Congressional Record Weekly Update

Return to the Congressional Report Weekly.

1A) National Security Threats
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, these are serious times. The Nation is on Orange Alert. All Americans are urged to buy duct tape, plastic sheeting and other things to create safe havens in their home. That is because of the threat of al Qaeda and terrorist networks. The head of al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden--remember him, wanted dead or alive?--the President has not mentioned his name in about 12 months, because he is still very much alive and leading and reorganizing and reenergizing his network, which is the greatest threat to the physical security of the United States.

   He did a 1-hour broadcast, or rant, against the United States, which was broadcast on al-Jazeera today. He is still alive and well, probably under the protection of the security services in a part of Pakistan where both the Taliban and al Qaeda have free rein and are organizing further attacks against Afghanistan, which is not yet stabilized, and against the United States and its allies around the world and probably against the Government of Pakistan. Should they be able to take over Pakistan, they would instantly possess nuclear weapons. It sounds like a problem.

   But we have others. We have Kim Jong Il, a psychopathic dictator running North Korea, who has threatened to launch a preemptive nuclear strike against the United States of America, and he has nuclear weapons and he has intermediate-range missiles. He can hit Japan and other countries; he has not yet the capability of hitting the United States. But he also gets 25 percent of his income for his country by selling weapons of mass destruction and sophisticated technology to terrorists. He seems like a pretty big threat.

   So what is the response of the Bush administration? Attack Saddam Hussein, who does not possess nuclear weapons. He has a few hidden, short-range missiles that do not work very well. Yes, he is probably hiding some anthrax or some chemical weapons. He hid them before. We sent in the inspectors and we persisted over 4 1/2 years and, guess what, we found them and we destroyed them, without the destabilization of that entire region after the first war in the Gulf.

   We could do that again. We could have enhanced inspections. We could move forward and begin to deal with these other threats, these very real threats.

   The administration keeps telling us blithely, just sort of in offhand comments, Don't worry, we can multitask. We can take care of Kim Jong Il and his nuclear weapons through diplomacy somehow. But not the Middle East. And, yeah, we'll get around to Osama bin Laden, dead or alive, later. Yeah, it's serious, he's in Pakistan, he's making broadcasts, he's organizing and they are the greatest threat to the United States of America and its citizens, but we don't have time for them right now because we want to go after this little tin pot dictator who's terrorizing his own people and is surrounded in a box in his country in the Middle East with inspectors on the ground and about to have planes flying overhead. Plus the U.S., of course, controls a significant amount of his airspace now. But the response of the administration is, ``That's our highest priority.''

   I fear that this administration has misplaced priorities that are not going to provide the protection that our

[Page: H365]  GPO's PDF

   How about if we chose a different path and revitalized our economy and invested there and put people back to work, that is the greatest threat to the security of the people in my district, and then dealt with the real threats to our security, like Osama bin Laden, dead or alive? It is about time the President delivered on that promise. It has been almost 2 years.

   And how about Kim Jong Il and his nuclear weapons?

   Let us get to the real threats. Let us deal reasonably with the problems in the Middle East, but let us not exaggerate them and say that he is the greatest threat because our intelligence services and all the foreign intelligence services tell us that is just not true. We have got him contained, we have got him where we want him and we can take the time to find and disarm his weapons.

1B) Remarks to Wehrkunde Conference
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, last weekend in Munich, our colleague, Senator Lieberman, gave a remarkable speech to the annual Wehrkunde Security Conference. Alliances have contributed to America's strength since the end of World War II, and Senator Lieberman, like many of us, has watched with concern as those alliances have weakened over the last 2 years. He makes a compelling case on why those alliances remain vital to our security and why it is important that the administration redouble its efforts to strengthen those alliances.

   I ask unanimous consent that the text of his speech be printed in the RECORD.

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

   ``Halting the Continental Drift and Revitalizing the U.S.-Europe Relationship''

   REMARKS TO WEHRKUNDE CONFERENCE (AS PREPARED FOR DELIVERY)

   We come together in trying times with an urgent responsibility: to fortify our transatlantic alliance, which has vanquished many foes, spawned many democracies, and promoted many freedoms--but is now struggling to find a common voice in the face of many dangers.

   The growing reach of NATO and its principles belies a disheartening truth. In a world facing new and evolving threats--terrorists, rogue regimes, and Weapons of Mass Destruction--NATO is split, and risks not only becoming the shell some predicted it would be after the fall of the Berlin Wall... but a dangerous stumbling block to a safer world.

   The big question before us today is not who will join NATO or whether NATO will field a rapid response force, but instead, can our alliance survive a world in which our enemies are less defined, the dangers are more dispersed, and the road to victory is much less clear?

   We who are privileged to be leaders of NATO countries must make sure that the answer to that question is yes. The world of the 21st Century and each of our nations will be much safer if our alliance becomes not just larger but stronger, united around shared principles and the need for a common defense to the uncommon new threats that now face us all.

   This process might best begin with some family therapy, since we have been acting too often in recent years like a dysfunctional family.

   Let me begin with our side of the family. Since NATO'S inception, the strength of our alliance has always depended on American power. But America's power to lead has always depended on America's ability to listen. During the last two years, the American administration has turned a deaf ear to Europe. Some in America have sent the message that they see NATO and its member countries as a rubber stamp for the crisis that matters most to the United States at the moment, instead of a multilateral alliance of nations who listen to each other's concerns.

   But I assure you that most Americans understand that America is not an island; it is part of an interconnected world. No matter how mighty a country's army or how large its treasury, vigorous and resilient alliances built on mutual respect are essential to securing the peace and making the world a safer place.

   At the same time, we Americans are upset that so many Europeans seem so much less anxious about the new threats of terrorism, rogue nations, and weapons of mass destruction than we are. We accept the fact that for more than 50 years, U.S. leadership of NATO and our unique role in the world has meant that our security responsibilities have been more global than Europe's. While we worry about missiles in North Korea or conflict in the Taiwan Straits, Europe has mostly been able to focus on securing its own borders. But if September 11th has taught us anything, it's that none of us can retreat behind borders--because terror recognizes no borders. In today's world, enemies of freedom anywhere are a threat to safety everywhere.

   I understand why the heavy hand from Washington has lately been seen less as a source of protection and more as a cause of resentment. But I'm here today to argue for your enlightened self-interest. Robert Kagan rightly asks: why should free people--citizens of our closest European allies--seem more worried about America than about terrorism--more anxious about Bush than about bin Laden?

   We must urgently and honestly confront and resolve the differences that now divide us. If we fail to, the current continental drift will become a permanent rift, and we will all risk losing much more than family harmony. We will endanger our common security and future prosperity. And the world will lose its most reliable force for freedom and stability.

   THE ANATOMY OF OUR DISHARMONY

   We NATO allies still share three basic bonds, as we have since the beginning: common values and aspirations, common enemies who threaten those values, and common fates should we fail to work together. That those bonds are being weakened is an urgent threat that we must confront and resolve without delay.

   THE WORLD WE SEE

   The first wedge between us is in the way we see the world and its newest problems. Prime Minister Blair put it well when he said recently: ``The problem people have

[Page: S2177]  GPO's PDF

   Consider global warming. America is the single biggest global contributor to the problem. Americans know it, and in strong majorities consider global warming to be a serious problem. Yet the Bush Administration turns a deaf ear to American opinion and European pleas to do something about it.

   It is also clear that the Bush Administration's precipitous withdrawal from the long-term efforts to build an International Criminal Court and strengthen the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Again, in large numbers the American people support joining the court and improving the Test Ban Treaty. Even with imperfect world agreements such as these, removing our nation and our priorities from the global conversation creates an unnecessary breach with our allies.

   If some in America have viewed the world with blinders on--blocking out all concerns except our own--some in Europe seem to us unable to see threats that stare you and us right in the face.

   For example, when we speak of the terrorists as evil--and of Saddam Hussein as a dangerous tyrant and torturer who has viciously murdered his own people, we are puzzled why many Europeans recoil at those descriptions--which, to us, are thoroughly justified by the facts.

   Terrorism is not just America's problem. We know full fell that Europe has known more than its share of terror, so we don't presume to preach. But Al Qaida and its ilk consider all of our people as their enemies and targets--because all our nations represent the values and the way of life they hate. They also seek to inflict pain upon moderate Muslim regimes. The fact that citizens from more than 70 countries--including many Muslims--died in the attacks on the World Trade Center is more than a symbolic reality. If we cannot cement our alliance in our own minds, let the hatred of our terrorist foes for all of us do it for us.

   WHAT WE SAY

   Second, the differences between us have been exacerbated by the words we use to describe each other. Along the way, honest policy differences and critiques have given way to caricature and hyperbole.

   We in America should work for a strong and united Europe, not divide it with our words. There is no ``old Europe'' separate from a ``new Europe.'' A Europe divided was the incubator for mankind's bloodiest century. A Europe united provides the best hope for a more peaceful and secure future, for you and us.

   And when Europeans caricature America and its leaders as naive or ignorant ``cowboys,'' it offends Americans--even some of us who hail from a place far from cowboy country called New England. The point is: we should challenge each other's policies, not personalities, and question each other's decisions, not motives.

   Europe and America have often had our differences. Just think about these news headlines about U.S.-European disputes: ``Allies Complain of Washington's Heavy Hand,'' ``France to NATO: Non, Merci,'' ``U.S. Declares Economic Warfare on Allies,'' and ``Protesters Rally Against American Arms Plan.'' As former President Clinton once reminded us, the first of these headlines is from the Suez crisis in 1956. The second is from 1966, when France left NATO's military command. The third is from 1981, during the Siberian Pipeline Crisis. The Fourth is from 1986 during the debate about deploying intermediate nuclear missiles in Europe.

   Like any good dysfunctional family, we've hurled invectives and insults across the Atlantic intermittently for more than 50 years. But the difference is, leaders on both sides have always in the past worked to douse the rhetorical flames, not fan them. It's time we return to that shared compact. Now, more than ever, words have consequences.

   HOW AND WHEN WE FIGHT

   The last and most serious area of contention is when, why, and how we commit our military might to protect our people and principles.

   We Americans must recognize that no matter how strong our military or our economy, we still need help. Defeating the dangers arrayed against us requires more than the forced compliance of our European allies; it requires a genuine partnership.

   Regrettably, over the past two years, the Bush Administration has too often kept our European friends at bay. NATO's invocation of Article 5, declaring the September 11th attacks an attack on us all, was a powerful and moving act of solidarity and sacrifice. But the Bush Administration failed to grasp NATO's outstretched hand in Afghanistan, and that was a mistake. When we made the war our own, the subsequent peace became far too much our own as well.

   The Administration's declaration of its policy of military preemption has also understandably and unnecessarily raised anxieties in Europe and throughout the world. It made no sense to publicly announce this doctrine without offering our friends and foes alike clarification as to how and when the policy might be exercised. The fact is, the United States, like most countries in the world, has always reserved the right to use force to prevent an attack against its people. But some policies are best left undeclared, to be announced only when it is necessary to implement them. In the case of pre-emptive military action, that ought to be rarely.

   But it takes two hands to tear a seam. And the fact is, the hand of the Bush Administration has been assisted by the hand of many in Europe in tearing the seam that has united us for more than a half century now.

   Rather than coming together with one voice to enforce United Nations Resolutions all have supported to disarm Saddam Hussein, we hear many reflexive notes of discord from Europe. Rather than consent to the use of force when all other options have been exhausted, important parts of Europe have pulled back from our shared responsibility to put military muscle behind our policies to protect our security.

   And the transatlantic gulf between military capabilities doesn't help us overcome this rift. We all know that Europe has grown too dependent on American strength, and that that dependency undermines our partnership. I understand that Europe is focused today on the remarkable challenges of finishing the peaceful integration of Europe, new membership in the E.U., the Euro, and a constitutional convention.

   But as John Lennon once said, ``life is what happens to us while we're making other plans.'' Global terrorists are not waiting for our European allies to complete their domestic work before planning their next attacks--and it's not enough for Europe to rely upon the military might of America to ensure its own safety. It's time for Europe to take more of its own responsibility. The new NATO rapid response force, authorized at last year's Prague summit, is a start in a better direction. But it is only a first step. A deeper commitment and more money must follow.

   As I said a few moments ago, we have heard the European complaints that NATO has been ignored by the United States. But now President Bush has come to NATO and asked for the alliance to help in disarming Iraq. While we are very grateful that most member nations have responded positively, two of our closest and most important allies, France and Germany, have resisted NATO requests and taskings. That hurts. The NATO alliance itself made possible the historic reconciliation between Germany and France. I would hope the shared principles that led to that reconciliation would be remembered now.

   In the interest of our security and our unity, I want to urgently appeal to all NATO nations to rise to help the U.N. and the U.S. meet the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Thousands of years ago, Sophocles told the Greeks, ``What you cannot enforce, do not command.'' The contemporary corollary of that axiom is: what the world through the United Nations commands, it must enforce--or the judgments of the U.N. will lose their force, and the world that we and you live in will grow much less secure.

   Our friend Joe Joffe, editor of De Zeit, has said with characteristic insight and edge: ``We are now living through the most critical watershed of the postwar period, with enormous moral and strategic issues at stake, and the only answer many Europeans offer is to constrain and contain American power. So by default they end up on the side of Saddam, in an intellectually corrupt position.''

   I respectfully suggest that the nations of Europe define their positions on Iraq independently and affirmatively--not in reaction to America or its President. As you know, I am a Democrat. In fact, I'm a Democrat seeking to replace George Bush in the Oval Office. But he and I agree on the danger posed by Saddam and the need to do something soon to eliminate that danger to us, to you, and most immediately to his neighbors in the Arab world--as do most other Democrats, Republicans, and Independents in the U.S.

   In fact, five years ago, after Saddam ejected the U.N. inspectors, John McCain and I gave up on containment and introduced the Iraqi Liberation Act, which, when it became law, made a change of regime in Baghdad official U.S. policy. You might therefore say that, when it comes to Iraq, President Bush is just enforcing the McCain-Lieberman policy.

   The facts here are stark and even more clear after Secretary Powell's chilling and convincing testimony at the U.N. on Wednesday. For twelve long years, Saddam has flaunted every attempt to get him to keep his promise to disarm and instead has continued building weapons of mass destruction. If we shrink from challenging his defiance, we will not only leave a ticking time bomb ticking, we will have undermined the remaining credibility of the United Nations, and further diminished the power of NATO to protect the peace of the world.

   CONCLUSION

   The battles against tyranny, terrorism, and weapons of mass destruction, and for freedom, opportunity, and security, are the great causes of our time, and the greatest alliance of all time must lead the way in winning those battles.

   More than forty years ago, on the Fourth of July, 1962, President Kennedy spoke at Independence Hall in Philadelphia. His words echoed the covenant of our American Constitution, and should guide us now in our Transatlantic relations. ``Acting on our own, by ourselves, we cannot establish justice throughout the world; we cannot insure its domestic tranquility, or provide for its common defense, or promote its general welfare,

[Page: S2178]  GPO's PDF

   Americans and Europeans are proud people--and justifiably so. We both want to control our own destinies. We both want to shape our own futures. But neither one of us can let pride or politics block the unity by which we will all achieve greater security, freedom, and prosperity. Our values are shared. Our fates are interlocking. We will rise or fall together.

   And when we rise, the terrorists and tyrants will fall. America still needs Europe, and Europe still needs America, and it is time that all the leaders on both sides of the Atlantic started acting in a way that says we understand that overarching truth.

   Thank you.

2A) NMD Does Not Protect Hawaii
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, in December 2002 President Bush announced his decision to deploy a limited national missile defense system by 2004. Our distinguished colleague, Senator Levin, detailed the limitations of the proposed system and testing procedures in an article in the Detroit News on December 29 entitled, ``Untested Missile Defense Setup Poses Risks.'' I ask unanimous consent that his entire article be placed in the RECORD following my statement. I would like to elaborate on some of the concerns raised by the distinguished ranking member of the Armed Services Committee and discuss my concern that this system does nothing to protect my State or other parts of the United States from attack.

   President Bush's limited national missile defense system, first proposed by the administration in March 2001 and called ``the Alaska Option,'' consists of 5 to 10 silos/interceptor launchers in Fort Greely, AK and an upgraded Cobra Dane radar on Shemya Island, AK.

   At that time, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and Missile Defense Agency Director Gen Ronald Kadish called the Alaska site a ``test bed'' that could be transformed into a fully operational facility easily. During an Armed Services Committee hearing in July 2001, Mr. Wolfowitz stated, ``This developmental capability could become, with very little modification, an operational capability.'' In a later statement, he added that ``it would be essentially a software change to turn it into an operational capability.''

   I believe that more than modest modifications would be required. Even if the test bed was functioning and proven effective, significant changes would be needed to make it an operational system. The changes may not be technically difficult but they are very complicated when applied as a whole system. They involve many command, control, communication issues that will determine who makes the decision to fire and when and with how much information. In large and complex research and development programs, one should always be wary of anything that is described as ``just a software fix.''

   In July 2001 Phil Coyle, former Director of Operational Test and Evaluation in the Pentagon testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee and defined effective deployment as the fielding of an operational system with some military utility that is effective under realistic combat conditions, against realistic threats and countermeasures, possible without adequate prior knowledge of the target cluster composition, timing, trajectory, or direction, and when operated by military personnel at all times of the day or night and in all weapons.

   Mr. Coyle estimated that it would take a decade, rather than 4 years, to produce an effective defense system. As Senator Levin raised in his article, no part of the limited missile defense system has been tested against realistic targets, and there are no plans to test the integrated system as a whole before it is deployed. Senator Levin correctly questions whether such a system will be even marginally effective.

   One could also question whether this system should be labeled a ``national'' missile defense. Given the geometry of the Cobra Dane radar, the system may be better labeled a continental missile defense. The Cobra Dane Radar on Shemya Island was built to detect Soviet missile launches. It has a fixed orientation and a narrow field of view, northwest from Shemya, towards Russia. This radar cannot see missiles launched from North Korea towards Hawaii, and will have only marginal capability for southern California. The radar cannot see the current missile defense target range between California and Hawaii.

   The administration is well aware of the limitations of the radar and exclusion of Hawaii in the proposed deployed system. General Kadish referred to this as ``the Hawaii problem'' during a briefing for Senator Reed and members of the Armed Services Strategic Subcommittee on July 27, 2001. At that time, General Kadish said that they were considering using an Aegis cruiser to supplement the Cobra Dane radar. Such a cruiser would have to be permanently on station to provide adequate coverage.

   Even with upgrades to increase the radar's field of view, the radar still will not be capable of discriminating launch characteristics or trajectory. An X band radar, such as the one now in Kwajalein, is needed. In fact, no radar in Alaska will be able to discriminate launch characteristics. The administration has not asked for funding to upgrade the existing radar or build a new one.

   The President characterized in December 2002 his initiative to field a missile defense system as ``modest.'' The program is less than modest. It is inadequate and expensive. The path towards an effective and efficient missile defense program is the one outlined by Senator Levin.

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

   Levin: Untested Missile Defense Setup Poses Risks; Can Missile Shield Be Built?

   President Bush's decision to deploy a limited national missile defense system starting in 2004 before it has been tested and shown to work violates common sense. The Pentagon will spend large amounts of money to deploy an unproven defense, money that could be better used to fight more likely and imminent threats of terrorism .

   Many of us have reservations about deployment of a national defense against long-range ballistic missiles because: (1) the intelligence community says such missiles are one of the least likely threats to our security (in part because use of such missiles would leave a ``return address'' that would guarantee a devastating response from the United States); and (2) because deployment of a national missile defense is likely to unleash an arms race with other countries.

   However, even ardent proponents of a national missile defense should not support deployment of an untested, unproven system. The United States may eventually succeed in developing a national missile defense system that will actually work against real world threats, but we have not done so yet. According to the Pentagon, the national missile defense system to be deployed in 2004 requires a new booster rocket that has never been tested against any target.

[Page: S2183]  GPO's PDF

   The 2004 system would rely on a radar in Alaska built in the 1970's that was never designed for missile defense, that has no capability to differentiate the target warhead from decoys, that has never been tested against a long-range ballistic missile, and that the administration never plans to test against a long-range missile.

   No part of the system has been tested against realistic targets, and there are no plans to test the integrated system as a whole before it is deployed. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has said that this is just an ``initial capability'' in a program that ``will evolve over time'' and will ultimately ``look quite different than it begins.''

   What the Pentagon has tried not to emphasize is that this ``initial capability'' is likely to be marginally effective, if it works at all. Declaring this untested, marginal system ready to deploy is like declaring a newly designed airplane ready to fly before the wings have been attached to the airframe and the electronics installed in the cockpit.

   In his previous tenure as Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld had to preside over the dismantling of the Safeguard missile defense system which he had inherited and which was operational for less than six months because the technical limitations of the system rendered it ineffective. The development, deployment and dismantling of the Safeguard system cost the taxpayers tens of billions of dollars without enhancing our national security in any way. This is an experience that we should not want to repeat.

   Since that time, Congress has instituted reforms in the Defense Department to help prevent the premature and costly fielding of unproven systems. Congress established the Pentagon's Director of Operational Test and Evaluation to oversee major defense programs and ensure they are adequately tested and demonstrated to work before they are deployed--in other words, that any new system is proven to ``fly before we buy.''

   Congress also established the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, which gives the military services oversight over weapons programs to ensure that they perform well enough to be useful on the battlefield.

   The Bush administration, however, has unwisely exempted all missile defense programs from the normal oversight of these important organizations. As a result, these programs are not subject to normal review by senior military and civilian acquisition officials, and they are not subject to the normal operational test and evaluation process.

   Instead, the secretary of defense has delegated many of the functions of these offices to the Missile Defense Agency, effectively making that agency responsible for overseeing itself. History shows that without real oversight, major weapon systems don't work well, suffer serious schedule delays and have major cost overruns.

   The Bush administration should re-establish effective oversight of missile defense programs by the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, and other oversight organizations with the Department of Defense. Rather than rushing to deploy an unproven national missile defense system, the administration should focus on completing the development of a missile defense that will be effective against likely threats and that is shown to work through proper testing.

3A) Selection of Libya to Chair the UN Human Rights Commission
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 27) condemning the selection of Libya to chair the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, and for other purposes.

   The Clerk read as follows:

   H. Con. Res. 27

   Whereas on January 20, 2003, Libya, a gross violator of human rights and state sponsor of terrorism, was elected to chair the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (``Commission''), a body charged with the responsibility of promoting universal respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all;

   Whereas according to the rotation system which governs the selection of the Executive Board of the Commission, 2003 was designated as the year for the Africa Group to chair the Commission, and the Africa Group selected Libya as its candidate;

   Whereas South Africa's Democratic Alliance spokeswoman, Dene Smuts, was quoted by the British Broadcasting Corporation as saying that the South African Government's decision to support Libya's election was an insult to human rights and that African countries ``should have supported a candidate of whom all Africans could be proud'';

   Whereas Amnesty International has repeatedly documented that Libya's human rights situation continues to seriously deteriorate with gross violations taking place systematically, extrajudicial execution used against government opponents, and political detainees routinely tortured physically and psychologically during interrogation, with some detainees dying in custody as a result;

   Whereas Human Rights Watch recently underscored that ``[o]ver the past three decades, Libya's human rights record has been appalling'' and ``Libya has been a closed country for United Nations and nongovernmental human rights investigators'';

   Whereas Human Rights Watch further stated that ``Libya's election poses a real test for the Commission . . . [r]epressive governments must not be allowed to hijack the U.N. human rights system'';

   Whereas the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights stated that ``the Government of Libya should not be entrusted by the United Nations to lead its international effort to promote human rights around the world'';

   Whereas Freedom House declared that ``[a] country [such as Libya] with such a gross record of human rights abuses should not direct the proceedings of the UN's main human rights monitoring body . . . [t]his will undermine the UN's moral authority and send a strong and clear message to fellow rights violators that they are in the clear'';

   Whereas on November 13, 2001, a German court convicted a Libyan national for the bombing in 1986 of the La Belle disco in Berlin, in which two United States servicemen were killed, and the court further declared that there was clear evidence of responsibility of the Libyan Government for the bombing;

   Whereas Libya was responsible for the December 21, 1988, explosion of Pan American Airline Flight 103 en route from London to New York that crashed in Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 259 passengers and crew, and 11 others on the ground;

   Whereas a French court convicted six Libyan Government officials in absentia for the bombing of UTA Flight 772 over Niger in 1989;

   Whereas United Nations Resolution 748 of March 31, 1992, imposed an arms and air embargo on Libya and established a United Nations Security Council sanctions committee to address measures against Libya;

   Whereas United Nations Resolution 883 of November 11, 1993, tightened sanctions on Libya, including the freezing of Libyan funds and financial resources in third countries, and banned the provision to Libya of equipment for oil refining and transportation;

   Whereas United Nations Resolution 1192 of August 27, 1998, reaffirmed that the measures

[Page: H335]

   Whereas in January 2001 a three-judge Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands found Libyan Abdel Basset al-Megrahi guilty of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, sentenced him to life imprisonment, and said it accepted evidence that he was a member of Libya's Jamahariya Security Organization, and in March 2002 Scottish appeal judges in the Netherlands upheld his conviction;

   Whereas as recently as January 12, 2003, Libyan leader, Moammar Gaddafi, in an interview with Newsweek- Washington Post reporter, Lally Weymouth, failed to accept responsibility for the attack and had the audacity of calling for the United States to share the burden of compensation;

   Whereas Libya remains on the Department of State's list of state-sponsors of terrorism;

   Whereas the United States found the selection of Libya to chair the Commission to be an affront to international human rights efforts and, in particular, to victims of Libya's repression and Libyan-sponsored terrorism, and therefore broke with precedent and called for a recorded vote on Libya's chairmanship;

   Whereas Canada and one other country joined the United States in voting against Libya and 17 other countries abstained;

   Whereas the European Union's common position was to abstain from the vote objecting to Libya's selection as chair of the Commission;

   Whereas 33 countries ignored Libya's record on human rights and status as a country subject to United Nations sanctions for the terrorist bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 and voted for Libya to lead the Commission;

   Whereas the majority of these countries are United States foreign aid recipients;

   Whereas the selection of Libya to chair the Commission is but the most recent example of a malaise plaguing the Commission, whereby its credibility has been called into question in recent years as its membership ranks have swelled with other egregious human rights violators;

   Whereas the United States' challenge is part of a broader effort to reform the Commission, reclaim it from the oppressors, and ensure that it fulfills its mandate;

   Whereas on January 20, 2003, Ambassador Kevin Moley, United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations and Other International Organizations in Geneva, emphasized that ``[w]e seek to actively engage and strengthen the moral authority of the Commission on Human Rights, so that it once again proves itself a forceful advocate for those in need of having their human rights protected . . . [w]e are convinced that the best way for the Commission to ensure the ideals of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights over the long-term is to have a membership comprised of countries with strong human rights records at home'';

   Whereas a majority of the 53 member states of the Commission are participants in the Community of Democracies and signed the Seoul Declaration of November 12, 2002, calling upon democratic nations to work together to uphold the principles of democracy, freedom, good governance, and accountability in international organizations;

   Whereas the participants in the Seoul Ministerial meeting of the Community of Democracies issued a Statement on Terrorism in which they ``strongly denounced terrorism as a grave threat to democratic societies and the values they embrace . . . [they] reaffirmed that terrorism constitutes a threat to international peace and security as well as to humanity in general and indeed to the very foundation on which democracies are built . . . [and] [t]he most recent terrorist attacks confirm that international cooperation against terrorism will remain a long-term effort and requires a sustained universal commitment''; and

   Whereas although United Nations sanctions against Libya have been suspended, the sanctions remain in effect, and Libya's continued status as an international outlaw nation and its continued unwillingness to accept responsibility for its terrorist actions should bar it from consideration as a candidate for membership in the United Nations Security Council or any other United Nations entity or affiliated agency: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress--

    (1) strongly condemns the selection of Libya to chair the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (``Commission'') ;

    (2) commends the President and the Administration for the principled position of the United States in objecting to and calling for a vote on Libya's chairmanship of the Commission;

    (3) commends countries which joined the United States in objecting to Libya's selection as chair of the Commission;

    (4) expresses its dismay at the European Union common position of abstention on the critical vote over Libya's chairmanship;

    (5) is appalled at the support provided to Libya in its efforts to lead the Commission;

    (6) will hold accountable countries who voted in favor of Libya's chairmanship;

    (7) highlights its grave concern over the continuing efforts of human rights violators and terrorist countries to use international fora to legitimize their regimes and continue to act with impunity, and calls on the President to raise United States objections to such efforts during bilateral and multilateral discussions and to direct pertinent Cabinet secretaries to do the same;

    (8) calls on countries at various stages of democratization to demonstrate their commitment to human rights, democracy, peace and security, and support efforts to reform the Commission;

    (9) calls on the President to instruct the Secretary of State to consult with the appropriate congressional committees, within 30 calendar days of adoption of this resolution, regarding the United States priorities and strategy for the 59th session of the Commission on Human Rights and strategy and proposals for reform of the Commission;

    (10) calls on the President to issue an objection to the continued suspension of sanctions against Libya and to call for their full reinstatement until Libya publicly accepts responsibility for the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing, provides appropriate compensation to the victims, and is in full compliance with all of the other requirements of the United Nations sanctions imposed as a result of Libya's orchestration of the Pan Am 103 terrorist attack; and

    (11) calls on the Secretary of State to engage member countries to support United States efforts to ensure that states that are gross violators of human rights, sponsors of terrorist activities, or subject to United Nations sanctions will not be elected to leadership positions in the United Nations General Assembly nor will they be elected to membership or leadership positions on the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, the United Nations Security Council, or any other United Nations entity or affiliated agency.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) each will control 20 minutes.

   The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).

   GENERAL LEAVE

   Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 27, the concurrent resolution under consideration.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Illinois?

   There was no objection.

   Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

   Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bipartisan measure, condemning the selection of Libya as the Chair of United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

   Despite the best efforts of the United States and a handful of other countries, Libya was elected to this position on January 20 of this year. For a country whose own human rights record will not stand up to scrutiny, Libya is certainly in no position to stand in judgment of any other country. Virtually every human rights organization has condemned Libya's flagrant disregard for human rights and the rule of law. Unfortunately, some 17 countries abstained in the vote for the Commission's Chair, including all of the members of the European Union, who choose to look the other way and let Libya attain this coveted post.

   How is it that a country such as Libya will soon be in a position to control the proceedings of the U.N.'s main human rights monitoring body?

   Historically, the chairmanship of the commission rotates among the major regional groupings in the U.N. system. This year the opportunity to nominate a candidate fell to the Africa group which selected Libya as Africa's candidate. Their selection was primarily in recognition of financial support Libya provided toward the establishing a new Africa union to succeed the ineffective Organization for African Unity. It is also due in part to Libya's backing of the new African Partnership for Development, an initiative led by African states such as South Africa, Nigeria and Senegal, that calls for increased trade benefits and debt relief from the West in exchange for commitments to promote human rights and good governance across the continent.

   Needless to say, Libya's central role in these initiatives will undermine their credibility. According to Human Rights Watch, ``Over the past 3 decades, Libya's human rights record has been appalling and Libya has been a closed country for United Nations and nongovernmental human rights investigators.''

   Freedom House declared that Libya's chairmanship would ``undermine the U.N.'s moral authority and send a strong and clear message to fellow

[Page: H336]

   Qadhafi uses summary judicial proceedings to suppress domestic opposition, and torture is used as a punishment and during interrogations. With prisoners held incommunicado, many political detainees are held for years without charge. Libya's government restricts freedom of speech, press, assembly, and religion. Violence against women is a widespread problem, as is the use of forced labor and repression against key tribal groups. In short, Libya's record should disqualify it from membership in the 53-member commission, not to speak of any claim it might have to chair its proceedings.

   We are well aware that Libya has yet to clear its name in connection with the 1988 terrorist bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed 270 people. Although one of two former Libyan intelligence agents was convicted in the case 2 years ago and the conviction was upheld on appeal, Qadhafi continues to deny all responsibility for the bombing and has yet to pay compensation to the surviving family members to the victims of that terrorist attack.

   While temporarily suspended, U.N. sanctions as a result of the Pan Am 103 bombing remain applicable against Libya, whose continuing status as an outlaw nation should bar it from consideration as a candidate for membership in the U.N. Security Council or any other U.N. body. The very credibility of the United Nations has been called into question with this Libyan selection.

   The United States will obviously have no easy task in reforming the Commission, ensuring that it fulfills the ideals of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The place to begin, in my view, is to ensure that the Commission has a membership comprised of countries with strong human rights records.

[Time: 14:30]

   It should, for example, include participants in the community of democracies who have signed the Seoul declaration of November 2002, calling upon democratic nations to work together to uphold the principles of democracy, freedom, good government, and accountability in international organizations.

   I look forward to consulting with the Secretary of State on our priorities of strategy for the upcoming 59th session of the commission and for its long-term reform and renewal.

   I would also call upon the President to resist any effort now to lift U.N. sanctions against Libya until that country publicly accepts responsibility for the Pan Am 103 bombing, provides appropriate compensation to the victims, and is otherwise in full compliance with all the requirements of the United Nations sanctions.

   I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this very important resolution.

   Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

   Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume, and I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 27.

   Mr. Speaker, this important resolution condemns in the strongest possible terms the absurd selection of Libya as Chair of this year's United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Let me begin, Mr. Speaker, by expressing my sincere gratitude to my colleagues across the aisle, our distinguished Committee on International Relations chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), who chairs our Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, for collaborating with us on the text of this important resolution.

   Mr. Speaker, on January 20, Colonel Muammar el-Gaddafi's Orwellian regime, a state sponsor of terrorism and a gross violator of human rights under United Nations sanctions, was elected by member states to chair the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, a body charged with responsibility for promoting universal respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all. This, Mr. Speaker, is the ultimate theater of the absurd.

   By virtue of its position in the Africa group of member states in the United Nations, Libya emerged as the preordained Chair of the U.N. human rights commission.

   Traditionally, Mr. Speaker, this post has rotated among the U.N.'s geographic groups, with each group respecting the other's nominee without a challenge. Realizing that the Africa group's turn was due and that, appallingly, Libya would be its choice, our administration took the unprecedented step of breaking with tradition and challenging Libya's nomination.

   It was the right move, Mr. Speaker. The United States cannot stand idly by as monstrous abusers of human rights such as Libya hijack the human rights commission.

   Given the absurd realities of the United Nations in so many instances, our protest was too little, too late, and Libya survived the challenge. Only Canada and Peru had the courage to stand by us in standing up to this outrage.

   Although this piece of legislation focuses on the selection of Libya to chair the human rights commission, it is also relevant to a similar outrage which we learned about only recently. Because of an absurd alphabetical rotation scheme, Saddam Hussein's Iraq is set to assume the presidency of the United Nations Conference on Disarmament for a 30-day term starting on May 1. Apparently, Mr. Speaker, this is Saddam Hussein's reward for 13 years of success in his efforts to defeat U.N. sanctions and inspectors by rebuilding his capacity to create mass havoc with chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons.

   Mr. Speaker, in response to these twin outrages, many of my colleagues here today will no doubt argue that enough is enough and conclude that it is time to pull the plug in our participation of such U.N. agencies. I fully understand their sentiment, but as we have seen in the current Iraq crisis, the U.N. is both a reality and, to some extent, a necessity. We cannot solve all of the world's problems without a forum to discuss our differences and hopefully to coordinate our responses.

   Mr. Speaker, it is my sincere hope that H. Con. Res. 27, the first piece of foreign policy legislation to be considered by the 108th Congress, will be remembered as a watershed event in our efforts to reclaim the United Nations human rights commission and other hopelessly misguided institutions from the rogue states which have captured them for their own propaganda purposes.

   This resolution is only a first step. We must follow up with a multipronged effort to bolster U.S. leadership at the U.N. and to reform its membership and leadership criteria.

   First, Mr. Speaker, we have to increase the capacity of our State Department to engage in multilateral diplomacy. Our diplomats have to become more effective in lobbying other governments to vote with the United States on critical matters at the U.N.

   The United States must also engage in a vigorous and sustained effort to establish and to build a new democracy caucus within the U.N. that will assist democratic nations to work within and across regional lines to promote democratic leadership within the U.N. system.

   Finally, Mr. Speaker, we need to engage in a comprehensive effort to reform the outmoded system of regional voting and decision-making, and we must challenge rotational alphabetical and other leadership schemes that permit nations under U.N. sanctions to assume leadership positions at the United Nations.

   I urge my colleagues to support this measure and to continue to work toward a more rational, sane, and effective United Nations.

   Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

   Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

   Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time.

   As we have heard, Mr. Speaker, on January 20 of this year, Libya, a gross violator of human rights and a state sponsor of terrorism, was elected to chair the United Nations Commission on Human Rights despite the Bush administration's best effort to block this

[Page: H337]

   The commission is one of the few international forums confronting human rights violators, and it sets much of the tone and the agenda for a global human rights accountability. Its mission essentially is to give voice to those who are oppressed; thus, the selection of Libya was not only a defeat for justice and human dignity but a betrayal of all those brave souls worldwide who risk imprisonment, exile or even death to fight for universal rights and for fundamental freedoms.

   It was, and is, a betrayal of millions upon millions living under brutal regimes from North Korea to Cuba to China to Vietnam to Iran and Iraq. It is a betrayal also of the suffering endured by the families of the victims of Pan Am Flight 103. It shows contempt for the mission and work of the commission, and it only serves to empower and embolden pariah states who are increasing their presence on the commission and manipulating its agenda in order to legitimize their unacceptable practices.

   How can a regime which does not allow U.N. human rights monitors into its borders and refuses to comply with its obligation under international human rights covenants be a member of the commission, much less be elected to preside over it? How can a nation subject to U.N. sanctions for its role in terrorist attacks be rewarded with a leadership position such as this?

   Enough is enough. The U.S. cannot and will not sit idly by and allow dictators and terrorist states to further hijack the commission and other U.N. bodies.

   That is why the resolution before us, which I had the pleasure of drafting with my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), our ranking member, not only provides overwhelming evidence about Libya's record on human rights and terrorism but gives direction and support to the Bush administration as it attempts to reclaim the commission from the tyrants.

   Toward this goal, we look forward to continuing our discussions with the administration on such possible areas of reform such as the establishment of at least a minimum set of standards which should be met by all states who seek to be members of this body; also, the creation of a democracy caucus where its members make decisions based on shared values and commitments, rather than regional or bilateral considerations; to establish criteria for accreditation of nongovernmental organizations to the commission, to make sure that these NGOs are not agents of violator governments; also, to provide recognized prisoners of conscience and human right dissidents in exile an opportunity to render testimony on the situation of their country of origin during debate of pertinent resolutions at the annual session of the commission.

   This resolution extends beyond the commission. It seeks to prevent a repetition of this unacceptable situation in other U.N. fora, forums such as the Conference on Disarmament which may have Iraq at its helm in May of this year. And to achieve these goals, Mr. Speaker, the resolution calls for a diplomatic initiative to ensure that states that are gross violators of human rights, sponsors of terrorist activities or subject to U.N. sanctions, they will not be afforded membership or elected to any leadership position on any non-General Assembly U.N. entity or affiliated agency.

