[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8285-8360]
[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 
resume consideration of S. 762, which the clerk will report.
  The 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.

  Pending:

       Stevens amendment No. 435, to increase the National Debt 
     Ceiling of the United States.
       Reid amendment No. 440, to provide critical funding to 
     safeguard nuclear weapons and nuclear material in the United 
     States and around the world.

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for the quorum call be rescinded.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


                           Amendment No. 472

   (Purpose: To set aside $30,000,000 for the Department of Homeland 
 Security for research and development and deployment of technology to 
 protect commercial aircraft from the threat posed by man-portable air 
                            defense systems)

  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer], for herself and 
     Mr. Schumer, proposes an amendment numbered 472:
       In chapter 6 of title I, add at the end the following:

                    GENERAL PROVISIONS, THIS CHAPTER

       Sec. 601. Of the amounts appropriated by this chapter under 
     the heading ``Departmental Management'' under the heading 
     ``counterterrorism fund'', $30,000,000 shall be available for 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Defense and the Federal Aviation Administration, 
     for research and development on, and for the initial 
     deployment of, technology to protect commercial aircraft from 
     the threat posed by man-portable air defense systems in order 
     to reduce the costs of such technology and to provide for the 
     adaptation of military countermeasure systems to commercial 
     aircraft.

  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I thank the clerk.
  If my colleague would like to make a statement at this time, I would 
be happy to yield, without losing my right to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I thank the Senator from California. My 
only reason for standing right now is to inquire of the Senator from 
California if it is possible to have a time limit on her amendment.
  Mrs. BOXER. I absolutely will agree. I am waiting for my coauthor, 
Chuck Schumer. As soon as we get word as to how much time he would 
need, yes, we would definitely want to do that.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I do thank the Senator from California. 
It is our hope that we will be able to get all of the amendments that 
are in line now completed in time to start voting by 11:50, following 
the Democratic caucus. So I appreciate her courtesy. And whatever is 
possible to enter into a time agreement, I would like to explore that. 
I thank her for her courtesy.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend. And, yes, as soon as we get word, I 
will ask for a quorum call, and then we will make an agreement on the 
time.
  Whether we speak about this for a half hour or 2 days, this is a very 
important amendment. I think one of the things we learned after 9/11, 
tragically, is that we have to take warnings very seriously--our 
intelligence agencies, we, as a Congress, the administration, all of us 
working together.
  We know now that there is a threat out there that is very real. We 
have constructed an amendment that does not add any money to this bill 
but merely says that out of the funds that have been allotted for 
homeland defense, that $30 million be made available immediately for 
research and development of countermeasures that could be taken should 
a shoulder-fired missile be aimed at a commercial aircraft.
  I want to read to you the latest statement of the FBI. This is the 
FBI warning, which really must not go unheeded if we are to do our job:

       . . . given al-Qaeda's demonstrated objective to target the 
     U.S. airline industry, its access to U.S. and Russian-made 
     MANPAD systems--

  MANPAD stands for shoulder fired missiles--

     and recent apparent targeting of U.S.-led military forces in 
     Saudi Arabia, law enforcement agencies in the United States 
     should remain alert to the potential use of MANPADs against 
     U.S. aircraft.

  How clear could this be? If this body turns its back on a threat that 
our commercial aircraft are facing right now, it would be a very sad 
day, indeed.
  I see Senator Schumer has approached the floor. What I will do is ask 
that a quorum call be put in place so I might discuss with him a 
timeframe he will need on this amendment we have worked so hard on 
together.
  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. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. After conferring with the Senator from California, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senator from California control the time 
until 10 minutes of 11 and that I control the time thereafter until 5 
minutes after 11.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I will take it from the top because this is such a 
crucial amendment. The amendment I am offering with Senator Schumer 
will provide $30 million that is already in the bill--we are not adding 
new money--for the Department of Homeland Security to research and 
develop and to initially deploy countermeasure systems for commercial 
aircraft to combat the threat of manned portable shoulder-launched 
missile systems.
  I have held one of these missiles. I am a little person. They are 
very lightweight. They can be easily used. They have been used in the 
past. As I say, this $30 million is not new money. I hope, therefore, 
it will not be opposed on the other side of the aisle.
  The chairman of the House Aviation Subcommittee, a Republican, said 
just yesterday that the threat of these shoulder-fired missiles being 
aimed at a commercial aircraft in the United States or one of our 
assets abroad ``keeps me up at night.'' This is a Republican chairman 
of the House Aviation Subcommittee who came into this debate, in his 
own words, not convinced that we needed to move on this threat. But 
after a secret briefing--and I was there--said this threat ``keeps me 
up at night.''
  Shoulder-fired missiles, such as the SA-7 and stinger missile, are 
available on the black market for $25,000 to $80,000 each. Most can be 
used with very little training and they take just minutes to fire. As I 
said, I have held one of these missiles in my hand. Almost anybody 
could do the same and fire one.
  Nearly 30 guerrilla and terrorist groups are in possession of these 
weapons, including al-Qaida. We will show a chart of the terrorist 
groups, the guerrilla groups we believe have these weapons or have 
access to these weapons: al-Qaida, Hezbollah, Kurdistan Workers Party, 
the Palestinian Authority, the Popular Front for the Liberation of 
Palestine, the Taliban. It goes all the way down the line. These are 
the groups that have these missiles and could use them against a 
commercial aircraft.
  Al-Qaida has shown it is willing to use these weapons as weapons of 
terror. They are suspected of targeting U.S. military aircraft in Saudi 
Arabia last May with an SA-7 missile.

[[Page 8286]]


  Mr. BAYH. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes.
  Mr. BAYH. Is the Senator aware many of these countermeasures are made 
in the State of Indiana at Crane Naval Depot? I thought the Senator 
might be interested. I had occasion to be there several weeks ago. They 
reported to me that these countermeasures the Senator quite rightly 
hopes to fund in this supplemental have been used in Afghanistan, and 
there have been more than 200 incidents of attacks on our military 
aircraft, but not one successful attack because the countermeasures are 
so effective in preventing the downing of our aircraft. The point the 
Senator makes is a good one since we have been so successful in 
protecting our military men and women. We have the technology. Why not 
make it available to the civil aviation sector as well.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am so pleased my friend would come over and engage in a 
colloquy with me. I was not aware of where these countermeasures were 
made. I know there are corporations working on them.
  He is right. Our military planes are protected--thank God--because 
these are heat-seeking missiles. They are attracted to these engines. 
Our military aircraft are protected. It is interesting because if you 
look at El Al, although they will not confirm or deny that their planes 
are so equipped, we believe they are. We don't have any specific 
information, but we believe they are.
  The point is, we need to now take this technology that is used on 
military aircraft and do a little more work so these technologies can 
work on commercial aircraft. That is what the amendment does.
  I say to the Senator, who I know is a fiscally responsible Member, we 
don't add any new funds because the first stage, $30 million, we can 
take out of existing money for research and development and begin to 
deploy a few airplanes with this system so we can make sure it works 
before we make a bigger investment.
  Mr. BAYH. My colleague is quite right. I compliment her for this 
amendment. The technology is more than theoretical. It exists in large 
part today. We are talking about saving lives with this kind of 
investment. I can't think of a better use of our tax dollars. I make 
the point not only as a matter of State pride but that the technology 
is there. We are saving lives. Another way to put it, we are saving 
lives in Afghanistan today using these pyrotechnic technologies. Why 
not arm our civil aviation aircraft to save lives domestically as well. 
I strongly support her amendment. It is a very wise investment.
  Mrs. BOXER. Before my friend leaves the floor, I want to put up the 
FBI warning we have been given. It is not as if we haven't been warned. 
That is why I want to make the case to my friends on both sides of the 
aisle as to how important they are.

       Given al-Qaida's demonstrated objective to target the U.S. 
     airline industry, its access to U.S. and Russian-made systems 
     and recent apparent targeting of U.S.-led military forces in 
     Saudi Arabia, law enforcement agencies in the U.S. should 
     remain alert to the potential use of the MANPAD'S against 
     U.S. aircraft.

  When you put that together with the list of terrorist groups that 
have the weapons, you are so right. The Taliban is at the top. That is 
why now in Afghanistan we face threats from these shoulder-fired 
missiles, because they have them.
  Mr. BAYH. In addition, my colleague is aware that I serve on the 
Intelligence Committee. Without getting into detail on the floor, which 
would be inappropriate, this is a growing concern in the intelligence 
world, particularly following the attack in Kenya on the Israeli 
airlines. These attacks have been carried out on civil aviation 
aircraft. These missiles are widely available, as you pointed out, and 
it is a matter of growing concern to our law enforcement and 
intelligence officials that this is perhaps a future area for threat--
the civil aviation in the United States.
  We have the ability to protect the aircraft, so why not take the step 
before it is too late? We should not wait until after a tragedy has 
occurred. We have been down that road before.
  Mrs. BOXER. My friend is so much on point. It is true that the 
attempt to down an Israel airliner in Kenya failed. However, it is 
estimated that over the last 25 years, more than 550 people have been 
killed in incidents involving shoulder-fired missiles and commercial 
aircraft.
  I want to show my friend a statement made by a member of the travel 
industry, as we look at more funding for the airlines, which I think is 
essential right now given what they have gone through, because we have 
a war and we had terrorism and we have a recession. This is what Ed 
Adams, chairman of a big tourism industry group, said:

       The travel industry is painfully aware of what a successful 
     attack of using a shoulder-fired missile on a commercial 
     airliner could do to the confidence of the traveling public. 
     It is a situation we would prefer not to even imagine, but we 
     must understand the reality of such an event if we intend to 
     prevent it. The blow to the economy, in general, and the 
     travel and tourism sector, in particular, combined with the 
     loss of human lives would be staggering. These costs would 
     certainly outweigh the expense of the precautionary measures 
     you are recommending today to make sure our commercial planes 
     are safe from such a terrorist attack.

  Mr. BAYH. My colleague pointed out that I pride myself as being 
fiscally responsible. I view her amendment in that spirit. We are in 
the process of appropriating, I believe, $3 billion for the civil 
aviation industry in this supplemental. Previously, following the 9/11 
attacks, there were other billions of dollars. If that industry is 
going to recover and be viable economically again, it is going to have 
to be in part because people feel safe getting on planes and traveling 
across the country. So the Senator's efforts to secure the traveling 
public are very much in the spirit of stabilizing an industry and, in 
fact, being fiscally responsible so that further efforts to provide 
largess from the Federal Treasury won't be necessary.
  Mrs. BOXER. My friend is right. We know that, right now--before we 
have even seen research and development in a robust fashion to bring 
down the cost of these countermeasures--they are about a million 
dollars per plane. I say to my friend that $1 million on a $120 million 
aircraft is not too much to ask.
  We had a big breakthrough because Chairman Mica on the House side, 
yesterday, came on board on this amendment and is working on the other 
side. I have spoken to the leadership. I think if the Senate today can 
come together--I know we are voting so much on party lines now, and I 
can see that, but if we can come together on this amendment, which 
doesn't add any money at all, but simply says this is a priority--by 
the way, it is not only the Senator from Indiana, or the Senator from 
California, or the Senator from New York saying it is a priority; it is 
the FBI saying it is a priority. Who knows better what threats we face 
than the FBI?
  The TSA is saying it is a priority, too. On Sunday, there was a 
report in the New York Times saying that the Bush administration has 
ordered major security improvements at several of the Nation's largest 
airports after inspections showed that passenger planes taking off or 
landing at those airports could be vulnerable to attack by a terrorist 
using a shoulder-fired missile.
  So the fact is we see--I know at Los Angeles Airport dozens of 
National Guard troops are deployed. It is a good thing to patrol the 
perimeter and at road checkpoints, in part, because of concerns about 
shoulder-fired missiles.
  So the administration now takes this very seriously. We all know that 
while the National Guard is going to be very helpful in this regard, 
and more troops are going to help in this regard--and I support these 
measures--we know these missiles can reach commercial aircraft up to 
12,000 feet. We know that stepped-up patrols of the perimeters are only 
part of the solution because you can have one of these shoulder-fired 
missiles pretty far away from the airport--in an apartment building, or 
anywhere else, or in the middle of a park, and it would be very 
difficult.
  Mr. BAYH. Or possibly from the sunroof of an SUV. It is difficult to 
secure the perimeter around an airport to the

[[Page 8287]]

extent that we need it. These countermeasures would be very warranted. 
I apologize for interrupting the Senator's remarks. But this threat is 
real. We have done a great deal of good work in the military sphere 
combating just this kind of threat.
  Why not make it available to the civil population as well? We are 
spending billions of dollars to bail out an industry, but if people 
don't feel safe flying in planes, the industry will never recover. I am 
in support of my colleague's amendment. Again, I apologize for 
interrupting the flow of her argument.
  Mrs. BOXER. The Senator hasn't interrupted my argument; he has made 
it stronger and better. Also, we know that military transport and 
refueling aircraft--and you have mentioned this--such as the C-17, C-
130, KC-135, and the KC-10 are some of the models that employ these 
countermeasure systems that we believe can be and must be used for 
commercial aircraft.
  Just going to the Senator's point about the military, they are 
conducting thousands of hours of training on countermeasures. So to 
underscore what my friend has stated, we know these systems work. We 
also know there is a threat.
  I think if you look at this amendment and all the parts of it, No. 1, 
it is a modest step because we are not adding new funding; we are 
simply taking out--there is more than a billion dollars in that 
particular section--it is $1.135 billion--and we are saying $30 million 
of that should go to support the research and development and getting 
these prototypes ready, so we know they can be put on aircraft.
  Chairman Mica and I have spent time talking about this, as well as 
Senator Schumer. We have come to understand that as we do this research 
and development, and the price comes down, when the airlines in the 
future order new commercial aircraft--and they are spending up to $150 
million a copy--to spend an extra million dollars on that is not going 
to be very much.
  So we think this is a very responsible amendment. We think it would 
be foolish and foolhardy not to begin this work right now, because I 
can tell you, God forbid, if a terrorist were successful, or even 
unsuccessful but came close to hitting one of our commercial aircraft, 
everybody in this body would say: Oh, my God, we had our chance and we 
blew it. We didn't do what we should have done.
  Whether you look at the fact that these technologies are working on 
military planes, whether you look at the fact that we have enormous 
warning from the FBI, and we have seen this administration begin to 
move forward, if you put this all together, it speaks loudly and 
clearly in favor of this amendment.
  This is a chart of recent incidents of attacks. In November 2002, an 
Israeli jetliner was fired upon seconds after takeoff in Mombasa, 
Kenya, and al-Qaida is suspected.
  In May of 2002, an empty shoulder-launched missile tube was found 
outside Prince Sultan airbase in Saudi Arabia, and our military thinks 
that was from a shoulder-fired missile.
  In October 1998, we had rebels down a civilian Boeing 727 over the 
Democratic Republic of the Congo in which 40 were killed. This is just 
recent incidents, but if we go back 25 years, we see this occurred.
  I expect Senator Schumer is going to be coming to the Chamber. Until 
he does, I am going to continue to go over these charts. If we look at 
any of these charts, we get the picture.
  This chart shows the groups we believe have access to shoulder-fired 
missiles. This would make anybody shudder because we know these groups 
are well funded and active, and we know many of them view the United 
States of America as their target:
  Al-Qaida, Hezbollah, Kurdistan Workers Party, Palestinian Authority, 
Popular Front for Liberation of Palestine, Taliban, Armed Islamic 
Group, Huta Militiamen, UNITA, Oromo Liberation Front, Somali National 
Alliance, United Somali Congress, Hark at ull-Ansar, Hizbul Majahideen, 
Khmer Rouge, Liberation Tigers of Tamil, United State Wa Army, Kosovo 
Liberation Army, National Liberation Army, and the IRA. We know these 
groups have access to shoulder-fired missiles. We know some groups, 
particularly some on the top part of this chart, would like to go after 
United States interests, given the past and given the present 
situation.
  I want to read what Chairman Mica said after he came out of an 
intelligence briefing on this issue:

       I went into the meeting somewhat skeptical. I came out 
     convinced that this is probably one of the most serious 
     challenges we face in combating terrorism. I think that's 
     important.

  Then he said:

       Since that hearing, I've lost some sleep and have great 
     concern.

  We are saying this is very important.


                       Honoring our Armed Forces

  Madam President, until Senator Schumer comes to speak on my 
amendment, I wish to pay tribute to five additional young Americans who 
were killed in the Iraqi war who were either from California or based 
in California. Sadly, these numbers are growing, and I have tried in 
every case to read their names on the floor.
  LCpl Patrick T. O'Day, age 20, was from Sonoma, CA, which is not very 
far from where I live. He was assigned to the 1st Tank Battalion, 1st 
Marine Division, Marine Corps Air-Ground Combat Center, Twenty-nine 
Palms, CA. He was killed in a tank accident in Iraq on March 25.
  His family moved to the United States from Scotland in 1987. He was 
captain of the wrestling team at Santa Rosa Middle School. He enlisted 
in the Marines after graduating from Santa Rosa High School in 2001. He 
is survived by his wife, his parents, his three brothers, and his wife 
is expecting their first child in September.
  PFC Francisco A. Martinez Flores, age 21, from Los Angeles, CA, was 
assigned to the 1st Tank Battalion, 1st Marine Division, Marine Corps 
Air-Ground Combat Center, Twenty-nine Palms, CA. He was killed in a 
tank accident in Iraq on March 25. He moved to California with his 
family when he was 3 years old. He was expecting to become a U.S. 
citizen in 2 weeks.
  CPT Aaron J. Contreras was assigned to the Marine Light Attack 
Helicopter Squadron, Marine Aircraft Group-39, Marine Corps Air Station 
in Camp Pendleton, CA. He was 31 years old. He was killed on March 30 
in a helicopter crash in southern Iraq.
  He was born on the Fourth of July in 1971. His family moved from San 
Jose, CA, to Sherwood, OR, in the late seventies, and he was a graduate 
of Sherwood High School. He joined the Marines in 1997. He is survived 
by his wife and three children, his parents, and four brothers.
  SSgt Donald C. May was assigned to the 1st Tank Battalion, 1st Marine 
Division, Marine Corps Air-Ground Combat Center, Twenty-nine Palms, CA. 
He was from Richmond, VA. He was 31 years old. He died March 25 in a 
tank accident in Iraq. He is survived by his wife and two children.
  Cpl Robert M. Rodriguez, age 21, was assigned to the 1st Tank 
Battalion, 1st Marine Division, Air-Ground Combat Center, Twenty-nine 
Palms, CA. He was killed in a tank accident in Iraq on March 25. He was 
from Queens, NY. He was born in Brooklyn and grew up in the Maspeth 
section of Queens. He was known to treasure his Puerto Rican heritage. 
He is survived by his parents, four siblings, and 17 nieces and 
nephews.
  I have come to this Chamber to honor our fallen military personnel 
before. We now have 20 men who have died in the Iraqi war who were 
either from California or who were based in my home State. My State 
mourns their loss. May these beautiful young Americans rest in peace. 
May we have a short war. And may we also pray for the wisdom of those 
who sent our young men and women into their mission.
  When we speak about the realities of war and how families will never 
be the same, as we take this bill up to make sure we have the best 
equipped military in the world and they have everything they need to 
protect them from harm, we also need to protect civilians from harm, 
which gets me back to the amendment that is before the body today.
  We have been warned by the FBI that the chance of a shoulder-fired 
missile

[[Page 8288]]

being fired at one of our civilian aircraft is real. We have been 
warned by the Transportation Security Agency that the threat is real. 
The administration has deployed National Guard to various airports in 
our country to try to spot one of these individuals with a shoulder-
fired missile. We know there are skeptics who have now come to the 
conclusion that this is, in fact, a very real threat to our people. We 
have heard from the travel industry that such an attack would be more 
than catastrophic, and as we vote more and more funding for our airline 
industry because we do not want to lose our airline industry, we need 
to take steps to protect it from further harm as well.
  We have an amendment that ought to get bipartisan support. We have an 
amendment that is fiscally responsible. We are not adding more money. 
We are saying this is a high priority and it ought to happen because if 
we can get the cost of these systems down below $1 million--right now 
they are about $1 million a plane. Even that is a small amount when one 
considers an aircraft costs $100 million to $150 million a copy. If we 
can get it even lower than that, it becomes less and less of a burden 
to both retrofit the older planes, the 6,800 planes we have flying now, 
and make this a mandated safety measure on all future commercial 
aircraft.
  There is a lot of support for this amendment. I just hope the Senate 
will put it in place. I think all of us will be able to sleep a little 
bit better at night because there are folks out there who want to hurt 
us. We know that. They look at civilians in a way we have never seen 
before. On 9/11 we saw that just because you are a civilian does not 
protect you from terrorists. It is our job to make sure we protect our 
people from terrorists.
  I am hopeful Senator Schumer will join us shortly. I yield the floor 
and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, Senator Schumer is working hard on a 
major amendment dealing with first responders. I thank the Senator from 
the bottom of my heart for all his work on this issue and this 
amendment. Senator Schumer and Senator Clinton had an experience that 
no other Senator had. Yes, we had horrific pain in this area with the 
Pentagon being hit. The Senators from this region dealt with the pain 
and suffering and grief, but Senators Schumer and Clinton saw something 
they will never forget--none of us will, they particularly--and they 
deal with the fallout of this every day.
  When we talked about trying to get ahead of terrorists and listening 
to the FBI warnings, the TSA warnings, Senator Schumer said: I want to 
work closely with you on this. God forbid something like this should 
happen and a shoulder-fired missile would bring down a commercial 
aircraft. We would all say, my God, why didn't we do something? We have 
the technology.
  I yield to my friend for as much time as he has remaining before 
Senator Stevens takes time to respond.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that I be given an additional 5 
minutes, or 3\1/2\ minutes, so I may speak for 10 minutes, with the 
consent of the Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Reserving the right to object--I would not object--I 
consent that Senator Boxer control the time until 5 minutes of 11 a.m., 
and if we extend that time, we would then control the time until 11:15.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object--because I understand my 
friend just came from the Judiciary Committee and some of us want to 
get over to the Judiciary Committee, and I understand Senator Bayh was 
set to go on at 11:05--now we are asking consent to move Senator Bayh's 
amendment to a later time.
  Mr. STEVENS. We do not have a time agreement on Senator Bayh's 
amendment. He is next in order. The Senator asked to extend the time by 
5 minutes, and I asked to extend by 5 minutes. That does extend the 
time when another amendment would be taken up until 11:15; that is 
correct.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I say to the Senator from Massachusetts, 
it is not Senator Stevens asking for additional time, it is Senator 
Schumer.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I will be brief. I withdraw my request to accommodate my 
colleague from Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator withdraw the request?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I withdraw the request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I commend my colleague from California. We all know she 
is a fighter. She finds issues, focuses on them with passion, is able 
to persuade so many others. The American people are lucky that Senator 
Boxer has taken such a leadership role in defending the homeland. I 
know the citizens of California thank her, but so do the Senators of 
New York. This is a real danger.
  If we had to make a list of how terrorists would go after us, 
unfortunately, shoulder-held missiles would be at the top of the list. 
As my colleague from California has demonstrated, we know they have 
them. We know al-Qaida, the most sinister right now of the terrorist 
organizations, has tried to use them. And there is an FBI statement 
that says just that.
  God forbid this should happen. God forbid the loss of life, the 
anguished families. Would anyone fly for 3 months, 6 months, 9 months? 
The economy is squishy now. If one of these shoulder-held missiles were 
used by terrorists to bring down one of our commercial airliners, it 
would send the economy due south; we would have huge problems.
  The good news is we can stop this. Yes, it will cost some dollars. 
But I cannot understand the attitude that we should not spend dollars 
to deal with something such as this. The Senator from California is not 
asking for much. I, for one, would like to see more money. I know if we 
do this, it will eventually cost more money, but she is being extremely 
modest in the amendment.
  To say, against one of the greatest dangers held for our wonderful 
people in America, that we should not do anything defies imagination, 
defies belief. We have the technology on our military planes, on Air 
Force One, El Al Airlines. I have dealt with the former top of security 
of El Al Airlines. They have them. They unfortunately know what 
terrorists can do. Yet we are saying we should fiddle while terrorism 
burns. I don't get it.
  The Senator from California and I carefully crafted this amendment, 
along with Congressman Mica from Florida, a Republican Member, to make 
it as modest as possible. I hope we accept this amendment. No one wants 
this to be a partisan amendment. Obviously, it is not. However, one of 
our jobs is to defend the troops. We are doing that by supporting the 
President's request. One of our jobs is to protect this homeland from 
the new scourge of terrorism.
  I mourn every day for the families lost on September 11. I wear this 
flag on my lapel every day in their memory; God willing, I will wear it 
every day for the rest of my life. I don't want it to happen again in 
any way. Spend a few dollars to make sure that does not happen.
  If we ask the American people to line up the priorities of all 
Federal spending, does anyone think this is at the bottom?
  They say there is no more money or maybe it will come out of some 
existing funds. We know what that means around here. That means forget 
it. If you cannot earmark it, it does not happen. I cannot believe we 
are not going to do this. I can't believe there is opposition to this. 
I can't believe, on something so vital to our security, where we have 
spent billions of dollars to protect our military planes, that we would 
not apply it to commercial airliners because in the post-September 11 
world,

[[Page 8289]]

those commercial airliners are just as much targets as our F-18s and F-
16s and B-1s and B-2s.
  Please, colleagues, let's not be in the ``what if'' situation.
  Let's not wake up one morning after this has occurred and say, What 
if we had done this? I would plead with my colleagues to support this 
very important amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time yielded the Senator from California 
has expired. The Senator from Alaska controls the next 15 minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator from Alaska controls time at 5 minutes of 
11.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: Has the time for 
the Senator from California been exhausted?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, it has.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I rise to oppose this amendment because 
it is premature. The amendment is premature not only in my view but in 
the view that was held by the Senator from California on March 13 in 
the Commerce Committee when we marked up the cargo security bill. At 
that time, the Senator from California said, and I quote from the 
record of the hearing of the markup:

       I have a bill which I am not moving today because I think 
     that would require a hearing. But what I thought would be 
     good is that since the TSA has said they are studying the 
     best way to combat this--

  Speaking of protection of the airliners from missile attack--

       but yet we haven't seen the study, what I would say in this 
     amendment is to ask them to please give us a report on their 
     study to this committee within 90 days on the best way to 
     defend turbo and jet passenger aircraft from these shoulder-
     fired missiles.

  So we adopted the amendment of the Senator from California on the 
cargo security bill that is before the Senate which will be passed by 
the Senate without any doubt whatsoever.
  I do not know of any living American who does not want to protect our 
airliners. I do not know of any living American who does not want to 
protect all of America, including our borders.
  The fact is that it is proposed to spend $30 million on R&D and 
deployment of technology on commercial airliners. I can assure my 
colleagues that it is not that easy. It is not that easy to transfer 
technology which is adopted for military aircraft and then immediately 
transfer it to civilian aircraft. Obviously, we need some time for the 
TSA to look at the threat and put the threat in the scale of the 
threats that we face in an order of priority, and the best way may not 
be installing this equipment on airliners. It probably is. But we do 
not know for sure. All we know is that there is a threat, as there are 
myriad threats out there to our lives and our security, whether they be 
at reservoirs or nuclear powerplants or along our borders, or wherever 
they may be. And we do have the ability perhaps to adopt military 
technology. But that has to be studied, as the amendment of hers on the 
bill after discussion in the markup.
  What type of technology is it? How can we deploy technology 
immediately when we do not know what technology it is that is best 
executed if we believe that airliners needed this protection 
immediately.
  I am not going to take the entire 8 minutes the Senator from----
  Mrs. BOXER. Will my colleague yield?
  Mr. McCAIN. That the Senator from Alaska yielded, but I just say this 
is a premature amendment. This is an amendment that is going to spend 
$30 million for deployment of technology when we do not even know if 
that technology exists, and if it does, if that is the best technology. 
So that is why I am in opposition to the amendment.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. McCAIN. I will be glad to respond to a question from the Senator 
from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator. I think the Senator makes a very 
important point that I absolutely supported a study in the committee. 
Since that has occurred, however, two things have happened. Chairman 
Mica on the other side invited me to a secret meeting.
  Mr. McCAIN. Does the Senator have a question or does she want to use 
her own time?
  Mrs. BOXER. I was hoping--I don't have any time left.
  Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator has a question, I would be glad to 
respond. Otherwise, I do not want to use the time of the Senator from 
Alaska.
  Mrs. BOXER. I do have a question. I was just going to let the Senator 
know what had happened and then I was going to ask the question.
  What happened at that time was this threat had been rising and the 
administration took action since the time of the study that said to all 
the big airports around the country, national guardsmen will protect 
against this threat. Chairman Mica changed his mind after those 
hearings and I became more concerned. That is the reason why I drafted 
this to be both a study and a deployment on just a couple of planes.
  Mr. STEVENS. Regular order.
  Mrs. BOXER. I just wanted to know if my rationale made any sense.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator for her question, and I appreciate 
the Senator from Alaska allowing that time. It is still premature and I 
think that to order a study of the background within a period of a 
couple months would be most appropriate.
  I yield back the remainder of my time to the Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I say to the Senate that as a pilot, 
almost every pilot I know shudders over the thought of weapons that are 
heat-seeking missiles. I commend the Senator from Arizona for what he 
has done already on the commitment of trying to get a study. I do not 
want to leave the impression here--it is classified, but there are some 
commercial planes that are outfitted for some defenses against some 
weapons. But all you have to do is think of ``Blackhawk Down'' to know 
it is not that simple.
  The Air Force has been working in research and development on a 
system. It is being tested on one plane so far. As a matter of fact, it 
is too large for most of our commercial aircraft. We don't know how 
soon it will be before we can get technology that can be fielded for 
civil aviation. There are several systems available that can detect the 
shoulder-fired weapons. However, they are not effective on all of them, 
and the problem is, if we are going to say that our civilian airlines 
are safe, to find a system that is safe.
  Currently, we have some. As I said, one of these systems is deployed 
on commercial aircraft to try to see how effective it might be. These 
systems currently that are being deployed cost about a million dollars 
a plane. I just do not see many commercial airlines that are ready to 
put out $1.5 million for each plane to try to defend it with a system 
that is not deemed to be effective by the Air Force so far.
  The Boxer amendment earmarks $30 million from within the 
counterterrorism fund for this project to equip our commercial airlines 
with a system to defeat heat-seeking missiles.
  This will reduce the fund; the counterterrorism fund has been assumed 
to provide additional dollars for agencies within that department. One 
hundred and twenty million dollars is assumed in this bill to pay for 
the passenger screeners and other costs incurred at additionally 
secured airports.
  We have tried to be very discrete about this fund. This is not a bill 
to deal with the problems of commercial airliners. This is a bill to 
deal with funding the war. Again, I want to say we have three wars 
going on, and this is not part of the war. We already have taken this 
up in Commerce. We have a study coming because of it. I hope that bill 
will pass.
  I share the absolute fear that Senator Boxer reflects in terms of the 
problem of passenger aircraft having some defense against shoulder-
fired missiles. Again, I wish we could all take a look at ``Blackhawk 
Down.'' There is no question they are out there and they are very much 
a fear in terms

[[Page 8290]]

of terrorism. But that is what the Department of Homeland Security is 
for and that is why the research and development money that is in the 
defense bill that has already been passed this year, and that research 
is going on.
  Madam President, I regret deeply that this is not the way to solve 
the problem. The problem is going to be solved with a study that we 
have asked for of what can be done and the funding that would follow 
that study. I hope it gets here in time to deal with it on the 2004 
bill.
  Again, I do not know anyone else who fears these as much as pilots. 
Passengers to a great extent understand the problem but you have to be 
a pilot to understand total consequences of having something that you 
cannot control from within the cockpit.
  It is true we have these systems on high-performance airplanes. They 
are extremely heavy. As I said, they cost more than $1.5 million 
apiece.
  Madam President, $1.5 million added to the cost of a high-performance 
airplane we are buying for war purposes, that is one thing. This does 
not affect that. Those systems have already been perfected under the 
Department of Defense, and they are adequate for our needs in defense.
  I point out in the 12 years we have flown over Iraq on the so-called 
CAPs Program, we have not lost one plane to a heat-seeking missile to 
my knowledge.
  That is military. We are trying to say can we put them into civilian 
airlines? Can we put them into commuters? What size do we need?
  It is a research program. I don't know how long it would take. I was 
told at one time it would take up to 2 years to develop this system. 
But we should approach this action from the point of view of research 
and development first and not a mandate, and particularly not take 
money out of the bill as it is right now.
  We do have, by the way, some of them that are applicable to the 
commercial system. It is dealing with a laser system. That system will 
be available for installation in commercial airlines by fiscal year 
2006, under the current system. As I said, we are trying to accelerate 
research and development and ability to defend small aircraft and 
helicopters. There just is none available today that can do that, that 
are affordable.
  I reluctantly agree with the chairman of our committee. I believe the 
language in the Cargo Security Act that was the product of Senator 
Boxer's efforts on the Commerce Committee should be allowed to go 
forward. We should study this important issue. But we should not be 
taking money from other homeland security efforts and directing it be 
spent on pilot projects for systems that have not yet been demonstrated 
to be effective.
  We are monitoring this. I say in all sincerity, I think the Commerce 
Committee has Senators on both sides of the aisle who are committed to 
following this through, to finding the best way to defend passenger 
aircraft from shoulder-fired missiles.
  This is not the way to do it. Reluctantly, I do move to table the 
amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent the Boxer amendment, amendment No. 472, be 
set aside until the hour of 1:50, and at that time the Senate proceed 
to a vote in relation to the amendment with no second-degree amendments 
in order to the amendment prior to the vote. I further ask unanimous 
consent there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided immediately prior 
to that vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I want to announce that will be the first vote in a 
sequence that will start at 1:50 p.m. this afternoon.
  I now ask, if it is appropriate, and I believe it is, unanimous 
consent with regard to the amendment Senator Bayh will offer, that 
there be 20 minutes of debate under the control of the proponent, 10 
minutes under control of myself, and no second-degree amendments in 
order prior to the vote. I further ask this amendment, when we are 
finished, and I shall make--I may not make a motion to table this--but 
a vote in relation to this amendment to be taken, if required, at the 
hour of 1:50, following the Boxer amendment.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I failed to tell the manager of the bill 
that Senator Kennedy wants 10 minutes. So it would be 30 minutes and 
whatever time you want to respond to that.
  Mr. STEVENS. I have no objection. The Senator has been waiting to 
speak. I am pleased to amend my request that there be 30 minutes under 
the control of the proponents and 10 minutes under my control.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent 
request? Hearing none, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 474

  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk. I ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Bayh], for himself, Mr. 
     Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Schumer, Ms. Stabenow, Mrs. Clinton, 
     and Ms. Mikulski, proposes an amendment numbered 474.

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

  (Purpose: To provide funding for grants to States for smallpox and 
               other bioterrorism inoculation activities)

       On page 38, after line 24 add the following:


         Smallpox and other Bioterrorism Inoculation Activities

       For additional expenses necessary to support grants to 
     States for smallpox and other bioterrorism inoculation 
     activities, $340,000,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2004: Provided, That this amount is transferred to the 
     Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself, 
Senator Nelson of Nebraska, Senator Schumer, Senator Stabenow, and my 
distinguished colleague, Senator Mikulski.
  I offer this amendment because of my conviction that just as we spare 
no expense ensuring our military men and women in the field have the 
tools with which to defend themselves, have the tools with which to 
disarm rogue regimes that possess weapons of mass destruction so we can 
protect the American people, we also need to give those tools to the 
brave men and women working here at home who will defend the American 
people against biological attack. That is because it is the same fight. 
It is the same war.
  Disarming rogue regimes of weapons of mass death, protecting American 
citizens who might be killed by those weapons of mass death, is the 
same fight. We need to make sure that both overseas in the military and 
here at home, in terms of civilian defense, we do what it takes to 
defend America's national security interests.
  Simply put, in the war we are fighting today, the war against global 
terrorism, rogue regimes, and failed states, the distance between the 
front lines and the home front is not that great. We must recognize 
this fact and aggressively defend both; otherwise, the American people 
may suffer.
  We are now involved in a great conflict in Iraq. This conflict has, 
as its genesis, our desire to avoid another tragedy like September 11, 
only this time involving weapons of mass destruction and casualties and 
loss that could be far greater.
  We suffered 3,000 fatalities on September 11, worse than the attack 
on Pearl Harbor, the greatest loss of life in our country since the 
Civil War.
  But I rise today to say that, unfortunately, much worse can happen. 
Weapons of mass death--let us call them what they are because they seek 
to destroy not buildings or physical property but people--weapons of 
mass death capable of inflicting losses of catastrophic, even Biblical 
proportion, now roam the international landscape. Biological weapons in 
particular can unleash pathogens capable of slaughtering millions, 
rending civil society itself and spreading terror and fear, and perhaps 
starting a new Dark Age.
  I do not overstate the case. Not so long ago, I tell my colleagues, 
there

[[Page 8291]]

was something called Operation Dark Winter that was conducted by a 
variety of entities, including the Center for Strategic and 
International Studies. Operation Dark Winter sought to anticipate what 
might happen if smallpox were introduced into the ventilation systems 
of three shopping malls in different States across our country.
  Within 13 days, the disease had spread to 25 States. After 60 days, 3 
million cases of smallpox had been diagnosed and more than 1 million 
American citizens--1 million were anticipated to die from the outbreak. 
That is just how bad it can get.
  Colleagues, the threat is not theoretical. As we saw in this very 
Chamber with the anthrax outbreak of a year ago, the threat of 
biological weapons is all too real, all too tangible. Our intelligence 
services estimate the chances of a nation such as Iraq possessing 
smallpox are about 50-50. Other nations have it, too.
  Terrorist groups such as al-Qaida and Ansal al-Islam and others are 
working feverishly to obtain chemical and biological weapons. Since 
smallpox is the worst case scenario when it comes to a biological 
outbreak, we have to assume that smallpox would be near the top of 
their list when it comes to obtaining a biological capability to attack 
the United States here at home or abroad.
  The administration itself has recognized the threat. The President 
himself was inoculated against smallpox to great fanfare. The 
recommendation last December by the administration was to inoculate up 
to 10 million first responders--10 million--to ensure that our country 
was in a position to minimize this threat, God forbid, should it reach 
our shores. Unfortunately, while the rhetoric has been right on, the 
resources and the actual response have been left wanting.
  The response to date ignores the fact that there are many other 
pressing needs when it comes to protecting the American people against 
a biological attack. Smallpox is only one of the potential risks. 
Inoculating our people against smallpox is only one of the steps that 
must be taken. We simultaneously must move forward with expanding our 
lab capacity so we can analyze the cases as they come in so we know 
what we are dealing with. Is it a plague? Is it smallpox? Is it 
botulism? What is the pathogen that is killing Americans? How do we 
treat it? What should be our next steps?
  Having a lab capacity is critically important. We have to improve the 
communications systems between the Federal level, the CDC, State 
laboratories, and local hospitals because if there is not an effective 
communication system, the response will break down and people will die 
as a result.
  Finally, we need better health monitoring at the local level so we 
can judge the ebb and flow of systems and analyze exactly what it is we 
are dealing with so we know how to respond and save people's lives.
  The response to date ignores all these other pressing needs competing 
for scarce resources, leaving the very real possibility that either 
protecting the Nation against smallpox will be left wanting or that 
these other critical needs will be left wanting. That is a choice we 
should not be forced to make.
  The response also ignores the very language of the emergency 
supplemental, which states explicitly that the funds can only be used 
for equipment and training, that they cannot be used for inoculation--
they cannot be used for inoculation. So even if enough money had been 
provided to help defend against smallpox, by the very wording of the 
supplemental, the funds cannot be used for the most pressing need, to 
ensure that first responders, who might be infected, are inoculated 
against smallpox, protecting both them and others with whom they might 
have contact.
  Third, the response to date ignores the very real, pressing fiscal 
crises confronting our States. I just came from a meeting with my own 
Governor. Indiana, as other States, is facing a deficit. It is strapped 
for money. So States simply are not in a position to step in and 
provide resources to fill in the gaps.
  If this need is going to be met, if this threat is going to be met, 
if our people are going to be protected at this hour of national 
crisis, at this hour of State fiscal crisis, it is the Federal 
Government that must step up and protect the national security 
interests, the health and well-being of the American people, because we 
are the only level of government that is in a position to do so.
  Next, the response proposed by the administration falls short of past 
responses in similar cases. My colleagues might be interested to know 
that in 1947, responding to a single outbreak of smallpox in New York 
City, 6,350,000 citizens were inoculated, including 500,000 in a single 
day--in a single day. Yet there is nothing for smallpox inoculation in 
this bill. Clearly, based upon past response, the current steps are 
inadequate and, hence, the amendment is necessary to supplement our 
efforts.
  Finally, along these lines, the House of Representatives--not known 
for responding overzealously to concerns such as this, known to want to 
keep a firm grip on the purse strings--has recognized that the 
emergency supplemental is inadequate and has proposed an additional $94 
million to help address this need. While $94 million is itself 
inadequate--the $340 million we propose in our amendment is the correct 
response to inoculate 4 million people who the States have said are 
necessary to inoculate--at least the House of Representatives has taken 
a tentative initial step in recognizing the very real need.
  If we are going to meet this threat, the response to date proposed by 
the administration, however well intended, is simply inadequate to 
meeting the very real potential threat, the disastrous potential threat 
facing the American people. That is why we have proposed action.
  I will spend a couple of moments addressing what the potential 
arguments against our amendment might be. I know some might suggest 
this is simply more social spending. That is simply not the case. This 
money will save lives. We have been attacked, as we all know. As we all 
know, terrorists are planning further attacks. We know they are 
desperately seeking weapons of mass death, including biological 
weapons. We know that smallpox is the worst case scenario, and that in 
all likelihood they are attempting to get it.
  This money is needed. It is not simply just more social spending. It 
is needed to save lives, and to save lives now. It would be 
irresponsible not to ensure that we are protecting against this threat 
because we know how real it can be.
  Secondly, the argument that enough resources have already been 
provided is simply not accurate. Enough resources have not been 
provided to meet this threat, as the House of Representatives has 
recognized, as the Governors of the 50 States have recognized in their 
State plans, saying that inoculating 4 million first responders is what 
is necessary to truly protect the American people.
  The administration has done precious little along these lines. Not 
enough in the way of resources has been provided. Regrettably, 
responding to this need is not inexpensive. The National Association of 
County & City Health Officials estimates that, at a bare minimum, it 
takes $85--and, in fact, recent experience suggests far more--it takes 
$85 per case to screen, inoculate, and monitor the results of the 
inoculation per individual inoculated. That is the least case scenario. 
So taking the lowest cost estimate, multiplying by the 4 million first 
responders that the Governors and States, regardless of party, 
indicated need to be inoculated, that is how we reached our estimate of 
$340 million being the bare minimum needed to help protect the American 
people against this threat.
  Finally, 58 percent of local officials indicate that smallpox 
inoculations are now hurting their other bioterrorism efforts. I would 
ask my colleagues, What do we leave the American people vulnerable to? 
If we emphasize smallpox, do we choose to leave them vulnerable to 
anthrax? Do we choose to leave them vulnerable to another pathogen that 
is capable of killing millions of people? That is simply not the

[[Page 8292]]

responsible course of action. Yet it is the course we are on if we do 
not adopt this amendment.
  In closing, let me say that my position in this amendment, offered by 
myself, Senator Mikulski, and others, is not a partisan position. I 
have with me an article from the Washington Post of 2 days ago, 
indicating the very pressing needs that States face in this arena.
  It quotes several Governors, including Governor Pataki of New York, 
Governor Huckabee of Arkansas, and others, to the effect that States 
and cities are simply not being provided with the resources they need 
from the Federal Government. I quote:

       [G]overnors and mayors of both parties declared [the 
     funding is] inadequate.

  Our States and cities deserve better from us than that.
  Finally, I have letters that I will have printed in the Record from 
city and local health officials, including the American Nurses 
Association, who indicate that our exposure to the West Nile virus and 
the recently discovered SARS respiratory problem will be much, much 
worse because of their efforts to fight smallpox, if we don't provide 
the additional funding so they don't have to confront the dilemma they 
are confronting: Do they protect against smallpox or some other cause 
of death? We should not leave them in that lurch.
  In conclusion, this is a pressing problem. It is a single war: The 
war abroad to disarm rogue nations, to protect us from weapons of mass 
death, and the war here to protect America from those same sources of 
threats. They both deserve our attention and funding. That is the 
purpose of this amendment. I am pleased to offer it on behalf of myself 
and my colleagues today.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have relevant material 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                           National Association of


                               County & City Health Officials,

                                     Washington DC, April 2, 2003.
     Refunding for smallpox vaccination.

     Hon. Evan Bayh
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bayh: The National Association of County and 
     City Health Officials (NACCHO) is committed to preparing the 
     nation to respond to an outbreak of smallpox, should such a 
     terrible event ever occur. Therefore, we strongly support 
     additional funding for the large, unanticipated costs that 
     state and local public health agencies are incurring to 
     implement the President's smallpox vaccination program. 
     Nearly 80% of local public health agencies already report 
     that they are diverting resources from overall bioterrorism 
     preparedness to work on smallpox vaccination. This situation 
     is unsustainable and threatens to undermine our nation's 
     ability to improve public health preparedness for other acts 
     of biological, chemical, or nuclear terrorism.
       Existing federal funds for bioterrorism preparedness are 
     neither available nor sufficient to pay for both smallpox 
     vaccination and other bioterrorism planning and preparedness 
     work that is already underway. Congress appropriated $940 
     million in FY2002 and $940 for FY2003 to help states and 
     localities improve their capacities to respond to public 
     health threats and emergencies. The Department of Health and 
     Human Services made the first $918 million available to the 
     states in June 2002. This disbursement of federal funds 
     occurred in a timely and responsible fashion and states were 
     directed to spend these funds in five different areas of 
     public health preparedness. Neither HHS nor states and 
     localities contemplated undertaking smallpox vaccination at 
     that time and funds have been programmed and obligated to 
     improve overall preparedness in multiple ways, pursuant to 
     HHS' guidance to the states.
       The Administration announced a smallpox vaccination program 
     six months later and has expected states and localities to 
     pay the costs of this program from the FY 2002 bioterrorism 
     funds they had received. This expectation is unrealistic for 
     two reasons. First, as is the case with any federal program, 
     the sums that states have spent according to HHS records do 
     not reflect plans and obligations that have already been 
     undertaken and cannot be reversed either for legal or 
     practical reasons. Second, the costs of smallpox vaccination 
     are proving to be far greater than had been anticipated. 
     Smallpox vaccination is not like giving flu shots in the 
     local mall. Extensive advance planning, training, and 
     consultation in the community are necessary. Delivering the 
     vaccine requires careful screening and counseling. Follow-up 
     to assure a proper ``take'' and to prevent secondary 
     transmission of vaccinia is essential, as are design and 
     implementation of systems to track adverse reactions. NACCHO 
     has found that costs for smallpox vaccination being incurred 
     now by local public health agencies smallpox vaccination 
     range from $154 to $284 per person, with an average of $204 
     per person. These do not include costs to states or to other 
     entities, such as hospitals or police or fire departments.
       NACCHO is deeply concerned that it is dangerously short-
     sighted to devote our resources for public health 
     preparedness to a single potential agent. We cannot 
     anticipate what agents might be used by a bioterrorist. 
     Moreover, we remain highly vulnerable to natural disease 
     outbreaks, including West Nile virus and the newly-discovered 
     Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, that have a potential to 
     cause more illness and death than would occur in many 
     bioterrorism scenarios. We believe that we must build our 
     public health systems so that they are well-staffed, 
     effective and adaptable. We should avoid building separate 
     systems for specific diseases; they will tax our resources, 
     and unless we use them day in and day out, they won't work 
     well when they are really needed. We must also achieve 
     preparedness specifically for smallpox, which has the unique 
     feature of requiring vaccination of a number of public health 
     and medical personnel, but we cannot afford to sacrifice 
     other improvement in that process.
       We appreciate your leadership and concern for public health 
     protection and look forward to working with you to ensure 
     that the public health system is able to improve preparedness 
     for all public health threats and emergencies, in addition to 
     smallpox.
           Sincerely,
                                                Patrick M. Libbey,
     Exeuctive Director.
                                  ____



                                  American Nurses Association,

                                                    April 2, 2003.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the American Nurses Association 
     (ANA), I am writing to urge you to support the amendment 
     offered by Senator Bayh to the supplemental appropriations 
     bill. This amendment will provide resources so that state and 
     local health departments can safely implement the smallpox 
     vaccination program.
       The ANA is the only full-service association representing 
     the nation's RNs through our 54 state and territorial 
     constituent member associations. Our members are well 
     represented in the Administration's plan to vaccinate 10.5 
     million health care workers and first responders.
       Sufficient funds must be appropriated to the states to 
     support robust education, prescreening and surveillance of 
     the potential recipients of the vaccine. The recent death of 
     a Maryland nurse, a Florida nurse aide and a National 
     Guardsman only underscore the need for aggressive medical 
     screening, monitoring and treatment. Nurses and other first 
     responders will continue to feel uncomfortable about the 
     vaccine until they receive the reliable information needed to 
     make an informed decision.
       Members of the armed services have received personalized 
     education and free and confidential prescreening prior to the 
     administration of the vaccine. This process properly screened 
     out one-third of the potential recipients. Unfortunately, 
     existing Federal funds for states to conduct a proper 
     vaccination program have been exhausted. The National 
     Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO) 
     estimates that state and local health offices are incurring a 
     cost of $204 per person vaccinated. These expenditures are 
     diverting needed health resources away from other important 
     bioterrorism and public health activities.
       Once again, the ANA urges you to support the Bayh amendment 
     to the supplemental appropriations bill. These funds are 
     critical to ensure state and local officials can actually 
     implement the crucial education, prescreening and 
     surveillance programs.
           Sincerely,
                                           Rose Gonzalez, MPS, RN,
     Director, Government Affairs.
                                  ____

         American Federation of State, County and Municipal 
           Employees, AFL-CIO,
                                    Washington, DC, April 1, 2003.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the 1.3 million members of the 
     American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees 
     (AFSCME), I am willing to urge you to support amendments to 
     the supplemental appropriations bill that will increase 
     funding for homeland security. In particular, we urge you to 
     support an amendment to add $4.3 billion for funding the 
     ``first responders'' that will be offered by Senators 
     Schumer, Clinton and Mikulski. We also urge you to support an 
     amendment for $340 million for combating bioterrorism to be 
     offered by Senator Bayh.
       The cost of shoring up the nation's security needs has 
     placed an enormous burden on state and local governments, 
     particularly New York City, Los Angeles and other 
     jurisdictions that face the greatest security threat. Reduced 
     revenues from a slow economy, increased human needs and 
     increased security needs have stretched state and local 
     governments beyond their capacity. Today, states face their 
     gravest fiscal crisis since World War II. If the nation is to 
     be secure, it is imperative that the Congress help state and 
     local governments improve security by

[[Page 8293]]

     providing more federal resources for first responders.
       The amendment to be offered by Senator Bayh will provide 
     resources so that state and local health departments can 
     implement the President's smallpox vaccination program 
     safely. Public health officials have estimated that the cost 
     of each vaccination will average $204. New resources are 
     needed to carry out the smallpox program without diverting 
     resources away from other bioterrorism preparedness and core 
     public health activities.
       Since September 11, the nation has come to realize that it 
     has numerous vulnerabilities to terrorist attack. These 
     vulnerabilities must be addressed through a national 
     commitment to improve homeland security. Accordingly, we urge 
     you to support amendments to increase funding for homeland 
     security, and in particular the two amendments to be offered 
     by Senators Schumer, Clinton and Mikulski and by Senator 
     Bayh.
           Sincerely,
                                              Charles M. Loveless,
                                          Director of Legislation.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time do we have on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Sixteen and a half minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Sixteen and a half minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Sixteen and a half minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have that 
divided between myself and the Senator from Maryland.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to retain a minute of my 
time, if the Chair would inform me.
  This country has given focus to the battle on the war on terrorism in 
a variety of different ways, but one area which is enormously important 
is the threat we are facing from bioterrorism.
  We enacted legislation even prior to 9/11 that was very helpful and 
important at that time. We have enacted legislation subsequently, and 
next week we are going to be enacting legislation which will support 
the President's commitment for some $6 billion that will be used to 
develop vaccinations in anticipation of the threat we will be having 
overseas by these very dangerous pathogens that are being developed.
  Now we have smallpox and anthrax that are dangerous to this country. 
People in this city have certainly witnessed the dangers. Families have 
been impacted and affected because loved ones have lost their lives 
because of the dangers of anthrax.
  This amendment is meant to provide help to local communities to make 
sure they have an effective vaccination program, period. There are a 
number of different features in the war dealing with bioterrorism. One 
is to make sure we have the people on the ground who are trained, 
supported, who have the ability to screen, have the vaccines, and will 
do the followup work if we expect this program to take off.
  Secondly, we have to have a compensation program that will be 
available to provide help to these individuals if there is an adverse 
reaction. Why this is so important is these first responders, when they 
signed up for their job, didn't think they were taking on the 
additional responsibility of dealing with terrorism. Now we are asking 
them to do that. We are asking them to do something in addition.
  In some instances, with some vaccines, they will be risking their 
lives, because we know a certain number of them are going to die and a 
certain amount of them will have serious disabilities as a result of 
taking the vaccine. That is the vaccination compensation program. That 
is not on this bill.
  What we are talking about here is making sure individuals in local 
communities are going to have the resources to resist any bioterrorism 
that comes their way in the form of anthrax and smallpox. To do it, you 
have to give support to local communities. This legislation before us 
does not do it. There is no funding whatsoever. There are billions for 
our soldiers and our sailors, and all of us are for that, but it does 
not provide any resources.
  I say that against this following background. Last year we cut 
support for our hospitals by $1.9 billion. Those were cuts in the 
Medicaid program and also in what we call graduate medical education. 
We provided $500 million for them under the battle of bioterrorism, but 
they still lost $1.4 billion in cuts to the hospitals. We say we have 
already provided sufficient funding for these hospitals. I will not 
take the time now, because it is short, to read into the record what 
the hospitals are saying, not just in my State but all over the 
country, the pressure they are under to try to get the programs 
started.
  My friend and colleague from Indiana has indicated it costs about 
$80. Actually, according to better estimates, it is about $200. I will 
put that in the Record. I thank him for offering this amendment. The 
President's program is asking 10 million people in phase 2 of the 
immunization program, 10 million people. Under the Bayh program you get 
coverage for about 4 million. It is a very modest program. That is $85. 
It is done cheaper in the military because they have the trained 
personnel to do it.
  By and large, public health officials believe if we are going to have 
a monitoring program--and we have seen in this past week how important 
that monitoring program can be, because if you have these kinds of 
vaccinations going to individuals who have some kind of heart 
complication and difficulty, it can cause death. That is why the 
monitoring is so important. We want to make sure we have a program that 
will be put in place.
  Today it is suspended by 10 States. Ten States are not doing it 
because they don't think the program itself has been set up in a way 
which can provide adequate protection to the individuals who need it.
  I hope our friend and colleague on the Appropriations Committee will 
be willing to accept this amendment. It is a bare-bones amendment. I 
remind the Senate what happened yesterday in the Human Resources 
Committee when we were dealing with the compensation program. Our 
friend and colleague, Senator Mikulski, made an impassioned statement 
about what happened to a particular individual in her State with this 
vaccination program. It was accepted unanimously, by Republican and 
Democrat, that there should be additional resources to make sure if we 
go ahead with this immunization program--I am strongly committed that 
we do--it is done wisely and right.
  The amendment offered by Senator Bayh and Senator Mikulski and 
others--I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor, if I am 
not--is an absolutely essential part on the war on terrorism.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Fighting against the dangers of bioterrorism is a key 
aspect on the war on terrorism. To do that, you need to have two 
components: One, you need a compensation program; secondly, you need to 
be able to get that program of vaccinations out there. It is not 
getting out there now. It is putting too great a strain on local public 
health officials. We should give them assistance to make sure we have 
the very best. We want the best for our service men and women fighting 
in Iraq, and we want the best for our first responders whose lives are 
at risk. This amendment will ensure they will receive the best in terms 
of support in local communities.
  I withhold the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise as a proud cosponsor of this 
amendment that would provide $340 million to State governments to do 
important education, screening, and monitoring in the delivery of the 
smallpox vaccine program.
  I would like to share with my colleagues a story. One of my 
constituents, who lives on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, died last 
week from a heart attack 5 days after she received the smallpox 
vaccine. I am not drawing a conclusion that the two are linked. We will 
leave that to the appropriate medical and public health officials to 
decide. But let me tell you the story. She was 55 years old. She just 
got her nursing degree after having another degree. She wanted to get 
her nursing degree because the lower Eastern Shore of Maryland is an 
underserved health

