help the ICBMs in Russia be safe and reliable.
  When the war with Iraq ends and we find weapons of mass destruction 
in with nuclear material, we need to make sure we will have some way of 
disposing of them. We have provided in this bill for that. We want to 
make sure there is money for nuclear material detection regarding 
materials and devices.
  Funds are also needed to help develop advanced materials that will 
enable the fielding of room-temperature, high-resolution, hand-held and 
portable radiation detection and identification equipment. Our labs can 
do that with the scientific community, many of which are in the private 
sector.
  We have another problem. We need to be able to detect any nuclear 
explosion from proliferant countries that have very low yield. We don't 
have the equipment to do that. We need $10 million to do that. What we 
have in this amendment is a number of efforts to simply make our 
country safer, to make homeland security apply also to things nuclear.
  I am going to offer this amendment when we get the parliamentary 
problem worked out. The threat of loose nukes worldwide scares me as 
much as anything that I am afraid of. We have to do something about it. 
We have not talked about it. It is like the perennial ostrich sticking 
his head underground so he cannot see what is going on. I see what is 
going on, and the Senate must see what is going on. This bill, which is 
extremely important--as important as anything we do for homeland 
security--contains $400 million, directed totally to things nuclear.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page 8198]]


  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________