   Article V, in fact, of the U.N. charter provides, in principle, the suspension of a member state's rights if it is subject to U.N. sanctions. In addition, the resolution seeks to address attempts made by the Libyan dictator to escape his regime's responsibility for the Pan Am 103 bombing. It calls on the President to seek full reinstatement of sanctions against Libya until it is in full compliance with all of its obligations under these sanctions, sanctions which were imposed, Mr. Speaker, as a result of Libya's orchestration of this terrorist attack.

   Finally, Mr. Speaker, this is a comprehensive, forward-looking resolution which seeks to restore the commission's moral authority as well as the relevance of other U.N. bodies so they may fulfill their mandates. It enjoys bipartisan support, and I ask my colleagues to vote for passage of this resolution today.

   Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield as much time as he might consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished Democratic whip, one of the most effective global fighters for human rights in this body or any place.

   Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California is very kind, and I thank him for his remarks; but more than that, I thank him for his leadership on this issue and so many issues of vital concern to human rights internationally.

   I also want to thank my very good friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman. He himself is a giant in standing up for human rights. He and I have traveled overseas and participated in the Helsinki process together, he chairing delegations on which I had the honor of serving with him.

[Time: 14:45]

   Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friends, the gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman from California, for bringing this very important resolution to the House floor. It is, I believe, a moral imperative and a matter of principle that this House speak as one today.

   The selection on January 20 of Libya, a gross, and I have heard that word used a number of times, and in our own lexicon of law ``gross'' means beyond the pale, a gross violator of human rights and a state sponsor of terrorism to ironically chair the United Nations Commission on Human Rights is, in my opinion, an affront to basic decency and it demeans the United Nations itself.

   Absurd, grotesque, tragic. Those are just a few of the words that have been used to describe Libya's election to this post. Our State Department includes Libya on its list of state sponsors of terrorism. Amnesty International has documented Libya's extrajudicial execution of government opponents and torture of political detainees. Human Rights Watch has called Libya's human rights record over the last three decades appalling.

   Imagine, the Commission on Human Rights, which claims to stand for free elections, free expression and fair trials, will now be chaired by a Nation that has not had a free election since Colonel Qaddafi seized power in 1969. Imagine, the Commission on Human Rights will now be chaired by a nation that itself refuses, refuses to admit U.N. human rights investigators. Imagine, the Commission on Human Rights will now be chaired by a nation that was responsible for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 that killed 270 people, and they harbored for years and years the perpetrators of that act; responsible for the 1986 bombing of La Belle Disco in Berlin that killed two U.S. servicemen; and for the 1989 bombing of UTA Flight 772 over Niger.

   The selection of Libya to head the Commission on Human Rights undermines the credibility, integrity, and relevance of the United Nations. We must not, I repeat, Mr. Speaker, we must not countenance or ignore or rationalize the dangerous, illegal and destabilizing behavior by criminals and nations whose rogue status endangers international security and stability.

   The only bright spot in this otherwise outrageous, dismal act is that it may, it just may spur the international community to closely scrutinize Libya's human rights record and force serious thinking about reforming the Commission and the way of selecting the Commission. I urge our government, Mr. Speaker, to work to accomplish both of those ends.

   I believe this resolution is an important step in focusing our attention on this egregious act of irresponsibility by the United Nations and by its member states, and I urge my colleagues to support unanimously this very important resolution.

   Again, I thank the chairman, the distinguished gentleman from Illinois,

[Page: H338]

   Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say what a pleasure it is to work with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) on important issues such as these. They are immensely helpful and, as I say, are a real pleasure.

   Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

   Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to echo the words of my good friend from Illinois. It is a pleasure and an honor to begin yet another session of Congress with him. We look forward to achieving many things together.

• [Begin Insert]

   Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to express my grave concerns with the content of the resolution condemning the election of Libya to chair the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

   I abhor Libya's human rights record. I don't agree with Libya's selection to head the Commission. But, the members of the United Nations have held a legitimate, democratic vote. Despite our serious reservations we have a responsible obligation to abide by the U.N.'s decision. We should not, as this resolution calls for, hold nations accountable for their votes.

   In a straight up or down vote, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights voted to elect Libya as its chair. Many people don't agree with that decision--Members of Congress, human rights advocates and many others. There is clear evidence of Libya's state sponsorship of terrorism and it's human rights record. Yet, regardless of our distaste with the outcome, this was a fair election in which the member nations elected Libya to this post. Everyone involved had an opportunity to vote and a majority decided who they wanted to lead them. Democracy has prevailed. Now, the U.S. Congress is asked to vote to condemn that practice of democracy?

   The United States should practice what it preaches. We cannot in one breath say democracy is good and in the next say democracy is bad, simply because we disagree with the result.

   Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, on December 21, 1988 Pan Am Flight 103 exploded in the skies over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 innocent people. Sadly, the government that sponsored this terrorist act only fifteen years ago--Libya--has now been selected to chair the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

   Unfortunately, the hypocrisy of this reaches far beyond the Pan Am tragedy. Libya continues to stand in consistent violation of international human rights treaties. It's not just that torture and random executions are not condemned by Libya, such gross violations of human rights are heavily practiced and supported by high ranking government officials.

   Libyans--especially those that freely express their political opinion--live in fear of their own government every day. Torture, abuse and unfair detainments are common practice within the Libyan system of justice, yet Libya has not admitted to a single case of human rights abuses within their country.

   The preamble of the United Nations' Charter appropriately states: ``We the peoples of the United Nations determined to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights.'' As Libya assumes the chair of the U.N.'s Commission on Human Rights, it is clear that this faith has been seriously compromised.

   It is appalling that a nation with a clear and consistent record of complete disregard for human rights now stands in this key role in helping combat human rights violations. I believe that the legitimacy of this Commission has been lost and thousands of innocent men and women across the world, who fall victim to harsh and unfair treatment every day, will continue to suffer without hope as long as nations like Libya lead the fight to protect human rights by chairing this commission.

   I join my colleagues in supporting H. Con. Res. 27, which condemns the selection of Libya to chair the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

   Mr. DELAY. Mr. Speaker, on the basis of abominations like Libya's recent election to chair the Human Rights Commission, it's plain that the U.N. has tripped over the final precipice and is now descending ever-deeper into the abyss of moral relativism.

   We've seen from the U.N., for decades, a flagrant pattern of amoral accommodation, calculated appeasement, and even the willful suppression of the distinction between good and evil itself.

   We see a disturbing lesson at work: In the United Nations of the Twenty-First Century, a documented record of state-sponsored terrorism, aggressive militarism and systematic brutality are no impediment to a country's rise within the U.N.'s bureaucratic hierarchy. From the International Criminal Court's excesses, to Iraq's chairmanship of the disarmament conference, and Libya's chairmanship of the Human Rights Commission, the U.N. is utterly marginalizing itself.

   The free world can't delegate international security decisions to an organization capable of absurd actions like the elevation of Libya to the Human Rights Commission or Iraq to the Disarmament Conference.

   Let's not hedge the truth: The U.N. is legitimizing indefensible regimes and at the end of this path lays utter irrelevance. The free nations of the world face a number of grave problems and we can never allow illegitimate regimes to dictate the terms of our freedom or security.

   Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn in the strongest possible terms the selection of Libya to chair the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Libya has committed untold acts of terror against the United States and its citizens. Libya has not demonstrated sufficiently that it does not support international terrorism. Nor has it abandoned its quest for weapons of mass destruction. Congress correctly extended the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act until August 2006.

   To be sure, lets look at Libya's record of uncivilized behavior during the last two decades: In the 1980s it was reported that Libya used chemical weapons against government rebels in the Chad civil war. It was also reported that during this time Libya was seeking chemical and nuclear weapons. Muammar al-Qadhafi also stated that he supported international terrorism, and defended terrorism in wars of national liberation. Because of this support, the United States named Libya a state sponsor of terrorism on December 29, 1979.

   Libya was suspected of being involved in the April 5, 1986 bombing of a Berlin nightclub frequented by U.S. Armed forces personnel. Three U.S. soldiers died in the blast. On April 15, 1986 the United States bombed three target areas in Libya in retaliation for the Berlin incident.

   The United States and the United Kingdom accused Libya of complicity in the December 21, 1988 explosion of Pan American Airways flight 103 en route from London to New York that crashed in Lockerbie Scotland, killing 259 passengers and crew and 11 people on the ground. Also, France suspected that Libyans were involved in the bombing and crash of UTA flight 772 over Niger in Africa in 1989.

   The United States has noted al-Qadhafi recent recantations on his support for terrorism with some skepticism and caution.

   Mr. Speaker, if indeed Mr. al-Qadhafi and his regime have indeed reformed, the civilized world would feel a lot better if they had more time to establish a favorable track record in this regard. To reward such recent behavior with this very important and prestigious appointment makes a mockery of what this commission stands for.

   Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support today of H. Con. Res. 27, which condemns the selection of Libya to chair the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

   The international community has long known that Libya has a deplorable record on human rights and is a sponsor of terrorism. For that reason, it is shocking that Libya is now the chair of a body charged with the responsibility of promoting universal respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for the world's citizens.

   The United Nations' decision to elect Libya as the Chair of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights is alarming for several reasons. First, it is remarkable that United Nations would even consider Libya's candidacy for the position, given the fact that Libya has not accepted responsibility for its role in the terrorist bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 that killed hundreds of innocent people over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988. Until Libya takes responsibility for its actions and complies with particular Security Council mandates, Libya cannot have any credibility in being the chair of a United Nations commission that promotes human rights. In today's world, where we seek to defeat the threat posed by international terrorism, it is irresponsible for a state like Libya to be elected to such a leadership position.

   Second, Libya's selection to be chair of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights reflects a disturbing trend in international institutions. It has become highly prevalent that states which violate human rights laws seek to secure positions in global bodies that espouse such laws so they can protect their reputations and those of similar regimes. Members of the international community must speak out against such practices lest these institutions become a mockery of international law and human rights.

   I urge the House to pass this resolution, which states in the strongest possible terms the outrage of Congress at the selection of Libya to chair the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. The Resolution clearly states that: (1) Libya is a gross violator of

[Page: H339]

   Libya has a horrific human rights record. Citizens do not choose their leaders in free and fair elections, nor are they able to petition their government for redress of grievances. It uses summary judicial proceedings to suppress domestic opposition. Security forces torture prisoners during interrogations and as punishment. Security forces arbitrarily arrest and detain persons, and many prisoners are held incommunicado. Many political detainees are held for years without charge. There is not an independent judiciary that enforces legal rights of citizens, and citizens do not have the right to a fair public trial or to be represented by legal counsel. The

   government infringes on citizens' privacy rights, and citizens do not have the right to be secure in their homes or persons, or to own private property. Libya restricts freedom of speech, press, assembly, association, and religion. Is this the type of country that should be charged with being the chair of a commission that promotes human rights? I think not.

   Libya is one of seven countries on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terror. As I have said in the past, Libya has continued to acquire weapons of mass destruction and promote state-sponsored terrorism. Last year, our Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security said that there was no doubt that Libya seeks nuclear weapons. Furthermore, he said that Libya has produced at least 100 tons of different kinds of chemical weapons. It is antithetical to the United Nations' mission for peace that a state engaged in creating global havoc be in charge of one of its most important committees.

   It is imperative that members of the international community do not retreat from their responsibility to ensure that those charged with monitoring human rights are not, in fact, grave violators themselves. We must not give credibility to countries which violate human rights and support terrorism. To do otherwise is to legitimize their practices.

   Congress has recently made its policy clear with respect to Libya's alarming behavior. In 2001, Congress passed the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act of 2001, which President Bush signed into law in August 2001. I was an original co-sponsor of the bill, and in the Ways and Means Committee I argued in favor of extending the current sanctions in place against Iran and Libya for an additional five years. ILSA threatens the imposition of economic sanctions against foreign entities investing in Iran and Libya's energy sectors. ILSA combines deterrence (the possibility of sanctions) with presidential discretion (through broad waiver authority). ILSA has been very effective so far, the Congress overwhelmingly approved the reauthorization of legislation to keep the pressure on Libya and Iran to stop their pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and ballistics missile technology. Libya also remains hostile to the State of Israel and may support terrorist activities against Israel.

   Mr. Speaker, it is this great nation's hope that it can one day live in a world where it is not threatened by international terrorism and that human rights for all will be respected. The selection of Libya as chair to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights undermines these goals. I, therefore, urge the House to pass this resolution by a strong bipartisan vote.

   Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Chairman for bringing this important issue to the attention of the House and the American people.

   Two years ago, many in this chamber were shocked when the United States was removed from the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and of the International Narcotics Control Board.

   The U.S. was a founding member of the Human Rights Commission and First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt was its first Chair.

   The U.S. spends more money fighting the use of illegal narcotics than any other nation in the world.

   Despite these facts, some of our ``friends''--and I use the term with increasing skepticism--at the United Nations felt it was more important that nations like Libya and Syria serve on the U.N. agency overseeing human rights and that the Netherlands--a country whose own Web page admits they will not enforce their drug laws--should serve in our place on a board designed to enforce drug laws.

   Chairman HYDE stood up and led this body to call for the suspension of U.S. funds to the U.N. until we were reinstated on the Human Rights Commission. We are now back on that board.

   I offered an amendment that passed this House to curtail our funding of the International Narcotics Control Board until we were returned to its membership. This year the U.S. was again shut out while Iran, Brazil and Nigeria were added to the Board.

   We have seen that the United Nations does not learn from its mistakes. As former President Reagan might have said, ``There they go again.''

   While we have been reelected to the Human Rights Commission, Libya has been elected to its Chairmanship. Think about that. Libya. A nation led by a brutal dictator who is known to sponsor international terrorism. Yet only two other nations joined the U.S. in opposing their election to head this prestigious body whose duty is to protect human rights. Eight European nations made the ``courageous'' decision to abstain.

   And in an example of how momentum is the true ruler of the United Nations and its bloated bureaucracy, this year's meeting of the U.N. Conference on Disarmament will be presided over by Iraq--despite the fact that Iraq is under U.N. sanctions for failing to disarm and even now faces international action for this failure.

   I wish I could tell you I was surprised.

   But the United Nations has not been the effective body it could have been over the past two decades. Time and time again, the U.N. in recent years has done more harm than good.

   I still believe the U.N. can be a useful body. One that helps promote dialogue and the exchange of ideas around the world. But many of its members have forgotten that respect is earned through logical decisions that advance the security of the world--not by blindly following bureaucratic momentum that promotes rogue regimes at the expense of the greatest democracies in the world.

   I truly hope that the actions we take here today send a message to the U.N. and its members that if they want the body to continue to be a force for good and progress in the world, they must think before they act and make decisions worthy of respect. The election of Libya to Chair the Human Rights Commission, and the continued exclusion of the U.S. from U.N. committees and boards, are not decisions of which they should be proud.

3B) Report Concerning the Justification of the Australia Group
CERTIFICATION REGARDING AUSTRALIA GROUP--MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES -- (House of Representatives - February 13, 2003)


[Page: H675]  GPO's PDF
---

   The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following message from the President of the United States, which was read and, together with the accompanying papers, without objection, referred to the Committee on International Relations:
To the Congress of the United States:

   Consistent with the resolution of advice and consent to ratification of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling, and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction, adopted by the United States Senate on April 24, 1997, I hereby certify pursuant to Condition 7(C)(i), Effectiveness of the Australia Group, that:

   Australia Group members continue to maintain equally effective or more comprehensive controls over the export of: toxic chemicals and their precursors; dual-use processing equipment; human, animal, and plant pathogens and toxins with potential biological weapons applications; and dual-use biological equipment, as that afforded by the Australia Group as of April 25, 1997; and

   The Australia Group remains a viable mechanism for limiting the spread of chemical and biological weapons-related materials and technology, and the effectiveness of the Australia Group has not been undermined by changes in membership, lack of compliance with common export controls and nonproliferation measures, or the weakening of common controls and nonproliferation measures, in force as of April 25, 1997.

   The factors underlying this certification are described in the enclosed statement of justification.

   George W. Bush.

   THE WHITE HOUSE, February 12, 2003.


3C) Smallpox Vaccine Safety and Compensation Act of 2003
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to enhance the ability of the United States to respond to a terrorist attack that uses the lethal smallpox virus. This legislation establishes a program to compensate those injured by the smallpox vaccine. It also contains provisions to assist state efforts against smallpox and to protect health care workers and their employers during the vaccination campaign.

• I am introducing this bill today to begin a dialogue that I hope will culminate in the quick passage of legislation. This is not a partisan issue. I know that all members of the House and Senate are committed to protecting the American public from potential bioterrorist threats. I look forward to working with members from both the Republican and Democratic parties and with the Administration to develop a bipartisan solution. I hope that my ideas, as outlined in this legislation, can provide a starting place for discussion.

• Three weeks ago, President Bush launched a national program to vaccinate millions of healthcare workers against smallpox in order to protect the United States in case of a bioterrorist attack. To date, the number of those vaccinated is far lower than anticipated. According to press accounts, about one thousand health care workers have been vaccinated, despite an initial goal of about 500,000 in the first month.

• According to public health officials, one reason for this gap is that health care workers are concerned about the risks of the smallpox vaccine itself. About one out of every million people who receive the vaccine will die, and several others will suffer severe medical complications, including brain damage, blindness, and significant scarring. Serious injury can occur even among people who have never been vaccinated, but who come into close contact with someone who has recently received the vaccine.

• The homeland security bill passed last fall limited the liability of hospitals, doctors, and vaccine manufacturers for injuries caused by the smallpox vaccine. However, the legislation did not provide compensation to those who are injured.

• I have heard from public health officials and vaccination experts that many health care workers are understandably reluctant to accept a vaccine to protect the public while being forced to face the consequences of an adverse reaction alone. These consequences can include large medical bills, lost income, pain and suffering, and death. There can be no doubt that a compensation program is urgently needed.

• Some have suggested that existing workers compensation programs can cover those vaccinated in case of injury. This approach is not adequate. It is clear that some state programs do not cover vaccine injuries at all, others provide insufficient compensation, and not one covers those who fall ill from contact with someone who has received the vaccine.

• Health insurance may also fall short. Some insurers have threatened not to cover smallpox vaccine injuries. And some volunteers or contacts who get injured by the vaccine may not have health insurance at all.

• Aside from the lack of compensation for vaccine injury, there are other impediments to the smallpox vaccination effort. States are straining under the weight of their usual public health responsibilities and need additional funding. Volunteers who need immediate medical care because of a smallpox vaccine reaction may not be able to afford it, and those volunteers who fall ill for a few days with common local reactions to the vaccine may lose wages while recovering.

• The legislation I am introducing today addresses these problems. My goal is the same as the President's: to enhance the ability of the United States to defend against a bioterrorist attack. I believe that changes in the law are urgently needed to achieve this goal.

• First, the bill establishes a no-fault compensation program for those injured by the smallpox vaccine modeled on the successful program for children injured by routine immunizations. This system is fair, efficient, and less litigious than the traditional court system. Most importantly, a compensation program will provide real security to health care workers and their families in case of injury and will remove a major impediment to the vaccination effort.

• Second, the bill would provide grants to states to pay for their vaccination programs, including education and testing for medical conditions that are risk factors for severe reactions to the smallpox vaccine.

• Third, the bill would provide states full funding to pay for the immediate medical care of any health care worker or first responder injured by the vaccine, or anyone injured by coming into contact with someone who has been recently vaccinated. Timely medical attention can help to prevent the most serious complications of adverse reactions from ever developing.

• Fourth, the bill would prohibit discrimination against any worker who refuses to be vaccinated.

• Fifth, the bill would permit up to four days of paid leave for health care workers who experience transient but significant local reactions. Employers can obtain reimbursement for this expense from the compensation program.

• Each of these provisions will support our nation's preparations for a smallpox attack. In the coming days, I look forward to a productive legislative exchange to assure that these issues are quickly addressed.
  

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with Representative WAXMAN in co-sponsoring the ``Smallpox Vaccine Compensation and Safety Act of 2003''.

• The smallpox vaccine helps the body develop immunity to smallpox . The vaccine is made from a virus called vaccinia which is a ``pox''-type virus related to smallpox . The smallpox vaccine contains the ``live'' vaceinia virus--not dead virus like many other vaccines. For that reason, the vaccination site must be cared for carefully to prevent the virus from spreading. Also, the vaccine can have side effects such as fever and body aches to much more serious and life-threatening side effects. People most likely to have serious side effects are: people who have or had skin conditions (especially eczema or atopic dermatitis) and people with weakened immune systems, such as those who have received a transplant, are HIV positive, are receiving treatment for cancer, or are currently taking medications, such as steroids, that suppress the immune system. In addition, pregnant women should not get the vaccine because of the risk it poses to the fetus. Women who are breastfeeding should not get the vaccine. In the past, between 14 and 52 people out of every 1 million people vaccinated for the first time experienced potentially life-threatening reactions to the vaccine. It is estimated that 1 or 2 people in 1 million who receive the vaccine may die as a result. Careful screening of potential vaccine recipients is essential to ensure that those at increased risk do not receive the vaccine.

• The Administration's smallpox vaccination program began on January 24, 2003 with a much lower participation than expected and lower than is needed to adequately protect our nation against a bioterrorist threat. The low participation rate is due to the Bush Administration's failure to create a compensation program for the health care workers who will be injured by the smallpox vaccine. The Institute of Medicine reported that the lack of a compensation program could seriously impact the program's goal of increasing terrorism preparedness in the United States. The Administration has included protection for the vaccine manufactures and hospitals but seems to have forgotten the people who could suffer the most--the volunteers who are performing their patriotic duty by volunteering to participate in the vaccination program.

• We need legislation which includes funding to states to provide for education, screening, medical surveillance, and treatment; protection against discrimination in the workplace, and compensation for those harmed by adverse reactions. The ``Smallpox Vaccine Compensation and Safety Act of 2003'' creates a no-fault compensation program modeled on the existing childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. This program has been extremely beneficial in providing compensation to the families and children who have been injured or suffered by routine vaccination. Smallpox vaccine compensation will cover the people vaccinated or who are injured by coming into contact with someone who has recently been vaccinated for their unreimbursed medical expenses and lost wages.

• In addition the ``Smallpox Vaccine Compensation and Safety Act of 2003'' will establish state grants to help with the costs of a safe vaccination program which includes pre-screening, education, follow-up care, and health care for people experiencing side-effects. This legislation would provide medical leave for health care workers and first responders who get sick from the smallpox vaccine and will make it unlawful to discriminate against workers who opt not to participate in the vaccination program.

• The ``Smallpox Vaccine Compensation and Safety Act of 2003'' will help to establish a safer vaccination program and provide a safety-net for the inevitable injuries due to vaccination. Ultimately, this should enhance participation in the Smallpox Vaccination Program and help reach the goal of preparedness against a bioterrorist smallpox threat.
  
  *************
  IRAQ
  *************

  4A) Making Americans Safer in Their Homes
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) is recognized for 5 minutes.

     Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, Americans are nervous. The United States is on Orange Alert. The reports are that stores have sold out of duct tape, plastic sheeting, bottled water, minimal supplies for people to defend themselves against the unthinkable, chemical or biological attack, and to make themselves safe in their homes. Americans do not feel safe in their homes or here in the United States of America.

     We are told by intelligence sources and the FBI that there are hundreds of al Qaeda operatives at large in the United States of America who they are either tracking or cannot find. Yesterday Osama bin Laden, their fanatical leader, gave a speech urging them to attack, suicide attacks against the United States of America.

     Osama bin Laden. My colleagues remember him. Remember, the President wanted, dead or alive; we will get him; we will bring him to justice. The President is not allowed to mention his name anymore. It has been more than 10 months since the President has mentioned the name Osama bin Laden because his administration has failed miserably in finding and bringing him to justice. In all probability, he has been given safe haven by the intelligence services in Pakistan, and he, according to our intelligence services and his operatives, according to our FBI and others, presents the greatest threat to the security of Americans and the most immediate threat to the security of Americans.

     There are other threats that are out there that are making people nervous. We have here a poster from a rally in Pyongyang a week ago Saturday. Now, Kim Jong-il, psychopathic leader and oppressor of the people of North Korea, he has thrown out the U.N. inspectors, thrown them out, and he is actively pursuing more, not a, more nuclear weapons. He already has them. He is actively building more missiles of longer range.

     We were told today by Mr. Tenet he may have already achieved a missile that can reach the western United States and target my home State in addition to Alaska and Hawaii.

     He has threatened preemptive strikes against the United States of America or, minimally, against our 36,000 troops who are trying to safeguard the people of South Korea from this fanatic. This is a poster from a rally a week ago Saturday, and it says here, Merciless Punishment to the American Empire, and it depicts the United States Capitol being blown up by a North Korean soldier.

     But this is a back-burner issue with the Bush administration. It pales in the face of the real threat to America. Osama bin Laden? No. Saddam Hussein, who is in a box, without nuclear weapons, without the capability of delivering whatever chemical-biological weapons he might have had hidden and he is shuffling around his country, trying to keep them away from the inspectors who are on the ground in Iraq, unlike the inspectors who were thrown out of North Korea.

     But the Bush administration says, Do not worry, we will get around to this someday, sometime, maybe later, through diplomacy. This could be settled through diplomacy, a maniac who has nuclear weapons and is encouraging rallies, showing the United States Capitol being blown up, someone who has the capability of actually doing that; we can solve that diplomatically, but somehow we cannot work through the U.N. and the inspectors in Iraq.

     We have got Saddam Hussein in a box. Get more inspectors in there. Get the overflights going. Keep him in that box, work with our allies. Keep him in that box. Sooner or later, the inspectors will find and destroy his weapons just as they did in the 1990s. Yeah, he is playing games. Yeah, he is hiding stuff. He did that then. We found it. We destroyed it. We can do that again.

     Is the United States so diminished in the eyes of this administration and others that we cannot contain a threat like Saddam Hussein and deal with extraordinary threats like this up front, and find and apprehend and bring to justice Osama bin Laden and his operatives? I think not.

     I think the American people have real doubts about this rush to war and real doubts about the priorities that this administration is putting on the threats to our Nation and our country.

     I hope the administration begins to deal more seriously with this problem and gets out there and finds Osama bin Laden, and I will support those efforts, and then continue to contain and defang Saddam Hussein. That would make the American people safer in their homes.
  

  4B) Iraq
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, the Senate has been dealing with some important matters these days, with a judicial nomination to the second highest court in the country, and shortly to bring up an appropriations bill that will determine spending across this country with hundreds of billions of dollars for the rest of this fiscal year.

     But there is something else going on in this country which is of overwhelming importance which really should supersede all of this, and that is the imminent prospect of a war against Iraq.

     At the same time we are talking about these other matters, this country is under a condition code orange, the second highest level of security we have. Our citizens have been told in the last few days to go out and get duct tape and sheets of plastic and water.

     Today at the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, of which I am a member, the Secretary of Defense called the time that we are in now ``the most dangerous security environment that the world has ever known.'' It is for those reasons I wrote the majority leader and urged we not take a recess as planned next week, that we stay in

  [Page: S2414]  GPO's PDF

  Washington, stay in session, because I think this is a matter of such urgency and such paramount importance to our country and to the world that we should be continuing to focus on that matter.

     The ominous forewarnings of this last couple of days affirm to me what Robert Kennedy said after the Cuban missile crisis. He said:

     No action is taken against an adversary in a vacuum. The escalation on one side brings a counterresponse. A government of people will fail to understand this only at their great peril.

     For the last 55 years the leaders of this country have understood that principle. They, too, faced dangerous dictators who possessed weapons of mass destruction, who headed countries that were hostile to the United States, the former Soviet Union, China, North Korea. But they didn't attack another country to eliminate those threats, even though they persisted, even though we disagreed with those countries, what their leaders did to their own people, the threats they were around the world. The principal reason was we understood the doctrine of mutual assured destruction. We understood their destruction against the United States would be an intolerable cost for our destruction of them and for the objectives we might accomplish militarily.

     I believe these forewarnings we have received the last few days should cause us to ask this administration why would they expect Iraq to be any different. If the United States intervenes and begins to destroy that country and its cities, cause civilian casualties, why would we not expect Iraq to retaliate with every destructive force it has available to it within our own borders, against our own cities and our own citizens?

     Why wouldn't we expect Osama bin Laden to do his worst to exploit this situation, to twist facts to be seen by the rest of the world other than as they are, but in ways that would be destructive to United States standing around the world and to our own national security now and in the days and months ahead?

     Why does this administration believe it should disregard the lessons that other Presidents, Republican and Democrat, have recognized and observed and proven to be as valid then as they are today? What is different about this situation?

     At the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing this morning I asked the Secretary of Defense his assessment of our ability to protect our citizens from retaliatory attacks against them if we were to invade Iraq. I asked that question twice. How do you assess, Mr. Secretary, our ability to protect our citizens in their homes and their schools and our cities from an enemy attack? Neither time did I receive a direct answer to that question. Neither time. I have the highest regard for the Secretary of Defense. He has an enormous responsibility. He brings tremendous experience and ability and a heroic dedication to our country to this task. But if

     all this administration can offer the American people, when our national security alert is raised to the second highest level, is duct tape, sheets of plastic and water, there is something very seriously wrong, if this administration intends to start a war, not against the most urgent threat to this country, not the threat that endangered us before, attacked us before and endangers us now, according to many of their own officials, al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden, the tape that was released this week that issues that threat against us and our citizens once again, not an attack against al-Qaida but against Iraq, against a country that, no question, is ruled by an evil man, a dangerous dictator, a man who almost certainly, as the Secretary of State has demonstrated, the President in the State of the Union, possesses biological and chemical weapons and has for the last 12 years, ever since the first President Bush made a strategic decision at the conclusion of the gulf war to leave him in power, which may have been the right decision given the other options that were available.

     Yes, an evil dictator, but one who has been constrained in key respects by active, ongoing efforts of diplomacy with our allies and containment by international forces by both former President Bush and by President Clinton. Contained, constrained, not perfectly, not easily, certainly not voluntarily on his part, but effectively, more effectively than has been acknowledged in recent months. He is weaker, according to reports I have seen, militarily in most respects than he was before the gulf war. He does, by all accounts that we can obtain, not possess nuclear warhead capabilities at this time, which I agree with the President would be intolerable for this country to permit. He has not attacked his neighbors--not because he wouldn't like to, probably, but because he has not had the capability to do so under these containment policies for the last 12 years. And as far as I have been informed in various briefings, he was not actively threatening our country or his neighbors or anyone else when he was dusted off the shelf by this administration right after Labor Day.

     The President has properly refocused the world spotlight on this man and his intent. The President has drawn a line very clearly, which I support, that it would be intolerable for this Nation to permit that dictator to possess nuclear weapons or the missile capabilities to deliver those warheads or any warheads against this country or against neighbors in the region surrounding him.

     Certainly after September 11 and Operation Enduring Freedom, no one in this world could question the steely resolve of our President and his willingness, if necessary, to use military force. After Operation Enduring Freedom, no one could raise a doubt about the might of the United States Armed Forces and the strength we can bring to bear anywhere in the world as a last resort, as truly a last resort.

     But there is another lesson from September 11, which is that no matter how great our military might, we are not invulnerable. We are too big a country. We have too wide an expanse. We have too many possible targets for terrorists. And we saw on September 11 tragically, horribly, the damage and the destruction and the cost of human life and the untold human suffering and misery of families that a very small number of fanatical men could cause.

     I don't think we should back down or be deterred by any threat. I think we should do what we must to defend this country, and the principles we have established in the last half century of dealing with these threats have been ones that have prevented war, preserved our peace, and strengthened this country economically and socially in its position of leadership in the world.

     It would be a very dangerous precedent if we were to do, except as a very last resort, what no President in this country has done before, which is to start a war, which is to launch a preemptive attack against another country based on what it might in the future do to us.

     And I think we should consider what that precedent would mean if other nations were to follow that example. If we set a precedent in this ``new world order,'' as it has been called, that a preemptive attack against a possible future threat is the way to resolve crises or standoffs, what will happen when other countries adopt that path?

     We have seen now--and we have been forewarned--that the nuclear proliferation that we are seeing other countries undertake is the worst nightmare that many predicted years ago, decades ago if we didn't--the superpowers--bring to a halt the nuclear arms race and remove them from the shelves of the nations of the world. Now we are told that half a dozen countries--and more to come soon--will have them. That should be and must be a warning to us. What happens if we lead down a path on which we don't want other nations to follow?

     If we set a precedent of preemptive attack, that path is one that the world will follow at its peril. I urge the President to take that into the most careful consideration as he makes this fateful decision.

     I yield the floor.

     The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from Arizona is to be recognized for up to 60 minutes.
  

  4C) Welcoming Support of European Nations in Enforcing UN Res. 1441
  WELCOMING SUPPORT OF EUROPEAN NATIONS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 1441 -- (Senate - February 13, 2003)
  

  [Page: S2500]  GPO's PDF
  ---

     Mr. FRIST. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Con. Res. 4 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

     The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the concurrent resolution by title.

     The legislative clerk read as follows:

     A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 4) welcoming the expression of support of 18 European nations for the enforcement of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441.

     There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the concurrent resolution.

     Mr. MCCAIN. Madam President, after leading the U.S. congressional delegation to the Munich Conference on Security Policy last weekend, Senator LIEBERMAN and I introduced this resolution to thank 18 Europeans for standing with us in demanding that Security Council resolutions against Iraq be enforced. Contrary to what you may read in the press, and despite shrill objections from Paris and Berlin, most European governments believe Iraq must be held to account for its defiance of Security Council Resolution 1441. France and Germany are isolated within Europe in their approach to enforcing, or in their case failing to enforce, Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

     Recent actions by Paris and Berlin in the most important international fora--the Security Council, the North Atlantic Council, and the European Union--raise serious doubts among nations on both sides of the Atlantic about their commitment to multilateral diplomacy and cause real damage to those institutions.

     The French and German objection, for reasons of calculated self-interest--a very flawed calculation, I fear--to a routine request to the North Atlantic Council to upgrade Turkey's defenses

  [Page: S2501]  GPO's PDF

  against the military threat from Iraq was a terrible injury to an Alliance that has served their broader interests well. For over three weeks, the United States, with fourteen of our eighteen European allies in the North Atlantic Council, has supported this necessary action, but has confronted a new unilateralism conceived in Paris and Berlin, a unilateralism that exposed the sneering in those capitals about the impulsive cowboy in the White House for the vacuous posturing and obvious misdirection it is.

     Whatever NATO decides, Franco-German unilateralism will have a lasting impact on trans-Atlantic security calculations. If this minority French-German obstruction is not overcome, France and Germany will have to answer to those who argue that Iraq could be to NATO what Abyssinia was to the League of Nations.

     The United Nations Security Council risks that same fate should it fail to hold Iraq accountable for its defiance. Patient American and British diplomacy at the U.N. delivered a unanimous vote in favor of Council Resolution 1441. France played a key role in negotiating the resolution and knew what they were voting for, Germany was fully aware of the debate as it prepared to assume the Council presidency in January. Americans, and many Europeans, were therefore astonished when France and Germany announced in advance of further consideration of the problem of Iraq that under no circumstances would they support enforcing the resolution's terms against Iraq.

     The behavior of France and Germany has set back European unity and created a divided front that makes Iraq's peaceful disarmament less likely. Nations across Europe that have recently expressed a different view of multilateral obligations, including some of our oldest allies and our newest friends, expose the myth that France and Germany speak for Europe.

     The majority of Europe's democracies have spoken, and their message could not be clearer. Most European governments support the Security Council's clear mandate to require Iraq's full disarmament and do not shrink from the grave responsibilities such a commitment

     entails. Most European government understand clearly that if the Security Council fails to enforce its demands of Iraq, the Council risks impotence and irrelevance. In short, most European governments behave like allies that are willing to meet their responsibilities to uphold international peace and security in defense of our common values.

     As the foreign ministers of Romania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Albania, and Macedonia have declared, ``the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's regime requires a united response from the community of democracies. We call upon the U.N. Security Council to take the necessary and appropriate action in response to Iraq's continuing threat to international peace and security.''

     As the leaders of Britain, Spain, Italy, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Denmark, and Portugal have written, ``Resolution 1441 is Saddam Hussein's last chance to disarm using peaceful means. The opportunity to avoid greater confrontation rests with him. ..... [T]he Security Council must maintain its credibility by ensuring full compliance with its resolutions. We cannot allow a dictator to systematically violate those resolutions. If they are not complied with, the Security Council will lose its credibility and world peace will suffer as a result.''

     We thank this European majority for standing with us.

     I ask unanimous consent that two pieces of supporting material be printed in the RECORD.

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

     United We Stand

     The real bond between the U.S. and Europe is the values we share: democracy, individual freedom, human rights and the rule of law. These values crossed the Atlantic with those who sailed from Europe to help create the United States of America. Today they are under greater threat than ever.

     The attacks of Sept. 11 showed just how far terrorists--the enemies of our common values--are prepared to go to destroy them. Those outrages were an attack on all of us. In standing firm in defense off these principles, the governments and people of the U.S. and Europe have amply demonstrated the strength of their convictions. Today more than ever, the trans-Atlantic bond is a guarantee of our freedom.

     We in Europe have a relationship with the U.S. which has stood the test of time. Thanks in large part to American bravery, generosity and farsightedness, Europe was set free from the two forms of tyranny that devastated our continent in the 20th century: Nazism and communism. Thanks, too, to the continued cooperation between Europe and the U.S. we have managed to guarantee peace and freedom on our continent. The trans-Atlantic relationship must not become a casualty of the current Iraqi regime's persistent attempts to threaten world security.

     In today's world, more than ever before, it is vital that we preserve that unity and cohesion. We know that success in the day-to-day battle against terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction demands unwavering determination and firm international cohesion on the part of all countries for whom freedom is precious.

     The Iraqi regime and its weapons of mass destruction represent a clear threat to world security. This danger has been explicitly recognized by the U.N. All of us are bound by Security Council Resolution 1441, which was adopted unanimously. We Europeans have since reiterated our backing for Resolution 1441, our wish to pursue the U.N. route, and our support for the Secretary Council at the Prague NATO Summit and the Copenhagen European Council.

     In doing so, we sent a clear, firm and unequivocal message that we would rid the world of the danger posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction . We must remain united in insisting that his regime be disarmed. The solidarity, cohesion and determination of the international community are our best hope of achieving this peacefully. Our strength lies in unity.

     The combination of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism is a threat of incalculable consequences. It is one at which all of us should feel concerned. Resolution 1441 is Saddam Hussein's last chance to disarm using peaceful means. The opportunity to avoid greater confrontation rests with him. Sadly this week the U.N. weapons inspectors have confirmed that his long-established pattern of deception, denial and noncompliance with U.N. Security Council resolutions is continuing.