[[Page 8294]]

community in terms of doctors and nurses.
  She is a Native American. She is a proud descendant of the Assateague 
tribe. Her name is Andrea Deerheart Cornitcher. She wanted to volunteer 
for the smallpox vaccine so she could serve her community, serve her 
country in the event of a smallpox attack. She was ready to do anything 
she needed to when she was called.
  When I spoke to her husband, filled with grief and melancholy, I 
asked him what he wanted to tell me and, if he could come to the floor 
of the Senate, what would he tell us. He said: Senator, tell your 
colleagues, and if you have a chance to talk to the President, tell 
him, people are ready to volunteer, but they have to have a right to 
know what they are getting into. They have the right to know how safe 
the vaccine is. They have to know how safe they will be if they get the 
vaccine. We need education. We need screening. I might add, we need 
monitoring and surveillance, so that if you sign up to be part of the 
bioshield warriors, you will have ongoing monitoring and 
biosurveillance to make sure there are no physical or other 
repercussions from this.
  That is what Mr. Glenn Standing Bear Mayo asked. He said, the way I 
want to honor my wife, the way we ought to protect America, is to make 
sure we protect the volunteers. The way to protect the volunteers is 
through education, better and more amplified screening, and ongoing 
monitoring and surveillance.
  You cannot do this on the cheap. Public health departments are 
already stretched to the breaking point.
  They are now foraging for funds to be able to meet a Federal mandate 
to recruit, screen, and do smallpox vaccinations for our first 
responders who are volunteering. This takes $85 per screening. They 
don't have it. They are taking money from other funds--from maternal 
and child health, West Nile virus, or being prepared in case SARS comes 
to the United States.
  This is a very modest amount to put into the Federal checkbook. It 
doesn't even deal with the larger issue of compensation that we will 
debate at another time, an appropriate time.
  I salute the Senator from Indiana for advocating this. I advocated it 
in the authorizing committee just yesterday. It was accepted by the 
committee. The committee knows this is important. Now is the time to 
make it a reality by putting screening, testing, and monitoring into 
the Federal checkbook.
  So I really ask my colleagues: If the volunteers are going to have 
enough confidence to participate in the program, they need to know what 
they are getting into, and they need to be properly screened. They need 
to know that they will be monitored and that there will be surveillance 
to protect them as they line up to protect America. They also need to 
know that there is a safety net for an adequate and responsible 
compensation program. This amendment does not deal with compensation, 
but it deals with funding the usual and customary public health 
protections. It says that people have a right to know, they have a 
right to be heard about their concerns, and they have a right to be 
protected.
  On behalf of Andrea Deerheart Cornitcher, I offer this amendment with 
my colleagues to the Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the 
amendment of my good friend from Indiana that will help State and local 
health departments pay for the cost of administering the smallpox 
vaccine.
  The threat of terrorism, both foreign and domestic, is real and 
should not be taken lightly. We prepare for these threats by preparing 
our first responders--including our health care professionals. Whenever 
and wherever disasters have struck, health care professionals have 
responded selflessly by lending their skills, time, and expertise to 
help victims and their families. Now we are asking them to safeguard 
the health care infrastructure by being vaccinated against smallpox. 
The least we can do is make sure that the funds are available to 
provide the vaccinations.
  The vaccinations are more expensive than anticipated. Vaccinating 
against smallpox is not like giving flu shots. Preparation and training 
is needed to administer the vaccine by trained professionals who must 
be able to carefully screen vaccine recipients for potential adverse 
reactions. Followup is also needed to check on health status. All of 
this takes time and resources. My State of Nebraska has already 
vaccinated 2500 workers at a cost of about $140 per person for a total 
of $350,000.
  The resources to pay for and administer these vaccinations have been 
diverted from other important bioterrorism preparedness activities. The 
financial assistance provided in this amendment will allow States to 
dually safeguard against smallpox without diverting funds ``from other 
important bioterrorism preparation efforts. Without this additional 
funding, vaccinating against smallpox is essentially an unfunded 
mandate to the States.
  As any biological attack would certainly be a Federal priority, it is 
both unfair and ineffective not to provide Federal funds to prepare for 
the possibility. A virus will not stop at State lines. Our efforts to 
prevent the spread of a devastating illness should be national in 
scope, as should be the funding to pay for it.
  I commend the Senator from Indiana for introducing the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? There are 3 minutes 45 
seconds remaining on the Democratic side.
  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I want to make two or three brief points in 
conclusion. The emergency supplemental contains funding for fatalities 
that might result from vaccination. But there is no funding 
specifically targeted to preventing those fatalities through screening. 
It seems to me this is an irony we should address and do address in 
this amendment--money for fatalities from vaccinations but not 
resources to prevent those fatalities.
  Secondly, as my colleagues pointed out, money is being literally 
taken away from working against the West Nile virus, against SARS, and 
against other potential causes of fatalities. We could leave America 
vulnerable to other sources of sickness and death if this amendment is 
not adopted.
  The goal here is to prevent fatalities abroad in our fighting men and 
women and here at home, directly or indirectly. Without the adoption of 
this amendment, fatalities will result either from smallpox or from 
other potential pathogens left wanting--West Nile, SARS, and others--
because resources are being taken away from those for inoculations 
against smallpox because the resources are not available. That is why 
there is a pressing case for adopting this amendment.
  I thank my colleagues for their support, and I urge its immediate 
adoption.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. You have 2 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. We will reserve our time.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I can yield to the Senator from 
Massachusetts or proceed now, at his request.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Is the Senator prepared to yield back, or is the Senator 
going to talk? I would like to respond.
  Mr. STEVENS. All right. I yield myself such time as I may use. I 
don't think I have a request from anybody else on this side.
  I compliment the Senator from Indiana on this amendment. The House 
has $94 million in a smallpox vaccine fund. I have a little conflict of 
interest here because I am one of the few Members of the Senate who has 
taken the smallpox vaccination again. I have had it many times in my 
life. Going back, as a 19-year-old, I first got it when I was admitted 
to the Army.
  There are some 4 million responders who could be vaccinated under 
this amendment, as I understand it. The figure that has been used by 
Senator Bayh is $85 per person. The current costs range somewhere from 
$20 to $284 a person, depending on who does the estimates. The 
administration's current estimate is that it would cost $13 per person 
to deal with 4 million responders. There are already funds allocated

[[Page 8295]]

to health departments, and I believe we should take this up in the 
regular bill when we go to the 2004 bill.
  I remind the Senate that this bill is for the period from now until 
September 30. We are not going to appropriate moneys beyond September 
30 unless, on a bipartisan basis, we find it is necessary. So far, it 
has not been necessary. There are other health needs, such as TB, West 
Nile virus, and HIV. Now we have this terrible situation coming out of 
China.
  There is no question that many people are interested in this subject, 
and I can state without any question that our leader, Dr. Frist--
Senator Frist--is very interested in that subject. So I merely state 
that I wish to discuss the amount of this amendment with the Senator 
from Indiana. I do not believe we should put up more money than is 
necessary for this fiscal year. We should process the moneys for beyond 
this fiscal year in the normal bill. I will be very pleased to discuss 
that with him.
  I have no request for Senators to speak on this side. I hope we will 
have a portion, at least, of Senator Bayh's amendment in this bill for 
fiscal year 2003, and I reserve a sufficient time to make a motion on 
or in relation to this amendment, if that is necessary. I hope it will 
not be necessary.
  I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time and listen to 
the Senator from Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute 40 seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have been briefed by the Department of 
Defense. The cost for the military is about $28 or $29. They have done 
a very effective program. The National Association of State and County 
Officials estimates it is $150 to $284. Senator Bayh is down to $85. 
There is zero in the bill at the present time.
  The first responders we are talking about are at the cutting edge of 
defending the country against a bioterror attack. I don't believe we 
ought to make the case in Washington, DC, when we have seen Americans 
die as a result of anthrax. If you are going to have an effective 
program, you are going to have to support local communities to be able 
to implement that program. That is what this amendment provides. It is 
a very modest amendment.
  The President of the United States says he wants, initially, 400,000 
immunized, and then he wants 10 million. There is zero money to 
accomplish that in the supplemental. We believe there is a sense of 
urgency and we ought to do it now. That is what the Bayh amendment 
does. That is why a very modest downpayment is called for in this 
amendment. I hope this will be accepted.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, for fiscal year 2004, this provides $3.7 
billion for biodefense, and $940 million is included for grants to 
States and local health departments. Those departments already have 
funds to implement a vaccination strategy. There is no need to add more 
money here for State and local health departments.
  I am willing to discuss the amounts necessary for the vaccine. Again, 
I reserve my right to reserve sufficient time that I might make a 
motion on or in relation to the amendment, if necessary, when the 
voting starts at 1:50.
  I yield back the remainder of whatever time I have. I believe the 
Senator from Florida is here to offer the next amendment, Mr. 
President.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, before the Senator from Florida takes the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. It is my understanding on this amendment there will be 30 
minutes--20 minutes to the Senator from Florida and 10 minutes to the 
Senator from Alaska; is that right? Does Senator Stevens want to look 
at the amendment first?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I agree to the time, but I have not seen 
the amendment.
  Mr. REID. We will withhold the request until the Senator reviews the 
amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. I do not think there will be a problem.
  Mr. REID. We can renew that request after Senator Stevens has had a 
chance to look at the amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. If the Senator is prepared to renew his request, I am 
prepared to agree.
  Mr. REID. I renew that request, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask that the vote on or in relation to the 
amendment offered by the Senator from Florida occur third in line; that 
is, Boxer, Bayh, and Graham.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. As per the other agreements, there will be no second-degree 
amendments in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Florida.


                           Amendment No. 459

  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. I call up amendment No. 459.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
set aside. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham], for himself, Mr. 
     Kerry, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Dayton, Mr. 
     Daschle, Mr. Johnson, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. 
     Bingaman, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Biden, Mr. Edwards, Mr. 
     Rockefeller, Mr. Akaka, and Mr. Nelson of Florida, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 459.

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

(Purpose: To appropriate an additional $375,000,000 for the Department 
  of Veterans Affairs for Medical Care for costs of medical care for 
           certain veterans of the current conflict in Iraq)

         At the appropriate place, insert the following:

                     DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

                     Veterans Health Administration

                              MEDICAL CARE

         For necessary expenses for the maintenance and operation 
     of hospitals, nursing homes, and domiciliary facilities; for 
     furnishing, as authorized by law, inpatient and outpatient 
     care and treatment to beneficiaries of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs, including care and treatment in facilities 
     not under the jurisdiction of the department; and for 
     furnishing recreational facilities, supplies, and equipment 
     incident to the provision of hospital care, medical services, 
     and nursing home care authorized by section 1710(e)(1)(D) of 
     title 38, United States Code, $375,000,000; Provided, That 
     such amount shall remain available until expended.

  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, on behalf of a large number of 
our colleagues--Senators Kerry, Mikulski, Murray, Dorgan, Dayton, 
Daschle, Johnson, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Bingaman, Clinton, Biden, 
Edwards, Rockefeller, Akaka, and my colleague Senator Nelson of 
Florida--I offer an amendment today to address the cost of providing 
health care to troops serving in the war in Iraq.
  This amendment would provide to the Veterans' Administration the 
additional funds it will require to meet the needs of returning service 
men and women.
  There is a history behind this amendment. Following the 1991 gulf 
war, returning servicemembers began to report unexplained illnesses and 
ailments that many linked to their service. Under the law that existed 
and controlled at that time, only those who had been granted a claim 
for a service-connected disability or demonstrated financial need could 
turn to the VA for health care services. The effect was to leave many 
of the returning veterans without medical coverage. Reservists were 
particularly vulnerable as they lost their military health care 
benefits shortly after returning. In 1998, Congress acted to ensure 
that no combat veteran endures such a delay again.
  This chart indicates the evolution of this process with the gaps that 
were identified after the first gulf war being filled by Public Law 
105-368 which assured that combat veterans are eligible for VA care for 
2 years after discharge or separation from active duty, and it also 
extended this coverage to include

[[Page 8296]]

reservists and National Guard personnel, so that today any 
servicemember who participates in a theater of combat is eligible for 
free VA health care for 2 years after separation or release from active 
duty.
  I emphasize, this is not discretionary. We are not talking about an 
item that we can decide to omit. These veterans have a congressionally 
sanctioned right, an entitlement to these VA health services.
  On March 19, 2003, the United States committed itself and our sons 
and daughters to a second gulf war, this time in the country of Iraq. 
The Senate supported this second war. Now the Senate must provide 
support for them. We owe it to them to make certain they have the 
proper equipment to win the war, and we also must take care of these 
men and women when they have completed their duty to our Nation.
  This is why I rise today to offer an amendment to provide to the 
Veterans' Administration $375 million in funding to provide for the 
care that we are obligated through the VA to make available to 
returning troops. This is a downpayment on the cost of paying for these 
returning servicemembers, a cost of war that has thus far been 
overlooked.
  The estimated cost of $375 million is based on the percentage of 
veterans who sought VA health care and benefits following the 1991 gulf 
war multiplied by the current VA average per patient cost of care.
  Briefly, to look at the math, in the 1991 gulf war, there were 
582,136 persons who were subsequently separated from the military. That 
represents 82 percent of the force that was committed in the first gulf 
war. Of that number, 166,717 were able to establish that they had a 
service-connected disability, or 29 percent of the total of now 
veteran, former combat personnel in the first gulf war. In addition to 
that, 287,848, or half of those veterans who were combat service 
personnel in the first gulf war, used the VA for outpatient health care 
services.
  We use these numbers times the $3,300 of estimated annual cost as the 
basis for the amendment we are offering. We assumed that the blend 
between those who had a service-connected disability and those who used 
the VA for nonservice disability would equal one-third of those who 
were deployed into the field. That would result in a number of 340,000 
troops who would be eligible, including reservists and National Guard, 
times $3,300, or $375 million to meet this mandate and obligation of 
the VA.
  No provision has been made for this responsibility of the VA in 
legislation today. Nearly one-third of the 582,000 veterans in the 
first gulf war have already been granted service-connected disability 
claims, and we can assume there will be a minimum of a similar number 
of veterans who will come from this second gulf war.
  I indicate to my colleagues that this is a downpayment because as 
additional service personnel, including reservists and National Guard, 
either by the end of their term or other voluntary action, are 
separated from service, they will become eligible for this 2 years of 
VA health care.
  There is an issue raised: Can the VA absorb this cost within its 
current budget? It has been stated that it could because on January 17, 
2003, the VA cut off the future enrollment into the VA Health Care 
System for moderate and higher income veterans. At that time, the VA 
cited rising costs, long waiting times, and focusing on core 
constituencies as the rationale for limiting services. There was no 
reference in January of 2003 that the Veterans Administration was doing 
this in order to prepare itself financially to meet the obligation it 
was going to have on returning troops.
  In a press release on January 17, Secretary of the VA Principi said:

       VA is maintaining its focus on the health care needs of its 
     core group of veterans, those with service-connected 
     disabilities, the indigent, and those with special health 
     care needs.

  Again, no reference to the new obligation the VA was going to have as 
a result of a war which was still almost 2 months prior to 
commencement.
  In the article in the Gainesville Sun on March 30, Secretary Principi 
tried to justify ending access to VA health care services for moderate 
and higher income veterans because of the war. He said at that time:

       It's very important at this time, when you've got men and 
     women in combat, that we assure we have the capability to 
     treat them, that we're not trying to care for everybody at 
     the expense of those who take a bullet.

  Some 10 weeks later, the rationale for the cutoff of moderate and 
high-income veterans was because of the war, whereas at the time it was 
done it was because the VA needed to be able to maintain its focus on 
its current responsibility.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Gainesville 
Sun article and the VA press release.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

      [Department of Veterans Affairs News Release, Jan. 17, 2003]

            VA Announces Record Budget, Health Care Changes

       Washington.--Secretary of Veterans Affairs Anthony J. 
     Principi today announced a record increase in the budget for 
     Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical care, the annual 
     decision required by law (PL 104-262) on health care 
     enrollment and a new plan between VA and the Department of 
     Health and Human Services for a program that will allow 
     eligible veterans to use their Medicare benefits for VA care.
       The President's FY 2004 Budget includes a total of $63.6 
     billion for VA--$30.2 billion in discretionary funding 
     (mostly for health care) and $33.4 billion for VA-
     administered entitlement programs (mostly disability 
     compensation and pensions). The budget includes $225 million 
     in new construction funding for VA's nationwide 
     infrastructure initiative (CARES) to ensure that VA can put 
     services where veterans live.
       ``VA is maintaining its focus on the health care needs of 
     its core group of veterans--those with service-connected 
     disabilities, the indigent and those with special health care 
     needs,'' Principi said.
       ``We're able to do so because of the generous budget 
     proposed by President Bush for fiscal year 2004 beginning 
     Oct. 1, 2003. It will be 7.7 percent more for health care 
     than the expected FY 2003 budget. This would be the largest 
     requested increase in VA history,'' he said.
       In order to ensure VA has capacity to care for veterans for 
     whom our Nation has the greatest obligation--military-related 
     disabilities, lower-income veterans or those needing 
     specialized care like veterans who are blind or have spinal 
     cord injuries--Principi has suspended additional enrollments 
     for veterans with the lowest statutory priority. This 
     category includes veterans who are not being compensated for 
     a military-related disability and who have higher incomes.
       The suspension of enrollment affects only veterans in 
     Priority Group 8, the lowest group in VA's eight-level system 
     for setting health care priorities, who have not enrolled in 
     VA's health care system by January 17. Priority Group 8 
     veterans already enrolled will be ``grandfathered'' and 
     allowed to continue in VA's health care system.
       Work is underway with the Department of Health and Human 
     Services to determine how to give Priority Group 8 veterans 
     aged 65 or older who cannot enroll in VA's health care system 
     access to the ``VA+Choice Medicare'' plan. The plan calls for 
     VA to participate as a Medicare+Choice provider. Eligible 
     veterans would be able to use their Medicare benefits to 
     obtain care from VA.
       In return, VA would receive payments from a private health 
     plan contracting with Medicare that would cover costs. The 
     ``VA+Choice Medicare'' plan would become effective later this 
     year as details are finalized between VA and the Department 
     of Health and Human Services.
       ``HHS is happy to join the Department of Veterans Affairs 
     in developing this new option for veterans who might 
     otherwise be unable to obtain health care through the VA,'' 
     said HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson. ``This is a creative 
     marriage of our federal health programs to serve our veterans 
     efficiently and effectively.''
       VA has been unable to provide all enrolled veterans with 
     timely access to health care services because of the 
     tremendous growth in the number of veterans seeking VA health 
     care. More than half of all new enrollees have been in 
     Priority Group 8. This demand for VA health care is expected 
     to continue in the future.
       Between October 2001 and September 2002, VA enrolled 
     830,000 additional veterans. Since 1996, VA enrollment has 
     increased from 2.9 million to 6.8 million today. Non-service 
     disabled, higher income veterans accounted for the majority 
     of the rapid enrollment growth, hindering the ability of VA 
     to care for the service-disabled, the indigent and those with 
     special needs. Even with the suspension of new enrollments 
     for Priority Group 8 veterans, another 380,000 veterans in

[[Page 8297]]

     Priority Groups 1 through 7 are projected to enroll by the 
     end of FY 2003.
       ``Last year, VA treated 1.4 million more veterans with 
     20,000 fewer employees than in 1996,'' said Principi. 
     ``Nonetheless, VA leads the nation in many important areas 
     like patient safety, computerized patient records, 
     telemedicine, rehabilitation and research. I not only want to 
     see this standard continue, I intend to see it get even 
     better.''
       Congress mandated in 1996 that VA established an enrollment 
     system to manage hospital and outpatient care within 
     budgetary limits and to provide quality care to those 
     enrolled. By law, the VA secretary must decide annually 
     whether to maintain enrollment for all veterans.
       ``With this record budget increase, I expect access to 
     medical facilities for severely disabled veterans to improve, 
     along with a reduction in waiting times for all veterans,'' 
     Principi said.
                                  ____


               [From the Gainesville Sun, Mar. 30, 2003]

         VA: Iraq War Veterans Will Need Care Denied to Others

       Washington.-- As the world watched U.S. soldiers hunker 
     down in sandstorms last week, Veterans Affairs Secretary 
     Anthony Principi saw respiratory problems in the making.
       Add lung damage from sand to the list of threats--including 
     bombs, bullets and possibly poison gas--that could haunt 
     soldiers now fighting in Iraq.
       When soldiers return, many are likely to seek treatment and 
     benefits from a strained VA system. Principi said recent 
     decisions to exclude some veterans from health care will help 
     his department cope.
       ``It's very important at this time, when you've got men and 
     women in combat, that we ensure we have the capability to 
     treat them, that we're not trying to care for everybody at 
     the expense of those who take a bullet,'' Principi said last 
     week.
       The VA excluded from health care this year hundreds of 
     thousands of higher income veterans who don't have service-
     connected disabilities. It also proposes new fees and higher 
     drug co-payments designed to force 1.25 million others out of 
     the system. Principi, who had argued the moves were intended 
     to end long waiting lists at VA hospitals and clinics, said 
     last week they also will make room for new combat veterans.
       He told House members in a hearing last week that 
     refocusing the VA's mission on low-income and combat veterans 
     is especially important now. The new spin on a series of 
     decisions that began in January tangles the politics of the 
     Iraq war with recent disputes about the administration's 
     treatment of veterans.
       ``If we have enough casualties that that's going to be the 
     rationale for withholding services, this is going to be a 
     hell of war,'' said Sen. Bob Graham, a presidential candidate 
     from Florida who is the ranking Democrat on the Senate 
     Veterans Affairs Committee. ``If there are, then there has 
     really been an underestimate of the degree of resistance.''
       Graham is a critic of Principi's plans to exclude veterans 
     and of the administration's predictions of a quick victory in 
     Iraq.
       The debate is timely. The VA needs to tally its cost of the 
     Iraq war. Tens of thousands of veterans of the 1991 Gulf War 
     joined the VA health care system and sought disability 
     benefits for everything from bullet wounds to chronic 
     backaches.
       Apart from Principi's proposals for rollbacks, that concern 
     isn't reflected in the president's 2004 budget. Nor, several 
     lawmakers complained, was it a factor in President Bush's 
     request for an initial $75 billion to cover war costs.
       If the 1991 Gulf War is any guide, the VA can expect 
     soldiers to seek care. Indeed, Congress in 1998 authorized 
     the VA to treat all combat veterans free for two years after 
     they leave active duty. That alone could prompt waves of new 
     patients as active military, reservists and members of the 
     National Guard return home..
       The possibility that Saddam Hussein might use weapons of 
     mass destruction has many people hedging their predictions.
       ``We don't know yet whether there's going to be chemical or 
     biological warfare,'' said Rep. Cliff Stearns, a Florida 
     Republican on the House Veterans Affairs Committee.
       The VA so far has granted disability claims to about 
     164,000 of the 581,000 troops who fought in the first Persian 
     Gulf War and have since left the services, or nearly 30 
     percent. About 250,000 Gulf War veterans received treatment 
     at VA hospitals last year, part of an upward trend in which 
     10,000 to 20,000 more Persian Gulf veterans sought health 
     care each year since 1993, according to VA data.
       The force deployed to Iraq is smaller this time--about 
     250,000 with more on the way compared to 700,000 in 1991--but 
     many lawmakers believe the impact on the VA could be 
     significant.
       Taxpayers for Common Sense, a budget watchdog group, 
     estimated the war could require $5 billion to $20 billion in 
     VA benefits and health care during the next 10 years. The 
     wide range is based on the last Gulf War's aftermath but 
     reflects the current uncertainties.
       Bush's 2004 budget includes a $2.1 billion increase for VA 
     health care, which is intended to deal with existing 
     shortcomings. Principi said the Iraq war will bring 
     additional costs as soldiers require care for physical and 
     psychological wounds.

  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, there is no linkage between the 
January action of cutting off veterans from enrolling in VA health care 
services and the costs which the VA is legally obligated to assume for 
service personnel who will be returning from the second gulf war. We 
gave the VA the duty to care for service members after numerous troops 
returned from the first gulf war. This duty stretches not only to 
injuries in combat but also those who suffered mysterious illnesses, 
the cause of which, in many instances, still remains undetermined.
  The cost of this war will not end with the war itself and will not be 
confined to the borders of Iraq. Veterans will continue to pay those 
costs for years to come. We must be prepared for thus far neglected 
costs of war by assuring the VA will be prepared when the newly created 
veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom seek their health care. It is our 
responsibility to assure the VA has adequate resources to fulfill this 
promise. It is a promise which we, the Congress, made to our 
servicemen. The Senate, in 1998, unanimously passed the statutory right 
of veterans to have VA health care for 2 years after they separated 
from service for those veterans who were actually in combat in this and 
possibly future engagements.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort to see our veterans 
are provided the care they are currently earning by their service.
  I seek unanimous consent to have printed in the Record several 
letters in support of my amendment from the American Legion, from 
Disabled American Veterans and Paralyzed Veterans of America, 
organizations which, together, represent more than 2 million Americans.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                          The American Legion,

                                    Washington, DC, April 1, 2003.
     Hon. Bob Graham,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, U.S. Senate, 
         Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Graham: On behalf of the 2.8 million members 
     of The American Legion, I would like to express full support 
     for your amendment to provide $375 million to the Department 
     of Veterans Affairs (VA) in the Wartime Supplemental bill.
       The current conflict with Iraq will regrettably create a 
     new generation of service-connected disabled veterans. Due to 
     the experiences from the first Gulf War, President Clinton 
     enacted of Public Law 105-368, the Veterans Programs 
     Enhancement Act of 1998, which extended essential health care 
     benefits for service members returning from combat duty. This 
     law provides a two-year window for recently-separated, 
     combat-veterans timely access to VA's quality health care.
       Currently, VA is struggling to provide services for the 
     current veterans' population and this supplemental funding 
     will be essential to anticipate the needs of returning 
     service members from Operation Iraqi Freedom. While this 
     Nation gives its full support to the war fighters, it must 
     equally match its support for those returning from war. The 
     American Legion urges you and your colleagues to provide the 
     necessary funding to meet the health care needs and benefits 
     for veterans--past, present, and future.
       The American Legion supports and applauds your efforts and 
     your continued support of the men and women who serve and 
     have served in uniform.
           Sincerely,

                                              Steve Robertson,

                                                         Director,
     National Legislative Commission.
                                  ____



                                   Disabled American Veterans,

                                    Washington, DC, April 3, 2003.
     Hon. Bob Graham,
     Ranking Minority Member, Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, 
         Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Graham: I would like to thank you for your 
     proposed amendment to the Fiscal Year 2003 Supplemental 
     Appropriations Bill that would increase Department of 
     Veterans Affairs (VA) health care funding by $375 million.
       As you know, sick and disabled veterans suffer because of 
     insufficient funding in VA health care. This amendment would 
     ensure that the government is capable of meeting the needs of 
     not only veterans currently using the system, but also those 
     returning from Iraq and the global War on Terror.

[[Page 8298]]

       The Disabled American Veterans fully supports this effort. 
     Thank you for your advocacy on behalf of our nation's sick 
     and disabled veterans.
           Sincerely,
                                              Edward R. Heath, Sr.
     National Commander.
                                  ____



                                Paralyzed Veterans of America,

                                    Washington, DC, April 3, 2003.
     Hon. Bob Graham,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, U.S. Senate, 
         Hart Senate Office Building, Washington DC.
       Dear Senator Graham: On behalf of the members of Paralyzed 
     Veterans of America I would like to express our strong 
     support for your amendment to provide $375 million in funding 
     for the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) health care 
     system in the Wartime Supplemental Appropriations bill.
       In approving legislation, now Public Law 105-368, the 
     Congress extended essential health care benefits for service 
     members returning from combat duty after the first Gulf War. 
     This law provided access to VA health care for newly 
     separated combat veterans for a two-year period following 
     their return to civilian life. The Department of Veterans 
     Affairs must be prepared and Adequately funded to meet the 
     challenges placed upon it by a new generation of returning 
     veterans as well as, undoubtedly, health care demand from 
     increasing numbers of veterans with service-connected 
     disabilities sustained as a result of this new war in Iraq.
       Thank you for your continuing care and concern for those 
     who serve and have served in defense of this Nation.
           Sincerely,
                                                Richard B. Fuller,
                                    National Legislative Director.

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. I yield.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I join my colleague from Florida in supporting 
his amendment. The Senator clearly has examples all over the country 
but we, especially, have examples in our State of Florida of backlogs 
of 6 months before a veteran can get an appointment. One of the clinics 
has enrollment backlogs of up to 2 years just to get in the system. 
There are 44,000 veterans in Florida who are backlogged, waiting 6 
months for appointments. Nationwide, there are 230,000 veterans waiting 
to get an appointment and have to wait 6 months. That is 
unconscionable.
  Then, the administration, in trying to deal with the shortage of 
money, has denied enrollment of what is called category 8 veterans 
which are not service connected and have an income of over $24,000 a 
year. They cannot even get into the system. Nationwide, that is 360,000 
veterans.
  I think my colleague from Florida has made the case most pointedly 
and I certainly will support the distinguished senior Senator from 
Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I express my appreciation for 
the comments by my good friend and colleague, Senator Nelson. What the 
VA seems to want to do is to use the money saved by denying services to 
hundreds of thousands of veterans. They want to use it twice.
  In January, the rationale was they could not meet their core 
responsibilities, for instance, for veterans who had a service-
connected disability. In March, they want to use the same $375 million 
to pay for the veterans who will be coming out of the gulf war and 
will, by statute enacted by this Congress in 1998, be eligible, be 
guaranteed, access for 2 years to VA health care services.
  They cannot have it both ways. The responsible thing to do is to 
recognize this as a cost of war. But for the fact we have men and 
women, including reservists and National Guard personnel at risk in 
combat, we would not be talking about an additional $375 million. 
However, the fact is, they are in combat and they at some point, like 
the 82 percent from the first gulf war, will be separated from the 
service and therefore become eligible.
  We also have this issue of the large number of veterans who are 
otherwise eligible because of their previous service for VA benefits 
who have been cut off. We need to deal with both of these problems. At 
least by adopting this amendment we will deal with the most current 
issue which are the combat veterans from the war which is currently 
underway.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this amendment would provide an 
additional $375 million for VA medical care to address the medical 
needs of returning veterans from the war in Iraq.
  This funding would be used to meet the funding requirements of the 
Veterans Programs Enhancement Act of 1998 which entitles, for 2 years 
following participation in combat, that any active duty service member 
is immediately eligible to receive VA health care upon release or 
separation from service.
  These funds will be needed at some point in the future but this 
amendment does not meet the requirements of this supplemental as 
funding that is needed immediately to address concerns related to 
homeland security or the war in Iraq.
  And while I agree with my colleagues that VA medical care is not 
meeting the medical needs of veterans in a timely manner and there is 
much to be improved, the problem is as much systemic as it is funding. 
However, this funding is not needed now on the heels of the fiscal year 
2003 Omnibus Appropriations bill in which we appropriated some $23.9 
billion for VA medical care. This funding level was an increase of some 
$2.6 billion over the fiscal year 2003 level and $1.15 billion over the 
fiscal year 2003 Budget Request. The VA medical system has all the 
funds that it can absorb this year and will be able to meet the medical 
needs of any returning veterans from the war in Iraq.
  We will need additional funding for VA medical care in the future but 
that is the job of the fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005 
appropriations bills.
  I also do not want to leave my colleagues with the false impression 
that VA medical care is broken. Yes, there are problems with patient 
backlog, but I can assure you that Secretary Principi has made a 
commitment to fix VA medical care and has made significant strides in 
addressing veteran concerns, reducing patient backlog and improving VA 
medical care.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Graham 
amendment to increase funding for VA medical care.
  I am proud to cosponsor the Graham amendment. Our men and women in 
uniform have my steadfast support. We must support the brave men and 
women who are fighting for our country. Our troops need to know that 
America is with them, and we owe them a debt of gratitude. We need to 
remember our troops in the Federal checkbook.
  That is why I am proud to cosponsor the Graham amendment. The 
amendment is simple and straightforward. It would provide $375 million 
more for VA medical care, so that when our troops return from war, the 
VA can give them the medical care they deserve.
  Under a law we passed after the Persian Gulf War, the VA must give 
priority to returning troops for immediate medical care. But the VA 
medical care system is strained. Nationally, there are 236,000 veterans 
waiting longer than 6 months to get their first appointment with a VA 
doctor. In January, the VA health care system stopped accepting 
Priority 8 veterans. These are veterans who are not service disabled, 
and whose income is higher than about $29,000 per year.
  Our veterans didn't stand in waiting lines when they were called up 
or they volunteered to serve our country. So they shouldn't have to 
stand in line or pay toll charges to get the medical care they deserve.
  As the ranking member on the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, my 
guiding principle for the VA budget is that we keep the promises we 
made to our veterans. In the last four years, the VA-HUD Subcommittee 
has provided large increases for medical care, including $1.7 billion 
in 2000, $1.3 billion in 2001, $1 billion in 2002, and $2.4 billion in 
2003. We provided these increases because we know that the failure of 
private health insurance companies and high prescription drug costs are 
really straining our veterans on fixed incomes. At the same time, our 
veterans population is growing and getting older. Today, the VA treats 
2 million more veterans than in 1996
  I am very concerned that the administration's VA budget for next year 
does not keep promises to our veterans, and will not support the needs 
of our troops. The VA's budget puts new toll charges and means tests on 
our veterans. Specifically, the budget proposes

[[Page 8299]]

four things. First, the budget proposes to keep the VA closed to 
Priority 8 veterans. Second, the budget proposes a new $250 entrance 
fee for veterans. Third, the budget proposes to increase outpatient 
primary care copayments from $15 to $20. Fourth, the budget proposes to 
increase prescription drug copayments from $7 to $15.
  I raised my concerns about these proposals with Secretary Principi 
during the VA-HUD Subcommittee budget hearing last month. We have great 
respect for Secretary Principi. He is a Vietnam Veteran who continues 
to serve his country. Now he's battling OMB against a skimpy and 
spartan budget. But I am concerned that the budget OMB gave VA this 
year leaves the VA foraging for funding. It will leave our troops 
without access to the medical care they deserve.
  I urge my colleagues to support our troops and our veterans in the 
Federal checkbook by supporting the Graham amendment.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the full attention of the Senate is 
focused today on legislation to fund our ongoing military campaign in 
Iraq. The newspapers this morning were focused on our latest military 
feats, including the apparent destruction of two important Republican 
Guard divisions and advances that leave us very near the outskirts of 
Baghdad.
  Senator Bob Graham, the ranking member of our Veterans' Affairs 
Committee, has asked us to look ahead and begin planning for the future 
to ensure that our veterans receive the counseling, health care, and 
other services we know they will need after the last battles are 
fought.
  The Graham amendment, of which I am a proud cosponsor, would provide 
$375 million to the Department of Veterans Affairs so the VA can 
provide adequate care for returning troops.
  I cannot stress enough how vital this amendment is.
  During my career, I have been involved in dealing with the aftermath 
of two major wars, Vietnam and Operation Desert Storm. In both cases, 
there was enormous confusion, frustration, and pain--much of it 
unnecessary, in my view--because our government assumed that veterans 
would come back and pick up their lives where they left off before the 
war.
  It didn't work that way, and it probably never will. I learned this 
the hard way, from talking to hundreds of veterans about post-traumatic 
stress disorder, Agent Orange, readjustment counseling, and Gulf War 
illnesses. A fascinating literature review, published in 1996, found 
that war syndromes, many of them poorly understood, have been 
associated with armed conflicts at least since the Civil War.
  Today's amendment would prepare us to assist veterans from day 1, 
hopefully allowing us to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. It 
is not the complete answer, but it begins to move us in the right 
direction, by adjusting VA funding levels to reflect the number of 
veterans who will be returning from Iraq.
  The funding level in this amendment has a very logical basis. We know 
that about one-third of veterans from the 1991 Gulf War have been 
granted service-connected disability claims, which makes them eligible 
for VA health care. We can expect, at a minimum, a similar number of 
veterans to turn to the VA after the conflict. The number may well be 
even higher than in 1991, since our troops so far are experiencing more 
ground combat and higher casualties than in Operation Desert Storm. So 
if one-third of our returning troops seek VA compensation or health 
care, we can multiply that figure by the VA's average per-patient cost 
and arrive at an approximate dollar figure: $375 million, the amount 
requested in this amendment.
  Remarkably, the Administration claims the VA already has sufficient 
resources to accommodate returning veterans. To that surprising claim, 
I would respond that the VA's wait list in the upper Midwest now forces 
23,000 veterans to wait at least 6 months for health treatment. For 
next year, the Administration has told us that it needs to charge 
veterans $250 million in new fees and higher copayments, not to raise 
money, but to drive away 1.2 million veterans from VA hospitals and 
clinics. Everyone except the White House is using the word ``crisis'' 
to describe the current state of affairs at the VA.
  Senator Graham has a recent newspaper article from Florida, in which 
VA Secretary Anthony Principi reportedly claims that the VA can take 
care of returning troops because it blocked access to VA health care 
for thousands of middle-income veterans. But in January, when the 
regrettable eligibility decision was announced, the Secretary said this 
move was necessary just to begin working down the atrocious backlogs at 
VA hospitals and clinics.
  Sadly, this is all just another chapter of an old story with this 
administration. When it comes to the VA, their budget claims long ago 
ceased to be credible. The ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee, Senator Graham, deserves our thanks for stepping into the 
leadership void and proposing a constructive solution.
  We are all proud of the spirit, valor, and selflessness exhibited by 
our troops. Now is the time to show our understanding, our recognition, 
of the personal cost associated with wartime service. I urge all 
senators to join this effort to prepare the VA to meet the needs of 
these men and women after they return home.
  Mr. STEVENS. What is the time situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida has 4 minutes and the 
Senator from Alaska has 10 minutes.
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I do not believe there are any 
Senators requesting to speak under my time, so I reserve my time for 
final remarks until Senator Stevens has completed his comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have to agree with my colleague from 
Florida that additional funds will be needed in the VA medical care 
account in the future. That, again, is a job for the 2004/2005 bill. 
Those people are coming out of the service and are cared for a period 
of time after they leave the service and the VA picks them up at the 
end of that time. This $365 million is strictly for the medical needs 
of returning veterans from the war in Iraq.
  I remind the Senate we appropriated $23.9 billion for VA medical care 
for fiscal year 2003. That was $2.6 billion over the amount made 
available in 2002 and $1.50 billion more than the President request. 
The VA medical system was adjusted for what we believe will be the 
demands on the VA for returning veterans during the period of this 
fiscal year.
  Again, there is no question there will be additional funds to meet 
medical needs of returning veterans and they will be defined, I am 
sure, as we get into the fiscal year 2004 bill.
  I do know that there are some problems in the VA, but they are not in 
funding. They are systemic problems that need to be addressed. I have 
every confidence in the current Secretary of the Veterans' 
Administration, Secretary Principi. He has visited with me personally. 
As a matter of fact, he worked here in the Senate. We know him well. He 
was a staff member to the Senate committee. I do believe he is sincere 
in telling us these funds are not needed at this juncture.
  The funds that may be needed in the future must be addressed on the 
basis of the needs as the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan and 
the war on terrorism proceed.
  I state categorically to the Senate I do not oppose additional funds 
to meet the medical needs for returning veterans. I will oppose putting 
them up now. Only 3 months ago we gave the VA $2.6 billion more than 
they asked.
  The situation is a difficult one. When the Senator finishes his 
statement, I intend to move to table his amendment because it is not 
our proper process now to deal with returning veterans' needs from the 
VA that might exceed funds already available for fiscal year 2003.
  I hope to work with the Senator from Florida. I assure him, 
obviously, there are many of us here on the floor of the Senate who are 
veterans. We would not

[[Page 8300]]

in any way take action to deny the funds that are necessary to meet 
their needs, particularly these gallant people who are over there now.
  No one on the floor of the Senate yet has mentioned the stories on 
the front pages of all papers in America today about the gallant young 
lady who fought the fight in Iraq, almost to her own death, and after 
the death of several of her colleagues. She was trained as a supply 
clerk. She is one of the veterans, now, that will have needs. I assure 
the Senate we are going to see those needs are met. Jessica Lynch is an 
example for all Americans, and particularly for young women. I have had 
several comments about her gallantry and we are all inspired by her 
gallantry. But the subject now is what is her need?
  There is available, for this fiscal year, the balance of the $23.9 
billion that this Department already has. When the time comes, I am 
confident that Secretary Principi will request additional funds for 
fiscal year 2004 as they are defined, but let's not precede that. Let's 
not put additional money up.
  This will be money for 2003. I state categorically there is no 
evidence any additional money is needed in fiscal year 2003 for the 
Veterans' Administration.
  As soon as the Senator has completed using his time, I will make a 
motion to table his amendment, regretfully.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, it seems the issue now is not 
whether we are going to meet this responsibility which we have taken on 
ourselves by a vote of this Senate and the House of Representatives to 
provide to returning combat veterans, men and women who actually were 
under fire, a 2-year period of access to the Veterans' Administration 
health care services. The issue seems to be when we should make this 
commitment. My answer to that question would be: Now.
  The fact is, unless this war goes on much longer than the 
administration or any American prays that it will, there will be 
returning veterans, particularly reservists who, as soon as they 
complete their period of active duty, are going to be eligible for 
these health care costs. I hope we are not taking the position that 
this war is going to drag on so long that no reservist, no National 
Guard member will be eligible for these benefits prior to September 30 
of this year.
  There also will be regular duty combat soldiers who will be 
separating from service and therefore become eligible.
  I believe, if we are concerned about the morale of our service men 
and women and wish to show American support for their gallant service, 
there is no better way to do it than to indicate that we are fully 
committed to meet our responsibilities to those men and women when they 
return home.
  The issue is, is there enough money in the VA budget to accept this 
new responsibility? The VA, just 2 months ago, terminated the 
eligibility of several hundred thousand veterans because of the 
financial pressures that they were under at that time. The increase in 
the veterans budget, which is applauded, essentially represents the 
cost of medical inflation from one year to the next. There are no 
significant real dollar additional resources for the VA to carry this 
new responsibility.
  I urge the Senate not table this amendment but, rather, to 
enthusiastically endorse it as a tangible statement of our commitment 
to the men and women of America who are, today, putting their lives at 
risk in order to achieve Iraqi freedom.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Talent.) Who yields time? The Senator from 
Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I now move to table the amendment of the 
Senator from Florida. I ask unanimous consent that it be set aside to 
occur in the sequence that beings at 10 minutes of 2.
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on 
the motion to table.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am not prepared to agree to the yeas and nays at this 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair needs to inform the Senator from 
Alaska the motion to table is not in order because time remains to the 
Senator from Florida.
  Mr. STEVENS. I apologize. I thought the Senator used his time.
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. The Senator from Alaska is correct. I have 
used my time and am prepared to yield it back. Let me make a 
parliamentary inquiry. The Senator from Alaska is now requesting a 
motion to table my amendment, which will be voted on later today. I 
want to be clear I am not foregoing my right to ask that there be a 
recorded rollcall vote on that motion to table.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have no intention to deny that. I may 
wish to ask the Senator to modify his amendment at a later date, so I 
would like to not get the yeas and nays yet, but I will agree to them 
when the time comes, if necessary.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has not lost the right to request 
the yeas and nays.
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator. I do make the motion to table and 
reserve the right to decide what to do.
  Under our understanding, we will have Senators from our side of the 
aisle offer amendments now. I see the Senator from Nevada here. He has 
an amendment.
  Before that, if he doesn't mind, I ask unanimous consent that we 
return to the amendment of Senator Bayh and have it put before the 
Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Amendment No. 474, As Modified

  Mr. STEVENS. I send to the desk a modification of that amendment on 
behalf of Senator Bayh and his cosponsors and myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
  The amendment (No. 474), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 38, after line 24 add the following:


         smallpox and other bioterrorism inoculation activities

       For additional expenses necessary to support grants to 
     States for smallpox and other bioterrorism inoculation 
     activities, $105,000,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2004: Provided, That this amount is transferred to the 
     Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

  Mr. STEVENS. The amendment has now been modified according to the 
submission I made?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. STEVENS. I now urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 474), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada has an amendment, 
and I know he is willing to accept a short time agreement. But I would 
ask him to offer it, have it read, and then we will see how much time 
may be required.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 488

   (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds in a manner that benefits 
citizens or businesses of France and Germany unless physically located 
                         in the United States)

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 488.

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

[[Page 8301]]


  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, has it been read? Was the amendment read 
in full?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator asked consent to have the reading 
of the amendment called off.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will read the 
amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       At an appropriate place insert the following:
       Sec  . (a) No funds made available in this Act for purposes 
     of reconstruction in Iraq may be provided, to a person who is 
     a citizen of or is organized under the laws of France or 
     Germany, unless such person is a resident of or organized 
     under the laws of the United States.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there be 30 
minutes on each side for this amendment. I do not know how much time 
Senators might request, but I have been informed there may be several 
Senators who wish to discuss the matter, and 30 minutes on a side would 
be sufficient.
  Does the Senator from Nevada wish to be recognized?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to the manager of the bill, I am going 
to talk to Senator Biden. He has called the cloakroom. I will see how 
he feels about this. He is at a Foreign Relations matter.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I withdraw the request for the unanimous 
consent, but I do believe there is going to be substantial need for 
time on this one.
  I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I have a very simple amendment.
  As we have seen leading up to this time of war, the United States and 
our President attempted many diplomatic means to try to make us not go 
to war. And many people, including myself, feel those diplomatic means 
were thwarted by some of our traditionally closest allies. And what I 
mean by thwarted is that the stronger of a hand our President would 
have had in the negotiations, I believe the better chance we would have 
had of not going to war.
  Gerhard Schroeder, in his election bid, I believe, shamelessly used 
some anti-American sentiments to narrowly gain his reelection. Now, 
that may have been a shrewd political move for him to make, but it was 
certainly not statesmanlike. He started many in the world against the 
United States in this diplomatic effort that we were engaged in in 
trying to avoid war with Iraq by getting them to disarm.
  After Germany started leading this battle, France joined the battle 
and has taken it to a new level, much to the dismay of, I believe, most 
Americans.
  We now are engaged in a conflict to change the regime in Iraq. That 
regime, by all accounts, is a brutal regime and needs to be changed. 
And we need to disarm that country from weapons of mass destruction, 
which, as Americans--and I think the rest of the world looking on--we 
can see what a fabulous job our military is doing in accomplishing 
their mission.
  My amendment today says when the conflict is over and we are going to 
rebuild Iraq, American taxpayer dollars are not to go, in the 
rebuilding of Iraq, to French or German companies, to French or German 
citizens, because of what their governments did in opposing the United 
States actively. It was not just that they voted against us at the 
United Nations. They led--especially France led--the world against the 
United States and, I believe, because of that, made it more difficult 
in Turkey. If we could have had our ground troops available in Turkey, 
we could end this war much sooner than when it will be ended.
  So this amendment says American tax dollars, in the rebuilding of 
Iraq, are basically refused from going to any companies and/or citizens 
from the countries of France or Germany.
  Now, if a company from France actually has a subsidiary in the United 
States that employs people, our amendment allows that company, that 
subsidiary to bid on the contracts. But in no case can the company that 
is located in France or located in Germany bid on these contracts and 
win the contracts from the United States.
  Now, in the future, if the United Nations and other countries decide 
to put together a coalition and fund that coalition with international 
dollars or their own dollars, our President, the State Department, and 
everybody else in the United Nations concerned can give the contracts 
to whomever they want. But I believe, as an American--and I believe the 
American people would support this amendment--I believe it would be 
wrong to have our tax dollars going to companies and individuals within 
France and within Germany because I believe their behavior leading up 
to this was really quite despicable.
  So, Mr. President, I offer this amendment to the Senate today. I hope 
it is supported widely across this body. I believe it is the right 
thing to do. I believe it will send a strong message in the future that 
when countries are trying to do the right thing, and rid the world of a 
brutal dictator, they should be supported, and you should not expect a 
reward afterward, as we are seeing countries now around the world 
trying to jump on board as the war looks like it is going well. We 
should not reward those countries who, in the first place, had opposed 
us.
  So, Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and look 
forward to hearing other Senators speak on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose this amendment. I 
very much respect the distinguished Senator from Nevada. However, I 
think this amendment is enormously destructive. If America is going to 
become an arrogant nation, do things only our way, this is a good way 
to begin. I believe it would be a tragic and a terrible mistake.
  The amendment is couched in such words that no one would know exactly 
what it means. It reads:

       No funds made available in this Act for purposes of 
     reconstruction in Iraq may be provided, to a person who is a 
     citizen of or is organized under the laws of France or 
     Germany, unless such person is a resident of or organized 
     under the laws of the United States.

  Just to know how this would affect an employee of a given company, an 
officer of a given company, or anyone else, I think creates a whole 
miasma of very real problems. I think to use the word ``despicable'' 
perhaps is hyperbole. I think there is a legitimate point of difference 
between European nations and the United States with respect to how to 
handle Iraq. Culturally there are differences. Diplomatically there are 
differences. But to pass a piece of legislation that puts America's No. 
1 allies in a position of being an absolute enemy of this country, I 
think is a terrible thing to do. I would hope we would vote down this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham of South Carolina). The Senator 
from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I believe we will have relationships with 
France and Germany. We have had many good relationships with both of 
those countries in the past. I believe we need to have good relations 
with both of them in the future. But I just think it would be patently 
wrong for us to use money from this supplemental bill we are doing 
today in providing for the rebuilding of Iraq, it would be absolutely 
wrong to use that money for countries that actively tried to get the 
rest of the world to oppose us in doing what the United States believed 
was right in the world: To disarm a brutal dictator, to rid his own 
country of weapons of mass destruction which he has used against his 
neighbors. When a country stands up and tries to do what is right--not 
in an arrogant sort of a way but in a way in which it is trying to do 
something that is right--its closest allies should not lead some of the 
world opinion against it.
  The United States during World War II was the leader with our allies 
in getting rid of a brutal dictator back then. Today the United States 
is attempting to do the same thing. Some countries tried to appease 
Adolf Hitler during

[[Page 8302]]

World War II. We were hearing up until this a lot of the same 
arguments, especially from the French, about Saddam Hussein. Well, we 
will just deal with him. We could just appease him, just keep him going 
along.
  I believe brutal dictators understand force. They understand 
countries that will stand up to them. The more you try to appease them, 
the more it emboldens them. I believe that is what France was trying to 
lead the rest of the world to do, to make Saddam Hussein more dangerous 
in the future.
  President Bush is leading a coalition to disarm Saddam Hussein and to 
disarm him from weapons of mass destruction. It is the right thing to 
do. When we are done with it, when we rebuild that country, liberating 
the Iraqi people is going to take some reconstruction. It always has to 
happen. A beautiful thing about the United States is, we don't just go 
over, liberate people, and then walk away. We actually believe there is 
a responsibility. We want to help rebuild that country. But I think it 
would be absolutely wrong for American tax dollars to go to countries 
and companies in those countries that have tried to turn the world 
against us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to respond. The fact is, there 
are dozens of countries in this world that disagreed with what the 
United States is doing. I am one who voted to authorize the President 
with the use of force. Most of the larger countries in the world 
disagree.
  Additionally, the French and the Germans, in many ways in the war 
against terror, have been helpful to the United States. Those of us who 
serve on the Intelligence Committee know this. We know that 
intelligence comes from both of those nations which is instrumental in 
helping in the war on terror.
  The unilateral approach of this country is subject to some concern by 
other countries. That is not necessarily a bad thing. This is the first 
time in America's history we have unilaterally, with Great Britain, 
with the help of a couple thousand Australians, and with some tacit 
support of other countries in different ways, some public, some not 
public, essentially invaded another sovereign nation. There is a 
difference of opinion as to whether we should have stayed at the United 
Nations. I happen to share that view. I believe we should have worked 
to have made this more multilateral. I believe we should have taken the 
time to do so. But we chose not to do that. The administration chose 
not to do it.
  For the Senate to pass this amendment--you might as well include a 
whole host of other countries in this--sets us upon a very bad course 
of action. I would think we would want everyone's help in the 
rebuilding of Iraq. I would think we would want everyone's help in the 
establishment of a secure and stable and open and free and, perhaps one 
day, democratic, new Iraqi government. To place two of America's 
staunchest allies, France and Germany, that have shown their solidarity 
with us over the years from the time--certainly the French from the 
time our country was founded, the Germans certainly subsequent to World 
War II, and not to understand that there are strong antiwar feelings in 
both of these countries is shortsighted.
  What this Senate should try to do is bring people together, bring our 
allies together, to reduce America's unilateral courses in the world, 
to work with our friends. This does not help.
  I hope there will be an overwhelming vote against this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, the bill actually reflects sort of the 
sentiments we are talking about here today, but it is only a sense of 
the Senate. We actually want to put it in legislative language. Section 
506, page 35 says:

       It is the sense of the Senate that, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, contracts (including subcontracts) and grants 
     for relief and reconstruction in Iraq from funds appropriated 
     under this chapter should be awarded to United States 
     companies (particularly small and medium sized businesses) 
     and organizations, to companies and organizations located in 
     the Near East region, and to those from countries which have 
     provided assistance to Operation Iraqi Freedom.

  Our amendment narrows it. It was said there are countries that have 
been opposing America around the world, not just France and Germany. I 
agree. But it is France and Germany that have been leading the fight. 
That is the reason we targeted those two countries. In World War II, 
European security was threatened. America came to the rescue. In 
Kosovo, European security was threatened. America came to the rescue. 
With Iraq, American security is threatened and Germany and France are 
AWOL. It would be entirely inappropriate for the money from an 
emergency supplemental bill to pay for the war and pay for 
reconstruction of Iraq, for those moneys to go to countries that have 
attempted to lead the world against us in protecting our own security, 
in liberating the Iraqi people, and in ridding the Middle East of one 
of the most brutal dictators it has ever seen.
  It is highly appropriate to have this amendment. I hope we have a 
very strong vote from this body that shows the American people when 
countries come against us, we are not going to reward them. We will not 
reward them by giving them money to help rebuild something.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have spoken to the ranking member of the 
Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Biden, and he is unable to be here 
right now. He will be here in the next 15 minutes or thereabout. He 
indicated he would take a relatively short period of time. He may have 
an amendment to offer and he can discuss that with the sponsor of the 
bill when he arrives. So we will stay on this amendment until Senator 
Biden arrives.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to make a couple of 
points on this amendment. I ask the distinguished Senator two 
questions. The first is, is he aware that Germany has allowed over 
60,000 U.S. troops to pass through U.S. Air Force bases in Germany--all 
troops bound for Iraq? Is he aware that the Germans have helped in many 
ways?
  Second, is he aware that there are already contracts out from our 
Department of Defense with firms that would be nullified under this 
bill? Also, I would like to ask the question, if he does know, to what 
extent would those contracts be nullified by this legislation?
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I am very aware of the role that Germany 
is playing there. We defended Germany, with those bases, from the 
Soviet threat during the entire cold war. It is the reason that Germany 
hasn't had to spend hardly any money on their national defense--because 
America has been providing that umbrella of defense, and now we are 
using those bases, obviously, with their permission.
  That is something we appreciate, but it doesn't take away the fact of 
the role they played in trying to turn world opinion against the United 
States. I still think it is inappropriate to have these funds going 
toward these other countries. If this nullifies those other contracts, 
as far as I am concerned, the purse strings are controlled by the U.S. 
House and the U.S. Senate. That is under the Constitution. We should be 
able to at least direct--when we feel strongly--where some of those 
funds could go. I think it would be highly inappropriate for those 
funds to be going toward companies and persons from Germany and from 
France.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, if I might, I would like to read an 
editorial that was published in the Los Angeles Times. I think it is 
pertinent. It was published on the 30th of last month, a few days ago. 
It is entitled, ``Move Past the Grudges.''

       The United States should act to review tattered alliances 
     that will be needed in the fight against terrorism.

  It goes on to point out:

       Blair visited Bush at Camp David last week and readily 
     acknowledged the bruises left by the rancorous United Nations 
     debate before the war. When Bush was asked about the many 
     nations that declined to join the Iraq war alliance, he 
     replied only that the

[[Page 8303]]

     United States and Britain had plenty of Western allies that 
     continue to stand with us. Blair, however, frankly conceded 
     that many countries disagree with what we are doing. How that 
     divide is handled now and after the war will affect global 
     relationships for years to come.

  Mr. President, I could not agree more. I don't know why we have any 
need to be small, to be rancorous, and to be bitter. Right now, we have 
our men and women in harm's way, and the battle is turning and it is 
favoring our side. The hope should be that we can put this conflict to 
an end, that we can mend the wounds, that we can rebuild the country, 
that we can show to the entire Muslim/Arab world that America is indeed 
an open, fair, democratic country, and we care about the Muslim people.
  I don't believe any purpose is served by this amendment. I don't 
believe the world is going to be a better place because we pass this 
amendment. I don't believe we are going to be able to restore or bind 
any wounds with this amendment. I believe we will drive deeper the 
scars into the psyche of America with this amendment. I believe we will 
spread apart our alliances with this kind of amendment. I hope this 
amendment is not a harbinger of things to come on the floor of the U.S. 
Senate because I believe it does disrespect to a strong, able, 
competent, and compassionate United States of America. I urge its 
defeat.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. It has been asked, What should the United States do to 
repair our relationship with France? My question is, What should France 
do to repair its relationship with the United States? The United States 
is attempting to defend itself, to rid the world of a brutal dictator. 
September 11 changed everything. We all know that. America is 
vulnerable. America is the only superpower left in the world, which 
makes us a target.
  France is taking advantage of the fact that we are the only 
superpower and, because of that, there are natural sentiments against 
one country having that much power--even though the United States 
doesn't go into countries to occupy them. We are going into Iraq to 
liberate it and rebuild it and then get out. We want to get out of 
there as soon as possible. We would love to be able to have a stable, 
democratically elected government there as quickly as possible; have 
infrastructure put in place and get out of there. We don't want our 
troops or our personnel, whatsoever, to be potentially in harm's way 
for any longer than they have to be.
  So France, in its effort to continue to curry favor with the Saddam 
Hussein regime, and to continue the trade relations they have, I 
believe has done something that is very wrong. So I believe France has 
an obligation to America to try to repair the relationship they have 
with us. I believe it is up to them to make the first step, and they 
certainly have not done that--at least up to this point.
  Are we open to having them do that? Absolutely. But they have not 
done it up to this point. At least Germany is making some strides, but 
France hasn't even made strides toward that. If you look at this 
historically, over the last many years, France has done just the 
opposite. France didn't even want Turkey to be able to defend itself 
against weapons or missiles coming in and use NATO to defend Turkey 
from missiles coming in from Iraq. That is how much France has wanted 
to keep favorable relations with Saddam Hussein and his brutal regime.
  What is the motivation for this? I don't know. Maybe because France 
and Jacques Chirac helped them build a nuclear reactor that would lead 
to nuclear bombs, and then once Israel took out their nuclear reactor, 
he offered to rebuild it. There seems to be some interest that France 
has with Saddam Hussein that leads to ulterior motives and this whole 
idea of getting the world against the United States.
  So for France to have taken this idea that the United States is a 
superpower, and if you want to be against the only superpower, come 
over here and join us, I think to take advantage of those kinds of 
natural sentiments in the world has been very wrong, when the U.S. is 
trying to do something that I believe is on the moral high ground. All 
you have to do is look at how this brutal regime treats prisoners of 
war--they torture them--or how they treat their own people, who either 
are afraid to fight--I mean, if you had bombs coming in night after 
night after night and you see people around you getting blown up in 
their tanks, you would think that that might be a little unnerving.
  When those people try to go back to their homes, they say: You know 
what. This regime is not worth giving my life for. What do they do? 
They have checkpoints, and as those people try to leave, they are 
shooting them. That is the kind of regime with which we are dealing, 
and that is the kind of regime France was trying to prop up.
  Do I want to see our relations in the future improve with Germany and 
improve with France? Yes, but they have to come to the table with 
something for those relations to improve. The United States gives and 
gives and gives, and it is time for the United States to hold countries 
accountable that come against us. That is all I believe this is doing. 
It is saying taxpayer dollars that are earned by the American people 
and sent to Washington, DC, are not going to be sent to companies and 
citizens of France and Germany.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Ensign 
amendment be temporarily set aside so we might consider an amendment 
offered by the Senator from Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, as I have explained to the 
managers of the bill, we have been waiting now for some time for the 
Senator from Delaware. He will be here and he will now speak after the 
Senator from Arizona. It is my understanding on the Ensign amendment 
there are others who wish to speak so Senator Biden would not be the 
last.
  I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I understand there may be several 
Senators who wish to speak on the amendment of Senator Ensign. It would 
be my desire that we accommodate those people but then go back to the 
McCain amendment until he has finished. The Ensign amendment will be 
with us for a little while this afternoon.
  Does the Senator from Arizona wish to enter into a time agreement?
  Mr. McCAIN. I am sure it will not be long, but since my colleague 
Senator Kyl wants to speak on it, I would like to wait before entering 
a time agreement.
  Mr. STEVENS. For the interest of Senators, could we have some 
timeframe?
  Mr. McCAIN. It should not be more than 15 or 20 minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator.


                           Amendment No. 481

  Mr. McCAIN. I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for himself and Mr. 
     Kyl proposes an amendment numbered 481.

  The amendment is as follows:

     (Purpose: To remove unauthorized and earmarked appropriations)

       At the end of the bill, add the following:


                    LIMITATIONS ON OTHER PROVISIONS

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act:
       (1) Amounts made available under sections 310, 312, and 313 
     of title I shall not be made available for the purposes 
     stated in those sections.
       (2) Amounts made available for each of the following items 
     elsewhere in this Act for fiscal year 2003 shall not be made 
     available as provided in this Act:

[[Page 8304]]

       (A) $500,000 for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission to be 
     used for sea lamprey control in Lake Champlain within the 
     Procurement, Acquisition and Construction Account of the 
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the 
     Department of Commerce as provided for under chapter 2 of 
     title II.
       (B) $225,000 for the Mental Health Association of Tarrant 
     County, Ft. Worth, Texas, to provide school-based mental 
     health education to schools in Tarrant County; $200,000 for 
     the AIDS Research Institute at the University of California, 
     San Francisco, for Developing County Medical Program to 
     facilitate clinician exchange between the United States and 
     developing countries; and $1,000,000 for the Geisinger Health 
     System, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, to establish centers of 
     excellence for the treatment of autism, as provided for under 
     paragraph (5) under the amendments to Public Law 108-7 for 
     matter under the heading ``Department of Health and Human 
     Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, 
     Health Resources and Services, under the Department of Labor 
     as provided for under chapter 5 of title II.
       (3) Amounts appropriated for each of the following items 
     for fiscal year 2003 shall be zero instead of the following 
     amounts appropriated elsewhere in this Act:
       (A) $98,000,000 for Buildings and Facilities under the 
     Agricultural Research Service of the Agricultural Department 
     as provided for under chapter 1 of title 1.
       (B) $50,000,000 for the cost of guaranteed loans under the 
     Maritime Guaranteed Loan (title XI) Program Account of the 
     Maritime Administration of the Department of Transportation 
     as provided for under chapter 10 of title 1.
       (C) $1,000,000 for the Jobs for America's Graduates (JAG) 
     school-to-work program for at-risk young people for Training 
     and Employment Services under the Employment and Training 
     Administration of the Department of Labor as provided for 
     under chapter 5 of title II.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as I said yesterday during the debate on 
the supplemental, I hope we can consider the bill that did not include 
a host of add-ons and provisions not requested by the administration. 
Today, with many of our young men and women in harm's way, we should be 
considering a measure to support the ongoing war efforts and our 
Nation's homeland security needs free of earmarked or unauthorized 
provisions. Unfortunately, that is not the case with the bill before 
the Senate.
  I wonder why we could not once--especially with a war going on--bring 
forward a bill that was free of unnecessary provisions in wasteful 
earmarks. I hoped we could do it just once.
  The amendment offered by Senator Kyl and myself is intended to 
improve the bill to achieve that goal. This amendment would not provide 
funding for a number of items in the bill that are not associated with 
the stated purpose of the bill. If there is discussion by other 
Members, I make it fully understood this amendment is proposed in the 
framework of the title of the bill which I may repeat several times, 
which is: Making supplemental appropriations to support Department of 
Defense operations in Iraq, Department of Homeland Security, and 
related efforts for the fiscal year ending September 20, 2003, and for 
other purposes.
  Clearly, this legislation is to pay for the war in Iraq and other 
homeland security needs. It is not here to pay for agricultural 
facilities, for loan guarantees, for sea lamprey control in Lake 
Champlain, for the Mental Health Association in Tarrant County, Forth 
Worth, TX, or AIDS research at the University of California, for the 
study of treatment of autism at the Geisinger Health System, 
Harrisburg, PA. None of those, even in one's wildest imagination, 
relates to the title of this legislation.
  What Senator Kyl and I have done is propose an amendment, rather than 
drag the Senate through each individual measure and forcing votes on 
it--which we could have done--but lump them all together and find out 
whether the Senate is going to continue its porkbarreling ways, which 
has become, to me, a national scandal, or we are going to draw the line 
somewhere.
  Let me go specifically through what our amendment would not fund. It 
would not fund $98 million for buildings and facilities under the 
Agricultural Research Service to continue construction for USDA 
research facilities. Of course, it is designated in Ames, IA.
  The very first lines in the emergency supplemental bill include $98 
million in funds that are intended to be used to continue modernization 
work on the animal and inspection services facility near Ames, IA. I 
note this facility received favorable attention from the appropriators 
previously when a $50 million earmark for the same facility was 
included in last year's supplemental bill that was intended to fight 
the war against terrorism. An additional $33 million was also earmarked 
in the fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations bill.
  The administration has previously stated additional funding as 
suggested in last year's supplemental bill was not an essential 
priority at that time. As a further demonstration of the nonemergency 
nature of this project, the administration's 2004 budget does not 
request any funding to supplement this effort.
  Certainly, the study of farm animal diseases and controlling known 
and unknown animal diseases are clearly important to national public 
health issues. As part of the Government's effort to improve its 
knowledge of disease agents and mechanisms, this research facility and 
other related facilities do serve an important purpose. However, this 
work is already underway. Adding an additional $98 million as part of 
this essential war spending measure is simply not required or 
necessary.
  Finally, this ongoing project will clearly be the subject of 
additional appropriations in future years through the routine 
appropriations process. These particular renovations are not scheduled 
to be completed for at least a few more years. I find it difficult to 
believe removing this $98 million earmark at a time when it is not 
needed will jeopardize its continued planning and construction.
  We will not fund $50 million for the Maritime Administration's title 
XI loan guarantee program. Chapter 10 of title I provides $50 million 
in funding to the Maritime Administration's title XI guaranteed loan 
program for shipbuilders and shipyards. As I said yesterday, this 
funding is not justified as part of an emergency supplemental to fund 
the ongoing war. Not only is the program riddled with problems, but the 
administration did not propose funding it, either in its 2004 or 2003 
budget. The Title XI program does not serve any defense or homeland 
security purpose. It should not receive funding under the guise of a 
wartime need.
  The title XI program is without question one of the most wasteful and 
mismanaged guarantee programs in the Federal Government. Since 1998, 
loan defaults have totaled $490 million. On Monday of this week, the 
Department of Transportation's Office of Inspector General released a 
report that details the multiple problems with the program's 
administration. Moreover, how can this provision be aimed at supporting 
the current war when vessels take years to be built? It simply cannot.
  I take a moment to respond to some of the comments made by my 
colleagues yesterday on the floor in defense of the title XI Maritime 
Loan Guarantee Program that warrant clarification to ensure there is no 
misconception about the program.
  First, it was asserted that this program is a critical need for the 
auxiliary maritime capacity during time of war. Yet based on 
information provided by the Maritime Administration, nothing could be 
further from the truth. The fact is, as I indicated in my statement 
yesterday, out of the 51 vessels currently being used in support of 
Operation Iraqi Freedom, only 1 was built using a title XI maritime 
loan guarantee. Furthermore, when the Maritime Administration reviews 
such loan applications, it does not evaluate them to determine if the 
proposed vessels have any military applicability.
  Second, the proponents of this funding claim that the program 
strengthens our shipbuilding industrial base in support of our defense 
needs. This argument has been used time and time and time and time 
again in an attempt to justify this porkbarrel program. Appropriators 
have claimed for years that commercial ship construction keeps 
shipyards open and reduces the costs

[[Page 8305]]

associated with defense ship construction.
  I cannot argue against the claim that providing subsidies helps to 
keep shipyards open. There is little, if any, evidence that commercial 
ship construction reduces the costs associated with defense ship 
construction. In fact, recent evidence shows just the opposite.
  In February, the Department of Justice filed suit against Newport 
News Shipbuilding for knowingly mischarging the U.S. Navy for more than 
$72 million of costs related to the design and development of 
commercial tankers which were passed through as overhead on major Navy 
shipbuilding contracts. This is one case, but clearly more 
investigation is needed to determine how other yards are doing their 
work.
  I point out again, $490 million in defaults over the last 5 years is 
a lot of money. Speaking of a lot of money, I point out the $98 million 
for building facilities under the Agricultural Research Service and $50 
million for the Maritime administration is about $150 million that is 
being added. So we are not talking about small amounts of money.
  Mr. President, $500,000 for another program that will not be funded 
is $500,000 for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Title 11, Chapter 2 
of the bill earmarks $500,000 for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission to 
be used for sea lamprey control in Lake Champlain. This funding was not 
requested by the administration and the sea lamprey does not, in my 
opinion, pose a clear and present danger to our national security. I 
hope my colleagues will agree that a wartime supplemental is not an 
appropriate vehicle to fund an earmark of this nature, which has 
absolutely nothing to do with fighting the war in Iraq or meeting our 
homeland security needs.
  One million dollars for the Jobs for America's Graduates (JAG) 
school-to-work program for at-risk young people for Training and 
Employment Services under the Employment and Training Administration of 
the Department of Labor.
   The supplemental appropriations bill provides $1 million for the 
Department of Labor's Jobs for America's Graduates school-to-work 
program for at-risk youth people. This program is a school-to-career 
program implemented in 1,000 high schools, alternative schools, 
community colleges, and middle schools across the country and United 
Kingdom. Its mission is to keep young people in school through 
graduation and provide work-based learning experiences that will lead 
to career advancement opportunities or to enroll in a post-secondary 
institution that leads to a rewarding career.
  No one disputes that the goals of this program are worthwhile and 
that this may be a valuable and effective program. But what is it doing 
in a appropriations bill whose purpose, by its stated title, is to 
``support Department of Defense Operations in Iraq, Department of 
Homeland Security, and Related Efforts . . .''? Can someone tell me how 
this program is so related to our war effort and homeland security that 
we must provide funding for it today in this bill? If it is so urgent, 
then why was it not included in the President's supplemental 
appropriations request?
  When we consider the Labor/HHS appropriations bill for the next 
fiscal year, we should debate funding for this program at that time. 
The Labor/HHS appropriations bill is the proper legislative vehicle for 
debate about this program--not this war supplemental. We are doing a 
disservice to our young men and women fighting the war in Iraq by 
attaching this unrelated program to a bill designed to support their 
efforts.
  Mr. President, there is $225,000 for the Mental Health Association of 
Tarrant County, Ft. Worth, TX to provide school-based mental health 
education to schools in Tarrant County; $200,000 for the IDS Research 
Institute at the University of California, San Francisco for Developing 
County Medical Program to facilitate clinician exchange between the 
United States and developing countries; and $1,000,000 for the 
Geisinger Health System, Harrisburg, PA to establish centers for 
excellence for the treatment of autism.
  The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) portion of the 
emergency supplemental spending bill to fund the war in Iraq contains 
several earmarks. Such funding may be for worthy health endeavors. 
However, these provisions are earmarks and they do not belong within 
the text of an emergency bill devoted to funding the war. These 
earmarks are funded from monies allocated by the fiscal year 2003 
omnibus appropriations bill which I understand were earmarked in the 
accompanying report. But now, the appropriators are seeking to earmark 
them in statute.
  There is directive language that would allow West Point cadets to 
receive flight training during the summer at The University of North 
Dakota.
  Last year's appropriations Senate Report--I emphasize ``report,'' 
which does not have the effect of law--earmarked $2 million in Army 
Operation and Maintenance account for the University of North Dakota 
ROTC program, known as ``Air Battle Captain.'' On this supplemental 
bill, there is directive language which would authorize--for the first 
time--a new program to teach flight training to West Point cadets 
during summer training at the University of North Dakota. This sounds 
like a good program, but shouldn't this aviation training program be 
competitively bid? Perhaps cadets could be better trained at the Army 
aviation school at Fort Rucker in Alabama. Arizona also has a very good 
aviation school in Prescott, AZ--Emory Riddle University. These schools 
should be afforded the same opportunity to train West Point cadets. At 
the very least, there should be competition, to determine the most 
cost-effective means to provide this type of initial pilot training to 
West Point cadets. I don't know. However, I do know the appropriations 
bill should not direct the West Point Superintendent to send his cadets 
only to The University of North Dakota, without consideration of other 
pilot training capabilities. That is wrong. That is wrong.
  In the Senate report--not in bill language--there is an earmark for 
$12 million from Defense-Wide Research, Development, Testing and 
Evaluation for airfield improvements in Alaska that may be associated 
with the ground-based mid-course missile defense program. Because this 
is report language, I can not strike it in my amendment, however it is 
equally as appalling.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of 
Management and Budget: ``Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation 
covers the costs of developing and testing new systems and 
subsystems.'' My staff advises me that, this may have been included in 
previous appropriations tables in some form--but I could not find it. 
However, I question the merit of this earmark. If this was a valid 
program, why would we take critical dollars from research, development, 
testing, and evaluation funding--which Republicans and Democrats alike, 
understand is underfunded according to defense budget experts--to pay 
for airfield improvement in Alaska? Why are we robbing critical defense 
Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation funds to pour concrete? 
Why not use Military Construction money? Mr. President, $12 million is 
a lot money for airfield improvements.
  The Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee provides Airport 
Improvement Program funding for airports in the United States for 
planned maintenance and construction. This is a lot of money to 
refurbish the airfield. Because it is report language--it is a Senate 
Appropriations Committee recommendation only--the Department of Defense 
does not need to apply the $12 million in this way, so it could simply 
ignore the Committee recommendation as it does not have the force of 
law.
  Similarly, there are two other earmarks--that my colleagues will 
explain are not new earmarks. In fact, they were included in the Senate 
Appropriations Report language last year.
  We have a new kind of routine that is going on here by the 
appropriators that certainly is a testimony to imagination, but I think 
it is something that is

[[Page 8306]]

a new opening for porkbarrel spending. In an appropriations bill, you 
put in money for a general fund and it is in the report language, not 
having the force of law, so, therefore, those of us who want to 
eliminate it cannot do so because it is in the report language. Then in 
the following appropriations bill, they earmark from that report 
language in the law the porkbarrel project. It is wrong. It is wrong.
  In any case, there is no doubt this year--the war supplemental to 
support Department of Defense operations in Iraq--includes directive 
bill language specifically to provide $6.8 million from Air Force 
Operation and Maintenance accounts to build and install fiber optic and 
power upgrades at the 11th Air Force Range in Elmendorf Air Force Base 
in Alaska. Furthermore, there is $3 million earmarked in the Operation 
and Maintenance accounts directing the Army to build a rifle range for 
the South Carolina National Guard. Why not use Military Construction 
funding, if this was a worth-while project. Why hide it in Operation 
and Maintenance funding?
  For the benefit of my colleagues, operations and maintenance money is 
used to train people. This is what we could use to provide spare parts. 
This is the heart and soul of the movement and readiness of our 
military. So we are, in report language, saying they should take money 
from operation and maintenance accounts to build fiberoptic and power 
upgrades at Elmendorf Air Force Base and to build a rifle range for the 
South Carolina National Guard.
  The one thing many of us have worried about, and worried about for 
years and years, is operation and maintenance. We always shortchange 
them because they are nonsexy items. There is no contract let, 
generally speaking, for operation and maintenance--to provide the spare 
parts, the maintenance of the high-tech equipment, the fuel, all of 
those things. Now, where is this directed money coming from for 
fiberoptic upgrades, for building a rifle range? Out of operation and 
maintenance.
  Again, according to the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of 
Management and Budget: ``Operation and Maintenance (O&M) includes 
spending on fuel, spare parts, and overhauls of military equipment. O&M 
also includes spending on such items as health care, environmental 
programs, the maintenance and repair of buildings, roadways, runways, 
and base operating support including telephone systems and computers.''
  Report language does not have the force of law. The war supplemental 
bill language does however. There will now be no doubt in any Pentagon 
general counsel's mind because the Iraqi war supplemental says: Spend 
the money or you will be breaking the law.
  Mr. President, let me also express my deep concern about a pattern 
that seems to be developing. It seems to becoming a practice in which 
funding is provided in one appropriations bill, and then earmarked, 
under the guise as technical corrections, in a subsequent measure. In 
fact, this is the very situation that is taking place with the above 
mentioned earmarks under the Department of Health and Human Services. 
Funding was authorized and now we are expected to not even question the 
fact that the pending bill proposes a number of provisions to earmark 
the previously authorized funds.
  Again, I will never underestimate the imagination and creativity of 
the Appropriations Committee. This is one pattern that must be halted.
  I hope we can vote in favor of this amendment. It is not a huge 
amount of money when we are talking about the size of this overall 
bill. I believe all of these provisions from which we are trying to 
eliminate the money would probably be restored in a normal 
appropriations process--whether I happen to agree with it or not. But 
how do we tell our constituents, who are paying their taxes--and 
understanding they have difficult times now with unemployment high, 
with cutbacks, and people being laid off--that we are going to take 
their tax dollars, in the name of funding the war on Iraq and homeland 
security, and spend it on these projects? I do not think we should be 
doing this.
  I hope my colleagues will consider voting in favor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could direct a question to the Senator 
from Arizona, it is my understanding there are others who wish to speak 
on your amendment. The reason I mention that is because what we would 
like to do is arrange a vote on your amendment in the order that has 
been set to begin at 1:50.
  Prior to that, the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee 
is here to speak on the preceding amendment. As the Senator from 
Arizona knows, we took the Senator from Arizona out of order.
  How long does the Senator from Idaho wish to speak?
  Mr. CRAIG. No more than 5 minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. I mention to my colleague, I tried to get a handle on it. 
My colleague from Arizona, Senator Kyl, I know wants to speak on it, 
but I am not sure there is a lot of other significant debate on the 
amendment.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senator from Idaho 
finishes his remarks, the Senator from Delaware be recognized and we 
would return temporarily back to the Ensign amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. I object.
  Mr. REID. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. McCAIN. After that, return to the Ensign amendment or return to 
the McCain amendment?
  Mr. REID. He is going to speak on the Ensign amendment. Then we would 
immediately go back to the McCain amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Would the Senator repeat the request?
  Mr. REID. I am happy to. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Idaho, Mr. Craig, be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes on the 
pending amendment, the McCain amendment, and that following his 
statement, the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Biden, be recognized to speak 
on the Ensign amendment; and that following the statement of the 
Senator from Delaware, we will go back to the McCain amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak in support of 
S. 762, but in doing so, I have been seated here for the last few 
minutes listening to the senior Senator from Arizona. I must tell you, 
what he speaks about in relation to this appropriations bill makes a 
good deal of sense.
  I think all of us are looking at debt and deficit at this moment and 
recognizing the tremendous importance of supporting our men and women 
in uniform and our President's request for supplemental spending for 
the operations in Iraq, knowing full well we will fully fund all they 
need in that area.
  We also recognize this may well be a time for some belt tightening. 
We are creative around here as it relates to our ability to associate 
certain activities in our State with other activities in a national 
sense, to build a slightly different image or character of them.
  I think we need, at this point in time, to be much more careful than 
we have been in the past, and deal with our debt and our deficit and 
recognize that money is very tight, and that we are struggling at this 
moment as a Senate, as a Congress, working with our President, to do a 
variety of things that, in the near future, are going to be very 
critical--not only the operations ongoing in Iraq but the economy 
itself, and being able to build a stimulus package for this economy 
that gets it rolling, gets investment back into the marketplace, and 
builds job opportunities for the men and women in America who are 
currently out of work. It is certainly true in my home State. It is 
true across the Nation at this moment.
  Our economy is flat. We struggled mightily to put a budget resolution 
out. That budget resolution is now working its will with the House in a 
conference to try to resolve our differences, to set the spending trend 
and limits for the coming fiscal year, and,

[[Page 8307]]

as importantly, to build a stimulus package to get this economy moving.
  This is not a time for extra spending. This is not a time for that 
extraordinary opportunity, if you will, that clearly has value, 
certainly in the minds of the Senator and the home State that he or she 
represents but in the whole of things may not be as important in this 
moment in time as is funding defense, funding our war effort, making 
sure we hold our spending down so the deficit does not become 
unmanageable, getting this economy turned on, and getting the men and 
women of America back to work. That is really what we all ought to be 
about at this moment. Certainly this supplemental appropriations bill 
ought to address just that.
  I must tell you, there is a part of this bill I am struggling with: 
$3.5 billion to benefit the airline industry. I do not question the 
value of the airline industry. I do question whether it has 
reorganized, restructured, asked its employees, asked its executives, 
asked its pilots to reshape their salaries to get them in line with 
other industries in our country, and, as a result of that, get their 
act back together instead of asking the American taxpayers to 
continually bail them out.
  I do not, in any way, underestimate the value of the flow of commerce 
and industry in this country, of tourism and recreation, and business 
men and women flying around our country, and certainly the average 
person who just wishes to travel for whatever purpose. I understand the 
importance of the airline industry.
  I will vote for this legislation, but I am struggling mightily at 
this moment in an industry that just has not faced the reality of the 
day, the reality of years and years of building a commitment to its 
employees that it may now not well be able to finance and, therefore, 
to ask the American taxpayer to bail them out in absence of significant 
reform.
  Some airlines are doing that. Some have already announced major 
cutbacks, major adjustments in salary, and they are struggling to hang 
on. Others have not done so. I hope they will follow suit. We have put 
some provisions in the legislation that I trust will allow for that.
  Lastly, let me say, because I have not had the opportunity in the 
last several days--busy in briefings on the war, busy in committees--to 
come to the floor and, as one of Idaho's Senators, and 1 of 100 
Senators here, tell the men and women in uniform who are currently in 
harm's way in Iraq how proud I am of them, how proud I am of their 
leadership and the tremendous work they are doing there on behalf of 
human freedom, on behalf of the civilian population of Iraq, who for 
decades have only known the iron fist, the bullet, or the poison of a 
dictator who has brought that country to phenomenal despair--a country 
that has lost almost a quarter of a million people in the last decade 
through starvation or from fleeing their homeland just for the sake of 
their families and themselves and their well-being.
  We are there for a purpose. Yes, it is self-serving in the sense of 
the stability of our country and the wiping out of terrorism around the 
world and those who might feed it and those who might cause it to 
flourish, but it says something about this great country when we are 
willing to put ourselves, our men and women and our resources, at risk 
to save others, to free others, to provide them with a better 
opportunity. That is what we are doing in the nation of Iraq at this 
moment.
  The war, on the whole, goes well, and I am extremely proud of those 
who execute it and those brave souls who stand in harm's way on behalf 
of our country and on behalf of the citizens of Iraq.
  The supplemental appropriations is about that. And it should be about 
that and not about a lot of other things that can appropriately come 
before the Appropriations Committee, on which I serve, and/or the 
authorizing committees that should be setting the necessary budgets, 
holding the necessary hearings as it relates to how the public 
resources of this country get allocated.
  So I trust that my colleagues will review this critically, can, in 
the whole, support S. 762, and recognize its importance as we fight our 
deficits, work to turn on an economy, work to put the men and women of 
America back to work, and at the same time assure those who stand in 
harm's way in Iraq at this very moment that they have the support of a 
country, an appreciative country, and they have the resources of this 
country to assure them the material necessary to not only execute their 
mission but to keep them safe.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment by the 
Senator from Arizona, an amendment of which I am a cosponsor.
  This amendment, if accepted, will require the Department of State to 
produce a report within 60 days following the termination of offensive 
military operations in Iraq detailing everything that is known about 
that country's weapons of mass destruction programs, as well as about 
its ability to field conventional forces after a decade of sanctions. 
Most importantly, it will require that the report in question provide a 
thorough description of the means by which Iraq acquired the designs, 
technologies, components, and systems with which to develop and 
construct weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.
  Finally, the report required by this amendment will include a 
discussion of the effectiveness of the unilateral and multilateral 
agreements designed to prevent Iraq's acquisition of weapons of mass 
destruction and their means of delivery. This is not intended as an 
indictment of these agreements. On the contrary, they were an essential 
component of the structure needed to try to contain Iraqi aggression 
and impede its ability to acquire such weapons. Rather, it is intended 
to educate us as to the ways in which rogue governments seek to 
manipulate and undermine sanctions regimes and, in some instances, 
exploit the somewhat mercantilist tendencies of some nations to look 
the other way when logic otherwise dictates caution.
  American blood is being shed in the deserts and in the towns and 
villages of Iraq for the principal purpose of ensuring that a brutal 
dictator is denied the ability to use chemical, biological or nuclear 
weapons against his neighbors, against U.S. interests, and against the 
American homeland. The reasons that we arrived at this point in time 
are many and are varied. Suffice to say, however, that vitally 
important lessons will be drawn from this conflict, and from the period 
leading up to it. Among those lessons will be ways in which Iraq was 
able to amass the capabilities that it possessed at the time of 
Operation Desert Storm, and that it was able to retain and accumulate 
in the decade since. We know, for instance, that it succeeded in 
exploiting oil-for-food income for illicit purposes. What we need to 
better understand and to illuminate for the public, however, is the 
extent to which others facilitated such transactions.
  As the remains of Americans killed in combat and in combat-related 
accidents return home for burial, and as the images of innocent Iraqi 
victims fills the world's television screens, a reckoning will 
increasingly be in order. This war is a terrible necessity. I fully 
support the President of the United States in his decision to bring a 
decade-long problem that threatens our national interest to a 
definitive conclusion. As the elected representatives of the American 
public, however, it is incumbent upon us to prepare to focus our 
attention on the history that brought us to where we are today. Only 
through a thorough examination of the ways in which Saddam Hussein was 
able to reach the stage where we were compelled to bring the full 
weight of our national power to bear upon him can we hope to prevent a 
recurrence elsewhere in the world.
  I urge support for this amendment. It is about knowledge. It is about 
learning from the past. It is about helping to avoid traveling the road 
to war again in the future because we failed to keep our moral bearings 
in the present. Vote yes on the Kyl amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under a previous order, the Senator from 
Delaware is recognized.

[[Page 8308]]




                           Amendment No. 488

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak against the amendment of a 
good friend of mine, Senator Ensign from Nevada. He introduced an 
amendment that maybe I should have been aware of but was unaware of 
until just a few minutes ago that reads:

       No funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this 
     Act for purposes of reconstruction of Iraq may be obligated 
     or expended to pay any person who is a citizen of a country 
     named in a subsection.

  It goes on to name in the subsection France and Germany.
  I don't want to speak for the Senator, but that view is an expression 
of the frustration of an awful lot of Americans and some anger at the 
failure of the Germans and the French to support our effort to disarm 
Saddam Hussein.
  I begin by saying, I have just spoken with the White House and the 
State Department. They are adamantly opposed to this amendment. France 
and Germany are providing support for our effort to disarm Saddam that 
exceeds that of many countries who were formally members of the 
coalition. There are overflight and basing rights, and many of our 
wounded are being flown first to Germany before they come here, not to 
mention their absolutely critical support in the war on terrorism.
  Again, I understand the motivation and the frustration and the anger 
that may be behind some who want to support the amendment. Our decision 
to use force in Iraq has created deep divisions within the Security 
Council. Nonetheless, America need not and cannot take sole 
responsibility for the challenges of postwar Iraq. That is exactly what 
this would produce. We can't allow the Security Council and our 
Atlantic alliances to become casualties of this war.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BIDEN. I am happy to.
  Mr. McCAIN. The Senator is aware there are German military and 
civilians working right now, helping in the reconstruction and 
peacekeeping in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan?
  Mr. BIDEN. I am.
  Mr. McCAIN. And have these Germans perhaps been associated with some 
firm that may also be in the work of reconstruction and peacekeeping in 
Bosnia and Kosovo and Afghanistan? Does my friend from Delaware believe 
somehow we should prevent any company, corporation, or individual who 
may have a contract in those three parts of the world from doing so?
  Mr. BIDEN. Absolutely not. Any more than they should be in Iraq. This 
amendment is a disaster. I understand the frustration. But this is a 
case where, as my dear mother would say--and my friend from Arizona has 
met my mom--she would look at me when we were both young--neither the 
Senator from Arizona nor I have a temper any longer, but when we were 
young we were alleged to have tempers. My mother, every time I would 
lose my temper, would look at me and say: Joey, don't bite your nose 
off to spite your face.
  We are about to, in the colloquial phrase, bite our nose off to spite 
our face if, in fact, we were to ever allow this amendment to become 
law.
  Mr. McCAIN. One more question: As the ranking member and senior and 
former chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, suppose in the case 
of Kosovo, where Germany contributed enormously in the force of 
peacekeeping, medical care, other provisions of sustenance, 
particularly in Kosovo and Bosnia, where there was enormous 
devastation, suppose we had passed a law like this with regard to 
Bosnia or Kosovo: Do you think we would have gotten the kind of 
assistance from the German government and the people we have received 
to date, including leadership of the peacekeeping forces?
  Mr. BIDEN. Absolutely, positively not. Because of the, as some view 
them, arcane rules of the Senate, the Senator has to make his point by 
asking me questions. I would be delighted to yield him some time to 
speak to this directly as well.
  What we are both saying is, this is a fool's errand. This is a 
foolish undertaking. Let me lay it out, if I may. And then I will be 
delighted to save some time for my friend from Arizona, who is not only 
a good personal friend, but a person for whom I have great respect on 
all matters, particularly foreign policy.
  The first reason this would be such a profound mistake is that 
rebuilding Iraq an Iraq that is secure and self-sufficient, whole and 
free is going to require tens of billions of dollars over many years. 
While Iraq's long-term economic promise is good, its short-term 
prospects are bleak.
  This is something we don't focus on. Iraq's annual oil revenues in 
the first 5 years after Saddam is out--God willing--are projected to be 
no more than $15 billion. Iraq is saddled, as they should be, with U.N. 
sanctions, an estimated $61 billion in foreign debt, and $200 billion 
in reparation claims through the U.N. Compensation Committee. So the 
idea that we can thumb our nose at the rest of the world and say, we 
don't need you in there helping us, is profoundly mistaken.
  Many Senators think that what happens once Saddam is down, once the 
war is over, is that the oil is going to flow and there will be plenty 
of money for the Iraqis to move toward democracy, reconstruct their 
country, all from their oil revenues.
  The fact is, the estimates are, if all goes well, there will be no 
more than $15 billion a year, and they sit now with obligations that 
exceed $61 billion in foreign debt and $200 billion in claims.
  Experts who have testified before the Foreign Relations Committee put 
the price tag at post-conflict security--a fancy phrase for saying 
after the war is over--humanitarian assistance and reconstruction to be 
between $20 and $25 billion per year for the next 10 years.
  My point is, the United States should not take on that obligation 
alone. Yet if we bar the companies of friendly countries who did not 
support us in the war from taking part in the peace, what incentive 
will there be for their governments to help pick up the tab? I 
respectfully suggest it would be zero.
  Secondly, as pointed out to me by the State Department and my staff--
and it is self-evident when you think about it--this is going to 
require the so-called ``iffies,'' the World Bank, the International 
Monetary Fund, and other international banking institutions, to be part 
of this reconstruction. We are taking a country that has been decimated 
by a guy named Saddam for the past several decades, and we are going to 
try to make it a member of the family of nations on the road to 
democracy. We know how hard that is, even where there has been no war. 
We know how important it is to have international institutions part of 
the process of helping fledgling democracies come into being.
  Now, what prospect do you think there is that the World Bank will get 
involved, or the IMF, if in fact the two leading members who make 
decisions on those boards are German and French and they are 
prohibited, in an almost spiteful way, from having any German or French 
individuals, let alone any companies, participating in anything having 
to do with the reconstruction of Iraq?
  Third, we need military forces of those countries to be in on the 
peace. That is what the Secretary of State is doing right now. He is 
meeting with NATO. The Associated Press published an article today 
entitled: ``Powell Says U.S. Will Lead Postwar Effort in Iraq.'' And I 
quote:

       Powell and the Europeans did reach a tentative agreement, 
     however, that NATO should consider deploying peacekeepers to 
     Iraq.

  I want someone else in the deal besides the United States. I don't 
want it merely to be for the next year or 2, 3, 4 or 5 years that there 
is a young American woman or man standing at every checkpoint, guarding 
every border crossing, guarding every oil field, and becoming the 
target of every malcontent and terrorist in the world.
  I want the world to take on this responsibility with us. That is what 
the Secretary of State is trying to do. A military occupation, even 
temporary, that includes only Americans and British soldiers could fuel 
resentment throughout the Middle East, bolster al-

[[Page 8309]]

Qaida's recruitment, make America the target for terrorists and 
malcontents everywhere. If the military mission stretches beyond 
several months or years, as is predicted, the failure to include other 
countries would compound these problems and, I predict, if history is 
any teacher, turn us from liberators into occupiers.
  We need to make peace in Iraq the world's responsibility, not just 
our own. If we bar their companies from the peace, we may as well 
forget about their help on the security side. Let's not undermine our 
diplomacy here by passing such an ill-conceived amendment.
  Four, if the United States alone selects a new Iraqi government--even 
an interim one--that will call into question the government's 
legitimacy in the eyes of the Iraqi people, the region, and the world. 
Iraqis who have lived through the brutality of Saddam Hussein's rule 
should be given the time, the space, and the support to choose their 
own leaders and to develop the institutions of a stable representative 
government. We should work with the international community to help 
achieve that. Who is going to be involved with us if, in fact, we take 
these punitive measures because they disagreed about the course of 
action to begin with?
  Fifth, many around the world, even long-time allies, question our 
motives in Iraq. They believe, wrongly, that the President was driven 
by a quest for oil, driven by commercial interests, or imperial 
designs. They are dead wrong. But barring foreign companies in the 
industrialized world--particularly from France and Germany--from taking 
part in the peace, would only go a step further to confirm the 
misconception that we are in this for economic gain. We are not. That 
is not why the President moved. If we allow that to happen, I believe 
we risk further erosion of those alliances and institutions that have 
been essential to American security and global cooperation for more 
than 50 years. It would undermine our interests because we cannot 
contend with all the threats around the world, including the unfinished 
war on terrorism, the dangerous nuclear programs in North Korea and 
Iran, and the spread of infectious diseases, such as SARS, without the 
cooperation of others in the world. Making friends and allies who 
oppose the war our partners in Iraq's peace can go a long way to repair 
the hard feelings that have been emerging in recent months.
  Six, if we start blackballing foreign companies, we better be 
prepared for retaliation against the many American companies operating 
in France, Germany, and other countries. These American companies bring 
in billions of dollars that support tens of thousands of jobs in the 
United States of America. If we were to blackball those who disagreed 
with us, including France and Germany, from participating in any way in 
the reconstruction of Iraq, I believe you would see retribution from 
that which will have impacts beyond anything I am sure my friend from 
Nevada, Mr. Ensign, intended. This amendment would put a lot in 
jeopardy.
  Let me conclude--because I see the chairman on the floor--by 
reiterating what I said at the outset, which is that the Ensign 
amendment is opposed by the White House. I spoke to Dr. Rice, and I am 
authorized to say the White House opposes this amendment because it 
would deny the President of the United States the flexibility he needs. 
I spoke to the State Department, the Deputy Secretary of State, who 
pointed out that this would significantly undermine the other projects, 
the other issues we are trying to negotiate with our allies.
  The last point I will make is this: Some will say, why do we have to 
reconstruct Iraq at all? If we fail to secure the peace in Iraq, then 
we will fail to honor those young marines and soldiers and airmen and 
Navy pilots who have been killed in Iraq. The purpose of this endeavor 
is not only to deny Saddam Hussein those weapons of mass destruction, 
but to begin the process of stabilizing in that region so we don't have 
to send, in the future, our children--young American men and women--to 
Iraq to give their lives to secure our freedom.
  I am not in any way suggesting the motive of my friend from Nevada, 
Senator Ensign, is not a pure one. I am suggesting that it is 
dangerously misguided.
  I am prepared to yield the floor. I am looking to the leadership here 
to determine whether I should suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The clerk will continue with the call of the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk continued to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I wish to speak against the McCain 
amendment. I assume that is in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may proceed.


                           Amendment No. 481

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support funding 
for the construction of the Ames, IA, animal health facilities 
laboratory. That is the National Animal Disease Laboratory--a national 
facility, not an Iowa facility--in Ames, IA. I heard my colleagues 
question the relevance of this provision. I am here now to explain to 
all my colleagues the importance of this facility to America's national 
security.
  In the event of an animal disease outbreak, this facility in Iowa 
will play a very crucial role. Whether the issue is bioterrorism or a 
new or emerging disease, this facility will be centrally involved. 
Modernization of this facility that was built three or four decades ago 
is a paramount priority to ensure America's agricultural biosecurity 
and the safeguard of our food supply. Both the Department of 
Agriculture in Washington, as well as this Congress, have recognized 
the importance of moving forward with this modernization project as 
quickly as possible.
  I quote from a May 2001 report which was issued by the Secretary of 
Agriculture:

       The Agricultural Research Service and Animal Plant and 
     Health Inspection Service partnership in Ames represents an 
     unmatched team of scientific and response personnel providing 
     expertise and skill to address known and emerging domestic 
     animal disease threats.

  Our current national threat level demonstrates that we need to be 
aware of our environment and prepared for realistic threats. Animal 
disease is a realistic threat to all Americans because it affects our 
food safety and supply.
  Even without bioterrorism, we know what mad cow disease, for 
instance, has done to agriculture and to the people of England, as one 
example; and that carried over to Europe a year later and it has 
recently scared the consumers of Japan. That is not even bioterrorism; 
that is just a natural course of animal disease and, in fact, how that 
in turn impacts upon whether humans live.
  The Ames lab is very important as we talk about the safety of our 
food. This lab is the best large research and diagnostic facility in 
the United States. Unfortunately, after all these decades, it is 
obsolete. It does not even meet international standards. Nearly every 
other livestock trading nation has superior facilities. They understand 
the importance of effective and expedient diagnostic competency. The 
Ames lab is a surveillance hub for animal disease in the United States. 
It is the closest thing we have for agriculture and livestock health to 
human health with the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, GA. 
Doesn't it seem unbelievable that the Ames facility does not have the 
electrical capacity to handle new computers necessary to update the 
facility, let alone a complex array of essential electronic diagnostic 
equipment? This is more than an

[[Page 8310]]

embarrassment for our Government. It is a national security risk.
  We have worked through many different scenarios to improve this 
facility. We have evaluated leaving the current facility in place and 
renovating the existing facility to bring it in to the 21st century. We 
found in the interest of the taxpayers that the most cost-effective 
method to bring this facility up to speed is to start over from the 
ground up.
  Let me be clear. This $98 million is not full funding for the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture master plan. This amendment only affords us 
the opportunity to build the laboratory. The laboratory is clearly 
critical for research, diagnosis, and prevention of all animal disease 
threats. We cannot afford to delay construction. We need to be 
prepared, and this is the only way to reach an optimum level of 
security.
  Remember, we have already appropriated some money for other aspects 
of this renovation, and this still will not complete the renovation of 
the animal disease laboratory to what is planned by the Department of 
Agriculture.
  The fact is, the Ames laboratory is the cornerstone of the planned 
National Animal Health Laboratory Network. The Ames facility is a 
fundamental element required to protect American agriculture and to 
improve food safety.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues not to support this amendment 
to delete but instead vote for continuing the process that is already 
in place, that has expended tens of millions of dollars of the 
taxpayers' money in partial renovation. To move one step closer toward 
that renovation for the safety of our food supply means to vote against 
the McCain amendment. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will not waste the time of this body 
responding to the statement of the Senator from Iowa except to say I 
agree with him. It is more than an embarrassment. It is more than an 
embarrassment that we would be putting $98 million into a project that 
already received $50 million before an additional $33 million in the 
2003 omnibus appropriations bill and for which there was not any 
additional funding requested by the administration.
  There is a reason there was not any request for this money by the 
administration when they asked for this funding which is supposed to be 
for the war.
  As I say, I will not waste time except to say it is more than an 
embarrassment to me to tell my constituents that when we are supposed 
to be funding a war that is going on right now when young Americans are 
fighting and dying and badly need the equipment and materiel and the 
help that is in this bill that we are going to try to stuff in a $98 
million porkbarrel project for an agricultural research facility which 
is already more than adequately funded, rather than put it into an 
emergency supplemental. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have a great deal of respect for 
Senator McCain. He is very consistent. I want to only argue with one 
point. This is a national facility. It was located decades ago in my 
State for reasons that I believe are closely related to Iowa State 
University being a very good land grant and research institution.
  Second, the issue of whether this is legitimate at this point is best 
justified by the fact that this renovation has already been 
reauthorized, and this is just one more step by the Congress in 
carrying out a decision that Congress previously made that this 
facility that is now decades old should be renovated for the good of 
the safety of food in the United States.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I support the McCain amendment.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KYL. Certainly.
  Mr. REID. If the senior Senator from Arizona said the junior Senator 
wanted to speak, we would have no objection. He wants 2 minutes.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I was about to say there is no more honest 
Member of this body than the Senator from Iowa, who spoke a moment ago. 
When he lays out the case for this particular facility in Ames, IA, I 
do not think any of us can quibble with that. That is not the point.
  The point of this amendment is literally to help the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee resist the very persuasive cases that every 
one of us can make that some great project that needs to be completed 
or started needs to be part of this very special supplemental 
appropriations bill. We are hoping to make his job a little easier in 
the future so he can say: No, these bills are going to be clean.
  This is a bill to fund the war. It is not to complete a research 
facility and do other activities that may be good ideas but have no 
place in this bill to fund the war. Let them go the regular process. I 
can make the case there is something that relates to our ability as 
first responders to deal with an emergency from a terrorist threat in 
the State of Arizona. We are trying to get some money to prevent our 
hospital emergency rooms from closing down because we are having to 
treat illegal immigrants with health care under a Federal mandate, a 
Federal law, which we are happy to comply with, but which costs our 
hospitals hundreds of millions of dollars every year. We would like 
reimbursement for that so those emergency rooms will not close down, as 
they had to, but can stay open. We will not ask for that in this bill.
  Instead, we think the best approach is to go through the regular 
process. That is why I hope my colleagues will support the amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Parliamentary inquiry. It is my understanding there are 
two amendments that will be voted on consecutively now, is that 
correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent the McCain amendment be added as 
the third amendment to be voted on in that queue.
  Mr. REID. And that there be no second degree amendments in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Parliamentary inquiry. Is my friend intending to move to 
table my amendment or will it be a straight up-or-down vote?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it is my understanding I have already 
moved to table the amendment of the Senator from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am trying to work out the sequence. What is the second 
amendment in the queue?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Graham amendment.


                           Amendment No. 472

  Mr. STEVENS. I ask for the yeas and nays on the Boxer amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now two minutes equally divided on 
the Boxer amendment.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we have worked hard to protect aircraft by 
making sure pilots are equipped to defend the airplane. We need to go 
an extra step today. The FBI warned us that terrorists with shoulder-
fired missiles are a threat to our commercial aircraft. The 
administration has determined airports are vulnerable to shoulder-fired 
missiles and they have deployed the National Guard. But we need to do 
more. We need to adapt countermeasures now installed in our military 
aircraft for commercial use. It is possible to do this. El Al is doing 
this.
  Opponents argue, and we will hear this, we should wait until a study 
provision I wrote into another bill becomes law. We should not wait 
because things have moved on since that study.
  This amendment is not even inconsistent with it. It will, in fact, 
make the money available for that study. This is about fighting a war 
on terrorism. I hope we will vote in favor of

[[Page 8311]]

my amendment and not to table this amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this amendment takes money from the 
Transportation Security Administration allocation for passenger 
screening and other costs to be incurred for additional security at 
airports. There is no current technology that can fulfill this need. 
The systems are too heavy for most commercial aircraft. We do have 
underway research and development in the Department of Defense and the 
Department of Homeland Security to try to develop the kind of devices 
that provide this protection.
  This is not a wartime request. This bill is a wartime request. We do 
not want to see the Senate vote amendments that would earmark the 
homeland security moneys in this bill. I have opposed them before and 
the Senate has voted against this action before. I have previously made 
a motion to table.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds.
  Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, then I would like 30 
seconds to conclude debate.
  Mr. STEVENS. If it is 30 seconds, I don't object, but the 30 seconds 
have a way of going on and on. Not the Senator's 30, but with all due 
respect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. STEVENS. No objection to 30 seconds on each side.
  Thirty seconds on each side.
  Mr. McCAIN. I will take ten seconds. I oppose the amendment, but I 
assure the Senator from California we recognize this is a threat; we 
recognize this is a danger. I hope we defeat this amendment, but I 
commit to her we will work to try to address this clear and present 
danger, through studies and work with TSA and other agencies of 
government. I look forward to working with the Senator.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am very grateful. Senator McCain is my 
chairman, Senator Hollings is the ranking member. We will work together 
on this threat.
  I have to say when we are dealing with an emergency supplemental bill 
where we have a study already accepted by my friend, which I am very 
happy about, which is moving forward, this is not inconsistent with 
that. This will just move along a little quicker. If you look at the 
FBI warning, we need to act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. 
Dole) is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Dole) would vote ``yes.''
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily 
absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``no.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 117 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

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

                                NAYS--47

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Dole
     Edwards
     Kerry
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                      Amendment No. 459 Withdrawn

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, the next order of business is the 
amendment of the Senator from Florida, Mr. Graham.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. STEVENS. I see my friend is here. Maybe he would like to 
announce, we have reached agreement to modify his amendment. We will 
put it in the managers' package because it is being withdrawn. We have 
reached accommodation with the Senator from Florida, after further 
conversation with the VA administration.
  I yield to my friend for a minute if he would like.
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Madam President, the Senator from Alaska has 
very accurately described the negotiation. Therefore, I ask unanimous 
consent to temporarily withdraw my amendment with the understanding it 
will be approved in the managers' package, as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I thank the Senator. It is the proper 
thing to do.
  I yield now to the Senator from Nevada.


                      Amendment No. 488 Withdrawn

  Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, regretfully, I ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw my amendment. I also want to briefly say that this is a battle 
I plan to continue. I believe it was the right thing to do. But we are 
going to live to fight another day on this particular amendment. We are 
going to watch what the administration does with the funds for 
reconstructing Iraq, perhaps even join this fight at a later date. I 
ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 488 be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the right to withdraw his 
amendment at this time.
  The amendment is withdrawn.
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I would like to address an inquiry to 
the Senator from Nevada who indicates he intends to live and fight 
another day on this amendment. If and when he does so, I hope he will 
also address the question of how much cooperation he anticipates 
receiving from the intelligence services in both Germany and France in 
our fight against international terrorism. If he is going to be laying 
down a marker to these countries with his amendment, I hope when he 
does so the consideration of its impact on our cooperation with these 
countries in the effort against terrorism will be in the forefront of 
his explanation.


                           Amendment No. 481

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, we still have another amendment to vote 
on in the queue according to previous agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The McCain amendment is the next amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask for the yeas and nays on the McCain amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. This is an up-or-down vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, could we, in this body, strike these 
nonessential and unnecessary projects from this bill so we can focus on 
the intent of the language? I don't want to debate the merits or 
demerits of projects that are included in the bill. They are clearly 
nonemergency and

[[Page 8312]]

nonwar related. I ask my colleagues in the Senate to consider striking 
them. They can come in future appropriations bills, but they are 
certainly not appropriate at this time on this bill.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, the Senator from Iowa has expressed 
opposition to this amendment. I do express opposition to it myself. I 
would like to take the balance of the time to tell the Senate we are 
working to try to finish the bill. This is the last of the amendments 
that is part of this package. We will struggle to put together another 
series of amendments to vote on no later than 4 o'clock. We have, for 
very strong reasons, at least one Member and others who requested we 
try to finish this bill as early as possible today. I urge Senators to 
contact us to see if there are any further amendments we might work out 
and not have to vote. But there will be some votes probably by 4:30.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. McCAIN. Regular order, Madam President.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am finished.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask for the regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired on the amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. I took the time in opposition. I thought I was entitled 
to take the time in opposition. As manager, I oppose the amendment. I 
ask unanimous consent for 1 minute on the other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCAIN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. HARKIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 481. The yeas and nays 
have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) 
is 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 38, nays 61, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 118 Leg.]

                                YEAS--38

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Chambliss
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Graham (FL)
     Graham (SC)
     Hagel
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     Miller
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Smith
     Snowe
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Warner

                                NAYS--61

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Voinovich
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kerry
       
  The amendment (No. 481) was rejected.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                              Vote change

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on vote No. 118 I am recorded as voting 
aye on amendment No. 481. I ask unanimous consent that my vote be 
recorded as nay. This change will not affect the outcome of the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
  Mr. REID. Senator Stevens, Senator Kohl has an amendment, and he 
wants 5 minutes on it. It may require a vote; we have not had a chance 
to look at it.
  Mr. STEVENS. With due respect, we are still negotiating with several 
people, including Senator Kohl. I urge not putting that amendment in 
yet. If we are going to make the deadlines some want to meet, we will 
have to work some amendments out.
  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. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I was not in the Chamber prior to the 
last vote, and there was an objection to having an extra minute so I 
could make some comments on the vote just held.
  I thank the Senators for rejecting the McCain amendment for a number 
of reasons, but most importantly because the biggest item in that 
proposed amendment was funding to begin to complete the National Animal 
Disease Laboratory located in Ames, IA. I point out that this National 
Animal Disease Laboratory is fully authorized, specifically authorized. 
It has been peer reviewed. The USDA developed all the lands, and it is 
being built on an expedited basis to get it completed as soon as 
possible. It is a national animal disease laboratory in Ames. It is not 
an Ames lab, it is not an Iowa lab. Think about it like NIH. The 
National Institutes of Health is located in Maryland, but it is not a 
Maryland facility. It is a national facility. You can look at it like 
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, GA. That is 
not a Georgia facility; it is a national facility that just happens to 
be located in Atlanta. The same is true of the National Animal Disease 
Laboratory. It is a national laboratory that is located in Iowa.
  I think in speaking of the Centers for Disease Control, we could also 
think of the National Animal Disease Lab as sort of the animal 
counterpart to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Just as 
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is there nationally to 
help prevent or stop any kind of an infectious outbreak that might 
occur among humans, whether it is anthrax or smallpox or SARS or 
whatever it is, the job of the CDC is to get in there, contain it, stop 
it from infecting more people. The National Animal Disease Laboratory 
has the same function for animals. It is there to prevent, to stop 
infectious outbreaks among animals, infectious outbreaks that could 
devastate entire herds or entire populations of animals in this 
country, as we saw what happened with the mad cow disease in Great 
Britain. The National Animal Disease Lab would be charged with the 
responsibility, if there is any kind of bioterrorist outbreak or you 
had an animal infectious disease that could be transmitted to humans, 
the National Animal Disease Lab would be there to stop it, contain it, 
and keep it from spreading.
  That is why it is so important at this time to make sure we complete 
the National Animal Disease Lab as soon as possible.
  I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their support in 
defeating the McCain amendment that would have drastically cut back on 
our ability to get the National Animal Disease Lab completed as 
expeditiously as possible.

[[Page 8313]]

  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. May I inquire if the Senator is willing to have a time 
agreement for his amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Would the Senator restate his inquiry?
  Mr. STEVENS. I asked if the Senator would be willing to discuss a 
time agreement on his amendment?
  Mr. BREAUX. The answer is yes. What was the custom of some of the 
other amendments? What was the division of time on the others, 20-10?
  Mr. STEVENS. The custom, as the Senator from Nevada says, is 20 
minutes on your side, 10 minutes on this side on amendments we didn't 
intend to work out, with the understanding the vote will be delayed.
  I ask unanimous consent there be 30 minutes, 20 minutes for the 
Senator from Louisiana and 10 minutes under my control, and with the 
vote to occur at a time to be specified after consultation with my 
friend from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Also with no second-degree amendment in order.
  Mr. STEVENS. No second-degree amendments.
  Mr. DORGAN. Reserving the right to object, I ask the Senator if that 
will provide sufficient time? I would like to speak for 10 minutes.
  Mr. BREAUX. I have no other request for time. Ten minutes is 
sufficient for me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DORGAN. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 494

  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I send to the desk amendment No. 494 and 
ask it be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
set aside. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Breaux] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 494.

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

       At the end of the bill, insert the following:

         TITLE III--FEDERAL HOMELAND SECURITY RESPONSIBILITIES

                    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

                       United States Coast Guard


                           operating expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Operating Expenses'', 
     $200,000,000, to remain available until December 31, 2003, 
     for terrorism-related prevention, preparedness, and response 
     requirements associated with Operation Liberty Shield, 
     including but not limited to operating expenses related to 
     the increase in maritime operating tempo, the protection of 
     critical infrastructure and enforcement of Security Zones, 
     and the activation of Coast Guard Reservists.

                   BORDER AND TRANSPORTATION SECURITY


                     customs and border protection

       For an additional amount for ``Customs and Border 
     Protection'', $366,000,000, to remain available until 
     December 31, 2003, of which not less than $35,000,000 shall 
     be for the Container Security Initiative, not less 
     $200,000,000 shall be for radiation portal monitors and other 
     forms of non-intrusive inspection equipment to be deployed at 
     the Nation's ports-of-entry, and not less than $131,000,000 
     shall be for increased border and maritime protection 
     operations, overtime pay, and other activities resulting from 
     the movement to the ``Code Orange'' terrorist threat level 
     and in support of activities related to Operation Liberty 
     Shield.


                  immigration and customs enforcement

       For an additional amount for ``Immigration and Customs 
     Enforcement'', $131,000,000, to remain available until 
     December 31, 2003, for increased operations, overtime pay, 
     and other activities resulting from the movement to the 
     ``Code Orange'' terrorist threat level and in support of 
     activities related to Operation Liberty Shield.