     Europe has no quarrel with the Iraqi people. Indeed, they are the first victims of Iraq's current brutal regime. Our goal is to safeguard world peace and security by ensuring that this regime gives up its weapons of mass destruction . Our governments have a common responsibility to face this threat. Failure to do so would be nothing less than negligent to our own citizens and to the wider world.

     The U.N. Charter charges the Security Council with the task of preserving international peace and security. To do so, the Security Council must maintain its credibility by ensuring full compliance with its resolutions. We cannot allow a dictator to systematically violate those resolutions. If they are not complied with, the Security Council will lose its credibility and world peace will suffer as a result. We are confident that the Security Council will face up to its responsibilities.

  --

     Statement of the Vilnius Group Countries

     Earlier today, the United States presented compelling evidence to the United Nations Security Council detailing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, its active efforts to deceive UN inspectors, and its links to international terrorism.

     Our countries understand the dangers posed by tyranny and the special responsibility of democracies to defend our shared values. The trans-Atlantic community, of which we are a part, must stand together to face the threat posed by the nexus of terrorism and dictators with weapons of mass destruction .

     We have actively supported the international efforts to achieve a peaceful disarmament of Iraq. However, it has now become clear that Iraq is in material breach of U.N. Security Council Resolutions, including U.S. Resolution 1441, passed unanimously on November 8, 2002. As our governments said on the occasion of the NATO Summit in Prague: ``We support the goal of the international community for full disarmament of Iraq as stipulated in the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441. In the event of non-compliance with the terms of this resolution, we are prepared to contribute to an international coalition to enforce its provisions and the disarmament of Iraq.''

     The clear and present danger posed by the Saddam Hussein's regime requires a united response from the community of democracies. We call upon the U.N. Security Council to take the necessary and appropriate action in response to Iraq's continuing threat to international peace and security.

     Mr. FRIST. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to this matter be printed in the RECORD as if read.

     The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

  [Page: S2502]  GPO's PDF

     The concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 4) was agreed to.

     The preamble was agreed to.

     The concurrent resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:

     S. Con. Res. 4

     Whereas on November 8, 2002, the United Nations Security Council approved Security Council Resolution 1441 under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter by a vote of 15-0, giving Iraq ``a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations'';

     Whereas on November 21, 2002, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's North Atlantic Council unanimously approved a declaration stating, ``We deplore Iraq's failure to comply fully with its obligations which were imposed as a necessary step to restore international peace and security and we recall that the Security Council has decided in its resolution to afford Iraq a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council.'';

     Whereas the North Atlantic Council stated, ``NATO Allies stand united in their commitment to take effective action to assist and support the efforts of the United Nations to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq, without conditions or restrictions, with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441. We recall that the Security Council in this resolution has warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violation of its obligations.'';

     Whereas, on January 30, 2003, the Prime Ministers of Denmark, Italy, Hungary, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom, and the President of the Czech Republic (``The Eight''), issued a declaration regarding Security Council Resolution 1441;

     Whereas in their declaration, The Eight stated, ``The transatlantic relationship must not become a casualty of the current Iraqi regime's persistent attempts to threaten world security. . . . The Iraqi regime and its weapons of mass destruction represent a clear threat to world security. This danger has been explicitly recognized by the United Nations. All of us are bound by Security Council Resolution 1441, which was adopted unanimously.'';

     Whereas The Eight stated, ``Resolution 1441 is Saddam Hussein's last chance to disarm using peaceful means. The opportunity to avoid greater confrontation rests with him. . . . Our governments have a common responsibility to face this threat. . . . [T]he Security Council must maintain its credibility by ensuring full compliance with its resolutions. We cannot allow a dictator to systematically violate those resolutions. If they are not complied with, the Security Council will lose its credibility and world peace will suffer as a result.'';

     Whereas on February 5, 2003, the Foreign Ministers of Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia (``The Ten'') issued a declaration regarding Security Council Resolution 1441;

     Whereas in their declaration, The Ten stated, ``[T]he United States [has] presented compelling evidence to the United Nations Security Council detailing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, its active efforts to deceive United Nations inspectors, and its links to international terrorism. . . . The transatlantic community, of which we are a part, must stand together to face the threat posed by the nexus of terrorism and dictators with weapons of mass destruction .''; and

     Whereas The Ten stated, ``[I]t has now become clear that Iraq is in material breach of United Nations Security Council resolutions, including United Nations Resolution 1441. . . . The clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's regime requires a united response from the community of democracies. We call upon the United Nations Security Council to take the necessary and appropriate action in response to Iraq's continuing threat to international peace and security.'': Now, therefore, be it

      Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That Congress welcomes--

      (1) the expression of support from Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and the United Kingdom for Iraq's full compliance with Security Council Resolution 1441; and

      (2) their expression of solidarity with the United States in calling for the demands of the Security Council to be met with regard to Iraq's full disarmament.
  

  **********************
  Omnibus Appropriations
  **********************

  5A) Conference Report on H.J. Res. 2
  

  CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.J. RES. 2, CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS RESOLUTION, 2003 -- (House of Representatives - February 13, 2003)

  [Page: H558]
  ---

     Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule just adopted, I call up the conference report on the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 2) making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

     The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.

     The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 71, the conference report is considered as having been read.

     (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of February 12, 2002, Part II.)

     The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) each will control 30 minutes.

     The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).

     Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

     Mr. Speaker, I want to start my brief comments on this bill to say, ``wow.'' We are finally here. And some of the complaints that we heard about how we got here are very legitimate, and the process was not the best, but we are finally here, and it is important that we get this bill off the deck, because fiscal year '04 is already descending upon us.

     Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I want to pay a strong compliment and tribute to the members of the Committee on Appropriations on both sides of the aisle who really worked hard to get us where we are today, and so we can conclude our work for fiscal year '03. All of the members of the subcommittees were involved at their levels, we had a very open process, we exchanged information and ideas and facts and details with each other as we went through the process. I would compliment the staff who worked many, many long hours; and as it was suggested, some of this bill was not written until 5 o'clock this morning, and I know that, because I was here at 6 o'clock this morning to file the bill, and joined my colleagues on the Committee on Rules at 7 o'clock to get a rule on this bill.

     So what led us up to here, we should all be happy that it is behind us. Now we are in a position to close out fiscal year 2003, and I hope that is what we will do.

     Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring this conference report on the consolidated appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003 to the House. This is an important appropriations bill. It not only includes 11 appropriations bills, and that is why the stack is so high and it weighs so much, but it also adds additional funding for national defense, national security, homeland security, intelligence activities, and support of our troops in Afghanistan.

     

  [Time: 17:15]

     It is an important defense bill, a homeland defense bill, and an antiterrorism bill. It is a must-pass bill. It includes funds for our troops in Afghanistan, our intelligence agencies, homeland security, law enforcement, first responders, education programs and many other important operations of our government. It includes money for election reform, something that has been very important to the Members of the House.

     I am sure this bill will not please everyone in all respects, and I do not know of any bill that we bring to the floor that does. But it does address many important needs of our country. Most importantly for the Congress, it preserves one of our most basic and important responsibilities under the Constitution: to appropriate funds from the Treasury. The passage of this bill will allow us to focus on the year ahead as we begin to provide funds for the government for the next fiscal year.

     We have already received the President's budget request for fiscal year 2004, and we expect that very shortly, within the next 10 days to 2 weeks, we will receive a supplemental appropriations request dealing with national security, national defense. I think we have done a good job in holding down spending to appropriate levels.

     When the chairman of the Senate committee and myself met with the

  [Page: H559]

  President and we discussed what the top number should be, we agreed on a top number. We have stuck to that top number with the only exception being when the President either agreed with, or requested additional funding for important matters. This bill includes $397.4 billion in discretionary funding. This is discretionary money that pales in comparison to how much money is spent through mandatory programs; and that is something you will hear me say often, that the biggest spending for the government comes from mandatory spending programs, not the discretionary accounts that we are dealing with today. This is a fiscally responsible bill and it does comply with the fiscal parameters described by the President.

     Let me highlight just a few items that I think should be of interest to the Members. On homeland security, the bill provides record levels of resources to defend our homeland, something that we have all sworn that we would do with whatever resources were necessary. This bill includes $3.5 billion in assistance to State and local first responders. It includes $6.1 billion for the Coast Guard and $4.3 billion for the FBI, including new investments in information technology, something that many of us have discussed here on the floor numerous times as a serious requirement.

     In the global war on terrorism there is $10 billion in this bill included to support our military and intelligence activities. For the veterans, Veterans Administration and veterans medical care, we have included a $2.5 billion increase for medical care over last year and $1.1 billion over the President's budget request.

     On education funding, we provided educational assistance to needy and disadvantaged students through the Title I program. It has been increased by $1.4 billion. Special education State grants are increased $1.4 billion over last year and $400 million over the President's request.

     On funding for space programs, something that has been called to our attention in our minds and in our hearts since the disaster with the shuttle Columbia, NASA funding is increased by $513 million over last year bringing the fiscal year 2003 funding to $15.4 billion; that is $414 million above the President's budget request. $50 million is provided to NASA to investigate the recent Columbia tragedy, so that we can do everything possible to prevent any further or future tragedies of a like nature. Additional flexibility is provided to the administrator of NASA to utilize resources where they are most needed.

     Election reform is funded at$1.5 billion, something that has been very important to the Members of this House. There is $1.5 billion to help the States meet new standards under the Help America Vote Act, including over $1.4 billion in direct assistance to our States for the improvements of administration, the buy-out of antiquated equipment and new safeguards for voting rights. Also there is funding for programs to ensure that disabled voters have access and programs to encourage young Americans to participate in the electoral process.

     I think we have reached a point of no return on this bill, Mr. Speaker. This is a must-pass bill. I hope we can get this important bill on the President's desk as soon as possible so that our soldiers, diplomats, law enforcement, intelligence officers can have the resources they need to protect our country.

     While some may complain that potential operations in Iraq have diverted our attention from the threat of terrorism, funding in this bill for the intelligence activities proves that we will not and have not directed our attention away from that important subject.

     The bill includes about $4 billion in funding for intelligence-related activities in support of the war on terrorism. This $4 billion, among other things, funds ongoing counterterrorism operations of the Central Intelligence Agency, funds the intelligence community's Counter-Terrorism Center, directly supports the intelligence requirements of counterterrorism activities of the Central Command and the Special Operations Command, funds the increased cost of maintaining 24-hour operations of intelligence collection and processing system, funds overtime costs for analysts and dissemination of imagery and signals intelligence.

     Mr. Speaker, I think if anyone wants to look at this bill and find a reason why they should vote against it, they can do that. They can do that with any bill that is put on this floor, I believe. But this is a national defense bill. It provides for needs of our country and it provides some fiscal restraints that I think that most all of us have talked about and promised our constituents we would deal with over the years. So this is a good bill. It could have been really worse, but it is a good bill.

     Many people worked long and hard to get us where we are so I just hope we can pass it so that our Committee on Appropriations can begin its 2004 responsibilities.

     Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to insert into the Record a series of tables that provide more detail on this bill.
  

  [Page: H560]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/1 here EH13fe03.001
  

  [Page: H561]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/2 here EH13fe03.002
  

  [Page: H562]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/3 here EH13fe03.003
  

  [Page: H563]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/4 here EH13fe03.004
  

  [Page: H564]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/5 here EH13fe03.005
  

  [Page: H565]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/6 here EH13fe03.006
  

  [Page: H566]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/7 here EH13fe03.007
  

  [Page: H567]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/8 here EH13fe03.008
  

  [Page: H568]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/9 here EH13fe03.009
  

  [Page: H569]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/10 here EH13fe03.010
  

  [Page: H570]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/11 here EH13fe03.011
  

  [Page: H571]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/12 here EH13fe03.012
  

  [Page: H572]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/13 here EH13fe03.013
  

  [Page: H573]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/14 here EH13fe03.014
  

  [Page: H574]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/15 here EH13fe03.015
  

  [Page: H575]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/16 here EH13fe03.016
  

  [Page: H576]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/17 here EH13fe03.017
  

  [Page: H577]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/18 here EH13fe03.018
  

  [Page: H578]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/19 here EH13fe03.019
  

  [Page: H579]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/20 here EH13fe03.020
  

  [Page: H580]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/21 here EH13fe03.021
  

  [Page: H581]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/22 here EH13fe03.022
  

  [Page: H582]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/23 here EH13fe03.023
  

  [Page: H583]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/24 here EH13fe03.024
  

  [Page: H584]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/25 here EH13fe03.025
  

  [Page: H585]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/26 here EH13fe03.026
  

  [Page: H586]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/27 here EH13fe03.027
  

  [Page: H587]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/28 here EH13fe03.028
  

  [Page: H588]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/29 here EH13fe03.029
  

  [Page: H589]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/30 here EH13fe03.030
  

  [Page: H590]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/31 here EH13fe03.031
  

  [Page: H591]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/32 here EH13fe03.032
  

  [Page: H592]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/33 here EH13fe03.033
  

  [Page: H593]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/34 here EH13fe03.034
  

  [Page: H594]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/35 here EH13fe03.035
  

  [Page: H595]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/36 here EH13fe03.036
  

  [Page: H596]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/37 here EH13fe03.037
  

  [Page: H597]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/38 here EH13fe03.038
  

  [Page: H598]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/39 here EH13fe03.039
  

  [Page: H599]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/40 here EH13fe03.040
  

  [Page: H600]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/41 here EH13fe03.041
  

  [Page: H601]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/42 here EH13fe03.042
  

  [Page: H602]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/43 here EH13fe03.043
  

  [Page: H603]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/44 here EH13fe03.044
  

  [Page: H604]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/45 here EH13fe03.045
  

  [Page: H605]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/46 here EH13fe03.046
  

  [Page: H606]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/47 here EH13fe03.047
  

  [Page: H607]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/48 here EH13fe03.048
  

  [Page: H608]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/49 here EH13fe03.049
  

  [Page: H609]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/50 here EH13fe03.050
  

  [Page: H610]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/51 here EH13fe03.051
  

  [Page: H611]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/52 here EH13fe03.052
  

  [Page: H612]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/53 here EH13fe03.053
  

  [Page: H613]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/54 here EH13fe03.054
  

  [Page: H614]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/55 here EH13fe03.055
  

  [Page: H615]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/56 here EH13fe03.056
  

  [Page: H616]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/57 here EH13fe03.057
  

  [Page: H617]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/58 here EH13fe03.058
  

  [Page: H618]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/59 here EH13fe03.059
  

  [Page: H619]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/60 here EH13fe03.060
  

  [Page: H620]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/61 here EH13fe03.061
  

  [Page: H621]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/62 here EH13fe03.062
  

  [Page: H622]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/63 here EH13fe03.063
  

  [Page: H623]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/64 here EH13fe03.064
  

  [Page: H624]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/65 here EH13fe03.065
  

  [Page: H625]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/66 here EH13fe03.066
  

  [Page: H626]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/67 here EH13fe03.067
  

  [Page: H627]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/68 here EH13fe03.068
  

  [Page: H628]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/69 here EH13fe03.069
  

  [Page: H629]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/70 here EH13fe03.070
  

  [Page: H630]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/71 here EH13fe03.071
  

  [Page: H631]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/72 here EH13fe03.072
  

  [Page: H632]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/73 here EH13fe03.073
  

  [Page: H633]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/74 here EH13fe03.074
  

  [Page: H634]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/75 here EH13fe03.075
  

  [Page: H635]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/76 here EH13fe03.076
  

  [Page: H636]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/77 here EH13fe03.077
  

  [Page: H637]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/78 here EH13fe03.078
  

  [Page: H638]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/79 here EH13fe03.079
  

  [Page: H639]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/80 here EH13fe03.080
  

  [Page: H640]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/81 here EH13fe03.081
  

  [Page: H641]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/82 here EH13fe03.082
  

  [Page: H642]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/83 here EH13fe03.083
  

  [Page: H643]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/84 here EH13fe03.084
  

  [Page: H644]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/85 here EH13fe03.085
  

  [Page: H645]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/86 here EH13fe03.086
  

  [Page: H646]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/87 here EH13fe03.087
  

  [Page: H647]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/88 here EH13fe03.088
  

  [Page: H648]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/89 here EH13fe03.089
  

  [Page: H649]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/90 here EH13fe03.090
  

  [Page: H650]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/91 here EH13fe03.091
  

  [Page: H651]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/92 here EH13fe03.092
  

  [Page: H652]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/93 here EH13fe03.093
  

  [Page: H653]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/94 here EH13fe03.094
  

  [Page: H654]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/95 here EH13fe03.095
  

  [Page: H655]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/97 here EH13fe03.097
  

  [Page: H656]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/98 here EH13fe03.098
  

  [Page: H657]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/99 here EH13fe03.099
  

  [Page: H658]

  
  Insert offset folio 463/100 here EH13fe03.100

     Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

     Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 minutes.

     Mr. Speaker, I cannot ask people to vote against their bill because it does some things which any piece of legislation would do which came to the floor at this point. It does provide needed funds for Medicare. It does provide funding for a number of programs which, if we did not pass the bill, would be limited to last year's level; and that would cripple a good number of programs, including education. But before Members decide how they want to vote, I think they need to understand that this legislation is a god-awful mess brought to the floor by a god-awful process.

     About $360 billion, or 90 percent, of the $400 billion in spending contained in this bill, never came before the House of Representatives until it arrived in this one huge take-it-or-leave-it package today. That means 90 percent of the domestic budget involving hundreds of individual programs was never subjected to debate or amendment in the United States House of Representatives.

     What you have here, as I said earlier, is the biggest back-room deal in terms of spending in the Nation's history. And when you have a back-room deal which is not ever aired in public, that means a lot of people are going to get hurt, and a lot of people are going to get things that they should not get. And I want to walk through some examples.

     The most urgent need in this country is to ensure that we can track down and stop people who would commit acts of terror against our citizenry. This bill leaves huge gaps in our defenses. Once again, we are delaying the ability of funds that are required to protect American lives.

     I would say to everyone who would listen that this is not the fault of our good friend, the chairman of the committee; he has done his duty, and he understands the need for action in this area. But there are many others in this Chamber and there are some on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue who are not being helpful and who are blocking the resources that are critically needed at the moment. This Nation is in serious peril and here are some examples:

     The head of the Customs Service says we need to greatly beef up the inspections of cargo containers used in worldwide shipping. He and others have warned that these containers offer terrorists with significant opportunities to get bombs, chemicals, missiles and other dangerous weapons into this country. He has asked for $57 million right now to do that job, $57 million. This bill contains $12 million, less than 25 percent of what is needed. We have $392 million in spending for new courthouses in this bill, but the committee could not find the other $45 million to fully fund the container security initiative that was asked for by our own administration.

     In addition to the containers themselves, we have huge security issues with respect to ports. We have ships arriving in this country every day containing millions of gallons of highly flammable and toxic chemicals. They are bombs waiting to be detonated. The Coast Guard says the costs of upgrading security at these ports is $1 billion. This bill contains only $150 million or 15 percent of the amount that ought to be in the bill.

     Now, we have known since we saw the pictures of those brave police and fire fighters on September 11 that the next attack might put them in even more dangerous situations. Very few police departments have the equipment necessary to allow first responders to enter an area that has been hit by chemical, biological or radiological weapons. We have been trying to get that money out for more than a year, and we have hit roadblocks time after time after time.

     The White House is playing a flim-flam game with respect to this issue. A year ago, the President blocked the inclusion of significant first responder funds in the supplemental. Last summer, he vetoed first responder funds in the second supplemental. He has also refused since last October to release the first responder funds made available by the continuing resolutions. But he spends a lot of time going around the country being photographed with firemen and policemen and talking about the $3.5 billion in funds for first responders in his 2003 budget.

     He does not mention, however, where he got the bulk of the money to pay for that $3.5 billion increase. He got it by eliminating a series of ongoing programs that also provide grants to local policemen and firemen. That is like the boss offering to double your pay next month if you will agree to take no pay this month. It does not help a heck of a lot.

     This bill restores those basic cuts, but it does so by slashing the President's first responder initiative. When all grants to fire and police are combined, this conference report is $466 million below the President's request for first responders. For the first time, Congress will have a worse record on first responders than the White House, and that is outrageous. So I guess the answer is, let them use duct tape.

     There are deficiencies in other areas. The Department of Energy, the committee could not find $108 million identified last spring by the Army Corps of Engineers as being absolutely essential for physical security upgrades to waterway navigation and dams around the Nation. And none of the $254 million identified by the Secretary of Energy last spring as necessary to secure radioactive material, nuclear weapons and other highly toxic substances at U.S. nuclear weapons plants and laboratories is provided in this bill.

     Education is a mixed bag. Now, for the last 6 years, on average, we have been able to provide about a 14 percent increase in education.

     

  [Time: 17:30]

     The good news in this bill is that we have been able in this bill to raise the funding for education above the real dollar freeze that the President presented, or 3 percent in nominal terms.

     This bill is about $3 billion above the President's for education. It means that we will have about a 10 percent increase. That is still a cut in the rate of increase that we have had for education on average over the last 6 years, but it is some progress and I am pleased to see it; but it is still funded at such limited levels that we will be leaving an additional 628,000 children behind who would not have been left behind if we had funded this bill at the Senate levels.

     We are also turning a blind eye to what is happening on college campuses. State and local budget crunches are hitting, and tuition is skyrocketing in some places by as much as 36 percent. This bill holds Pell grants to a 1 1/2 percent increase over last year. That simply means college will not be affordable to tens of thousands of young people who want to better themselves by getting a college education.

     We have an ugly product with respect to both homeland security and a mixed bag with respect to education. I save the worst for last.

     This bill is sad with respect to both funding and legislative language that will damage the environment and damage our forests and wilderness areas. This bill is a wholesale attack on environmental protection. The interior section of this bill is one of the worst appropriation measures to come to the floor of this House in many years. The park service is cut by $110 million below the President's request. The committee has trampled on a commitment made by the Republican and Democratic leadership of both bodies to provide a specific level of funding for key conservation programs, an agreement that was entered into in order to prevent the creation of yet a new entitlement in this area, and yet the committee has walked away from a solemn commitment that it made.

     Then we have the environmental riders, or I should say the antienvironmental riders. This bill will exempt the Tongass from any review whatsoever once the regulations are out, and they have not even been completed yet; but this bill will prevent any review of whatever regulations are produced by either administrative challenge or challenge in courts. That is outrageous.

     It also includes language which again allows funds in this bill to be used for preliminary activities, preliminary to drilling in ANWR. The worst provision involves an innocuous-sounding program called the Forest Stewardship Pilot Program. Currently, there are 80 projects around the country in which noncommercial organizations work at

  [Page: H660]

  thinning growth in forests that are considered vulnerable to fire.

     These small projects are not required to get the normal environmental waivers. The House bill proposed to expand the number of projects by 12. The Senate bill would expand the project by 28. Reasonable people can disagree on what ought to happen here, but the conference agreement provides no limits whatsoever. You might as well turn our national forests over lock, stock and barrel to the timber companies. That is what this provision does.

     There are no longer any legal limits to what can be cut under this provision. Whatever the administration wants, by all means, go ahead.

     Then, as I said earlier, we have some special provisions. I have mentioned the provision in this bill which is here on behalf of a company that operates three chicken plants in Georgia. This provision says that the USDA shall certify chickens as being organic even if they are not fed organic meal. That provision may boost the profits of one company, but it undermines the integrity of the entire organic certification process.

     Then there is another nifty little provision that arrived in the Committee on Appropriations last night. It involves the bank accounts of 10 Texas dairy farmers. As we all know, and I know a lot of you like dairy farmers. I do, too. I have a lot of them in my district. They are not getting this kind of treatment.

     I was stunned to see what was being done in this bill. It seems that these 10 dairy farmers have herds close to the Mexican border. There have been concerns that the herds might be exposed to bovine tuberculosis, and USDA decided that they ought to be slaughtered. The problem is that if the cows had already been infected the farmers would be able to defer tax payments on the money received from the government; but because the cattle had not yet become infected, that deferral option is not allowed under Tax Code. So somebody decided the only fair thing to do was to have the government pay the taxes in full up front. So this bill contains 15 million bucks to be distributed to 10 farmers to cover their tax liability. Had they received the deferral, their benefit would have only been a fraction of that amount.

     So I guess moral of the story is, there is no limit to how rich you can become if you have certain friends on the Committee on Appropriations.

     So, Mr. Speaker, I am going to offer a motion to recommit to try to improve this bill in the most egregious area of the bill, and that motion to recommit would negate the language in this bill which allows funds to be used for activities preparatory to drilling in the ANWR. It would also provide funds that eliminate the special rider that abuses the pilot stewardship forest thinning contracting program. We would eliminate the rider that says that Tongass is exempt from all environmental review in court or in administrative activities, and we would raise the first responder funds in this bill to the amount requested by the President. That is what the recommittal motion will do.

     There are many other provisions I would like to reach. In a recommittal motion we cannot do it under the rules under which we operate, but we are going to try to at least correct the most egregious antienvironmental provisions in this bill and try to put enough money in for first responders so that you can all go home and look at your firemen and policemen with a straight face.

     I would urge support for the recommittal motion when it comes, and I would urge you to use your own judgment in terms of how to vote on final passage.

     Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

     Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute, and I do so to restate my earlier comment that if one looks really hard, one can find a few things in this bill not to like, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), in his usual, skillful approach to his legislative responsibilities, has done just that.

     He has identified a few things he does not like, but I wanted to comment on his comments about the ANWR, and there is no money in this bill for the Bureau of Land Management to develop or predevelop the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR. The President did not request funding for oil and gas development in ANWR, and the interior bill does not include funding for ANWR. So that really is not an issue, and we will address the other issues in the motion to recommit when we get to that point.

     Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

     Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

     Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill today. The bill and conference report beside me, I would lift it but it is tough. It is about a foot and a half tall. We were given this document around noon today, if we could get a hard copy. That indeed was difficult as it was. So we have that amount of time to go through this.

     I disagree that if one flips through this bill a person can find a few things wrong. It is tough to find much right about this bill. I object to the process as well as the product.

     We had a House rule which says that we ought to have 3 days to review any omnibus bill like this. We are given a couple of hours. We waived that provision. We should not have.

     I would say that this bill in many ways is a work of art. It is kind of a Hall of Fame bill, because if my colleagues look at it, I will just name a couple of the provisions in it. These are elements in the bill. We usually find the more objectionable earmarks or pork in the conference report, but we have not had time to leaf through that.

     In the bill we will find, if one is a baseball fan, we will find $750,000 earmarked for the Baseball Hall of Fame. If we look a little further, if one is not a baseball fan, we can find $350,000 for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Why we have that as an omnibus bill from the Federal Government I do not know. If one still is not a rock and roll fan or baseball fan, we can look further in the bill and find an earmark for $90,000 for the National Cowgirl Hall of Fame. I did not even know there is a Cowgirl Hall of Fame. Perhaps there is not, but now there will be. Who knows what else is in this bill and report. We will be discovering it for months.

     We should not do business like this. It should not be done.

     I would have thought, given the hall of fame element, that I ought to nominate some of my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, for the hall of fame for pork, but I am afraid that they would fund it.

     I urge my colleagues to reject this bill. Let us start over.

     Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

     The gentleman who just spoke said it was hard to find something good in this bill, but let me tell my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, there is money in this bill to take care of our soldiers in Afghanistan who are fighting the war against terrorism. There is money in this bill to upgrade our ability to perform intelligence activities, to know what the enemy might be planning to do against us. There is money in this bill to protect our homeland. There is money in this bill to provide funding and training and equipment for first responders, police and firemen, medical technicians, other people on the scene.

     There is plenty in this bill that is good, and that is the reason it is going to be passed.

     Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), chairman of one of our very important subcommittees on homeland security.

     Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time, and let me say at the outset how much we appreciate the work of our great chairman.

     This has been a long, tortuous path that he has had to lead us through. He has got us here against all odds, and we owe a great debt of gratitude to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for the fine work that he has done in bringing this bill to us.

     The gentleman who spoke just before the chairman, we have got to be sure that we come here with clean hands when we speak. Yes, this bill is big and we would like to have had it in a different form here, but we had to work with what we had to work with.

     The gentleman from Arizona who says he is against the bill because he does not like all the spending in it, well, he requested 10 items in the defense bill. I do not know whether they

  [Page: H661]

  were granted or not, but he requested spending in the sum of $160 million, and now he says he is against the bill.

     Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

     Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

     Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman name what that is?

     Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Well, there are 10 of them. Would the gentleman like to read them?

     Mr. FLAKE. Sure.

     Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, here they are. While the gentleman is reading, I will proceed.

     Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent conference report. It has significant benefits for homeland security and transportation activities in this country. I would like to take a minute, if I could, to highlight some of the aspects of the bill that I have just referred to.

     Homeland security. We include $5.2 billion for the Transportation Security Administration, slightly more than the House figure, but it is $400 million more than what the President's asking in next fiscal year 2004. So TSA is going to have to slim down over the next few months to hit the President's target. They will also have to begin addressing security needs outside the aviation sector, and the bill funds several programs in port security and land security and other areas to help provide that focus.

     Within this $5.2 billion for transportation security, we have $440 million to procure more of the airport bomb detection systems and install them with inline systems with baggage handling systems at the airports so we can get these systems out of the lobbies of our airports.

     There is $100 million to reimburse the airlines to armor the cockpit doors to prevent another 9-11, and there is $8 million for commercial pilots to receive firearms training so that they can carry the weapons into the cockpit.

     

  [Time: 17:45]

     There is $150 million for port security grants and $10 million more for port security research and development.

     There is $35 million to improve the security of commercial trucking and intercity passenger buses.

     And then the Coast Guard, very important to our homeland security, we include $4.3 billion for their operating needs. That is higher than either the House level or the Senate-passed level as we went into conference. We increased them above either one of our levels and well above the administration request.

     It includes significant new funding for homeland security activities, including new maritime safety and security teams at the Nation's larger ports and upgraded infrared sensors so the Coast Guard can patrol more effectively after dark.

     Now, in transportation we include $31.8 billion for Federal-aid highways. That is $8.6 billion above the administration's request and $4.1 billion above the level guaranteed in authorizing legislation. Let me repeat that. We are above the level stipulated in the authorization. According to the Federal Highway Administration, under this bill every State will receive more formula highway money in 2003 than they got in 2002.

     The conferees deserve a lot of credit for placing such a high priority on highway spending. This will be a significant boost for the economy and a huge boost for communities around the country who are mired in traffic congestion problems.

     The bill also includes high-priority projects in response to the thousands of requests we had from Members of this body. No one knows the needs of our districts better than the Members of this House who are elected from those districts, and we have tried to be as responsive to those requests as we could.

     Mr. Speaker, we should all be pleased about the Amtrak provisions of this bill. For the first time in at least a decade, this bill forces some real reforms on Amtrak. It allows the Secretary of Transportation to take a much more active and authoritative role.

     Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the conference report.

     Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

     Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

     Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

     Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

     I just wanted to point out that it was not noted by the gentleman who spoke before me that all 11 items that I requested have a ``DEF'' right next to them. That means defense.

     I think all of us recognize that the proper role and function of the Federal Government is to fund our armed services, and I am proud of that. But we do not see anything else there. None at all. There is a difference between the National Cowgirls Hall of Fame and funding aviator night vision imaging systems for our helicopters.

     Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, and I appreciate the gentleman's comments, I just want to point out on the Interior appropriations bill, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) pointed out and I did as we discussed the rule, our only major concern is the fact that on the conservation spending category we, for 2 years, kept a commitment that was made by the Republican and Democratic leadership of the Committee on Appropriations; and this year we did not get a good allocation in the conference, and we had to cut approximately $700 million out of our bill.

     A lot of the most important conservation spending categories were substantially reduced, which I deeply regret, because we had made a commitment to people outside of the Congress that we were going to stay with this trust fund and increase the level of conservation spending by about $160 million each year until we got up to $2.4 billion. Of course, this year we did not make our goal.

     I just would point out to my colleagues that the League of Conservation Voters urges us to support a motion to recommit, which the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) will offer, on the fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations bill. They say, ``We strongly oppose the numerous antienvironmental riders that were added in conference and by the Senate, and we are concerned about the substantial funding cut the bill makes to the conservation trust fund.''

     I would also point out to my colleagues, many on both sides supported a very modest amendment to create increased funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities. Both sides put an increase in, but when we got to conference, it was stripped out at the direction of the leadership on the Republican side. I think the Endowment for the Arts and Humanities does wonderful things for our country, and I was really kind of shaken by the fact that after this was cut in half during the Reagan administration and we were starting to move in the right direction, giving modest increases for both the arts and the humanities, that that money was, that increase was, stripped out.

     So I wish I could tell my colleagues that this bill, when it left the House this year, was a very good bill. But now that we get the conference report, we are now $800 million below where we were when this bill was before the House.

     I must point out also there are a whole series of categories within the Forest Service where we borrowed money last year to fight forest fires, and much of that money has not been repaid. So I hope, as we go through the year, if we have a supplemental appropriations bill, that we can go and readdress some of these important issues and do a better job.

     The fact that we are below the President's request on the Park Service, or the House level on the Park Service, is also of concern to me.

     I am going to vote for this bill. We have to preserve the prerogatives of the Congress. And I see the Speaker here on the floor. When the Speaker was elected he made a speech and he said, we are going to run these railroads on time. Well, I am confident this year we are going to go back to the regular order and pass our 13 appropriation bills in time, and I support that endeavor.

     Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to the time remaining on both sides.

     The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) each have 12 minutes remaining.

  [Page: H662]

     Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary.

     (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

     Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and I congratulate the chairman and all the people, the leadership and everyone else involved in this bill. I rise in strong support of the 2003 bill.

     I will be very brief, but there is $4.3 billion for the FBI, an increase of $773 million above last year to help stop what we are concerned of, what may very well happen to this country, counterterrorism, counterintelligence. There is additional money for the DEA. There is $6.16 billion for INS, for Entry-Exit, funding additional border patrol, land patrol, immigration, and so many other very, very positive things.

     With regard to local law enforcement, $1.4 billion to prevent violent crimes and acts of terrorism, including $500 million for the Byrne formula grant, $400 million for the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program.

     With regard to domestic preparedness for equipment, training, and exercises for fire, EMS, HAZMAT, and law enforcement, all of that is in this bill.

     There is $2.1 billion for crime control. Again, very important.

     Also, the body should know the conference report includes $716 million for the Securities and Exchange Commission, $150 million above the request and $248 million above fiscal year 2002 to provide the necessary resources for corporate abuse.

     For the State Department, we have adequately funded embassy security and diplomatic readiness.

     There are a lot of positive things in here with regard to the Supreme Court and others.

     I want to close, Mr. Speaker, by one, commending the chairman and the full committee staff for an outstanding job, and also to personally thank the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary staff for their tireless efforts, requiring long nights away from their families while preparing this legislation.

     Mike Ringler, clerk of the subcommittee, Christine Ryan Kojac, John Martens, Leslie Albright, Butch Davisson, and Nisha Kumar have worked night and day to finish the CJS portion. And Rob, on the other side, and many others have been involved.

     I think this is good legislation that will save a lot of lives and good for the country.

  • [Begin Insert]

     Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to finally bring to the House Floor the conference report on the fiscal year 2003 Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations. Within a very tight allocation, we were able to provide funding for a variety of critical national priorities.

     For Federal law enforcement, the Senate bill was over $700 million below the House. We were able to restore those funds in the conference report, including; $4.3 billion for the FBI, an increase of $773 million above last year and $45 million above the request, to continue efforts to modernize the FBI's IT infrastructure, and to improve the FBI's counterterrorism and counterintelligence capabilities; $1.65 billion for the DEA, an increase of $15 million above the request, and $80 million above last year to continue to fight the scourge of illegal drugs; 6.16 billion for the INS, Including $362 million for Entry Exit, and funding to hire an additional 570 border patrol agents, 460 land border immigration inspectors, and 760 additional airport and seaport inspectors and support personnel.

     The conference agreement provides $4.6 billion for State and Local law enforcement, including: $1.4 billion to prevent violent crime and acts of terrorism, including $500 million for the Byrne formula program, $400 million for the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program, and $515 million for law enforcement hiring, overtime, equipment, training, and technologies; $1 billion for the Office of Domestic Preparedness for equipment, training, and exercises for all types of first responders, fire, EMS, hazmat, and law enforcement; and $2.1 billion for other crime control programs, including $391 million to prevent violence against women, $57 million for methamphetamine enforcement and clean-up, $7.5 million for a prescription drug monitoring program to combat the abuse of prescription drugs such as OxyContin, and $465 million for juvenile delinquency and accountability programs.

     The conference report includes $716 million for the Securities and Exchange Commission, $150 million above the request and $248 million above fiscal year 2002, to provide the necessary resources to protect investors from corporate abuse.

     For the State Department, we have maintained the higher House funding level of $7.8 billion to fully fund the request for embassy security, to provide second year funding for the Department's Diplomatic Readiness Initiative, and to fully fund estimated current year assessments for the United Nations and United Nations Peacekeeping.

     For the Department of Commerce, the Conference Report provides $5.73 billion for the Department of Commerce and other trade agencies, over $400 billion above the level in the House bill. This funding will allow the Department to generate timely and accurate economic statistics, negotiate and verify fair trade agreements, improve weather forecasting, and manage the Nation's fisheries.

     For the Federal Judiciary, the conference report provides $4.9 billion, $199 million above fiscal year 2002. This includes funding to process an all-time-high number of criminal and bankruptcy cases, to continue the renovation of the Supreme Court building, and to fund the Judiciary's security requirements.

     Overall, Mr. Speaker, this conference agreement represents a sound and fair resolution of the multitude of issues that we faced in conference, and it does so in a fiscally responsible manner.

     We have come a long way toward constructing an acceptable bill, and I urge my colleagues to support this conference report.

     I would like to thank the Commerce-Justice-State subcommittee staff for their tireless efforts and long nights away from their families while preparing this legislation. Mike Ringler, clerk of the subcommittee, Christine Ryan Kojac, John Martens, Leslie Albright, Butch Davisson, and Nisha Kumar have worked night and day to finish the CJS portion of the Omnibus Bill and I want to personally thank them for their work and efforts.

  • [End Insert]

     Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

     The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 12 minutes remaining.

     Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

     (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

     Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I want to recognize and commend the appropriators for the difficult task that they had over this past year in coming together on this legislation.

     I also want to express my very serious disappointment on what happened in the conservation accounts in the Interior appropriations portion of this legislation, that we were not able to fund the commitments that we had made that so many local communities and conservation organizations rely on, where we have partnerships with business and civic organizations and individuals coming together to try and provide for the conservation of our lands and our open spaces, which have been terribly successful.

     The urban parks being zeroed out is a major disappointment to so many urban areas where we have, again, put together coalitions from the NBA, from women's sports to neighborhood organizations, from the Urban League and so many to rebuild these recreational facilities and opportunities for young people. It is a major disappointment.

     I also must tell my colleagues that the forest stewardship contracts now simply open up the forest in a most unregulated fashion.

     The disappointment is really this, and it is not the fault of these appropriators, it is the process. Because with this process it is not a fact that I did not get to be heard on this bill at one particular time or another, but my constituents did not. So many millions of Americans that are deeply concerned about the health of our environment, about the health of our forest, about the activities on our public lands are shut out from this process because those decisions were made last night or this morning or the night before, and they have had no time to respond to them. The vote will be taken about it, and they will read about it in the newspapers over the coming weeks.