                 Transportation Security Administration

       For additional amounts for necessary expenses of the 
     Transportation Security Administration related to 
     transportation security services pursuant to Public Law 107-
     71 and Public Law 107-296 and for other purposes, 
     $1,355,000,000, to remain available until December 31, 2003, 
     of which not less than $235,000,000 shall be available for 
     costs associated with the modification of airports to comply 
     with the provisions of the Aviation and Transportation 
     Security Act, not less than $300,000,000 shall be available 
     for grants to public transit agencies in urbanized areas for 
     enhancing the security of transit facilities against 
     chemical, biological and other terrorist threats, not less 
     than $620,000,000 for shortfalls pursuant to Public Law 108-
     10, including the securing of airline cockpit doors, port 
     security grants, and airport modifications, not less than 
     $200,000,000 for railroad security grants including grants to 
     the National Railroad Passenger Corporation for capital 
     expenses associated with tunnel and dispatch facility 
     security enhancements;

                Federal Law Enforcement Training Center


                         salaries and expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'', 
     $20,000,000, to remain available until December 31, 2003 for 
     personnel, equipment and support for increased training 
     requirements for Federal and State and local law enforcement 
     personnel.

                    Office for Domestic Preparedness

       For an additional amount for ``Emergency Management 
     Planning and Assistance'', $150,000,000, to remain available 
     until December 31, 2003, for grants to States and localities 
     to improve communications within and among first responders 
     including law enforcement, firefighters, emergency medical 
     services personnel, and other emergency personnel.

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                         National Park Service


                 operation of the national park system

       For an additional amount for ``Operation of the National 
     Park System'', $18,000,000, to remain available until 
     December 31, 2003, for expenses related to enhanced security 
     at nationally significant facilities.

                         DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                     United States Marshals Service


                         salaries and expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'', 
     $25,000,000, to remain available until December 31, 2003, for 
     necessary expenses relating to courthouse security; Provided, 
     That funds provided under this paragraph shall be available 
     only after the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and Senate are notified in accordance with 
     section 605 of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and 
     State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
     Act, 2003.

                    Federal Bureau of Investigation


                         salaries and expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'', 
     $225,000,000, to remain available until December 31, 2003, 
     for necessary expenses relating to response and security 
     capabilities and field operations: Provided, That funds 
     provided under this paragraph shall be available only after 
     the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and Senate are notified in accordance with 
     section 605 of the Department of Commerce, Justice, and 
     State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
     Act, 2003.

                       Office of Justice Programs


                  community oriented policing services

       For an additional amount for the Community Oriented 
     Policing Services' Interoperable Communications Technology 
     Program, for grants to States and localities to improve 
     communications within and among law enforcement agencies, 
     firefighters and emergency medical service personnel, 
     $150,000,000, to remain available until December 31, 2003.

                   District of Columbia Federal Funds


              feberal payment to the district of columbia

       For a Federal payment to the District of Columbia for 
     critical infrastrature protection $25,000,000, to remain 
     available until December 31, 2003, for security upgrades and 
     backup operations of transportation, emergency response, 
     energy, and communications infrastructure in the District of 
     Columbia; Provided, That the Mayor and the Chairman of the 
     Council of the District of Columbia shall, in consultation 
     with the governments in the National Capital region, submit a 
     financial plan to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives and Senate for approval not later 
     than 30 days after enactment of this act; Provided further, 
     That the Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia 
     shall provide quarterly reports to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and Senate on 
     the use of funds under this heading, beginning not later than 
     June 2, 2003.

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

            Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry


            toxic substances and environmental public health

       For an additional amount for ``Toxic Substances and 
     Environmental Public Health'',

[[Page 8314]]

     $10,000,000 to remain available until December 31, 2003, to 
     enhance States' capacity to respond to chemical terrorism 
     events.
       Section   . Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     Act, funding under the heading Department of Justice, General 
     Administration, Counterterrorism Fund, shall be zero.
       Section   . Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     Act, funding under the heading Department of Homeland 
     Security, Departmental Management, Counterterrorism Fund, 
     shall be zero.

  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, the committee has done a very good job in 
addressing a number of concerns dealing with terrorism, particularly in 
the area of counterterrorism, by creating a fund that is going to give 
to the Department of Homeland Security $1.135 billion for 
counterterrorism. I think the administration actually requested a 
little more money than that.
  Regarding the amendment I have, we think, No. 1, it should be more 
than that and, No. 2, we think Congress should be involved and the 
American people should be involved in where that money is going to be 
allocated, as to which department doing this type of work is going to 
get the additional funds.
  The amendment of the committee, about which I am concerned, says: Mr. 
President, here is $1.135 billion. Let's throw it up against the wall 
and hope it comes off the wall and falls down and does some good. We 
take $1.135 billion and throw it up in the air and somehow hope it 
comes down and settles in the areas where it can do the most good to 
protect the American people.
  I think that is not the way we should do business. We are taxing the 
American people for these moneys to be spent to protect the American 
public. We as a Congress should have a direct say-so, not just entrust 
it to an individual Secretary as to where the money should go.
  My amendment says in the area of counterterrorism funds, instead of 
$1.135 billion, we are going to have $2.65 billion, an increase for 
counterterrorism provisions in the bill.
  In addition to that, we are going to say where the moneys are going 
to be allocated. That is the role of the Congress. That is the 
appropriate role of the Congress.
  For instance, in the Coast Guard, our provision provides $200 million 
more for the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard is being asked to do a lot 
more work domestically. Most of the money in the committee's bill is 
for Coast Guard utilization overseas. That is fine; they ought to be 
overseas doing this work, but they also should be protecting the ports 
of America, the ports of New York, and the gulf and the west coast and 
east coast ports. We also say the Bureau of Customs and Border 
Protection should have an increase of $366 million for the inspections 
they are going to be required to do.
  We have literally millions of containers, each carrying as much as 
60,000 pounds of material, coming into the ports of the United States. 
We ought to be looking at these containers where they are loaded, in 
foreign ports. The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection is going to 
need that additional money if, in fact, they are going to be able to 
get the job done.
  In addition to the Bureau of Customs, we are talking about $1 billion 
for transportation security. We are talking about making sure that at 
all the airports where we are telling them now you have to put in all 
this fancy equipment, not just to check luggage that is carried on the 
plane but check every single piece of luggage that is going to go into 
the cargo hold of the plane--how many of us have had to be delayed at 
airports because they are checking not only your carry-on luggage but 
also the stuff that is going to be checked into the hold of the plane. 
You see the long lines develop. They need the equipment to make sure 
that type of luggage is safe and not delaying passengers and the 
traveling public moving into the airports.
  We also say about the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, give 
them an additional $20 million for enhanced training.
  We are asking these organizations now to work 24 hours a day, 7 days 
a week training these new employees to make sure they know what they 
are doing. They are going to need additional funds for that.
  I read the bill from the committee. It just says on page 36 of the 
bill: counterterrorism, give the Secretary the discretion to spend 
$1.135. That is what the bill says. That means throw it over to the 
Secretary; let him spend it anywhere he wants. I think the report 
language says here are some suggestions. That is fine; we all know what 
happens with report language. It is filed in some staff person's desk, 
and they don't pay any attention to it. That is not the law. They can 
totally ignore it. They can disregard it, pay no attention to it 
whatsoever.
  If you put it into law, it would state that these are the categories 
that are necessary in order to make sure this counterterrorism 
provision is run the way we would like to see it run.
  Mr. President, I want to yield time to the distinguished Senator from 
North Dakota. I think he said he would like to have 10 minutes. And if 
he could use less, we may get another speaker in here. But I yield 10 
minutes to the distinguished Senator from North Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment offered by 
my colleague, Senator Breaux. I am a cosponsor of that amendment.
  Let me describe why I think this is so important. We have a number of 
wars that are going on at the moment. We have a conflict, a war in 
Iraq. We have a war against terrorism. So in this piece of legislation 
we deal with defense, the costs of defense.
  Part of defense is the Defense Department, in which men and women in 
America's uniform are overseas protecting our country and involved in 
the conflict in Iraq. But, also, part of the defense is our homeland 
defense. The issue of homeland defense is very important.
  Let me describe what happens inside this country each and every day: 
1.1 million passengers come into this country processed by the Customs 
Service; 57,000 trucks and containers come into this country every 
single day; 580 vessels arrive at this country's ports; 2,459 aircraft 
arrive in this country; 323,000 vehicles, every single day.
  No one is going to provide an adequate homeland defense in this 
country unless we have secure borders and are able to prevent 
terrorists--both known terrorists and those who associate with 
terrorists--from coming into our country. Frankly, we are not doing as 
good a job as we must in order to prevent a future act of terrorism in 
this country.
  I speak from the standpoint of a northern border State. We have 
thousands of miles of common border with our good neighbor to the 
north, the country of Canada.
  We know that at least two of those who perpetrated the September 11 
attack came into this country across the northern border. We also know 
that, in the past, almost all of our resources in this country were 
targeted at the southern border, southwestern border. Border Patrol, 
Immigration, the Customs Service: Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds--
in fact, thousands--of agents from all of those agencies were at the 
southern border, and a very few at the 4,000-mile northern border that 
we share with Canada.
  So what do we do about that? Well, we need the resources at the 
northern border, and the new technology that is available, to make sure 
we try to keep terrorists out. Once again, you must have control of 
your borders or you do not have control inside the country to prevent 
an act of terrorism perpetrated against our country.
  Now, when I began this process, even before September 11, I proposed 
something called the Northern Border Initiative. That became law. That 
added some resources at the northern border. It became more imperative 
after September 11 that we do much more. Prior to that time, when the 
northern border ports would close, especially in the remote areas, they 
would simply put an orange cone in the middle of the road, and that 
would be the protection in this country against terrorism. Well, 
terrorists, of course, were they to enter at one of those rural remote 
ports, would shred that orange cone at 70 miles an hour with their 
vehicle.

[[Page 8315]]

  The fact is, we have to do more. And we are now doing more. But we 
are not doing enough. That is why the Senator from Louisiana offers an 
amendment that says let's make the investments we know we need to make.
  He mentioned seaports. I come from a landlocked State. I do not know 
much about seaports, but I have made two tours of seaports, two of them 
recently, to understand what is happening at our ports. Mr. President, 
5.7 million containers come in every single year on container ships--
5.7 million. And 100,000 of them are inspected.
  I was at a port one day--and I have told my colleagues this 
previously--but they had a refrigerated container there that they had 
taken off a container ship. I said: What's in that container? They 
said: Well, we're just inspecting that. They said: This is frozen 
broccoli from Poland. And they showed me one of the 100-pound bags of 
frozen broccoli they pulled out of this container. They ripped open the 
bag, and, sure enough, there it was, frozen broccoli from Poland. It 
didn't look very appetizing to me, but it was going to go into 
America's food supply.
  So I said: Well, that is interesting to know. You have shown me the 
bag at the end of the container. What is in the middle of the bag in 
the middle of the container? Do you know?
  They said: No, we don't know. I said: Do you know where it came from? 
They said: We know it came from Poland. I said: Do you know who loaded 
it? They said: No, we don't know. I said: Do you know that there's not 
something in the middle of this container that could threaten our 
country? They said: No, we don't know.
  Mr. President, 5.7 million containers come into this country every 
year, and we inspect 100,000 of them.
  You know the story about the person from the Middle East who put 
himself in a container and intended to ship himself to Canada in a 
container. He had a little bathroom set up in the container. He had a 
water supply. He had a computer. He had a GPS. He had a cot. He had a 
heater. He was going to ship himself to Canada, presumably then to 
enter this country from Canada. But he did it in a container. They 
caught him actually before he left the Middle East.
  The fact is, we had better care about homeland security--yes, about 
the northern border, about the southern border, about aircraft coming 
into this country, and, yes, about ships that are pulling up to our 
seaports this afternoon in New York, Los Angeles, and the other major 
ports around this country.
  Which of those ships might have a weapon of mass destruction in the 
middle of a container, piled in the middle of that ship, that will be 
hoisted off, by a crane, put on 18 wheels, and then sped across 
America's highways to Cincinnati or Toledo or Fargo or Los Angeles? 
That is what homeland defense has to be about: preventing these kinds 
of things from happening, preventing terrorists from perpetrating an 
attack in this country.
  We have actually done pretty well since 9/11. The fact is, there is 
much more to do. It will not do any good to say: Well, yes, this is 
needed, but let's do it later.
  This is the legislation. This is a supplemental appropriations bill. 
This is emergency funding. And this is about defense, yes, the Defense 
Department, but also, in my judgment, the defense of our homeland.
  I have not gone through all of the portions of this bill that the 
Senator from Louisiana suggests we adequately fund, but it is the 
Immigration Service, the Customs Service, the Border Patrol, and a list 
of agencies that we know have to have adequate funding to do the job 
this country expects in order to protect itself against a terrorist 
attack.
  So this is not some ad hoc spending for which the Senator has no 
justification. This is spending and funding every bit as important as 
every dollar that is going to the U.S. Department of Defense. This is 
homeland defense. That is the Department of Defense. Both are of 
paramount importance in protecting this country's interests. I hope my 
colleagues will join me in supporting the amendment now offered by the 
Senator from Louisiana.
  There is, perhaps, an unlimited number of things we could do to 
protect this country, but we do not have unlimited funds. The Senator 
has selected specific areas of investment that all of us know are 
underfunded. And he said: Yes, let's do this, but, more important, 
let's do this now.
  I just submit, in the shadow of 9/11, this country knows that 
terrorists want to attack this country. Homeland defense is of 
paramount importance. The investment--a rather small investment, in my 
judgment--made by the amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana 
will make this a stronger country, better able to resist terrorists who 
wish to attack her.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I wish to speak in support of the amendment 
offered by Mr. Breaux.
  For many months now, the American people have been told that we are 
at war. We are at war in Iraq. We are at war here at home. We are at 
war against the al-Qaida terrorist network and other organizations like 
it. We are at war against terrorists who would use any means possible 
to destroy our Government, strike fear in our people, and cripple this 
great Nation.
  But, America is still woefully unprepared to prevent or respond to 
another terrorist attack. Despite the constant warnings from the 
Department of Homeland Security about terrorist threats here at home, 
and despite the obvious vulnerabilities, there are some in Congress who 
seem to want to put off sound investment for increased protections for 
our people. ``Hold off! Hold off! Wait for another day!'' they say. Mr. 
President, we may wait, but the terrorists, I fear, will not wait.
  The amendment before the Senate, which is offered by Mr. Breaux, 
would invest dollars now--today!--in some of the most critical areas of 
vulnerability here at home.
  The amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana would provide 
$2.6 billion for border and transportation security, including $200 
million for the Coast Guard, $35 million for the Bureau of Customs and 
Border Protection, $200 million for radiation detection equipment, $235 
million for airport explosion detection systems, $300 million for mass 
transit security, $300 million for interoperable communications for 
first responders, $225 million for terrorism prevention at the Federal 
Bureau of Investigations, and funding to reimburse Department of 
Homeland Security expenses incurred as a result of Code Orange and to 
make up for fiscal year 2003 funding shortfalls at the Transportation 
Security Administration.
  A March 12, 2003, General Accounting Office report concluded that the 
Coast Guard faces ``fundamental challenges in meeting its new security-
related responsibilities while rebuilding its capacity to accomplish 
other missions that have declined'' and that these challenges are made 
even more difficult by the heightened terror alert and by Coast Guard 
deployments to the Persian Gulf.
  In addition, a December 2002, GAO report identified more than $700 
million in security needs at only eight transit agencies that were 
visited. The GAO concluded that, ``Obtaining sufficient funding is the 
most significant challenge in making transit systems as safe and secure 
as possible.'' Yet to date, no money--none--has been provided for 
transit security.
  If there is one lesson that we should learn from 9/11, it is that 
terrorist attacks on our Nation can no longer be viewed as distant 
threats across the oceans. The enemy may attack our troops, the enemy 
may attack our citizens overseas or civilians here at home. Clearly, 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 real needs that have been authorized by the 
Congress and signed into law by the President for port security, 
airport security, border security, and nuclear security.
  We should not accept the alarming deficiencies in our seaport 
security--an

[[Page 8316]]

area that many experts have identified as perhaps the Nation's single 
greatest vulnerability. We should not accept the fact that our land 
borders are porous and that our airports simply cannot afford modern 
security equipment. We should not be satisfied that our cities and 
States--the front lines of this war at home--do not have sufficient 
equipment or expertise to handle wide-ranging threats involving madmen 
who may have gotten their hands on weapons of mass destruction.
  The danger is clear. The need is clear. I urge my colleagues to 
support the Breaux amendment.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Byrd, Senator 
Breaux, and others in supporting this Federal homeland responsibilities 
amendment. In particular, I want to speak for a moment about the 
National Park Service component of the amendment. As the ranking member 
on the Interior and Related Agencies Subcommittee, I am deeply 
concerned that the administration's supplemental funding request will 
leave the National Park Service in the lurch, without the resources it 
needs to protect our most important national symbols.
  The Statue of Liberty, the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial, 
the Jefferson Memorial, the St. Louis Arch, the Liberty Bell, and 
Independence Hall in Philadelphia; these are just some of the national 
icons under the protection of the Park Service. These treasures are, in 
their own unique way, potent reminders of the liberty and freedom that 
are the foundation of the American experience. They symbolize the 
struggles this Nation has overcome, the hope we have maintained for our 
future, and the essence of the democracy we all cherish.
  The Twin Towers of the World Trade Center were a powerful symbol of 
the economic might of our Nation, and that is why they were attacked. 
The Pentagon is a powerful symbol of our military might, and that is 
why it was attacked. I worry about which symbol is next. Which of these 
facilities, emblematic of our liberty, will the terrorists target next? 
I don't have the answer to that question, nor do I know anyone who 
does. This is precisely why we need to provide the National Park 
Service with the resources it needs to ensure the safety and security 
of these national treasures.
  In fact, yesterday's Washington Post contains an article which 
substantiates my fears. As of yesterday, the Park Service has closed 
Independence Hall in Philadelphia because of security concerns 
associated with the elevated threat level. The very birthplace of our 
Constitution--the document once called the ``most wonderful work ever 
struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man''--has been 
closed to the American people because the Park Service is unable to 
provide for its security. Part of the problem, as the article points 
out, is lack of funding. ``Since the government raised its color-coded 
threat index to orange, or high risk, two week ago, the National Park 
Service's daily security costs have increased by $63,500. . . .'' That 
is a daily cost, and comes to nearly $2 million per month, money the 
Park Service simply does not have. Yet despite asking for $75 billion, 
the administration's supplemental request did not include any funding 
for these additional security costs. That is wrong, and it is why we 
have included funding for the Park Service in our amendment.
  We cannot turn our backs on the security needs mandated by the 
increased threat level. Nor can we expect the Park Service to just 
absorb these costs. It is our responsibility to provide these funds, 
and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the Breaux 
amendment for a variety of reasons, but I will limit my remarks to the 
provision dealing with increased funding for mass transit security.
  I commend the Senator from Louisiana for bringing attention to this 
important issue. While I believe that transit security is an issue 
deserving of increased investment, the approach taken in the amendment 
is not one that I can support at this time.
  Existing Federal transit law already requires that a percentage of 
formula funds be used for safety and security needs. The Federal 
Transit Administration has made transit security a priority. FTA has 
already conducted assessments for the 33 largest systems and has 
provided a ``tool box'' to help systems develop their own 
individualized security programs. Further, FTA has developed and 
distributed a checklist of the most important measures that transit 
agencies should implement to ensure that their systems are as secure as 
possible. FTA has made it a priority to work with agencies to assist in 
implementation of those measures.
  Mass transit is perhaps one of the most difficult modes of 
transportation to secure. By its very nature, transit must operate in 
an open environment in order to provide its customers with mobility and 
access. We need to carefully consider how we develop transit security 
measures to ensure that we do not risk stranding those who depend on 
transit for their day-to-day mobility needs.
  As chairman of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 
I am cognizant of the unique need for further analysis of transit 
security issues. As the committee reauthorizes the Federal transit 
program this Congress, we intend to make the issue of transit security 
a high priority.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Breaux amendment.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Breaux Federal 
homeland security responsibilities amendment. This amendment addresses 
a number of important homeland security needs that the administration 
has failed to adequately fund, and it deserves the support of this 
Senate.
  I particularly want to thank the author of this amendment for 
including specific resources to help protect our Nation's transit 
systems and the 14 million Americans who depend on them to get to work 
or elsewhere safely and securely every workday.
  In the 107th Congress, as the chairman of the Housing and 
Transportation Subcommittee, I chaired two hearings on the topic of 
transit security in the wake of September 11. At these hearings, we 
heard from transit operators and others that public transportation is 
regrettably a target for terrorists. Indeed, roughly one-third of 
terrorist attacks worldwide have occurred against transportation 
systems. One only needs to watch international news to see pictures of 
the devastation of suicide bombers on buses.
  Senator Sarbanes and I also requested a General Accounting Office 
report on transit security entitled ``Mass Transit: Federal Action 
Could Help Transit Agencies Address Security Challenges.'' The GAO 
found that the Federal Transit Administration and the Transportation 
Safety Administration were providing technical assistance and some 
training to transit systems, but that there are still many unmet needs. 
For example, when the GAO asked just eight transit systems how much 
they needed to address their security needs, the answer was over $700 
million. Transit systems also expressed concern that there is often 
insufficient planning, communication and coordination with local, State 
and Federal law enforcement entities.
  The administration, which has embraced the Senate's efforts to 
improve aviation security, has unfortunately not shown the same level 
of commitment to our transit systems. It failed to request specific 
funding for transit security in either its fiscal year 2004 budget or 
its fiscal year 2003 supplemental request.
  The Breaux amendment would address this shortcoming by providing a 
down-payment for transit security improvements and send a strong signal 
to the millions of working men and women who ride our subways, buses, 
and commuter rail lines that their government is aggressively working 
to improve transit security.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, it has been our hope that we could get 
the cooperation of the Senate in funding

[[Page 8317]]

what are essential needs of the Department of Homeland Security for the 
balance of this fiscal year. In trying to determine what those amounts 
are for all of these new activities, the 22 agencies that have been 
folded into this new Department under the jurisdiction of Secretary Tom 
Ridge, we had hearings. We have questioned agency officials to 
determine how we could help support the administration's effort to 
improve the security of our homeland, to fund the activities of those 
agencies that are involved in the war effort in Iraq, such as the Coast 
Guard, to be sure that they could meet their responsibilities.
  We did this in a very careful and deliberate way, knowing full well 
that because of the concerns and the fears that exist throughout the 
country about terrorism attacks and because of the increase in the 
threat levels that from time to time are announced, there is no way we 
could assuage the concerns of everybody with just money. But money 
helps. If a State or locality believes it is not able to afford what it 
thinks it needs to do right now to protect its citizens, there is 
pressure that builds on elected Members of this body. All of us feel 
this pressure right now to be sure that we do the best job we possibly 
can to put money in the hands of those agencies and those government 
officials that can make a difference in terms of our national security 
needs.
  We didn't just think up these numbers and throw them in the bill. 
They are based upon estimates we have received from each agency, the 
President's request that was submitted to the Congress, and the 
testimony from the recent hearing when Secretary Ridge appeared before 
our committee and we had an opportunity to talk with him about these 
needs.
  One reason there is some concern is that the Secretary asked for 
flexibility. There were some members of the committee who questioned 
him pretty sharply about why he needed flexibility, that it is the role 
of the Congress to make sure we appropriate money for specific purposes 
and not just write a blank check.
  Well, we didn't write a blank check. We have written not only the 
provisions of the bill with specificity about how the funds we are 
appropriating are to be used, but we also have accompanied the bill 
with a written report that spells out, in the case of the 
counterterrorism fund, what our understanding of the needs are and the 
estimates that we received from the agencies. So in spite of the 
suggestions we have heard by the proponents of this amendment, we do 
have some specificity.
  We have, for example, put in the committee report, with respect to 
the Department of Homeland Security's 30-day surge associated with 
immediate or emerging terrorism-related prevention and response 
activities, the following: Bureau of Immigration and Customs 
enforcement, $55 million. Federal Protective Service overtimes 
operations and maintenance for the air program and other related costs 
are included in that. For the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration 
Services, $1 million. The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, we 
have $65 million. That includes overtime, operation costs of assets, 
impact on user fee collections and other logistics costs, and on and 
on. Transportation Security Administration, $120 million, overtime for 
passenger screeners, operation costs of assets, contract hiring, 
service training, and State and local expenses. We enumerate several 
other activities with specificity in that connection.
  One thing the Senate needs to know, the Breaux amendment deletes the 
entire provision, the funding for the entire provision of the 
counterterrorism fund. I will read it. This is what it says; it is very 
clear: ``Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, funding under 
the heading Department of Homeland Security, Departmental Management, 
Counterterrorism Fund, shall be zero,'' knocking out $1.132 billion. 
Then $500 million is zeroed out of the Department of Justice, General 
Administration, Counterterrorism Fund.
  Think about what you are being asked to do. This amendment is 
suggesting that you disregard the efforts by the committee in the 
writing of a meticulously drafted committee report that specifies our 
understanding of where these funds are going to be spent, and you trade 
that for this amendment that is offered, as we are in the closing hours 
of consideration of this supplemental bill and assume that these 
recommendations are going to be superior to the ones the committee has 
proposed to the Senate.
  I am suggesting this is not a good way to legislate. The Senate ought 
to reject this amendment. These are efforts and activities of our 
Government that are too important for the Senate to be asked to 
substitute the judgment of a new list of activities with new numbers 
beside them that are not related to estimates from the agency, are not 
related to any testimony we have received in any of our hearings, but 
yet amount to a rewrite of this entire section of the supplemental 
appropriations bill.
  There is some money in here for States and localities. We hope the 
Senate understands that we have written in here some requirements that 
get the money out faster to States and localities. It requires that 80 
percent of the funding go directly to localities in some of the grant 
programs administered by the Department of Homeland Security.
  We have made a concerted effort to ensure that the taxpayers will get 
their money's worth out of the funds appropriated in this bill. For 
example, although this amendment adds money for the Coast Guard, we set 
up a separate section for funding of Coast Guard activities. We put in 
$580 million directly to the Coast Guard. I have to admit, that was not 
requested by the administration, but we wanted to be sure their 
activities, particularly with regard to Operation Iraqi Freedom, were 
fully funded.
  The Coast Guard has been mobilized, in effect, as a part of our war 
against terror in the Persian Gulf area, so-called Operation Iraqi 
Freedom. But they also have responsibilities here for homeland 
activities. The bill reported by the Committee on Appropriations gives 
the Secretary discretion to use fiscal year 2003 funds from the 
counterterrorism account to allocate funding to the Coast Guard for 
additional operation expenses. That includes Operation Liberty Shield. 
The bill fully funds the administration's request in support of the 
Coast Guard and general terrorism prevention, preparedness, and 
response capability.
  There is absolutely no basis for the $200 million estimate in the 
amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana. It is just added on. 
If there is evidence, if there is a request, if there is documentation, 
then we need to see it. We ought not be asked to support add-ons to 
this bill to make it sound as if we are underfunding the legitimate 
needs of these agencies in the protection of the security of our 
country.
  I suggest the Senate should look very carefully at this amendment.
  I will cite one other area. This amendment puts in $131 million for 
increased border and maritime protection operations. What this 
amendment does is double the amount that the administration says they 
need, just doubles it: If what we suggest is good, then twice as much 
ought to be twice as good.
  That is not good reasoning and the Senate ought to reject the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BREAUX. How much time remains on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana has 6 minutes, and 
the Senator from Mississippi has 25 seconds.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes. I ask unanimous 
consent that Senators Schumer, Clinton, Stabenow, and Kennedy be added 
as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, the idea that Congress ought to be 
involved in how the money is spent is not a novel idea. If we are going 
to spend $1.135 billion, Congress ought to be involved in saying how it 
is going to be spent.
  The bill before the Senate now says that we are going to give $1.135 
billion to the Office of the Secretary of Homeland Security, and 
whatever he wants

[[Page 8318]]

to do with it, he pretty much has carte blanche to do whatever he 
thinks fit. I would hope he would make the right decisions, but I would 
like to have Congress involved in saying these are the priorities 
within that $1.135 billion as to what we think should be spent and how 
it should be spent. We do not do our job if we just appropriate money 
and do not indicate how the money should be spent, especially when you 
are talking about billions of dollars.
  Here is an example. The Senator from Mississippi says we have a 
report that makes suggestions. Folks, this is a suggestion. This could 
be filed in a desk drawer at the Department, thrown in the waste paper 
basket, and ignored, because it doesn't have the effect of law. It is 
nice that people worked on it and that it was printed, but how many 
people will read it? Not very many, and not many will read it over at 
the Department of Homeland Security either.
  If you want to say how money is going to be spent, it has to be part 
of the law. We are not saying spend whatever you want. We are giving 
him a specific amount. We should also say how that specific amount is 
going to be spent. That is what my amendment does.
  Let me give an example of what the problem is. For the Coast Guard--
and we know how much work they are going to have to be doing in the 
United States, in the ports of New York, Florida, New Orleans, Houston, 
and the west coast because of the problems we have--the supplemental 
appropriations bill puts in $580 million more for the Coast Guard. What 
they say is that $400 million of it is going overseas. We need it 
overseas. That is appropriate and proper. But we also have some 
homeland needs for counterterrorism.
  Under the supplemental bill pending before the Senate, we would have 
$180 million for the domestic Coast Guard needs, and then the remainder 
of $400 million would be going overseas. We are neglecting homeland 
security. We are talking about homeland security, which means here at 
home.
  So we are suggesting that we add an additional $200 million, which 
would be utilized in this country for the needs at all of the ports. 
They have to do a lot more, we are telling them, and the Coast Guard 
has to devise a security plan for every single port in the United 
States. They are not going to be able to do that for free, with all the 
work that needs to go into those ports.
  If we are going to spend $1.135 billion, the Congress should be 
involved in saying where it is going to be spent. We should not simply 
say: Here is the money; we hope it does some good; whatever you want to 
use it for, do it, as long as it fits the generic title of 
counterterrorism. Well, counterterrorism is more than a word; it is the 
Coast Guard, the Bureau of Customs, the Immigration Service, and it is 
money for airport modifications to detect the luggage going into the 
holds of the ship; it is mass transit security, railroad security, 
Federal law enforcement training, and it is better communications for 
the men and women who work in counterterrorism.
  That is what counterterrorism is. It is not just a term; it is a 
bunch of Agencies and Departments that have a lot of work to do. We 
ought to have the intelligence to be able to say where it is going to 
be spent, instead of just putting a term out there and saying we are 
going to give $1.135 billion for counterterrorism.
  What is counterterrorism? I suggest that counterterrorism is outlined 
in the descriptions we have in the amendment now pending before the 
Senate, which we ask our colleagues to consider supporting. It is nice 
that we have suggestions in a report, but we all know--if you have been 
here more than a week--a report is not binding, not law; it is merely a 
suggestion. We are here to write laws, to direct the Departments as to 
how their funds should be used. I am sure they are going to read the 
report, but they can also ignore the report. I think it is better to 
spell out what we are talking about when we talk about 
counterterrorism. It is not just a word; it encompasses a lot of 
different Departments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, contrary to the suggestion of my friend 
from Louisiana, the committee is requiring the administration to 
respond and spend the money as provided in this bill. I am reading:

       Prior to the obligation of any funds, the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security is required to submit a notice to the 
     Committee on Appropriations. The committee expects this 
     notice to be accompanied by a full and complete justification 
     of the costs to be reimbursed by agency accounts, including a 
     detailed breakdown by program, project and activity.

  We are going to maintain oversight. Who is not going to get money if 
this amendment is adopted? The U.S. Secret Service, law enforcement 
training requirements, emergency preparedness and response, and other 
important activities are going to be zeroed out of this bill.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, $2.65 billion is not zeroing out 
counterintelligence and counterterrorism. It is a large add-on, $2.65 
billion. The only difference is we are suggesting in law where it ought 
to be spent, instead of saying you can do what you want and then come 
back to the committee and tell us why you did it that way. We should 
tell them where it should be spent before the fact, not after the fact. 
Our amendment adds money to counterterrorism. I think that is what we 
should be doing as a Senate.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it is my 
understanding that the manager of the bill and the leaders have agreed 
this vote would occur at a later time.
  Mr. COCHRAN. That is correct. I ask unanimous consent that the Breaux 
amendment be temporarily set aside and a vote occur on or in relation 
to the amendment at 4:45 p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I may direct a question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair wants to clarify the situation 
regarding the motion to table. Did the Senator make a motion to table?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Yes, a motion to table was made. I now ask for the yeas 
and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I direct a question to the manager of the 
bill. I have indicated to Senator Stevens that Senator Feinstein is 
ready to offer an amendment. It is my understanding that there has been 
some arrangement made on the amendment she is going to offer.
  I see my friend from Missouri. Does he wish to offer an amendment? I 
thought we were going to the Feinstein amendment. May I have an 
indication from the Senator from Missouri how long he is going to take, 
or what the subject matter is?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Missouri has an 
amendment, and there will be a short discussion of it, and it may not 
require a vote.
  Mr. REID. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 499

  Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is temporarily set 
aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Talent], for himself, Mr. 
     Bond, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Schumer, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 499.

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

[[Page 8319]]



     (Purpose: To require certain air carriers that receive funds 
 appropriated under this Act to accept procedures that ensure the fair 
 and equitable resolution of labor integration issues in transactions 
                  for the combination of air carriers)

       At the end of title IV, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) This section may be cited as the ``Airline 
     Workers Fairness Act''.
       (b) The purpose of this section is to require covered air 
     carriers that receive funds appropriated under this Act to 
     accept procedures that ensure the fair and equitable 
     resolution of labor integration issues, in order to prevent 
     further disruption to transactions for the combination of air 
     carriers, which would potentially aggravate the current 
     disruptions in air travel associated with increased terror 
     alerts and other factors in the United States.
       (c) In order to receive funds appropriated under this Act, 
     a covered air carrier shall agree to be subject to this 
     section.
       (d) In any covered transaction involving a covered air 
     carrier that leads to the combination of crafts or classes 
     that are subject to the Railway Labor Act--
       (1) sections 3 and 13 of the labor protective provisions 
     imposed by the Civil Aeronautics Board in the Allegheny-
     Mohawk merger (as published at 59 CAB 45) shall apply to the 
     covered employees of the covered air carrier; and
       (2) subject to paragraph (1), in a case in which a 
     collective bargaining agreement provides for the application 
     of sections 3 and 13 of the labor protective provisions in 
     the process of seniority integration for the covered 
     employees, the terms of the collective bargaining agreement 
     shall apply to the covered employees and shall not be 
     abrogated.
       (e) Any aggrieved person (including any labor organization 
     that represents the person) may bring an action to enforce 
     this section, or the terms of any award or agreement 
     resulting from arbitration or a settlement relating to the 
     requirements of this section. The person may bring the action 
     in an appropriate Federal district court, determined in 
     accordance with section 1391 of title 28, United States Code, 
     without regard to the amount in controversy.
       (f) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect 
     any provision of law that provides greater employee rights 
     than the rights established under this section.
       (g) In this section:
       (1) The term ``air carrier'' means an air carrier that 
     holds a certificate issued under chapter 411 of title 49, 
     United States Code.
       (2) The term ``covered air carrier'' means an air carrier 
     that is involved in a covered transaction.
       (3) The term ``covered employee'' means an employee who--
       (A) is not a temporary employee;
       (B) is a member of a craft or class that is subject to the 
     Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 151 et seq.); and
       (C) was an employee of a covered air carrier on April 1, 
     2003.
       (4) The term ``covered transaction'' means a transaction 
     that--
       (A) is a transaction for the combination of multiple air 
     carriers into a single air carrier;
       (B) involves the transfer of ownership or control of--
       (i) 50 percent or more of the equity securities (as defined 
     in section 101 of title 11, United States Code) of an air 
     carrier; or
       (ii) 50 percent or more (by value) of the assets of the air 
     carrier;
       (C) was pending, or had been completed, during the period 
     beginning on January 1, 2001 and ending on September 11, 
     2001; and
       (D) did not result in the recognition of a single air 
     carrier by the National Mediation Board by September 11, 
     2001.

  Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I rise, along with my colleagues, Senators 
Bond, Clinton, and Schumer, to offer the Airline Workers Fairness Act, 
with the hope of ensuring the fair and equitable resolution of labor 
integration issues surrounding American Airlines and the former TWA. I 
want to give the Senate a brief history of these issues.
  American Airlines acquired TWA in April of 2001. We all thought that 
was a good thing. We still hope it is a good thing. We supported it. At 
the time, American Airlines promised TWA employees that they would be 
treated fairly as a result of the buyout, and in fact that promise was 
one of the conditions of Federal approval of the buyout. Certainly, our 
expectation was that when the representative employee groups merged, 
their seniority lists would be dovetailed in the normal fashion. In 
other words, the years of service for TWA employees would count in the 
merged company, and years of service for former American Airline 
employees would count as well. For whatever reason, that didn't happen. 
In fact, nothing even close to it happened.
  The former TWA flight attendants were stapled to the bottom of the 
merge seniority list, and most of the TWA pilots were stapled to the 
bottom of the seniority list. In all my years in public office and in 
the years when I practiced labor law, I have never seen a merger that 
was as disadvantageous to one of the former employee groups as this 
one.
  The effect of it is that employees who have been working for TWA for 
decades are placed behind on the seniority list employees working for 
American Airlines only a year or two. All you have to do is fly 
American Airlines and be recognizable as a Member of Congress to see 
what the implications of this have been for real people.
  I do not think I go on a flight where a flight attendant does not 
come up to me and tell a story, such as she is a 28-year flight 
attendant for TWA who is now going to be laid off while people who have 
been working for American Airlines for only a year or two will be still 
flying.
  A specific example: Sally Young, a former TWA captain who now works 
for American Airlines whom I have met and talked with, is a 15-year 
veteran of TWA. She was demoted, because of seniority, from being a 
captain to a first officer, and now, after the recent layoffs were 
announced, is scheduled to be laid off even though pilots who have been 
working only a short time for American Airlines will continue to fly.
  The result of this for the flight attendants is that there were 4,000 
flight attendants who worked for TWA. By midsummer, all of them will be 
gone. These are people who have given their life to this company, 
people who have mortgages, people who are at a stage in life where it 
is very difficult for them to retrain and find other employment. People 
who were promised better, who clearly understood that in some way, 
shape, or form they would be protected in this buyout are going to be 
gone, and most of the pilots will be gone as well.
  I am not here to blame anybody for this. It is an extraordinarily, 
uniquely disadvantageous situation. I do not know how it happened, but 
I know it is not right, and this amendment is designed to fix it in a 
fair and equitable fashion. It applies only to this merger.
  It says that the parties will bargain for several weeks after this 
amendment becomes effective, and if they cannot reach an agreement, 
they will go to a neutral expert binding arbitration, and the 
arbitrator can then decide what result will be fair in light of the 
situation they are in now. These people who have worked for so long and 
given back so much over the years to keep this company afloat will have 
the consideration that we all thought they would have had.
  Those of us who are offering this amendment and supporting this 
amendment would rather not do it on this vehicle. We would not have 
done it on this vehicle, but the underlying bill provides several 
billion dollars of extraordinary relief for the airline industry. We 
support that.
  In addition, American Airlines announced several thousand more 
layoffs earlier this year. If we do not do something soon, it will be 
too late to do anything. Certainly it will be too late to do anything 
as conveniently as it will be if we adopt this amendment.
  Again, our amendment does not impose any Government solution on the 
parties. It costs no money. It affects no other airline and no other 
situation. We are offering it now to provide some relief to a group of 
people who expected and deserve better and who, unless we do something, 
are going to be out on the street. That is the reason we are offering 
the amendment at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment by 
my colleague from Missouri. We are dealing with another very 
significant bailout, using taxpayers' money, for the airlines which 
have been hurt.
  I agree with the need to keep the airlines flying. Airlines are 
absolutely essential to our economy. But I believe when we are sending 
taxpayers' dollars to airlines, that we have at least some 
responsibility to ensure the employees are being fairly treated. This, 
to me, is simply an issue of equity and fairness.
  Back when American Airlines acquired TWA, they did not just take the 
airplanes. They took the hub, they took the facilities, and they took 
the

[[Page 8320]]

heart of TWA as well--its employees, employees we have come to know and 
respect and trust and whose service we have appreciated over the years.
  Since April 9, 2001, American Airlines and TWA have operated under a 
single umbrella. On that date, Donald J. Carty, chairman and CEO of 
American Airlines, stated:

       Today, we warmly welcome TWA's employees to the American 
     family. While employees and customers will see business-as-
     usual for some time, we're looking forward to working 
     together and building a future as one team. Employees at 
     American and TWA are united in our commitment to meeting our 
     customers' needs and providing opportunities for growth in a 
     rewarding work environment. Our theme for today's 
     celebrations is ``Two Great Airlines--One Great Future,'' and 
     I'm sure that, working together, we can fulfill that promise.

  I was out there and I joined in that recognition in celebrating two 
great airlines with one great future, and on January 1, 2002, all TWA 
employees officially became American employees. At that moment, all 
former TWA employees were now an integral part of the new team at 
American Airlines.
  Promises were made to the hard-working TWA employees in my home 
State, and these employees were publicly referred to as the crown jewel 
of TWA. It was not as if they were ``lucky to have a job at all,'' as 
some have suggested. They are employees with extensive years of 
background and years of seniority over a great number of their 
colleagues at American Airlines and, through their service to the 
traveling public to our communities, had developed a reputation for 
service that made this an extremely valuable hub.
  Had they known that the promises were not going to be kept, there 
were other options--reorganizing in bankruptcy, seeking alliance with 
another airline that would treat them fairly. They were made promises 
of fair treatment. They gave up what they call their Allegheny Mohawk 
protection rights on the expressed promise that they would be treated 
fairly.
  After American Airlines stapled the TWA seniority list to the bottom, 
at least the top official of American Airlines came to my office and 
said: We are going to protect the hub at St. Louis; we are going to put 
a wall around that and keep former TWA employees serving the traveling 
public out of that hub, and we are not going to have them laid off 
because they will continue the TWA service.
  The wall came down. They were not protected. The crown jewel of TWA, 
the people in St. Louis, are losing their glitter. These promises made 
to them were the root of the entire agreement reached between TWA and 
American Airlines back when this whole deal was going down, and now 
these promises appear to have been broken.
  If the TWA employees knew at the beginning they were merely being 
taken as a sacrificial lamb, then the deal would likely never have 
happened. Now the TWA employees, the TWA pilots, and the TWA flight 
attendants are the blood donors when cuts have to be made.
  According to today's issue of the St. Louis Post Dispatch:

       All American Airlines flight attendants based at Lambert 
     Field will lose their jobs if members of the Association of 
     Professional Flight Attendants approve a contract by April 15 
     to help the airline avoid bankruptcy.

  That is what we are providing money to support?
  The situation for former TWA pilots is grim as well. Fifty-four 
percent of former TWA pilots will lose their job before a single former 
American Airlines pilot will lose his or her job because they were 
simply stapled to the bottom of the seniority list.
  After planned furloughs, there will only be 565 former TWA employees 
remaining. To help everyone with the math, that is 76 percent of the 
former TWA pilots and 100 percent of TWA flight attendants in St. Louis 
who will lose their jobs. They are literally cutting off the family 
crown jewel.
  The senior most TWA pilot hired in 1963 was integrated along with a 
1985 hire from American Airlines. That is almost 22 years later, and 
guess which one is on the chopping block first? Promises made in 
fairness have not been achieved.
  In this supplemental bill, we are poised to provide our airlines with 
$3.5 million to keep them in the air. With that assistance, more 
layoffs are coming. We must act before more of our talented and 
qualified employees are let go before junior colleagues within the same 
organization.
  The choice before this body is simple: Support the Talent-Bond 
amendment and you support fairness, or oppose the Talent-Bond amendment 
and you decide with the bosses who are strong arming weaker unions, 
resulting in an extremely unfair integration of two great airlines and 
one great future. About 5,000 jobs are at stake.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this fair integration 
proposal.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to speak against the amendment. 
I respect my colleagues, Senator Talent and Senator Bond very much. I 
am very sad and very sorry about the situation with the TWA employees. 
It was a difficult situation when TWA was in bankruptcy. A number of 
airlines sought to take over TWA. American was the one that was willing 
to do it.
  There were agreements made at the time. American offered to preserve 
the jobs and pensions of the TWA employees at the time if the unions 
would agree to waive their seniority rights from TWA. That was the 
agreement. If American had not stepped up to the plate, all of the TWA 
pilots, flight attendants, mechanics, and ticket agents would have lost 
their jobs immediately and their pension funds would have been wiped 
out. Instead, American not only persevered their jobs but fully funded 
the TWA pension funds.
  Everyone hoped the aviation industry would recover and that everyone 
would stay employed. It is still the hope of every American employee 
that the TWA former employees who have been laid off will be hired 
back. American is committed to hire back former TWA employees before 
anyone else.
  However, the TWA employees took this matter to the National Mediation 
Board. The National Mediation Board has rendered a decision reinforcing 
the original agreement. TWA's pilots and flight attendants have 
appealed. That is their right.
  This case is still in litigation. It is completely inappropriate to 
bog down a wartime appropriations bill with language that would attempt 
to pit winners and losers in a battle between unions or between any 
union and management.
  This amendment is coming at a time when American's unions are set to 
vote on the most significant cost restructuring proposal in U.S. 
history, with $1.8 billion in proposed union concessions. Interference 
with these negotiations at this time could impact that vote and push 
the world's largest airline into bankruptcy. Of course, if that 
happens, everyone at American, not just the former TWA employees, could 
lose their jobs.
  I do sympathize, and I hope very much the little bailout that we are 
giving the aviation industry, will result in American staying strong 
and being able to hire back everyone who has had to be laid off. That 
is the purpose of the bill today.
  Regretfully, I must raise a point of order and offer an objection to 
amendment No. 499 on the grounds that it is legislation on an 
appropriations bill and thus violates rule 16, paragraph 4 of the 
Senate rules.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.


                      Amendment No. 499 Withdrawn

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President as cosponsor of this amendment, I ask the 
amendment be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right. The amendment is 
withdrawn.


                           Amendment No. 500

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I have discussed this matter with my good 
friend from Texas, who is very understanding. I believe the sense-of-
the-Senate amendment which we have prepared essentially states some of 
the findings in perhaps less colorful language than I have described 
but encourages American Airlines, or tells American Airlines to 
encourage its employee groups

[[Page 8321]]

to integrate all employees in a manner that is fair and equitable for 
all parties involved. I send that amendment to the desk and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendments are set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] for Mr. Talent, for 
     himself, Mr. Bond, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Schumer, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 500.

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

 (Purpose: To state the sense of the Senate regarding procedures that 
ensure the fair and equitable resolution of labor integration issues in 
           transactions for the combination of air carriers)

       At the end of title IV, insert the following:
       Sec. __. It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) the asset acquisition of Trans World Airlines by 
     American Airlines was a positive action that should be 
     commended;
       (2) although the acquisition was a positive action, the 
     combination of the 2 airlines has resulted in a difficult 
     seniority integration for the majority of the employee groups 
     involved;
       (3) airline layoffs from American Airlines should be 
     conducted in a manner that maintains the maximum level of 
     fairness and equitable treatment for all parties involved; 
     and
       (4) American Airlines should encourage its employee groups 
     to integrate all employees in a a manner that is fair and 
     equitable for all parties involved.

  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding that a number of 
Senators want to speak for a brief time on the amendment the Senator 
from Missouri sent to the desk that is now pending. I ask they be 
allowed to speak on this amendment but that no action be taken until we 
have had a chance to review it on our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is this a unanimous consent request?
  Mr. REID. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I will speak briefly. First, I commend my 
friend and colleague from Missouri for his work on this issue for 
several years and his consistent advocacy for fairness to all the 
employees of American Airlines. I also express my deep gratitude to our 
friend and colleague from Texas for how she has worked with us on this 
amendment and indeed on this whole issue within, of course, the limits 
of her convictions.
  Briefly, this situation is not easy for anyone and I recognize that. 
I emphasize that there are thousands of people who are in a uniquely 
difficult situation, people with 10, 15, 20 years seniority with a 
company. When you get that kind of seniority with a company, you order 
your life so far as it is job related, on the assumption that unless 
the company goes down--in this case, stops flying--you are not going to 
be laid off. You do that in terms of your financial affairs; you get 
mortgages; you make arrangements with your kids and their college 
education. Thousands of people worked for TWA for years and years and 
years and did that.
  Then something happened. I don't know what happened; I was not there. 
The people who were supposed to represent their interests in this 
process--management, the union, the government--for some reason did 
not. Their interests were not represented. As a result, they are now 
facing layoffs contrary to all their expectations.
  I support the Senator's sense-of-the-Senate amendment. I hope it 
means as we continue to represent those interests we will have some 
chance along the process to get fairness for these people who expect 
better and deserve better and who have worked so hard in giving so much 
to this company for so long.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I certainly support the sense of the 
Senate. We all want fair treatment. If the aviation industry had stayed 
viable and we had a good economy, I believe every employee would have 
maintained their employment status and there would have been more 
hires. However, we all know the economy is in a very precarious 
situation. The aviation industry has been hit hard since September 11, 
particularly American. And they do not want these layoffs. That is the 
only alternative they have.
  I know the first people hired back when business picks up are going 
to be these employees who have been laid off. I certainly support the 
sense of the Senate. We all want fair treatment for all of the 
employees of American Airlines.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Feinstein has been waiting here all 
day. She has a speech she wants to give and an amendment to offer. This 
will not be part of the voting in 45 minutes because she and Senator 
Stevens have been in discussions about how to resolve this issue.
  If I could have Senator Cochran's attention, Senator Byrd is here. 
You and Senator Breaux used up all the time on the amendment, the 
Breaux amendment pending, which we will vote on at quarter to 5. 
Senator Byrd will ask for up to 15 minutes to speak in favor of the 
Breaux amendment. We have no objection to that.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I have no objection to that request, Mr. President.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senator from 
California be recognized for up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Following that speech, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Byrd be recognized to speak in favor of the Breaux amendment for up to 
10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from California is recognized for up to 15 minutes.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I was going to call up an amendment 
about interoperable communications, but the text of our amendment is 
being worked out by the chairman of the committee and the ranking 
member. I believe it is going to be successfully worked out, so I would 
like to say a few words about what I would like to see happen.
  This emergency supplemental provides $2 billion through the Office of 
Domestic Prepareness for State and local governments and first 
responders for homeland security.
  It also states in the Conference Report that $30 million of the $2 
billion should go to provide ``technical assistance to States for a 
variety of activities'' and mentions ``assistance with interoperable 
communications and equipment'' as one such activity.
  But nowhere is there a specific earmark for interoperable 
communications, and none of the $30 million mentioned for ``technical 
asssistance'' will go directly to the people who need it most--
policemen, firefighters, and emergency assistance personnel.
  And even if some fraction of the $30 million does trickle down to 
public safety first responders, this is simply not enough to make a 
dent in the problem.
  There are, today, about 2.5 million public safety first responders 
operating in the U.S., located at 18,000 law enforcement agencies, 
26,000 fire departments, 6,000 rescue departments, and many other 
agencies as well.
  They have historically depended on their own radio systems, even 
though sometimes these systems are often incompatible with other 
agencies with whom they work.
  As a result, law enforcement, firefighters, and emergency medical 
service (EMS) teams can't talk to each other.
  For example, while police received a radio message that the World 
Trade Center was going to collapse on September 11, firefighters never 
received

[[Page 8322]]

the message because they use different radios.
  A report from the University of New Hampshire-based ATLAS Project 
states:

       From numerous interviews gathered as part of a fire 
     department inquiry into the events of September 11th, it 
     would appear that non-interoperability was at least partially 
     responsible for the loss of 343 firefighters at the World 
     Trade Center.

  According to an article in The New York Times on January 30, 2002, 
the New York Fire Department's most senior commanders report that:

     they had little reliable radio communications that morning, 
     could not keep track of all of the firefighters who entered 
     the towers and were unable to reach them as the threat of 
     collapse became unmistakeable. . . . So poor were 
     communications that on one side of the trade center complex . 
     . . a city engineer warned officials that the towers were at 
     risk of ``imminent collapse.'' Those he told could not reach 
     the highest-ranking fire chief by radio. A messenger was sent 
     across, dodging flaming debris and falling bodies, to deliver 
     it in person. He arrived with the news less than a minute 
     before the first tower fell.

  Let me give some other examples.
  Interoperability was also a problem at both the Littleton, Colorado 
shooting spree at Columbine High School. During that horrific attack, 
over 2000 students and teachers were effectively held hostage and 15 
were killed and 23 wounded.
  Forty-six separate agencies responded during the incident. Many of 
these responders were operating on different emergency radio channels, 
and in different parts of the radio spectrum. Some operated on VHF 
frequencies, some on an Ericsson 800 megahertz system, some on an 
analog 800 megahertz system, and some on a digital 800 megahertz 
trunked system.
  According to an internal report by the Jefferson County Sheriff's 
Office:

       With such varying systems being used, not only were 
     agencies prevented from communicating directly with each 
     other, but groups with similar functions also could not 
     communicate via radio. Ideally, groups with the same 
     responsibility, such as the various SWAT teams or those 
     officers setting up inner or outer perimeters would have 
     their own channel to use in order to report and obtain vital 
     information about their particular area.

  In the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing, the Federal, State, 
and local first responder agencies also couldn't talk to each other.
  Things were so bad that agencies resorted to using ``runners'' to 
carry messages from one command center to another. To ensure that all 
agencies were on the same page, these runners often had to run between 
different agencies repeating the same message.
  This is the same method of communication used thousands of years ago 
by the ancient Greeks and Romans. We all know--Senator Byrd 
especially--the story from 490 B.C. of the man who ran 26 miles from 
the plains of Marathon to the city of Athens to report victory in the 
Battle of Marathon and warn the people in the city of impending attack. 
In some ways, we are no better off today, 2,500 years later.
  It is outrageous that our emergency communications systems can be 
reduced to levels that existed 2\1/2\ millennia ago.
  And even if runners are not needed to transit messages physically 
from agency to agency, lack of interoperability can still spell 
disaster.
  Lack of interoperability always means that precious minutes are lost 
and lives are put at risk.
  The bottom line is that Congress has not provided enough money for 
interoperable communications--and that means we are needlessly 
jeopardizing the safety of our public safety first responders and the 
citizens of our country.
  The fiscal year 2003 appropriations bill only provides $45 million in 
dedicated money for interoperable communications--only $12 million of 
which is likely to go directly to first responders. Twenty million 
dollars was given to the COPS program for interoperability, but $8 
million of this amount was earmarked for other purposes--$5 million to 
the National Institute of Standards to develop minimum standards and $3 
million for research and development through the National Institute of 
Justice's Advanced Generation of Interoperability for Law Enforcement--
AGILE--program.
  Another $25 million was given to FEMA under the Emergency Management 
Planning and Assistance account. However, my staff has been told that 
this money will probably go to State emergency management agencies.
  There is another $400 million for equipment grants and $750 million 
for fire grants, but only some of this could be used for interoperable 
communications. There was only about $50 million set aside specifically 
for interoperable communications in fiscal year 2002.
  And I mentioned earlier, that there is $30 million in the 
supplemental for ``technical assistance'' to the States, some of which 
could be used for interoperable communications.
  In my view, providing only $12 million in dedicated money directly 
for first responders for fiscal year 2003 is simply not enough.
  We have talked with the International Chiefs of Police. We have 
talked with all the national firefighting and first responding 
organizations. They are all strongly in support of increasing this 
amount.
  I must tell you, I am delighted that both the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee and the ranking member have responded, and I 
am assured there will be added, in the managers' package, an additional 
amount which will go directly to first responders.
  Now, let me make one point. I recently heard from a Los Angeles city 
councilman, Jack Weiss, about one potential solution. It is a device 
called ACU-1000, which is also available in a mobile version called the 
First Responder Vehicle. ACU-1000 is manufactured by JPS 
Communications, which is owned by Raytheon.
  Now, here is how the First Responder Vehicle works: They take an SUV, 
and fill it with software that converts the different frequencies into 
a compatible network that allows first responders, using different 
communication devices, to talk to each other. So a local community, 
such as one of yours, I say to the Presiding Officer, or one of mine, 
can purchase this vehicle for $150,000 to $200,000 and thus allow first 
responders to coordinate using diverse, incompatible communications 
systems.
  A public safety first responder will drive the SUV to an emergency. 
Then Federal agency, State agencies, local agencies, the National 
Guard, police officers and firefighters can all talk to one another. 
This can be done for as little as $150,000 a unit.
  While my amendment is for $400 million, I am hopeful that as much as 
the chairman and the ranking member believe is possible can be 
appropriated and earmarked for interoperable communications in the 
supplemental and go directly to these first responding communities.
  I also ask that the Record reflect that Senator Mikulski, Senator 
Dodd, Senator Durbin, and Senator Dayton are also very concerned about 
this issue and that they worked on the amendment with me. I thank them 
all very much.
  The bottom line is that it is easy to solve this problem and that 
solving the problem is going to save lives. If you are going to protect 
the homeland, you have to enable those who first respond to a major 
crisis to be able to communicate.
  Once again, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for working 
with me to include money for interoperable communications in the 
supplemental. I look forward to this issue being resolved in the 
manager's package, but I would like to reserve the right, in the event 
something goes wrong, to call up the amendment.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield for a moment?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I certainly will.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator from California. I particularly 
thank her for bringing this issue to the attention of the Senate. I ask 
unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to have 
printed in the Record a letter from the Governor of Louisiana and a 
letter from

[[Page 8323]]

Louisiana's Department of Public Safety and Corrections. Those 
documents substantiate the statement outlined by the Senator from 
California.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                               State of Louisiana,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                      Baton Rouge, March 14, 2003.
     Hon. Mary Landrieu,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Bldg.,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mary: I am writing to request that the Senate 
     Appropriations Committee report to accompany the Fiscal Year 
     2004, Commerce, Justice and State, the Judiciary and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, include language in the Law 
     Enforcement Technology Program account to provide $7 million 
     for one-time equipment costs necessary to upgrade Louisiana's 
     statewide 800 MHz SmartZone public safety communication 
     system.
       This system is operated by the Louisiana State Police and 
     utilized by 75 other state and local agencies including 
     numerous sheriffs' departments, the Louisiana National Guard, 
     the U.S. Marshals Service, U.S. Secret Service and U.S. Coast 
     Guard, among others.
       The existing 800 MHz system is an analog one, designed over 
     15 years ago. The existing system has numerous gaps in 
     statewide coverage. Upgrading to the digital system would 
     eliminate statewide communications coverage gaps. The 
     existing system is also limited in terms of communications 
     interoperability. The digital system upgrade would greatly 
     enhance communications interoperability. The requested system 
     upgrade would measurably assist the public safety agencies in 
     Louisiana who provide the bulk of the first responder, 
     investigative follow-up (in case of terrorism, or other 
     manmade disasters) and consequence management efforts in 
     emergency situations.
       The move to a digital capable system allows the state to 
     build on the existing MHz infrastructure by reusing a large 
     percentage of the hardware at the existing sites. These sites 
     would be upgraded to allow for digital communications. New 
     sites would be added to enhance coverage for the users. With 
     the capability to add more sites and improve coverage and 
     audio clarity, the ability to interoperate with other public 
     safety agencies would be greatly enhanced, thus providing 
     more agencies the capability of communications during a 
     disaster recovery effort.
       The state of Louisiana and local governments have invested 
     approximately $42,500,000 in infrastructure and subscriber 
     units for the statewide system. Your assistance in 
     appropriating the necessary federal funds for the new digital 
     communications upgrade will be greatly appreciated by the 
     state of Louisiana, public safety community and those whom we 
     serve.
           Sincerely,
                                        M.J. ``Mike'' Foster, Jr.,
     Governor.
                                  ____

                                              Department of Public


                                       Safety and Corrections,

                                  Baton Rouge, LA, March 18, 2003.
     Hon. Mary Landrieu,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Bldg.,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Landrieu: The Governor of Louisiana, M.J. 
     ``Mike'' Foster, Jr. has sent a letter to you dated March 14, 
     2003 requesting that the House Appropriations Committee 
     report to accompany the Fiscal Year 2004, Commerce, Justice 
     and State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriations 
     Act, include language in the Law Enforcement Technology 
     Program account to provide $7 million for one-time equipment 
     costs necessary to upgrade Louisiana's statewide 800 MHz 
     SmartZone public safety communication system. In addition, as 
     Deputy Secretary of the Department of Public Safety Services, 
     Superintendent of Louisiana State Police, and as the largest 
     user of this lifeline communications network I am also asking 
     for your support.
       This system is operated by the Louisiana State Police and 
     utilized by 75 other state and local agencies including 
     numerous sheriffs' departments, the Louisiana National Guard, 
     the U.S. Marshals Service, U.S. Secret Service and U.S. Coast 
     Guard, among others.
       The existing 800 MHz system is an analog one, designed over 
     15 years ago. The existing system has numerous gaps in 
     statewide coverage. Upgrading to the digital system would 
     eliminate statewide communications coverage gaps. The 
     existing system is also limited in terms of communications 
     interoperability. The digital system upgrade would greatly 
     enhance communications interoperability. The requested system 
     upgrade would measurably assist the public safety agencies in 
     Louisiana who provide the bulk of the first responder, 
     investigate follow-up (in case of terrorism, or other manmade 
     disasters) and consequence management efforts in emergency 
     situations.
       The move to a digital capable system allows the State to 
     build on the existing 800 MHz infrastructure by reusing a 
     large percentage of the hardware at the existing sites. These 
     sites would be upgraded to allow for digital communications. 
     New sites would be added to enhance coverage for the users. 
     With the capability to add more sites, improve coverage and 
     audio clarity the ability to interoperate with other public 
     safety agencies would be greatly enhanced thus providing more 
     agencies the capability of communications during a disaster 
     recovery effort.
       As mentioned in the Governor's letter the State of 
     Louisiana and local governments have invested approximately 
     $42,500,000 in infrastructure and subscriber units for the 
     statewide system. Your assistance in appropriating the 
     necessary federal funds for the new digital communications 
     upgrade will be greatly appreciated by the State of 
     Louisiana, public safety community and those whom we serve.
           Sincerely,
                                             Col. Terry C. Landry,
                                  Deputy Secretary/Superintendent.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, the Senator from California is 
absolutely correct, that even with the finest training, law 
enforcement, on the ground--and of which they are doing a better job 
every day--as they step up their training to address these new threats, 
all of that training is for naught if they cannot communicate with each 
other. There are some real challenges in our communication ability.
  The Senator is absolutely correct, with just a small investment, the 
current communications systems could be made more operable.
  I conclude by saying to the Senator from California that this was one 
of the first requests asked of the Mayor of DC and the city council 
here as they experienced the attack on September 11. It has been on the 
top of the list of law enforcement from Louisiana.
  I am pleased to join her as a cosponsor. I thank her for her 
leadership.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Louisiana. I appreciate that. I was a mayor for 9 years. I required all 
of the departments to have portable radios. Every Monday we would test 
their radio systems at 7:30 because, in the event of an earthquake, at 
that time there was no other way for all the city departments to talk 
to one another except over a radio system. So I know firsthand the 
importance of interoperable communications.
  I appreciate the comments. Thank you very much.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I remind Senators we are going to come up 
on a series of votes soon. This bill is a bill the President asked us 
to move quickly on to provide moneys for the ongoing events in Iraq and 
Afghanistan and the war on terrorism. We are now being besieged by 
amendments for homeland security. As a matter of fact, we have been 
besieged by homeland security amendments as long as I can remember.
  The problem is, apparently there is an assumption here on the floor 
that the Federal Government is responsible for every single dime spent 
by any city or county or State in the interest of security. I always 
thought this was a mutual security society, and the cities and States 
and counties did what all they could do, and we would follow up and do 
the balance. Now it seems we are getting to the point where we are 
asked to provide each city, each State, each county with the full cost, 
not only of their systems for security against terrorism, but for their 
overtime.
  I again ask the Senate, how much overtime are the people out in the 
desert in Iraq getting? How much overtime are the people right here on 
the floor, who are going to be working late tonight, getting? And they 
are going to be working over the weekend. It is high time people 
realized, I will not support financing every city, every town, every 
county, every State for every dime they say they need for homeland 
security. I think we should wake up. There is just so much that can be 
put on the Federal taxpayer.

[[Page 8324]]

  We are running an enormous deficit. On the one hand, my colleagues on 
that side of the aisle are beating on this President every day for a 
deficit, yet there isn't one amendment here that doesn't go billions 
above the request the President made. What for? For war. Not for 
homeland security. There is a very small amount for homeland security. 
It was associated with moneys that were necessary to prosecute the war.
  Now we are going to the total concept of homeland security, whatever 
it may be. Politically it may be good. I expect to read about these in 
2004 in every single spot combating anyone over here who voted with me 
to table these amendments. I hope the American public wakes up to what 
is going on. I don't think the average person working for wages expects 
their money they pay into the Treasury is going to be used to pay 
overtime money in every city, every State, every village in this 
country.
  When I inquired about several of these amounts, I was told they were 
to pay overtime. We have not accepted those amendments. We will 
continue to oppose them. Any campaign I hear about in 2004 where any of 
our people are attacked for votes made here, I will pay my own expense 
and go defend them. I will defend them and tell the American public 
what is right.
  Everyone ought to be part of homeland security. There ought to be 
volunteerism. There should be people paid by the cities, by the 
counties, by the States, and by the Federal Government. We are 
providing the money for the Federal people. This bill is full of money 
to pay those who are in Federal employment to increase the level of 
homeland security. But what we are hearing now is that every city wants 
more. Every State wants more. It is time we realize we ought to have a 
debate about this in terms of what is the Federal policy.
  I remember we used to have debates about federalism and what it 
means. It doesn't mean the Federal taxpayer pays every dime everyone 
wants in order to get ready for a potential terrorist attack. I have 
said this before. I had one mayor from a very small village in my State 
ask me to help him to get a new fire truck for homeland security. When 
I looked into it, I found out they didn't have a fire station. As a 
matter of fact, most of the roads weren't paved. This concept that 
everybody is going to get part of the money we put up for homeland 
security, I believe, is wrong.
  As we vote, I hope the Members on my side stand up and be counted in 
terms of protecting this bill that the President wants. I keep hearing 
we have a war going on. Well, I see three wars out there, and I don't 
know how long any one of them is going to go.
  The President deserves our support. Our people in uniform deserve our 
support, and the people fighting in Iraq are not the primary concern of 
homeland security. This bill is. This is a bill for supplemental 
assistance for national defense and a very small amount for homeland 
defense--$4.6 billion out of almost $78 billion. Yet we are spending 
most of our time on the floor debating adding to the $4.6 billion. I 
hope that does not go on much longer. As a matter of fact, it isn't 
going to go on much longer because I am not going to continue to accept 
amendments that are directed toward just beefing up homeland security 
for political purposes. I accepted the amendment of the Senator from 
Florida when he cut it down to five-sevenths of what he wanted, and we 
fund it after the balance of this year.


                           PFC Jessica Lynch

  This gets to the point where I would like to talk about something 
else for a minute. I mentioned before today that I read in this 
morning's paper the tremendous story of one of our brave young 
soldiers, PFC Jessica Lynch. I asked my staff to look up more about 
her.
  As we all know from reading the papers, she is 19 years old. She is a 
supply clerk with the Army's 507th Ordnance Maintenance Company 
supporting the 3rd Infantry Division advancing toward Baghdad. I am 
sure Senator Byrd knows that PFC Lynch is from Palestine, WV. I know he 
joins me in recognizing this brave young woman.
  I remember so well standing on the floor of the Senate years ago, 
when we had the draft, urging that we extend the draft so it covered 
everybody who was 19, male and female. That was defeated. People 
thought that young women should not be in combat at all. This young 
woman shows what happens when a brave, young American woman is in 
combat.
  She was taken captive, as we all know, by Iraqi forces on March 23, 
after her company was ambushed near the southern city of Nasiriyah. She 
was rescued Tuesday from an Iraqi hospital after 8 days in captivity. 
It was obvious that the hotel had been used as a military command post. 
She suffered two broken legs, a broken arm, and at least one gunshot 
wound during her ordeal. They found her at her position and the 
magazine on her gun was empty. Most of the people in her detail had 
been killed. She survived.
  I think this is a tremendous example of the young people who are 
involved in this war. She is the first POW to be rescued since World 
War II, Mr. President. I believe it is something I would like the 
Senate to think about for a moment. We commend the outstanding work of 
our Special Forces and the other units involved in the joint operation, 
including Marines and Army Rangers, who rescued this young woman. I 
think their efforts are a demonstration of our military's commitment to 
never leave a soldier behind.
  We have invested a great deal in the Special Forces. Just recently, I 
flew to Tampa and visited with Special Forces Command. We will continue 
to rely on their expertise. This recent success is proof that our 
investment is paying dividends in saving American lives, and it 
demonstrates the critical need of Congress to continue to support 
America's Special Forces and to support this bill and get this bill to 
the President as soon as possible.
  Above all, I want to commend Jessica Lynch for her commitment to this 
country, her patriotism, her courage, and to thank her for her 
outstanding service.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we all know the President pro tempore of the 
Senate, the manager of this bill, is one of the great legislators in 
the history of this body. We also believe we have been acting 
responsibly on this side of the aisle during the last 2 days. We have 
been admonished for 2 weeks now by the Democratic leader that we must 
finish the bill this week.
  We have tried to be responsible with the amendments we have offered. 
We have negotiated with the Senator from Alaska and his staff in good 
faith, and we have been able to work out some very big amendments, I 
think, to the betterment of this country.
  We have not tried in any way to alter the financial package that is 
going to the President that relates to the military. I have told the 
Senator from Alaska, and anyone else who would listen, that I am 
grateful he was able to put in the bill something that will help 
bolster the airline industry in this country, which badly needs help.
  But we also believe on this side of the aisle--and I personally 
support all $9 billion that the President has put in this bill for 
foreign aid--that if we can get $9 billion for foreign aid, we can 
reexamine what is being done for homeland security, and that is in 
effect what we are doing--reexamining what is taking place in the bill 
relating to homeland security.
  So the Democratic leader and all the Senators on this side of the 
aisle are committed to finishing the bill tonight. We understand the 
importance of it. Nobody should criticize any of the amendments that we 
have filed. They have been responsible, targeted, and they are not 
political in nature. They are responsible in nature.
  Before I yield the floor, the Senator from Mississippi is here. It is 
my understanding that we are going to have a vote in about 7 minutes. 
The Senator from Louisiana has an amendment to offer that has been 
worked out on the other side. I think it would be to everyone's 
advantage that we go to her until the vote. There will not be a vote 
required on her amendment.

[[Page 8325]]


  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I don't have first-hand knowledge of the 
agreement with respect to the Senator's amendment. I assume this is the 
Merchant Marine amendment.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I have no objection to her proceeding until we vote at 
4:45.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, before I send my amendment to the desk, 
I want to take a point of personal privilege and comment on the remarks 
made by the Senator from Alaska and tell him how much I and many women 
and many men appreciate them. They were heartfelt and they were right 
on target, and they were sincere, and they were very meaningful on this 
day, as we all read about the extraordinary event of the last 48 hours 
in which this young soldier was rescued and returned safely to her unit 
and will be, ultimately, to her family.
  As the first Democratic woman to ever serve on the Armed Services 
Committee in the Senate, following in the footsteps of Margaret Chase 
Smith; the Senators from Maine, Ms. Snowe and Ms. Collins, I am 
particularly appreciative of the support of the Senator from Alaska and 
other members who have, year after year, argued--and I think 
successfully, as the record will show--that women can most certainly 
make extraordinary contributions to the strength of our military in 
many different ways. We have all been proud as we have watched the 
level of contribution grow over time and, most certainly as this war 
unfolds before our eyes, we are reminded again of the continued bravery 
and skill and expertise of the women who are serving at the highest 
levels of our military and challenging the notions that women can serve 
but not on the front lines, or women can serve but not in this 
capacity, that women can serve but not here. I think those glass 
ceilings are shattering, and women are showing themselves to be, as we 
all know, the brave and courageous individuals who help us strengthen 
our military and strengthen every aspect of our national life.
  I thank the Senator for his comments and for his leadership and add 
my own voice to the progress we are making on that issue.


                           Amendment No. 504

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration and a vote on it at whatever time the 
managers believe will be convenient.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to laying aside the pending 
amendment?
  Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu], for herself and 
     Ms. Mikulski, proposes an amendment numbered 504.

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

  (Purpose: To make applicable provisions of law requiring the use of 
     privately owned United States flag commercial vessels for the 
            transportation of U.S. Aid and other materials)

       At the end of chapter 2 of title I, add the following:
       Sec. 210. No provision of this Act may be construed as 
     altering or amending the force or effect of any of the 
     following provisions of law:
       (1) Sections 2631 and 2531a of title 10, United States 
     Code.
       (2) Sections 901(b) and 901b of the Merchant Marine Act, 
     1936 (46 U.S.C. App. 1241(b), 1241f).
       (3) Public Resolution Numbered 17, Seventy-third Congress 
     (48 Stat. 500).
       (4) Any other similar provision of law requiring the use of 
     privately owned United States flag commercial vessels for 
     certain transportation purposes of the United States.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I understand this amendment has been 
agreed to on both sides. I brought this issue up in committee and was 
asked specifically by the leadership to wait until the bill was before 
the Senate to discuss it. I understand the amendment has already been 
worked out.
  It is an amendment that merely restates current law regarding the 
merchant marines. There is in this bill a very broad waiver that the 
President may furnish assistance under this heading, notwithstanding 
any provision of law, dealing with provision of aid, cargo, and 
supplies that we are sending to Iraq. I do not think it is the 
intention of the President to use this broad waiver to diminish or to 
circumvent current law regarding the merchant marines which would, of 
course, have the effect of giving a preference, and rightly so, to 
vessels sailing under the American flag with American crews.
  As you understand and as the Senate is well aware, in the drafting of 
this amendment, there is an exception in the event of an emergency; 
there is an exception in the event that the particular cargo could be 
shipped at a less expensive price if the rates are not competitive. All 
four sections of the law that we cite in our amendment have national 
security waivers.
  The cargo preference is only 50 percent, which gives the President 
the flexibility he needs in the event that a foreign carrier is 
necessary, and with DOD cargo, the President can also look at cost, as 
I said, to ensure that fair and reasonable rates are being charged.
  I hope this amendment that Senator Mikulski and I offer for the 
consideration of the Senate will be accepted. It is very important for 
many reasons to support our merchant marines, particularly at a time 
when American taxpayers have really stepped up to the plate in their 
support of this war effort and will pick up a huge share of the 
reconstruction of Iraq. It only makes sense that we also extend and 
restate in this supplemental appropriation our intention not to waive, 
unless absolutely necessary, the current law regarding cargo shipments 
in this time of war and also post conflict.
  At the appropriate time, I will ask for either a vote or the proper 
disposition of this amendment. It is very important to many Members of 
the Senate but is something that can be supported in a bipartisan way.
  In additional support of this amendment, it does not cost anything. I 
know there are Members who say every amendment that has come to the 
floor has added money to the bill. This does not add any money to the 
bill. It is not offered to attempt to slow down the bill. It is simply 
offered to make sure that our merchant marines and the laws governing 
flags, the vessels, and the crews of the ships that will be carrying a 
lot of this cargo follow the law as it is today and only grant the 
waiver to the President and give him broad flexibility under certain 
guidelines unless there is an emergency or cost is involved.
  At the appropriate time, I will ask for a vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. Regular order.


                           Amendment No. 494

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order is the vote on the motion to 
table the Breaux amendment No. 494.
  Mr. COCHRAN. The yeas and nays have been ordered, I think, Mr. 
President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
question is on agreeing to the motion to table amendment No. 494. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) and 
the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``no.''
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 119 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

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

[[Page 8326]]


     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--46

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Inouye
     Kerry
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, it is 5:20 now, and I want to update 
Members where we are pending the supplemental appropriations bill.
  The chairman has been here throughout the day working on amendments. 
We have made outstanding progress, if you take yesterday and today. We 
have had some amendments agreed to by voice vote. Some have been 
withdrawn and, as you know, we have had a number of rollcall votes.
  I do want to ask our Members, as much as possible, to show restraint 
and not feel compelled to offer every single amendment. I believe every 
Member in this body does understand the urgency, that it is absolutely 
imperative we pass this bill. It is an emergency bill. It is an 
emergency supplemental bill. We need to do it in a responsible way. And 
we need to do it expeditiously.
  I once again ask for the cooperation of all Members in allowing us to 
move forward on this bill, which we will do, so we can keep moving in a 
progressively advancing way and finish this bill this evening.
  We are going to stay in session until we finish this bill tonight. We 
will stay in as late as it takes to get this bill through to final 
passage. I hope it will not necessitate being here for hours and hours 
and hours, but it means we, as a body, must look at the individual 
amendments, come forward with some restraint, and understand the 
importance of finishing this bill in a responsible but expeditious way.
  I do want to be clear that Senators should be prepared to be here 
until we have final passage sometime tonight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have asked Members to stay who have 
amendments they might wish to consider. If the Senator from Nevada is 
prepared, we could go through some of those and see what the time 
constraints may be in getting the bill finished tonight.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am in the process of working. During the 
vote, I was not able to contact everyone. If we could go to the next 
amendment, it would be better in a few minutes from now.
  We have been able to work quite well with Members who have offered 
amendments, amendments that others have offered. We still have a number 
of amendments Senators want to offer. I could go over those now if the 
Senator wanted. We are down to about half a dozen amendments over here.
  Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I have spoken to the manager of the bill. The ranking 
member of the Appropriations Committee has an amendment to offer. He 
has agreed to have a time agreement. Would 30 minutes equally divided 
be appropriate or 40 minutes equally divided?
  Mr. BYRD. Forty.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from West Virginia 
be allowed to proceed with his amendment and that there be 40 minutes 
equally divided in the usual form.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 508

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 508.

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

(Purpose: To protect the prerogatives of the Congress in the allocation 
                     of homeland security funding)

       On page 36, Line 9, strike all through the ``.'' on page 
     36, line 25 and insert the following:

                   Border and Transportation Security


                     customs and border protection

       For an additional amount for ``Customs and Border 
     Protection'', $160,000,000, to remain available until 
     December 31, 2003, of which not less than $35,000,000 shall 
     be for the Container Security Initiative and not less than 
     $125,000,000, shall be for radiation portal monitors and 
     other forms of non-intrusive inspection equipment to be 
     deployed at the Nation's ports-of-entry.

                 Transportation Security Administration

       For additional amounts for necessary expenses of the 
     Transportation Security Administration related to 
     transportation security services pursuant to Public Law 107-
     71 and Public Law 107-296 and for other purposes, 
     $452,000,000, to remain available until December 31, 2003, of 
     which not less than $50,000,000 shall be available for grants 
     to public transit agencies in urbanized areas for enhancing 
     the security of transit facilities against chemical, 
     biological and other terrorist threats, not less than 
     $147,000,000 shall be for shortfalls pursuant to Public Law 
     108-10, including port security grants, nuclear detection and 
     monitoring equipment, and truck and intercity bus grants not 
     less than $55,000,000 shall be for installation design, 
     installation, and FAA certification of a system to defend 
     commercial airliners against portable, infrared, heat-seeking 
     missiles, not less than $100,000,000 shall be for port 
     security grants for the purpose of implementing the 
     provisions of the Maritime Transportation Security Act, and 
     not less than $100,000,000 shall be for railroad security 
     grants including grants to the National Railroad Passenger 
     Corporation for capital expenses associated with tunnel and 
     dispatch facility security enhancements.

                Federal Law Enforcement Training Center


                         salaries and expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'', 
     $5,000,000, to remain available until December 31, 2003 for 
     personnel, equipment and support for increased training 
     requirements for Federal and State and local law enforcement 
     personnel.

                    Office for Domestic Preparedness

       For additional amounts for ``Office for Domestic 
     Preparedness,'' $300,000,000, to remain available until 
     December 31, 2003, of which $100,000,000 shall be for 
     ``Emergency Management Planning and Assistance,'' to improve 
     communications within and among first responders including 
     law enforcement, firefighters, and emergency medical services 
     personnel, and $200,000,000 shall be for grants to high 
     threat urban areas, which should be identified by criteria 
     that include credible threat, vulnerability, the presence of 
     infrastructure of national importance, population, and needs 
     of public safety organizations.

                       United States Coast Guard


                           operating expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Operating Expenses'', 
     $73,000,000, to remain available until December 31, 2003, of 
     which not less than $42,000,000 shall be for Port Security 
     Assessments and the Port Security Assessment Program, and not 
     less than $7,000,000 shall be for the purchase of radiation 
     detection equipment, and not less than $24,000,000 shall be 
     for the establishment of Maritime Safety and Security Teams.


               acquisition, construction and improvements

       For an additional amount for ``Acquisition, Construction 
     and Improvements'', $40,000,000, to remain available until 
     December 31, 2003, to implement the Automated Identification 
     System and other tracking systems designed to actively track 
     and monitor vessels operating in United States waters.

                        Departmental Management


                         counterterrorism fund

       For an additional amount for the ``Counterterrorism Fund,'' 
     for necessary expenses as determined by the Secretary of

[[Page 8327]]

     Homeland Security, $105,000,000, to remain available until 
     December 31, 2003, to reimburse any Department of Homeland 
     Security organization for the costs of providing support to 
     prevent, counter, investigate, respond to, or prosecute 
     unexpected threats or acts of terrorism: Provided, That the 
     Secretary shall notify the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the Senate and House of Representatives 15 days prior to the 
     obligation of any amount of these funds: Provided Further: 
     That of the total amount provided, $20,000,000, is provided 
     under this heading which shall be transferred to, and merged 
     with, funds in the ``Federal payment for emergency planning 
     and security costs in the District of Columbia'' 
     appropriations account within thirty days of enactment of 
     this Act, for a Federal payment to the District of Columbia 
     for critical infrastructure protection, for security upgrades 
     and backup operations of transportation, emergency response, 
     energy, and communications infrastructure in the District of 
     Columbia, provided that the Mayor and the Chairman of the 
     Council of the District of Columbia shall, in consultation 
     with the governments in the National Capital region, submit a 
     financial plan to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives and Senate for approval not later 
     than 30 days after enactment of this act, and provided that 
     the Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia shall 
     provide quarterly reports to the Committees on Appropriations 
     of the House of Representatives and Senate on the use of 
     funds under this heading, beginning not later than June 2, 
     2003: Provided Further: That of the total amount provided, 
     $10,000,000, is provided under this heading which shall be 
     transferred to, and merged with, funds in the ``Operation of 
     the National Park System'' appropriations account within the 
     National Park Service in the Department of the Interior 
     within thirty days of enactment of this Act, for expenses 
     related to enhanced security at nationally significant 
     facilities.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could direct a question to the Senator 
from West Virginia, I forgot that the Senator from Louisiana has been 
here all day. She has 5 minutes on an amendment that is agreed upon. 
There would be no vote on it. I apologize because it is my fault 
totally. Would the Senator from West Virginia allow the Senator from 
Louisiana to proceed for up to 4 minutes?
  Mr. BYRD. Absolutely.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the Byrd amendment be 
temporarily set aside and that the Senator from Louisiana be allowed to 
offer her amendment and to speak up to 4 minutes and then we would 
return to the Byrd amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Louisiana.


                     Amendment No. 504, As Modified

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I send my amendment to the desk with a 
modification suggested by Senator Stevens.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified.
  The amendment (No. 504), as modified, is as follows:

       At the end of chapter 2 of title I, add the following:
       Sec. 210. No provision of this Act may be construed as 
     altering or amending the force or effect of any of the 
     following provisions of law as currently applied:
       (1) Sections 2631 and 2631a of title 10, United States 
     Code.
       (2) Sections 901(b) and 901b of the Merchant Marine Act, 
     1936 (46 U.S.C. App. 1241(b), 1241f).
       (3) Public Resolution Numbered 17, Seventy-third Congress 
     (48 Stat. 500).
       (4) Any other similar provision of law requiring the use of 
     privately owned United States flag commercial vessels for 
     certain transportation purposes of the United States.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator from West Virginia for yielding for 
a few moments because I understand this amendment has been worked out.
  This amendment simply clarifies the underlying bill. It doesn't add a 
penny to the bill. It seeks to clarify the waiver given to the 
President that will mirror the current law regarding U.S. flagships. It 
doesn't add any new legislation to the law. It simply clarifies the 
general waiver provisions in the supplemental provision, that the same 
law in effect today will remain in effect for the Military Cargo 
Preference Act. I understand it has been agreed to. I submit the 
amendment for consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 508

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I sent to the desk an amendment and I asked 
unanimous consent that further reading be dispensed with, which was 
granted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Hollings be 
made a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on March 25, 2003, the President sent to 
Congress a $74.7 billion supplemental appropriations request for 
``urgent and essential requirements'' for the costs of Operation Iraqi 
Freedom and for the global war on terrorism. In his request, the 
President sought an unprecedented level of flexibility in the use of 
those funds. This request was not only for the Secretary of Defense for 
the prosecution of the war in Iraq but also for the Secretary of 
Homeland Security and for the Attorney General.
  While I understand the unique circumstance in which the Nation finds 
itself, the situation is not entirely without precedent. We have been 
at war before. We have faced earthquakes and we have faced floods 
before. We have faced economic crises before. But the need to confront 
a crisis in a thoughtful or nimble way does not mandate that the 
Congress allow the executive branch to usurp its constitutional duties.
  The Constitution grants to the Congress the authority to appropriate 
funds and the responsibility to use that authority to make careful 
choices. Yet the President has asked the Congress to hand over its 
responsibility to the executive branch. The bill that is before the 
Senate includes $1.135 billion to be parceled out by the Secretary of 
Homeland Security for whatever purpose he believes is most appropriate. 
So will he use that authority to support the Coast Guard? Will he use 
that authority for border security or for port security? Will he give 
the money to States or to localities? Will he give it to first 
responders--police, fire, or emergency medical personnel in our 
communities? Or will he use it to build up a new bureaucracy?
  These are questions to which Congress should be seeking the answers. 
Congress itself must guard its prerogative and resist succumbing to 
expediency and to political partisanship.
  While I fully support the funding in this legislation for the men and 
the women who are 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.
  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 reduced the sweeping 
grants of new authority requested by this administration, while still 
providing some very limited flexibility where appropriate.
  However, with regard to this unallocated fund for the Secretary of 
Homeland Security, we have not adequately protected the prerogatives of 
the Congress, nor have we done enough to protect our homeland. Time and 
again, the White House has argued that funding for securing our 
homeland can wait. When the Senate debated legislation to increase 
funding for homeland security just 2 months after the September 11 
attacks, we tried to add money for homeland security, but the President 
said let's wait--let's wait until 2002. Then, in 2002, the Congress 
approved a $2.5 billion supplemental for first responders, for port 
security, border security, aviation security, and nuclear security, and 
the President refused to spend it. He claimed that homeland security 
could wait until 2003. Now it is 2003 and Senators on the other side of 
the aisle--some of them--are saying we are half way through the fiscal 
year; so let's wait until 2004. Well, I must ask the Senate, in the 
name of the people whom we represent, when will it be time to invest in 
securing our homeland? How much longer must we wait?
  The President proposes to put more than $1 billion in a fund for 
homeland security, but he does not tell us what the money will be used 
for. He does not

[[Page 8328]]

tell us which agencies have requested funding. He provides us with no 
evaluations of those requests. He does not tell us when the money will 
be spent. For all we know, he may take the rest of this year to decide 
how the money will be spent so that he can reduce his spending request 
for fiscal year 2004. But who knows, he may just tell us that homeland 
security spending can wait until 2005.
  How can I reconcile this desire to wait, wait, wait, with the fact 
that the Secretary of Homeland Security has said that more terrorist 
attacks are inevitable and the threat of further attacks is a long-term 
threat to our Nation? I simply cannot reconcile his statements with the 
policies of this administration. This threat of terrorist attack will 
not end at the end of this war.
  So today, here is an amendment that does not add one thin dime to the 
bill. Instead, this amendment does what the Constitution--which we all 
swore to support and defend--compels us to do. This amendment makes 
choices. Last year, the Senate Appropriations Committee held 5 days of 
bipartisan hearings on homeland security. It was an excellent series of 
hearings where we heard from Governors, mayors, first responders, six 
cabinet officers, the Attorney General, and the Administrator of FEMA. 
In those hearings, we identified numerous gaps in our security. Based 
on those hearings and numerous reports, such as the nonpartisan Rudman-
Hart report, my amendment, which I offered together with Senator 
Hollings, allocates the $1.135 billion contained in the committee bill 
for specific programs.
  More than $365 million would fund critical improvements at our 
seaports. Six million containers enter into the United States each year 
through our ports and very little is known about the contents of these 
containers or their shippers. There is no national system in place to 
track who is working within our own ports. This funding would begin to 
develop that system.
  The amendment would also pay for the installation of monitors at 
seaports to detect radiological, nuclear, chemical, biological 
substances, and weapons of mass destruction, without disturbing cargo. 
Additional equipment would expedite the inspection process. At the same 
time, we invest in port security teams and in other quick-response 
efforts should a terrorist strike at one of the Nation's seaports. We 
provide $150 million for mass transit and rail security. Transit 
systems throughout the world have historically been a top 
transportation target of terrorists. They are, by their nature, open 
systems used by a vast number of people and are very vulnerable to 
attack.
  With the exception of the Metro in the District of Columbia region, 
no money to date has been provided to our Nation's transit system to 
enhance security and reduce the vulnerability of these systems.
  Under the amendment, the Transportation Security Administration will 
receive $147 million for aviation security, while $55 million is 
directed toward the effort to find ways to protect commercial airplanes 
from missile attack.
  Another key part of this amendment is the $100 million directed 
toward interoperable communications equipment for police and fire 
departments. First responders need equipment that allows them to 
communicate with each other regardless of the team, the squadron, or 
the department to which they belong.
  Finally, there is funding totaling $75 million for the Secretary of 
Homeland Security to use for responding to unanticipated problems. The 
Secretary could draw on this fund by notifying the Congress 15 days in 
advance of spending the money. Mind you, this is no small sum. This is 
$75 million.
  This Congress can make intelligent choices and this Congress should 
make intelligent choices about how to use the taxpayers' dollars. We 
should not abrogate that responsibility by handing it off to unelected 
officials in Washington.
  I urge Members to support this amendment. Mr. President, I reserve 
the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
under the order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this amendment is a modified version of 
the amendment the Senate just acted on a little while ago offered by 
the Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Breaux. That amendment was tabled by 
the Senate. This amendment would strike the appropriations provided in 
the committee bill of $1.135 billion for the Department of Homeland 
Security Counterterrorism Fund and replace it with specific 
supplemental appropriations for various Department of Homeland Security 
accounts. It includes a number of specific earmarks and proposals that 
have been included in other amendments that have been offered to this 
bill but have been either tabled or defeated.
  These additional amounts have no direct relationship to additional 
costs borne by the agencies as a result of heightened security related 
to the Iraqi war as part of Operation Liberty Shield.
  For example, this amendment proposes to add an additional $160 
million for the Customs and Border Protection account. Of this amount, 
$35 million is proposed for the Container Security Initiative. That is 
nearly three times the fiscal year 2003 regular appropriations level of 
$12 million; and $125 million for radiation portal monitors and other 
equipment, over two times the regular fiscal year 2003 appropriation 
level of $45.7 million.
  It does not seem to me to make good sense to add these amounts of 
money at this time to a supplemental of immediate need to pay costs 
related to the war and Operation Liberty Shield.
  We are 8 months into this fiscal year. The amendment proposes an 
additional $452 million in supplemental appropriations for the 
Transportation Security Administration. It includes $100 million for 
port security grants when the fiscal year 2002 funds have not been 
completely awarded. Ninety million dollars in 2002 funds have been 
rewarded, and $105 million in applications are being currently 
examined, and there is another $150 million in 2003 appropriations.
  It also includes the $55 million proposed by the amendment offered by 
the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, which the Senate already 
tabled earlier today. This amendment being presented to the Senate now 
is a proposal that we have already rejected.
  The amendment proposes $5 million for the Federal Law Enforcement 
Training Center. This is more than double any supplemental funding 
requirements identified to us by the agency. We have asked the center 
what they need to meet their responsibilities. We tried to find out 
what the requirements are and to make this bill coincide with those 
requirements. We are not talking about a full fiscal year, we are 
talking about the balance of this fiscal year, this supplemental 
appropriations.
  This amendment proposes an additional $300 million on top of the $2 
billion recommended separately in the bill for the Office for Domestic 
Preparedness. Listen to this: For the Coast Guard, it adds an 
additional $73 million. This is on top of $580 million provided 
separately in this bill for the Coast Guard costs related to Operation 
Iraqi Freedom and Operation Liberty Shield. Of that amount, $42 million 
is for port security assessments, when the highest estimate we know of 
to complete this is $37.8 million. Another $7 million is for the 
purchase of radiation detection equipment which is currently under 
study. Specifically, the Coast Guard is studying what the cost to 
purchase this equipment will be. So it is difficult to determine the 
funding required until that study is complete.
  Further, the amendment proposes $40 million in supplemental funds to 
implement the Automated Identification System and other tracking 
systems when only $4 million is proposed for fiscal year 2004.
  Think about that: This supplemental amendment proposes $40 million in 
supplemental funds for something when

[[Page 8329]]

only $4 million is proposed for fiscal year 2004.
  Finally, it proposes $105 million for the Counterterrorism Fund and 
specifies the transfer of these funds to other Federal agencies rather 
than proposing to appropriate these funds directly to those agencies--
$20 million to the District of Columbia, $10 million to the National 
Park Service.
  My position is the same on this amendment as it was on the Breaux 
amendment which the Senate tabled. We have carefully examined the 
proposal from the administration for supplemental funding. The request 
was submitted to our committee. We had hearings. We had opportunities 
to talk with the agencies that are going to be spending these funds. We 
have made a concerted effort to find out what the needs are and to 
respond to those needs in this supplemental appropriations bill.
  We might be wrong, but we are certainly not coming in and 
disregarding the needs of the agencies and throwing money out here and 
pretending that is going to solve all the problems at a time when we 
are concerned about the deficit, people are worried about our economy, 
we are trying to be sure we do not make decisions that make it harder 
to create new jobs and return good health to the economy.
  We are under a lot of pressure from the added costs for the war in 
Iraq. We know that. We are under a lot of pressure for the added costs 
to defend our cities and localities against terrorist attacks. It is a 
big challenge to do what is right and to make the best judgments on 
these subjects. But I can assure the Senate that a concerted effort and 
a very thoughtful effort has gone into the development of the funding 
levels in the bill before the Senate. I am prepared to defend it and to 
not apologize for the amounts we put in here because it reflects a 
good-faith effort to do what is right.
  I urge the Senate to reject the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Will the Senator yield me 3 minutes?
  Mr. BYRD. How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. I yield.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. There is no one I admire more than my distinguished 
colleague from Mississippi, Senator Cochran, but he is off base. The 
father of homeland security studied it way better than Governor Ridge. 
We have been holding the hearings on all of these things, and you can 
see they have no idea what is going on in that so-called Department of 
Homeland Security.
  We brought the Attorney General up, and he said: Well, the Office of 
Domestic Preparedness is transferred over. Then you go, by gosh, to the 
homeland security people, and you cannot find the money.
  What the ranking member for homeland security is doing is bringing 
together all the chaos. We are the ones having the Coast Guard hearings 
for 30-some years up here. We are the ones who have been handling the 
Office of Domestic Preparedness. We are the ones who have been knowing 
the needs.
  This does not add a red penny but says here is how these needs should 
be responded to and it is an emergency.
  I commend the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for his 
particular amendment. He is trying to do the right thing. He is being 
charged with doing the wrong thing. It is the same thing as the Breaux 
amendment.
  I remember one time they told me I had an impediment in my speech, 
and I asked: What was that? They said: The trouble with you, Senator, 
is that you can't listen.
  The trouble with my friends on the other side is they didn't listen 
to the Breaux amendment.
  Now we are getting it clearer with the amendment of the Senator from 
West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank my friend from South Carolina. He is a good 
listener. As far as I am concerned, he does not have any impediment in 
his speech.
  The Constitution invests the power of the purse, the control of the 
purse, here, in Congress, section 9, article I, of the Constitution. 
The Constitution does not say anything about letting some bureaucrat 
downtown--we all appreciate the fact we have to have bureaucrats, but 
nowhere do I swear it is important to defend the Department of Homeland 
Security when it comes to the allocation of the taxpayers' money.
  We are doing what we ought to do here. We are saying these funds are 
the taxpayers' money; Congress shall determine how they will be spent. 
Why should we turn over $1.3 billion to a Department and say to that 
Department head: You take it? That Department head does not appear on 
the ballot anywhere. He may have in times past. He was a good Governor, 
I suppose. I have a lot of respect for him. But nowhere does he appear 
before the elected representatives, before the electors in the various 
States. And we do. We have a responsibility to say where this money 
will be spent.
  We had hearings, as Senator Hollings has so ably pointed out. We had 
extensive hearings. We had six Department heads, we had the Attorney 
General, we had the Director of Homeland Security, we had mayors, we 
had Governors, we had local responders, we had firemen, we had 
policemen, we had emergency health personnel before the Appropriations 
Committee. Those hearings were well attended by Members on both sides 
of the aisle. My distinguished friend from Mississippi was there.
  We then reported out bills based on the hearings and the facts that 
were gleaned from those painstaking hearings, and in a great way that 
work was for naught.
  But here we are, we come back, and we are trying to say yes, we will 
respond, Mr. President. We will appropriate this money, but we are not 
just going to turn over a blank check to the Department of Homeland 
Security. That agency head--I have a lot of respect for him, as I say, 
but he was not allowed to come before our committee during those 
hearings. He was not allowed by this President. This President said, 
no, no, Mr. Ridge shall not appear before the Senate Appropriations 
Committee.
  Now are we willing to turn it over to Mr. Ridge and say: Here it is, 
lock, stock and barrel, the whole kit and caboodle; you have it; we 
will spend it; we will set ourselves aside. I am not willing to do 
that, I say with great respect to my friend from Mississippi, and he is 
my friend. We have a responsibility to say where this money is going to 
be spent, how it will be spent. We ought to live up to that 
responsibility.
  I hope Senators vote for the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, it is with some trepidation that I oppose 
the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia because I have enjoyed 
working with him on this committee and in the Senate for a long time.
  There may very well be provisions in this amendment he offers that 
should be seriously considered for inclusion in the fiscal year 2004 
appropriations bill.
  Right now, we are having hearings in the various subcommittees of 
Appropriations looking at the budget requests for 2004. Every committee 
is involved in that process, every subcommittee is involved in that 
process. But this is an appropriations bill that is targeted to the 
needs that are arising from Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation 
Liberty Shield, the functions of the Department of Defense and the 
Department of Homeland Security.
  It is a very narrow and limited area that we are concentrating our 
attention on right now. Some of these programs are hard to estimate in 
terms of what is really needed for the remainder of this fiscal year in 
addition to the funds that have already been appropriated in the 
regular appropriations bills for the Department of Defense and 
Department of Homeland Security.
  But the President submitted this request, asked for the funds to 
finish out this fiscal year. We know we can add funds and probably use 
them later on, but this is not the last bill we will consider during 
this calendar year, that funds these Departments and these activities. 
We have the 2004 bill coming

[[Page 8330]]

up after the supplemental appropriation. I ask Senators to take that 
into account. If we have underfunded anything as a result of mistakes 
made, we can make up those shortfalls in the year 2004, but right now 
this is what the administration says they need.
  I am not the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. I have 
not devoted all of my personal attention to that job as has Secretary 
Ridge. The President and his other staff members and the executive 
branch have. We have to respect their right to participate in this 
process. Just because we think we can improve upon what they have 
suggested by adding funds to these accounts--even funds that have been 
considered and rejected today by the Senate--let's vote on it again.
  This amendment contains a lot of things that have already been 
considered today and rejected by this Senate. So think about that, as 
well.
  I don't think I need to take up any more time. I am prepared to yield 
back my time. I do yield back the time on this side. When the Senator 
has used all his time, it would be my intention to move to table the 
amendment.
  Mr. BYRD. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has 4\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, my friend from Mississippi says the folks 
downtown want to participate. They did not want to participate last 
year when we asked the Secretary of Homeland Security--who is now the 
Secretary of Homeland Security--to appear. The President did not want 
to participate then. The President said: No, he shall not go up before 
that committee.
  So I say, Mr. President, once again, this administration is simply 
asking for too much authority. They want to participate? Well, this is 
not the first time administrations have wanted to participate. Under 
this Constitution, Congress has the power to appropriate funds. I say 
that Congress has not only the right, it has the responsibility to 
state how those funds shall be spent. We should not turn over the whole 
kit and caboodle to some unelected somebody down there, who will be the 
Secretary of Homeland Security. We transfer our responsibilities, we 
hand off our duties when we do that.
  This is an effort to stand by our constitutional duties, to stand by 
the taxpayers of the country who provide the money. This is our 
responsibility. We should say where these moneys will be spent, and we 
are doing that based on the testimony that was given to the 
Appropriations Committee last year. That is where we are getting our 
information.
  What is wrong with that? Why do Senators want to quarrel with that? 
It is the responsibility of Senators, I say to the distinguished 
Senator from Texas who is in the Chair. He shares that responsibility 
with the Senator from West Virginia and the Senator from North Carolina 
and the Senator from Mississippi. That is our responsibility. Why do we 
want to hand it over to some bureaucrat who is not elected by the 
people, who doesn't have to stand before the bar of judgment as we 
Senators do? Why do we want to hand that over to the administration? 
Just because the administration wants to have it?
  This administration, time and time again, has turned the back of its 
hand to Congress when Congress has made appropriations for homeland 
security--time and time again. We appropriated $2.5 billion last year, 
designated as an emergency, and that money would be out there in the 
hands of the local responders right today if this President hadn't 
turned the back of his hand on that and said: No, I refuse to attach my 
signature designating that as an emergency.
  So, there you have it. That is talk versus action.
  Mr. President, I hope Senators will support this amendment.
  Read the Constitution once again if need be, but take my word for it, 
that is in the Constitution.
  I hope Senators will stand up for the Constitution, stand up for the 
taxpayers. See, those taxpayers are looking right at us through those 
electronic lenses there. I say support this amendment.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment. I ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I understand there are discussions with the acting 
leader on the other side. Senator Hollings has a sense-of-the-Senate 
amendment dealing with taxes that we could take up now and have a 
debate on it and have a vote in relation to that amendment that would 
follow immediately after the vote on the Byrd amendment. I will be 
happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. REID. If the Senator will yield, Senator Stevens has indicated it 
has been cleared by both leaders that we could have a vote around 6:30.
  I ask unanimous consent, in keeping with the remarks of the Senator 
from Mississippi, that we have a vote in relation to the Byrd amendment 
at the expiration of 20 minutes for the Senator from South Carolina, 
and 10 minutes for the Senator from Mississippi, and that there be no 
second-degree amendments. Following that, there would be a motion on or 
in relation to the Hollings amendment, there would be no second-degree 
amendments ordered, and we would vote on that following the disposition 
of the Byrd amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. COCHRAN. That is satisfactory with this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is so ordered.
  The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the present 
amendment be set aside temporarily so I can call this amendment up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 479

  Mr. HOLLINGS. I call up the amendment and ask the clerk to report the 
sense of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 479.

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

 (Purpose: To instruct the President to submit a bill raising revenues 
     to offset the costs of this supplemental appropriations bill)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON PAYING THE COSTS OF THE WAR 
                   WITH IRAQ.

       It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) the President should submit a proposal to the Committee 
     on Finance to raise sufficient revenues to offset the funds 
     spent in this supplemental appropriations Act for the war in 
     Iraq;
       (2) the President should submit this proposal not later 
     than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act; and
       (3) if the President does not submit such a proposal, the 
     Committee on Finance should put forward its own proposal to 
     offset the funds spent in this supplemental appropriations 
     Act for the war in Iraq.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, right to the point, the comment was made 
just a minute ago about taxes. I wish I could introduce a tax measure 
because I introduced one way back in January to pay for the war. The 
reason I rise now with a sense of the Senate is because under the 
rules, any revenue measure should arise in the House of 
Representatives. So I am asking that we have at least a sense of the 
Senate to break this syndrome of not paying for anything.
  A minute ago our distinguished colleague handling the bill said, ``We 
are concerned.'' They are not a bit concerned about deficits, I can 
tell you that. We spent a half trillion dollars last year we didn't pay 
for. Under the President's budget we just passed--another half a 
trillion dollars in deficits this year. And the President projects to 
spend nearly $600 billion next year, unpaid for. The particular budget 
we

[[Page 8331]]

just passed increases the debt, the national debt, from approximately 
$6 trillion to $12 trillion. We double the debt in the next 10 years 
and we are going merrily along, not paying for anything.
  We all say the Pledge of Allegiance. We run around with our flags in 
our lapels. We all have a moment of silence for the troops in Iraq. It 
is a sincere demonstration. But then you have to question the sincerity 
when we will not pay for anything.
  We are sending that GI into Iraq, and we are saying we hope you don't 
get killed. And the reason we hope you don't get killed is we want you 
to hurry back so we can give you the bill. We aren't going to pay for 
it.
  What we need, and Carl Rove has told us, is a tax cut so we can get 
elected next year. We are not concerned about the needs of the country. 
We are concerned only about the needs of the campaign. I hope this 
sense-of-the-Senate amendment will engender support for the troops.
  The articles on the front page of the business section of the New 
York Times today explain why this is necessary.
  I ask unanimous consent to print the two articles, ``Sour Mood 
Pervades the Economic Front,'' and, ``A Year-long Decline in the Dollar 
Is Little Help in the U.S. Trade Gap.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 Sour Mood Pervades the Economic Front

                         (By Edmund L. Andrews)

       Washington, April 2.--While American optimism about the war 
     in Iraq rose sharply today, American spirits about the 
     economy are still being battered.
       Stock markets surged on hopes that American and British 
     forces are closing in on victory in Iraq, but the mood among 
     business executives and consumers is sour.
       Every survey of manufacturers over the last month has shown 
     a sharp increase in pessimism as executives complain about 
     slumping demand for their own goods and higher prices for the 
     materials they use to make them.
       The Commerce Department reported today that factory orders 
     dropped 1.5 percent in February, the steepest drop in five 
     months. On Friday, economists predict, the government will 
     report that unemployment rose again in March.
       Though the increase in joblessness is expected to be 
     modest, the economy has already shed more than 600,000 jobs 
     since November and two million since President Bush took 
     office.
       Consumers, whether because of anxiety about the war or 
     because they have been preoccupied with the television 
     coverage, have slowed their spending. Car sales declined last 
     month, airline travel has dropped and retailers have reduced 
     their expectations of growth for the year.
       The trend is even worse in Europe and Japan, where growth 
     has almost stalled entirely. As if that was not enough, 
     tourism and travel through Asia are now being hurt by fears 
     of the spread of the disease known as severe acute 
     respiratory syndrome, or SARS.
       In effect, President Bush is being forced to fight wars on 
     two fronts. Anxieties about the war in Iraq have slowed the 
     economy, with businesses still reluctant to invest in new 
     factories or expand their work forces.
       But a growing number of analysts are skeptical that the 
     economy will snap back quickly after the shooting subsides. 
     The aftershocks of the stock market bubble still appear to 
     inhibit investor confidence and corporate spending.
       ``We have had three consecutive quarters of below-trend 
     growth,'' said William C. Dudley, chief United States 
     economist at Goldman Sachs. ``To explain all that on the 
     basis of the war in Iraq seems to be a stretch.''
       Initial data from retailers indicates that consumers slowed 
     their spending noticeably in the first week of the war. But 
     it remains unclear whether they will rush back into stores 
     when the war dies down.
       On Tuesday, Instinet Research's survey of chain stores 
     found that sales dropped by 2.8 percent last week, compared 
     with those in the week a year earlier, and that March sales 
     were off 1.5 percent.
       A significant part of that decline stemmed from unusually 
     bad winter weather, as well as the fact that the Easter 
     weekend fell earlier last year.
       But consumer surveys suggest that Americans have curbed 
     their urge to shop. The most recent poll by ABC News and 
     Money magazine, released on Tuesday, showed that consumer 
     confidence remained near its lowest point in nine years.
       In a poll by The New York Times and CBS News, taken from 
     March 20 to 24, about 49 percent of the respondents said the 
     economy was bad while 50 percent said it was good.
       Those attitudes constituted an improvement over the month 
     before and may have reflected the initial surge of optimism 
     that the United States and Britain would defeat Iraq within 
     days.
       In follow-up interviews today, at least some participants 
     had returned to their earlier pessimism.
       ``I would not make any purchases at this time,'' said 
     Robert Micheo, a retired probation officer in Los Angeles. 
     ``The economy is going down day by day, and it's going to get 
     worse.''
       Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve chairman, has continued 
     to express a comparatively sunny view that confidence will 
     revive as soon as the ``geopolitical uncertainties'' abate.
       But Fed officials say the uncertainties about the economy 
     are so numerous that they cannot make any predictions. And 
     the surveys of business sentiment by Fed regional banks have 
     been extremely gloomy.
       Earlier this week, the Philadelphia Fed's survey of 
     manufacturers showed deteriorating conditions in several 
     areas. Companies in the region reported that new orders and 
     hiring declined sharply in March and that its broadest 
     measure of manufacturing conditions had plunged.
                                  ____


         Yearlong Decline in Dollar Is Little Help on Trade Gap

                           (By Daniel Altman)

       For many economists, the dollar's jagged yearlong slide is 
     just a side effect of an inevitable contraction in the 
     nation's huge trade deficit. But current economic and 
     political conditions are making the process more perilous 
     than it might otherwise have been.
       Recently, the dollar's exchange rates have bounced up and 
     down with news from the Iraq war: late yesterday, on news of 
     American military progress toward Baghdad, it reached 118.98 
     yen, up 0.76 percent from Tuesday. But the dollar's overall 
     trend in the last year has been distinctly downward. Weighted 
     by the volumes of trade with other countries and adjusted for 
     inflation, an average of the rates dropped 4.4 percent from 
     March 2002 to last month.
       A deeper decline could be on the way, though. The run-up to 
     the war in Iraq hurt the American economy, and fears of 
     similar conflicts to follow could deter foreigners from 
     holding dollar-denominated securities. With less demand for 
     the securities, there would be less need for dollars.
       ``Perceptions are very important,'' said Kermit L. 
     Schoenholtz, chief economist of Salomon Smith Barney. ``If 
     people believe that the events we've seen in Iraq are not 
     one-off events, it will affect their investments.''
       The falling dollar has helped some American companies to 
     increase their exports, but not enough to counteract the 
     effects of a middling global economy.
       ``It's only offset part of it,'' said Frank Mendizabal, a 
     spokesman for Weyerhaeuser, the paper and building materials 
     maker. The company exported 18 percent of its sales last 
     year, and the weaker dollar helped it compete with producers 
     in Latin America and Asia. But factors like a stagnant 
     housing market in Japan still restrained demand, Mr. 
     Mendizabal said.
       Several forces may be combining to dull the effect of the 
     exchange rate on exports. Mr. Schoenholtz said that weakness 
     of incomes and demand abroad was ``a very significant portion 
     of the reason'' why the deficit in international transactions 
     had not narrowed more. Heightened world competition is also 
     adding to the difficulty of American exporters' task.
       ``I can't think of an exchange rate at which U.S. exports 
     might be competitive with those from a very low-cost country 
     like China,'' said John G. Lonski, chief economist at Moody's 
     Investors Service. And in China's case, Mr. Lonski said, the 
     currency is tied to the dollar, which helps prevent a 
     narrowing of its trade imbalance with the United States.
       Despite the decline in the trade-weighted value of the 
     dollar, from October (when the dollar reached a peak) to 
     January (the last month for which the Commerce Department has 
     data), exports barely changed and imports rose 5 percent, 
     seasonally adjusted. At least in the short term, the dollar's 
     movements seem to reflect foreigners' willingness or 
     reluctance to hold American securities more than the balance 
     of trade.
       ``The recent confrontation with Iraq may have convinced 
     investors of a need to better diversify their investment 
     portfolios away from dollar-denominated assets,'' Mr. Lonski 
     said. Though he did not forecast any large-scale dumping of 
     American securities, Mr. Lonski said that ``in view of the 
     U.S.'s record-breaking current account deficit, it seems like 
     some decline in the dollar appears to be overdue.''
       Last month, according to a report by Morgan Stanley, 
     foreign investors' demand for Treasury securities suddenly 
     slackened. And well before the possibility of war in Iraq 
     began to concern investors, corporate scandals pushed 
     foreigners to shift their portfolios away from American 
     securities, said a senior executive based in the New York 
     office of a major European bank.
       ``It was more that than anything else initially, and now it 
     has to do with them feeling uncomfortable about the war,'' 
     said the executive, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

[[Page 8332]]

       In addition to the changes in portfolios, the pace of 
     foreigners, direct investment in the United States has 
     slowed. The euro zone has outpaced the United States as a 
     target for foreign direct investment for six consecutive 
     quarters, according to figures compiled by Morgan Stanley.
       All American companies, exporters or not, could suffer if 
     foreign capital being pulled out of United States investments 
     is not replaced by domestic savings. Though household savings 
     rose to about $330 billion last year from $200 billion in 
     2001, the budget deficit of $158 billion cut the nation's 
     total savings in half. This year, the overall deficit will 
     probably be $250 billion to $300 billion, according to the 
     latest estimates from the Congressional Budget Office.
       With national savings near zero, almost all new investment 
     by American businesses would essentially be financed with 
     foreign money. ``The only way we can grow is to get capital 
     from abroad,'' said Stephen S. Roach, chief economist of 
     Morgan Stanley. ``What we're seeing now are some early 
     warning signs of how this will play out over the next several 
     years.''
       The Treasury also needs foreigners to remain interested in 
     dollar-denominated securities. According to estimates by the 
     Bond Market Association, a trade group, foreigners hold about 
     35 percent of the Nation's outstanding debt. The Treasury's 
     borrowing requirements seem likely to balloon as a result of 
     the Iraq war, the sluggish economy and President Bush's tax 
     cuts. If demand for that debt falls at the same time, 
     interest rates could rise.
       ``We're asking the world to give us too much of their 
     surplus savings,'' Mr. Roach said. ``That's just not a 
     sustainable way to run the economy, period.''
       Mr. Schoenholtz says he thinks the United States could 
     regain its attractiveness to foreign investors. ``If concerns 
     about the war fade, and oil prices recede sharply,'' he said, 
     ``then you'll be back in a position where you could argue 
     that the chance of an economic pickup would be greater for 
     the U.S., than in Europe or Japan.'' In that case, he said, 
     the United States would be likely to resume its position as 
     the preferred market for foreign investors.
       Indeed, investors may still be hard pressed to find a 
     better place to invest. ``The Europe economic data has been 
     as bad or worse than the U.S.,'' said Ifty Islam, head of 
     United States fixed-income strategy at Deutsche Bank 
     Securities. ``Just because this is not a European war, it 
     doesn't mean Europe is not suffering.''
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I quote hurriedly, Mr. President, just to emphasize, if 
you please, the problem we are really getting this generation in:

       A growing number of analysts are skeptical that the economy 
     will snap back quickly after the shooting subsides. The 
     aftershocks of the stock market bubble still appear to 
     inhibit investor confidence and corporate spending. ``We have 
     had three consecutive quarters of below-trend growth,'' said 
     William C. Dudley, chief United States economist at Goldman 
     Sachs. ``To explain all that on the basis of the war in Iraq 
     seems to be a stretch.''