     That is a major affront to democracy. That is a major affront to the basic principles of this institution, to the basic principles of representative government, that the people in this country have been closed out of this process.

  [Page: H663]

     Yes, the process has gone on a lot longer than it should have, but it was far more closed than at any time in the history of the House of Representatives. And that is a major, major disappointment for those of us, as we sit here on the brink of war talking about freedom and we think about bringing freedom and democracy to other countries and we see it shut down in the people's House.

     Legislation sits here and nobody has the ability to read it. Nobody knows what is in it, but we are going to be asked to vote for it. That is not the democracy we should be exporting. That is not the process we should be exporting.

     It is a process that denies our constituents. Whether they are interested in education or the environment or public health or aerospace, it denies them the opportunity to be heard; and it is a corruption, an outright corruption of the basic and fundamental principles of our government, of our constitution, and of this institution, and it ought to be stopped.

     Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), who is chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce and author of No Child Left Behind.

     Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and let me congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), his staff, the committee members, along with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and his staff, for a product well done, considering the handicaps of never having a budget and never having appropriation bills from the Senate.

     Mr. Speaker, this Congress has promised to do its part on behalf of America's school children, and the spending bill we debate today more than delivers on those promises. Much like the President's budget itself, this agreement is particularly generous towards education. It will provide yet another large increase in Federal education funding on top of record increases provided last year and the years before. This means that more than enough is being provided for States and public schools to carry out the reforms in the bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act.

     Not only are we providing enough money, we are providing more than enough. For 35 years, this Congress spent billions of dollars in education without ever insisting on results for the children that it was meant to serve. Just over a year ago, on this very floor, Democrats and Republicans stood proudly together to bring that era to an end. And as my colleagues rightly pointed out, we made a commitment to our children on that day.

     But maybe some of us need to be reminded of what that commitment was. What No Child Left Behind promised was that politicians would stop using money as an excuse for a 35-year failure to close the achievement gap. Thirty-five years and $150 billion later, the achievement gap has not changed at all over that period of time. We have now significantly increased our funding for education, twice since the bill was signed into law, and there are no more excuses. Our children need results.

     Let us look at title I. Under this agreement, aid to needy and disadvantaged schools through title I is increased by another $1.4 billion. And this is on top of the $1.5 billion increase provided as a result of last year's spending bills.

     

  [Time: 18:00]

     In other words, title I has virtually doubled since fiscal year 1995. Are we spending too little? I do not think so.

     Let me look at the second chart which is even more striking, and this is on special education, IDEA. As the chart shows, we have increased IDEA in this agreement by $1.4 billion. That is on top of the $1.2 billion that we increased it last year. Since fiscal year 1995, we have increased funding for IDEA 400 percent. That quadruples the amount of money that we are spending for our special-needs children.

     In addition to that, we put another $100 billion increase in the Teacher Quality Program. We increased Pell grants and pay off the shortfall from the prior year, and we increased Head Start funding by another $131 million.

     Mr. Speaker, if money alone can solve the problems in education, they would have been solved a long time ago. What we need to do is work to change attitudes in America that says that all of our children deserve a chance at a decent education.

     Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

     Mr. Speaker, I must say, I am amused by the prior speech. I would simply observe with respect to title I, the Republican Party in this House had to be dragged kicking and screaming into supporting the very funds which the gentleman so proudly now pointed to on his chart.

     Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

     (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

     Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to recommit which would remove the corrupt, dirty little disgusting antienvironmental riders that were picked up on this bill as it went through this process that simply are wrong. We ought to remove them. We ought to be ashamed of the antienvironmental riders that were added like leaches on the body politic.

     We should have good, honest debates about money around here; but we should be ashamed of the leaches that get added to legislation in the dark of night that are against the environmental values of this country, and there are three of them that ought to be removed that will be in the motion to recommit, and I will tell Members what they are.

     Antienvironmental leach number one: we in Congress pass environmental laws, and they ought to pertain to everywhere in America, in all 50 States in America. But in an unprecedented antienvironmental rider, the majority party, unless Members vote for this motion to recommit, says that the environmental laws of the United States passed by this Congress do not apply in one of the most beautiful places in America, the Tongass National Forest in the State of Alaska.

     What possible excuse is there for telling Americans that in one of the pristine spots in this country the laws of the United States of America do not apply? What excuse is there? Members have said in this wilderness designation there is no judicial review.

     What kind of Congress passes laws and then says we let the executive ignore the law by not having a judicial review? That is not a Congress that I know or should be proud of. We should get rid of this antienvironment rider.

     Leach number two: the other side in this bill has attempted to simply say we are going to salvage logging, essentially without meaningful protection or laws. We have to remove it.

     Leach number three: there is a dirty little secret of a back-door deal to try to open up the Arctic wilderness to oil drilling, and that is wrong. It should not be done in the dead of night. Join us to pass this motion and get rid of the antienvironmental riders.

     Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education.

     (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

     Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of this omnibus appropriations conference report. I want to share with my colleagues some of the things that are covered by this conference report.

     Our subcommittee section totals $133.4 billion, and I would emphasize this is the amount of the President's budget request. It includes funding for programs that touch the lives of all Americans from newborn health screening, Head Start, dozens of education programs, health research and prevention programs, training for dislocated workers to older Americans programs and the efficient administration of our Social Security and Medicare programs. All of these are encompassed in the bill.

     And for the education portion, it brings funding to title I to $1.4 billion, an increase overall in education funding of 7 percent. I think as was pointed out by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), this is a record. I think it is something we can all take pride in supporting on behalf of the people of this Nation.

  • [Begin Insert]

     Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of this omnibus appropriations conference report and to share with my colleagues the important programs we are funding within the Labor, Health

  [Page: H664]

  and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies title.

     Mr. Speaker, this portion of the bill totals $133.4 billion, the amount of the President's budget request. It includes funding for programs that touch the lives of all Americans from newborn health screening, Head Start, dozens of education programs, health research and prevention programs, training for dislocated workers to older American programs and the efficient administration of our Social Security and Medicare programs. All these programs and more encompass this bill.

     As my colleagues know, students, parents and teachers are working together to see real gains in student achievement as established in the No Child Left Behind Act passed by this Congress a year ago. This bill provides the vital funding to bring the goals of the new law to fruition, including a $1.4 billion increase in Title I funding, aiding disadvantaged students.

     In the area of special education, we have also included an increase of $1.4 billion over fiscal year 2002 as we continue to increase the federal portion of special education dollars. And to assist those seeking to improve their skills through higher education, we have increased the maximum Pell grant to $4,050 while also addressing a shortfall in the program that has resulted from a larger than expected number of students returning to school by providing more than half a billion dollars over the President's request for the program.

     I am pleased to report that the bill includes the fifth and final year of a commitment to double biomedical research funding for the National Institutes of Health with funding set at $27.2 billion. At this level NIH will be able to fund more than 38,000 research project grants, the highest number ever funded. These grants span countless areas including basic research as well as that for specific diseases that are the leading causes of death and disability--Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, cancer, AIDS and hundreds of others, including rare diseases.

     The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have been key in bringing new health research into practice through health promotion programs. Now, as we face continued threats to our homeland we call upon the CDC to act as our first line of defense against bioterrorism as well. We have provided $4.3 billion to the CDC for these important activities.

     Within the Health Resources and Services Administration we have included $1.5 billion for Community Health Centers, access points to those who have no health care,

      and $2 billion for Ryan White Aids program, a $96 million increase.

     The bill provides funding for services for our neediest people, including $1.8 billion for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and $1.376 billion for programs for older Americans, including nutrition programs such as Meals on Wheels and totaling nearly $719 million.

     This bill funds the Department of Labor at $11.9 billion, $116 million below last year. However, within the account for the Workforce Investment Act, we have tried to focus our resources on the needs of the many people in our country who have been dislocated from their jobs by boosting support for dislocated workers by $92 million overall. We are hopeful that the many good people in our local communities working to provide job placement assistance to these unemployed workers will use this funding to assist these workers in re-gaining employment as quickly as possible. Finally, Job Corps, an outstanding program that partners with so many businesses to train our nation's youth for productive employment is increased by $60 million. Job Corps provides a needed second chance to many of our youth who had not found initial success in school or work.

     Mr. Speaker, these programs serve the people of our great nation well and help to strengthen the educational, health and job opportunities for all Americans. I urge the support of the Members of this body in passing the bill today.

     In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the members of my staff and that of Mr. OBEY in the endless hours of work they have provided to bringing this bill before us today. Craig Higgins, Sue Quantius, Susan Firth, Meg Thompson, Nicole Kunko, Francine Mack-Salvador, and Elizabeth Bowles, as well as David Reich, Cheryl Smith and Linda Pagelsen have done a terrific job in producing the product before us. Thank you to each of them.

  • [End Insert]

     Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris) for the purpose of a colloquy.

     Ms. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, for the opportunity to briefly discuss the importance of ensuring that Miami, Florida, is selected as the location of the Permanent Secretariat for the Free Trade of Americas.

     Due to its role as the headquarters of the FTAA, the Permanent Secretariat will operate as the critical nerve center of an unprecedented economic colossus twice the size of the European Union.

     The Permanent Secretariat will provide vital administrative services for FTAA member nations, while providing the situs for dispute resolution and other critical proceedings established under the FTAA agreements.

     Although the FTAA will not be established until 2005, the site selection process for the Permanent Secretariat is currently ongoing. I wish to bring to the committee's attention the fact that should the FTAA become a reality, its success as well as the effective promotion of our national interests will depend significantly upon the placement of the FTAA's Permanent Secretariat in Miami, Florida.

     The Permanent Secretariat's ability to effectively discharge its crucial functions will depend upon its geographical proximity to member nations, the reliability of the communications, the security of its facilities, and the quality of the transportation infrastructure.

     Only a location in the United States can meet all of these criteria, and Miami is uniquely qualified. Miami is also universally recognized as the top of three prenegotiated candidates for the Permanent Secretariat, which also includes Panama City and Mexico City.

     Due to the Bush administration's drive to accelerate negotiations, the beginning of negotiations next week, and the occurrence of a ministerial meeting in November, the committee's attention to this issue could not be more timely.

     Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

     Ms. HARRIS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

     Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentlewoman that throughout the 2004 process, we will continue to work with the gentlewoman and the Florida delegation for this purpose.

     Ms. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his acknowledgment of my request and his support.

     Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

     Mr. Speaker, I want to take this time, and so does the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), in order to express the House's appreciation to Greg Dahlberg, who has served this institution so ably and for so long. For over 20 years he served on the Committee on Appropriations on the Subcommittee on Transportation, on the full committee central staff, and on the Subcommittee on Defense. Since 1994, he was a senior Democratic staffer for defense appropriations which covers virtually all of the military operations in the government.

     He was appointed Under Secretary of the Army the last 6 months of the Clinton administration. He volunteered to help the new administration get started, and stayed a few extra months. He has been a personal adviser and great friend to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and myself. He has served over 200 Democratic members to help them understand defense issues and to deal with those issues in their districts. He has a deep concern for the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines deployed throughout the world. He loves this institution, and he has given help many times to both Democratic and Republican Members of this institution.

     In the defense world there are many opportunities for qualified staff to leave the Hill for more lucrative jobs. Greg has resisted that temptation for many years, and for that we are grateful. We certainly wish him well in his future endeavors. He has been the institutional memory of this House on the budget process and on defense intelligence. He is one of the finest, most dedicated public servants, and one of the most decent human beings I have ever had the privilege to work with.

     Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

     Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

     Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) reminded me that Greg Dahlberg was still here. I thought he was gone.

     Yesterday we praised him in a closed briefing. Not only did the gentleman

  [Page: H665]

  from California (Mr. Lewis) and I praise him, but the Secretary of Defense praised him because not only was he Under Secretary, he was Acting Secretary of the Army for a period of time.

     I was shocked when he came back. This guy went over there, he had an office as big as this room here. He had a bathroom, car, an airplane, and he came back to the cubbyhole where we share a little room 12 by 12 with six other people.

     Greg Dahlberg is a dedicated staffer. I have never seen a guy so dedicated. This guy is one of the finest people I know. It is completely bipartisan. He tries to get things done. He wants to take care of not only the military, but every other job he has been involved in. We are going to miss the honorable Greg Dahlberg. This is his last day.

     Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, whether it is within the rules of the House or not, I think this institution owes Mr. Dahlberg a round of applause for his service.

     Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

     Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense.

     (Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

     Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and it is very appropriate that I should follow with my remarks those of my friend and colleague and partner in this business, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha). The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) was very kind to begin his remarks with a tribute to Greg Dahlberg.

     I wanted to mention that the work of our subcommittee, that is the Subcommittee on Defense, along with MILCON, got their work done last year for the 2003 year; and it is largely because of the very fine relationship we have with our professional staff and with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member.

     Just the day before yesterday in our meeting, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, responding to the needs that are within this bill, and this bill includes a $10 billion package which is an additive to the 2003 bill which was not included in that budget relative to some of the costs carrying forward the war on terrorism. It is costing us over $1.5 billion a month, and we are very cognizant of the importance of this legislation in connection with that defense effort. Indeed, I want to have in the RECORD a copy of the letter from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that reflects his support for this legislation.

     But probably this piece would not be a part of this package or would not be effectively here if it were not for the work of our very fine staff.

     

  [Time: 18:15]

     Greg Dahlberg reflects the finest of those professionals that we have around this place. We have them on both sides of the aisle, and especially among those committees that deal with the work on behalf of defense.

     I think the Members know that, year in and year out, we come to the floor with a major portion of our discretionary money in the defense arena and we carry those bills forward with almost no rancor, taking usually very little time on the floor. And I think, generally speaking, those who are watching the action on the floor today should know that a significant reason for this bill going forward, so important that it go forward now, is that we do have this rather sizable piece of money that is critical to our being able to be consistent in moving forward with the war on terrorism.

     And so while Greg leaves us officially in the near term, shortly, sometime, I am not sure when, I am sorry to see him leave. I am proud to be a friend of his; I expect to work with him in the months and years ahead, but in turn, I want to thank him for helping us get the kind of bipartisan support we expect to have for this bill as it passes.

     CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT

     CHIEFS OF STAFF,

     Washington, DC.
  Hon. C.W. BILL YOUNG,
  Chairman, Committee on Appropriations,
  House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

     DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: During our meeting yesterday you asked Secretary Rumsfeld and me how significant the $6.1B for Defense currently in the FY2003 Omnibus Appropriations Bill is to the Armed Services. The following elaborates on our answer of yesterday.

     The Global War on Terrorism is costing about $1.6B per month. This expense is not part of the Services' FY 2003 budgets. As a result, the Services are dipping into their budgeted 4th quarter operating accounts--we are in fact dipping into Service 3rd quarter operating accounts now--to fund first and second quarter FY 2003 expenses associated with the war. Without the $6.1B funding in the FY 2003 Omnibus, we will need to take immediate actions to reduce spending. These actions will negatively impact readiness.

     I offer my support for your efforts in passing the Omnibus (H.J. Res. 2) before the President's Day recess. The package you have worked includes essential funding for the Defense Department; that is important to our national security.

     The men and women of our Armed Forces deeply appreciate the support of your Committee and that of the entire Congress.

     Sincerely,

     Richard B. Myers,
  Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

     Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

     Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind the Members of the House what the content of the recommittal motion will be. We will simply strike the antienvironmental riders exempting the Tongass National Forest plan from administrative and judicial review, expanding the Forest Service stewardship contracting demonstration program throughout the United States, turning over the forests of the country to the timber companies lock, stock and barrel if they choose.

     It would also reconsider language in the conference agreement which removes the restriction in the House-passed Interior bill which prohibited the use of fiscal 2003 BLM funding for activity related to oil drilling in ANWR, the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve.

     It would add funding for critical conservation resource programs at not less than 2002 levels. That is consistent with an agreement that was made and should be abided by until the year 2006.

     And it also would add up to $500 million above the current conference levels to fund training, equipment and assistance for first responders; in other words, bringing it up to the presidential request.

     Mr. Speaker, I full well recognize that there are many good things in this bill. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. There are many things that we have to provide. And so I am certainly not going to ask Members to vote against the bill, but I am going to ask them to vote for the recommittal motion if you care about our environmental stewardship and if you really care about providing the equipment and the support necessary to our first responders, our policemen and firemen.

     If indeed you want to send them the resources they need rather than duct tape, vote for the motion to recommit.

     Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

     Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.

     Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, included in this legislation is $1.1 million for the Roanoke River Upper Basin Project. Is it the gentleman from Ohio's intention and expectation that the contract for construction will be awarded only on an open and competitive bidding process?

     Mr. HOBSON. If the gentleman will yield, yes, I agree.

     Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

     I do so, Mr. Speaker, to say also a sad good-bye to Greg Dahlberg, who was not only a trusted staff but a trusted friend.

     Greg, you know that we are going to miss you.

     I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for spirit of cooperation that we have enjoyed with each other working through this process. And I also want to say, please vote against his motion to recommit. I want to thank the Speaker of the House for the strong leadership that he gave us in trying to come to a conclusion on some very thorny issues, as well as the distinguished majority leader of the Senate. As for Senator Stevens, I tell you he worked miracles, because he had to come down $9 billion more than we had to come down in order to meet this number.

     I want to pay a special tribute to Vice President Cheney. The Vice President weighed in as we were trying to solve some very difficult issues. He was

  [Page: H666]

  extremely effective. I just really appreciate the fact that he helped us get to where we are today, where we can finally pass this bill out of here, conclude the work of fiscal year 2003 and begin the work of fiscal year 2004.

     And, yes, by the way, again, please vote against the gentleman from Wisconsin's motion to recommit.

  • [Begin Insert]

     Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this omnibus appropriations bill. It is unfortunate that Republicans felt it necessary to use this legislation as a vehicle to peddle their anti-environment agenda while forcing cuts in basic priorities. I would have liked to support many provisions included in this bill.

     This bill contains funding I have worked for to fund two Army Corps of Engineers flood control studies that will help communities in my district to evaluate flood problems. It will also provide money for a pilot program in Alameda County to protect children at risk from entering the long-term foster care system. I strongly support these vital programs. However, I have no choice but to oppose the legislation before us today.

     I cannot in good conscience support this Republican bill because it will open the door to an unprecedented assault on our environment. It grants logging companies unfettered access to public lands to devastate and degrade our national forests. It specifically invites the timber industry to invade Alaska's Tongass Rainforest and reduce the splendor of this wilderness to a patchwork of clear cuts. It opens the pristine landscape of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for the gas industry to make another oil field. An it leaves little money for the unkeep of our national parks and conservation efforts.

     Beyond assaulting our environment, this bill continues to shortchange education and will leave our children behind regardless of the President's rhetoric to the contrary. It calls for an across-the-board cut in federal investment in our schools, a cut of over $300 million this school year. This bill also makes it more difficult for parents and students to pay for college. The meager increase for Pell grants doesn't even keep pace with the rising cost of inflation.

     The bill makes a drastic cut in housing subsidies for poor families. In this tough economy, there is little reason to make times harder for those who have already been hardest hit by this tough economy.

     Finally, this bill makes a mockery of homeland security and public safety. While the President continues to raise fears about impending terrorist attacks, his Republican cronies aren't funding the first responders who will be on the front lines if such an attack occurs. This bill also contains cuts in security at our ports, dams, and nuclear facilities that if breached could have a catastrophic impact.

     I urge President Bush and Congressional Republicans to end their assault on our basic priorities. I ask my colleagues to support Representative OBEY'S motion to recommit, which would remove the disastrous anti-environmental riders from this bill. And, if that motion does not pass--which it won't--I urge my colleagues to vote against the entire bill.

     Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I would like to be able to vote for this conference report, because it does include some things that I support and that are very important for Colorado and the country. If those items, or even the parts of this omnibus bill that included them, were being considered separately, I well could vote for them.

     But that is not the situation today. Instead, today Members of the House are presented with a more difficult choice. We must vote yes or no on this entire conference report, which rolls into one enormous package no fewer than 11 of the regular 13 appropriations bills that together cover all of the government except the Department of Defense.

     This is not the way the House should do its work. It is an embarrassment for all of us. But the responsibility lies solely upon the Republican leadership. They are the ones who refused to allow the House to consider only a few of the regular appropriations bills last year, either before the November elections or in the subsequent lame duck session. They are the ones who have brought this embarrassment, this shame, even, upon the House.

     Nonetheless, each of us has had to try to review the results, weighing its good and bad features, without adequate information and in undue haste--haste now, after months and months of delay--and decide, on balance whether to support it. So I have done my best to review and understand what is before the House. And, on balance, with some regret, I must vote against it.

     Let me briefly explain how I reached that decision, weighing the good parts of the bill against its serious defects.

     GOOD ASPECTS OF THE BILL

     Here are some of the good things in the bill:

     COLORADO FUNDING ITEMS

     The omnibus bill provides funding for several important activities in Colorado. I want to highlight just a few:

     Rocky Flats Cleanup Funds--I am very glad that the omnibus bill includes $664 million to continue the ongoing cleanup of the Rocky Flats Site. This is a matter of the highest priority to all Coloradans, because this former nuclear-weapons production site, with its large quantities of radioactive materials, toxic chemicals, and other dangers is just 15 miles from the heart of our largest metropolitan area. The Department of Energy, through its contract with Kaiser-Hill, is working hard to have it cleaned up so it can be closed and transferred to the Department of the Interior for management as a National Wildlife Refuge. The funding included in the omnibus bill will enable that effort to continue, so this is definitely a good part of the overall package.

     NIST laboratory repairs--I am particularly glad that these include more than $11 million to enable the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, to begin what the

     conferees very accurately describe as ``urgently needed construction and renovation'' work at NIST's laboratory in Boulder. The condition of this laboratory has been of great concern to me, and I want to express my thanks to Chairman FRANK WOLF and Ranking Member JOSE SERRANO for making sure that these funds were included. I look forward to continue working with them and the rest of the appropriations committee so we can complete this important task.

     Beaver Brook acquisition--The conference report includes $2.5 million for the Forest Service to continue with acquisition of lands in the Beaver Brook watershed, in Clear Creek County, now owned by the City of Golden. I am glad that this is included, but regret that the amount is significantly less than the $4 million for this purpose that was included in the Interior appropriations bill passed by the House. I will seek to have sufficient funds included in the appropriations bill for fiscal 2004 to enable the Forest Service to stay on schedule for completion of this acquisition.

     Great Sand Dunes--The bill includes $7 million to acquire lands slated to be included in this National Park System unit, and another $5 million for acquisition of lands that will be included in the adjacent unit of the National Wildlife Refuge system. I support these acquisitions.

     Other good aspects of the bill include the following:

     MEDICARE PROVISIONS

     The omnibus bill includes increased payments for Medicare physicians and rolls back a scheduled March 1 pay cut that could result in serious health care access issues for our nation's seniors. I have long supported increased Medicare payments for providers and have cosponsored legislation to roll back the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services physician payment cuts scheduled for 2002 and 2003, and to devise a formula that better reflects the cost of care. So my vote against the omnibus bill should not be perceived as a vote against increasing payments for Medicare doctors. My record proves otherwise.

     DROUGHT ASSISTANCE

     The drought Colorado and other states are suffering from has devastated many farmers and ranchers. Some of us in Congress have been asking for drought relief for almost a year. I am encouraged to see that there is some relief in the omnibus appropriation bill, but I am concerned that for many people it may be coming too late. It would have been appropriate for drought assistance funds to have been included in the supplemental appropriation passed last year, but the resistance of the Administration meant that didn't happen. And the refusal of the Republican leadership to act in a more timely fashion on the regular appropriations bills has compounded the problem.

     LIMITS ON INFORMATION PROGRAM

     I am very glad that the conference report retains the Senate's provision limiting the Defense Department's ``Total Information Awareness'' program. I thought the potential for abuse of this program outweighed its purported advantages, and think the restrictions included in the conference report are most appropriate.

     INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE

     The conference report includes $295 million for humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan and $800 million for international HIV/AIDS programs. Bother are needed.

     NASA

     The conference report includes $50 million for NASA to investigate the cause of the Columbia shuttle tragedy, which is very important. It also provides that the general funds

     provided for the shuttle program will be exempt from the across-the-board rescission made by the bill--something that I support.

     ELECTION REFORM FUNDING

     The conference report includes funding to implement the Help America Vote Act, including funds to help Colorado and the other states to modernize their voting equipment. I strongly supported that election-reform law, and regretted that the President chose not to

  [Page: H667]

  spend the funds provided last year for its implementation. So I am glad these funds are included in this omnibus bill.

     BAD ASPECTS OF THE BILL

     If those are some of the good things, what are the bad? Here is a partial list:

     SHORTCHANGING FIRST RESPONDERS

     I have strongly supported efforts to improve our homeland security against terrorism. I supported establishment of a Homeland Security Department, as recommended by former Senators Gary Hart of Colorado and Warren Rudman of New Hampshire, and did so even while the Bush Administration was opposing the idea. Central to those efforts will be the ability of our first responders, police, firefighters, and others, to meet the challenges they are facing. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the Administration's attitude toward them has been nothing short of shameful, and the Republican leadership of the House has slavishly followed the Administration's lead. The President and Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge have repeatedly promised the nation's police and fire departments $3.5 billion in ``new'' first responder grants. The President first pledged this ``new money'' in a February 25, 2002 speech to the nation's governors. However, last year, he threatened to veto the post-9/11 Homeland Security Bill if it included additional homeland security money. And in August, the President refused to spend the $5.1 billion homeland security package, which included $150 million in emergency first responder grants and which was developed on a bipartisan basis. Then, in December of 2002, the Justice Department announced that it would ``suspend awarding grants to aid first responders to terrorist attacks'' even though Congress had provided stopgap funding for first responders in continuing resolutions. And just last month, our Republican colleagues, following the lead of the Administration, voted down legislation to immediately fund the promised $3.5 billion in new money for first responders.

     Now some of our colleagues are saying that this conference report funds the President's supposed request for $3.5 billion in ``new'' money for first responders. However, the fact is they are counting previously existing law enforcement and firefighting grants, as well as the new first responder initiative. For comparison, in 2002 those existing programs actually received roughly $2.3 billion. So, in reality the conference report includes only $1.2 billion in ``new'' money--far less than the $3.5 billion in ``new'' money that was promised.

     UNDERMINING ORGANIC FOOD STANDARDS

     Organic food products have become a $10 billion dollar industry in America--and Colorado is the number-two producer in the nation. The success of this segment of agriculture is built on consumer confidence in the USDA's standards represented by the ``organic'' label. Yet, this omnibus appropriation bill undermines some of the integrity of those standards by allowing meat to carry the ``organic'' label even though the livestock were fed on non-organic feed. The USDA took years to develop the organic standards working with a states and private entities.

     WEAKENING ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

     As others have pointed out, the bill includes many provisions contrary to good environmental policy. Not only are these bad in themselves, their inclusion in an omnibus appropriations measure makes them doubly objectionable.

     This is particularly important to me because I was a member of the Resources Committee during the 107th Congress, and am looking forward to membership on both that Committee and the Agriculture Committee in this Congress. Many of the provisions in this omnibus bill are legislative in nature, and should properly be dealt with in legislation originating in one or both of those Committees. Particularly notable in this regard are the provisions related to ``stewardship contracting'' as an aspect of forest management. While I understand why some of its proponents find it attractive, it is a subject that needs careful review and consideration, and should not be dealt with as a minor part of an omnibus appropriations measure.

     If the motion to recommit had been adopted, many of my concerns regarding this conference report would have been resolved. That the motion did not succeed adds a great deal to my reluctance to support this conference report.

     INADEQUATE FUNDING IN MANY AREAS

     Overall, the conference report reflects the fact that the Republican leadership, not the appropriators, but their leadership, acted as agents of the Administration by imposing arbitrary and unrealistic constraints on funding for vital functions of government.

     CONCLUSION--NO WAY TO DO BUSINESS

     This bill is a textbook example of how we should not legislate, behind closed doors, without meaningful participation by more than a small number of Members, and under ``crisis'' conditions resulting from deliberate strategy. This along is a major reason that I cannot support the conference report.

     So, Mr. Speaker, as I said, while it was not an easy decision, I have decided I cannot support this conference report.

     Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Obey motion to recommit because this massive piece of legislation falls short in some issues critical to our nation, and includes certain controversial provisions that need to be debated and considered through the legislative process, not in closed conference.

     I agree with my colleague from Wisconsin that there are homeland security priorities that we can and must fund that are not adequately addressed in this 1,100 page bill. For example, this legislation funds only one-fifth of what the U.S. Customs Commissioner says is needed to effectively inspect the thousands of cargo containers that enter our nation everyday. This presents our nation with an unfortunate vulnerability to terrorism and Congress must fund this priority.

     In addition, as a member of the House Resources Committee, I feel provisions included in this legislation, such as a rider potentially allowing significant commercial logging in some of our most ecologically sensitive areas, and the funding of preliminary work for opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, are uncalled for. These important and controversial issues should be fully debated and open to amendment through the normal legislative process. In addition, the cutting of important conservation program funding by $200 million dollars will set our nation further back in protecting our most important resources. These programs are supported by the states, and especially important to my home state of Wisconsin.

     Further, thanks to an 11th hour provision inserted into the fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations bill, consumers of some organic food products may not know if their food is truly organic. This provision seriously undermines both consumer confidence in organic food labels and the USDA standards. The provision will permit some livestock to be labeled ``organic'' even though the livestock products do not meet the strict criteria established by USDA. Most significantly, producers of select livestock (chicken and other poultry products) would not have to meet the requirement that the animals be fed organically grown feed.

     The recently enacted organic standard was the result of many years of careful deliberation and public input. Overwhelmingly, organic producers and consumers have supported the new standards. Due to this outrageous omnibus provision, organic producers and consumers will no longer have confidence in the organic labeling process.

     Such a massive omnibus bill incorporating 11 spending bills and totaling nearly $400 billion, also lends itself to abuse through the inclusion of numerous pet projects that are not based on necessity and would not be justifiable to the public if considered in the light of day.

     Mr. Speaker, we must have priorities in our funding. We must confront the threats facing our land while ensuring our children have access to quality education and our most needy have access to healthcare.

     This legislation does meet many of the obligations of our government, and on their own merits, I would have supported them. However, the inclusion of funding for countless projects and programs that were never debated or considered on the House floor makes this bill unsupportable in its current form.

     I urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit so that we can address some of the most damaging aspects of this bill.

     Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, the Conference Committee for the FY 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Bill has included language relating to the funding of the installment due on or before September 30, 2003 under the Consent Judgment entered on February 7, 2003 in Sumner Peck Ranch, Inc. v. Bureau of Reclamation. By including this language it is not Congress' intent that the United States default in the payment of that installment. Creating such a default would be unwise. Instead, the intent of the language is to indicate that funds under the Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act are not authorized to pay such installment. By so indicating, it is further intended that payment of the Peck judgment installments is ``not otherwise provided for'' as that phrase is used in Section 1304 of Title 31 of the United States Code. Appropriations exist and are available under Section 1304 for payment of such installment, and it is intended that such appropriations be so utilized.

     Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, the Conference Committee for the FY 2003 Omnibus Appropriation Bill has included language relating to the funding of the installment due on or before September 30, 2003 under the Consent Judgment entered on February 7, 2003 in Sumner Peck Ranch, Inc. v. Bureau of Reclamation. By including this language it is not Congress' intent that the United States default in the payment of that installment. Creating such a default would be unwise. Instead, the intent of the language is to indicate that funds under the Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act are not authorized to

  [Page: H668]

  pay such installment. By so indicating, it is further intended that payment of the Peck judgment installments is ``not otherwise provided for'' as that phrase is used in Section 1304 of Title 31 of the United States Code. Appropriations exist and are available under Section 1304 for payment of such installment, and it is intended that such appropriations be so utilized.

     Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, today the House passed the Omnibus Appropriations bill, to fund federal government operations for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2003.

     This Omnibus package combines 11 of 13 separate funding bills that should have been completed months ago. But rather than conduct hearings and encourage thoughtful debate on America's budget priorities, the Republican leadership in this Congress has cobbled together a 3000 page, $400 billion mega-spending bill in mostly back room deals. And now they ask for a simple yes or no vote on this huge package.

     Mr. Speaker, I am a new Member of Congress and I am extremely disappointed by the process. The American people have been shut out of the process. I wish, Mr. Speaker, that I could use this vote as a lesson for my three children and children throughout my district, to teach them how the great democratic institutions of our land reflect the will of American people.

     But today, Mr. Speaker, the democratic and deliberative process have been hijacked. The Committee system of this Congress has been bypassed. No hearings. No testimony from impartial experts. No debate. No markup. Nothing.

     Mr. Speaker, this is no way to begin this new session of Congress. The full House has been given little opportunity to debate, and no opportunity to amend this huge bill. This is a dreadfully flawed backroom process that has allowed logging and oil interests to attach riders that are harmful to our environment. These riders, which have nothing to do with the appropriations process, allow for clear-cutting in national forests, prevent Forest Service administration decisions from being challenged in court, and remove a House-passed provision that would have barred preliminary work on a drilling program in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge.

     But at the same time, this omnibus spending bill does include certain provisions that I strongly support. Among them are the full 4.1 percent cost-of-living pay raise for federal employees that the Administration had so strongly opposed, and a desperately needed adjustment to the Medicare reimbursement formula for doctors, hospitals and other health care providers that will improve access to care for thousands of patients. This matter should have been addressed months ago; it should not have been necessary to include it in this bill.

     Although I support the federal pay raise and the Medicare formula fix, I am angered that they are being held hostage by the disastrous, short-sighted riders that wreak havoc on our environment. I object to this kind of back-room political extortion, a cynical abuse of the legislative process to advance the interests of a few over the needs of many.

     That is why I voted in favor of the Motion to Recommit this bill and consider an alternative that better reflects our needs and priorities.

     But since the motion to recommit did not pass, I was forced to cast a yes-or-no vote on the final package. Even with the terrible riders, I could not vote to deny our federal employees the pay raise they deserve, or to deny seniors access to Medicare by failing to adjust the reimbursement formula, or to deny funding for schools or homeland security or the many other needs that are funded in this bill.

     But, Mr. Speaker, those of us who support progressive environmental and conservation policies will persevere. We will keep fighting these short-sighted policies. The American people do not support them and they will not stand.

     Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve better so we can do better. We can do so much better.

     Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, in the past, I have often been reluctant to support omnibus bills, which package multiple pieces of legislation into one. It is poor policy to legislate in this manner. This particular omnibus appropriations bill, combining eleven appropriations bills totaling $397.4 billion is the worst example of this that I have seen.

     Many of the individual bills were never brought before the relevant committees and we are barred from offering amendments on the floor. The final draft of more than 1,000 pages were first made available to the full Congress less than 12 hours before we are being asked to vote on it. Nobody knows the extent of the riders, earmarks and provisions that have been added to this bill. What we do know is in here includes some of the most egregious environmental riders imaginable: allowing nearly unlimited clear-cutting of our national forests; exempting the Administration's Tongass National Forest management plan from all judicial or administrative appeals; and, allowing preliminary work for drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--despite the fact that it is currently illegal to drill there.

     Many of my constituents have expressed concern about the process that has taken place to get us to this point. I am not able to defend the process to them and, therefore, cannot support final passage of this bill. It is not fair to legislators or the people they represent to conduct Congress in this manner. I look ahead with promise to a new fiscal year when Congress can again return to legislating.

     Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for final passage of the FY 03 Omnibus Bill, but I will hold my nose as I do so.

     Let me first note one positive aspect of the omnibus--the increase in Medicare provider payments. I'm very pleased that the conferees approved a 1.6 percent increase this year, to prevent the drastic payment cuts that threatened seniors' access to healthcare.

     But all is not well, unfortunately. I believe, as do so many of my colleagues, that these are unusual and dangerous times that require urgent action. We cannot continue to leave this government limping along with frozen budgets, trying to meet the challenges of a new world. So I find myself compelled to vote for this bill, to protect my constituents and the people of the United States. Our federal agencies need to have appropriate funding to deal with the threats and challenges of the world as we see it today.

     Mr. Speaker, the House leadership did not think it necessary to give our local first responders the funding they need to deal with emergencies. We've heard so much rhetoric about the need for this country to be prepared for the dangers around us. So why have we shortchanged the police, firefighters, and emergency medical personnel who are so crucial to these preparedness efforts? I voted for the motion to recommit because it added $500 million above the conference-approved levels for training, equipment, and assistance for first responders.

     What I also cannot condone is the senseless assault on our environment contained in this bill, including language that removes oversight of public land management in areas like the Tongass National Forest. I also cannot condone a decrease in funding for conservation programs, which are so crucial as we consider how to end our dependence on foreign oil.

     These are only two of the things I can find wrong in this bill, because we had less than one day to work on it. Who knows what else have been slipped in? I will vote for this bill, Mr. Speaker, but I do so with great reservation.

     Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the Conference Committee for the FY 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Bill has included language relating to the funding of the installment due on or before September 30, 2003 under the Consent Judgment entered on February 7, 2003 in Sumner Peck Ranch, Inc. v. Bureau of Reclamation. By including this language it is not Congress' intent that the United States default in the payment of that installment. Creating such a default would be unwise. Instead, the intent of the language is to indicate that funds under the Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act are not authorized to pay such installment. By so indicating, it is further intended that payment of the Peck judgment installment is ``not otherwise provided for'' as that phrase is used in Section 1304 of Title 31 of the United States Code. Appropriations exist and are available under Section 1304 for payment of such installment, and it is intended that such appropriations be so utilized.

     Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support for the conference report.

     This omnibus act includes the fiscal year 2003 appropriations act for foreign operations, exporting financing, and related programs. As chairman of the Subcommittee, I'm pleased we'll finally enact into law important funding provisions and policy language that the Appropriations Committee considered last fall. It is vital that the Congress maintain a partnership with the Administration, both in funding for foreign assistance and in the development of the policy that accompanies and guides that assistance. Failure to enact foreign aid appropriations bills in a timely manner erodes and compromises the constitutional role of Congress in both these important areas.

     The foreign operations division of this conference report totals $16.3 billion in discretionary budget authority. It is $250 million below the level approved last year by the House Appropriations Committee, $130 million below the Senate level, and $171 million below the President's request. However, despite these reductions we have managed to fund important initiatives in funding for HIV/AIDS, assistance for Afghanistan, and in the War on Terrorism.

     Assistance to combat HIV/AIDS in the foreign operations division of this conference report totals $800 million. That compares to $475 million in the fiscal year 2002 appropriations act. As part of this funding, $250 million is a contribution to the Global Fund to fight

  [Page: H669]

  AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, bringing the total United States contribution to date to $725 million.

     In the two years since I became chairman of the subcommittee, we've raised funding to combat HIV/AIDS from $300 million to $800 million, an increase of over 250 percent. I know everyone would like more, and the President recommends major increases in future budgets. However, I think we can take some satisfaction in the way this Congress has responded to the needs in this area.