  Moving along:

       But consumer surveys suggest that Americans have curbed 
     their urge to shop. The most recent poll, by ABC News and 
     Money magazine, released on Tuesday, showed that consumer 
     confidence remained near its lowest point in nine years. . . 
     .

     . . . surveys of business sentiment by regional banks have 
     been extremely gloomy. . . .The Philadelphia Fed's survey of 
     manufacturers showed deteriorating conditions in several 
     areas. Companies in the region reported that new orders and 
     hiring declined sharply in March, and that its broadest 
     measure of manufacturing conditions had plunged.

  There is also the statement that we have lost 600,000 jobs since 
November.

       On Tuesday, a closely watched index of manufacturing 
     activity by the Institute of Supply Management . . . [f]or 
     the first time in five months . . . suggested that factories 
     were contracting rather than expanding.

  Then, Mr. President, jumping right to that next article, because you 
can see we have always depended on the foreigners to pay for our debt--
they have been carrying over a third of our debts--I quote, again:

       Last month, according to a report by Morgan Stanley, 
     foreign investors' demand for Treasury securities suddenly 
     slackened.

  They stopped buying that debt. I tell you, this is very dangerous to 
us because we are going to have to increase the interest rates, when 
deficits matter, according to Alan Greenspan. All my colleagues want to 
object, and they run around with the litany that: We are worried about 
deficits.
  The truth is, we are not worried about deficits. This $80 billion 
bill before us--there is no money for it. We are going to borrow to 
support the troops, and then want the troops to come back and let them 
pay for it.
  Let me read some more:

       In addition to the changes in portfolios, the pace of 
     foreigners' direct investment . . . has slowed. The euro zone 
     has outpaced the United States as a target for foreign direct 
     investment for six consecutive quarters, according to figures 
     compiled by Morgan Stanley.

  So they are investing back in Europe rather than the United States, 
which was always their first preference.

       With national savings near zero, almost all new investment 
     by American businesses would essentially be financed with 
     foreign money. ``The only way we can grow is to get capital 
     from abroad,'' said Stephen S. Roach, chief economist of 
     Morgan Stanley. ``What we're seeing now are some early 
     warning signs of how this will play out over the next several 
     years.''

     . . . foreigners hold about 35 percent of the nation's 
     outstanding debt. The Treasury's borrowing requirements seem 
     likely to balloon as a result of the Iraq war, the sluggish 
     economy and President Bush's tax cut. If demand for that debt 
     falls at the same time, interest costs could rise.
       ``We're asking the world to give us too much of their 
     surplus savings,'' Mr. Roach said. ``That's just not a 
     sustainable way to run the economy, period.''

  I wish I had the time to read it all, but it is not Hollings just 
trying to pass a tax. I would rather be tax and spend than spend and 
wreck. We can't get this crowd off the deficit barley corn. If we can't 
sober them up with a war, when troops are dying in Iraq and the amounts 
that we appropriate we can't even pay for--I don't know how it is ever 
going to happen.
  We have always paid for all of our wars. For the Revolution War, they 
put on a property tax. Back in the Civil War, they put a tax on 
dividends and estates; for World War I, they raised the marginal tax 
rate to 77 percent; World War II, 94 percent; Vietnam, 77 percent. That 
is the last time--and I was here--that we balanced the budget, that we 
paid our way, under President Lyndon Johnson, guns and butter. The tax 
rate was 77 percent.
  Now it has already been cut to 38.5 percent, and they want to cut it 
further in the budget that just passed. And to say, Why do we have 
deficits? and to use the statement that we are concerned about 
deficits--that is nonsense. There is no concern. This place has run 
amok. And if we can't get a sense of the Senate that we are willing to 
pay for the war, we are just going to have to quit, we are not doing 
the people's job at all.
  The party of Lincoln that passed in order to pay for the Civil War 
the estate tax and the dividend tax, this party of Lincoln today, in 
2003, says: Let's go to war. And the first order of business is to 
eliminate the estate tax, eliminate the dividend tax, and talk about 
stimulus, stimulus, growth, growth.
  Do you know that in 200 years of American history, with all the 
wars--World War II, right on through, Korea, Vietnam--we never had a 
$100 billion interest cost on our debt. But, by gosh, along came 
President Reagan. George Walker Herbert Bush called it voodoo. And 
under voodoo we went not only to $100 billion, but we went to $200 
billion in interest costs. And then we went to $400 billion under 
President Bush's father.
  Then, under President Clinton, we eliminated the deficit. It took 8 
years to eliminate that $400 billion deficit, but we raised taxes, 
which I am asking us to do, at least to pay for the war--not for any 
other program. I have a value-added tax. Mr. President, that is S. 112.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this particular chart be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                          TAXES TO PAY FOR WAR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Individual          Corporation
               War                     increases           increases
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Civil War.......................  0-10%.............  Dividends.
World War I.....................  13-77%............  1-12%.
World War II....................  79-94%............  20-40%.
Korean War......................  82-91%............  38-52%.
Vietnam.........................  70-77%............  48-52.5%.
Afghan, Iraq and Terrorism Wars.  Tax cut...........  Tax cut.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, before I forget, I ask unanimous consent 
to have this article printed in the Record: ``No Excuse for Tax Cuts,'' 
by E.J. Dionne, Jr.

[[Page 8333]]

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Mar. 25, 2003]

    Washington Talks a Blue Streak As Social Security's Red Ink Runs

                            (By Allan Sloan)

       No matter how well the war goes, the United States has one 
     problem that isn't going away: Social Security. And despite 
     what you may have read last week, Social Security's financial 
     situation isn't getting better. If anything, it's getting 
     worse, because another year has passed without doing anything 
     about the program's long-term problems.
       Pour yourself a glass of warm milk or a stiff drink, 
     depending on how you calm your nerves, then look at the 
     numbers. Open the 2003 Social Security Board of Trustees 
     report, issued last week, to page 184. If you don't happen to 
     have a copy of this jewel sitting around, go to www.ssa.gov/
OACT/TR/TR03/lr6F9-2.html.
       You get Social Security's projected annual cash flow by 
     subtracting the outgo column from the income-excluding-
     interest column. This disregards the interest that Social 
     Security gets on its trust fund, because the interest is paid 
     not in cash but in Treasury securities. This year's $77 
     billion cash surplus and $88 billion of interest that doesn't 
     count as a budget expense produces a $165 billion Social 
     Security surplus in the federal budget. This surplus is being 
     pillaged to support huge tax cuts and other government 
     expenses.
       Social Security's cash surplus is projected to peak at $112 
     billion in 2008 and then start to decline. For 2027, the 
     surplus is projected at $5 billion. Given that Social 
     Security will be spending more than $1.1 trillion, the $5 
     billion is a rounding error, not a margin of safety. By 2018, 
     the ``crossover date,'' when the amount collected in Social 
     Security taxes isn't enough to cover current benefits, the 
     program is projected to run a $25 billion negative cash flow, 
     and the red ink starts to run like a river.
       If you subscribe to the school, consisting primarily of 
     Democrats, that says we're okay until 2041 because we can 
     depend on the trust fund, you're in dreamland. Take a look at 
     the horrific projected cash-flow deficits that lie ahead. In 
     2020, $568 billion. by 2039, it's more than $1 trillion. You 
     think we're going to spend that kind of money? What are you 
     smoking?
       But, you ask, why can't the trust fund, currently at $1.54 
     trillion and climbing, be used to fund the cash deficit? 
     Welcome to the wonderful world of Washington math. The 
     federal government putting Treasury securities into a federal 
     trust fund is like you funding your retirement by writing 
     IOUs to yourself. It's a meaningless exercise, because you 
     have to convert the IOUs into cash--and having the IOUs on 
     hand doesn't make it easier for you to come up with cash.
       If you put Treasury securities into your file drawer to 
     finance your retirement, you'd be fine. You'd depend on the 
     Treasury to redeem its securities; you wouldn't have to raise 
     the money with your own resources. If Social Security had put 
     your IOU into its trust fund--say, by making you a mortgage 
     loan--it would be fine, provided you paid off your loan. 
     Instead, the government will have to redeem Social Security's 
     Treasury securities with its own cash, by cutting other 
     spending, getting more revenue or borrowing. Exactly what it 
     would have to do if there were no trust fund. So the trust 
     fund, no matter how many trillions are in it, isn't helpful 
     when it comes to paying bills.
       The cash-crossover date has been moving forward steadily 
     for five years. Is that a sign that the problem will never 
     actually arrive? No, says Stephen Goss, Social Security's 
     chief actuary. ``The possibility is about 50-50 that the 
     dates will be earlier in next year's report,'' he says. And 
     Goss isn't a political numbers troll. He's a career civil 
     servant who's a total truth-teller. He said the same things 
     during the Clinton administration that he said to me last 
     week.
       Just as Democrats engage in fantasy when they say the trust 
     fund will protect Social Security recipients, Republicans are 
     engaging in fantasy when they talk about ``saving'' the 
     program by diverting some Social Security tax payments to 
     individual investment accounts. For starters, the utterly 
     imprudent tax cuts the Republicans are pushing would ensure 
     that there won't be money available to cover the shortfall if 
     some Social Security taxes go to private accounts rather than 
     being used to pay current beneficiaries. Second, the whole 
     idea of stock-based individual accounts isn't very social--
     it's each person for him or herself. And these accounts offer 
     no security: If you turned a private account into a lifetime 
     annuity today, you'd get only about half as much per month as 
     you'd have gotten three years ago, because the market and 
     interest rates were much higher then.
       The logical solution to Social Security's long-term problem 
     is to cut benefit growth, increase taxes or both. You could 
     also use general revenue to pay benefits, but then there'd be 
     no limiting the benefits level. The earlier we deal with the 
     problem, the less pain we'll inflict. But with Democrats 
     denying there's a problem and Republicans fantasizing about 
     the stock market solving Social Security's ills, don't hold 
     your breath waiting for something constructive to happen. 
     You'll turn blue.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, Mar. 25, 2003]

                         No Excuse for Tax Cuts

                         (By E.J. Dionne, Jr.)

       Do the leaders of Congress really want to make their branch 
     of government look foolish?
       The attention of Americans is focused on the war in Iraq--
     the successes, the sacrifices, the capture of American 
     fighting men and women, the march on Baghdad.
       Congressional leaders should not exploit this moment to 
     push narrow ideological agendas. Ramming through enormous tax 
     cuts is not the best way to unite the country or--the phrase 
     is on the lips of every politician--to show our support for 
     the men and women in uniform. At a time of war, we should not 
     feel we are witnessing a political Ponza scheme.
       The administration waited until this week to discuss what 
     this war might cost. President Bush's aides insisted, 
     implausibly, that they really couldn't know the price until 
     hostilities began.
       Hey, some estimates and ranges would have done just fine. 
     The administration, already proposing far too much tax 
     cutting in the face of rising deficits, clearly wanted to 
     avoid putting out numbers that would make the budget picture 
     even worse. The hope was that Congress would just push 
     through budget resolutions containing its $726 billion tax 
     plan.
       But once the war started, the fact that it was happening 
     became a rationale for supporting the tax cut. House Speaker 
     Dennis Hastert told his Republican colleagues that it was 
     important not to embarrass the president by cutting back on 
     his tax proposal.
       Since the tax plan was losing support among moderates on 
     the merits, Hastert had to haul out the flag. Hastert is 
     saying that to oppose the president on anything right now--
     even on tax policies that have nothing to do with the war and 
     that make less sense than ever because of the war--is somehow 
     to oppose the war effort. If the speaker really believes 
     that, he should just put the House on automatic pilot to 
     ratify the president's desires. Who needs a legislative 
     branch?
       The Senate, fortunately, is a more complicated place. 
     Republicans hold only 51 of 100 seats, and many Republican 
     moderates are restive. Sens. John McCain of Arizona and 
     Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island think tax cutting is senseless 
     until we know more about the costs of war and postwar 
     reconstruction. Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of 
     Maine and George Voinovich of Ohio have been trying to hold 
     down the size of the reductions.
       McCain has particular standing on this matter. He's as 
     strong a supporter of the Iraq war as there is in Congress. 
     On this issue, he has been unwavering in standing up for 
     Bush--not one of his favorite people after the bitter 2000 
     Republican primaries. McCain is suggesting that conservatives 
     who favor a large American role in the world should put their 
     money where their mouth is and pay for their expansive 
     foreign policy. The alternative is to stop pretending and go 
     back to being a party for which tax cutting is the one and 
     only priority.
       If the five Republican skeptics held together, they could 
     put a brake on the mad rush to unaffordable tax cuts. Last 
     week Senate moderates carried a proposal to trim the tax cuts 
     by $100 billion. But it's not clear that vote will stand, and 
     it's not enough anyway.
       It would take courage for moderate Republicans and 
     Democrats in the Senate to do more. But they would only be 
     matching the courage of moderate and conservative Democrats 
     in the House, who put their anti-deficit principles above the 
     convenience of voting with a president popular in many of 
     their districts.
       Perhaps the most powerful argument in last week's budget 
     debate came from Rep. Gene Taylor, a solidly conservative 
     Mississippi Democrat. Taylor wondered how Congress could be 
     considering policies that would throw today's costs onto 
     tomorrow's taxpayers--including the many young Americans now 
     fighting for their country.
       ``You're sticking those 250,000 young Americans and their 
     children with that bill,'' Taylor said. ``And that's 
     inexcusable.''
       Deficit arguments tend to be abstract. But Sen. Kent 
     Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat who heads his party's 
     contingent on the Budget Committee, makes the essential 
     point. When the policies of the 1980s threw the country into 
     deep deficits, there was time to repair the problem before 
     the baby boomers retired. This time there will be no 
     opportunity to correct the mistakes. If these tax cuts go 
     through, the choices just a few years from now will be sharp 
     cutbacks in Medicare and Social Security, big tax increases 
     or unheard-of-deficits.
       War should not be used as an excuse to evade these 
     consequences. This tax debate should be shelved until victory 
     is won.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, Mar. 25, 2003]

                         A Fair Payment for War

              (By William H. Gates, Sr. and Chuck Collins)

       Last week we saw something unprecedented in American 
     history: a push for tax

[[Page 8334]]

     cuts targeted to the wealthy in a time of war. As U.S. jets 
     prepared to bomb Baghdad, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) offered an 
     amendment to the federal budget legislation accelerating the 
     repeal of the estate tax. It is a provision that would 
     benefit less than 2 percent of the wealthiest taxpayers. It 
     passed by a narrow vote of 51 to 48.
       There is something unseemly about Congress's obsession with 
     repealing the estate tax, the nation's most equitable tax on 
     accumulated wealth, at a time when life and death are at 
     stake. The American history of estate and inheritance taxes 
     is wound together with mobilizations for war. The first 
     federal tax on wealth was levied in 1797, as our country was 
     faced with the escalating costs of responding to French 
     attacks on American shipping.
       During the 19th century, federal revenue came primarily 
     from excise taxes and tariffs. Income and estate taxes were 
     imposed only in revenue emergencies, during the Civil War and 
     the Spanish-American War. Wartime taxation, or the 
     ``conscription of wealth,'' was perceived as equitable at a 
     time when many citizens were sacrificing their lives, 
     sometimes as soldier proxies for wealthier citizens.
       The 1916 estate tax was a fundamentally American response 
     to the excessive inequalities of the Gilded Age and reflected 
     the country's need to move beyond reliance on the regressive 
     tariff and excise taxes as primary sources of government 
     revenue. Yet it was given a tremendous push by the U.S. entry 
     into World War I and the need for wartime funds. Even after 
     the war, businessman Harlan E. Read argued in his book ``The 
     Abolition of Inheritance'' that war debts should be paid off 
     with heavy taxes on inherited wealth.
       In order to pay for World War II, the income tax was 
     broadened to many lower-income households. In 1942 Irving 
     Berlin wrote a patriotic song called ``I Paid My Income Tax 
     Today'' to mark the unprecedented tax collections. One verse 
     went: ``You see those bombers in the sky, Rockefeller helped 
     to build them, so did I.'' President Franklin D. Roosevelt 
     understood that national unity against Hitler depended on a 
     sense of shared sacrifice, by both Rockefeller and Rosie the 
     Riveter.
       Top income rates were boosted, and the estate tax was 
     increased so that fortunes exceeding $50 million would be 
     taxed at 70 percent. FDR spoke out boldly against war 
     profiteering, saying, ``I don't want to see a single war 
     millionaire created in the United States as a result of this 
     world disaster.''
       Today the lives of some of our citizens are at risk. Others 
     are feeling the pain of the recession, losing their jobs, 
     savings and security. State and local governments, facing the 
     worst budget cuts since World War II, are laying off workers 
     and cutting education spending, children's health care and 
     basic human services.
       Rather than facing these problems and appropriating the 
     money to resolve them, congressional leaders are using the 
     diversion of war to pass a tax cut for the wealthy that would 
     exacerbate budget shortfalls at all levels. While the 
     public's attention is riveted on Iraq, the Senate acts to 
     accelerate the repeal of the progressive estate tax.
       At a time when states need $70 billion in federal aid to 
     close their deficits, federal priorities seem to be very 
     different. Will the costs of war be paid by reductions in 
     spending, mostly affecting our most vulnerable citizens? Will 
     there be clear domestic economic winners and losers in the 
     conduct of this war?
       Political scientist Michael Lipsky observed a year ago that 
     this war ``will evidently excerbate the divide between rich 
     and poor.'' Wars have had this effect on the United States 
     before, but absolutely without precedent is a push for a 
     windfall tax cut for the wealthy as wartime expenses mount.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Right to the point, we got voodoo II here the year 
before last with George W. Bush's tax cuts, and we are jumping back to 
$400 billion deficits. And now we are asking, with the budget that we 
passed, for voodoo III, to really run $700 billion deficits.
  I wish they would hear that and listen to me. They have no idea. The 
interest costs--the distinguished Presiding Officer, you come from a 
responsible State. In the State of Texas, I can tell you, you have to 
pay the bill. In fact, in my State, you cannot run for Governor unless 
you promise to pay the bill.
  But it has gotten so that now the Republicans have taken over, and 
you can't run for the Senate unless you promise not to pay--not to 
pay--the bill. They are taking over in this miasma of growth, growth. 
The only thing that grows is the national debt, the interest costs, the 
waste. There has been $300 to $400 billion waste since voodoo 1. There 
it is.
  We could pay for all of these particular needs--there is $80 billion 
here for the war--if we had a pay-as-you-go government up here in 
Washington. But they back off onto that deficit barley corn. They have 
no intent of paying for anything. Tax cuts, tax cuts, says Karl Rove. 
You have to do it in order to get reelected. And it is a dirty shame. 
It is a dirty shame.
  I have been in government now for 50 years, and I have to say, 
immodestly, I have been the longest serving member of the Budget 
Committee. I have been chairman of that Budget Committee. As Governor 
of South Carolina, I got the Standard & Poors' and Moody's AAA credit 
rating for our State.
  As a Senator, I voted for the balanced budget. And we cut the deficit 
when I was chairman of that Budget Committee, and those kinds of 
things. I got together with Senator Gramm and Senator Rudman, and we 
had Gramm-Rudman-Hollings to systematically cut $35 billion a year. We 
just passed a budget that increases the deficit by $350 billion, and 
they are fighting over at the White House to make sure they get more 
than $350 billion in tax cuts.
  This sense of the Senate merely says to the President: You submit 
your program. And if you don't, we have tax revenues to pay for this 
war. And don't say the revenues are going to ruin the economy because 
it will take a year for the value-added tax to be implemented by the 
Internal Revenue Service. So if we pass this now, we are telling the 
market, like we did back in 1993, that we are going to start getting 
rid of the deficits, and paying down the debt.
  We said, for 8 years: Pay down the debt. Pay down the debt. We don't 
say that any longer. We are just saying, we are concerned about 
deficits.
  I can tell, my time is up. I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Mississippi for yielding me this time. I appreciate it very much.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from South 
Carolina is one of my best friends. It is always a pleasure to hear him 
address the Senate on a subject about which he feels strongly and where 
he is truly an expert. He served as one of the first members of the 
Budget Committee and helped shape budget policies in Congress for many 
years.
  I remember that it seems like last week we were debating the budget 
resolution that contained provisions relating to assumptions about tax 
policy and fiscal policy for the next fiscal year. The Senate had an 
opportunity to consider and vote on a lot of amendments and provisions 
in that budget resolution having to do with tax policy.
  Of course, we all know that what we are confronted with is a request 
from the President for funding for supplemental funds for the balance 
of this fiscal year to help finance the war in Iraq and to help finance 
Operation Liberty Shield by providing funds to the Department of 
Homeland Security and the Department of Defense.
  While this sense-of-the-Senate resolution offered by the Senator from 
South Carolina does raise a subject about which we have thought and 
discussed a good bit in recent weeks, we hope the Senate will approve a 
motion to table the amendment and continue to work our way through this 
bill so we can complete action on the appropriations measure tonight if 
at all possible. We can go to conference with the House and work out 
differences between their bill and ours and get these funds in the 
hands of the administration so we can get about the business of 
protecting the security of our homeland and waging a winning war 
against terror. That is the purpose of this legislation. We hope the 
Senate does not get too sidetracked on what our mission is tonight.
  I hope Senators will be aware. We called over to the Finance 
Committee, which has jurisdiction over tax policy, to let them know 
about the amendment and that we had an opportunity for them, if they 
wanted to, to come over and speak on the subject. Not having had a 
request for time, I am prepared to yield time back and proceed to a 
vote on the Byrd amendment or in relation to the Byrd amendment and 
then the Hollings amendment.
  Mr. President, if there is no problem with that, I yield back the 
time on this

[[Page 8335]]

side. I move to table the Hollings amendment and ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I will vote not to table the Hollings 
amendment.
  We still do not know how much the war in Iraq will cost, and we do 
not know how we will pay for those costs.
  I have been concerned about the United States shouldering the entire 
financial burden not only of the ongoing war, but also of the necessary 
postwar reconstruction. The President has released a list of more than 
40 nations that are supporting our effort in Iraq. However, a close 
look at the nations on that list will show that the overwhelming 
majority of them are in no position--and have made no commitment--to 
help pay for the effort.
  In comparison, during the 1991 gulf war, our allies paid for 88 
percent of the costs of the war. We have no such assurance this time.
  Because of this uncertainty, I believe the Senate should be 
discussing and debating this issue. That is, discussing and debating 
how we will meet the costs of the war and the costs of reconstruction.
  Will we receive contributions from our allies? Will we use revenues 
from Iraqi oil after the war is over? Will we cut wasteful government 
spending?
  These questions need to be asked and debated. That is why I voted not 
to table the Hollings amendment. With his amendment, the Senator from 
South Carolina tried to raise the issue of how we will pay for the war 
and reconstruction. And, his amendment was intended to force the Senate 
to debate this issue. I believe we need to have that debate, and that 
is why I voted not to table the Hollings amendment.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
between the two votes be 10 minutes; the second vote be 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. COCHRAN. There is no objection on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I don't know if the Senator from Mississippi can answer 
this question. The Senator from Louisiana had talked to Senator 
Stevens' staff and Senator Stevens on the amendment. We will work on 
this during the vote.
  Mr. COCHRAN. My understanding is Senator Stevens wanted an 
opportunity to talk about that.
  Mr. REID. We will go ahead and start the vote then.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 508

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the Byrd amendment, No. 508.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. 
Bunning) is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) would vote ``yes.''
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) and 
the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) 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 51, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 120 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

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

                                NAYS--46

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Bunning
     Inouye
     Kerry
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 479

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the Hollings amendment, No. 479.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I ask for the yeas and nays if they have not been 
ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. 
Bunning) is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), would vote ``yes.''
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) and 
the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``aye.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 79, nays 18, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 121 Leg.]

                                YEAS--79

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--18

     Akaka
     Biden
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Leahy
     Levin
     Reed
     Sarbanes

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Bunning
     Inouye
     Kerry
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I now yield to the Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished Senator 
from West Virginia be added as a cosponsor on that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when Senator 
Schumer offers his first-degree amendment regarding first responders, 
upon the reporting of the amendment it be set aside and Senator Specter 
be recognized to offer a first-degree amendment on the same subject; 
that the amendments be debated concurrently with a total of 30 minutes 
of debate to be controlled by Senator Schumer and

[[Page 8336]]

Senator Specter--actually, I asked my colleague to yield me 5 of those 
minutes--or their designees, and that no amendment be in order to 
either amendment prior to a vote in relation to each amendment; upon 
the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to a vote in 
relation to the Specter amendment to be followed immediately by a vote 
in relation to the Schumer amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I would like to inquire as to whether or 
not, in the opinion of the distinguished manager of the bill, we might 
be able to finish action by no later than 9 o'clock?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we are doing everything we can. I thought 
we were going to finish by 5:30 but we are having votes that we might 
otherwise not have had, if we proceeded with the agreements we had 
previously. But we are doing our best to be finished. My feeling is 
this vote will take place at about 7:30, between 7:30 and 7:35. After 
that, we are inquiring to see how many more votes. There are two votes, 
actually.
  If it would be in order, I ask the second vote be 10 minutes. I ask 
unanimous consent that the second vote on this sequence to come be 10 
minutes in length.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. We will do everything we can to shorten the time.
  Mr. BYRD. I wonder if it might be possible to get agreement that the 
vote would occur--the final passage would be voted at 9 o'clock.
  Mr. STEVENS. We can't do it because we are still reviewing the 
managers' package.
  Mr. REID. I would say, if I could, if the Senator would yield, 
through the Chair, I think we have a real good opportunity of finishing 
the bill quickly after these two votes. We will need cooperation of 
both sides but I think we can do that.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. I send my amendment to the desk. I ask unanimous consent 
that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  Mr. STEVENS. Senator, I don't think the Schumer amendment is there 
yet.
  Mr. SCHUMER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The order provides that the Schumer amendment 
be called up first.
  The Senator from New York.


                           Amendment No. 514

  Mr. SCHUMER. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer], for himself, Mrs. 
     Clinton, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. 
     Stabenow, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Nelson 
     of Nebraska, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Akaka, and Mr. 
     Sarbanes, proposes an amendment numbered 514.

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

  (Purpose: To increase the appropriation for the Office for Domestic 
   Preparedness, Department of Homeland Security, by $2,330,000,000)

       On page 37, strike lines 3 through 25 and insert the 
     following:
       For additional amounts for the ``Office for Domestic 
     Preparedness'', as authorized by the Homeland Security Act of 
     2002 (Public Law 107-296), the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 
     (Public Law 107-56), and the National Defense Authorization 
     Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-201), for grants to States and 
     local governments, $3,000,000,000, to remain available until 
     December 31, 2003: Provided, That of the total amount 
     appropriated, $2,500,000,000 shall be made available for 
     grants to States under section 1014 of the USA PATRIOT Act of 
     2001, subject to the minimum grant amount requirement of that 
     section, and the requirement that remaining amounts be 
     distributed on a per capita basis, for the purchase of needed 
     equipment, including interoperable communications equipment, 
     and to provide training, exercise, planning, and personnel 
     funds to State and local first responders: Provided further, 
     That the Office for Domestic Preparedness (referred to under 
     this heading as the ``Office'') shall transfer funds for such 
     grants to States not later than 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and not less than 80 percent of funds 
     made available to each State under this proviso shall be made 
     available to units of local government based on population 
     within 30 days of receipt by the State: Provided further, 
     That up to 20 percent of the amount made available under the 
     first proviso shall be for costs of law enforcement, fire, 
     emergency medical services, and other emergency personnel, 
     including overtime expenses and reimbursement of States (in 
     addition to personnel costs related to training), local 
     governments, and Indian tribes for additional costs incurred 
     to replace first responders who are called to active duty in 
     the Reserves for periods of not less than 6 consecutive 
     months: Provided further, That $500,000,000 shall be for 
     personnel costs of States and units of local government, 
     subject to the minimum grant amount requirement of section 
     1014 of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 and the requirement that 
     remaining amounts be distributed on a per capita basis, for 
     enhanced security around critical infrastructure (as that 
     term is defined in section 1016 of the USA PATRIOT Act of 
     2001 (Public Law 107-56)), the Office shall transfer funds 
     for such grants to States not later than 30 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, and not less than 50 percent 
     of such funds made available to each State shall be made 
     available to units of local government within 30 days of 
     receipt.
       For additional amounts under the Acts referred to in the 
     preceding paragraph for grants to high threat urban areas, 
     which should be identified by criteria that include credible 
     threat, vulnerability, the presence of infrastructure of 
     national importance, population, and needs of public safety 
     organizations, for the purchase of equipment, including 
     interoperable communications equipment, and to provide 
     training, planning, exercise, and personnel costs, 
     $1,045,000,000: Provided, That not less than 80 percent of 
     funds made available under this proviso shall be made 
     available to units of local government: Provided further, 
     That up to 20 percent of this amount shall be for costs of 
     law enforcement, fire, emergency medical services, and other 
     emergency personnel, including overtime expenses (in addition 
     to personnel costs related to training).
       For additional amounts for such office for programs as 
     authorized under section 33 of the Federal Fire Prevention 
     and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.), 
     $155,000,000, to remain available until December 31, 2003.
       For an additional amount, $130,000,000, which shall be 
     transferred to, and merged with, funds in the ``Community 
     Oriented Policing Services, Department of Justice'', 
     appropriations account for Public Safety and Community 
     Policing Grants pursuant to title I of the 1994 Act, for the 
     hiring of law enforcement officers to prevent acts of 
     terrorism and other violent and drug-related crimes, of which 
     up to 30 percent shall be available for overtime expenses.


                           Amendment No. 515

  Mr. SPECTER. I ask that my amendment now be in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 515.

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

  (Purpose: To increase funds for protection and preparedness of high 
     threat urban areas under the Office for Domestic Preparedness)

       On page 37, line 10, strike ``$2,000,000,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``$2,200,000,000''.
       On page 37, line 12, strike ``$1,420,000,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``$1,270,000,000''.
       On page 37, line 17, strike ``$450,000,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$300,000,000''.
       On page 37, line 23, strike ``$100,000,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$600,000,000''.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the essence of my amendment is to provide 
additional funds for high threat urban areas. This amendment would add 
an additional $500 million over the $100 million currently contained in 
the bill for the protection or preparedness of high threat urban areas.
  This increase would be achieved with $200 million in additional funds 
added to the supplemental appropriations bill, and a reduction of $300 
million in State and local grants for other accounts in the Office of 
Domestic Preparedness.
  The amendment which has been submitted by the Senator from New York 
would increase the appropriation for the Office of Domestic 
Preparedness from $2 billion to $4.3 billion. My amendment would 
increase the appropriation from $2 billion to $2.2 billion.

[[Page 8337]]

And while there is no doubt the high-threat urban areas and the Office 
of Domestic Preparedness could use additional funds, the fact is, that 
increase of more than $200 million which is in my amendment would, in 
effect, tend to break the bank.
  The distinguished manager of the bill, Senator Stevens, is trying to 
keep this bill within $80 billion, and that can be accommodated with 
the addition of $200 million.
  The urban areas have very substantial risks involved. In very brief 
summary, the city of Philadelphia has had expenses of almost $30 
million annually.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter dated April 2 
from Mayor John Street to me be printed in the Record at the conclusion 
of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. SPECTER. Similarly, the City of Pittsburgh has had increases in 
expenditures for the years 2001 and 2002 in excess of $10 million.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that chart be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   CITY OF PITTSBURGH, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, COST INCREASES FOR
                                TERRORISM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       2001         2002        Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              POLICE
 
New Police Recruits--80
  Salaries.......................      $93,565   $1,677,059   $1,770,624
  Benefits.......................       13,431      465,600      479,031
  Uniforms.......................       16,040      208,040      224,080
  Training.......................  ...........    1,129,760  1,1,129,760
                                  --------------------------------------
    Total Recruit Costs..........      123,036    3,480,459    3,603,495
Premium Pay Increases............    1,478,866      898,522    2,377,388
Special Equipment for Terrorism..       65,000  ...........       65,000
                                  ======================================
               FIRE
 
New Fire Recruits--32
  Salaries.......................        6,591      428,209      434,800
  Benefits.......................       19,698      186,240      205,938
  Uniforms.......................  ...........       16,000       16,000
  Training.......................       29,764      158,117      187,881
                                  --------------------------------------
    Total Recruit Costs..........       56,053      788,566      844,619
Premium Pay Increases............    1,923,229      377,129    2,300,358
               EMS
 
Premium Pay Increases............      484,738      565,948    1,050,686
Special Training for Terrorism...  ...........       24,000       24,000
Special Equipment for Terrorism..       14,000        6,000       20,000
Building Security................  ...........      500,000      500,000
                                  --------------------------------------
    Total Terrorism Costs........    4,144,922    6,640,624   10,785,546
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that a chart 
be printed in the Record on a survey by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, 
dated March 27, 2003, on additional city homeland security spending due 
to the war high alert.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     ADDITIONAL CITY HOMELAND SECURITY SPENDING DUE TO WAR/HIGH ALERT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Cost/Week
                City and state                     (Est.)     Population
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York City, NY.............................   $5,000,000    8,008,278
San Francisco, CA.............................    2,600,000      776,733
Los Angeles, CA...............................    2,500,000    3,694,820
Atlanta, GA...................................    2,250,000      416,474
Fresno, CA....................................    1,500,000      427,652
Portland, OR..................................      750,000      529,121
Austin, TX....................................      500,000      656,562
Baltimore, MD.................................      300,000      651,154
Chandler, AZ..................................      336,000      176,581
New Orleans, LA...............................      304,000      484,674
Pittsburgh, PA................................      280,000      334,563
Seattle, WA...................................      225,000      563,374
Lexington, KY.................................      218,000      260,512
Riverside, CA.................................      216,000      255,166
Frederick, MD.................................      206,958       52,767
San Jose, CA..................................      200,000      894,943
Denver, CO....................................      192,000      554,636
Norfolk, VA...................................      175,000      234,403
Sierra Vista, AZ..............................      175,000       37,775
Columbus, GA..................................      171,900      186,291
Simi Valley, CA...............................      161,000      111,351
Columbus, OH..................................      160,000      711,470
Tuscaloosa, AL................................      160,000       77,906
Phoenix, AZ...................................      154,615    1,321,045
Houston, TX...................................      154,370    1,953,631
Miami, FL.....................................      130,000      362,470
Pawtucket, RI.................................      119,000       72,958
Orlando, FL...................................      112,000      185,195
Fremont, CA...................................      103,500      203,413
Kansas City, MO...............................      100,000      441,545
Lakewood, CA..................................       99,200      137,893
Everett, MA...................................       80,000       38,037
Laredo, TX....................................       79,250      176,576
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, there is no doubt that major cities, such 
as Philadelphia, with airports and seaports and Independence Hall and 
the Liberty Bell, have much higher costs than cities which do not have 
these facilities.
  I have discussed the issue with Mayor Street. The letter which I have 
had printed in the Record is a succinct summary, so we can observe this 
very short time limit which has been agreed to.
  Similarly, I have conferred with Mayor Tom Murphy of Pittsburgh, who, 
again, makes the comment about the additional costs.
  I have had an opportunity--actually, I was called by Mayor Bloomberg 
of New York City about the very substantial increases in costs there, 
and during the markup in the Appropriations Committee earlier this week 
commented about these factors and have sought to increase the funding 
from the $100 million for high-risk urban areas to a total of some $600 
million.
  Again, it would be highly desirable if we had more money, as 
suggested by Senator Schumer, but that simply cannot be accommodated 
within the current budget constraints.
  In the conversations with Mayor Bloomberg, he pointed out about the 
fact that police cost some $5 million a month, and there are other 
costs in the range of $8 million a month for the United Nations, with a 
very heavy imposition of costs on New York City, commenting in a way 
very similar to the mayors of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.
  There is no doubt these costs really ought to be borne principally by 
the Federal Government. In the bill, language was inserted by Senator 
Gregg and language by myself which would require the Secretary of 
Homeland Defense to make a report to the Congress within 60 days to 
identify what are the costs in safeguarding airports, seaports, 
landmarks such as Independence Hall, such as the Liberty Bell, and to 
make a recommendation as to an allocation by the Federal Government, 
and whether such costs, in part, should be borne by other entities. 
That will enable us to make a determination as to how this $600 million 
will be spent, and to have a rationale for what the expenses will be 
with the specification of the costs involved and an allocation between 
the Federal Government and other governmental agencies if it is 
determined that would be appropriate.

                               Exhibit 1

                                             City of Philadelphia,


                                          Office of the Mayor,

                                  Philadelphia, PA, April 2, 2003.
     Hon. Arlen Specter,
     9400 Federal Building,
     Philadelphia, PA.
       Dear Senator Specter: In Fiscal Year 2002, the City of 
     Philadelphia spent $21.2 million in increased domestic 
     security costs. These costs include overtime incurred by the 
     Police, Fire and Public Health employees associated with the 
     formation of Rapid Assessment Teams. These teams, consisting 
     of employees from each department responded to all critical 
     incidents citywide. Additionally, $8 million was allocated 
     for security improvements to city facilities. These 
     improvements include installations of bollards around the 
     perimeter of City Hall, installation of security access and 
     surveillance systems in the One Parkway Building and 
     installation of security cameras and metal detectors at other 
     facilities. The Police Department enhanced coverage in Center 
     City and provided enhanced security staffing at the 
     Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Red Cross Headquarters and the 
     City's Emergency Operations Center. An intensive training was 
     given to a team of police officers and supervisors that may 
     be called upon to respond to a hazardous materials incident.
       Going forward, the Police Commissioner formed the Bureau of 
     Counter-Terrorism absorbing the Detective Bureau's Organized 
     Crime Unit as its foundation. The 76 member Bureau is 
     developing new methods and initiatives to pursue counter-
     terrorism preparedness. These initiatives include strategic 
     and tactical training, equipment purchase, inter-agency and 
     regional cooperation and coordination, and community 
     outreach. The Bureau meets regularly with task forces such as 
     the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force, the US Attorney's Anti-
     Terror Task Force and the US Coast Guard Task Force to keep 
     current with the latest counter-terrorism strategies. These 
     initiatives are likely to cost about $10 million annually.
           Sincerely,
                                                   John F. Street,
                                                            Mayor.

[[Page 8338]]



                                  SECURITY COSTS IN RESPONSE TO SEPTEMBER 11TH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Full year
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Purchased       Matrl., Supplies
                                          Personnel           Services         & Equipment           Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Police Department (General Fund)....          3,949,187             47,006          1,400,437          5,396,630
Police Department (Airport).........          3,288,784  .................  .................          3,228,784
Fire Department.....................          2,810,271  .................  .................          2,810,271
Public Property.....................            891,000            360,000             17,000          1,268,000
Office of Fleet Management..........             54,034            102,770  .................            156,804
Public Health.......................            340,178  .................  .................            340,178
Triplex Security....................  .................          8,000,000  .................          8,000,000
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...........................         11,273,454          8,509,776          1,147,437         21,200,667
                                     ===========================================================================
    Total General Fund..............          8,044,670          8,509,776          1,417,437         17,971,883
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much of my 15 minutes remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has 9 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have asked for a portion of the time of 
the Senator from Pennsylvania because we had worked to try to reach an 
agreement between the two amendments so that they would be put together 
and have an amendment we could adopt. We are unable to do that.
  I am compelled to state I will oppose the first-degree amendment of 
Senator Schumer. It is a situation where, as far as I am concerned, 
there is ample money in the House bill, if we are compelled to raise 
the amount that is in our bill. But it is the kind of situation where 
we prefer to have this amendment not be adopted now, so we can find a 
way to work the matter out with the House.
  We have $100 million in the bill. The Schumer amendment, as I 
understand it, as drafted, now adds $600 million. I oppose going to 
that height. That would, in effect, take it to the level of the House. 
And the administration opposes the level in the House bill.
  Mr. SCHUMER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I believe I have time. I will yield 3 
minutes to myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I heard my friend from Pennsylvania speak 
on----
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, will the Senator allow me to interrupt 
for a problem that has come up.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Please.
  Mr. STEVENS. The problem has come up in connection with the unanimous 
consent agreement. There was no time allocated to those who might want 
to oppose the Specter amendment. And, as I understand it, a Senator on 
the Democratic side wishes to oppose the Specter amendment. In 
fairness, I ask unanimous consent she be given 5 minutes to speak; and 
if it raises additional items the Senator has not spoken to that he 
wishes to speak to, I would allocate an additional 5 minutes to Senator 
Specter, so there would be a comment back and forth. All right. I make 
that request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator from New York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I heard my friend from Pennsylvania speak 
for his amendment. I will support that amendment because it is better 
than what is currently in the bill, although I wish it had more money. 
I wish it had money for the FIRE and COPS Programs, which the amendment 
I am offering with my colleagues from New York and Maryland, does. And 
I wish it gave more funding to high-threat, high-need areas, and to all 
other areas. I also wish that it ensured, as my amendment does, that 
the Department of Homeland Security would be required to provide the 
funds within 30 days and that the amendment would guarantee an 80/20 
split of those funds between the States and localities.
  The Schumer amendment is the amendment that provides sufficient 
funding for police, for fire, for first responders all across the 
country. We all know how beleaguered they are. We know how stretched 
they are. We know whether they be in a large city like New York City, 
or a medium-sized city like Rochester or Syracuse, or a suburb, or even 
a rural area, our police and firefighters have been pushed to the 
limit. They must meet their regular law enforcement and public safety 
responsibilities, but now have new responsibilities under 9/11, and 
from the Iraq war.
  And many police and fire departments have to do more with fewer 
people and fewer resources, because of the terrible budget deficits at 
the State and local level, and because many are in the Reserves and 
have been called up and are proudly serving our country.
  So we have an obligation. If we are going to fight the war on 
terrorism at home, we have to vote for this amendment. We cannot just 
fight the war on terrorism overseas and not fight it at home. Our first 
responders, our police and fire, in a very real sense are on the front 
lines.
  So I hope we will get support for the Schumer amendment. I hope we 
will back up our police and firefighters. I hope we will back up our 
local governments and our first responders.
  The idea that we can win the war on terror just by fighting it 
overseas and giving it all the money for needs overseas--I am for that 
and support that proudly--but not do what we need to do domestically 
makes no sense. We will rue the day.
  I ask my colleagues to vote for an amendment that really provides 
sufficient funding. Again, I am for the Specter amendment. It is an 
improvement. I salute my colleague from Pennsylvania for offering it. 
But if you really want to give the dollars to police and fire in the 
way that they need them, then the Schumer amendment is the answer. It 
is not a Democratic or Republican amendment. It is supported by police 
and fire organizations, both management and union throughout the 
country. It is supported by local governments. It is what our badly 
strapped local governments need in this post-9/11 world.
  Again, a good team needs a good offense and good defense. Our 
soldiers overseas are providing the offense. But it is our police, our 
firefighters, our first responders who are providing the defense. We 
need to back them up and back them up fully as well.
  I urge support of the Schumer amendment and yield 3 minutes to my 
colleague who has been with me all along on this issue, the Senator 
from New York, Mrs. Clinton.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I support the Schumer-Clinton-Mikulski 
amendment because I believe it more accurately reflects the needs that 
have been conveyed. Even in the materials that the Senator from 
Pennsylvania has entered into the Record, the kind of requests we are 
hearing from mayors and county executives and police chiefs and fire 
chiefs far exceed what is available. It has been now 18 months where we 
have failed to arrive at an understanding of what our local communities 
and our States require in order to fulfill their obligations on the 
front lines of this second front.
  Once again, I believe we have an opportunity to do what is needed, 
but we

[[Page 8339]]

are not taking it. The Schumer amendment provides the kind of 
thoughtful analysis and disbursement of funds that will most guarantee 
that the money, No. 1, gets out of the Federal Government within 30 
days--something not in the Specter amendment--and that once it gets to 
the States, it has to be distributed within 60 days. And we appreciate 
that. But one of the problems we have had is getting the money out of 
the Federal Government to the States, and we also have to assure that 
the money gets where it is most needed--to our first responders.
  I urge our colleagues to support the Schumer amendment as being far 
more reflective of the overall needs our country confronts when it 
comes to homeland security.
  Across the country, there are common sounds that should trigger an 
alarm in all of us: the sound of a firehouse door closing for the final 
time; a police officer turning in his or her badge as it slides across 
the desk; or an ambulance door locking. In the cities and the towns in 
the States we represent our first responders are losing their jobs.
  States and cities are trying to deal with budget deficits--some the 
worst in a generation, and they simply do not have the money to keep 
paying for additional homeland security costs.
  We need to work together--Republicans and Democrats--to provide them 
with the resources they need to strengthen our domestic defense.
  Yes, we have made progress since September 11, but we have not done 
enough. That same message echoes from report after report, from our 
experts, from independent commissions, from our police commissioners, 
fire chiefs, mayors, doctors and nurses--we have not done enough to 
prevent and respond to another terrorist attack.
  I cannot find a single credible security expert who has said, ``We're 
fine. We've done enough.'' ``There's no need to guard our chemical 
plants and nuclear plants. It's okay if we only check 2 percent of the 
containers that come through our ports. Don't worry about hiring border 
guards, they don't need the extra support. We don't need to give our 
police officers, firefighters, and emergency response personnel the 
equipment they need. We're fine, and `All's Quiet on the Homefront.'''
  You know last week, the President was asked about how long the war in 
Iraq would take and he responded correctly, ``However long it takes.''
  That's the same attitude we need to use for homeland security--
``whatever it takes'' to protect the American people. This isn't a new 
public work project or an example of frivolous spending; this is about 
securing our country on the frontlines here at home. And for 18 months 
our cities and States and counties have been shouldering this burden 
alone. Homeland security is a national priority and these costs and 
these responsibilities should be shared by the Nation.
  So what are we doing?
  What we are doing 18 months after that tragic day in September when 
nearly 3,000 Americans lost their lives still debating homeland 
security?
  Still debating whether or not we should not take the steps we need to 
take in order to prevent another day like that from ever happening 
again. Still talking about whether or not we should provide our first 
responders with the support they need.
  Homeland security is a concern we all share. We should not allow 
politics to prevail over our Nation's protection. We should not let it 
get in the way of strengthening our border and port security, improving 
security at our chemical and nuclear plants, and providing critical 
support for our police officers, firefighters, emergency personnel, and 
public health officials.
  Why would some in this Chamber willingly say ``no'' to critical steps 
that would improve our domestic defense? Why would our colleagues who 
care just as much about their constituents' safety as I care about the 
people of New York say, ``no, this isn't the right vehicle for these 
investments. No, this isn't the right time for homeland security 
because this supplemental bill is for spending that's an emergency--
it's for the war.''
  This is the right vehicle. This is the right time. This is an 
emergency. This is funding that does go toward winning the war against 
terrorism here at home. And this would be the right moment for 
Washington to send a clear message to the millions of first responders 
across this Nation who have sacrificed in order to keep us safe--we 
support you too.
  This amendment that I am proposing with Senator Schumer and Senator 
Mikulski would provide $4.3 billion for critical first responder 
funding. It includes $3 billion for grants to States and local 
governments; another $1.045 billion for high-threat areas like New York 
City; $155 million for the FIRE Act, and $130 million for the COPS 
Program.
  Yes, the President's proposal last week was a good start, but it is 
not nearly enough for what we need to do here at home in order to fight 
this two-front war.
  This amendment would provide $3 billion to Office of Domestic 
Preparedness at DHS for grants to States and Local Governments:
  $2.5 billion of this funding would go toward equipment, training, 
exercises, planning, and first responder personnel costs.
  The Federal Government must pass the money to States within 30 days.
  States must pass on at least 80 percent of this money to local 
communities within 30 days of the date they receive it.
  And States and local governments may use up to 20 percent of this 
$2.5 billion for first responder personnel costs, including overtime.
  For the last 18 months, our majors, fire chiefs, police 
commissioners, and public health officials have been telling me that 
they need more help from Washington to better protect the American 
people. This amendment provides that help. It guarantees that the 
Federal resources will get out of Washington and to the state houses 
and to our local first responders quickly so that they can continue to 
do what they do best--keep America safe.
  In January I gave a speech at John Jay in New York City to talk about 
how our country needed to renew its commitment to strengthen our 
domestic defense. I also released a report that showed how 70 percent 
of New York cities and counties had not received any federal homeland 
security funding.
  I continue to work with the U.S. Conference of Mayors, national 
police organizations, firefighters, and emergency medical technicians 
from across the country to find the best way to support our first 
responders. And I spoke with Secretary Ridge the other day to talk 
about improving this formula to meet our country's needs, and he 
agrees.
  Within the $3 billion for State grants, $500 million is setaside for 
States and local communities to secure critical infrastructure 
security--bridges, nuclear and chemical plants, water treatment 
facilities, communication centers to name a few.
  All of this money may be used for first responder personnel costs, 
including overtime. The States must provide 80 percent of this funding 
to local communities, with states allowed to use 20 percent. And again, 
the federal government must send this money to the States within 30 
days, and the States must pass through 80 percent of the funds to local 
communities within 30 days.
  These ideas follow my block grant proposal of 2001 and I am very 
pleased that the leadership has adopted my other proposal to put aside 
more than $1 billion for high threat areas. And I want to thank my 
colleague Senator Byrd for understanding that New York's needs are 
different because it is the top target for terrorists.
  The $1.045 billion for high-threat areas would be disbursed based on 
whether or not there is a credible threat, over-all vulnerability, 
critical infrastructure that is important to the Nation, population, 
and the needs of public safety organizations.
  This isn't just good for New York City and DC; it's good for all of 
our Nation's most vulnerable targets. This applies to Arizona and the 
recent threat against the nuclear power plant. This

[[Page 8340]]

amendment would help cover extra security costs. Recent news reports 
suggested that al-Qaida was targeting the Arizona Memorial at Pearl 
Harbor. This would help Hawaii cover costs and take precautions. It 
would assist Las Vegas, Nevada where the population doubles Friday 
through Sunday. This would benefit Florida and help them cover costs to 
secure Disney World.
  These are high-threat areas. They are different and they need extra 
assistance. Let's look at recent ``code orange'' costs. According to 
the U.S. Conference of Mayors, they estimate that cities are spending 
an extra $70 million a week. In six months, when this supplemental runs 
out, that's $2 billion in costs. $2 billion they don't have, but costs 
they will incur because they are honoring their commitment to protect 
this country.
  During the ``code orange,'' New York and New York City are spending a 
total of $12 million a week. In the supplemental, the President set 
aside only $50 million to cover such costs for every high-risk area. 
New York will have exhausted those resources by the end of next week. 
That's why we need this extra $1 billion for high-threat areas. And we 
cannot forget that it's not just in our cities where extra security 
steps are being taken. Who would have thought that a terrorist cell was 
working in Lackawanna, NY? This could have been a small town in 
Missouri, Texas, or Pennsylvania.
  I know that some of my colleagues believe that their State isn't a 
target--they may think that because their state is small, it's safe. I 
bet the chief of police in Lackawanna, NY, would beg to differ about 
the likelihood of terrorists turning up in small towns. He would say we 
cannot forget that the terrorists continue to plot and plan against us, 
and we can't predict exactly where they will turn up.
  Yesterday, the FBI issued a new warning to their field agents to look 
out for people making chemicals like Ricin. Yesterday, the Wall Street 
Journal reported that the Bush administration was getting ready to 
launch a plan to increase chemical plant security. The Department of 
Homeland Security's spokesman said, ``We realize that voluntary efforts 
alone will not be sufficient to assure the appropriate level of 
security across the chemical sector.''
  And in the last few weeks, we heard Secretary of State Powell, FBI 
Director Mueller, Secretary Ridge and CIA Director Tenet all state that 
another attack by al-Qaida is not a matter of ``if'' but ``when.''
   We can all hope for the best, but I think it's best to plan and 
prepare for the worst.
  Why would any of us want to take a risk that ``when'' that day comes, 
it would be in someone else's back yard--a tragedy in another state 
across the Continental Divide and not my problem. When any city or 
State or American interest abroad has been attacked like we were. 
America was attacked and Washington and the country united to deal with 
that aftermath.
  Again, we have to do that today to pass this amendment and improve 
our domestic defense.
  I believe that Retired Colonel Randy Larsen, from the ANSER Institute 
said it best when he testified about the Hart-Rudman report on November 
14, 2002. He said, ``All of us want what is best for America. But we do 
not have much time. We must get it right--or close to right--very soon. 
I cannot repeat often enough: America is at war. We need to act like it 
while there is still time to prepare.''
  But the way to prepare, the way to fund homeland security isn't by 
taking money from existing traditional first responder programs. That's 
why this amendment also includes $155 million for the FIRE Act, and 
$130 million for the COPS Program. We need to fully fund every 
traditional first responder program. Since 1994, COPS has helped nearly 
12,950 jurisdictions through 27 different grant programs. As of 
September 2002, COPS had provided funding for 116,573 community 
policing professionals across the country.
  It has played a critical role in reducing crime. It has worked well 
in the past, and it will continue to work well in the future to help 
our communities fight crime. And it should not be used to fund homeland 
security.
  The same applies to the FIRE Act. The $155 million here ensures full 
funding--$900 million--for the FIRE Act for FY 2003. This program 
assists fire departments in protecting communities and fire fighters' 
health and safety. Local communities may use the funding for training, 
equipment and additional staffing.
  Currently, \2/3\ of this Nation's fire departments do not meet the 
standards for adequate staffing. Congress would never allow our Army to 
engage in a war with \2/3\ of its divisions understaffed.
  But this is exactly what we are asking our fire fighters to do. To 
date this grant program has received requests totaling more than $2 
billion. The program's funding levels only allow it to award grants 
that a small percentage of that need. In the event of a terrorist act, 
fire fighters are the troops on the front lines. And they deserve our 
full support.
  So when we think about all of the good that comes out of this 
amendment and the others that strengthen our domestic defense, why 
wouldn't every leader support these steps?
  There are some who may try to defeat domestic defense funding by 
saying that the only dollars that should be included in the emergency 
supplemental are those that go toward winning this war. I agree, we 
should only be talking about funding to fight the war, but I believe we 
need to fight the war on all fronts that it is being waged.
  Every support that our troops in Iraq need to win will have the full 
support of Congress. We cannot forget about our men and women who 
continue to fight al-Qaida in Afghanistan--they too deserve every 
resource they need. And so do our domestic troops, our police, 
firefighters, and EMT's, on the frontlines here at home. The 
President's proposal last week was a good start, but it is not nearly 
enough. The Congress and the administration have the opportunity to do 
so much good for our first responders and strengthen the domestic 
defense of our Nation. It would be a shame if we did not take advantage 
of this moment, use this as the moment Washington turned the page and 
said the time has come, whatever it takes, we will give it our all to 
secure our country.
  But instead of using this as a chance to do more for our country, 
we're hearing phrases like ``beat them straight up.'' ``We will fight 
it out.'' ``Defeat them.'' Those aren't words meant for Saddam Hussein 
or al-Qaida. Those are fighting words against those of us who are 
trying to get more homeland security funding, new masks for 
firefighters, extra patrols along our borders and at nuclear power 
plants, guards at tunnels and bridges, new high tech equipment to track 
radioactive material, and more help for the Coast Guard.
  We seem to have gotten stuck in a dialogue that eliminates our 
ability to look at a great American tradition that is at stake in this 
debate. Some of our country's greatest successes reside in our ability 
to do whatever it takes to do what is right for the greater good of our 
country.
  Imagine if George Washington had decided at the battle of Brooklyn 
that it was too much of a challenge for the army to retreat to 
Manhattan that night? That decisive act saved the majority of our army, 
made victory inevitable, and this debate possible.
  What about Lewis and Clark? What if they turned back just after they 
had embarked on their journey? Or imagine if Jefferson believed that it 
would take too long and that it was too much for two men to search for 
that path to the Pacific? But his belief in them, the task at hand, and 
that expansion and exploration was critical to a young nation.
  What about Josuah Chamberline, a professor from Bowdoin College in 
Maine and what he did for our country at the battle of Gettysburg. He 
and his regiment stood their ground at Little Round Top. Against 
overwhelming odds and the future of the Union resting on his shoulders, 
Chamberline charged. His regiment followed, they prevented the south 
from taking that hill, and our Union was preserved.

[[Page 8341]]

  Or when President Lincoln gave the final speech about Reconstruction 
in April 1865, he did not buckle at the great challenge of uniting a 
divided and partially destroyed country.
  Or today, what if we as a Congress decided to only partially support 
our troops in Iraq? What kind of victory would follow if we balked at 
the challenge? So then why would we not do the same for our domestic 
defense? Why wouldn't we support our first responders?
  Again, our country's success rises and falls in our ability to 
confront great challenges. On September 11th, we were tested once 
again. The new challenges that came out of that tragic day are what we 
are debating today. These are the stakes.
  The Senate has a choice to meet the new demands against the war on 
terrorism at home, to finally give it our all to protect this country, 
and to carry on this tradition of never giving up and doing what it 
takes to do what is right.
  Or we can bow our heads, look the other way and pray that tragedy 
does not strike again on our shores and hope that if the alarms do ring 
in our fire stations and police stations, our brave men and women in 
uniform here at home are ready to answer the call to 
9-1-1.
  I urge my colleagues to make the right choice and support this 
amendment.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Schumer, 
Clinton, and Mikulski in offering this amendment that addresses funding 
shortfalls for the Federal, State, and local first responders who are 
on the front lines of the war on terrorism. I am disappointed that 
since 9/11, the administration has failed to provide adequate funding 
for local governments to prepare for the possibility of new terrorist 
attacks.
  This funding is critically important to Hawaii. The Hawaii State 
Civil Defense estimates that a response to a weapons of mass 
destruction attack would challenge the State's emergency response 
system. As with all States, in the event of a terrorist attack, Hawaii 
would rely on Federal, State, and local officials. However, unlike all 
States but Alaska, external assistance from the U.S. mainland is not 
immediately available. Hawaii's geographic location makes mutual aid 
from mainland States or from other Pacific jurisdictions impossible.
  As a result, Hawaii's State Civil Defense estimates that each of the 
State's four counties need the capability to sustain an effective 
response to any weapons of mass destruction attack for up to 72 hours.
  Independent experts and government officials have repeatedly warned 
that first responders do not have sufficient resources. A Council on 
Foreign Relations Task Force Report entitled ``America--Still 
Unprepared, Still in Danger'' concluded that first responders are not 
prepared for a weapons of mass destruction attack. According to the 
same report, first responders lack the training and equipment to 
protect themselves and the public in an emergency and do not have 
radios that can communicate with one another. In fact, the National 
Fire Protection Association estimates that only one-quarter of the 
Nation's fire departments have equipment to communicate with State and 
Federal emergency officials.
  Our amendment takes important steps to respond to funding shortfalls 
by providing $4.3 billion for first responders, including $3 billion 
for State and local first responders.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of Senator 
Schumer's amendment, which I am proud to cosponsor.
  We spent much of last year on the Senate floor talking about how to 
reorganize our Federal Government to meet and beat the challenge of 
terrorism. In the end, we passed a bill creating a Department of 
Homeland Security that for the first time is refocusing and 
reorganizing the Federal Government to make America safer.
  But we have said all along that while better organization is a 
necessary prerequisite to making us safer, it isn't enough. We need to 
put dollars where the danger is. You can't protect your house in a 
dangerous neighborhood with a jerry-rigged lock or no lock at all. A 
``Beware of Dog'' sign isn't good enough. You need to spend some money. 
You need to buy a real lock. You need to get a decent dog.
  The President often says that America has the resolve it needs to win 
this war against terrorism. And that is true. Americans are resolute. 
They are courageous. They are prepared to face down danger and do what 
it takes to overcome it. That is especially true of the men and women 
in our fire departments, police departments, emergency medical offices, 
and hospitals the men and women we call first responders.
  Resolve, however, will only go so far if it isn't matched by real 
resources. Can resolve buy interoperable communications equipment? Pay 
for firefighters' overtime? Install a security system at a port? 
Upgrade the information sharing databases in local communities? 
Dramatically improve public health systems to deal with biological or 
chemical attacks? No all those urgent improvements and others demand 
more than resolve. They demand resources.
  Right now the resources are nowhere to be found. This administration 
seems determined to do homeland security on the cheap adding just $300 
million to the budget for next fiscal year for homeland security. And 
the reason boils down to one reason and one reason only. The 
administration is committed to protecting $2 trillion in unfair, 
unfocused, and ineffective tax cuts, at all costs. On this, it will not 
budge. It will not yield. It will not reconsider a single digit or a 
single dollar.
  That irrational and ideological commitment to those unaffordable tax 
cuts has squeezed out every other priority. It has raided the national 
cupboard at a time when we desperately need new resources to tackle new 
threats.
  America has the greatest military in the world, and that is because 
we have paid for it. Generation after generation, we have worked 
together across party lines and every other division to invest in our 
Armed Forces and the men and women who dedicate their lives to the 
common defense. We are truly, to recall President Kennedy, willing to 
pay any price and bear any burden to deter and defeat foreign threats.
  There is no way around this: If we want the best domestic defenses, 
we will have to pay for them, too.
  At the State and local level, where fiscal crises are already forcing 
cuts in services, the Federal Government's failure to invest is 
especially serious.
  The amendment under consideration today addresses the critical 
shortfalls facing our local communities by providing $3 billion in 
first responder grants to States in the wartime supplemental budget, 
and over $1 billion for grants to high threat urban areas. In addition 
to these first responder grants, the amendment provides $155 million in 
grants to fire departments to fully fund the $900 million authorized 
level, and an additional $130 million to the COPS Program, which will 
fund additional police costs.
  This is the least we can provide. As you may know, I have called for 
a still greater investment--$7.5 billion for our first responders above 
and beyond the President's proposal in next year's budget--and $16 
billion overall in that budget above and beyond the paltry $300 million 
increase.
  But this amendment, along with the other amendments I am proud to 
cosponsor that will come before the Senate today, is a good start, a 
necessary start. Let me give you a few examples of the urgent needs 
throughout America today that it would begin to address:
  New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said his city is currently spending 
$5 million a week to post armed units at potential targets like Times 
Square, conduct bioterrorism detection, and prepare police in the five 
boroughs to operate as independent departments should the Manhattan 
headquarters be disabled in an emergency.
  According to The Washington Post in an article published April 1--
and, no, unfortunately it wasn't an April Fool's joke--Los Angeles 
``has grown so desperate waiting for federal money that

[[Page 8342]]

last week it reluctantly raided a municipal trust fund for $4.5 million 
and bought 1,000 chemical protection suits for firefighters and 
police.'' L.A. has also reduced staffing at its 24-hour emergency 
operation center in part to save money on security costs.
  According to The Baltimore Sun, the mayor's office in Baltimore 
estimates that the city needs to spend another $8.4 million on new 
communications and hazmat equipment, protective gear, and training, not 
to mention another $122 million to upgrade water treatment plants, 
build a new emergency operations center, and more.
  The list goes on. My own home community of New Haven, CT, has been 
able to outfit about 10 percent--just 10 percent--of its 300 
firefighters with protective equipment that will be needed to respond 
in the event of a chemical or biological attack.
  Let's face it. Meeting those needs and others will take more money 
from Washington, plain and simple. But some don't seem to understand 
that. The majority leader, Senator Frist, was quoted in CongressDaily 
as saying that, ``It is unnecessary and wasteful to spend more money at 
the federal level. The problem is not the federal availability of 
money. It's getting it down to the local level.''
  With all respect, that is just not the case. In fact, according to 
the National Governors Association, States have already obligated or 
spent more than 90 percent of their Federal funds. And to complicate 
things, many States have been spending their own money for 15 months 
but have yet to be reimbursed by the slow and cumbersome process 
through which money flows from the Federal Government to States and 
localities. This is only exacerbating budget crises at the State and 
local level, where many communities are actually laying off and 
reducing the number of first responders--so we are going backwards. The 
reality is that we need to get more funding to first responders, and we 
need to get it to them as quickly as possible.
  The bottom line is this: We must get our first responders more 
resources and we need to do it without further delay. Enough posturing, 
enough politics. Let's rise above partisanship and put the national 
interest first.
  The strain on our local first responders has put them in a fiscal 
straitjacket of historic proportions--one we must relieve now if we are 
to protect Americans from terrorism.
  Nevertheless, let's be fair. Let's realize that, yes, we have made 
some progress in the 18 months since September 11. Today we are better 
equipped to handle a second September 11. Our skies are safer. The FBI 
has announced major reforms, which are in progress. I hope we are 
beginning to tackle the problem of intelligence coordination that 
plagued us in the weeks and months leading up to that dark day.
  But the terrorists constantly change their methods. Next time, the 
threat isn't likely to come in the form of airplanes crashing into 
buildings. The weapon might only be visible under the microscope. 
Instead of arriving with a loud crash and flames, it might come 
quietly, secretly, surreptitiously. Just as September 11 challenged our 
police officers and firefighters as never before, a biological or 
chemical attack would challenge our public health first responders as 
never before.
  The reality is, if that happens, we are nowhere near ready. As 
resolute and resourceful as our public health professionals are, they 
lack the support, the capabilities, and the funding they need to detect 
these deadly diseases swiftly and protect us effectively. We need 
significant new investment today to improve our readiness tomorrow.
  Look at the reaction to the recent outbreak of Severe Acute 
Respiratory Syndrome, or SARS. An unknown microbial agent. A mysterious 
name. Those harrowing pictures of children with surgeon's masks 
covering their mouths and noses. The slow but consistent spread 
throughout Asia, and now around America. Travel warnings from the World 
Health Organization placing large swaths of the world off limits. This, 
by all accounts, is simply a serious disease with which we are 
unfamiliar--but the profile of the outbreak is frighteningly close to 
what we imagined a bioterror attack might look like.
  The public health officials in our local communities are well 
informed and well trained. But working together with the CDC, they just 
don't have the tools to determine what is causing SARS. They don't have 
the tools to treat the victims. They don't have the tools to try to 
stop the spread of the disease in its tracks.
  If SARS is 4-percent lethal, what will we do with a disease that is 
80 percent lethal? What will we do with a disease that spreads faster 
and is harder to diagnose? Let's not cross our fingers and hope. 
Unfortunately, that is exactly what we are forced to do under the 
administration's budget, which shortchanges investment in our local 
public health systems and hospitals.
  As a result, our hospitals--already constrained by drastic budget 
cuts, are now rubbing quarters together when they need to be building 
substantial new capabilities to contend with the new threats. Time 
magazine put it this way: ``Speed and calm, both critical in a state of 
emergency, can be taught without special gear, but training in certain 
techniques and life-saving equipment, like $25,000 protective suits, 
don't come cheap. That means most of America's hospitals are ill-
prepared to face a major disaster.''
  According to the Greater New York Hospital Association, hospitals 
throughout the State have spent more than $200 million on security and 
emergency response improvements that they never imagined would be 
necessary before September 11--with plans to spend more than that in 
the coming year. What has Washington's contribution been? About $8 
million in new funding--less than the hospitals will spend on the new 
smallpox vaccination program alone.
  These new demands are only further straining emergency rooms that are 
already stretched to the limit. Dr. Cai Glushak, director of emergency 
medicine at the University of Chicago, described the state of Chicago's 
hospitals this way: ``The hospitals are vastly lacking in resources and 
have yet to address major things with brick and mortar to create truly 
adequate facilities to deal with a major contamination issue.'' He went 
on to say of his hospital, ``If we had an onslaught of 20 people in 
this emergency room, it would be a catastrophe. It would be sending an 
external disaster on top of an internal overload.''
  How can we expect our hospitals, clinics, labs, and public health 
departments to protect us from unknown biothreats when they themselves 
are on the verge of being fiscally bedridden?
  Now, of course money isn't all that local hospitals need from the 
Feds. They also need information, expertise, and guidance. They are 
getting some of that from the CDC. But a sustained improvement in our 
bioterror defense demands more than that. It demands a real investment. 
It demands Federal leadership. Those are sorely lacking in the budget 
requests that we have seen from this administration.
  For the next fiscal year, I have called for $3 billion in new 
homeland security funding over and above the president's proposal to 
shore up bioterror preparedness. Mr. President, $1 billion of that 
increase would increase CDC grants to help State public health 
departments care for and track infectious disease outbreaks, $500 
million would help local hospitals increase capacity, training and 
supplies, and $1.5 billion would help get new medical research as 
quickly as possible from ``bench to bedside''--meaning, from the 
discovery phase into actual use.
  Hand in hand with these efforts, we simply must jumpstart efforts to 
spark private sector production of the drugs, antidotes, and 
countermeasures we need to fight unknown chemical and biological 
agents. Again, the SARS example is instructive here as well.
  We have no antidote for this disease. No vaccine. No countermeasure. 
No diagnostic. It is possible that the only effective medical response 
will turn out to be quarantine.
  Imagine a biological weapon that spreads twice as fast and is twice 
as deadly. Do we really want quarantine to be our only answer? No--we 
need

[[Page 8343]]

real medical shields to fight back against the biological and chemical 
weapons our enemies might use.
  And we can't simply hope and pray for these to appear. Stocking our 
medicine cabinet with the right drugs to protect people from SARS will 
take months or years of research, months or years of investment, months 
or years of hard work by private and government professionals.
  That is why we need to begin today--not in 6 months, not in a year--
engaging every national resource we have to develop the drugs, 
vaccines, and antidotes we may need in the event of a biological 
attack. We know of dozens upon dozens of deadly agents for which we 
currently have no defense, and this does not even count the hybrid or 
genetically modified organisms we may see in the future. America is 
blessed with thousands and thousands of brilliant researchers in 
universities and companies across the country. Why not harness their 
ingenuity to develop those antidotes, those vaccines, those medicines? 
Senator Hatch and I have proposed legislation that would do exactly 
that.
  I do not believe that Project Bioshield, the limited incentive 
program the President has proposed, is remotely enough. At best, it 
focuses on short-term procurement of existing countermeasures, not on 
long-term research to deal with the threats for which we have no 
countermeasure. It will not lead to development of a broad-spectrum 
antibiotic, or to the development of powerful new research tools that 
will enable us to quickly develop an antiviral to deal with a new 
threat like SARS. It is a start, but it is late and it does not reflect 
the urgency that is warranted by the threat.
  The bill Senator Hatch and I have introduced will put in place a 
broad range of incentives our private sector needs to start filling our 
medicine cabinet today so our public health first responders are not 
caught emptyhanded tomorrow, as they have been caught with SARS.
  We are at war against terrorism. Our first responders--whether they 
go to work in firehouses, police precincts, hospitals, or 
laboratories--are our first line of defense. Let's not frustrate and 
condemn to failure those whose job it is to protect us--many of whom 
risk their lives--by failing to provide them the resources they need to 
meet and beat the new and unfamiliar threats to our homeland.
  The war against terrorism cannot be won with a magic wand, tough 
talk, or wishful thinking. It will take talent, training, and 
technology. It will take real, not rhetorical, partnership among every 
layer and level of government. It will take bipartisan action in 
Congress. It will take money. To begin providing our Government the 
resources it needs to protect us from terrorism, I urge my colleagues 
to support this amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment 
offered by Senators Schumer, Clinton, Mikulski, and others. I am proud 
to join them as a cosponsor of this amendment that will provide 
desperately-needed funds directly to State and local governments to 
boost the emergency preparedness capabilities of our Nation's first 
responders. The amendment also provides much-needed funding for high 
threat urban areas, FIRE grants, and COPS.
  Our Nation is at war, and we find ourselves facing enormous 
challenges, both at home and abroad. The American people have responded 
to those challenges and are performing with skill and determination and 
valor on both fronts.
  We have nearly a quarter of a million troops in the Middle East. Our 
soldiers and marines have been engaging tenacious guerilla fighters in 
Iraq's harshest weather conditions. Our sailors are superbly executing 
their complex missions. Our Air Force already has performed thousands 
of missions over long distances amid withering ground fire, eliminating 
threats to all our troops. And we have National Guard units being 
called up all across the country to prepare for what could turn into a 
lengthy assignment overseas.
  Here on the homefront, our first responders and thousands of 
dedicated Federal workers are giving their all to preparedness and 
prevention. Police officers, firefighters, and emergency medical 
response providers are being pushed to the limit with added duties, 
longer shifts, and cancelled time off. The new responsibilities they 
are shouldering in guarding against and preparing for terrorism have 
become largely unfunded mandates on them and on their States and 
communities. Every time the threat alert level is raised, it takes 
millions more in local and State costs to respond.
  The administration readily accepts the need to fund our antiterrorism 
efforts abroad, but the administration continues to downplay and 
minimize the real needs in real communities across the Nation for 
adequate resources to meet homeland defense needs here at home. That 
must change. We need to do both we need a robust response to terrorism 
on both fronts, here and abroad.
  This supplemental spending plan the President submitted to the 
Congress addresses costs in Iraq and other locations overseas but 
misses the mark by a mile in funding our needs on the homefront. We are 
fighting a two-front war, yet the President's request mostly only 
addresses the war in Iraq--as well as the needs of a few coalition 
allies.
  It is frustrating, as well as more than a little ironic, that after 
all of the repeated requests from Congress and State and local 
officials, over a period now of a year and a half, about the need for 
taking care of the fight against terrorism at home, the administration 
has decided to request almost $8 billion in assistance on behalf of the 
foreign nations that it considers helpful in the war against Iraq, but 
only $2 billion for first responders. The Nation's Governors and mayors 
have made abundantly clear the urgent need for that same level of 
funding, $8 billion. Our hometown heroes need help now.
  In recent months, the Nation's first responder needs have grown 
increasingly urgent. I have repeatedly joined with congressional 
leaders like Senator Byrd, Senator Daschle, and others in asking the 
President, in this supplemental request for appropriations, to include 
at least $5 billion for our State and local first responders. But the 
administration has fallen far short in this bill, including only $2 
billion to assist State and local governments to support federally 
mandated terrorism preparedness during this time of heightened threats 
and insecurity. The amount included in the supplemental is inadequate.
  No Federal agencies are doing the jobs that we need first responders 
to do. When terrorists attack, the first call that is made is not to a 
Federal agency in Washington. It is to 9-1-1, for their State and local 
first responders. The responsibility now falls to the Congress to boost 
funding for our first responders. We are in a two-front war, overseas 
and here at home, and we need to fund both.
  The sooner we help first responders help us in the war on terrorism, 
the better. I hope you will agree that our Governors and mayors know 
what their States and communities need to be safe from and respond to 
terrorist attacks. My colleagues and I who introduce this amendment 
have heard their pleas and responded. I hope the Congress will respond 
accordingly, even though the administration so far has not.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, September 11, 2001, taught us that the 
Nation is vulnerable to terrorist attacks on our own soil. In 
Massachusetts, almost 200 families lost loved ones on that day, and 
they bear an especially heavy share of the burden of that 
vulnerability.
  Here in Congress, we are each committed to do all we can to see that 
9/11 never happens again. We need to work together to provide the 
resources to prevent terrorists from attacking the cities, the towns, 
the villages, and the communities we all care so much about in our 
States and across this country.
  Yet we failed to live up to our responsibility yesterday during the 
debate on Senator Hollings' needed proposal to strengthen the 
protection of our seaports. It would have provided $1 billion to begin 
to protect our Nation's notoriously porous and vulnerable

[[Page 8344]]

ports. Yet during the debate on the amendment, opponents questioned 
``where will it end?'' as if this was such an extravagant investment. 
It was defeated, and I cannot understand why.
  One billion dollars was proposed to secure our seaports against 
sabotage, dirty bombs or worse in cargo containers. Was that really too 
much--even though the President has pledged $9 billion in aid to other 
nations to help them protect their own citizens?
  These entryways into the United States are responsible for 95 percent 
of all U.S. international trade, but only about 2 percent of all cargo 
is now being inspected. An urgent proposal to do more, and do it now, 
should certainly get a unanimous vote in the Senate. The stakes are too 
high. September 11 taught us what can happen.
  Obviously, we don't have unlimited funds. Obviously, we can't make 
ourselves 100 percent free of the terrorist threat. But can we really 
say that we are doing all we can when the overall bill before us 
provides only $2 billion to help State and local governments meet their 
new security requirements? Facing serious budget reductions of their 
own, the Nation's cities are spending an additional $70 million a week 
on direct homeland security costs, and tens of millions more in 
indirect costs.
  But can we really say we are doing all we can when Federal assistance 
for homeland security has, to date, provided the entire State of 
Massachusetts with only $11 million, the entire State of Pennsylvania 
with only $18.5 million, and the entire State of California with only 
$45 million?
  Can we say we are doing all we can--let alone all that we should--
when the bill before us provides the grand total of only $100 million 
to protect all the high-level-threat urban areas in the country?
  How many of these high-level-threat urban areas are there?
  Is $100 million enough--or is it only a drop in the bucket--when we 
are talking about the security of Atlanta or Austin or Baltimore or 
Boston or Charleston or Cleveland or Chicago or Dallas or Denver or 
Detroit or Houston or Las Vegas or Los Angeles or Miami or Milwaukee or 
Minneapolis or New York City or New Orleans or Philadelphia or Phoenix 
or Portland or Pittsburgh or Seattle or St. Louis or St. Paul or San 
Diego or San Antonio or San Francisco or Tampa or Washington, DC, or 
dozens of other American cities that can legitimately be called high-
threat areas.
  Mr. President, $100 million for high-level urban threat areas--just 
for the 29 cities I mentioned above, that works out to $3.3 million for 
each city. That won't go very far in New York City, where the mayor is 
spending $5 million a week.
  It won't go very far in Boston, which is struggling to meet its 
security obligations while confronting a potential 2-year State-aid cut 
of $153 million. As a result of these cuts, and declining tax revenues 
brought about by the recession, there will be no incoming class of 
police officers for Boston this year. No incoming class, when the 
threats to the city are unprecedented and when 18 of Boston's officers 
are serving their country in Iraq.
  Is Boston supposed to take on these new challenges, with only token 
financial support from Washington?
  Apparently, Boston is to go it alone in its efforts to prevent a 
terrorist attack on any of the 61 hazardous material storage facilities 
that dot its waterfront. Boston alone is supposed to protect the home 
heating oil depots along its expressway. And Boston alone is supposed 
to prevent terrorists from commandeering any one of the hundreds of 
cruise vessels that stop in our port every year.
  Instead of wondering where it will end, a better question for us to 
be asking ourselves today is: How can we go back to our States without 
doing all we can to protect our communities?
  Last week, half of the Senate had no problem voting for a massively 
excessive tax cut for the wealthiest Americans on the flimsiest of 
economic justifications. Yet now we have voted down $1 billion to 
protect our seaports--even though their vulnerability could have 
immediate and devastating effects on our economy--and we are reluctant 
to add another $2 billion to secure our communities.
  The amendment before us is modest. It does not try to change the 
fundamental fiscal relationships between the Federal, State, and local 
governments. It simply says that we can do more. We can do more than 
the bare minimum that the President's Budget Director says is 
absolutely necessary. We can do more so that our Nation's homeland 
security isn't entirely dependent upon property taxes, lottery 
revenues, and car washes.
  The amendment before us would increase assistance to first responders 
by $1 billion, provide a total of $1.05 billion for assistance to high 
threat urban areas, $155 million for firefighter's equipment grants, 
and $130 million for staffing and overtime expenses for COPS Program 
activities.
  In the context of an unprecedented supplemental appropriation request 
of $74.8 billion, and with the backdrop of heightened domestic 
security, can anyone really pretend that these investments are unwise 
or unnecessary?
  Today, I spoke to 17 mayors in Massachusetts by conference call, all 
of whom are struggling to meet the challenges of post-September 11 
security--and none of whom know how they can go on bearing these costs 
alone. Their obstacles are impossible to overcome.
  Mayor Fred Kalisz of New Bedford, a city of 94,000 people and home of 
the Nation's highest value commercial fishing fleet, has incurred 
$500,000 in specific homeland security expenses to date and has come up 
with list of $3.4 million in essential capital security requests to 
protect his city's port, its commercial fishing fleet, and key public 
facilities. He has no way to pay for these costs. He recently had to 
suspend drug and alcohol prevention programs for New Bedford's youth.
  Mayor John Barrett of North Adams, a city of only 14,000 people, has 
to deploy his small town police force to secure two nuclear 
powerplants--including 533 spent radioactive fuel rods--against 
terrorist attack.
  In Everett, a city of 38,000 people located just outside Boston, 
Mayor David Ragucci spends $10,000 a day to secure facilities 
containing 685,000 gallons of propane, 95 million gallons of jet fuel 
and a 1500 megawatt powerplant from terrorist attack. In the wake of a 
$4.5 million budget cut, Mayor Ragucci deserves a combat medal for his 
efforts to protect these facilities which are within 5 miles of nearly 
1 million people.
  Mayor Bill Whelan of Quincy, a city of 88,000 people, has been hit 
with over $300,000 in overtime and other personnel costs responding to 
over 300 anthrax and hazardous materials calls since 9/11. He also has 
had to begin patrolling the city's 27 miles of open coastline, and 
begin providing 24-hour police protection for a Muslim place of 
worship. And he is staring at $4.3 million of State local aid cuts in 
the face.
  In Fall River, with 92,000 people, Mayor Ed Lambert has done a good 
job so far balancing a very difficult situation. With a reservoir that 
serves 200,000 people and the State's largest bridge within city 
limits, Mayor Lambert has had to dramatically increase security at both 
these critical sites. But, he has had to do it while cutting back his 
police and fire forces in response to difficult budget shortfalls. Over 
the last 18 months, Fall River has lost 15 percent of its police force 
and 10 percent of its firefighters because of budget cuts.
  In Brockton, Mayor Jack Yunits has been trying to meet the challenges 
confronting his city of 94,000 while dealing with the loss of 17 police 
officers. Another six will soon be retiring, and there is no funding to 
replace them. Among the mayor's chief homeland security challenges is 
the safety and well-being of the 6,000 students and faculty who attend 
Brockton High School each day, the largest high school this side of the 
Mississippi River. His difficulties will soon be compounded if the 
proposed State cut of $2.9 million from his budget becomes law.
  In Lowell, with a population 105,000, six of its police officers and 
a fireman have been sent to Iraq. With a police force of 220, Lowell 
may have to insist on 30 early retirements this year to meet its budget 
constraints. City Manager John Cox tells me that for the

[[Page 8345]]

first time in recent memory, there will be no new recruits from the 
police academy.
  Worcester is Massachusetts' second largest city, and Mayor Tim Murray 
tells me that he has lost over 80 police officers and 86 firefighters 
due to budget difficulties.
  All these mayors have their backs against the wall. They are trying 
as hard as they can to protect their security, but they are not being 
given the help they need.
  I think Mayor Yunits from Brockton said it best ``Our first 
responders are fighting for their jobs, while they continue fighting to 
protect us.''
  They will keep at it, I am sure, because they care about this 
country. They care about their city. They care about protecting their 
citizens. They care about doing every last thing possible to prevent 
another disaster on American soil.
  Shouldn't we in the Senate--with our responsibility to protect the 
American people--at least try to help ease this burden?
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and send a message to 
the Governors and mayors of America that they are not alone, that they 
can count on Congress to provide more than mere photo opportunities as 
they confront the threat of domestic terrorism in their communities.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, first, let me thank Senator Schumer for 
offering this amendment to immediately provide more resources to our 
local first responders. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this 
amendment.
  This amendment is vital to our first responders at the State and 
local levels of government. We must increase the resources available so 
that our police, firefighters, and other emergency personnel can help 
prevent and respond to terrorist acts.
  This amendment makes $2.2 billion available to the Office for 
Domestic Preparedness in the Department of Homeland Security.
  This $2.2 billion is for direct grants to States and local 
governments. This funding will be passed to the States, and then on to 
local governments within 45 days.
  This expediency is an important concern of many States, including my 
State of California. We have all heard about the budget shortages that 
many States are facing. These budget shortages then affect cities and 
counties.
  My State of California is facing a budget shortfall of between $26 
and $35 billion. In California, revenue from vehicle license fees helps 
communities pay for the equivalent of 12,000 police officers or 15,000 
firefighters for one year. But, because of the State shortfall, this 
funding may not be passed on to local communities.
  Already, the financial crunch is taking its toll. For example, the 
city of Marysville faces a $700,000 budget shortfall. This shortfall 
will affect the police payroll, which accounts for 60 percent of the 
city's budget. The cities of Santa Cruz, and Napa have also made cuts 
in police and fire departments. This amendment will assist cities like 
Marysville, Santa Cruz, and Napa to have full teams of first 
responders.
  On top of this budget crunch, the Federal Government has handed 
additional responsibilities and a heightened terror alert to already 
troubled State and local governments. The states are paying for 
security costs that the Federal Government has asked them to cover. In 
California, the Governor estimates $500 million in statewide homeland 
defense costs for the State and local governments. These estimates are 
probably low, especially if the war in Iraq goes on for several months.
  The city of Los Angeles spent an additional $4.2 million just during 
the 20 days of code orange to meet the demands of heightened security. 
The city of Fresno is spending between $15,000 and $20,000 per week on 
homeland security costs. On average, the city of San Francisco is 
spending $2.3 million per week, second only to New York City. In fact, 
of the five cities nationwide that are spending the most money on 
protecting the homeland, two of them--San Francisco and Los Angeles--
are in my State.
  This amendment is vital for our communities, vital for our local 
police, vital for our local firefighters, vital for the protection of 
the American people. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to another sponsor of 
the amendment, somebody who has fought long and hard for first 
responders and localities, the people of Maryland, the Senator from 
Maryland, Ms. Mikulski.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized for 3 
minutes.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues, 
Senators Schumer and Clinton, who have been working steadfastly to get 
the resources we need to properly fund homeland security. They have 
stood up not only for New York but for all of America because we know 
that homeland security cannot be done on the cheap. We are at war. We 
are at war in Iraq, and we need to support our troops. But we are at 
war here. The President of the United States, George Bush, said we are 
at war here in the war against terrorism and we need to support the 
hometown, homeland troops. They are our first responders.
  Where are they? They are in local governments. They are in fire 
stations. They are in police stations. They are standing sentry behind 
the ambulances ready to respond to any emergency need. When a citizen 
calls 911 because of an event that has happened in their community, it 
happens locally.
  The Schumer-Clinton-Mikulski amendment not only gives more money, 
which is desperately needed, but it brings money to the local 
communities where it is needed.
  We live in the capital region, we in Maryland, whether it is 
Montgomery County or Prince George's or Baltimore City. Our overtime is 
skyrocketing. We are spending loads of money in the protection for 
infrastructure. In Baltimore, every time we go to code orange we are 
spending $50,000 a week on police overtime. Prince George's County 
needs $50 million just to be able to talk to the rest of the State in 
interoperable radio equipment. Anne Arundel County is responsible for 
the protection of the National Security Agency, the Naval Academy, the 
capitol of the State of Maryland, and BWI Airport. We say: Oh, wow, we 
can't afford to do it.
  Let me say this: When the country goes to code orange, our local 
communities go to red ink. Local governments have no place to turn 
except higher property taxes. We say no to higher property taxes. We 
say yes to more funds for homeland security. If we want to wear the 
flag, let's stand up for the flag and let's stand up for the flag by 
supporting our first responders in the local community and by putting 
the money where our patriotism is, right in the Federal checkbook.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Schumer 
amendment, but I also wanted to make a comment about the Specter 
amendment. I support the amendment of the Senators from New York and 
Maryland who are lead sponsors on this particular amendment. They are 
absolutely correct. We are not giving the resources that are necessary 
to first responders.
  While the bill before us attempts in good measure to support the war 
underway, we always need to be prepared each and every day to fight the 
war on terrorism--which is broader than the battlefield in Iraq. The 
battlefield has now become in some sense the U.S. territory, and we 
need to do more faster. I realize we can't pay for every bill that is 
submitted, but we most certainly can do more than what we are doing. I 
intend to vote for the Schumer amendment.
  I am not sure what I will do on the Specter amendment. I will say 
why. I think the offset is inappropriate. I understand there might be 
some consensus about the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania, 
but let me say what I object to strenuously in the amendment. To fund 
the high threat urban areas, a portion of the money,

[[Page 8346]]

$150 million, is taken from State and local governments, and a portion 
is taken from critical infrastructure protection. So here, as a Senator 
from Louisiana, I have to now be forced to choose--these are tough 
votes and this is a job we asked for--because on one hand, I do want to 
add money to the overall pot, which the amendment does, but I want to 
call to the attention of my colleagues that part of the offset is 
taking it away from protection for pipelines, chemical plants, ports, 
and other critical infrastructure that could be described as highways, 
rail, et cetera, to support high urban threat areas.
  It is a dilemma. I hope, however, it is resolved. Perhaps a better 
offset could be found in the conference report because I agree with 
Senator Schumer and Senator Clinton that we have to do more. I don't 
agree with the proposal put down by the Senator from Pennsylvania that 
to solve that problem, it needs to be taken from States such as 
Louisiana--perhaps Texas could find itself in the same situation--
having a tremendous amount of critical infrastructure to protect, which 
I might say to my colleagues in the Senate, supplies a tremendous 
amount of energy for the Nation. Those critical infrastructures are all 
over urban as well as rural parts of Louisiana. So I rise in support of 
the Schumer amendment, and with great reservations about the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from 
Michigan, who has been a great supporter of first responders.
  Ms. STABENOW. I thank my colleague. I rise as a cosponsor of this 
amendment. I commend my colleagues for bringing it forward.
  As has been said so many times, we have two front lines in the battle 
on terrorism. We have come together virtually unanimously in support of 
our troops in Iraq and for the efforts on other soils away from our 
country. But here at home we have not done the same. Back in Michigan, 
I held nine different community meetings around the State, and I heard 
the same thing from our urban to rural areas: They are working hard, 
working overtime, but they cannot do it alone.
  When our country was attacked, it was not just New York or 
Washington. They were, in fact, attacking the United States of America. 
We have an obligation to our hard-working men and women, the 
firefighters, the police officers, the emergency medical workers, to 
make sure we are partnering with them to make sure they have the 
resources they need.
  I have heard so much about the need for communications equipment, 
bioterrorism training, additional personnel. They are saying to me that 
it is very frustrating when, on the one hand, we say we are getting 
them more money, and then we cut the COPS Program or the Fire Grant 
Program.
  The Senator from Louisiana raises an important point about the 
Specter amendment as to where the dollars come from. I will support the 
Specter amendment, but we have to make sure these are really new 
dollars and not just moving from one pot to another pot because the 
reality is that our first responders cannot do this without our 
partnership and our support.
  This is the time we are bringing forth the resources to fund the war 
to support our troops abroad. We have troops right here. They are 
asking us, finally, to support them. We have tried for 18 months to 
provide the resources, to let them know, and today is the day.
  I hope my colleagues will join unanimously to do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, by way of a brief reply and comment on 
the arguments that have been made, I agree with a great deal of what 
has been said. It would be highly desirable to put in more money, but 
what we have seen today are efforts on the other side of the aisle to 
add funds, and a response on this side of the aisle, pretty much on 
party-line votes, to deny the addition. I have sought to find a figure 
that is significant, such as $600 million, which will be agreed to by 
votes significantly on this side of the aisle, and with some votes on 
the other side of the aisle.
  When the Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, made the comment that 
there are features of Senator Schumer's amendment that expedite the 
disbursement of the funds, that is not included in my amendment because 
we don't really know what the formula should be. When Secretary Ridge 
testified before the Appropriations Committee on March 27, he agreed 
that the current formula on a population basis was inappropriate, that 
high-risk areas need more money. At the moment, we do not have a 
determination as to what those costs are. We have directed the 
Secretary to make that determination. Once he makes that determination, 
then we can make an allocation. I certainly would like to see more 
money.
  I agree totally with the comments made about the bravery of the 
firefighters and of the police officers, and the threat of terrorism 
that has to be fought domestically as well as overseas. What I am 
looking for in my amendment is the art of the possible--to come up with 
a figure, and $600 million is substantial.
  It is true, as the Senator from Louisiana points out, money has been 
taken in other lines for $300 million. But we have gotten the managers 
to agree to an additional $200 million, so it is a matter of 
priorities. If you look at the high-risk areas, such as New Orleans, it 
is in the interest of the State of Louisiana to have this allocation.
  How much of my time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 10 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I inquire how much time I have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York has 4 minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator from Pennsylvania yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Louisiana has 2 minutes remaining.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I wish to respond to the Senator from 
Pennsylvania because this is a very important debate. I thank him, 
first, for the effort he has made to try to bring some compromise to 
the issue.
  I restate how difficult it is for some of us from some States that 
have serious needs of critical infrastructure. We supply 20 percent of 
the Nation's oil and gas. I have more pipelines in my State than any 
other State in the Union. We are happy to provide the energy. We have 
more chemical plants than Illinois, New Jersey, and other States. To 
ask us to be forced to say we don't really need money for that and we 
can give money to urban areas--the fact is, we need to give money to 
both, and to New York, Pennsylvania, New Orleans, as well as other 
places where pipelines run under very small communities.
  I hope the Senator from Pennsylvania will take seriously--and I know 
he does--what point I am making and perhaps work as a member of the 
Appropriations Committee as this bill moves through to try to find an 
additional remedy so we don't have to get rural areas giving up their 
money for urban areas, or urban areas giving up their money for rural 
areas, and we can try to make fair allocations to protect all of the 
critical infrastructure in the Nation, whether it is in rural or urban 
areas.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Louisiana makes 
a valid point on the need for more funding. We are now on the emergency 
supplemental. We do not know at this moment what the costs are to 
protect all of these interests. We will know shortly. We have asked for 
60 days. We will be moving forward with more appropriations bills. We 
are in the process now of moving forward.
  The subcommittee, chaired by the distinguished Senator from 
Mississippi, on which I serve, will be taking it up. We will be 
interested to see the specifications as to what it costs to protect the 
interests identified by the Senator from Louisiana. But I think this is 
a substantial start. This is a combination of trying to get more funds 
in, and

[[Page 8347]]

getting $200 million is not easy on this side of the aisle. Making the 
reallocation of the $600 million is a very material advance.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator for his comments. I look forward to 
working with him as we try to provide additional funding for the 
critical structure that is necessary throughout many places in the 
South and in the industrial East.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator 
Lautenberg as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from New Jersey 2 
minutes.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by our colleagues, Senator Schumer, Senator Clinton, and 
Senator Mikulski.
  The amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania, too, is an amendment 
that has to be considered favorably. This amendment would provide 
desperately needed funds to State and local governments to bolster 
their emergency preparedness. I am pleased the amendment sponsors have 
included my proposal to reimburse State and local governments for 
additional costs that they are incurring because they have not replaced 
the first responders called to active duty in the Reserves or National 
Guard.
  Not surprisingly, many local police and fire and rescue and emergency 
medical service and hazardous material disposal personnel serve in the 
National Guard and Reserves. More and more, these men and women are 
being called up for longer and longer tours of active duty, and 
especially now that the war with Iraq is underway. It is critical that 
we bolster our military capabilities here and abroad but that we not do 
it at the expense of our safety and security at home.
  I have spoken to a lot of mayors in New Jersey. New Jersey shared the 
impact of the terrible assault on the Trade Centers with New York, as 
700 of our citizens died that day. What perplexes them is the fact that 
here they are being asked to bolster the defenses at home, to make sure 
they cover the emergency needs, and, in many instances, it takes people 
away to serve either in the Reserves or the National Guard, to put them 
on active duty.
  They do not understand--and I agree with them--why it is we cannot 
take care of our defenses with strength at home as well as abroad.
  I am pleased that the amendment sponsors have included my proposal to 
reimburse State and local governments and Indian tribes for the 
additional costs they incur replacing their first responders who are 
called to active duty in the Reserves or National Guard.
  The 1.2 million men and women who serve in the National Guard and 
Reserves are a crucial component of our military. They account for just 
8.3 percent of the Defense budget but give us the capability, if 
necessary, of nearly doubling our armed forces.
  Not surprisingly, many local police, fire, rescue, emergency medical 
service, and emergency hazardous material disposal personnel serve in 
the National Guard and Reserves. More and more of these men and women 
are being called up for longer and longer tours of active duty, 
especially now that the war with Iraq has begun.
  It is critical that we bolster our military capabilities here and 
abroad. But we must not do it at the expense of our safety and security 
at home.
  Our local communities must have the necessary personnel to respond to 
terrorism, natural disasters, and other emergencies.
  My proposal would reimburse State, local, and tribal governments for 
the additional costs they incur when their ``first responders'' who 
serve in the Reserves and the National Guard are called to active duty 
for 6 or more consecutive months.
  Reimbursable costs could include the salary and benefits associated 
with hiring a replacement or the overtime paid to other emergency 
personnel who ``fill in'' for the first responder called to active 
duty.
  The effect of my amendment would be to make such reimbursements an 
authorized use of the $500 million contained in the underlying 
provision.
  Increasingly, I am hearing from State and local officials who are 
concerned about the toll that active duty call-ups are taking on their 
emergency preparedness.
  According to the Police Executive Research Forum, 452 of 1,002 law 
enforcement agencies and departments surveyed so far have lost 
personnel to call-ups.
  The problem is worse in rural and smaller jurisdictions where just a 
few call-ups can decimate a police or fire department.
  State and local governments are facing their worst fiscal crisis in 
over 50 years. We shouldn't leave them ``holding the bag'' when their 
first responders get called up. And we should not be making our 
communities less able to respond to terrorism, natural disasters, and 
other emergencies.
  Again, I thank my colleagues from New York and Senator Mikulski for 
accommodating my proposal. I think my language makes a good amendment 
even better and I urge my colleagues to adopt it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Mississippi.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the bill reported by the committee 
provides an additional $2 billion in supplemental appropriations to 
enhance assistance to State and local first responders. It does so in a 
manner which builds on the State strategies; provides funding for 
enhanced security of critical infrastructure, and allows the Secretary 
to target funds to high threat urban areas.
  This amendment does more than just boost funding for the Office for 
Domestic Preparedness. It mandates mechanisms for the dispersal of 
Federal funds which would dilute the impact of the supplemental funding 
altogether.
  The amendment which has been offered requires a direct pass-through 
of grant funds to States within 30 days. This requirement would negate 
the strategic planning process the Office for Domestic Preparedness has 
developed and implemented with States to allocate funds to those with 
greatest need and it would undermine the States' regional approach 
which is currently supported by the majority of States.
  The amendment requires that funds for grants be allocated to States 
based on the minimum grant requirement in the USA PATRIOT Act and the 
remaining amounts being distributed on a per capita basis. This is what 
is being done currently. However, it mandates that the funds be 
allocated to States within 30 days of enactment of the Act. This would 
not allow time for the States to submit a plan for the use of the funds 
requested which ensures some degree of accountability that Federal 
funds will be used to cover allowable costs.
  The amendment further requires that not less than 80 percent of each 
State's funds be made available to units of local government based on 
population. Of the 80 percent mandated to go to localities, the 
amendment then requires 20 percent be used ``shall be for''--``costs of 
law enforcement, fire, emergency medical services, and other emergency 
personnel, including covering overtime expenses.''
  In addition, the amendment allows grant funds to be used for 
``personnel funds''. It does not define what this means. Does this mean 
hiring personnel or reimbursement of costs of existing personnel, or 
both? What is the baseline for determining this? What will ensure that 
Federal assistance supplement and not supplant existing levels of 
effort?
  The amendment also does not define units of Local Government. If it 
truly means all local units will receive funds based on population, the 
Federal funding will be diluted by giving many small jurisdictions 
small grants. And, it will most likely cause further delay, if you 
consider there are over 3,100 counties, each containing townships, 
villages or other governmental units,

[[Page 8348]]

and the States are required, as this amendment mandates, to disperse 
all these funds to this number of jurisdictions based on population 
within 30 days, and then to make sure that 20 percent of those funds be 
allocated only for specified purposes, as the amendment requires.
  Where the current system relies on planning-based decisionmaking, 
this amendment resembles revenue sharing.
  I realize that changes to the current system may be merited. 
Questions have been raised about the appropriate Federal share of the 
additional cost to States and local governments of terrorism 
preparedness and response efforts; what should properly be a Federal 
responsibility; and the formula for distributing funds, and the extent 
to which it properly reflects risks and vulnerabilities.
  However, changes should be made after careful review by the authoring 
committees of jurisdiction, not done on this supplemental 
appropriations bill. The chairman of the Senate Government Affairs 
Committee has already announced a series of hearings, beginning next 
week, to review the Department of Homeland Security's grant programs 
and their effectiveness.
  I do know that with respect to making a decision on this here today, 
the current process is preferable to what is being proposed by this 
amendment. This amendment would only make things worse.
  The same is true for the mechanism proposed by this amendment to 
deliver critical infrastructure protection funds to States. It would 
require funds be distributed on a per capita basis to States. Once 
funds are available to States, 50 percent must be made available to 
local jurisdictions within 30 days of receipt.
  Again, it would dilute the funds being made available for security 
costs related to protection of critical infrastructure, which are 
intended to help State and local governments cover additional costs 
resulting from Operation Liberty Shield. Again, this is not targeted 
assistance, it is a revenue sharing approach to a problem.
  The amendment also provides an additional $155 million for grants 
under the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act. There is no 
indication that additional funding is needed at this time. The 
Department of Homeland Security is still processing applications for 
the $745 million made available for fiscal year 2003.
  Plus, this additional funding, as well as an additional $130 million 
proposed for the Department of Justice Community-Oriented Policing 
Services, is proposed on top of the amendment's requirement that 20 
percent of local jurisdictions' share of State grants be used for ``law 
enforcement, fire, emergency medical services, and other emergency 
personnel, including covering overtime expenses.''
  The bill reported by the Appropriations Committee includes $2 billion 
in supplemental appropriations for the Office for Domestic Preparedness 
to assist State and local governments to expand their capacity to 
prepare and respond to potential terrorist acts.
  It provides an additional $1.42 billion for grants to States, at 
least 80 percent of which must be passed through to local governments. 
This funding is for the acquisition of equipment, training, excercises, 
and planning. It is intended to assist States to more aggressively 
implement their statewide domestic preparedness strategies.
  In addition, the committee-reported bill provides an additional $30 
million in direct technical assistance to states for a variety of 
activities, as needed, including support for plan development and 
implementation of exercises.
  It also provides $450 million, as requested by the President, for 
State grants to assist State and local governments with the costs of 
augmenting security at critical infrastructure facilities during the 
period of hostilities with Iraq. This recognizes the new requirements 
imposed on States and localities by the immediate need for heightened 
protection of critical infrastructure facilities. We understand that 
the department has already reached out to States to ensure security 
measures are under way for the most sensitive sites and has been 
working with governors in developing site protection plans so that 
these funds can be released rapidly.
  Lastly, it provides an additional $100 million to be targeted to 
high-risk urban areas, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland 
Security.
  The amendment offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania would alter 
the amounts recommended in the committee-reported bill to provide total 
supplemental appropriations of $600 million for assistance to high-
threat urban areas and the total supplemental appropriations for the 
Office for Domestic Preparedness to $2.2 billion. I support the Specter 
amendment, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment offered by 
Senator Schumer.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished chairman.
  Mr. STEVENS. How much time remains, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has 8 minutes 16 
seconds.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I want to make clear what I stated 
before. I do support the Specter amendment. By virtue of the approach 
the Senator from Pennsylvania has enunciated, we end up with more 
moneys in this area of great concern, but we increase the amount of 
money in the bill by $200 million. There was already $100 million in 
the committee-reported bill.
  I do accept Senator Specter's approach to this. I am hopeful we can 
convince the House to recognize that this is the proper way to allocate 
the money the President requested and convince them that the amount we 
have in this bill is sufficient to meet the objectives we all seek to 
attain.
  I urge Senators to vote for the Specter amendment. Again, 
reluctantly, I state I am opposed to the amendment offered by the 
Senator from New York and his colleagues.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  Mr. SPECTER. How much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has 7 minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. On the other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York has 1 minute 50 
seconds.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back time if the 
Senator from New York is.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I am prepared to yield back our time as well so we can 
move this along.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back. The question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 515.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. 
Bunning) is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) would vote ``yes.''
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) and 
the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``aye.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 65, nays 32, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 122 Leg.]

                                YEAS--65

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allen
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (FL)
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reid
     Roberts
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Talent
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

[[Page 8349]]



                                NAYS--32

     Allard
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Carper
     Chafee
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham (SC)
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Nickles
     Reed
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Sununu
     Thomas

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Bunning
     Inouye
     Kerry
  The amendment (No. 515) was agreed to.


                             Change of Vote

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, on vote No. 122, I voted aye. It was my 
intention to vote no. I ask unanimous consent that it be recorded as 
no. It does not change the outcome of the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)


                       Vote On Amendment No. 514

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
Schumer amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to table that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second on the motion to 
table?
  There appears to be.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. 
Bunning) is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) would vote ``yes.''
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) and 
the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) 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 51, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 123 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

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

                                NAYS--46

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Bunning
     Inouye
     Kerry
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like to be able to discuss what 
we are going to do now. We have the managers' package that has some 
problems. We have to decide how to get out of it. It is my suggestion 
that we listen to the Senator from Arizona on some of the objections he 
has to items in the managers' package and see what we can do after the 
Senator explains his position.
  How long would the Senator like to talk?
  Mr. McCAIN. Ten minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent we listen to Senator McCain for 
10 minutes and see what objections we can possibly remedy with the 
problems he has with the managers' package.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent to be recognized when he has 
finished.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, approximately 40 minutes ago, maybe a half 
hour ago, we were given a ``managers' package.'' The managers' package, 
the first group was--we haven't yet received the second group of 
amendments in the managers' package--27 amendments. There is $10 
million for the South Pole station in the managers' package; $10 
million for NOAA; $600 million for the Department of Agriculture expert 
assistance; $500 million for the DOJ and FEMA; $281 million for the 
Department of Energy; $5 million earmarked for a Kentucky public safety 
communications system. I haven't finished compiling the list because we 
haven't even had a chance to review these amendments.
  I ask my colleagues again: How do you accept a managers' package--in 
this case worth billions, B as in billions--worth billions of dollars 
without any debate, without any vote, without any discussion that I 
know of of any kind? How do you do that? How do you do that?
  I intend to have votes on parts of the managers' package. I don't 
know why we need in this bill $10 million for the South Pole station. I 
did not know that al-Qaida had reached the South Pole. More 
importantly, how can we appropriate $500 million for the Department of 
Justice and FEMA without even talking about it? Couldn't we debate it? 
Maybe it won't be absolutely necessary. Do we need $281 million 
additional for the Department of Energy? I don't think the Department 
of Energy is on the frontline in the war in Iraq.
  I am told by the Senator from Alaska--I have the greatest respect 
and, believe it or not, a great deal of affection for him--that, well, 
they would pass anyway and this is the best way to treat it because 
then he will be able to reduce it in the conference.
  I am not a member of the conference. Most of us are not conferees. 
Most of us are just ordinary Senators who have a responsibility to our 
constituents, not to approve of a managers' package worth billions of 
dollars that none of us have ever seen or read--and you would not have 
seen or read it if I had not demanded that the managers' package be 
shown to us.
  Is this the way to govern? Is this the way to spend the taxpayers' 
dollars? It cannot be. It cannot be the right thing to do.
  I have great sympathy for what the Senator from Alaska is trying to 
achieve by getting this bill done, paying for the war, paying for the 
war on terror. But how do we sit here and accept billions of dollars in 
a managers' package that none of us--excuse me, all but a few of us 
have ever seen, debated, discussed, voted on, or will ever have 
anything to do with?
  I trust the judgment of those who go to the appropriations 
conference, but I don't give them the responsibility that I have to the 
taxpayers of my State.
  I am sure many of these amendments in the managers' package will 
pass. I have already seen that today. When we had an amendment to take 
out the totally extraneous provisions, we only got 39 votes. I am sure 
they will pass. At least I will be able to go back and tell my 
constituents that I didn't support $10 million for the South Pole 
Station in the name of fighting the war on terrorism and the war on 
Iraq. I have greater respect for the men and women in the military who 
are doing the fighting than to vote for $10 million for the South Pole 
in the name of helping them fight the war.
  I will yield the remainder of my time, and I will object to the 
managers' package, and we will have a series of votes. I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have great respect for the Senator from 
Arizona. He provides really a service to the Senate to make us think 
about these issues. I have thought about all of these. In fact, a dozen 
Senators on

[[Page 8350]]

either side are already carrying a grudge because they didn't get their 
amendment through the process to even get to the Senator from Arizona 
because they were rejected by someone in the committee of jurisdiction.
  Let me say to the Senator, for instance, the $10 million for the 
South Pole is not an add-on. We took that money off an account and put 
it in there because they had a disastrous winter. This is the last 
supplemental for this year, as far as we know. Only another tragedy and 
the war could bring us to another supplemental. We are going into 
regular bills after this bill. We will have nights such as this on some 
of them, probably.
  The money for the Department of Energy was identified by several 
Members, and that is security at nuclear facilities. It was debated on 
the floor. It was raised here and debated. I asked them to put it into 
the package because it was my opinion that it was, frankly, raising the 
bill a little too much, and I didn't want it to look as if I was 
accepting those amendments. There are a few others that we accepted 
that go in the bill. As you say, there are times that it is possible to 
reduce amendments voted on the floor in conference; but when the Senate 
votes overwhelmingly for an amendment on the floor, it is difficult to 
deal with in the House--if the House doesn't want to put the full 
amount up and to reduce it, or negotiate it.
  We have several amendments. Senator Kohl's amendment, for instance. 
He has been courteous in allowing us to put that amendment--it will 
pass, by the way; I know it will pass. I will tell the Senate that 
there is not an amendment in this managers' package that I believe 
would pass the Senate if raised individually.
  Why do we have a managers' package? Because we have cleared each 
amendment with the committee of jurisdiction, cleared by the majority 
and minority on the subcommittee involved in our Appropriations 
Committee, and cleared by Senator Byrd and myself, and we have cleared 
them or offered them to Senator McCain and to Senator Reid, or whoever 
wants to look at the package can look at it. It is a package of 
convenience.
  By putting these amendments together on items we think would pass 
anyway, we might be able to go home at a decent hour tonight. I might 
be able to keep my commitment to the Senator from Hawaii to be in 
Hawaii with him when he gets his great honor on Saturday. That may not 
be possible because I have a job and I will stay until we do it.
  It is also a problem that a couple of the Senators have already 
departed, and they are relying on us to put these in the package 
because they had other problems with family, and they are not here now. 
I can think of three of them who are gone who have amendments in here. 
We passed judgment on a collective basis. It hasn't just been myself, 
or myself and my colleague, or our staffs. Everybody in the system is 
involved in clearing a bill, including the Senator from Arizona who 
knows I cleared several with him as chairman of the Commerce Committee.
  All I say is, I am prepared to proceed in any way that the Senate 
wishes to proceed with the amendments. There are 25 amendments in this 
package. They call it the first package. Several are being cleared that 
will go in this. There is a group of, I think, six that is still out 
there being cleared. Of these, Senator McCain has agreed with 11 out of 
the 25. He agrees to modify four others that were not in my accounting. 
So we can proceed with those on a consent basis and see if the Senator 
wants to call up the amendments. We are going to be here for a long 
time if we do that, but in fairness I don't have the ability to 
withdraw these and say the Senators cannot offer them. They allowed us 
to use them in the package mechanism so we could save time for the 
Senate. It is obviously not going to do that. I am prepared, however, 
as soon as I get the balance of this, to offer them all and let the 
Senator object and then we will move them one at a time.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield to my friend.
  Mr. BYRD. Why don't we just finish this Tuesday?
  Mr. STEVENS. If we finish this Tuesday, the bill cannot be finished 
by next weekend because we have to have time for both Houses to prepare 
a chart on a bill such as this, to see what our differences are, so we 
can go into conference and deal with the differences. If we pass this 
bill Tuesday, the House will pass it Tuesday or Wednesday, and we will 
not be able to get it finished by a week from Friday.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes, sir.
  Mr. BYRD. In the request that will be propounded with respect to the 
appointment of conferees, how many conferees on the part of the Senate 
is the chairman expecting?
  Mr. STEVENS. In the conference on the supplemental, following the 
procedures the Senator from West Virginia and I have used in the past, 
we will have the full committee.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield further?
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes.
  Mr. BYRD. Other Senators may do as they wish. This Senator is going 
to go home. That is my right to do. I don't have any quarrel with 
others who want to stay. I have cast over 16,600 votes in the Senate. I 
think I have been pretty loyal to my duties to my constituents. But I 
need to be home. I have been married almost 66 years. I have been in 
the Senate a little over 44 years. I have been married longer. So I 
think my duty is to my wife. There are only two duties that will exceed 
my duties in the Senate. One is my duty to my God and the second is to 
my family.
  So I ask unanimous consent, in accordance with paragraph 2 of rule VI 
of the Standing Rules of the Senate, that I be granted leave to go home 
now and not vote any further today. I will be granted a leave of 
absence for the rest of the day so that I can go home and be with my 
wife. Others who wish to stay here may do so. I have spent my time over 
the years here. If others want to stay, that is fine. I don't think it 
is absolutely necessary to finish this tonight. I think we can wait 
until Tuesday. But as far as I am concerned, I thank all Senators for 
their staying around and completing action on this bill, but count me 
out. I so ask unanimous consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, my great friend from West Virginia today 
told me of the difficult problems he has and wanted to leave by 5:30. I 
thought we might make that. Again I find myself apologizing to my 
friend twice in 2 days.
  Mr. BYRD. The Senator does not owe me an apology.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thought we would finish the bill in time for the 
Senator to be with his wife.
  Mr. BYRD. The Senator has always been courteous to me. I have no 
quarrel with him or any other Senator.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I do not want to prolong the debate. The 
Senator from Alaska just mentioned there are six amendments still being 
cleared. This cannot be the way to spend the taxpayers' dollars--to 
pack 25, or how ever many amendments there are, into a managers' 
amendment accumulating billions of dollars.
  The Senator from Alaska said ``the appropriate people were notified 
and these amendments were discussed with them.'' I do not like to 
indulge in a show of hands, but I guarantee you, Mr. President, most of 
the Members of this body were not consulted on most of these amendments 
that are in the managers' package because I have been here most of the 
day and I have never heard them discussed or debated. The only reason I 
am seeing them now for the first time, as I say, 40 minutes before we 
would have had final passage on the bill is because we demanded to see 
them.
  Again, I am not a member of the Appropriations Committee. I believe 
there are 20 some members of the hundred of us who are members of the 
Appropriations Committee. For us to simply say, I will accept a $600 
million

[[Page 8351]]

amendment; don't worry, we will work it out in conference--I am 
supposed to go back to my constituents and say: I spent $600 million of 
your money, but do not worry, we left it up to another Senator to work 
it out in conference.
  We cannot govern this way. We cannot. We cannot have this kind of 
procedure. I apologize to my colleagues for this, but I am not the one 
who ran this procedure. I warned the Senator from Alaska time after 
time that the managers' package was the most egregious of everything 
that is done in the appropriations process. I will never forget a 
couple years ago when I asked the manager of the bill: What is in the 
managers' package, as everybody was standing in line to vote. He said: 
I don't know.
  I let it go because I did not want to anger my colleagues and upset 
the schedules of my colleagues. Do you know what we found? We found 
about $50 million in absolutely unnecessary and unrelated projects 
added in a ``managers' amendment.'' We cannot do that. We cannot do 
business this way.
  I agree with the Senator from Alaska that he will win on every one of 
these votes because we just saw earlier today that if we are not going 
to reject $93 million for an agriculture research center and $50 
million for maritime administration guaranteed loans, which is a 
totally failed program--and I have forgotten some of the others--we 
certainly are not going to turn down amendments that have as much as 
$600 million.
  Here is another one. An amendment described as town meetings. 
Interesting, town meetings. It removes a 250,000-person threshold for 
Senate funding of town meetings. What is that all about? It may be, as 
the Senator alleges--I did not know they had more severe winters than 
others at the South Pole, but there may be a very legitimate reason to 
lift the cap on a 250,000-person threshold for Senate funding of town 
meetings. We do not know. We do not know, I say to the Senator from 
Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. McCAIN. No. I would like to finish first.
  I yield to the Senator from Alaska. I yield.
  Mr. STEVENS. No, I will wait.
  Mr. McCAIN. All I am saying is we do not know. There may be good 
reasons or there may be bad reasons. There may be good reasons, when we 
are trying to fight the war on terrorism and the war on Iraq, to lift 
the 250,000-person threshold for funding for town meetings. There may 
not be also. We do not know.
  Mr. President, I would like to make two points. One, I propose a vote 
on the Kohl amendment, which is amendment No. 455, which gives an 
additional $600 million for agriculture. At the conclusion of that 
vote, then I will be ready to go to final passage, but I want to tell 
my colleagues for the last time, I will not--I will not--we cannot 
govern this way. It is not right. We are not carrying out our duties to 
the people who send their hard-earned tax dollars to us to handle with 
care and deliberation.
  So if it is agreeable with the Senator from Alaska, we will have a 
vote, which he will win, adding $600 million, which was in the 
managers' package and never debated or discussed that I know of, and I 
bet most of my colleagues never knew of, and we will probably adopt it, 
giving an additional $600 million to help I guess feed the troops in 
Iraq, and then we will go to final passage.
  But I tell my colleagues who are here on the floor, I will not do 
this managers' package routine ever again. If the Senator from Alaska 
feels he will not carry something in conference because it is a losing 
vote, then that is how it should be, but at least every Senator will be 
on record and their constituents will know how they stood on town 
meetings and the South Pole and all of these others--Louisville/
Jefferson County Public Safety Communications System, et cetera. If it 
is agreeable with the Senator from Alaska, I will agree to a unanimous 
consent request to do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am grateful to the Senator from Arizona 
for that suggestion. I point out to him before we proceed--and we will 
proceed; I will ask Senator Kohl to be prepared to offer his amendment, 
and following that we will offer the managers' amendment--but just this 
afternoon, I was notified that travel and transportation for members of 
the armed services was not authorized in some circumstances. One of 
these amendments authorizes transportation of families of the people 
who have been injured to Germany, or wherever they are, so they can see 
their loved ones. They did not have that authority. An amendment in 
this bill will do that.
  They also do not have the money and authorization to buy, for a young 
person injured and coming back not on a gurney, but needs civilian 
clothes, something different to wear other than a military uniform 
because of the injury--we have a provision in here for the purchase of 
civilian attire for medical evacuation of members of the Armed Forces. 
Those came to me at 6 o'clock. I think they are relevant to this bill, 
one of the six the Senator has not seen yet. There are a lot that came 
up.
  I suggest we proceed. The managers' package concept replaces the old 
litany of amendments that were offered and offered and offered. I 
remember one time we were here 40 hours. That is what you get into when 
you do not have a managers' package.
  Is Senator Kohl here?
  Mr. DASCHLE. We can offer it on his behalf.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Chair lay before the Senate Senator Kohl's 
amendment?