     The conference report also includes the recommendation from the House bill that provides a minimum funding level for Afghanistan of $295.5 million. The President's budget stated that final funding levels for Afghanistan were yet to be determined, but I believe it is necessary to maintain an emphasis on reconstruction of the physical infrastructure as well as building institutions of democracy in Afghanistan. For that reason funding in this bill for disaster assistance and refugee assistance is increased above the levels recommended by the President.

     Total refugee assistance in this conference report is $813 million, compared to the President's request of $720 million. Many members of the House wrote to us last year to support as high a level as possible for refugee assistance, and we have responded.

     We also have a new focus in this conference report on economic growth, including trade capacity building, basic education, and clean water. We include bill language providing that not less $452,000,000 should be provided for trade capacity building in the developing world. This is an issue close to my heart, because I believe that without the ability to participate in the international trading system, developing countries will be left behind in the global economy.

     We also maintain and enhance assistance for our allies in the War on Terrorism. Israel will receive almost $2.8 billion in assistance, including an increase of $60 million in military assistance. Jordan will receive $250 million in economic assistance, an increase of $100 million. In addition, Jordan will receive $198 million in military assistance, an increase of $123 million. Anti-terrorism training for the security forces of our allies will increase from $38 million to $64 million.

     I am disappointed we were not able to fund $200 million for additional anti-terrorism assistance for Israel as I recommended twice last year--once in the supplemental and once in the regular fiscal year 2003 bill. In this conference agreement, we were forced to reduce the overall level of the House bill by $250 million, and the Senate bill did not contain this funding. Therefore it was impossible to accommodate this increase without damaging cuts to other programs. However, it is my expectation we will be addressing this matter as part of the supplemental appropriations request we should be receiving from the Administration in the next month.

     It should come as no surprise to learn that we do not continue funding for the heavy fuel oil costs of the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization, or KEDO, since North Korea has abrogated the Agreed Framework. This results in a reduction of $70 million from the President's request.

     This conference report continues assistance to Eastern Europe and to Eurasia through out regional accounts. Funding for the Former Soviet Union and Eurasia is provided at a level of $760 million while assistance for Eastern Europe is funded at $525 million. However, we include language similar to that contained in the House bill prohibiting funding for the Government of Urkraine unless the President certifies that it has not provided arms to Iraq. We do not want to reward governments that are aiding Saddam Hussein.

     We also retain important language initiatives from the House bill, including language that tightens oversight on both the West Bank and Gaza assistance program of AID and on our funding to the United National Relief and Works Agency. In neither case do we prevent funding for the important humanitarian work done by these agencies; we only ask for oversight by the USAID Inspector General in the case of the West Bank and Gaza Program, and a report by the GAO on whether current law is being followed by the State Department in providing assistance to the UN Relief and Works Agency.

     After long negotiations with the Senate, the Committee came to a compromise on the Andean Counterdrug Initiative. The conference report funds this account at a level of $700 million, which is $75 million more than last year and $31 million less than the request. The conference report includes a permissive transfer of $31 million from the regular International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement account from this or previous Acts, therefore if the authority is exercised, the Andean Counterdrug Initiative will be fully funded.

     While I am a strong advocate of properly managed United States foreign assistance programs, the Committee learned last year that some foreign governments have assessed taxes against our aid programs. This is unacceptable, and we owe it to the American people to ensure that tax dollars intended for programs to help people are not transferred to the treasuries of foreign governments. Therefore, we include language from the House bill mandating that the Department of

     State take definite action to halt this practice. We further require that any tax that is collected and not properly reimbursed to the United States government will be deducted at a level of 200 percent from the aid that would be provided to that country in fiscal year 2004. Half of these funds will be returned in a rebate to the Treasury, thereby providing the first ``tax relief'' Congress will consider this year.

     Finally, we have recommended language for the U.N. Population Fund that almost no one likes, but which almost everyone is prepared to live with. This bill respects the concerns of the majority in the House who insist that U.S. funds going to the UNFPA are contingent on that organization's commitment, action, and adherence to a policy of opposing coercive abortions in China in compliance with the so-called ``Kemp-Kasten'' amendment. I have also tried to recognize our common belief that it is imperative that U.S. maintain and continue to project positive leadership in international affairs in a way that helps us secure our very broad foreign policy interests. That is why both the fiscal year 2002 funds of $34 million, and $34 million in fiscal year 2003 will be available to UNFPA if they are in compliance with Kemp-Kasten.

     Mr. Speaker, I have highlighted only the most important provisions of the foreign operations appropriations act. I think we have done a good job responding to the President's needs in this area while protecting programs important to the Congress. I strongly support this conference report and urge its adoption.

     Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply disappointed that we were given less than twenty-four hours to evaluate this critical and massive omnibus appropriations bill. I object to this flawed process.

     This bill includes a number of anti-environmental provisions that significantly endanger our nation's public lands, forests, wildlife, clean water, endangered species and other national treasures. These are environmentally harmful and fiscally wasteful projects. H.J. Res. 2 makes deep cuts to the Conservation Trust Fund. Congress established this fund to address the chronic underfunding of our nation's parks, refuges, wildlife protections, open space, and historic and cultural resources. The Conservation Trust Fund has responded to the concerns of thousands of conservation, environmental, preservation and recreation interests and a broad array of state and local interests. This proposal cuts this funding by more than $200 million. This proposal will also authorize unlimited private contracts for logging in national forests. This will open the doors of our nation's forests to the timber industry, allowing widespread logging under the guise of forest management.

     H.J. Res. 2 will allow the Department of the Interior to conduct preleasing activities in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, even though Congress recently rejected oil and gas leasing in the Refuge. This will potentially open up the area to environmentally hazardous oil exploration. H.J. Res. 2 does not provide adequate funds to our homeland security which is needed to protect our nation from potential threats. The safety of individuals within our nation is a high priority and we must do everything we can to adequately fund projects that protect our citizens, as well as uphold our democratic principles.

     Representative OBEY's motion to recommit will strike the anti-environmental riders. It will exempt the Tongass National Forest Plan from administrative or judicial review. His motion to recommit will add funding for critical conservation resource programs at not less than 2002 levels; and add up to $500 million above the current conference levels to fund training, equipment, and assistance for first responders. I will support Representative OBEY's motion to recommit because it will protect our environment while addressing concerns over our homeland security.

     Not only do we need to protect our nation from potential threats from outside nations but we must also protect our citizens from environmental damage that will impact our health, land, and natural resources. The environment and health of our nation is not something I am willing to gamble with. I strongly urge my colleagues to support Representative OBEY's Motion to Recommit.

     Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, the Conference Committee for the FY 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Bill has included language relating to the funding of the installment due on or before September 30, 2003 under the Consent Judgment entered on February 7, 2003 in Sumner Peck Ranch, Inc. v. Bureau of Reclamation. By including this language it is not Congress' intent that the United States default in the payment of that installment. Creating such a default would be unwise. Instead, the

  [Page:
  H670]

  intent of the language is to indicate that funds under the Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act are not authorized to pay such installment. By so indicating, it is further intended that payment of the Peck judgment installment is ``not otherwise provided for'' as that phrase is used in Section 1304 of Title 31 of the United States Code. Appropriations exist and are available under Section 1304 for payment of such installment, and it is intended that such appropriations be so utilized.

     Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, today, the House considered the Omnibus appropriations measure for Fiscal Year 2003. It is the legal duty of the Congress to fund the government, and the time to vote on this funding was long overdue.

     As is often the case, the majority decided to use this desperately-need bill as a vehicle to insert ``riders'' and other language that would be unlikely to pass on its own. In this bill, there was language that would open the way to preliminary studies of the feasibility of oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. There was language that would increase logging in national forests. There was a cut to conservation programs, and a severe underfunding of border security and first responders money.

     I object to these provisions in the strongest terms. This is a sneaky, underhanded way of creating policy. At a time when funding for so many valuable programs in Maine and across the country is desperately needed, it is wrong to extort the Members of Congress into voting on these highly controversial measures. The majority is saying: vote in favor of this bill, with these odious measures included, or lose the entire bill.

     So when the Motion to Recommit was offered, I gladly voted in favor of it. This motion would have instructed the Appropriations Committee to remove this offensive language, and pass a clean bill to fund the government. I would welcome the idea of a short delay in passing the omnibus if it were to mean removing these environmental sneak-attacks.

     However, when that motion failed, I felt that the remainder of the bill was too important for Maine to be allowed to fail. The omnibus includes millions of dollars in direct aid to Maine. I have worked hard to obtain funding for projects in agriculture, health, transportation, construction, science, and labor. This includes $900,000 that I was able to convince my colleagues to include to help the workers in Millinocket and East Millinocket who have lost their health care in the wake of the Great Northern Paper Bankruptcy. This includes language that I was able to insert prohibiting the Department of Labor from consolidating the Bangor and Portland OSHA offices without further consultation with Congress. This includes Medicare payments to physicians and support to rural hospitals in Maine, money to develop the East-West Highways, money for education, federal housing loans, and small business loans.

     I voted in favor of the omnibus so that Maine would not be deprived of all of these vital resources. I am extremely disappointed that this bill contained such detrimental, misguided environmental policy as well. I will continue to oppose measures such as these. I have already worked hard in my first month in Congress to oppose drilling in ANWR, to safeguard our environment, and to promote energy efficiency and alternative fuel sources. I have written letters, cosponsored bills, and worked with my colleagues already on these issues, and my determination to advance these causes will not diminish.

     I am pleased that we could pass this bill, and bring important funding to programs in Maine and around the nation, and I wish that the majority party had not exacted such a high price.

     Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the Committee for setting an obligation limit of $31.6 billion for the federal highway program in 2003. As we are facing a struggling economy and overwhelming transportation challenges, it is essential that we continue to invest now to preserve jobs, save lives, and provide the basic infrastructure we need to get back on the road to economic growth. The Trust Fund can support this spending as we have a $16 billion balance and, at a time when we are looking at an economic stimulus package, it does not make sense to shortchange a program that helps grow the economy and provide good, well-paying jobs.

     That being said, I am disappointed that once again the Committee has changed the way the program functions and, in essence, amended TEA 21 in the process. Once again funds--$269 million worth--which would otherwise go to the states are held back in order to expand earmarking opportunities, and at a 100% federal share. In addition, $285 million is appropriated from the Highway Trust Fund and $90 million is appropriated from the General Fund for further earmarking. And it appears that obligation authority is distributed in a way that favors program earmarked by appropriators at the expense of other apportioned or allocated programs. As last year, contract authority distributed to the states under the core programs is rescinded. It is only in the last two years that these types of activities have been approved by the appropriators, and it is a trend that should end with this bill.

     I again want to praise the overall level of highway spending provided in this conference report. Now that we are finally finished with fiscal year 2003, and begin the 2004 appropriations process, I hope we can return to a process that respects the jurisdiction of the authorizing committees, that does not take funds away from the states, and that we can work together to advance the transportation agenda of our nation.

     Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I commend the Leadership and Members of the Appropriations Committee for bringing this legislation to the House floor and in concluding the FY 2003 funding process.

     This bill provides critical resources for essential and much needed scientific, research and advanced technology initiatives.

     As a member of the Research Subcommittee of the House Science Committee, I would like to express appreciation for the continued funding of many valuable research programs, both within the government and for the commercial sector.

     Funding continues for the many federal research programs, including NIH, NSF, NOAA, NASA and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

     Within NIST, funding for the Advanced Technology Program is provided. ATP assists in the commercialization of promising technologies and provides federal resources that are much needed and scarce in the current economy and investment climate.

     I would like to recommend an additional category for consideration in the use and awards of ATP funds for FY 2002-03 grants. Important advances in digital holographic technology are being developed, with broad applications for commercial as well as governmental uses, both defense and non-defense.

     This important scientific work by mostly small companies has been funded through private capital, which is now largely unavailable at this critical period of technology development. With uses of this three-dimensional visualization technology pending in a number of critical areas, capital is needed to accelerate the R&D programs.

     I urge NIST to include within the areas under consideration for ATP funding this emerging field of digital holographic technology and its great commercial potential.

     Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this House Joint Resolution 2, the Omnibus Appropriations bill for Fiscal 2003.

     At the outset, I'd like to recognize the valiant efforts of the Chairman of our full Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. YOUNG. The Chairman has provided energetic and stalwart leadership throughout this unusually long appropriations cycle and this House owes him a debt of gratitude. The Conference Report before us is a better piece of legislation today for his efforts and those of the rest of the Subcommittee Chairmen. I want to thank our House Conferees and thank you, Mr. Chairman.

     Mr. Speaker, I will support this Conference Report. In doing so, I echo the comments of many of my Colleagues. There is much to be proud of in this bill.

     We provide:

     Another $10 billion for intelligence and defense activities, the immediate need of which is self-evident;

     $825 million for our first-responders--those on the homefront we task to help our citizens in time of need;

     An additional $3.1 billion over the President's request for education--to keep our commitment to the No Child Left Behind Act;

     And the single largest program increase in the bill goes to NIH--the agency on the cutting edge of medical research and thus better support he collaborative efforts for basic research with our colleges and universities;.

     No, this bill is not perfect. Given sole responsibility to draft this $397 billion package, we all would have rearranged priorities a bit, taken out some of the legislative riders and redrafted others.

     But, my colleagues, we cannot let ``the perfect'' be the enemy of ``the good.''

     We have a responsibility to govern. We have a responsibility to lead.

     And at a time when this nation is waging a war on terror, defending our homeland and possibly preparing to send our young soldiers into harm's way, we should pass this bill and get on with the business of governing and reviewing the President's new proposal for FY 2004.

     Once again, I thank Chairman YOUNG for his leadership. I urge adoption of the Conference Report.

     Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the conference report on H.J. Res. 2, which includes the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for the fiscal year 2003.

  [Page: H671]

     We were able to work out the differences between the House and Senate bills in such a way that the critical priorities of the House and Senate were protected. The product of our deliberations is a package that will help strengthen our defense, rebuild our critical infrastructure, and increase our scientific knowledge.

     The total amount included in the conference agreement for energy and water programs is $26 billion. This is $858 million over fiscal year 2002 and about $287 million over the budget request.

     I am pleased with the level of funding we have recommended for the Civil Works program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. At $4.6 billion, the recommended funding is $456 million higher than the Administration's inadequate budget request. While that may sound like a large increase, the amount we have recommended is actually $27 million less than the Corps spent in fiscal year 2002. If we had funded the Corps' program at the level requested by the Administration, the result would have been schedule delays, increased project costs, and the loss of project benefits. In addition to providing more funds for ongoing projects, the conference agreement includes funding for a number of new construction starts.

     For the Bureau of Reclamation, we have provided $953 million, which is $72 million above the budget request. This includes $23 million for the Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration Program in California.

     For the non-defense programs of the Department of Energy, we were able to provide modest increases over last year for several programs. The basic research performed by the Department of Energy has led to many of the technological breakthroughs that have helped our economy grow. These programs will be even more important as we move into the 21st Century.

     For the atomic energy defense programs of the Department of Energy, the conference agreement includes $15.7 billion, a slight increase of $33 million over the budget request. These funds will ensure that we have a reliable and safe nuclear weapons stockpile, continue to fund important nuclear nonproliferation programs to secure nuclear materials in Russia, and meet our commitments to communities throughout the United States to clean up the damage done to the environment over the past forty years.

     I want to thank my Senate counterpart, Chairman PETE DOMENICI, and his Ranking Minority Member, Senator HARRY REID, for their cooperation and hard work. I am especially grateful to my good friend and the Ranking Minority Member of the House subcommittee, the Honorable PETE VISCLOSKY, for his tremendous efforts on behalf of this conference report. I also want to thank our full committee chairman, Mr. YOUNG, and the full committee ranking member, Mr. OBEY.

     Finally, I would like to express my appreciation to the Subcommittee staff for Energy and Water Development--Bob Schmidt, Jeanne Wilson, Kevin Cook, Dennis Kern, Tracey LaTurner, Dave Kilian, Rich Kaelin, and Chris Altendorf. Their expertise, knowledge, and negotiating skills have been invaluable throughout this process.

     I urge the unanimous support of the House for adoption of this conference report. I would hope we could quickly conclude action on this conference report so that we can get this bill to the White House for signature.

  • [End Insert]

     The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). All time for debate on the conference report has expired.

     Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the conference report.

     There was no objection.

     MOTION TO RECOMMIT OFFERED BY MR. OBEY

     Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

     The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the conference report?

     Mr. OBEY. At this stage, I certainly am, Mr. Speaker.

     The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.

     The Clerk read as follows:

     Mr. OBEY moves to recommit the conference report on the joint resolution, H.J. Res. 2, to the committee of conference with instructions to the managers on the part of the House to:

     (1) disagree to section 323 in Division F of the conference report (expanding logging in Federal forests);

     (2) disagree to section 335 in Division F of the conference report (preventing any administrative or judicial review of the Tongass Land Management Plan);

     (3) reconsider its decisions on the Bureau of Land Management, Energy and Minerals program;

     (4) fund, within the scope of conference, conservation spending category items in Division F (including National Park Service grants to States and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service programs) at no less than current rate; and

     (5) increasing funding for training, equipment, and assistance for first responders provided through the Office of Domestic Preparedness to levels as close to the levels requested by the President as is possible within the scope of conference.

  • [Begin Insert]

     Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against a provision in the FY2003 Omnibus Appropriations Bill that weakens the organic label standards related to livestock production. This 11th hour provision weakens national organic standards by no longer requiring organic poultry producers to feed their birds only organically raised feed grains. This language, hidden in the Congressional Appropriations Bill, is contrary to the intent of organic livestock production and would severely undermine the organic standards that we currently have in place.

     Organic foods have been one of the fastest growing components of the agriculture consumer marketplace, a market that is built upon trust. Millions of American consumers have growth to trust the quality, wholesomeness and integrity of organically labeled meats and vegetables. Should this provision prevail, the American consumers will no longer be able to trust organic labeled meat as truly organic. This provision will undermine both consumer confidence in organic labeling and the existing USDA standards.

     Select livestock producers, specifically chicken and poultry product farmers in Georgia, would be able to market their products as organic without raising the birds on organically grown feeds. This provision is inconsistent with organic consumers perceptions of the origin of organic poultry and the intent and regulations of organic producers.

     The recently enacted organic standards was the result of many years of careful deliberation and public input. Overwhelmingly, organic producers and consumers have supported the new standards. Due to this outrageous omnibus provision, organic producers and consumers will no longer have confidence in the organic labeling process.

     I strongly urge you to vote for the motion to recommit.

  • [End Insert]

     The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.

     There was no objection.

     The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.

     The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it.

     Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

     The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.

     The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.

     Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of adoption of the conference report.

     The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 193, nays 226, not voting 16, as follows:

  [Roll No. 31] YEAS--193

     Abercrombie

     Ackerman

     Alexander

     Andrews

     Baca

     Baird

     Baldwin

     Ballance

     Becerra

     Bell

     Berkley

     Berman

     Berry

     Bishop (GA)

     Bishop (NY)

     Blumenauer

     Boswell

     Boucher

     Boyd

     Brady (PA)

     Brown (OH)

     Brown, Corrine

     Capps

     Cardin

     Cardoza

     Carson (IN)

     Carson (OK)

     Case

     Clay

     Clyburn

     Conyers

     Cooper

     Costello

     Cramer

     Crowley

     Cummings

     Davis (AL)

     Davis (CA)

     Davis (FL)

     Davis (IL)

     Davis (TN)

     DeFazio

     DeGette

     Delahunt

     DeLauro

     Deutsch

     Dicks

     Dingell

     Doggett

     Dooley (CA)

     Doyle

     Edwards

     Emanuel

     Engel

     Eshoo

     Etheridge

     Evans

     Farr

     Fattah

     Filner

     Ford

     Frank (MA)

     Frost

     Gephardt

     Gonzalez

     Gordon

     Green (TX)

     Grijalva

     Gutierrez

     Harman

     Hastings (FL)

     Hill

     Hinchey

     Hinojosa

     Hoeffel

     Holden

     Holt

     Honda

     Hooley (OR)

     Hoyer

     Inslee

     Israel

     Jackson (IL)

     Jackson-Lee (TX)

     Jefferson

     Johnson, E. B.

     Jones (OH)

     Kanjorski

     Kaptur

     Kennedy (RI)

     Kildee

     Kilpatrick

     Kind

     Kleczka

     Kucinich

     Lampson

     Langevin

     Lantos

     Larsen (WA)

     Larson (CT)

     Lee

     Levin

     Lewis (GA)

     Lofgren

     Lowey

     Lucas (KY)

     Lynch

     Majette

     Maloney

     Markey

     Marshall

     Matheson

     Matsui

     McCarthy (MO)

     McCarthy (NY)

     McCollum

     McDermott

     McGovern

     McIntyre

     McNulty

     Meehan

     Meek (FL)

     Meeks (NY)

     Menendez

     Michaud

     Millender-McDonald

     Miller (NC)

     Miller, George

     Moore

     Moran (VA)

     Nadler

     Napolitano

     Neal (MA)

     Oberstar

     Obey

     Olver

     Ortiz

     Owens

     Pallone

     Pastor

     Pelosi

     Peterson (MN)

     Pomeroy

     Price (NC)

     Rahall

     Ramstad

     Rangel

     Reyes

     Rodriguez

     Ross

     Rothman

     Roybal-Allard

     Ruppersberger

     Rush

     Ryan (OH)

     Sabo

     Sanchez, Linda T.

     Sanders

     Sandlin

  [Page: H672]

     Schakowsky

     Schiff

     Scott (GA)

     Scott (VA)

     Serrano

     Sherman

     Skelton

     Smith (WA)

     Snyder

     Solis

     Spratt

     Stark

     Strickland

     Stupak

     Tanner

     Tauscher

     Thompson (CA)

     Thompson (MS)

     Tierney

     Towns

     Udall (CO)

     Udall (NM)

     Van Hollen

     Velazquez

     Visclosky

     Waters

     Watson

     Watt

     Waxman

     Weiner

     Wexler

     Woolsey

     Wu

     Wynn

  NAYS--226

     Aderholt

     Akin

     Bachus

     Baker

     Ballenger

     Barrett (SC)

     Bartlett (MD)

     Barton (TX)

     Bass

     Beauprez

     Bereuter

     Biggert

     Bilirakis

     Bishop (UT)

     Blackburn

     Blunt

     Boehlert

     Boehner

     Bonilla

     Bonner

     Bono

     Boozman

     Bradley (NH)

     Brady (TX)

     Brown (SC)

     Brown-Waite, Ginny

     Burgess

     Burns

     Burr

     Burton (IN)

     Buyer

     Calvert

     Camp

     Cannon

     Cantor

     Capito

     Carter

     Castle

     Chabot

     Chocola

     Coble

     Cole

     Cox

     Crane

     Crenshaw

     Culberson

     Cunningham

     Davis, Jo Ann

     Davis, Tom

     Deal (GA)

     DeLay

     DeMint

     Diaz-Balart, L.

     Diaz-Balart, M.

     Doolittle

     Dreier

     Duncan

     Dunn

     Ehlers

     Emerson

     English

     Feeney

     Flake

     Fletcher

     Foley

     Forbes

     Fossella

     Franks (AZ)

     Frelinghuysen

     Gallegly

     Garrett (NJ)

     Gerlach

     Gibbons

     Gilchrest

     Gillmor

     Gingrey

     Goode

     Goodlatte

     Goss

     Granger

     Graves

     Green (WI)

     Greenwood

     Gutknecht

     Hall

     Harris

     Hart

     Hastert

     Hastings (WA)

     Hayes

     Hayworth

     Hefley

     Hensarling

     Herger

     Hobson

     Hoekstra

     Hostettler

     Houghton

     Hulshof

     Hunter

     Hyde

     Isakson

     Issa

     Istook

     Janklow

     Jenkins

     John

     Johnson (CT)

     Johnson (IL)

     Johnson, Sam

     Jones (NC)

     Keller

     Kelly

     Kennedy (MN)

     King (IA)

     King (NY)

     Kingston

     Kirk

     Kline

     Knollenberg

     Kolbe

     LaHood

     Latham

     LaTourette

     Leach

     Lewis (CA)

     Lewis (KY)

     LoBiondo

     Lucas (OK)

     Manzullo

     McCotter

     McCrery

     McHugh

     McInnis

     McKeon

     Mica

     Miller (FL)

     Miller (MI)

     Miller, Gary

     Mollohan

     Moran (KS)

     Murphy

     Murtha

     Musgrave

     Myrick

     Nethercutt

     Ney

     Northup

     Norwood

     Nunes

     Nussle

     Osborne

     Ose

     Otter

     Oxley

     Paul

     Pearce

     Pence

     Peterson (PA)

     Petri

     Pickering

     Pitts

     Platts

     Pombo

     Porter

     Portman

     Pryce (OH)

     Putnam

     Quinn

     Radanovich

     Regula

     Rehberg

     Renzi

     Reynolds

     Rogers (AL)

     Rogers (KY)

     Rogers (MI)

     Rohrabacher

     Ros-Lehtinen

     Royce

     Ryan (WI)

     Ryun (KS)

     Saxton

     Schrock

     Sensenbrenner

     Sessions

     Shadegg

     Shaw

     Shays

     Sherwood

     Shimkus

     Shuster

     Simmons

     Simpson

     Smith (MI)

     Smith (TX)

     Souder

     Stearns

     Stenholm

     Sullivan

     Sweeney

     Tancredo

     Tauzin

     Taylor (MS)

     Taylor (NC)

     Terry

     Thomas

     Thornberry

     Tiahrt

     Toomey

     Turner (OH)

     Turner (TX)

     Upton

     Vitter

     Walden (OR)

     Walsh

     Wamp

     Weldon (FL)

     Weldon (PA)

     Weller

     Whitfield

     Wicker

     Wilson (NM)

     Wolf

     Young (AK)

     Young (FL)

  NOT VOTING--16

     Allen

     Capuano

     Collins

     Combest

     Cubin

     Everett

     Ferguson

     Linder

     Lipinski

     Pascrell

     Payne

     Sanchez, Loretta

     Slaughter

     Smith (NJ)

     Tiberi

     Wilson (SC)

     ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

     The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry) (during the vote). The Chair reminds Members there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

     

  [Time: 18:39]

     Messrs. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, TURNER of Texas, and HALL changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''

     So the motion to recommit was rejected.

     The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

     A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

     Stated for:

  • [Begin Insert]

     Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for rollcall vote 31. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote 31.

  • [End Insert]

     The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.

     The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.

     RECORDED VOTE

     Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

     A recorded vote was ordered.

     The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.

     The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 338, noes 83, not voting 14, as follows:

  [Roll No. 32] AYES--338

     Abercrombie

     Aderholt

     Alexander

     Andrews

     Baca

     Bachus

     Ballenger

     Barrett (SC)

     Barton (TX)

     Bass

     Beauprez

     Becerra

     Bell

     Bereuter

     Berkley

     Berman

     Berry

     Biggert

     Bilirakis

     Bishop (GA)

     Bishop (NY)

     Bishop (UT)

     Blackburn

     Blunt

     Boehlert

     Boehner

     Bonilla

     Bonner

     Bono

     Boozman

     Boswell

     Boucher

     Boyd

     Bradley (NH)

     Brady (PA)

     Brady (TX)

     Brown (SC)

     Brown, Corrine

     Brown-Waite, Ginny

     Burgess

     Burns

     Burr

     Burton (IN)

     Buyer

     Calvert

     Camp

     Cantor

     Capito

     Capps

     Cardin

     Cardoza

     Carson (IN)

     Carson (OK)

     Carter

     Case

     Castle

     Chocola

     Clyburn

     Coble

     Cole

     Cramer

     Crane

     Crenshaw

     Crowley

     Culberson

     Cummings

     Cunningham

     Davis (AL)

     Davis (CA)

     Davis (FL)

     Davis (TN)

     Davis, Jo Ann

     Davis, Tom

     Deal (GA)

     DeLauro

     DeLay

     DeMint

     Diaz-Balart, L.

     Diaz-Balart, M.

     Dicks

     Dingell

     Dooley (CA)

     Doolittle

     Doyle

     Dreier

     Duncan

     Dunn

     Edwards

     Ehlers

     Emanuel

     Emerson

     Engel

     English

     Fattah

     Feeney

     Fletcher

     Foley

     Forbes

     Ford

     Fossella

     Frelinghuysen

     Frost

     Gallegly

     Garrett (NJ)

     Gerlach

     Gilchrest

     Gillmor

     Gingrey

     Gonzalez

     Goode

     Goodlatte

     Gordon

     Goss

     Granger

     Graves

     Green (TX)

     Greenwood

     Gutierrez

     Hall

     Harman

     Harris

     Hart

     Hastert

     Hastings (WA)

     Hayes

     Hayworth

     Herger

     Hill

     Hinojosa

     Hobson

     Hoeffel

     Holden

     Holt

     Honda

     Hooley (OR)

     Houghton

     Hoyer

     Hulshof

     Hunter

     Hyde

     Inslee

     Isakson

     Israel

     Issa

     Istook

     Jackson-Lee (TX)

     Janklow

     Jenkins

     John

     Johnson (CT)

     Johnson (IL)

     Johnson, E. B.

     Johnson, Sam

     Jones (OH)

     Kanjorski

     Kaptur

     Keller

     Kelly

     Kennedy (MN)

     Kennedy (RI)

     Kildee

     Kilpatrick

     King (IA)

     King (NY)

     Kingston

     Kirk

     Kleczka

     Kline

     Knollenberg

     Kolbe

     LaHood

     Lampson

     Langevin

     Lantos

     Larsen (WA)

     Larson (CT)

     Latham

     LaTourette

     Leach

     Lee

     Levin

     Lewis (CA)

     Lewis (KY)

     LoBiondo

     Lowey

     Lucas (KY)

     Lucas (OK)

     Lynch

     Majette

     Maloney

     Manzullo

     Marshall

     Matheson

     Matsui

     McCarthy (MO)

     McCarthy (NY)

     McCollum

     McCotter

     McCrery

     McGovern

     McHugh

     McInnis

     McIntyre

     McKeon

     McNulty

     Meehan

     Meek (FL)

     Meeks (NY)

     Menendez

     Mica

     Michaud

     Millender-McDonald

     Miller (MI)

     Miller (NC)

     Miller, Gary

     Mollohan

     Moore

     Moran (KS)

     Moran (VA)

     Murphy

     Murtha

     Myrick

     Nadler

     Napolitano

     Neal (MA)

     Nethercutt

     Ney

     Northup

     Norwood

     Nunes

     Nussle

     Oberstar

     Obey

     Olver

     Ortiz

     Osborne

     Ose

     Otter

     Owens

     Pallone

     Pastor

     Pearce

     Pelosi

     Pence

     Peterson (MN)

     Peterson (PA)

     Pickering

     Platts

     Pombo

     Pomeroy

     Porter

     Portman

     Price (NC)

     Pryce (OH)

     Putnam

     Quinn

     Radanovich

     Rahall

     Rangel

     Regula

     Rehberg

     Renzi

     Reyes

     Reynolds

     Rodriguez

     Rogers (AL)

     Rogers (KY)

     Rogers (MI)

     Rohrabacher

     Ros-Lehtinen

     Ross

     Rothman

     Roybal-Allard

     Ruppersberger

     Ryan (OH)

     Sabo

     Sanchez, Linda T.

     Sandlin

     Saxton

     Schiff

     Schrock

     Scott (GA)

     Scott (VA)

     Serrano

     Sessions

     Shaw

     Shays

     Sherman

     Sherwood

     Shimkus

     Shuster

     Simmons

     Simpson

     Skelton

     Slaughter

     Smith (NJ)

     Smith (TX)

     Snyder

     Solis

     Souder

     Spratt

     Stearns

     Stenholm

     Strickland

     Stupak

     Sullivan

     Sweeney

     Tauzin

     Taylor (NC)

     Terry

     Thomas

     Thompson (CA)

     Thompson (MS)

     Thornberry

     Tiahrt

     Turner (OH)

     Turner (TX)

     Udall (NM)

     Upton

     Van Hollen

     Velazquez

     Visclosky

     Vitter

     Walden (OR)

     Walsh

     Wamp

     Waters

     Weldon (FL)

     Weldon (PA)

     Weller

     Whitfield

     Wicker

     Wilson (NM)

     Wolf

     Wu

     Wynn

     Young (AK)

     Young (FL)

  NOES--83

     Ackerman

     Akin

     Baird

     Baker

     Baldwin

     Ballance

     Bartlett (MD)

     Blumenauer

     Brown (OH)

     Cannon

     Chabot

     Clay

     Conyers

     Cooper

     Costello

     Cox

     Davis (IL)

     DeFazio

     DeGette

     Delahunt

     Deutsch

     Doggett

     Eshoo

     Etheridge

     Evans

     Farr

     Filner

     Flake

     Frank (MA)

     Franks (AZ)

     Gephardt

     Gibbons

     Green (WI)

     Grijalva

     Gutknecht

     Hastings (FL)

     Hefley

     Hensarling

     Hinchey

     Hoekstra

     Hostettler

     Jackson (IL)

     Jefferson

     Jones (NC)

     Kind

     Kucinich

     Lewis (GA)

     Lofgren

     Markey

     McDermott

     Miller (FL)

     Miller, George

     Musgrave

     Oxley

     Paul

     Petri

     Pitts

     Ramstad

     Royce

     Rush

     Ryan (WI)

     Ryun (KS)

     Sanders

     Schakowsky

     Sensenbrenner

     Shadegg

     Smith (MI)

     Smith (WA)

     Stark

     Tancredo

     Tanner

     Tauscher

     Taylor (MS)

     Tierney

     Toomey

     Towns

     Udall (CO)

     Watson

     Watt

     Waxman

     Weiner

     Wexler

     Woolsey

  NOT VOTING--14

     Allen

     Capuano

     Collins

     Combest

     Cubin

     Everett

     Ferguson

     Linder

  [Page: H673]

     Lipinski

     Pascrell

     Payne

     Sanchez, Loretta

     Tiberi

     Wilson (SC)

     ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

     The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members have 2 minutes remaining to record their votes.

     

  [Time: 19:00]

     Mr. LARSON of Connecticut, Mr. MENENDEZ, and Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''

     So the conference report was agreed to.

     The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

     A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

  END
  

  5B) Appropriations
  

  OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS -- (Senate - February 13, 2003)

  [Page: S2414]
  ---

     Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, usually I begin my diatribes on the appropriations bill by lifting up the appropriations bill for all to see; one, it hasn't been delivered and, two, I note by the

  [Page: S2415]

  size of the existing copy down by the desk of the manager that it would be quite a task to pick up this year's appropriations bill. At my advanced age, I might be in danger of sustaining a hernia. But I still think that this probably is--if I may borrow a phrase from one of our longtime adversaries--the mother of all appropriations bills. It is some 5,000 pages.

     I can safely say that I have not read it. My staff has been feverishly going through certain parts of it, each being parceled out. Clearly, we have a mammoth conference report on this omnibus appropriations legislation, which nobody has been able to review, examine, and debate. I say that not without sympathy for the Senator from Alaska, who is faced with a situation where negotiations--in fact, they are going on almost as we speak, or are being completed as we speak. Certainly, the reasons for the delay--some 4 months of delay--was not under his control. But I want to discuss this very briefly in context.

     The context that we are looking at with this legislation is a huge looming deficit that is in front of us and growing in size almost as far as the eye can see. The eye used to be able to see for 10 years. Now we have changed the procedures where the eye can only see for 5 years. But only a short time ago, we were awash in huge surpluses. I will never forget when Alan

     Greenspan testified before Congress in favor of the 2001 tax cuts because we wanted to make sure we didn't spend down the debt too fast. We didn't want to spend down that debt too quickly because that would have some bad effects on our economy.

     Well, we don't have to worry about spending the debt down too quickly now. In 2001, we had a $127 billion surplus. We are living in a different time now. The Congressional Budget Office recently forecast a larger than expected deficit of $199 billion for this year; and last week, with the result of the President's budget for 2004, the OMB projected record deficits of $304 billion this year and $307 billion next year.

     I have, as chairman of the Commerce Committee, seen enough of our needs for security and safety at our airports, railway stations, ports, all over America, to tell you that we have very large expenditures ahead of us. Those expenditures are justified when we are talking about the security of this Nation. The funding for the Transportation Security Administration was justified. I am proud that we not only passed the legislation, but we funded that enormous effort to ensure the security of our airports, which is still not complete. But the fact is, we will soon run out of borrowing authority and might have to look to other sources of funding, such as the Social Security trust fund, in the absence of a legislated increase in the debt ceiling.

     There are a lot of words that are not used anymore around here, but the one that has completely and totally disappeared is the good old ``lockbox.'' I wonder what happened to the good old lockbox. That was the one we were going to put Americans' payments into Social Security into and we were never going to touch it again.

     Not only is our economy in distress, we are also one step closer to war. There are threats to national security that must be disposed of. Yet this appropriations bill, in my view, has not changed since last year. In fact, it is predictably about 11 times worse. The amounts associated with each earmark may not seem extravagant, but taken together they represent an incredible diversion away from Federal programs that have undergone the appropriate merit-based process.

     I have two problems with this process. One, of course, is the appropriating of moneys that are really unnecessary and unauthorized and wasteful, very wasteful, but also in this legislation are many fundamental policy changes and, of course, I object, as chairman of the Commerce Committee, that it didn't go through my committee. But I object to it even more when we have not had the open debate and votes taken on matters that have national implications that are fundamental policy decisions.

     Let's go back to some of the necessary earmarks: First, $280,000 for asparagus technology and production in Washington; $220,000 to research future foods in Illinois--only in Illinois, of course.

     My colleagues may note, as usual, the need for these earmarks are nearly always geographically based.

     Next is $700,000 for the Midwest poultry consortium in Iowa; $250,000 for research on the interaction of grapefruit juice and drugs. I always wondered what kind of experiments these are. One of our all-time favorites, made famous a number of years ago, is money that was spent to study the effect on the ozone layer of flatulence in cows. One always wondered about the testing procedures used to determine those effects on the ozone layer. This is another one that intrigues the observer. Regarding the interaction of grapefruit juice and drugs, of course, one's imagination can be stimulated by the prospect of the interaction of grapefruit juice and drugs.

     Then we have $600,000 for tristate joint peanut research in Alabama; $500,000 for Missouri, Iowa, and Illinois Corn Growers Association for a pilot program to develop ``production protocols.''

     Again, I have to sometimes display my ignorance. I didn't know that in order to grow corn, there was a particular requirement for a protocol regarding production.

     I see that the Senator from Iowa just came on the floor. He may be able to illuminate me on the production protocols associated with corn growing. But whether he can or not, there will be $500,000 being split up between his State, Missouri, and Illinois to their corn growers associations. But this won't be an overall production protocol; this is only a pilot program. So I am sure there will be a great deal of additional money coming once we develop the pilot program for production protocols of growing corn.

     Next is $50,000 to combat ``feral hogs'' in Missouri. You know, somewhere I had a little depiction of feral hogs. I did not know that they were a threat to civilization as we know it, or at least enough to require $50,000 to combat feral hogs. Sometimes one would get the impression that perhaps the people in Illinois could fund their own combat scenario with feral hogs. Nonetheless, we will be coming in with 50 grand to combat those feral hogs, which I am sure are a serious scourge.