                           Amendment No. 455

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 455.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Kohl, for 
     himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Biden, Mrs. Murray, Mr. 
     Harkin, and Mr. Nelson of Florida, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 455.

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

 (Purpose: To provide humanitarian food assistance in connection with 
                        U.S. activities in Iraq)

       On page 2, after line 7, insert the following:


     ``public law 480 title ii grants (including transfer of funds)

       ``For additional expenses during the current fiscal year, 
     not otherwise recoverable, and unrecovered prior year's 
     costs, including interest thereon, under the Agricultural 
     Trade Development Act of 1954, $600,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended, for commodities supplied in 
     connection with dispositions abroad under title II of said 
     Act: Provided, That of this amount, $155,000,000 shall be 
     used to restore funding for previously approved fiscal year 
     2003 programs under section 204(a)(2) of the Agricultural 
     Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954: Provided 
     further, That of the funds provided under this heading, the 
     Secretary of Agriculture shall transfer to the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation such sums as are necessary to acquire, and 
     shall acquire, a quantity of commodities for use in 
     administering the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust in an 
     amount equal to the quantity allocated by the Corporation 
     pursuant to the release of March 19, 2003, and the release of 
     March 20, 2003: Provided further, That the authority 
     contained in 7 U.S.C. 1736f-1(c)(4) shall not apply during 
     fiscal year 2003 for any release of commodities after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.''.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
the consideration of Senator Kohl's amendment, the amendments that I 
shall offer en bloc be considered en bloc, and adopted en bloc as a 
managers' package.
  Mr. HARKIN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. STEVENS. I withdraw the request.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page 8352]]

  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Would the Senator renew his request?
  Mr. STEVENS. I intend to renew the request. This is a unanimous 
consent that the amendments we have here in the managers' package be 
considered en bloc following the vote on or in relation to the 
amendment offered by Senator Kohl.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 455

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President,
  I am pleased to join with Senator Roberts in offering this amendment.
  I offer an amendment to provide $600 million for our international 
food aid programs. The amendment is cosponsored by Senators Byrd, 
Daschle, Leahy, Harkin, Biden, Murray, Nelson of Florida, Dorgan, 
Lincoln, Durbin, DeWine, Baucus, Roberts, and Dayton.
  Our amendment is necessary because of the intense pressure the food 
needs in Iraq have placed on our world food programs. Already, the 
Department of Defense has used $269 million from our largest 
international food aid program--PL-480--to feed the Iraqi people. That 
is $269 million from the $1.4 billion that was appropriated last year 
for other world hunger needs in places like Sub-Saharan Africa and 
Afghanistan. As the war progresses and the reconstruction begins, the 
draw on our existing food aid accounts will continue.
  Specifically, our amendment replenishes the $269 million already 
taken from PL-480 for Iraq. It also adds $100 million to an emergency 
grain reserve--the Emerson Trust--which has recently released 
approximately 800,000 tons of wheat to Iraq. A final $231 million is 
made available for future Iraqi draws on PL-480 as that country waits 
for the resumption of the UN ``Oil for Food'' Program.
  This amendment is responsible budgeting. We are asking only for the 
minimum dollars we need to meet an unanticipated food crisis in Iraq--a 
crisis that is the direct result of the war. Our actions will allow us 
to meet this crisis efficiently without crippling our other food aid 
efforts.
  I do not for a moment dispute the Administration's decision to tap 
into PL-480 funds to meet immediate needs in Iraq. I do dispute the 
position that we should not replenish those funds--thus effectively 
defaulting on our obligations to starving people in other countries.
  There is no doubt that the war has disrupted food delivery to 
innocent Iraqis. And everyone agrees that, as we move to liberate the 
Iraqi people, we have an absolute obligation to deliver humanitarian 
relief.
  Before the war, a full 60 percent of the Iraqi population was fed 
through the UN-run ``Oil for Food Program''--a program that turned 
Iraqi oil revenues into food supplies. It provided over $3 billion 
worth of food a year distributed at more than 40,000 food distribution 
sites throughout the country. On March 17, UN Secretary General Kofi 
Annan suspended the Oil for Food Program. Now, over 2 weeks later, the 
citizens of Iraq are nearing the end of their food stocks.
  We are not just guessing that a food crisis is imminent in Iraq. The 
UN has stated unequivocally that there is a continuing and immediate 
need to feed the Iraqi people as they attempt to reestablish the Oil 
for Food Program. Last Friday, the United Nations petitioned the world 
community for $1.3 billion to meet that need. Just Saturday, the World 
Food Program announced that the operation in Iraq could ``evolve into 
the largest humanitarian operation in history.'' The supplemental 
before us earmarks no funds for that effort.
  The administration has decided--I believe correctly--to use our 
existing food aid programs to deliver this aid to Iraq. Our amendment 
simply asks that we replace the funds we are removing now--and will 
continue to remove--from that program--funds that were budgeted for 
starving people in Africa, Afghanistan, Indonesia, and North Korea.
  Our amendment is endorsed by a coalition of international relief 
agencies called the ``Coalition for Food Aid.'' Their members include 
the American Red Cross, CARE, Catholic Relief Services, and Save the 
Children. The amendment is also supported by the American Farm Bureau, 
the National Association of Wheat Growers, the U.S. Rice Producers 
Association, the USA Rice Federation, and the Wheat Export Trade 
Education Committee. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record these letters of endorsement.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                                    April 3, 2003.
     Hon. Herbert Kohl,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kohl: The undersigned organizations appreciate 
     your dedication to restore funding for food aid and we 
     support your amendment to the FY03 Supplemental 
     Appropriations bill.
       Your amendment comes at a critical time as the United 
     States prepares to provide necessary food aid for the people 
     of Iraq. Providing additional funding and replenishing 
     funding for current food aid programs will place these 
     programs in a better position to meet this year's food aid 
     needs. The amendment also provides the flexibility to 
     purchase the mix of commodities that are needed without 
     disrupting our own domestic market.
       American agriculture is prepared and dedicated to providing 
     U.S. commodities for those in need to help alleviate hunger. 
     We thank you for your leadership and urge adoption of your 
     amendment.
           Sincerely,
       American Farm Bureau Federation, National Association of 
     Wheat Growers, US Rice Producers Association, USA Rice 
     Federation, and Wheat Export Trade Education Committee.
                                  ____

         Agriculture, Maritime and Charitable Organizations, 
           Supporting Additional Food Aid Funding,
                                                    April 2, 2003.
     Hon. Herb Kohl,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kohl: We appreciate and support your amendment 
     to the FY 2003 Supplemental Appropriations Bill to restore 
     funding for food aid programs and to provide adequate 
     additional funds for emergency needs. By appropriating $600 
     million for PL 480 Title II, including funds to partially 
     replenish the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust, this amendment 
     will allow the US to meet commitments to many needy countries 
     this year and to be prepared to provide adequate humanitarian 
     food assistance in the wake of conflict in Iraq.
       Because of the gap between the amount of funds available 
     for food aid and actual food needs, the Administration has 
     been forced to limit funding for African emergencies and to 
     reduce ongoing food assistance in many vulnerable countries, 
     including Angola, Bangladesh, Uganda, Malawi, Haiti, 
     Mozambique, Ghana, Kenya, Bolivia, Guatemala, Peru and parts 
     of Ethiopia. The amendment assures the restoration of funds 
     for previously-approved food aid programs in FY 2003. It is 
     critical that these funds be provided as soon as possible to 
     replenish these programs, since it takes a few months to buy 
     commodities and to deliver them abroad.
       The amendment also provides funds to restore the Bill 
     Emerson Humanitarian Trust to 2 million metric tons, one half 
     of the authorized level. This will replenish the value of 
     commodities that are allocated in FY 2003 for food assistance 
     related to the conflict in Iraq. For the rest of fiscal year 
     2003, it would remove the authority for the Secretary of 
     Agriculture to sell Emerson Trust commodities on the domestic 
     market. Because additional funds are made available by this 
     amendment for Title II and to replenish the Emerson Trust, 
     needed commodities can be purchased directly from the market 
     and sales of commodities held by the Trust is unnecessary.
       With America's abundant agricultural resources and long-
     standing tradition of helping the poor, providing funding so 
     the United States may meet its commitments to help alleviate 
     hunger is both appropriate and necessary. We therefore thank 
     you for your leadership and urge the acceptance of your 
     amendment by the United States Senate.
           Sincerely,
       ACDI/VOCA, Africare, American Red Cross, Cal Western 
     Packaging Corp., Adventist Development & Relief Agency 
     International, American Maritime Congress, American Soybean 
     Association, CARE, Catholic Relief Services, Counterpart 
     International, Food for the Hungry International, 
     International Food Additives Council, International Orthodox 
     Christian Charities, Jesuit Refugee Service/USA, Maersk 
     Sealand, and Maritime Institute for Research and Industrial 
     Development.

[[Page 8353]]

       National Association of Wheat Growers, National Dry Bean 
     Council, National Milk Producers Federation, OIC 
     International, SUSTAIN, Transportation Institute, U.S. Rice 
     Producers Association, USA Dry Pea & Lentil Council, Wheat 
     Export Trade Education Committee, World Vision, Colorado 
     Potato Growers Association, Didion Milling, Inc., Global Food 
     & Nutrition Inc., International Organization of Masters, 
     Mates & Pilots, International Relief & Development, Land 
     O'Lakes, Marine Engineers Beneficial Association, Mercy 
     Corps, National Corn Growers Association, National Farmers 
     Union, North American Millers' Association, Save the 
     Children, TECO Ocean Shipping Company, U.S. Dairy Export 
     Council, U.S. Wheat Associates; USA Rice Federation; and 
     Wilson Logistics, Inc.

  Mr. KOHL. In the last month, we have heard many voices expressing 
many views of what it means to be American and at war. Among those 
disparate voices, there are strong, common themes: our pride in our 
brave troops; our burning hatred for tyranny and injustice; our undying 
compassion for the poor and hungry of the world.
  Our amendment speaks to the last of these. It states simply that, 
even in times of war, America will remain a compassionate leader in the 
world community and a passionate combatant of hunger and hopelessness 
throughout the world.
  To reiterate, I offer this amendment because through the Department 
of Defense and other agencies, $269 million from our largest 
international food program, Public Law 480, and the Bill Emerson 
Humanitarian Trust, have already been obligated to meet the urgent 
necessity to feed the Iraqi people. That $269 million is derived from 
funds appropriated or made available last year for other world hunger 
needs in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Korea, and North 
Korea. We need to replenish that money which has been used to feed the 
people in Iraq.
  I also thought we needed to provide more than an additional $200 
million for the requirements that I anticipate we will be very shortly 
facing in Iraq with respect to feeding their people. The Bill Emerson 
Humanitarian Trust is an emergency grain reserve which recently 
released approximately 800,000 tons of wheat for assistance to Iraq at 
a cost of $100 million. The replenishment of the Bill Emerson 
Humanitarian Trust, restoration of Public Law 480 funds that have been 
diverted from areas such as Sub-Saharan Africa, and providing resources 
for anticipated needs in Iraq total the $600 million I have included in 
this amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, as U.S. and allied forces 
steadfastly close on Baghdad, they come closer to liberating the people 
of Iraq, and closer to ridding the world of a menace to global peace. 
Our troops are performing magnificently. The young men and women of our 
armed forces have served bravely and honorably, and have made me proud.
  When the bombing stops and the war is over, the world will be a safer 
place. But make no mistake, the American commitment in Iraq must endure 
for a long haul. It is incumbent upon the United States to ensure 
Iraq's transition to a freedom. One element critical to post-conflict 
reconstruction has already begun, and must continue throughout the 
fighting. That element is the supply of food and humanitarian relief to 
the people of Iraq.
  The supplemental does provide some funds for humanitarian relief, but 
it is not enough. The Senator from Wisconsin has offered an amendment 
to this legislation which would provide $600 million in funding in 
emergency food relief for P.L. 480, Title Two and the Emerson 
Humanitarian Trust. This $600 million the amendment provides is based 
on close consultation with organizations who know the situation well 
from their humanitarian work. The Kohl amendment is vitally important 
to ongoing operations in Iraq. It: restores funds diverted from other 
emergency food assistance provided in P.L. 480 activities--including 
those in Africa--that have been redirected for assistance to Iraq; 
restores 800,000 metric tons of Emerson Trust, another humanitarian 
food relief program, because of previous releases this year; and allows 
for at least one third of food aid needs for Iraq, as identified by the 
World Food Program. Historically, the U.S. provides one half of 
emergency food aid needs.
  At the time hostilities commenced in Iraq, the U.N. Oil for Food 
Program provided food to over 60 percent of the Iraqi people via over 
40,000 feeding stations. These feeding stations were run by the regime 
of Saddam Hussein. Hopefully, U.S. and coalition forces can restore the 
program quickly. But hope alone will not feed Iraqi families left 
starving by a disruption in this program. The world Food Program has 
just announced an overall appeal of $1.3 billion for food aid for Iraq 
for the next 6 months.
  We must make adequate preparations right now to provide the food 
assistance required of us. The Kohl amendment delivers on this moral 
imperative by providing funds needed for the remainder of this fiscal 
year in the event significant Oil for Food Program revenues are not 
available, or is otherwise unable to function.
  In another part of the globe desperately needing food assistance, the 
droughts in sub-Saharan Africa have caused a massive food shortage over 
the last several months. The toll of this famine threatens millions of 
Africans and could be far worse than anything we have seen previously. 
The terrible epidemic of HIV/AIDS, which is currently ravaging the 
continent, destroys the immune systems of its victims. When further 
weakened by malnutrition, they are unable to fight off even the most 
mild illnesses thereby exacerbating the impact of the food shortage. In 
addition, we know there is still about $250-$350 million shortfall in 
food assistance to Africa for this fiscal year, which the Congress was 
unable to provide during consideration of the omnibus appropriations 
legislation for 2003. It is vitally important that food assistance to 
this region not be shortchanged, forcing us to choose which mouths to 
feed, on which continents.
  Similarly, there have been droughts in regions of Haiti. The United 
States currently provides food assistance to Haiti from P.L. 480, Title 
Two, to the tune of about $22 million, or about 40 percent of our 
bilateral assistance. This assistance is so important because it is one 
of the few ways in which we can help the Haitian people, without 
providing assistance to a corrupt government. We do not provide Haiti 
with other forms of assistance commonly provided to other countries, 
like economic support funds or development assistance. This is due to 
the political stalemate, almost 3 years old, and the inability of 
President Aristide to take any meaningful and demonstrable steps to 
resolve the crisis and improve conditions. Therefore, the integrity of 
the food assistance to Haiti must be protected and preserved in its 
entirety. The Kohl Amendment does so.
  This provision also provides initial resources that will be needed to 
win the peace in Iraq. It does not specifically designate the funds for 
Iraq, to be consistent with the way we have traditionally appropriated 
food assistance governed by P.L. 480 Title II funds, but I trust that 
these funds will be used for the purpose for which they are intended--
feeding the Iraqi people without raiding important food assistance 
accounts for other regions, such as sub-Saharan Africa, and Haiti.
  We must act now. I urge support of the Kohl Amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Senator from Wisconsin mentioned Saudi 
Arabia; I did not know the people of Saudi Arabia were in need.
  But, again, it is unrequested by the administration. I am sure it is 
worthwhile. There is not an amendment that has come before us that is 
not worthwhile, but it was not felt urgent at this time by the 
administration.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I don't know of anyone on our side who 
asked for time on the amendment. I believe the Senator has explained 
it. I ask unanimous consent that when we start consideration of this 
vote, there be no further amendments in order, and that immediately 
following the vote on the managers' package, we go to third

[[Page 8354]]

reading of this bill, and we have a procedure arranged so that we would 
hold this bill at the desk until the House bill arrived and it would 
automatically be married to the House bill and sent to conference as 
soon as possible.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object, I will be very brief. I am 
very reluctant to do this because the chairman has been very gracious 
to me.
  Senator Collins and I had worked throughout the day on a bipartisan 
amendment. We would like a few minutes. It has been heard by the 
committees of jurisdiction, and we would like a few minutes to work 
with the chairman because if we are going to spend billions, we 
certainly ought to make sure there is a repetitiveness in the 
contracting. The Senator from Maine, the Chair of the Governmental 
Affairs Committee, has done exceptional work in this area. If we could 
work with the chairman, I think in a few minutes we could work this 
out.
  I am very reluctant to make this reservation.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator's amendment would change the 
procedure for every Department or Agency in the Federal Government in 
terms of the concept of what must be published in the Federal Register. 
It also has an exception for withholding publication of any document 
that is classified.
  But in the period of time we are in right now, I don't have time to 
research this in terms of what does this do to the Department of 
Defense, what does it do to the CIA, what does it do to the FBI, what 
does it do to every other organization of the country. I have tried to 
clear this. There is a great deal of what has been eliminated, but I, 
too, am a member of this Governmental Affairs Committee, and I could 
not ever remember taking it up in the Governmental Affairs Committee. I 
understand what it is, but I don't understand its impact on the 
agencies I am supposed to protect in terms of the Department of 
Defense.
  I cannot in good faith accept that.
  I renew my request that following the vote on the managers' package, 
no further votes be in order and we proceed immediately to third 
reading under the proceedings as outlined, which will be outlined in 
fuller detail at that time, but it will mean that will be the last vote 
of the day and we will not vote past taking the bill to third reading.
  The Kohl amendment comes first.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, the first amendment offered 
by the Senator from Alaska when we started yesterday, that is going to 
be withdrawn; is my understanding correct?
  Mr. STEVENS. We will have a dialog here about the debt ceiling 
amendment, and I have given my word to the Senator from West Virginia 
that we would withdraw the amendment. I want to have that dialog. That 
can take place after the vote. I assured everyone that will be handled 
in a proper way. I have been asked to make a record of why we did not 
proceed with the debt ceiling amendment, and I would like to do it at 
that time.
  I renew my request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. The parliamentary situation is: We will vote on the Kohl 
amendment, we will vote then on the managers' package, and then the 
bill will go to third reading under the outline we provided at that 
time, and there be no further votes or amendments in order to this 
bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are four amendments pending which must 
be disposed of prior to third reading.


              Amendments Nos. 440, 500, and 504, Withdrawn

  Mr. STEVENS. I would say there are amendments at the desk that have 
been modified or agreed to and put into the managers' package. So I ask 
that those be withdrawn. I believe all the Members involved know what 
has been done on those amendments. I ask that they be withdrawn and--
there are four of them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I will withdraw the other amendment when we have the 
dialog after the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Talent). Without objection, it is so 
ordered. The three amendments are withdrawn.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask for the yeas and nays on the Kohl amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 455. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. I announce that the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), 
the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), and the Senator from 
Kentucky (Mr. McConnell) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from 
Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) wuld vote ``Yea.''
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd), 
the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), would vote ``Yea.''
  The result was announced--yeas 67, nays 26, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 124 Leg.]

                                YEAS--67

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham (FL)
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Talent
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--26

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bond
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Craig
     Crapo
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Gregg
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     McCain
     Nickles
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bunning
     Byrd
     Domenici
     Inouye
     Kerry
     Lieberman
     McConnell
  The amendment (No. 455) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. Senator, let me thank all Members for their patience 
and consideration in expediting the bill. It is imperative that we 
complete this bill, get it to conference, and then get the bill on the 
President's desk. This next vote will be the last vote of the week. The 
Senate will not be in session on Friday. We will resume business on 
Monday with a vote occurring at 5 p.m. on a judicial nomination.
  Next week we hope to take up and complete the CARE Act, the FISA 
bill, POW resolution, other nominations, as well as conference reports 
that become available.
  I thank everyone for their attention and appreciate the hard work 
over the course of the day.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
Senators Jeffords and Kennedy be added as cosponsors of amendment No. 
459.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 522

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, a series 
of

[[Page 8355]]

amendments. I ask that these amendments be considered en bloc and they 
be adopted en bloc by one rollcall vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I withdraw that. Is it possible we might have a voice 
vote? I will be happy to have a voice vote.
  I renew the request that the managers' package at the desk be 
considered en bloc and adopted en bloc. Does the Senator want a 
rollcall vote? Without a rollcall vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I call the attention of the clerk to the fact that there 
are several original amendments in that package, and they will be 
properly handled.
  Mr. McCAIN. May I ask what that means?
  Mr. STEVENS. It just means they were not numbered. We took out some 
amendments and put a new one in its place, but we did not make it a 
substitute for the amendment that is in place.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 522.

  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an amendment 
I have offered to provide funding for the All Hazards Emergency Warning 
Network. If we are truly going to improve homeland defense, we must 
prepare Americans to respond in time of attack. And the first step 
towards that goal is updating our emergency warning system. We must 
ensure that warnings reach all Americans at risk as quickly as 
possible.
  In the event of a terrorist attack or natural disaster, Americans 
must know how to respond. Unfortunately, for everything that has 
happened since September 11, if an attack happened again, many of us 
still would not know what to do. Today, our emergency alert system 
depends heavily on television and radio, and doesn't reach millions of 
Americans who aren't near a TV and radio at a given moment. In 
addition, the system doesn't provide all the information we need. Right 
now, the All Hazards Warning Network cannot effectively broadcast 
information about all types of emergencies, particularly terrorist 
attacks. That must change. We need to ensure that NOAA has the funds it 
needs to begin incorporating new warnings and new technologies within 
the national weather radio immediately.
  I have proposed providing NOAA with $10 million right now for 
incorporating additional technologies for disseminating terrorism 
warnings within the All Hazards Warning Network. There are a lot of 
ways that NOAA weather radio could be broadcast using existing 
technology. For example, cell phones could receive emergency warnings 
for users in a certain area even if those folks are just passing 
through. Pagers and beepers can achieve the same result. Televisions 
can be programmed to come on automatically and provide alerts in the 
event of a disaster. We need to encourage the development and 
implementation of these new technologies.
  Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, NOAA needs to have full 
communication with emergency managers at the local level--the men and 
women who will be on the front lines of any emergency. The All Hazards 
Warning Network needs to allow emergency managers to transmit warnings 
about all types of disasters, including terrorism, to citizens in their 
area without the delays currently in place.
  This is an idea I have been working on for some time. This first bill 
I introduced this session, together with Mr. Hollings, would require 
the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Commerce to 
make sure that comprehensive, easily understood emergency warnings get 
to every American at risk. Today's amendment will go a long way towards 
reaching that goal.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am proud to offer an amendment with 
Senator Craig and five other Senators that will repeal a rider that was 
inserted without a vote, without debate, and without discussion into 
the Omnibus Appropriations Conference Report.
  After the Conference Committee met and behind closed doors, this 
special interest rider gutted the organic standards just recently 
enacted by U.S. Department of Agriculture. 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, to get a market premium for his products, without 
actually being an organic product.
  The antiorganic rider allows 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?
  Opposition to this rider has been broad, deep, and extremely 
bipartisan. I have spoken to Secretary Veneman, who has come out 
publicly in opposition to the antiorganic rider. In the last month, a 
total of 68 Senators have joined me by cosponsoring a bill to repeal 
this rider.
  This antiorganic rider 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.
  Now the rider has created a legal limbo for farmers. No one knows 
what the legal requirements for organic animal products are anymore.
  I have heard from large producers--General Mills, Tyson Foods--as 
well as scores of farmers from Vermont and around the country who are 
enraged by this special loophole included for one company that does not 
want to play by the rules.
  Our amendment simply strikes this antiorganic rider from the Omnibus 
Appropriations Act, restoring the strong organic standards created by 
USDA. 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 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. The antiorganic rider, however, 
has undermined public confidence in organic labeling, which is less 
than a year old.
  This was not the first attempt to weaken the organic standards. 
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. During the rule-making process, 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 more members 
will

[[Page 8356]]

support my amendment and send a message to special interests that they 
cannot hijack the organic industry through a rider on the spending 
bill.
  We need to fix this mistake and restore integrity to our organic 
standards.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the amendment I offer today would 
restore fiscal year 2003 funding for the State Criminal Alien 
Assistance Program, SCAAP, to the level of funding Congress provided in 
fiscal year 2002.
  Specifically, my amendment would provide an additional $315 million 
in supplemental funding to the SCAAP program, to bring the total fiscal 
year 2003 appropriations to the same amount that was appropriated in 
fiscal year 2002--$565 million.
  Most of my colleagues have had to deal with the question of illegal 
immigration. Just the sheer number of illegal immigrants in our 
country--estimates range from 9 to 11 million--suggests that Federal 
strategies to curb illegal immigration have failed.
  While only a relatively small percentage of the illegal immigrant 
population have committed crimes, nonetheless, even that small 
percentage represents a significant burden on State and local 
governments, which are forced to apprehend, prosecute, and incarcerate 
those who prey on our communities.
  Today most States are encountering their largest deficits in more 
than 60 years. Indeed, the fiscal consequences of illegal immigration 
have contributed to this challenge. In fiscal year 2002, for instance, 
States and counties incurred more than $13 billion in incarceration 
expenses. It is the responsibility of the Federal Government to help 
shoulder the burden that its failures have created. The Federal 
Government alleviated some of that burden by providing $565 million to 
the States in fiscal year 2002.
  Increasingly, States and local counties are relying on SCAAP funding 
to help supplement their homeland security activities.
  Clearly, our local governments would spend the $13 billion they have 
spent incarcerating criminal aliens on other fiscal priorities, such as 
homeland security.
  The amendment I offer today would not only provide a more equitable 
level of funding to help reimburse States for the costs they incur for 
incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens, it would also help free up 
funds that State and local governments may need for their first 
responder activities.
  Without adequate funding, this fiscal burden will continue to fall on 
many of our local law enforcement agencies--including sheriffs, police 
officers on the beat, antigang violence units, and district attorneys 
offices.
  At a time when cash-strapped State and local governments are being 
asked to do even more to protect our homeland, we cannot afford to 
eliminate vital funding that already falls far short of what local 
governments spend to incarcerate undocumented criminal aliens.
  SCAAP payments have never matched the true costs to the States 
dealing with this problem, but they have nevertheless been critical 
additions to prison and jail budgets. They have also symbolized the 
Federal Government's obligation to pay for the results of its failed 
immigration strategies.
  Counties and sheriffs offices across the country, and not just those 
along the border, are very concerned because of the severe cuts in 
funding this year. I have received letters from county executives and 
sheriffs from Virginia, Wisconsin, New York, and other States who are 
facing critical cuts in their law enforcement budgets because of the 
anticipated shortfall in SCAAP funding. Those amounts will be cut 
drastically.
  I ask unanimous consent that I may submit for the record, a chart 
comparing the amount of SCAAP money States received in fiscal year 2002 
to the amount they will receive with the fiscal year 2003 SCAAP 
allocation of $250 million.
  Our Nation is facing one of the most challenging periods in our 
Nation's history. And, we want, to the best extent possible, our 
constituents to feel secure in their homes and in their communities.
  At a time when the Nation is focused on enhancing security within our 
borders, our States, and our local communities, a vital program like 
SCAAP should not be vulnerable to being underfunded or eliminated 
altogether.
  The control of illegal immigration is a Federal obligation and we owe 
it to our States and local communities to provide them with the 
critical Federal assistance they need to continue doing their job.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, my amendment will increase funding by 
$295 million to help meet the humanitarian and other needs that are 
already obvious in Iraq and that are likely to mushroom in the weeks 
and months ahead.
  To achieve victory in Iraq, we must not only win the war, but win the 
peace as well. And we know that in order to do this, we will have to 
deal effectively from the start with all the serious problems we'll 
face in meeting humanitarian needs, establishing law and order, and 
beginning the reconstruction process there.
  For the next six months, to cover the additional costs that are 
likely to arise in the current fiscal year, the administration has 
requested $2.4 billion for humanitarian assistance and reconstruction. 
It's an essential down payment, and I commend the administration for 
including this provision.
  Many of us on both of the aisle feel that we need to send a strong 
signal of our willingness to work with the UN in post-war Iraq, and put 
the recent harsh divisions that erupted in the Security Council behind 
us.
  President Bush said that that if military force is required to disarm 
Iraq, the United States would ``quickly seek new Security Council 
resolutions to encourage broad participation in the process of helping 
the Iraqi people to build a free Iraq.'' He also said that to achieve 
the goal of a unified Iraq with democratic institutions, we will be 
``working closely with the international community, including the 
United Nations and our coalition partners.''
  Lately, however, we read stories of a tug of war between the State 
Department and DoD over who will be in charge of the post-war effort 
and how. Secretary Powell has said that the UN has ``a role to play in 
many different ways'' and that its involvement is needed to provide 
``international legitimacy'' to the post-war efforts.
  As our key ally, Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain said 
yesterday the post-war effort ``should not, in the end, be run by the 
Americans, should not be run by the British, should not be run by any 
outside force. Iraq should be run, for the first time in decades, by 
the Iraqi people.''
  These are strong statements of the importance of cooperation among 
our friends and allies in the major challenges facing the region and 
the world in the aftermath of this war.
  They also make good sense. The UN will be essential in assessing, 
coordinating and delivering humanitarian aid, and in defusing any rage 
in the region over a so-called U.S. occupation.
  With the resumption of the UN's Oil for Food program last week, 
resources will start to become available to meet the food needs of the 
Iraqi people. However, we still have to meet other needs, such as 
sanitation, health, shelter, the removal of landmines, and local 
emergency repairs to help civilians resume their daily lives as soon as 
possible. My amendment provides an additional $225 million to meet 
these priorities and to prevent illness, disease, and death among the 
survivors of the war.
  It also provides an additional $45 million for law enforcement. The 
rule of law--the sense of public security and safety--is something that 
we often take for granted. As we learned in Kosovo, and again in 
Afghanistan, law and order are the indispensable cornerstones for 
building a functioning society. Without it, everything else takes 
longer, and costs more. Experts may doubt that Iraq will erupt into 
major

[[Page 8357]]

civil conflicts, but most of them do expect local violence, revenge 
killing, and power struggles if there is no clear transitional force 
and stable government.
  The bill before us contains funds for a civilian police force, but a 
full judicial team has not been included. This was a significant 
problem in Kosovo, and it can be avoided in Iraq by paying adequate 
attention to revising laws so that the effort to bring criminals to 
justice is not undermined. The immediate presence of a judicial team 
will assist in expediting this process and begin to establish adequate 
rules on arrests, detention, trials, and other aspects of a new legal 
system.
  Fair treatment of the people of Iraq in the immediate weeks and 
months after the war will obviously help to smooth the way to peace and 
encourage other nations to join in meeting this responsibility.
  The final provision of this amendment addresses a separate ongoing 
need. The Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund is our global 
fund for unforeseen refugee and migration emergencies. This program has 
been funded at $50 million, but its needs continue to outpace the 
available resources. The United Nations refugee agency recently 
appealed to us for $29 million to assist the refugee emergency in the 
Ivory Coast and another $29 million to finance the repatriation of 
Angolans.
  The underlying bill provides an additional $75 million, but in the 
next six months, new demands for these emergency funds are likely for 
Afghanistan, Sudan, and the Congo. It makes sense to provide the funds 
now that we already know we will need for this account. With emergency 
relief, it is not a question of if but when. The amendment will add $25 
million to be sure that we have sufficient monies to respond to 
emergencies on the horizon. As we focus on the humanitarian needs in 
Iraq, we cannot ignore the refugee crises in Africa and other regions 
of the world.
  We know that the whole world is watching what we do. Reports of 
massive anger in the Middle East and in other countries should be very 
troubling to us all. We need to get the Iraq reconstruction effort 
right the first time. Its importance cannot be under-estimated, and we 
can't afford to leave it underfunded.
  These additional funds are a start, a downpayment on the longer 
effort. This bill may well not be enough even for the very short term 
of the next six months. Far more will be needed to meet our 
responsibilities, and to win the peace. We ought to be planning and 
preparing to meet these reponsibilites now.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank all Members for their patience and courtesy. And 
as the leader said, this is the last vote. We will handle the problem 
of moving this matter to third reading after this vote. There will be 
no further votes tonight. Have we adopted the managers' amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
522.
  The amendment (No. 522) was agreed to.


                      amendment no. 435, withdrawn

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, according to the Treasury Department, the 
statutory limit on the national debt needs to be raised. The amendment 
I offered yesterday would have increased the debt limit so as to avoid 
the risk of a default. I understand the concerns that have been raised 
about this amendment by the other side, and I am willing to withdraw 
the amendment if the majority can be assured that the Senate will pass 
a freestanding bill to increase the debt limit with the cooperation of 
the minority and without unnecessary delay, and there will be no 
necessity to file cloture to bring this bill to a vote. I know the 
distinguished Democratic whip has discussed this with the Democratic 
leader and others, and I would ask if he is able to give those 
assurances at this time.
  Mr. REID. I would say to the distinguished chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee that he is correct: I have discussed this 
matter with the Democratic leader and others, and we fully understand 
the importance of ensuring that the borrowing authority of the Treasury 
is not impeded, and we appreciate the interest of the Senator from 
Alaska making certain that the full faith and credit of the United 
States is never called into question. While we on this side cannot 
commit to supporting a bill we have not seen, we do assure the Senator 
from Alaska that when a freestanding bill to increase the debt limit in 
the usual form is brought to the floor, we will work with him to see to 
it that the bill is passed in a timely and orderly way, without any 
unncesssary delay. The Senator has our commitment on that.
  Mr. STEVENS. I appreciate the cooperation of the Democratic whip, and 
given his assurances, I withdraw my amendment dealing with the debt 
ceiling.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, amendment No. 435 is 
withdrawn.


                                  ATAP

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to address Senator McConnell, the 
chairman of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, about 
the Antiterrorism Training Assistance Program, or ATAP.
  I note that the supplemental appropriations bill includes $52 million 
for the State Department to establish the Center for Antiterrorism and 
Security Training (CAST) in Maryland. These funds were deferred from 
the Consolidated appropriations Resolution for Fiscal Year 2003 with 
the understanding that they would be included in an appropriate 
vehicle, which is this bill. CAST will be a central training academy 
for the State Department.
  It will be a while before the new center is operational, which makes 
it difficult for me to understand the actions of the State Department 
to eliminate and scale back existing antiterrorism training programs 
that have been successfully carried out by Louisiana State University 
(LSU) and the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology (New Mexico 
Tech) for the past several years. In fact, LSU has been carrying out 
this training for the State Department for over a decade. New Mexico 
Tech has partnered with LSU since January 2000.
  The State Department has relocated the Hostage Negotiations Program 
from New Mexico Tech to LSU, and it has advised New Mexico Tech that it 
will relocate the Rural Border Operations Course to a facility on a 
military base in Albuquerque.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I join my colleague from New Mexico in 
questioning the State Department's actions on the ATAP training 
programs. Both universities and the surrounding communities have made 
substantial investments in facilities, curriculum, and even diplomacy 
in welcoming foreign law enforcement officers to their communities and 
providing them with training courses to help them combat terrorist and 
other criminal activity. Yet it appears the State Department will pull 
all ATAP training out of New Mexico Tech by this June. I can only guess 
that the State Department has similar intentions for LSU in my State.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. Chairman, this makes no sense to me as this Nation 
contiues to fight the war on terrorism and is now engaged in a war 
against Iraq. The antiterrorism training programs are more critical 
than ever, and they should continue to be carried out at LSU and New 
Mexico Tech, which have run successful programs for the Department of 
State for years.
  Mr. Chairman, would you agree with me that it is premature to 
withdraw current antiterrorism training assistance courses out of LSU 
and New Mexico Tech during these troubled times?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I would agree with the Senator from New Mexico that 
this seems to be an unusual time for the State Department to take such 
actions. The Foreign Operations Subcommittee has provided significant 
increases for the ATAP Program through the regular appropriations bill 
and the

[[Page 8358]]

supplemental appropriations bill last year, and the President proposes 
another $106 million for this program, an increase of nearly $42 
million above the current level.
  I believe these programs with law enforcement personnel from other 
nations are more important than ever, and there is a significant 
benefit to the State Department in using the facilities at LSU and New 
Mexico Tech to continue these training programs. I would concur that 
the Department should continue to carry out these courses at these two 
universities.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Chairman for his direction on this matter.
  Mr. LEAHY. I can understand the concerns of the Senator from 
Louisiana and the Senator from New Mexico. I join the chairman of the 
Foreign Operations Subcommittee in his view that the State Department 
should continue to carry out ATAP courses at Lousiana State University 
and the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for their 
interest in, and assistance on, this most important issue.


                        Surplus Food Aid to Iraq

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago Ambassador Wendy Chamberlain 
of the U.S. Agency for International Development testified before the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee that there is as little as a 1-month 
supply of food available to Iraqi citizens. I am told that the 
administration has had informal discussions with the Appropriations 
Committee on how they plan to spend the $2.4 billion in the 
supplemental for the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund.
  After hearing about these consultations with the administration, I am 
very concerned to learn that there is virtually no new money in this 
bill for food aid. Rather, the money that is being requested will be 
used primarily to reimburse funds that were already borrowed from other 
fiscal year 2003 foreign operation accounts to pay for food aid or to 
pay for logistics and distribution. The good news is that the Senate 
may be working to increase the amount of food aid in this bill and the 
House version of the supplemental appropriates funds for food aid.
  With this food aid, we have a chance to help not only the Iraqi 
people, but also America's farmers. Many of America's farmers are 
experiencing a surplus of commodities that could provide valuable 
nutrition to the Iraqi people while alleviating potential crop losses 
for our Nation's farmers. Our high quality food products such as rice, 
beans, raisings, dates, dried fruit and other relatively nonperishable 
items are familiar foods in that region of the world and would be 
appropriate for inclusion in our relief supplies.
  I am wondering if the chairman and ranking member of the Agriculture 
Appropriations Subcommittee could tell me if this additional food aid 
funding can be used to purchase surplus agricultural commodities, which 
would both help feed the Iraqi people and benefit American farmers?
  Mr. BENNETT. Yes, that use is entirely permitted. I agree that we 
should do all that we can to help the Iraqi people and our farmers at 
the same time.
  Mr. KOHL. I think that this is an excellent suggestion, and I would 
support the use of a portion of these funds to purchase surplus U.S. 
commodities that are appropriate to meet the dietary needs of the 
affected populations and that are currently authorized for inclusion 
under these programs.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my colleagues.
 Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we are currently engaged in a war 
with Iraq. I strongly believe that our military must have every 
resource at its disposal to fully prosecute and win this war. I support 
the Senate fiscal year 2003 supplemental appropriations bill because it 
provides funding for the military functions of the Department of 
Defense as it prosecutes the war in Iraq. The bill also includes 
funding for the reconstruction efforts in Iraq and funding to continue 
our anti-terrorism efforts. However, I am disappointed that the bill 
does not provide adequate funding to protect our homeland.
  The bill provides more than $62 billion to prosecute the military 
operations in Iraq, including replenishing munitions that have been 
expended and maintaining air, ground and sea operations critical to our 
war effort. It also provides more than $7.8 billion to support the 
reconstruction of health services, sanitation, transportation and 
telecommunications for the people of Iraq.
  I also support the additional funds included in this bill to increase 
airline security. The bill provides $1 billion to reimburse airline 
security costs, $100 million to assist airlines in upgrading cockpit 
doors, and $375 million for airline operating and capital costs. I 
believe that this funding will help maintain the flying safety of the 
American public.
  I am grateful to both Chairman Stevens and Ranking Member Byrd for 
providing $150 million to the Department of Veterans Affairs for health 
care services to veterans of the Iraq war. I worked with Senator Graham 
on an amendment to help pay for the health care of returning service 
members who are released from the military. We are not meeting our 
promises to our veterans. The VA has consistently received inadequate 
resources to meet rising medical costs and a growing demand for its 
health services. This funding crisis has forced the VA health system to 
resort to short-term fixes, such as discontinuing outreach activities 
in an effort to reduce enrollment and instituting new regulations that 
require the rationing of health care. This veteran's health care crisis 
has been exacerbated with the recent announcement that the VA would 
provide free medical services to all veterans of the Iraq war for 2 
years. The additional funding included in the supplemental is crucial 
to insure that current veterans do not receive a further reduction in 
health benefits.
  While this legislation contains an acceptable level of funding to 
help prosecute the war with Iraq, I am deeply concerned that this 
legislation does not meet our Nation's homeland security needs. 
Vulnerabilities exist in our homeland security infrastructure, and we 
should not squander a single day addressing them. An independent task 
force, chaired by former Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, recently 
advised that ``America remains dangerously unprepared to prevent and 
respond to a catastrophic attack on U.S. soil.'' We must act to ensure 
that the Federal and State agencies needed to better protect our 
borders, coasts, cities, and towns have sufficient resources to do so.
  The bill includes approximately $4.6 billion for increased border and 
maritime security to assist State and local governments in protecting 
our cities and our critical infrastructure from terrorism. But I 
believe that more should have been done to protect our homeland from 
the risk of terrorism. That is why, I supported an amendment offered by 
Senator Schumer which would have provided $3 million in additional 
funding for first responders and $1 billion for security in high-threat 
areas.
  Last year I was very involved in the development of the new port 
security law, which included new rigorous security requirements for our 
ports. Given the vulnerabilities that we know exist in our port 
security, I am deeply disappointed that the Senate has thus far 
provided insufficient funding to address these problems. I strongly 
supported a Hollings amendment that would have provided $1 billion for 
port security and to screen vessels for radioactive materials.
  I also support an amendment offered by Senator Boxer that would 
provide $30 million to the Department of Homeland Security for 
research, development and initial deployment of technology to protect 
commercial aircraft from the threat posed by stinger missiles.
  While I missed the votes on these amendments, I was recorded in 
support of each in the Record.
  We must continue to fight both the war with Iraq and the war against 
terrorism and funding for these programs is a necessary component of 
that fight.
  Mr. LEVIN. I am pleased that this supplemental appropriations bill 
contains language proposed by Senator

[[Page 8359]]

Stabenow and myself that will increase security inspections of trucks 
hauling municipal solid waste into Michigan from Canada. At a time when 
we are increasing security measures at all levels to protect our 
citizens, it doesn't make sense to allow 130 to 140 truckloads of waste 
cross into Michigan every day from Canada without inspection.
  On January 1, 2003, the city of Toronto began shipping all of its 
municipal solid waste 1.1 million tons--to Michigan's landfills. As a 
result, thousands of truckloads of waste cross the Blue Water Bridge 
and the Ambassador Bridge and travel through the busiest parts of Metro 
Detroit without inspection.
  Even though Customs recently issued a memo announcing that it would 
increase security measures for municipal solid waste trucks, citing 
security concerns related to September 11, it reversed that decision on 
February 7, 2003, the same day that the Homeland Security national 
threat level was raised to level orange. Therefore, these trucks will 
continue to be treated as a low-risk commodity, which will allows these 
trucks carrying tons of municipal solid waste to cross the Michigan-
Canadian border with minimal scrutiny.
  Our amendment, that has been included in this bill, will ensure that 
these trucks are inspected before they cross the Ambassador and Blue 
Water Bridges. Further, the amendment provides that the Blue Water 
Bridge will receive radiation detection equipment by May 1, 2003.
  We cannot take the chance that harmful materials will be transported 
into Michigan on one of these trucks. Our amendment will help to 
prevent that scenario by ensuring the inspection of these municipal 
solid waste trucks at the border.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, reluctantly, I am voting for this 
supplemental appropriations bill to provide funding for homeland 
defense and our military campaign in Iraq. Like it or not, the war is 
on and we owe it to our men and women in uniform to provide them with 
the resources necessary to bring the war to a rapid and successful 
conclusion.
  We have known for more than a decade that Saddam has chemical and 
biological weapons, but there has been little concern that these 
weapons pose a direct threat to the United States. Since coming to 
office, this administration has raised the specter that Iraq also has 
been developing nuclear weapons capable of causing great harm to the 
United States. It has focused a great deal of America's intelligence 
assets on the question of Saddam's capabilities, yet the administration 
has not presented any evidence of an active nuclear program. In fact, 
one of the key pieces of evidence provided to the United Nations by the 
administration turned out to be a forged document. Moreover, 
International Atomic Energy Agency experts rejected the 
administration's assertion that the aluminum tubing in Iraq's 
possession was evidence of a nuclear program. Two months of intrusive 
inspections by U.N. inspectors turned up no additional evidence of new 
Iraqi possession or production of weapons of mass destruction. In the 
end, the administration has failed to demonstrate that possession of 
such weapons by Iraq would pose an imminent threat to the United 
States.
  My concerns with the administration's course of action are long-
standing and public. I voted against the resolution to give the 
President the authority to go to war because I did not believe that the 
threat posed by Iraq was imminent. I do not believe that the 
administration should have abandoned the U.N. inspection regime. Its 
inspectors were on the ground in Iraq and achieving concrete results in 
actively disarming Saddam's regime. Instead of allowing the inspection 
process to continue, the administration turned its back on 
international institutions and relationships built up over many decades 
and pursued a unilateralist course of action with a narrow coalition of 
allies.
  As we all know, the military campaign in Iraq is now at a critical 
juncture. With countless examples of Saddam's troops using the Iraqi 
population as human shields, the prospect of devastating consequences 
looms with the impending battle for Baghdad. In recognition of this 
fact, Gen Richard Myers today suggested that the United States 
military, while consolidating its encirclement of Baghdad, might 
attempt to isolate Saddam Hussein and cut off his communication with 
the rest of Iraq without bringing the military campaign into Baghdad. I 
urge President Bush to use this opportunity to turn to the 
international community, whether it be the United Nations or the Arab 
League, or any other suitable or appropriate entity, to make one last 
effort to seek the removal of Saddam Hussein and his cadre of 
supporters. Time is fleeting, but I believe we must make this effort 
prior to exposing American lives, and the lives of untold numbers of 
innocent Iraqis, to the potential devastation of a door-to-door 
campaign in the streets and houses of densely populated Baghdad. 
Accordingly, I call on the administration to hold off for a period of 3 
to 4 days on the invasion of Baghdad. During this time, the United 
States and its military allies could continue building their forces 
around Baghdad and consolidating control across the rest of Iraq. 
However, this critical period would provide Saddam Hussein one last 
opportunity to spare his people the inevitable destruction and loss of 
life that would result from the siege of Baghdad. Such an initiative 
also would demonstrate to the international community, particularly to 
the other nations in the region, America's continued commitment to 
seeking the removal of Saddam Hussein from power with the least 
possible loss of civilian life.
  President Bush campaigned for President on a pledge that America 
would be humble in its relations with other countries. However, on 
issue after issue of critical international importance, the Bush 
administration has governed in a very different fashion. It rejected 
the Kyoto Treaty, despite years of negotiation and worldwide agreement 
on the dangers of global warming. It has refused to join worldwide 
efforts to bring into force the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, 
despite the critical dangers posed by the spread of nuclear weapons 
technology. Instead of capitalizing on a Russian desire to reach 
agreement on deep cuts in nuclear weapons, and ensuring that Russian 
nuclear materials never fell into the hands of America's enemies, the 
President allowed his distaste for arms control to preclude agreement 
on real cuts in nuclear weapons. In its place we got the charade called 
the Moscow Treaty, a treaty that fails to remove even one nuclear 
warhead from either country's arsenal.
  A decade ago, the United States went to war with the United Nations' 
blessing, a united NATO, and a broad, diverse coalition of nations by 
its side. Today, the United States is at war without U.N. support, in 
the face of direct opposition by longtime NATO allies, and with only a 
smattering of other major nations aligned with it. A decade ago, 
America's gulf war allies joined in the military action and funded the 
bulk of the war effort. Today, the administration has been forced to 
open the vault, offering untold tens of billions of dollars to enlist 
the support of allies that traditionally have stood by our side. And I 
am afraid the American people will be left picking up the tab for both 
the military operation and the rebuilding of Iraq.
  I urge the President to take this opportunity to avert more bloodshed 
and to involve the international community in the Iraqi end-game and 
the critically important job of rebuilding the political and economic 
infrastructure of Iraq.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise to support this important bill that 
will provide $60 billion for our troops in Iraq. I am especially proud 
of the Nevada sons and daughters who have been deployed to the Middle 
East as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. As many of you know, Nevada 
has the finest military aviation training facilities in the world.
  Nellis Air Force Base and Fallon Naval Air Station train the aviators

[[Page 8360]]

serving on the front lines of this battle. Hundreds from Nellis--pilots 
and other mission critical personnel--are right now serving on the 
front lines. Hundreds trained at Fallon are there too. When you see 
those Navy fighters taking off from carriers in the Gulf, chances are 
they were trained at Fallon.
  Nevada's Guard and Reserve troops are also playing a significant 
role. Nevada's percentage of Guard and Reserve call-ups and deployments 
has been one of the highest in the Nation. I understand why so many 
Nevadans have been called up. They are talented. They are heroes. When 
this action started, I promised to do everything in my power to ensure 
that Congress fully funds and supports the needs of our troops as this 
conflict proceeds. This bill provides more than $60 billion to make 
good on the commitment that my colleagues and I made to support our 
troops.
  I am also encouraged by the efforts the administration made to 
provide additional funds for protecting our frontline defenders here at 
home--the emergency responders we depend on to respond to a terrorist 
attack. I believe we could have done more to give cities and counties 
in each of our states the resources they need to ensure our homeland is 
as secure as it can be. I am pleased that we were able to add an 
additional $150 million for securing nuclear materials at home and 
abroad. This amendment will provide additional resources to keep 
terrorists from getting the ingredients they need to make a dirty bomb. 
I want to thank my colleagues for completing this bill in a timely 
manner to help our troops as they help bring freedom to the people of 
Iraq.
  Mr. STEVENS. Do we have the yeas and nays on final passage? I am too 
tired. We are going to third reading. We are finished. I am going to do 
that right now. We are done.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the passage of 
S. 762, the bill be held at the desk; provided further that when the 
Senate receives the House companion bill to S. 762, the Senate proceed 
to its consideration, all after the enacting clause be stricken, the 
text of S. 762, as amended, be inserted in lieu thereof; provided 
further the bill then be read for a third time and passed, the motion 
to reconsider be laid upon the table, the Senate then insist on its 
amendment, request a conference with the House, and the Chair be 
authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate; finally, I 
ask unanimous consent that passage of S. 762 be vitiated and it be 
placed back on the calendar at that time and that the conferees be the 
entire Appropriations Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Parliamentary inquiry: There is no further business to 
be had on that bill; right?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. STEVENS. Good night, ladies and gentlemen.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for third reading and was read 
the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill, as amended, pass?
  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. Bunning), 
the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), and the Senator from 
Kentucky (Mr. McConnell) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting the Senators from 
Kentucky (Mr. McConnell and Mr. Bunning) would vote ``yea''.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd), 
the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from West 
Virginia (Mr. Byrd) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) 
would each vote ``yea''.
  The result was announced--yeas 93, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 125 Leg.]

                                YEAS--93

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (FL)
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bunning
     Byrd
     Domenici
     Inouye
     Kerry
     Lieberman
     McConnell
  The bill (S. 762), as amended, was passed.
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I announce for Senator Byrd that at the time 
of final passage, he was necessarily absent, but if Senator Byrd had 
been here, he would have voted yea.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order for the chairman and ranking member, with the concurrence of both 
leaders, to be permitted to make technical and conforming changes as 
necessary to the supplemental appropriations bill. The bill was put 
together pretty quickly, and we want to do it carefully. We have 
cleared this with both leaders and with both sides of the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________