     There is $500,000 to continue hybrid poplar research in Wisconsin. I am sure next year we will have a continued program to develop production protocols for growing corn; $2 million for the biomass gasification research facility in Birmingham, AL. Again, I look forward to seeing what that is all about.

     And then, staying right on this important mission of gasification, we have another $500,000 for the gasification of switchgrass in Iowa. Perhaps switchgrass can be part of the production protocol of corn. But one doesn't know; $1 million for the National Agricultural Based Industrial Lubricant Center; $10 million to develop a high-speed data transmission between the Library of Congress and education facilities, libraries, and networks serving western North Carolina. I did not know there was a special need in the western part of North Carolina, as there might have been for other parts of the country. But we will spend $10 million to do that; $500,000 to be split between the Alexandria Museum of Art and the New Orleans Museum of Art for activities relating to the celebration of the Louisiana Purchase bicentennial celebration; $200,000 for the replacement of Minton tile in the Capitol complex; $1 million for a company called Culpepper Glass in Warrenton, VA, that produces glass display cases for the Library of Congress. I assume, of course, there is no other company that could produce glass display cases for the Library of Congress. That is why the Culpepper Glass Company in Warrenton, VA, had to be designated in this legislation; $3 million for an award to the National Technology Transfer Center for a coal slurry impoundment pilot project in southern West Virginia; $1 million for an automated nursery project in Mississippi; $500,000 for Vermillion Community College in Ely, MN, for the development of a professional forest harvester program.

     Mr. President, if my colleagues will indulge me, I have to go back to my favorite from last time for just a moment. I know the hour is late, but this is too much. We were able to keep, through very serious contemplation and discussion among conferees, $1 million for a DNA bear sampling study in

  [Page: S2416]

  Montana; $1 million will be spent to sample the DNA of bears in Montana.

     Because these appropriations are never discussed with nonmembers of the Appropriations Committee, one can only imagine and conjure up an idea as to how this might be used. Approach a bear: That bear cub over there claims you are his father, and we need to take your DNA.

     Approach another bear: Two hikers had their food stolen by a bear, and we think it is you. We have to get the DNA. The DNA doesn't fit, you got to acquit, if I might.

     I think it is important to appreciate that this $1 million for a DNA bear sampling study could solve a lot of crime in Montana. It is a pretty high-crime area. It seems to me that is, indeed, a very worthwhile expenditure of the taxpayers' dollars.

     While we are at it, I want to jump out of line here a second: $202,500 to the National Peanut Festival Fairgrounds for the construction of the National Peanut Festival Agriculture Arena in Dothan, AL. I was interested in the National Peanut Festival. I did not see it much on television or hear much about it. So I went to the Web site, and I think you will be comforted to know we are spending this $202,500 for

     the 9-day celebration of the peanut harvest, which includes a variety of competitions, including recipe contests, beauty pageants, and tennis tournaments. Included for your viewing pleasure on this Web site is a very interesting picture. I am sorry my colleagues cannot see it, but I would be willing to provide them with copies, but there are three individuals standing by a contraption that I have not seen before, and it says farmers demonstrate antique peanut harvesting equipment at Pioneer Peanut Days. Again, it seems to me that is a worthwhile investment of $202,500.

     I have also one more that is kind of interesting: $900,000 for the Show-me Aquatic Center for Development; $900,000 for the Show-me Aquatic Center in Missouri. We found a picture of it. It says: ``Please Touch Me Museum, 210 North 21st Street, Philadelphia''--this is the 270,000 Please Touch Me Museum, I apologize. That is for kids and grownups. Of course, I had that confused with the very important facility that is in Missouri. I certainly would not want to confuse the different States.

     One of the more remarkable aspects of this bill is in the HUD section, under EDI. There are 885 individual earmarks. Some of them are very interesting. Of course, there is $202,500 to continue the rehabilitation of the former Alaska Pulp Company mill site in Sitka, AK. I am reluctant to ask the Senator from Alaska how much that continuing rehabilitation is going to cost us overall.

     We have a lot of important construction: $45,000 for the city of Tuscumbia, AL, for construction of facilities associated with the Helen Keller Festival; $90,000 for the city of Prattville, AL, for the Boys and Girls Club of Prattville.

     I mentioned the peanut festival. Here are a couple new ones: $810,000 for the city of St. Louis, MO, for lighting sidewalks, curb, and street furniture along Kings Highway Boulevard and Chippewa Street. It must be a fairly serious situation there that we need to spend $810,000 down there on Kings Highway Boulevard and Chippewa Street in St. Louis.

     I mentioned the Show-Me Aquatic Center in Missouri; $105,000 for the Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute in Columbia, MO, to analyze commercial shipping alternatives; $90,000 to the city of Natchez, MS, for a feasibility study to develop a slack water port. That is just for a feasibility study; $135,000 to the Culinary and Hospitality Academy Center of Las Vegas, NV, for construction related to the expansion of an education training center. For those of you who have not visited Las Vegas lately, I can tell you it is a very depressed and deprived area, and I can certainly understand why the Culinary and Hospitality Academy Center would need $135,000. I thought they could use some of mine.

     For the arts, we have $162,000 for facilities renovations and improvements for the Woolworth Theater in Glens Falls, NY; $162,000 for the Catskill Mountain Foundation in Hunter, NY, for reconstruction of the Tannersville Theater; $180,000 to the Bethel Performing Arts Center in Bethel, NY, for construction of a performing arts facility; $225,000 to the village of East Syracuse, NY for the renovation of the Hanlan pool; $270,000 to Garth Fagan Dance Studio in Rochester, NY, for construction of a new theater for the Garth Fagan Dance Studio;

     $121,500 to the Bedford County Agricultural Society in Pennsylvania for facilities improvements at the Bedford County Fairground; $202,000 to the New York Agricultural Society for facilities improvements to the New York Expo Center Arena and Livestock Expedition Hall, and I mentioned the Please Touch Museum in Philadelphia, PA.; $810,000 to the City of Fort Worth, TX--another impoverished area--for waterfront facilities construction for the Trinity River Basin Project; $180,000 to the Shenandoah Valley Discovery Museum for facilities expansion; $216,000 to the Virginia Living Museum in Newport News, and the list goes on.

     There is a certain common thread one will find throughout these 885 projects. I am sorry I did not have time to total it up, but it would have to be in the tens of millions of dollars. There is one common thread. About 95 percent of these projects that are earmarked belong to the States that are represented by members of the Appropriations Committee.

     I joke a lot about this, and I will continue to do so, but that is not right. That is not the right thing to do.

     I regret the conferees choose to adopt a special interest provision for one foreign cruise ship company at the expense of all other companies. The last time Congress meddled in this area with hollow promises of spurring the American shipbuilding industry, it ended up costing the American taxpayers $185 million in loan guarantees. It was one of the most egregious I have seen of egregious things to take the money from a billionaire that--excuse me. We took no money from the billionaire who runs river boat casinos and who tried to build two ships in Pascagoula, MS, which every expert knows is not possible. The project failed and the American taxpayer was on the hook for $185 million.

     Not satisfied with costing the American taxpayer $185 million, a Senator from Hawaii put into this bill a requirement that grants a subsidiary of the Malaysian-owned Norwegian Cruise Lines the exclusive right to operate three large foreign-built cruise vessels in the domestic cruise trade. This will be permitted notwithstanding the Passenger Vessel Services Act, which requires vessels transporting passengers between ports in the U.S. to be U.S.-owned, U.S.-built, U.S.-flagged and U.S.-crewed.

     I am not a fan of those requirements. But why in the world do we make exception for a law in an appropriations bill when you know what the result is going to be? By granting exclusive rights to one cruise line, there will be no competition and the people who want to cruise Hawaii will pay much higher prices than for a commensurate cruise that people would take out of the East Coast.

     I do not know if the Presiding Officer has ever been to Miami, but there are all kinds of ships cruising out of Miami, going all different places, for all different purposes, at very low cost. That is because they are all competing against each other.

     The Senator from Hawaii puts in a violation of law, and an exclusivity which is going to cost people who want to cruise the Hawaiian Islands an enormously greater amount of money. Why? That is crazy. I would have thought the Senator from Hawaii, after costing the taxpayers $185 million because of a provision he put in an appropriations bill--it never went through my committee which has oversight of it. It was never mentioned in my committee--after costing the taxpayers $185 million, the Senator from Hawaii then pulls this one. I am angry about it, and I will continue to be angry about it

     because the citizens of my State of Arizona would like to cruise the Hawaiian Islands and they would like to do it at the cheapest possible cost. When there is no competition, there is not low cost.

     There has been no analysis of granting this exclusive exemption from the Passenger Vessel Services Act to the ``Norwegian Cruise Lines'' owned by a Malaysian company. Nor have the committees of jurisdiction had an opportunity to consider the proposal.

  [Page: S2417]

     I tell the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Hawaii, we are going to have a hearing on this issue, we are going to have a GAO investigation, and we are going to find out why they lost $185 million because of a provision put into this bill. We are also going to get an estimate of how much this exclusivity is going to cost my citizens who want to go on a cruise at the least possible cost. I will not quit on this issue. It is wrong, and it is the wrong way to treat this process. We will have hearings in the Commerce Committee, and we will expose this for what it is--disgraceful.

     There are numerous other provisions in this conference report that circumvent the clear jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee. It incorporates almost wholesale a bill passed last year by the House of Representatives regarding air traffic control towers. The provision expands on the class of air traffic control towers that is eligible for Federal money. I am all for aviation safety and it may be a good provision. I am troubled by several aspects of it.

     First, the provision does not make new towers eligible for reimbursement. It makes eligible towers that were built beginning in 1996, over 7 years ago. At least the provision passed last year by the House provided that an airport tower would be eligible for a grant under this program only if the Secretary certified that the selection of the tower for eligibility was based on objective criteria giving no weight to any congressional committee report, joint explanatory statement of a conference report, or statutory designation.

     I wish to congratulate my House colleagues because they were concerned about the pork barrel projects practice and tried to insulate this particular program from such behavior. Guess what. That provision that eliminated no objective criteria giving no weight to any congressional committee report, joint explanatory statement of a conference committee, or statutory designation was eliminated. Why would that be eliminated, I wonder?

     The conference report also includes a provision and implements a whole new funding scheme for airport security projects. I am very concerned about funding for airport security. This is a reauthorization year for aviation programs and the Senate Commerce Committee, the committee of jurisdiction, has already begun hearings of FAA issues. Yet the appropriators have taken it upon themselves to establish a brand new funding scheme that has never been vetted, discussed, or voted on by the authorizing committee. Some might start to wonder just what the Commerce Committee's role is in policy decisions regarding the programs under its jurisdiction.

     This provision authorizes a new $2.5 billion program over 5 years for airport security projects without any discussion that I am aware of. The TSA was not consulted about this provision. It seems the special interest groups who were shopping this provision were the only ones that mattered. If this had gone through the regular legislative process, at least all parties could have been heard.

     There are many different ways to fund security projects. This provision may be a good one. It mirrors a similar program set up at the FAA. However, the Department of Transportation Inspector General proposed several other ideas to our committee.

     Another provision would allow airports to give airport improvement program money back to the FAA so the agency can hire staff to speed up environmental reviews of airport projects. This is an area in which the Commerce Committee took action last year and will continue to pursue this year. It should not be addressed in an appropriations bill.

     I commend the conferees for their attempts to help protect the investment the American taxpayers continue to provide to Amtrak. The conference report, which provides Amtrak $1.05 billion for fiscal year 2003, includes conditions that require the funding to be appropriated on a quarterly basis through formal grant agreements with DOT. The conferees worked to ensure that Amtrak reserved sufficient funds to meet its contractual obligations with State and local subdivisions for commuter and intercity corridor services. Amtrak should not be in a position to shut down commuter operations as it threatened last summer because it does not have sufficient funds to operate its entire network.

     The conference committee has slightly reduced Amtrak's appropriation from that provided in the Senate-passed measure, but it has also postponed repayment of Amtrak's $100 million loan from DOT.

     The conferees authorized the Secretary of Commerce to award grants and make direct lump sum payments of up to $50 million to support travel to the United States. To carry out this new authority, the appropriators established the United States Travel and Tourism Promotion Advisory Board and provided $50 million. This tourism board has never been considered by the authorizing committee of jurisdiction. Nor did the Department of Commerce have any input on the creation of this new board.

     Who came up with $50 million--and establish a new bureaucracy? The U.S. Travel and Tourism Promotion Advisory Board, and gives them $50 million.

     I am pleased to see the conferees appropriated money for election reform. The conference report on NOAA provides more than $490 million in earmarks, and just for aquatic, not atmospheric programs of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, to go toward 150 earmarks. The administration did not request funding for these programs in the budget, and many programs they did request funding for are underfunded or zero funded.

     The conference report appropriated an astounding $100 million for fisheries disasters assistance. Of this amount, $35 million is for direct assistance to the State of Alaska for any person, business, or town that has experienced an economic hardship even remotely related to fishing. This is in addition to the $20 million they are also getting for developing an Alaskan seafood marketing program. Of the remainder, $35 million is for the shrimp industries in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic to provide far-reaching assistance for many aspects of these fisheries; $20 million is provided for voluntary capacity reduction programs in the Northeast and west coast fisheries; $5 million is for Hawaiian fishermen affected by fishing area closures and other management rules; and $5 million is for blue crab fisheries affected by low harvests.

     The conference report requires the Department of Commerce and Coast Guard to provide coordinated, routine support for fisheries monitoring and enforcement through use of remote-sensing aircraft and communications assets, with particular emphasis on Federal waters seaward to South Carolina and Georgia. Without review by the authorizing committee, we have no basis for knowing why this is a good use of Federal dollars and resources.

     The conference report earmarks $10 million to promote and develop fishery products and research pertaining to American fisheries funds to develop an Alaskan seafood marketing program. Ten million is a lot of money to be spending on a marketing program.

     As far as the Coast Guard is concerned, managers earmark a total of $83 million of the Coast Guard budget. That earmark is an increase of $10 million over last year, and many of them have obviously never been proposed.

     In HUD, as I mentioned, 885 targeted grants.

     I also will talk for a minute about the lowly catfish, one of my favorite subjects. We know the lowly catfish has been the subject of a great deal of debate and discussion on the floor of the Senate due to the fact that in another appropriations bill, we changed the name of the catfish that comes from Vietnam to basa. But now the lowly catfish, those that are still named catfish because they are raised in the United States, we are now qualifying catfish for livestock compensation programs. Catfish are cows.

     As my colleagues know, the livestock compensation program is a Federal farm program that compensates eligible livestock producers, such as owners of beef and dairy cattle, sheep, goats, or certain breeds of buffalo that have suffered losses or damages as a result of a severe drought. Now it is the catfish.

     I often take issue with various farm policies that disproportionately benefit large agribusinesss or farms at the expense of farmers and taxpayers, and

  [Page: S2418]

  those that compromise American agricultural trade commitments. This effort to

     compensate catfish farmers from a farm program that is intended for livestock stands out. I am certain that catfish proponents will offer a dozen different explanations to justify this provision. In fact, the last time we discussed this, one of my colleagues from Tennessee talked about in his State there are catfish that leave the water and travel in herds, so perhaps that is why we are now calling a catfish a cow. But not even hog, poultry, or horse producers are eligible under the livestock compensation program. Why should catfish then get livestock payments?

     We know labeling continues to be a nationally significant agricultural issue. Again, the issue was addressed in the appropriations bill.

     The Army Corps of Engineers is, of course, one of the favorite places. Not only are there a lot of earmarks, but there are significant changes in policy or law under the rubric of this appropriations bill. In this legislation, the administration is prevented from proposing or even studying changes to the Army Corps of Engineers civil works program, such as reorganizing aspects of the agency's management structure, without specific direction in an act of Congress. It seems to me that is remarkable micromanaging.

     I guess I have taken enough of my colleagues' time at this late hour, and I know we should be voting on this bill and leaving. I point out again, this bill which the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee described as the largest appropriations bill in the history--and I certainly take his word for it--in my now 17 years of monitoring these things, has the largest number of earmarks by far. I find that wrong for a variety of reasons, but one of them being that we are supposed to be in a war. We are about to ask young men and women to make sacrifices. In fact, some of them in the next few weeks may make the ultimate sacrifice. And here we are, business as usual, business as usual, larding on porkbarrel projects, running up the deficits to historic proportions in some respects. I imagine it is historic as far as the turnaround is concerned, from a $127 billion surplus to a $300 billion deficit. I mind that very much. I think it is wrong. I think it is the wrong signal to send to the American people about our seriousness of addressing the challenges of the war on terror.

     But I am also disturbed about the policy changes that are made in appropriations bills which render authorizing committees nearly irrelevant. It is not the right thing to do. There are provisions in this bill--and I will be providing them for the record--of many policy changes that should have required hearings, debate, votes on specific issues. Instead, they are decided by a small group of Senators and House Members rather than all of us being able to exercise not only our privileges but our responsibilities as we determine the policies that affect the future of our citizens in our respective States.

     I ask unanimous consent that a document entitled ``Commerce Committee Provisions'' be printed in the RECORD.

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

     Commerce Committee Provisions

     NCL PROVISION

     Mr. President, I regret that the conferees chose to adopt a special interest provision for one foreign cruise ship company at the expense of all other competitors. The last time Congress meddled in this area with hollow promises of spurring the American ship building industry, it ended up costing the American taxpayers a whopping $185 million. I shudder to think that we are meddling again.

     The conference report grants a subsidiary of the Malaysian-owned ``Norwegian Cruise Lines'' (NCL) the exclusive right to operate three large foreign-built cruise vessels in the domestic cruise trade. This will be permitted notwithstanding the Passenger Vessel Services Act, which requires vessels transporting passengers between ports in the U.S. to be U.S.-owned, U.S.-built, U.S.-flagged, and U.S.-crewed. While I am not a fan of those requirements, I cannot support granting a waiver for one company.

     This provision provides an unfair competitive advantage to NCL at the expense of all other cruise ship operators. No other company will be allowed to operate foreign-built U.S.-flag cruise vessels in the domestic market other than NCL. It effectively creates a de facto monopoly for this one foreign company to operate in the Hawaiian Islands, and West and East Coast cruise trades.

     Again, I remind my colleagues, the last time we provided special treatment for one shipping company, it came at a price tag of $185 million. American Classic Voyages' failed ``Project America'' venture was aided by special exemption language included in the 1998 Department of Defense Appropriation Bill. When American Classic Voyages filed for bankruptcy in October 2001, the American taxpayers paid the price. At what point are we going to say enough is enough, and put a halt to gambling away the hardworking Americans' tax dollars?

     Mr. President, there has been no analysis of the value of granting this exclusive exemption from the Passenger Vessel Services Act to NCL, nor, more importantly, have the Committees of jurisdiction had an opportunity to consider the proposal and analyze its overall impact on the maritime industry.

     The special interest provision represents yet another piecemeal approach to U.S. maritime policy. But instead of promoting a sound and reasoned U.S.-flag cruise vessel promotion proposal, the conference report rewrites maritime policy and grants one foreign-owned company a waiver from U.S. laws.

     We should be working to promote competition in the domestic cruise market, and for that to take place, there needs to be a level playing field for all operators. But the special NCL provision may well severely hamper any effort to jump-start the U.S.-flag cruise market, leaving most coastal states with no regular U.S.-flag cruise ship service.

     We learned the hard way from the failed ``Project America'' venture that domestic-built ships require far more capital investment than vessels built abroad. By giving NCL, and NCL alone, a free pass on U.S. laws, as provided under this conference report, will only keep all other competitors at bay because they have no incentive to even attempt to secure the significant financing required to comply with the U.S.-build requirement for U.S.-owned cruise vessels.

     This special provision for NCL will very likely lead to further economic difficulties for the domestic cruise industry, and places its future growth at risk.

     AVIATION

     Mr. President, there are numerous other provisions in this conference report that circumvent the clear jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee. For example, it incorporates almost wholesale a bill passed last year by the House of Representatives regarding air traffic control towers. The provision expands on the class of air traffic control towers that is eligible for federal money. While I'm all for aviation safety and this may be a good provision, I'm troubled by several aspects of it.

     First, the provision doesn't just make new towers eligible for reimbursement, it also makes eligible towers that were built beginning in 1996--over seven years ago.

     Things were very different seven years ago. Bill Clinton was President and I had more hair. I know President Clinton's theme song was ``Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow,'' by Fleetwood Mac, but I find it very difficult to believe that airports that built towers in 1996 had any expectation they should get reimbursed by the federal government seven years later. It's awfully nice that we're willing to do that. I didn't know this omnibus bill was also the first economic stimulus package of the year. Had I known, I might have sought inclusion of a payroll tax holiday!

     Secondly, at least the provision passed last year by the House provided that an airport tower would be eligible for a grant under this program only if the Secretary certified that the selection of the tower for eligibility was based on objective criteria, giving ``no weight to any congressional committee report, joint explanatory statement of a conference report, or statutory designation.'' I wish to congratulate my House colleagues. Clearly, they were concerned about the pork barrel politics practiced by the appropriators and tried to insulate this particular program from such antics. However, the appropriations committee decided that this took away too much of their power and deleted the provision. I don't mean they rewrote the provision. They literally crossed it out in the conference report.

     Mr. President, the conference report also includes a provision that implements a whole new funding scheme for airport security projects. I am very concerned about finding for airport security. This is a reauthorization year for aviation programs, and the Senate Commerce Committee, the committee of jurisdiction, has already begun hearings on FAA issues.

     Yet the appropriators have taken it upon themselves to establish a brand new funding scheme that has never been vetted, discussed, or voted on by the authorizers. Some might start to wonder just what the Commerce Committee's role is in policy decisions regarding the programs under its jurisdiction.

     This provision authorizes a new $2.5 billion program over 5 years for airport security projects without any discussion that I am aware of. The TSA was not consulted about this provision. It seems that the special interest groups who were shopping this provision were the only ones that mattered. If this had gone through the regular legislative process, at least all parties could have been heard. There are many different ways to fund security projects. This provision may be a good one, it mirrors a similar program set up at the FAA. However, the DOT Inspector

  [Page: S2419]

  General proposed several other ideas to our committee.

     Another provision would allow airports to giver Airport Improvement Program (AIP) money back to the FAA so the agency can hire staff to speed up environmental reviews airports projects. This is an area in which the Commerce Committee took action on last year and will continue to pursue this year. It should not be addressed in an appropriations bill.

     While the earmarking in this legislation is as egregious as ever, the raiding of existing accounts for unrelated purposes is equally appalling. The AIP program is supposed to be devoted to the infrastructure needs of our nation's airports. Yet the conference report takes tens of millions of dollars out of AIP to pay for the FAA's costs of administering the EAS program, and the Small Community Air Service Development Pilot Program. These are worthy activities and programs, but it violates the long-established purpose of AIP to use monies for these things. This continual raiding of AIP which is also being encroached upon by the appropriation of security costs from it will slow the necessary development of the nation's infrastructure. We may be in an aviation funding crisis this year if this wholesale taking of money from accounts that are for capacity, infrastructure and modernization does not stop.

     AMTRAK

     I want to commend the conferees for their attempts to help protect the investment that the American taxpayers continue to provide to Amtrak, which since 1971, has received federal subsidies totaling $26 billion--an enormous sum for a system that serves less than one percent of the traveling public.

     The conference report, which provides Amtrak $1.05 billion for FY 2003, includes conditions that require the funding to be appropriated on a quarterly basis through formal grant agreements with the Department of Treasury (DOT). Amtrak also will be required to spend its appropriated funds only on items identified in its business plan and approved by DOT. And, such funds may only be spent on existing plant and services, not on grandiose or far-fetched expansion plans. These controls are a step in the right direction.

     The conferees also worked to ensure that Amtrak reserves sufficient funds to meet its contractual obligations with state and local subdivisions for commuter and intercity corridor services. Amtrak should not be in a position to shut down commuter operations, as it threatened last summer, because it does not have sufficient funds to operate its entire network. Commuter operations, such as those on the Northeast Corridor, are funded by state and local governments and clearly should continue to operate even if other Amtrak operations should cease. Further, Corridor trains that the states are helping subsidize also should also receive priority. Continuing to operate Northeast Corridor services, off-Corridor commuter service, and those trains financed in part by the states would preserve service for 93 percent of Amtrak's combined intercity and commuter ridership.

     While the conference committee has slightly reduced Amtrak's appropriation from that provided in the Senate-passed measure, from $1.2 billion to $1.05 billion, it also has postponed repayment of Amtrak's $100 million dollar loan from DOT, effectively providing Amtrak's $1.15 billion, or only $50 million less than the $1.2 billion Amtrak requested. Although Amtrak may end the year with less than its targeted $75 million in working capital, it should be able to continue operating while Congress considers the long-term future for intercity passenger rail service. I look forward to a full and open debate on this issue.

     TOURISM BOARD

     Mr. President, the conferees authorize the Secretary of Commerce to award grants and make direct lump sum payments of up to $50,000,000 to support ravel to the United States. To carry out this new authority, the appropriators establish the United States Travel and Tourism Promotion Advisory Board and provide $50,000,000. This Tourism Board has never been considered by the authorizing committee of jurisdiction, nor did the Department of Commerce have any input on the creation of this new Board. This is another example of authorizing language in an appropriations bill and $50,000,000 is an enormous amount of money for an initiative that has not yet been fully vetted.

     NASA

     Mr. President, I commend the conferees for their efforts to address the funding needs of the Space Shuttle Columbia accident investigation. Just yesterday, the Commerce Committee held a hearing on the investigation, and I agree that the Congress should be supportive of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. We must find the cause of this horrible tragedy, and ensure that such an accident never happens again.

     Unfortunately, other NASA provisions are included in the conference report that should be handled by the authorizing committee of jurisdiction. For example, the conference report establishes a NASA working capital fund for capital repairs, renovations, rehabilitation, sustainment, demolition, or replacement of NASA real property. As Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over NASA, I am fully aware of NASA's declining infrastructure and the need to ensure safety of NASA missions. In light of the Space Shuttle Columbia accident, I think it would be a prudent course of action if we fully consider this provision in the context of an overall review of NASA, which is currently underway. No hearings have yet been held on this proposed working capital fund, nor has it been considered by the full Senate. I do not question the conferees' strong interest in addressing NASA funding needs, but I note this is yet another case of authorizing on an appropriations bill.

     I am particularly concerned by provisions in the conference report that would establish a NASA demonstration project regarding an enhanced-use lease of real property. The Commerce Committee has not had a change to review this language, and no hearings have been held on this enhanced lease scheme. The leasing of public property deserves a public discussion.

     ELECTION REFORM

     I am pleased to see that the conferees appropriated almost $1.5 billion to implement the election reform bill. This funding is a good start for a process to improve our system of election administration and renew the public's confidence in our election system. I am especially pleased that this conference report includes payments to help states to promote disabled voter access.

     NOAA

     The conference report provides more than $490 million in earmarks and programs just for the aquatic--not atmospheric--programs of the National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration. This funding will go toward more than 150 line items. The Administration did not request funding for these programs in their budget, in fact, many programs that they did request funding for are underfunded or zero-funded.

     The conference report appropriates an astounding $100,000,000 for fisheries disaster assistance. Of this amount, $35,000,000 is for direct assistance to the state of Alaska, for any person, business, or town that has experienced an economic hardship even remotely related to fishing. This money is in addition to the $20,000,000 they are also getting for developing an Alaskan seafood marketing program.

     Of the remainder:

     $35,000,000 is for the shrimp industries of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic, to provide far-reaching assistance for many aspects of these fisheries;

     $20,000,000 is provided for voluntary capacity reduction programs in the Northeast and West Coast groundfish fisheries;

     $5,000,000 is for Hawaiian fishermen affected by fishing area closures and other management rules; and

     $5,000,000 is for blue crab fisheries affected by low harvests.

     The report also provides these hand-outs without requiring any accountability for how the money is actually spent. These appropriations were made without offering any form of justification or rationale. How much federal money do these regions really need, if any? If these needs are legitimate, how do they compare to the needs of other regions? We'll never know, because these appropriations circumvented every stage of committee review, consultation, analysis, and authorization. We have no basis for determining how necessary this is or whether or not this is sound policy.

     Furthermore, the conference report requires the Department of Commerce and Coast Guard to provide coordinated, routine support for fisheries monitoring and enforcement through use of remote sensing, aircraft, and communications assets, with particular emphasis on federal waters seaward of the costs of South Carolina and Georgia. Again, without any review by the authorizing committee, we have no basis or knowing why this is regional program is a good use of federal dollars and resources is this really the best use of limited Coast Guard resources, at a time when our country is under a heightened terror alert?

     The conference report also earmarks $10 million from the ``Promote and Develop Fishery Products and Research Pertaining to American Fisheries'' fund, to develop an Alaskan seafood marketing program. $10 million is whole lot of money to be spending on a marketing program, yet we are given no details on exactly what this federal funding will be used.

     COAST GUARD

     The conference report and statement of managers earmarks a total of $83.962 million of the Coast Guard budget. The level of Coast Guard earmarks increased over $10 million compared to the enacted FY02 Coast Guard budget.

     In this critical time when the Coast Guard is so hard pressed to carry out it Homeland Security missions, in addition to its many traditional missions, it is indefensible to be earmarking the Coast Guard's budget for pet products. Adding insult to injury, the Committee report takes the Coast Guard to task for devoting its scarce resources to homeland security at the expense of its other traditional missions, yet in the same report, they earmark critically needed resources for other projects. This type of micro-management serves only to tie the Coast Guard's hands and deny it the flexibility it needs to respond to very real threats.

     We all know the Coast Guard is underfunded and definitely in need of additional personnel and resources. Our first step should be to give it is full budget without these unrequested and restrictive earmarks.

     Here are just a few examples.

  [Page: S2420]

     The statement of managers earmarks $1,600,000 for enhanced oil spill prevention activities in the waters of Washington State. This earmark was not requested by the Administration and I think it should probably receive an award for the most creative language. It states, and I quote, ``the Committee expects the Captain of the Port to use

  • [Begin Insert]

  his professional judgment in allocating these funds to measures that he believes will best protect these waters. Such measures could include a cost sharing arrangement with the State of Washington for the hiring of a rescue tug at Neah Bay. However, these funds could be allocated to alternative measures if, in the view of the Captain of the Port, such alternative measures will provide a superior level of protection.'' Does anyone wonder what decision the Appropriations Committee expects this Coast Guard captain to make?

     $4 million is for LTS-101 helicopter engines.

     The statement of managers earmarks $10,000,000 of the Coast Guard's Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements budget for a new line item entitled ``Security Surveillance and Protection.'' What does this mean? The Senate report vaguely stated that this provision is to develop and acquire equipment that will improve security surveillance and perimeter protection capabilities in the Nation's ports, waterways, and coastal zones. In other words, it could mean almost anything.

     The statement of managers earmarks $16,000,000 for costs associated with repairing and rebuilding the Coast Guard's Integrated Support Center at Pier 36 in Seattle. These funds are in addition to the $10,000,000 earmarked for this project in the FY 2002 Transportation Appropriations bill. None of these are funds were requested by the Administration and this project is not one of the Coast Guard's highest priorities for shoreside construction. My question is, how much will be earmarked for this project in next year's budget?

     Of particular note, the Conference report earmarks over 27 percent of the Coast Guard's research and development budget for specific projects. These earmarks will hinder the Coast Guard's efforts to better surveil our ports, create new technologies to detect explosives and weapons of mass destruction, and develop non-lethal technologies.

     The statement of managers earmarks $1,000,000 to support the continued development, demonstration, and evaluation of engineered wood composites at Coast Guard facilities. The statement of managers also earmarks $1,000,000 for a pilot project to test automatic search and rescue spectral imaging technology for Coast Guard C-130 aircraft solely located at Kalaeloa, Hawaii.

     Once again we are seeing an Appropriations Bill attempting to circumvent the authorization process. This bill would limit the funding for Coast Guard flag officers to 37. The Coast Guard is authorized under Title 14 to have 48 flag officers and currently has 37 flag officers on active duty. As the Coast Guard grows in size to meet its new homeland security missions it will not have any of its authorized flexibility to promote additional flag officers. If there is a concern that the Coast Guard has too many flag officers, then that concern should be raised through the Commerce Committee.

     The bill authorizes the Coast Guard Yard at Curtis Bay, Maryland and other Coast Guard specialty facilities designated by the Commandant to enter into joint public-private partnerships and in doing so may enter into agreements, receive, and retain funds from and pay funds to such public and private entities, and may accept contributions of funds, materials, services, and the use of facilities from such entities. This provision would enable the federally subsidized Yard to indirectly compete with private industry for shipbuilding contracts. This is authorization language pertaining to the Coast Guard Yard that is clearly within the jurisdiction of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. Nonetheless prior to the consideration of this legislation by the Appropriations Committee, it did not consult with or notify either the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee concerning the changes in law.

  • [End Insert]

     Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.

     Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada had an inquiry. I yield to the Senator from Nevada.

     The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.

     Mr. REID. Just so the two leaders know, does the Senator from Illinois know for how long he wishes to speak?

     Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator from Nevada what the plans are for this evening?

     Mr. REID. What we are working toward is having final passage on the bill this evening, if all things work out right.

     Mr. DURBIN. I certainly don't want to delay final passage.

     Mr. REID. Why doesn't the Senator proceed.

     The Senator from Georgia also wishes to speak for 3 minutes?

     Mr. STEVENS. Yes.

     Mr. REID. Why don't we have the Senator from Georgia speak first for 3 minutes, and then the Senator from Illinois speak. If the managers want to speak then, they can do so. I so ask unanimous consent.

     Mr. STEVENS. It is 5 minutes and 3 minutes, is that correct?

     Mr. REID. He's going to stop whenever you want him to.

     Mr. STEVENS. All right.

     The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator from Georgia.

     Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I don't think I will take my full 3 minutes. I just want to rise and say that while, Mr. Chairman, I am going to vote for the omnibus bill, I am really disappointed with the agriculture disaster portion in this omnibus bill. On the Senate side, we debated and discussed this issue at length. The chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, who is also chairman of the Senate Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee, I thought did an excellent job of putting together a package that accomplishes the goal of getting funds immediately in the hands of farmers all across America. My farmers have had 5 rough years back to back, and they need money now.

     Under the provisions that came out of the conference committee, which was basically the House provision, farmers across America are not going to be getting funds until probably August, September, or October. Farmers are going to be out of business if they don't get relief now. To pass this provision in this bill I think is the wrong approach. I don't like that provision in the bill. I do support it. I know the chairman had a very difficult time with this particular issue as well as other issues, but I think that is wrong and I wanted to register my objection. I yield back my time.

     The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.

     Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I know the amount of labor and work that goes into the preparation of a bill of this magnitude. I also know when you postpone the orderly process of passing spending bills and wait an extra 4 or 5 months, there is an opportunity for mischief. I think only in time will we be able to sift through 1,600, 1,800, 2,000 pages of this bill to find out in painful detail what is included.

     There are several things that have come to my attention. I would like to draw them to the attention of my colleagues here in the Senate.

     Let me start by saying there is one issue most people don't like to talk about and I am going to raise this evening because I think it is critically important. The District of Columbia is a city which is governed by a mayor, a city council, and 535 wannabe mayors in the Congress.

     It seems that every Member of the House or Senate who wanted to be a mayor at some time in their lives decided at some point to make a decision for the District of Columbia. I think that is unfortunate. The people of this city, like every city, have a right to govern themselves. Occasionally that intrusion of congressional mischief can reach a perilous state. Let me give an example.

     The AIDS rate for the AIDS disease in our Nation's Capital is the highest in the country. It is 10 times the national average. More and more women are being diagnosed with AIDS in Washington, DC. DC health officials reported last October 616 new AIDS cases in 2001 alone, 33 percent among women. In 1981 women only accounted for 7 percent of AIDS cases.

     City health officials in Washington estimate 40 percent of AIDS cases are associated with injected drugs.

     The question is, how can we stop this AIDS epidemic in the Nation's Capital, which is not only infecting more and more women and children, but appears to be out of control. Frankly, there are programs that work. One of the programs is not popular to talk about. Most of my colleagues run away from it, but you cannot run away from reality. It is a needle exchange program. It is a program that invites addicts in, in an effort to try to first give them a needle that is clean, and then bring them into rehabilitation so they can stop their addiction.

     There are those who say don't give them clean needles because they will just keep using them. But you know what they will use, they will use dirty needles and pass the AIDS epidemic on and on and on.

     I am not expert in this area. I get squeamish talking about needles and

  [Page: S2421]

  injections. But the fact is, the people who are experts, the American Medical Association and medical officials, have said it works. Put these programs on the street corners and in the storefronts of Washington, DC, and we can start reducing the AIDS infection rate in our Nation's Capital.

     There is no reason in my mind why the people of the District of Columbia should not be able to use their own money to try this approach to reduce drug addiction and reduce the AIDS epidemic in their hometown.

     Across the United States, there are programs in many States. But sadly enough, the Members of the House of Representatives have put in a provision that prohibits the District of Columbia from even using its own tax dollars to in any way support this kind of project.

     Some of the very congressmen who beat on the desk and beat on their chest and talk about how they are going to fight these needle exchange programs represent districts and States where these programs take place today. This is a sad outcome in this bill. I hope those who reflect on it will realize they are taking some high and mighty moral position and people will die because of it.

     Stand by the doctors, stand by the professionals. Stop playing mayor and city council for the District of Columbia. Sadly, this appropriation continues to do so.

     Exhaustive scientific review has found that needle exchange programs are an effective way to slow the spread of HIV and AIDS. In a speech last September. Dr. Joseph O'Neill, Director of the Office of National AIDS policy indicated that the administration did not oppose the use of state and local funds to support needle exchange programs.

     The American Medical Association, the American Nurses Association, the American Association of Pediatrics, and the American Public Health Association endorse these programs. The Institute of Medicine identified access to sterile syringes as one of four ``unrealized opportunities'' in HIV prevention in a publication issued last year. The IOM committee recommends that the Administration ``rescind the existing prohibition against the use of Federal funds for needle exchange to allow communities that desire such programs to institute them using federal resources.''

     Former Surgeon General David Satcher, MD stated that:

     There is conclusive scientific evidence that syringe exchange programs, as part of a comprehensive HIV prevention strategy, are an effective public health intervention that reduces transmission of HIV and does not encourage the illegal use of drugs.

     Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, MD concluded that needle exchange programs are an ``effective means of preventing the spread of the disease [HIV/AIDS] without increasing the used of illicit drugs.'' He called limiting the use of state and local funds for these programs ``counterproductive.''

     The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that there were 156 needle exchange programs operating in the United States in 81 cities and 31 States last year, many of which receive state and local financial support for their activities. None of these programs receive Federal support at this time.

     The CDC publication also indicated that 95 percent of needle exchange programs in operation referred clients to substance use treatment and counseling programs, and over half provide on site voluntary HIV testing and more than a quarter also screen for hepatitis B and C.

     In 2000, four needle exchange programs were functioning in my home state of Illinois.

     In spite of the overwhelming support from public health and medical professionals, we here in Congress have once again prevented the District of Columbia from using its own local funds to finance these lifesaving programs. I was pleased that the Omnibus Appropriations bill passed by the Senate allowed the District of Columbia to use LOCAL funds to finance a needle exchange program. Washington, DC has one needle exchange program, Prevention Works, that is supported with private funding. Both the Mayor and Police Chief support the program.

     However, I am deeply disappointed to learn that the conference report we are considering today maintains the irresponsible status quo, which prevents the District from using its own locally generated revenue to finance needle exchange programs.

     This conference report disregards the expert opinions of former Surgeon Generals David Satcher and C. Everett Koop, leading medical and public health organizations, the Director of the Office of National AIDS policy and the Institute of Medicine.

     It is my sincere hope that next year we will stop politicizing this issue and recognize that the District of Columbia, just like all of our home states and districts, deserves to have all possible resources at its disposal to combat this devastating public health crisis.

     The same is true when it comes to attorneys' fees for special education. Think about this. In every school district in America, if you have a disabled child and want that child to have an education, you have a right to say to the school district: Here is my child who needs the education. If the school district contests it and says this child doesn't have a disability and we are not going to pay for a special ed teacher, you have a right to appeal that decision. That's the case across America.

     Sometimes, because it is complicated and expensive, attorneys are involved to represent the parents and the school district and to resolve their differences. It happens every day across America.

     In the District of Columbia it has gotten out of hand. Some law firms--only a few--have exploited the parents of disabled children and turned in attorneys' fees requests to the District of Columbia public school system that are way out of line. Some of these firms have become shady operations that offer not only attorney counseling, but special education services, a package that raises many suspicions.

     Senator KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON and I have debated this over and over again as to whether to cap the fees that can be paid to attorneys and what to do about it. In the Senate we raised the cap on attorneys' fees for DC special education to $4,000 maximum per case. I hope that is enough to take care of these cases. But I will tell you I do not believe we should be imposing a cap on attorneys' fees. The parents of these poor children who are disabled should not be denied legal representation.

     I am happy Senator Hutchison and I could agree on limiting the attorneys' activities so those questionable activities, those criminal activities will stop. But I think we should put an end to this cap on attorneys' fees and say to the DC public school system once and for all, for goodness sakes, offer kids with disabilities the kind of special education opportunities that are available across America. This provision capping attorneys' fees in this appropriation bill I think is a mistake.

     Not only are such caps an intrusion on home rule and local spending prerogatives, I do not believe that imposing a cap on payment of attorneys' fees is the way to address significant and long-standing problems with the delivery of special education services to children in the District of Columbia. These fees arise because parents are forced to bring due process actions against the city school system--and the parents win their cases.

     It is unacceptable for Congress to impose a dollar cap on how much the City may pay attorneys who win these cases, particularly after a judge has awarded a fee based on a reasonableness standard. However, I do support language in this bill which addresses concerns about particular attorneys who have shamelessly taken advantage of the system.

     I support a complete bar on paying attorneys' cases in which the District's Chief Financial Officer, CFO, determines that an attorney, officer, or employee of the firm has a pecuniary interest in any special education diagnostic services, schools, or other special education service providers.

     Furthermore, I believe the provisions in the Senate bill which mandate stronger ethical standards are appropriate.

     I support the provisions in the bill dictating that the District's CFO require disclosure by attorneys in IDEA cases of any financial, corporate, legal, board membership, or other relationships with special education diagnostic services, schools, or other special education service providers before paying any attorneys' fees; that the CFO may

  [Page: S2422]

  require certification by counsel that all services billed in special education were rendered; that the CFO report to Congress quarterly on the certifications and the amount paid by the government of the District of Columbia, including the District of Columbia Public Schools, to attorneys in cases brought under IDEA; and that the District's Inspector General may audit the certifications to ensure attorney compliance.

     It is my hope that these provisions will produce needed accountability. I am glad they were retained in the final product.

     I am disappointed, but not surprised, that the cap remains in this final version of the bill. I share the sentiment that abuses of this program need to stop. I want to work to address that problem and to figure out why the District has had such perennial problems with its ability to meet the needs of its children in special education.

     But it is wrong for this Republican Congress to deprive children of legal recourse when they are denied services to which they are entitled. It is wrong for the Republican Congress to preclude the District of Columbia from using its own funds to make all legitimate payments in this critical special education program.

     There is another provision that was slipped in this bill as it relates to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and the Freedom of Information Act. This provision is an enormous setback to the efforts of State and local governments to combat illegal firearms trafficking. It undermines the very purpose of the Freedom of Information Act.

     This act entitles citizens to open access to Government records, prevents the Government from shielding its activities from public scrutiny. The City of Chicago, which I represent, filed a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain information about the ATF trace database. The purpose, of course, is to determine which gun sellers and manufacturers were responsible for selling guns to criminals.

     In response to these rulings, the gun industry went to the House Appropriations Committee and asked for a rider in this bill to prevent the ATF from complying with the FOIA request and telling the City of Chicago and the public what they were doing.

     This provision sets a dangerous precedent because it essentially directs a Federal agency not to comply with the Federal court ruling, thus undermining the very purpose of FOIA. If litigants can be denied information under FOIA through legislative action--even when a Federal court has upheld this request--FOIA itself is in jeopardy.

     There is no cost justification for this. This doesn't have anything to do with appropriations. This is an effort by the gun industry to stop cities that are ravaged by gun crime from going after the irresponsible gun dealers who are selling guns to criminals. And the NRA and the gun industry are shielding them with this rider in the appropriations bill.

     I was joined by Senators JACK REED and TED KENNEDY in urging that this provision not be included. Unfortunately, it was.

     Let me acknowledge also, as has been said by some of my colleagues, that I am very concerned about the language of funding for homeland security in this bill. The Senate, in its version of this bill, added almost $4 billion in homeland security funds to be sent back to the State and local governments to protect America. As I stand and speak on the floor of the Senate, we are warning families across America that we are in orange alert and that they have to take special precautions to protect themselves and their children from the possibility of biological and chemical warfare and dirty radioactive bombs.

     Sadly enough, we are not providing the resources for the State and local governments to meet this challenge. Make no mistake, America is prepared to attack in the Middle East, but America is not prepared to defend itself at home. That is a sad reality. This bill cuts out almost $4 billion that would have gone for some very important purposes: Additional money for the Transportation Security Administration for monitoring airports; additional money for the INS and border security to stop those from coming in this country who are bent on bad behavior; community policing grants to try to help communities have someone on the other end of the line when you dial 9-1-1, cut $130 million; FEMA disaster recovery assistance, cut by $1 billion; the Department of Justice Office of Domestic Preparedness, cut by $1 billion; firefighter grants, cut by $150 million; interoperable communications equipment grants, cut by $235 million--the No. 1 priority in my State so that the police and firefighters and medical first responders can communicate, cut in this appropriations bill from the Senate level.

     These cuts, frankly, came at the request and with the approval of the White House and the Office of Management and Budget.

     Emergency Operation Center, cut nationwide by $155 million; port container security, cut by $45 million; port technology demonstration projects so that we can see dangerous cargo coming in these ships, cut by $1 million; explosives training initiative, cut by $7 million; and $42 million from embassy security.

     I pray to God that nothing happens to this country as a result of terrorism. But I think we have been derelict in our duty to provide the resources to State and local governments to protect families and to protect communities and businesses across America. This bill, with its $4 billion in cuts off the Senate level, leaves us in a precarious situation and one that I hope does not come back to haunt us in years to come.

     Let me conclude on a positive note. I thank the Senator from Alaska. Despite these words of critique, I personally appreciate, as does Senator DeWine, the personal interest and initiative he took in the global AIDS epidemic. His decision on the floor to approve an amendment which we offered is going to mean that thousands and maybe more will have their lives saved. I thank the Senator from Alaska. He has been a leader on this issue all the way. We have reached a 42-percent increase in funding to fight the global AIDS epidemic through his cooperation and leadership. I thank him very much.

     I yield the floor.

     I ask unanimous consent that a statement entitled ``Underfunding Homeland Security'' be printed in the RECORD.

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

     Underfunding Homeland Security

     At a time when the Administration is ramping up for war overseas, one would think we would be doing everything possible to fortify our security at home as well.

     That's certainly what the Administration has led us to believe, but oddly enough, we're poised to pass this 1100 plus page omnibus bill that slashes funding for the pillars of homeland security.

     And after cutting funds for first responders, for airport security improvements, for community police officers and more, what do they propose? That Americans fortify their own homes with duct tape and plastic sheets. This Administration can and must do better to protect the safety of the American people.

     This bill leaves significant gaps in funding for homeland security priorities.

     The Republican-controlled conference committee rejected increases in homeland security funding that were approved unanimously last year by a Democratic-led Appropriations Committee. Instead, the Republican-controlled conference imposed an additional 0.65 percent across-the-board cut to all federal programs, leaving already cash-strapped initiatives in even greater need. The results of the cumulative cuts, which total more than $4.4 billion, include:

     First Responders: This bill cuts $2.98 billion from activities designed to aid first responders. Cuts include a $1.59 billion reduction for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)--including a $150 million cut to firefighter grants--as well as a $235 million cut to funds for police and firefighters to purchase communications equipment and a $155 million cut to fund emergency operations centers.

     Police/Law Enforcement: The bill reduces funding for Community Oriented Policing (COPS) public safety and community policing grants by more than 40 percent--from $330 million to $200 million. This cut would completely eliminate funding needed to hire 1,360 community-based police officers.

     Aviation/Port Security: The bill cuts $170 million from Transportation Security Administration (TSA), impeding efforts to improve airport security, and cuts $46 million from port security funds. The bill also makes cuts to the U.S. Customs Service, resulting in the loss of more than 200 employees and compromising the implementation of the Container Security Initiative and other homeland security efforts. The INS/border security budget is also reduced by approximately $182 million.

  [Page:
  S2423]

     Other Cuts: The bill also cuts programs to train state and federal law enforcement and security personnel by nearly $50 million, including a $7 million cut to the Explosives Training Initiative and $42 million to embassy security.

     A supplemental appropriations bill would be necessary to provide funding adequate to meet the homeland security needs of localities across the country in advance of any military action in Iraq.

     ILLINOIS

     States and localities are still waiting for the funds promised to them. The States have legitimate concerns. There's a lot of brave talk about fighting terrorism, but when it comes to paying for it, this administration has not delivered.

     In my home State of Illinois, we have an Illinois Terrorism Task Force (TTF). This is a collective body representing 50 agencies addressing emergency needs throughout the state of Illinois. They have told me that a minimum of $100 million is required to cover security expenses in Illinois for FY03.

     The Terrorism Task Force originally asked for $320 million in federal funding and then scaled back its request to the current level ($100 million) in anticipation of federal budget cuts.

     According to the TTF director Mike Chamness, these funds are crucial to Illinois' ability to properly address the threat of terror.

     Without these dollars, programs designed to secure Illinois will cease to exist.

     First responders will be ill-equipped and prepared to address emergency situations.

     Major items in the TFF's $100 million request include:

     $25 million for first responders' respiration equipment upgrade (nuclear, biological, and chemical).

     $14.4 million for communication systems (interoperable communications equipment for police, firefighters, and state/local emergency operations centers).

     Elite Terror Response Team: under current funding Federal monies have not been available to send teams for the ``Elite Response'' training.

     It is imperative that my home state of Illinois--like every other State in this nation--provides their front-line first responders the best equipment, the essential tools, and the finest training available. We rely on their readiness and should expect nothing less. These funds are needed sooner, not later.

     CITY OF CHICAGO

     Now let me tell you about the funding needs for Homeland Security in the City of Chicago.

     The City of Chicago had made an assessment of total budget needs for homeland security at around $175 million

     The top ticket item in Chicago is the Chicago public safety radio migration plan which is estimated to cost $80 million.

     The migration allows for all agencies to communicate in an interoperable manner on a daily basis without major equipment modification or complicated system changes.

     Among other important needs are:

     Emergency Responder Training and Equipment--$7.9 million. CPD is requesting first responder training, first responder equipment and secondary responders unit training.

     Emergency Operations Center Expansion--$10 million. This expansion will provide incident manager with real-time live video, satellite imagery, building X, Y, and Z coordinates and other state of the art technologies.

     Hazardous Materials Equipment--$7 million. The Chicago Department of Environment is requesting hazardous materials response equipment for any large, widespread or egregious hazardous incident.

     NEED TO DO MUCH MORE THAN DUCT TAPE & PLASTIC

     We can't stand up and say we're truly doing everything we can to ensure that our cities and counties, bridges and roads, airplanes and trains are as secure as possible and that our fellow Americans are safe on our soil if this bill is what represents the level of our commitment to fund programs to ensure homeland security.

     I fully expect the President to come back to Congress and ask for additional funds to support our military needs overseas. Without question, we must address these needs. But it would be unconscionable to increase funding for military activities in Iraq and neglect our security needs at home. If war comes with Iraq, the battle lines will be expanded to include our country. We simply cannot afford to leave American citizens unprotected.

  --

     ATF/Freedom of Information Act Provision (Re: City of Chicago Lawsuit vs. Gun Industry)

     Another provision slipped in to the appropriations bill at the last minute involves the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and the Freedom of Information Act.

     This provision would be an enormous setback to the efforts of state and local governments to combat illegal firearms trafficking and would undermine the very purpose of the Freedom of Information Act.

     The Freedom of Information Act entitles citizens to open access to government records and prevents the government from shielding its activities from public scrutiny.

     The City of Chicago filed a FOIA request to obtain information from an ATF trace database. A U.S. District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ordered the ATF to release these records.

     In response to these rulings, the gun industry went to the House Appropriations Committee and asked for a rider to prevent the ATF from complying with this FOIA request.

     This provision sets a dangerous precedent because it essentially directs a federal agency not to comply with a federal court ruling, thus undermining the very purpose of FOIA. If litigants can be denied information under FOIA through legislative action--even when a federal court has upheld the request--FOIA itself is in jeopardy.

     There is no cost justification for this provision. The City of Chicago demonstrated in its litigation that it would take the ATF less than 10 minutes to assemble and release the data is has requested.

     I was joined by Senators Reed and Kennedy in urging that this provision not be included, and I am disappointed that it was.

     In the past, I have challenged the Senate and the President to back up the high priority we have placed on the global AIDS pandemic with adequate resources.

     [Senator DeWine has even called me a ``bull dog'' on this issue. I took that as a great compliment.]

     This 2003 appropriations process demonstrated that the Senate does indeed recognize the need for increased resources to fight global AIDS.

     In December, I, and 15 other Senators, sent a letter to appropriators asking them to increase overall AIDS spending by 50 percent over 2002 levels. At the time we were looking for an increase of $236 million.

     While facing $9-$10 billion in cuts throughout the FY 2003 appropriations bill, the Foreign Operations Subcommittee responded to this request, and managed to find an additional $41 million for global AIDS.

     The Senate Labor, Health and Human Services Subcommittee agreed to match House approved levels, increasing the funds going to the CDC's Global AIDS Program by about $15 million.

     While this increase of $56 million was welcome, unfortunately, it was not enough.

     Senator Mike DeWine and I set out to achieve that 50 percent increase, and through a floor amendment to the omnibus bill, sought another $180 million to bring overall spending on Global AIDS to $1.525 billion.

     This amendment was accepted--its success demonstrates the Senate's sincere commitment to fighting global AIDS.

     $100 million of these funds were slated for the U.S. contribution to the Global Fund--the world's primary organization to monitor and support worldwide AIDS prevention, treatment and care programming.

     And the remaining $80 million would go to USAID global AIDS programs.

     Well, during conference, we lost $80 million of the $180 million total. But, nevertheless, I count this as a victory for the global AIDS pandemic.

     In the end, an additional $50 million was secured for the Global Fund, bringing the U.S. contribution up to $350 million for 2003, and an additional $50 million went to bilateral programs.

     This omnibus bill designates $1.2 billion for global AIDS. That is a 46 percent increase over what Congress appropriated in 2002.

     The President's 2003 budget request suggested an increase in funding of global AIDS funding of 29 percent. I would say we have come a long way.

     We will need this type of increase--at least a 50 percent increase--each year until we can close the gap between expenditures and resources necessary to fight this pandemic.

     The President's FY04 budget request amounts to an increase of only 32 percent over the $1.4 billion the U.S. will spend overall on global AIDS in 2003.

     [This bull dog] I will be back, asking that at a minimum we achieve a 50 percent increase in global AIDS funding each year for the next few years.

     We must continue to do more for the 42 million people worldwide who are living with HIV/AIDS and prevent a good portion of those that will become newly infected in 2003.

     During the last ten minutes I have been speaking, approximately 58 people have died from AIDS, 11 of those were children.

     A 15-year-old boy in Botswana faces an 80 percent chance of dying of AIDS.

     By 2010, it is estimated that sub-Saharan Africa alone will be home to 20 million AIDS orphans; that's 20 million children who have lost one or both parents due to AIDS.

     We must act now to help those who today suffer from the impact of HIV/AIDS as well as to change the future of today's children.

     We know the situation is dire. We have data to support what program work. Now its time to fund the programs that work.

     The 2003 appropriations bill helps us to take yet another tiny step forward in fighting global AIDS.

     Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

     The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

     The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

     Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

     The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

  END
  

  5C) Appropriations
  

  MAKING FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003--CONFERENCE REPORT -- (Senate - February 13, 2003)

  [Page: S2428]
  ---

     Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to consider the conference report to accompany H.J. Res. 2 under the previous agreement.

     The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

     Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will report the conference report.

     The legislative clerk read as follows:

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

     The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will proceed to the consideration of the conference report.

     (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the RECORD of February 13, 2003.)

     Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this is probably a historic occasion because we are presenting to the Senate--as my colleague, Chairman BILL YOUNG, presented to the House--11 appropriations bills in one omnibus bill, a bill that covers the balance of this fiscal year, fiscal year 2003.

     We are in this position because of considerations of the last Congress. I will not take the time of the Senate to try to discuss why we did not pass those bills last year, but when we commenced this year and I became chairman of the Appropriations Committee once again, it was my determination that we should proceed with those bills and make sure we had them completed and to the President for his signature before we were forced to enter into the budget process for fiscal year 2004.

     It was a very difficult process. I want to thank my good friend and Chairman BILL YOUNG in the House, who did as we requested to get the Senate to adopt two continuing resolutions. One we passed and it has extended the time for consideration of these bills. That time will expire on February 20. We will soon get another continuing resolution to take us over to, I believe, February 24, so the President will have a chance to review these bills before he must sign them. I do believe the President will sign this bill when it is received by him.

     It was early this morning that the conference report on H.J. Res. 2 was filed in the House. I was discussing with other Members of Congress as early as 2 a.m. this morning some of the provisions of this bill. It is a very controversial bill, I know. There are many portions of this bill that if I were alone and had the sole right to write the bill, I would not incorporate in this bill. This bill includes 11 separate appropriations bills. The conference report includes 16 divisions. It is a long bill.

     I see my friend from Arizona in the Chamber. I acknowledge it is a very difficult bill to go through in a very short period of time. I appreciate the consideration he and his staff are giving to the bill, as he usually gives to our appropriations bills.

     I see my colleague from West Virginia is in the Chamber, and when he is ready we will ask that the Senate turn to the consideration of the bill. I want to talk about some of the background of the bill before we begin making statements on the bill and what is in it.

     This has been a very difficult process for all of us. I want to say to the Senate that following the election, I outlined to our staff, and our staff director Steve Cortese, a process I hoped we would follow to get these bills passed. The Senate Appropriations Committee staff has been working on these 11 separate bills since the end of the year. We have had bipartisan cooperation. The process we followed in the Senate was that we had 11 teams. They were made up of the 11 subcommittees that would have handled the bills had they been handled individually. These bills were primarily the result of the interaction of the staff director of each of those subcommittees with the staff and the membership of the subcommittee.

     We took the product of those 11 teams and put them together into the omnibus amendment I offered to H.J. Res. 2, the one that was brought before the Senate. I might add that in addition, the conference report contains $10 billion in addition to the funds for the Department of Defense and intelligence community for the global war on terrorism. These were added to the bill. This was a reserve that was set aside by my great friend from West Virginia when he was chairman, a reserve for Defense pursuant to the request of the President as he presented the budget for the fiscal year 2003.

     It would be my intention to ask the Senate to proceed with statements pertaining to H.J. Res. 2 before it is actually received, before we go on the bill. I hope that meets with everyone's approval. Right now it is a matter of discussing the various provisions of the bill.

     There are several other legislative initiatives in the bill. They include $3.1 billion for drought and other agricultural disasters. These funds are offset by reductions in mandatory programs. Medicare and the TANF short-term extensions would give the Finance Committee time to address their matters in a reconciliation bill later this year. There is a .65 percent across-the-board cut to all discretionary accounts in this bill to assure that the total remains within the top line that was agreed to by myself, House Chairman BILL YOUNG, and the President. That is a an arbitrary line, I will admit, but in order to get the bill signed, if we joined them together, it was my judgment we could not risk a final veto from the President of the United States after working so hard to put them all through in one package. So we have worked as closely as possible with all concerned to try and make certain that the bills will be in a form the President could sign it.

     I have to admit I am sure he will be as disturbed about some of the provisions as I am myself, but I do believe all in all the bill is one the President should be able to sign because we have kept the agreement. We have stayed within the line of the requests made by the President of the United States for funds for fiscal year 2003.

     I will take a moment to address the total spending levels in the bill. Last November, Chairman BILL YOUNG and I met with the President to discuss how we might complete the work on these fiscal year 2003 bills. At that time, the President asked that we would hold to the total provided in his budget request, as amended by him. We asked that funds needed for the western firefighting be added to that total to address that emergency. We also agreed at that time there would be no emergency money per se--no amounts added to the bill above the President's request. The President agreed to our request that he would send in a supplemental request for the monies needed for the western fires.

     In addition, we discussed the need to fund the election reform bill enacted

  [Page: S2429]

  by the last Congress and respond to the severe drought facing Midwestern and Western States.

     To accommodate all these competing pressures, the bill I presented to the Senate in the form of an amendment to the second continuing resolution sent to the House included a 1.6 percent across-the-board cut to ensure the total spending did not exceed the new total we then faced, which was $751.325 billion.

     During consideration by the Senate, amendments were adopted that necessitated increasing that across-the-board cut to 2.85 percent of the total of the bill. That level could not be sustained, and it became a driving factor in our conference with the House and with the administration. We understood that as we went to conference. We took those across-the-board cuts so in conference we could discuss all the programs with the House and with the administration and work out an acceptable compromise.

     The challenge facing the conferees was to integrate all the priorities of both the Houses and the administration within the top line of the total requested by the President of the United States. Each of the subcommittee chairmen and ranking members managed to negotiate to resolve their portion of the bill. In other words, as they got to conference, the 11 teams were still involved with working primarily with their portion of this bill. Both the House and the Senate worked to accommodate a set of allocations that would ensure we stay within our fiscal goals.

     By allocations, I mean the amount of money available to each subcommittee for the portion of this bill and the portion of the budget that pertained to matters under their jurisdiction.

     During the course of these negotiations, we turned on several occasions to the Vice President for his counsel, consideration, and leadership in bridging the gaps between the Congress and the administration. This has been one of the most interesting periods of my life as a Senator, being able to work this closely with the Vice President, who undertook, despite the problems facing the Nation, to give us his attention whenever I called and whatever time I called. In every case, the Vice President worked hard with us to find solutions to the problems that beset this conference.

     The conference report, based on the give and take between the House and the Senate, between the Congress and the White House, meets the fiscal targets agreed to by both the House and the Senate. Discretionary spending for fiscal year 2003 will be a total now of $762.713 billion. That total reflects our original base of $751.325 billion, in addition to $1.5 billion for election reform, which the President endorsed over the base request, and the $10 billion for the defense reserve.

     The White House also accepted $2.241 billion in advance appropriations for the 2004 education programs, which was an initiative we began on the floor as we tried to increase the moneys allocated to education under the President's No Child Left Behind education program.

     In short, we set a target which was the total amount requested by the administration. We met the target and we bring this bill to the Senate, reflecting the priorities of the administration, the House, and the Senate. A great deal of hard work went into this final agreement, with all parties making compromises--and, I must say, sacrifices--to get the job done.

     On my own account, as I mentioned earlier today, I was disappointed that a more complete resolution of the Alaska timber problem could not be included in this bill. There have been comments made about my trying to add something behind the scenes and some sort of dark way of moving an amendment that should not have been considered by the conference. There was a provision in this bill as it went to conference dealing with the Tongass Forest in Alaska. We tried to resolve the total dispute over that forest. That has not been possible. As I said this afternoon, I will address the Senate again and again and again until it is resolved.

     At the conference meeting, I was compelled to ask Senator Bond to withhold a more comprehensive proposal on the Missouri River, a goal he has sought, and sought very hard, and on which he has worked very hard. I know it was a very difficult thing for my great friend from Missouri.

     The House advocated language on coal company compensation that the Senate could not agree to. The House also accepted compromises on Amtrak from the positions advocated by the subcommittee chairman.

     The toughest portion to resolve was the drought relief package. I am deeply grateful to the efforts and leadership of Senator Cochran in resolving this matter and meeting the needs of those farmers devastated by recent droughts. His joint role as chairman of the agriculture subcommittee and the authorizing committee made him a pivotal figure in this process and brought before the Senate a proposal which I hope will be acceptable to all involved in farm matters.

     I know many others wish to speak at this conference report, and I will reserve any time that might be allocated to me. I

     thank the distinguished ranking member and our former chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd, for his partnership and assistance in preparing this bill for the Senate. I know he did not agree with the process. I know he wished we had more time to deal with these individuals bills. But without the work undertaken by Senator Byrd in the committee, reporting all the 13 bills last year, we could not have completed our work under the timetable we faced. It was because of the work he led last year that gave us the ability to deal with 11 different bills that had a prior approval by the Senate and past Congress and gave a jumping off point to play catchup with this process.

     I have the deepest respect for the House chairman, Congressman YOUNG, and the ranking member, Congressman OBEY. Their constructive approach and determination to finish the work, these 2003 bills, were vital to the conclusion of this conference.

     It is with a great deal of humbleness that I come before the Senate and ask the Senate to approve this conference report because I know it is a difficult process. We will approve the largest appropriations bill in the history of the United States because there are 11 together in one package. It is very difficult. There will be portions of this bill with which some people disagree; they could disagree with 1 and love the other 10.

     But the process here is such that if we are to do our work for the remainder of this year, if we are going to be able to address the year 2004 appropriations bills, if we are going to be prepared to deal with the possibility of a supplemental for our men and women in uniform who are being deployed throughout the world, if we are going to be able to be partners with the administration in dealing with the crises that face this country in Iraq and Korea, we have to clear this deck.

     We have to make up our mind to vote for this bill. I urge every Member to search his or her soul about this process. It is not a perfect process. It is absolutely not perfect. This bill is certainly far from perfect, but it is the best we can do under the circumstances that face us. There are many people here disappointed, as I am, about provisions that affect their own personal State. All I can say is, there will be another day and perhaps we can address some of those provisions on an individual basis as the year goes by.

     I deeply thank the staff of the Appropriations Committee on a bipartisan basis. I will later ask to put all their names in the RECORD because every one of them has been involved. My staff director sent me an e-mail last night at 2:45. I am surprised he thought I was still awake to get it--but I was. But the real problem is this has been a product of hard labor. I hope the Senate realizes that as we proceed tonight.

     It is my deep hope that we will vote on this bill tonight because it will add 1 more day to the time that the President has to review the bill. It will take at least 2 days, maybe 3 days, for the enrolling process of this bill to take place. In all probability the President cannot receive this bill, if we pass it tonight, until Monday night or Tuesday of next week. He is entitled the time to review this; all of the staff have to review this before he will sign it.

     Having been part of the administration one time, I know what they call the ``enrolled bill process'' in the administration. Each department gets its

  [Page: S2430]

  time to review a bill passed by the Congress and present their recommendations to the Office of Management and Budget to be put together and given to the President for his consideration before he will sign a bill. That process must have time. We should accord the President of the United States the respect due his office, to give him time to review this bill. I regret deeply I did not get more time for my friend from Arizona to review the bill.

     As the years have gone by, we have come to appreciate each other more in terms of the roles we play in this process. The Senator from Arizona is the watchdog of the Treasury as far as this process is concerned. I admire and respect that as far as the Senator is concerned, and I look forward to comments he will make tonight.

     Mr. McCAIN. I see the Senator from West Virginia. I appreciate the indulgence of the Senator from West Virginia. I will take just a minute.

     I thank the Senator from Alaska for the hard work he and his staff have done. I also hope Members understand that we did not receive this bill until sometime late morning and it is, as the Senator from Alaska pointed out, the largest bill in the history of Congress. I see it sitting to his right. I think it is several thousand pages. I believe, in all candor, in order to review it, my staff would have to stay up all night.

     I understand the urgency of voting tonight, but I hope the Senator will indulge me and my staff another hour and a half for us to get through at least a majority of the bill, and then I would be asking for an hour, but I will not use a complete hour to comment on the bill. That way, I hope it can accommodate Members so we could have a vote relatively early this evening.

     We are not finished by a long shot reviewing the bill. It is the largest appropriation in the history of this country. At least in my mind, it deserves scrutiny and comment.

     I thank the Senator from Alaska. I thank the Senator from West Virginia.

     I yield the floor.

     The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.

     Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as the ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations, I thank my friend, the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, TED STEVENS, and I also thank House Appropriations Committee Chairman BILL YOUNG as well as the ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee, Representative DAVID OBEY, for their hard work in bringing H.J. Res. 2, a joint resolution making consolidated appropriations for fiscal year 2003, to the floor. I thank all of the conferees on both sides of the aisle and in both Houses for their hard work on this legislation.

     I join with my chairman in paying our respects to and thanking our staff people, on both sides of the aisle, who have worked long hours for long weeks and for long months on this bill. We are now over 4 months into the fiscal year and the domestic agencies of our Government have had to operate under eight continuing resolutions. Unfortunately, the House of Representatives has not passed a regular appropriations bill since July--since July of last year. That is over 29 weeks without sending a regular appropriations bill to the Senate for consideration.

     I have been in these premises for more than 50 years. I have never seen such a performance in this half century in which I served in this body and the other body. I have never seen such a dismal performance.

     When Democrats were in the majority in the Senate, we produced 13 responsible bipartisan bills. I owed, always owed and sought to give due credit to my distinguished colleague, the Senator from Alaska, because he was always so helpful, so cooperative, always so courteous in his treatment toward me and I have always recognized that and always sought to assign due credit, proper credit to him and to his colleagues on that side of the aisle.

     The President's budget for fiscal year 2003 was seriously deficient in a number of critical domestic programs such as homeland security, education, veterans medical care, highway construction, and Amtrak. In the bills that were approved in the Senate Appropriations Committee by unanimous votes last summer--the votes of every Republican and Democrat, all 29, 15 Democrats at that time and 14 Republicans, all 29 votes voted unanimously--we added about $11 billion or about 3 percent to the President's request to respond to these shortfalls.

     Regrettably, the conference agreement that the House and Senate Republican leadership bring before us this evening cuts back domestic spending by nearly $8 billion, with cuts in homeland security, land conservation programs, Head Start, State and local law enforcement, water infrastructure grants, mass transit, the National Park Service, embassy security, and many other programs.

     I am particularly troubled about the cuts in homeland security programs, given the increased threat level under which we are all now living. My colleagues, the security of this Nation is on thin ice. This administration has held back support for critical investments in homeland security, in police officers, in firefighters, in border, airport, and seaport security. As a result of this White House's intransigence, America is woefully unprepared to prevent or respond to another terrorist attack.

     In this conference report, spending for our Nation's first responders has been cut by $1.6 billion from the levels approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee last summer.

     Funding has also been cut for border security by $182 million, embassy security by $42 million, and for hiring COPS on the beat by $130 million, enough to hire 1,360 police officers and other personnel.

     The American people should know that if there is a chemical or biological attack in their neighborhood, the odds are that the police, the firemen, the medical personnel who will respond may not have either the equipment or the training necessary to help when that help is needed most.

     For example, the National Fire Protection Association and FEMA estimate that only 13 percent of the fire departments around the country have fire personnel with the specialized training and equipment to handle chemical or biological attacks.

     Why is America so vulnerable? Because this White House is hoping to protect the American people on a shoestring homeland security budget, held together with duct tape.

     Since September 11, 2001, the President, with great fanfare, has signed legislation to authorize improvements in security at our airports, security at our ports, and on our borders. The President also announced a plan for State and local governments to vaccinate 10 million first responders for a potential smallpox attack. But the President has not funded that effort, nor has he requested money for it in his budget.

     Time after time after time, the administration has talked about homeland security, but time after time after time the administration has failed to invest in homeland security.

     Add it up. Add it up. The President turned his back to $2.5 billion in emergency homeland security funds last August. This past fall the President forced $1.5 billion in cuts to homeland security initiatives in the appropriations bills that unanimously passed the Senate Appropriations Committee last July. Just last month the administration opposed two homeland security funding amendments which I offered on this floor, one for $5 billion, another for $3 billion, and the administration labeled these funds as ``extraneous.''

     Those are billions of dollars in homeland security protections that could be at work right now. Those are billions of dollars that could be in place today for new police and firefighter training, for expanded border security, for vaccines against smallpox. Those are billions of dollars that could be helping to protect American lives today. But time after time after time after time, this administration said no, calling those homeland security funds ``extraneous'' and ``wasteful.''

     Now, when the President signs the omnibus bill, the administration will proclaim with great fanfare that it held a hard line on Federal spending. I hope that the White House hard line will not result in Americans becoming hard targets for terrorists.

     No longer can we nickel-and-dime our first responders. These firemen and police officers and emergency medical teams simply cannot do the job we expect them to do, and that the American people expect them to do, without enough financial support from the Federal Government.

  [Page: S2431]

     We should not accept the alarming deficiencies in our seaport security--an area that many experts have identified as perhaps the Nation's single greatest vulnerability. We should not accept the fact that first responders and local doctors and nurses do not have sufficient training and equipment to handle wide-ranging threats involving madmen who may have gotten their hands on weapons of mass destruction. With these looming gaps, what is the administration's great homeland security plan?

     What will protect the American people? Will it be duct tape, plastic sheeting, and a new federal bureaucracy? We did not create a new Department of Homeland Security just to be told to buy duct tape and plastic.

     When it comes to fighting overseas, this Administration's attitude is to spare no expense. In fact, the Vice President interceded personally over the weekend to include billions of new dollars for Defense Department efforts in this omnibus bill. That is all well and good. But when it comes to fighting the war here at home, this administration relies on duct tape and plastic.

     We are in new and dangerous times. No threat can be ignored. The men and women who send us here demand that we protect them. The fathers and mothers who send their children to school each morning expect us to invest their hard-earned dollars to keep their little ones safe. That is a solemn duty. It is a basic and sacred duty. When the people ask for our best efforts to protect them from madmen, we must not respond with duct tape.

     Chairman Stevens and House Appropriations Committee Chairman Young did all they could to produce an omnibus bill that meets the needs of the American people within the low spending level imposed by the administration.

     I believe that the most damaging result of the 2003 appropriations process for the Nation and for our States would be for our domestic agencies to be forced to operate under a continuing resolution for the entire fiscal year. Such a full year continuing resolution would reduce domestic spending by up to another $14 billion below the levels in the omnibus.

     Chairman STEVENS of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Chairman BILL YOUNG of the House Appropriations Committee, and Mr. Obey, my counterpart on the House side, did everything they could to avoid operating their Government on a continuing resolution that would go to the end of the fiscal year.

     Therefore, I am going to support passage of this legislation. However, I must raise a concern about how this legislation was produced. Over the past several weeks, the Appropriations Committee has worked to craft a conference report to include the eleven spending bills for fiscal year 2003 that were not concluded during the 107th Congress. The Appropriations Committee takes great pride in the bipartisan approach we have maintained over the years to produce bills to fund this nation's necessary programs. The bipartisan spirit of this Committee enables us to carefully balance the needs of all Americans and to successfully craft bills that, with few exceptions, are signed into law.

     We all recognize the unusual circumstances surrounding passage of most of the fiscal year 2003 appropriations bills. Still, I am pleased to report that the general rule of bipartisan cooperation among the members and staff of this Committee has continued to prevail and, thereby, we have before us now a conference report that strives to provide fair treatment for all Senators, at least in terms of the regular 2003 appropriations provisions.

     However, notwithstanding the bipartisanship exhibited at the subcommittee level, there have been some serious problems encountered in the formulation of the conference agreement on the omnibus appropriations legislation.

     Today's headline in The Washington Post reads, ``GOP Wraps Up Spending Package.'' There is some truth to that statement. Behind closed doors, the Senate Majority Leader, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Chairmen of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees met and settled on a number of the big issues. Vice President Cheney provided the administration's views.

     At these partisan meetings, decisions were made on such issues as the overall top line total of the omnibus appropriations legislation, the size of the across-the-board cut, the matter of environmental riders and the substance of the $3.1 billion drought package, along with the offsets from the previously enacted farm bill that were included at the insistence of the White House. These farm bill offsets because necessary when the White House refused to raise the top line by $3.1 billion to accommodate the mandatory spending in the drought package.

     More specifically, Division N of omnibus legislation includes a title to provide disaster assistance for farmers and ranchers due to drought and related conditions. This item was included in the bill passed by the Senate in January. However, when this bill went to conference, this item was not made part of the normal bipartisan conference process. In fact, no appropriations subcommittee was even involved in the conference negotiation on disaster assistance. Rather, it seems, the entire negotiation was conducted by the majority authorization committees, and no discussions with minority appropriations or authorization committee staff ever occurred until the final product was presented to the Appropriations Committee just as the finishing touches to the overall omnibus appropriations legislation were being made.

     In summary, with no Democrats in the room, the House and Senate Republican leadership designed a program that assessed the $3.1 billion offset against a farm program which one of our colleagues had labored for 5 years to get enacted. The House and Senate Republican leadership chose to cut domestic programs by nearly $8 billion from the bi-partisan bills approved by the Appropriations Committee last summer. There also was no discussion of the decision to include an arbitrary across-the-board cut on domestic programs.

     The package was approved by the House and Senate Republican leadership and given to the Appropriations Committees to be laid into the omnibus legislation. The conferees never met to approve the final conference report.

     This is no way to develop legislation. When minority Senators are excluded from discussions, it has the effect of disenfranchising the millions of American citizens who are represented by those Senators like myself.

     There is not much we can do about this problem now. We are faced with the alternative of operating on a continuing resolution for the rest of the year--which

     I don't want to do, which Chairman STEVENS, Chairman YOUNG, and Mr. Obey have labored valiantly to avoid--which would have the effect of reducing domestic spending by up to another $14 billion below the levels in the omnibus legislation.

     It is my hope that in the future there will be a resumption of full bipartisan cooperation for all items that are included in any appropriations bill. If members want to add items to an appropriations bill that are the product of an authorization committee, that committee must adhere to the bipartisan standards of the Appropriations Committee. If they choose not to do so, I strongly suggest that they find a legislative vehicle other than an appropriations bill on which to attach their measure.

     Again, I thank the truly distinguished chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Mr. Stevens, for his cooperation, for his many courtesies towards me and towards my colleagues on this side of the aisle, and for his friendship and the friendship of all members of the Appropriations Committee on both sides of the aisle.

     I also thank the staff of the committee. I cannot find the words to adequately express my deep appreciation to the staff people on this committee. They work hard. They work long hours. They work long weeks. They work weekends and are away from their families. And they labor under very difficult conditions in order to help to bring to the chairman and the ranking member of the full committee a measure which can then be brought to the floor and voted on. These staff people performed admirably under tight deadlines, especially during the last 6 weeks.

     I look forward to working with my colleague, Mr. Stevens, on the fiscal

  [Page: S2432]

  year 2004 appropriations process which will begin very soon.

     Mr. President, I yield the floor.

     The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.

     Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, I commend the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for an excellent statement and associate myself with his remarks. They were extremely well put.

     Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished friend for his comments. And I thank him always for his statecraft, for his handiwork in the development of legislation on the floor, and for his courage and ability to stand up for what he believes.

     Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, who really is a role model for so many of us. I thank him.

     Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss the provisions in the omnibus spending bill, adopted unanimously by the Senate earlier, that will protect the privacy and civil liberties of each and every law-abiding American citizen.

     I am going to discuss this over the next few minutes. I see the distinguished chairman of the full committee, Senator Stevens, in the Chamber. Before I begin my remarks, I wish to express my appreciation to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. He and his staff have been so gracious and so kind with respect to this issue.

     The program I am going to discuss, the Total Information Awareness Program, is the most far-reaching and most expansive program of surveillance ever proposed. Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye, in particular, with the help of Senator Byrd and Senator Feinstein, and Senator Grassley, colleagues on both sides of the aisle, worked very closely with me.

     But we simply would not have this amendment in the legislation, it would not be bipartisan, if Senator Stevens had not been working with us. Because he is in the Chamber, I particularly thank my colleague for all his help.

     Mr. President, and colleagues, the amendment I am going to discuss tonight would prohibit spending for technology research and development in the Total Information Awareness Program, or TIA, unless the Department of Defense reports to the Congress on its plans for the technology.

     The provision also establishes proper congressional oversight of this surveillance program by requiring explicit congressional approval for deployment of any Total Information Awareness technology that would be used to spy on U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.

     The Defense Department itself has had a virtual database--and I will quote--that was described as ``a new kind of extremely large, omnimedia, virtually centralized and semantically rich information repository.'' In my mind, such a novel and broadly proposed program--a program that has fingers snaking into so many areas of Americans' lives--is a textbook case of a program that needs vigorous congressional oversight.

     In recent days, the Department of Defense and the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency, or DARPA, have announced the formation of two oversight boards for the TIA Program--one within the Total Information Awareness Program and another Federal advisory board. In my view, this is a positive development. It indicates that they understand the growing concern of the American people about the Total Information Awareness Program.

     But I am very pleased that Chairman STEVENS and the conferees shared my view, and that is that the establishment of

     these panels in no way reduces the need for congressional oversight of the Total Information Awareness Program. The conferees understood that these oversight boards, while useful, are not an argument for abdicating the responsibility of the Congress on this issue.

     As I mentioned, this has been a bipartisan effort with Senators Feinstein and Reid--the distinguished Senator from Nevada is in the Chamber, Mr. Reid--who have been very helpful. Suffice it to say, not one Member of Congress--no one in the Senate, no one in the other body, Democrat or Republican--has disagreed with the proposition of our amendment, and that is that it is the responsibility--indeed, the duty--of this Congress to insist on oversight of the Total Information Awareness Program. Not one Senator said: Look, Congress does not need to put brakes on the most far-reaching Government surveillance effort ever proposed.

     On the contrary, what Congress said was: We are going to insist that this program is not going to be allowed to grow unchecked and unaccountable. In fact, it is the duty of the Congress to protect the civil liberties and privacy of the people we represent. The call for strong safeguards has come through loud and clear, and that call has been recognized in the conference.

     One publication in my home State, the Newport News-Times, put it very well. I will quote it. That publication said:

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

     All across the Nation, Americans have said that while a vigorous response to terror is necessary, a system designed to spy on Americans in America is not. It is not only unnecessary, it is contrary to the freedoms that the war on terror aims to protect.

     The total information awareness concept requires keeping track of individuals and understanding how they fit into models. For instance, does a seemingly innocent individual conduct himself or herself according to a pattern that terrorists have exhibited in the past?

     To find out whether any current U.S. citizens fit the model of a terrorist living among us, the Total Information Awareness Program would develop a way to integrate the databases that already track our daily lives--bank records, online purchases, and travel plans, for instance. Once integrated, these disparate databases would serve as one giant repository of information on most or all of the computer-linked transactions an individual makes. Then you run the models, then you make a judgment of who looks like a terrorist. TIA's technology would give any Federal agency the capability to develop risk profiles for millions of Americans as they look for questionable conduct.

     When I first heard about this program--I am sure there are many others who came to think this as well--when you hear this initially, you say, this sounds like a good idea. If you snoop on everybody all the time, you are more likely to spot a few criminal someones at the moment they are up to no good. But the fact is, the police can't just stop someone on the street and frisk them for no reason. Current privacy law is supposed to prohibit private companies and the Government from rummaging through your online records.

     Unfortunately--and this is what you learn when you look at the total information proposal in depth--as it stands, the Total Information Awareness Program would use technology to pick regular Americans up by the ankles and shake them to see if anything funny falls out.

     Now, I understand that terrorists are not going to hang a shingle outside their hideaways announcing they have set up shop. They are not technological simpletons. And I know, as a member of the Intelligence Committee, that extraordinary times such as this call for extraordinary measures to track down these terrorists. I do not take a back seat to anyone with respect to tracking down terrorists.

     I believe one of the most important things I have been able to do as a Member of this body is to write the Terrorist Identification Classification System, a bipartisan effort, that became law in the last session, that allows us, on an ongoing basis, to watchdog terrorists, the Mohammed Attas of the world. But there is a clear line between something that allows for tracking individuals where there is a known track record of terrorist activity--suspicious activity linked to terrorism--and, in effect, standing by while the Government shines an indiscriminate spotlight into the private lives and dealings of law-abiding Americans in this country on their own soil.

     It is a question of striking a balance. The Terrorist Identification Classification System is an appropriate approach

  [Page: S2433]

  for the Government to take in seeking to weed out terrorism.

     The Total Information Awareness Program is over the line. It is invading the civil liberties of law-abiding Americans on U.S. soil. That is why the conferees have wisely chosen to impose checks on it. The intention of the Total Information Awareness Program and those who support it is undoubtedly to protect the America that we love. But the reality is that the program as proposed encroaches on the freedoms that make us love America in the first place.

     Millions of Americans understand that. They have made it clear that they don't want this program to move forward unchecked and unaccountable, and that is why there has been such an outcry about it.

     A few weeks ago I stood with a coalition in a room not far from this sacred Chamber that does not flock together all that often: Americans for Tax Reform, the Eagle Forum two groups that are certainly conservative by anybody's calculus stood with the American Civil Liberties Union and a variety of groups that would be considered liberal, as they supported efforts to put vigorous oversight in place over this program. Suffice it to say, in my time in the Congress, I have never seen a program that has generated more ideological concern across the political spectrum. We have seen Democrats, Republicans, liberals, and conservatives all saying this is a program that warrants vigorous oversight and scrutiny by elected officials.

     Just because the administration has promised in recent days to institute oversight panels and to not use their awesome power for nefarious purposes, does not mean that future leaders would not abuse this program. So what we have said is that we are not going to let this program move forward without first ensuring permanent safeguards and protections that without them would threaten Americans not just today but many years in the future.

     Some who advocate this program will say that the concerns of Members of Congress and others are overblown. Some say the program will not do what I described and it doesn't threaten the privacy of American citizens in the way that first appears. I hope that is the case. If that is the case, if in fact the Total Information Awareness Program does not threaten the civil liberties and privacy rights of the American people, then the folks over at the Defense Department need to come to the Congress and make that clear.

     They need to do what they have not done to date, and that is to explain more about what this program will do and how it will do it.

     The fact is, this body is in the dark about the Total Information Awareness Program, the most expansive and far-reaching surveillance program ever proposed. Congress has not been informed as to what safeguards and constitutional protections would be in place when this program goes forward. Therefore, my view is this Congress has no choice but to pursue answers and explanations before allowing the program to proceed. That is what our amendment to the omnibus spending bill does, and that is what the conferees have wisely chosen to do.

     My view is that these are reasonable provisions. The amendment calls on the Department of Defense to explain in a report to be delivered to the Congress within 90 days what technology they intend to develop and what they intend to do with it. Then the amendment further states that when any technology is developed for this program, it may not be developed without the express approval of the Congress. If the Total Information Awareness Program is something that is less invasive or smaller in scope or different than I have described, then the administration will have an opportunity to tell us.

     This amendment does not prevent those who support the program as initially outlined to have the chance to come back and show why additional threats warrant additional action. What this amendment does is ensure that if this program moves forward, it does so in a fashion that is sensitive to American freedoms, sensitive to constitutional protections and safeguards, while still ensuring that our country can fight terrorism.

     Finally, it all comes down to how we come forward and address a special task. What we must do now is to be vigilant, to make sure we are doing what is necessary to fight terrorism, but not approve actions or condone actions that could compromise the bedrock of this Nation--our Constitution.

     I thank my colleagues, particularly Senators Stevens, Inouye, Feinstein, Grassley, Reid, and others, who said repeatedly that Congress should not shirk its obligation. The conferees who were appointed to reconcile this spending bill had a unique opportunity to defend the Constitution and the United States. That is what we are elected to do. That is what we get election certificates for. They answered that call. For that, I offer the thanks of Oregonians and all Americans for whom civil liberties remain so special and precious tonight.

     I yield the floor.

     TELECOMMUNICATIONS TRAINING INSTITUTE

     Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I want to speak about the United States Telecommunications Training Institute (USTTI).

     The statement of the managers accompanying the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Act, H.J. Res. 2, recommends $500,000 for USTTI compared to $1,000,000 that was included in the Senate bill. However, this funding level is the result of a misunderstanding between my office, Senator MCCONNELL's office, and Senator INOUYE's office. The Foreign Operations Subcommittee was under the impression that Senator INOUYE wanted $500,000 for USTTI, as had been the case in prior years. However, Senator INOUYE is sure that he had informed the Subcommittee that he wanted $1,000,000 for this organization. Does the senior Senator from Hawaii agree with my recollection?

     Mr. INOUYE. I do. I would add that I have strongly supported USTTI for a number of years, and have worked successfully with this subcommittee to get funding for it. I would ask the Senator from Vermont if the amount that is provided for USTTI in H.J. Res. 2 is a ceiling, or is it his understanding that USAID may provide additional funding for this organization if it is justified?

     Mr. LEAHY. USAID could provide additional funding to USTTI, if it is justified. Moreover, members of the House and Senate subcommittee give great weight to the views of the senior Senator from Hawaii, and I have little doubt that additional accommodation could have been made at the conference if this misunderstanding had not occurred.

     Mr. INOUYE. I am informed that USTTI is in need of additional funds to accommodate a range of important training programs that it implements. Would Chairman MCCONNELL and Senator LEAHY support the provision of additional funds to USTTI?

     Mr. LEAHY. I would support additional funding, and would encourage USTTI to discuss their specific needs with USAID. I have a short note from Chairman MCCONNELL, also indicating his support for this project, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the RECORD.

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

     U.S. SENATE,

     Washington, DC, February 13, 2003.
  Hon. PATRICK LEAHY,
  U.S. Senator,
  Washington, DC.

     DEAR PAT: Please know that I support additional funding to the United States Telecommunications Training Institute (USTTI)--at the Senate reported level of $1,000,000.

     I would appreciate your conveying my support for this funding level to our friend and colleague from Hawaii.

     Thank you for your kind consideration.

     Sincerely,

     MITCH MCCONNELL,
  United States Senator.

     TECHNICAL CLARIFICATION

     Ms. MIKULSKI: Madam President, I would like to bring to his attention an inaccuracy in the manager's statement, and ask for a technical clarification. As the Senator is aware, the manager's statement includes language on a project within the Department of Commerce/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Marine Fisheries Service/Habitat Conservation Research and Management Services account: ``Chesapeake Bay Oyster Research'' for $2 million.

     Will the chair recognize that $2 million included in the Department of

  [Page: S2434]

  Commerce/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)/National Marine Fisheries Service/Habitat Conservation Research and Management Services account for ``Chesapeake Bay Oyster Research'' is actually for ``oyster restoration'' activities in the Chesapeake Bay?

     Mr. GREGG. The Senator from Maryland is correct. The committee included these funds in the National Marine Fisheries Service account to, in part, further oyster restoration and replenishment efforts in the Chesapeake Bay. It is the committee's expectation that NOAA will use the sums indicated for oyster restoration efforts in the Chesapeake Bay.

     INTENT OF SECTION 211

     Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I want to take a moment to clarify an issue that may lead to some confusion with respect to the intent of section 211 of the Commerce, Justice, State title of this bill. The Statement of Managers incorrectly states that two foreign cruise ships will be allowed to reflag under U.S. registry for operations in the U.S. coastwise trade. This was a drafting error and should have stated, to reflect the bill language, that three ships will be allowed to reflag to U.S. registry. I simply want to confirm with my friend from Alaska that the bill language is controlling.

     Mr. STEVENS. My friend from Hawaii is correct. The bill language is the law and controls the operation of the provision. I regret that the Statement of Managers was incorrectly drafted. It should have reflected that three cruise ships will be allowed to reflag under U.S. registry.

     Mr. INOUYE. I thank my friend for that clarification and for all of his hard work on this bill.

     Mr. HARKIN. One of the key provisions of the bipartisan Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 signed into law by President Bush last year was a significant new conservation initiative called the Conservation Security Program (CSP) which will, if properly implemented, significantly improve conservation practices and result in cleaner air and water.

     I want to clarify the intent of provisions related to this program included in this conference report and actions that will be taken to preserve current law provisions. First, it is my understanding that it was the intention of the conferees that the CSP be implemented and operated according to the terms of the 2002 farm bill. Second, it is my understanding that the provisions in this conference report were only intended to apply to years following expiration of this measure and were not intended in any way to modify operation of the program prior to the beginning of fiscal year 2008. Third, it is my understanding that as soon as possible this year a conference report that is expected to become law will be brought before the Senate that contains provisions that assure that the CSP will operate as established and intended in the 2002 farm bill for the duration of that bill.

     Mr. COCHRAN. I understand the Senator from Iowa's concerns. I intend that the provisions of the conference report relative to this program would not have any effect on the operation of the program during the life of this farm bill. I would be pleased to work with him to insure that the program funding is restored.

     Mr. STEVENS. I also concur with the statements of the chair and ranking member of the Agriculture Committee about the intent of provisions included in this conference report related to the CSP. It was not our intention, in any way, to modify the operation of this program prior to the beginning of fiscal year 2008. I join Senator COCHRAN in my determination to resolve this matter in an appropriate conference report this year. He has my commitment to work with my colleagues to assure that the Senate acts at the earliest possible date this year on a conference report that is expected to become law that will assure that the CSP operates as established and intended in the 2002 farm bill for the duration of that bill.

     Mr. DASCHLE. The Conservation Security Program was an important part of the 2002 farm bill. It holds tremendous potential to help our farmers and ranchers clean up the environment. I, too, concur that the Senator from Iowa's statements about the intent of this conference report. I truly appreciate the bipartisan commitments of my colleagues to ensure that the CSP is implemented and operated as we intended.

     Mr. FRIST. I look forward to working with my colleagues in this regard.

     FUNDING FOR THE OGLALA SIOUX TRIBE

     Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, it is my understanding that the omnibus appropriations bill includes $300,000 for the Oglala Sioux Tribe to automate the functions of the tribe's court system. I would like to enter into a colloquy with my colleague from South Carolina regarding this funding, which is included in the Omnibus Appropriations bill.

     It is my understanding that the funding in question is intended to be used by Cangleska, Inc., a non-profit organization located on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota that is dedicated to the prevention of domestic violence and sexual assault, to help enhance the capacity of the Oglala Sioux Tribe to arrest, prosecute, and rehabilitate offenders.

     Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes, that is correct.

     Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senior Senator from South Carolina for his clarification regarding this matter.

     Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, I rise today to express my deep disappointment with the so-called drought aid provisions included by the White House and Republican leadership in the fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations bill.

     Coincidentally, 1 year ago the Senate first adopted drought aid--as part of the Senate farm bill--to cover losses experienced by farmers and ranchers in 2001. At that time, 68 Senators joined me and voted in bipartisan cooperation to support the victims of drought. However, one year ago was also the first time the administration voiced in the strongest possible terms their opposition to emergency aid for farmers and ranchers. The White House declared that assistance to farmers and ranchers had to be cannibalized from the farm bill--a position never before taken by any administration with respect to a natural disaster. As Mother Nature turned the hands of time in 2002, the drought conditions became even more persistent. By autumn, more than half the counties in the U.S. were affected by drought conditions and ``ground zero'' unfortunately was the Northern Plains of South Dakota and our neighboring states. In fact, the drought dealt so much damage to the South Dakota economy that South Dakota State University estimated the total economic loss to reach nearly $2 billion. Senator DASCHLE and I led an effort in the Senate to enact emergency legislation providing at least $6 billion for farmers and livestock producers who experienced crop and forage losses in 2001 and 2002. Our drought relief plan was consistent with the approach Congress would always take with respect to the aftermath of a natural disaster--our relief was emergency in nature because droughts, floods, fires, and hurricanes are historically addressed by emergency assistance. Despite the clear need for emergency aid, the White House hard-line prevailed last year and multiple efforts to enact drought relief were defeated by White House foot soldiers in Congress.

     I firmly believe that in order to help agricultural producers coping with the drought, the relief must be comprehensive. But the plan advanced in the omnibus today shortchanges producers in a number of ways. First, the relief plan written by Vice President CHENEY and House and Senate Republicans provides inadequate aid for losses occurring in either 2001 or 2002, but not both. Second, the $3.1 billion offered in the omnibus does not adequately cover the severe crop and forage losses producers suffered as a result of the drought. Third, cutting the new Conservation Security Program (CSP) in the farm bill to pay for the disaster aid is a terrible precedent to set. When a hurricane damages the Gulf Coast or an earthquake occurs in California, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) budget is not raided, rather emergency aid is provided to natural disaster victims. A drought is no different, and it's a crippling mistake to cut the farm bill in order to pay for a drought emergency. Fourth, the special-interest provisions slipped into the omnibus drought plan by Republican authors leaves much to be desired. While the proposal that Senator DASCHLE and I advanced would cover

  [Page: S2435]

  all crop losses, the omnibus makes special grants to cotton and tobacco farmers. Moreover, the omnibus contains a special section to address hurricane losses and $10 million to the State of Texas. This simply is not fair.

     How did White House and Republican negotiators find the farm bill funds to pay for this woefully inadequate disaster aid? I am told they asked the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to revise the estimated cost of the CSP. CBO's re-estimate reportedly grew the cost of the new conservation program to around $6.8 billion over ten years. This level is substantially above CBO's initial estimate of the cost of the CSP--$2 billion over 10 years. I am very disappointed that Republicans employed a budget gimmick to inflate the cost of the CSP in order to launder funds through the program and pay for disaster aid. This entire process is a dis-service to farmers, ranchers, and conservationists and is sure to create hard feelings among these groups. According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), not in three decades has a program in the farm bill been cut in order to pay for a natural disaster. This historically outrageous move to eliminate money from a conservation program in the farm bill to address a drought emergency may prove a precedent that hurts farmers, ranchers, and the environment for years to come. It is terribly short-sighted and I cannot support such a step.

     Less than 6 months ago, 77 Senators joined Senator DASCHLE and I in support of $6 billion in drought aid for farmers and ranchers suffering losses in 2001 and 2002. Today, it appears producers will get less than half of what they need and pay the price in the long run with a cut to the farm bill. I am disappointed that nearly thirty of my colleagues in the Senate dropped their support for comprehensive and emergency drought aid totaling $6 billion in order to satisfy the White House for half that much.

     My record on drought relief for farmers and ranchers is clear. On three occasions in the last Congress, the Senate passed relief that would have compensated all drought victims for their loss. Unfortunately, each time objections from the White House and the House Republican leadership stopped this aid from making it to producers. South Dakota's farmers and ranchers deserve better and for this reason I will not support the so-called drought aid in the omnibus.

     Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, the Senate is now considering and will soon adopt the omnibus conference report on H.J. Res. 2. I will vote for the conference report. I know from my work on the Appropriations Committee that this bill represents a genuine effort by many in both bodies to finally finish the fiscal year 2003 appropriations bill.

     I want to begin my remarks by thanking our leader on this side, Senator ROBERT BYRD. Senator BYRD was the chairman of the Appropriations Committee when the fiscal year 2003 appropriations process began. He steered all 13 appropriations bills through the committee with bipartisan support from every member of the committee. Senator BYRD was instrumental in putting this conference report together. I know the Senator has many concerns about this bill. I share many of his concerns and particularly those regarding the many cuts to homeland security in this bill. The Senator has been a leading voice for homeland security funding and I look forward to working closely with him in the days ahead as this body works on this important issue.

     I also want to acknowledge and thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. We are here tonight because of the determined leadership of Senator TED STEVENS. I know many of my colleagues did not want to see the Congress agree to fund the government with a continuing resolution for the rest of the fiscal year. This would have represented a huge failure on the part of the Congress, setting a dangerous precedent for the legislative branch's working relationship with the Executive Branch. Chairman STEVENS is a tough but fair chairman. I appreciate the work he has put in to manage and successfully complete this very unusual process.

     I appreciate the inclusion of funding for many projects and programs that directly benefit the environment and natural resources in my beautiful home State. The bill includes funding for salmon recovery work from the Elwha River in northwest Washington to the Snake River in southeast Washington and nearly every community between. Funding is also provided to fight the Spartina infestation in Willapa Bay and to acquire important ecological lands around the State. However, while I am very grateful for my colleagues willingness to support my work to secure this funding, I must express my dismay over anti-environmental provisions included in the bill and its failure to adequately fund the conservation trust fund created 3 years ago.

     The conference considered many different provisions related to the Tongass National Forest which sought to strip away environmental considerations in the management of the forest. I appreciate the conference removing these provisions, but wish the one remaining provision could have also been deleted.

     Also of concern to me is a provision retained in the omnibus that significantly expands the Forest Service's stewardship contracting program. This had been a pilot project intended to see if the stewardship contracts were a constructive tool in addressing forest health issues. The problem with the provision in the bill is that it creates a permanent program before we have received any data from the pilot projects already authorized. There is simply no data yet in upon which to make the decision to provide unlimited expansion of the program. I want to make clear that I support the pilot program and believe stewardship contracting could be a valuable tool in addressing forest health issues, but in order for this to be a valuable tool, it must be one that has the trust of Congress and citizens. There is simply not enough data to have created that trust yet.

     There are many great accomplishments in this bill. I am particularly proud of the work we did in the transportation title. The Senate worked very hard to keep my amendment to fund the Community Action Program or CAP at $120 million for the fiscal year. I appreciate the Senate's hard work to stand for this small program that is making a difference all across the country. This bill provides increased funding for a number of education programs. Importantly, education programs like Head Start are exempted from any across the board cuts associated with this bill.

     As we conclude the fiscal year 2003 appropriations process, I hope we can move forward on the coming fiscal year with a renewed commitment to finish all 13 appropriations bills on time. We will need the help of our House colleagues and of course, the administration is an important contributor to the appropriations process too. We must avoid a repeat performance of fiscal year 2003.

     Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I rise today to thank the conferees for helping the City of Boca Raton, FL, and the County of Palm Beach, FL, begin to deal with the bio-terrorist attack on the American Media Building in October of 2001, and the death of Robert Stevens, who worked in the building, due to anthrax.

     That building remains closed off with 24-hour security, still infested with anthrax, within a short distance of homes, schools, and other office buildings. But, now the U.S. Congress has authorized the General Service Administration to receive title to the building within 12 months of enactment of the omnibus bill.

     The residents of Boca Raton and the surrounding communities will be relieved to know that, with this language in the omnibus bill help is on the way. I am confident that the General Service Administration, the Florida Congressional Delegation and the owners of the American Media Building will be able to carry out the language in the omnibus bill and transfer the building to GSA or another appropriate agency to rid south Florida of this public health hazard.

     The omnibus language provides for a report by GSA to Congress within 270 days of enactment of the bill describing the expected agreement between GSA and the owners of the American Media Building regarding the transfer of the property to the Federal Government.

     The language further requests that a public health risk be shown. The local

  [Page: S2436]

  public health officials and the Governor of Florida both have acknowledged that the AMI Building poses a public health threat. And since it is the first attack of its kind in the United States, the amount of danger posed is still unknown.

     Another provision talks about the liability of the owner of the property. It is logical that the owner of the building would remain liable until title is transferred to the Federal Government.

     All of these provisions can be easily worked out to reach an agreement on the transfer of this building to the Federal Government.

     And, as this process moves forward, I know that each party will carry out their responsibilities under this language with the utmost integrity and with the concerns of the residents of Palm Beach County in mind. I look forward to monitoring the parties' progress toward an agreement.

     In fact, I encourage the parties to meet on a regular basis with members of the Florida delegation so that this issue is resolved in the most efficient manner.

     As we all live with the increased threat of a chemical or biological attack, we need to keep in mind that a biological attack is not a mere threat to south Florida and it is not something that occurred in the past and was taken care of--the anthrax attack remains.

     Let us employ the powers of the Federal Government as the Founding fathers intended.

     In Federalist Paper No. 23, Alexander Hamilton outlined the four principal reasons why the Federal Government was formed.

     And the very first reason was for the common defense--national security. An attack from an unknown source was perpetrated on this community and the Federal Government has the power and the expertise to protect and safeguard these citizens.

     I look forward to the day when I can walk on the Senate floor and declare that this community is finally free of anthrax.

     Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I want to alert you and my fellow Senators to a particularly egregious rider that was included in the omnibus appropriations conference report. After the conference committee met and behind closed doors, this special interest rider will gut the organic standards just recently enacted by U.S. Department of Agriculture.

     I understand this special interest provision was inserted into the bill on behalf of a single producer who essentially wants to hijack the ``organic'' certification label for his own purposes. He wants to get a market premium for his products, without actually being an organic product.

     This provision will allow producers to label their meat and dairy products ``organic'' even though they do not meet the strict criteria set forth by USDA, including the requirement that the animals be fed organically grown feed. This approach was considered and outright rejected by USDA last June. The entire organic industry opposed this weakening of the organic standards. If beef, poultry, pork and dairy producers are able to label their products as ``organic'' without using organic feed, which is one of the primary inputs, then what exactly is organic about the product?

     This provision is particularly galling because so many producers have already made the commitment to organic production. For most, this is a huge financial commitment on their part. I have already heard from some large producers General Mills, Tyson Foods--around the country who are enraged by this special loophole included for one company that does not want to play by the rules.

     I am also very disappointed that just because one company could not create this loophole to the organic rule in public during the USDA process, the Republican leadership decided to bury it within the 2-foot tall spending bill. It was done behind closed doors after the conference committee met in public.

     I will be introducing legislation today to strike this rider from the Omnibus Appropriations Act and I hope to move it through Congress quickly before it does gut the organic meat and dairy industry. We need to send a message to all producers that if you want to benefit from the organic standards economically, you must actually meet them. When I included the ``The Organic Foods Production Act'' in the 1990 farm bill, it was because farmers recognized the growing consumer demand for organically produced products, but needed a tool to help consumers know which products were truly organic and which were not. The act directed USDA to set minimum national standards for products labeled ``organic'' so that consumers could make informed buying decisions. The national standard also reassured farmers selling organically produced products that they would not have to follow separate rules in each state, and that their products could be labeled ``organic'' overseas.

     The new standards have been enthusiastically welcomed by consumers, because through organic labeling they now can know what they are choosing and paying for when they shop. This proposal to weaken the organic standards would undermine public confidence in organic labeling, which is less than a year old.

     Getting the organic standards that are behind the ``USDA Organic'' label right was a long and difficult process, but critically important to the future of the industry. Along the way, some tried to allow products treated with sewer sludge, irradiation, and antibiotics to be labeled ``organic.'' The public outcry against this was overwhelming. More than 325,000 people weighed in during the comment period, as did I. The groundswell of support for strong standards clearly showed that the public wants ``organic'' to really mean something. Those efforts to hijack the term were defeated and this one should be too.

     Consumers and producers rely on the standard. I hope members will cosponsor my bill and send a message to special interests that they cannot hijack the organic industry through a rider on the spending bill. This provision is an insult to organic producers and to consumers around the country.

     Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I would like to express my concerns about a provision that has been buried in the fiscal year 2003 spending package. The language would make contract air traffic control (ATC) tower construction costs eligible for Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funding.

     On the face of it, this provision looks acceptable. The concept of making contract ATC towers eligible for Federal assistance under AIP has wide support in Congress. Many small and rural airports lack an ATC tower and do not share the safety benefits of having an air traffic controller to assist aircraft on takeoff and landing. Pilots at these airports are on their own, responsible for seeing and avoiding traffic. A number of smaller airports would like to use AIP funding to build a tower but are barred under current law. If these airports can make critical safety upgrades with this funding, they should have that option.

     The problem with the provision included in the fiscal year 2003 omnibus bill is that while it would properly allow small airports to use AIP money to build new or replacement FAA contract towers, it would also allow airports that built contract ATC towers after October 1, 1996, to be eligible for reimbursement of their construction costs. The Federal Government already pays to operate these towers, and as a condition of this assistance, these airports agreed that the government would not pay the cost of constructing them.

     This reimbursement would affect at least 21 contract towers that were previously built and provide up to $25 million in total for these airports from current AIP funding. In this era of having our Federal resources limited by reduced revenues and the expense of ensuring the security of our homeland, it is irresponsible for this Congress to provide funds from the AIP program to reimburse these airports for costs that have already been accounted for.

     The AIP program is vital to the safety, security and capacity needs of our Nation's airways. I am hopeful that we will carefully consider the potential ramifications of this issue as we proceed later this year with the reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration.

     Mr. REID. Madam President, I want to recognize the hard work of my Senate colleagues, especially Senator STEVENS, for putting together a conference report for our consideration tonight.

  [Page: S2437]

     Last year the Senate Appropriations Committee under the leadership of my distinguished colleague from West Virginia, Senator BYRD, reported all 13 appropriations bills. Those bills formed the basis of the omnibus bill we are considering tonight. Unfortunately, this bill makes unwise reductions in many of the most important areas of our Federal Government, including education and homeland security. This bill also includes a provision that would make reckless changes to our Nation's forest management policy. This rider--which would provide the long-term authorization to contract the management and unfettered harvesting of national forests to timber companies--was so controversial when it was proposed in the farm bill that Democrats removed the entire forestry title rather than take it.

     Rather than write individual timber contracts, the Forest Service has engaged in pilots of this stewardship idea for the last few years. It is a process by which the normal limits on contracting are avoided and timber companies are given broad leeway to harvest;

     Some 84 stewardship contract pilots have so far been approved; none are complete; none have been evaluated to see if they meet the claim that the timber industry ``stewards'' are managing the pilots well;

     Despite the fact that pilots haven't been evaluated, this rider contains a broad authorization for stewardship contracting;

     It allows the Forest Service to pay contractors with trees rather than appropriated money, hence increasing incentive for harvest of large trees and making the Forest Service more directly dependent on timber sales.

     Currently the Forest Service supervises sales, marking trees for cut; under this proposal, oversight is gone. It would be up to the timber company to decide what to cut. The rider enables the Forest Service to allow timber companies to take over large swaths of public forests by affording giving them long term management authority as part of these contracts. This is an important issue that deserves the full debate and consideration of the Senate. I am

     disappointed that it was included in this must-pass spending measure.

     I also want to discuss in detail some of the funding priorities in this bill. This funding bill provides $4.5 billion less in funding for homeland security and emergency responders than the appropriations bills passed by the Senate last year. Just last year, we passed a bill to create a new Department of Homeland Security. Republicans and Democrats came together to approve the largest reorganization of the Federal Government in decades. Without sufficient funding that new agency won't translate into improved safety on the ground, in our neighborhoods, cities and rural areas. This is an issue that is particularly important for my State of Nevada. We have one of the most important facilities and some of the most talented personnel for training emergency responders.

     Just today, one of the managers of this program spoke to me about how many trainers they would be able to train this year with the $35,000,000 approved by the Senate. He told me that he could train 8,000 emergency responders this year. This facility at the Nevada Test Site is one of five counter-terrorism training facilities that formed a consortium several years ago. Together these five facilities could train nearly 35,000 first responders with the amount of money the Senate provided. Every $4,000 less we spend is one less first responder we train. These are the police and firefighters in communities throughout the country. These are the emergency responders who are already overworked by the increased threat level we are experiencing. These are the first responders who still are not sure how to change their patrols and activities in response to the elevated orange threat level. They need to know. They need to be trained.

     Instead of the $35 million approved by the Senate, the final conference report agreed to provide $20 million for the training. While this is a large amount of funding, it will only meet a small portion of the need for training. I hope as the year continues that the administration will request additional funds to ensure that at least one member of every police, fire and emergency response unit in the country receives homeland security training.

     I also want to comment on the funding this bill provides for education. Every person who wants to get an education in Nevada, and throughout the country, deserves to have the opportunity to get one. Whether we are talking about the 230,000 students in the Clark County Public Schools or the 11,000 students who attend Truckee Meadows Community College, every person who wants an education in Nevada, and throughout the country, deserves one.

     During the last Congress, we worked together in a bipartisan fashion to pass a sweeping education reform bill. This bill showed the best of what the Congress can do when Republicans and Democrats work together. This omnibus bill does not live up to the promise of that crucial bill. Instead of ensuring that we leave no child behind, this bill leaves much to fund.

     In summary, I again want to thank my colleagues for their tireless effort to complete this conference report for our consideration this evening. This bill does not do enough to ensure every American can live up to his or her potential. We have an obligation to provide our states with a clean, safe environment, a secure homeland, and the ability to educate every person. This bill could do more to accomplish these goals, and next year, I hope we will do that.

     Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, America is on high alert. This is no time to shortchange our security at home. Yet, that is precisely what this bill does.

     Simply creating a new bureaucracy for homeland security is not enough. We must increase protection at our borders, provide the Coast Guard with additional resources, and provide more security at our ports. We must also assist local authorities to prepare for the worst. Our homes will not stay safe with duct tape alone. Our communities need help to fund law enforcement personnel, firefighters, rescue workers, and medical personnel.

     Today, I asked mayors in Massachusetts whether the Federal Government is doing its share to help local communities with homeland security. Not one--not one--has received sufficient help from the Bush administration to meet local homeland security needs. Mayor Fred Kalisz of New Bedford tells me that since the Bush administration declared a Code Orange emergency last week, he has posted a 24-hour police presence at his small local airport. And he ordered round-the-clock security for a tanker that is docked in New Bedford's harbor. The budget crisis in Springfield, MA, forced Mayor Michael Albano to cut 76 police officers and 57 firefighters from the city payroll. Police, fire, and rescue officers in Springfield are stretched to the limit to cover continuing duties with fewer officers. Springfield simply cannot afford the additional duties of homeland security without federal help. The same is true in Worcester, where Mayor Timothy Murray is facing cuts to his police and firefighting force by more than ten percent. And his officers not only fight crime in Worcester, but they have protection duties with a strategic reservoir near Worcester as well as major rail hub. And the city of Boston has already spent $2.6 million in scarce city funds for homeland security.

     These local officials care about their communities. They are doing all they can amid an avalanche of budget cuts just to meet the ongoing needs of their citizens. It is unfair of the Bush administration and the federal government to leave them high and dry in the face of terrorist threats at home. Despite promises of funding from Washington to help with these urgent needs, he has received nothing--and this bill provides no new money beyond what administration promised long ago, and has yet to deliver. Washington must do more--much more--to be a real partner with our local cities and communities to protect our citizens.

     I am also deeply concerned that this bill is yet another leap in the Republican campaign to undermine years of progress in protecting our environment. This bill contains provisions that allow the indiscriminate logging of irreplaceable forests, and lays the seeds for the destruction of one of our country's greatest natural treasures, the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve.

     In addition, while I commend the fact that this bill represents a step forward

  [Page: S2438]

  on education, and rejects the administration's anti-education budget, I believe that parents and teachers and students across the country will agree that more should have been done. Education is about fulfilling the hopes and dreams of the next generation. And it is about the security and economic future of America.

     For these reasons I oppose this bill.

     I ask that unanimous consent that a recent Boston Globe article that describes what our mayors are doing with little or no Federal help to meet homeland security needs in their communities be printed in the RECORD.

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

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

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

  (By Megan Tench and Jenna Russell)

     With the nation on heightened alert for terrorist attacks, Massachusetts officials said yesterday that the added responsibility will tax local budgets already facing a fiscal crisis.

     The Bush administration hiked the terror alert to the second-highest level on Friday as Attorney General John Ashcroft cited an ``increased likelihood'' that the Qaeda terror network would attack Americans, noting that hotels and apartment buildings were possible targets.

     However, Congress's failure in the last session to provide additional funding for security for cities and towns prompted criticism from several Massachusetts mayors as they attempted to cope with increased security mandates at a time of state aid reductions.

     ``Obviously there are targets that need to get additional attention, but the fact of the matter is that this is a major concern,'' Worcester's Mayor, Timothy P. Murray, said yesterday.

     ``We have thousands of police and firefighters out there, yet the president and the Congress failed to supply, equip, and fund these departments,'' Murray said.

     Like other municipal leaders around the state, Salem Mayor Stanley Usovicz Jr. said cities and towns are on the front line in the war on terrorism, but have not received the money they need to keep up the fight.

     ``I think everybody is willing and quite able to do their jobs, but no one at the federal and the state level understands that there is a bill to be paid,'' he said. ``We are at war, and ..... I don't know how anyone can fight a war without giving money to the front lines. They cannot continue to ask for more without paying for it.''

     Still, few residents voiced concern yesterday over the possibility of attacks, which officials said could target Jewish communities or institutions.

     ``We heard about that on the news, but we are not afraid. We feel safe,'' said George Ullevinov, a Reading resident who was touring the Holocaust Memorial in Boston yesterday with his family.

     Authorities believe that terrorists connected to Al Qaeda could be planning to time an attack or attacks with the end of the five-day Muslim holy period of the Hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca, which began yesterday.

     Officials have been particularly concerned about the use of a ``dirty bomb,'' which would use conventional explosives to disperse radioactive material, but they also cited the possibility of suicide bombings and assassinations.

     ``Well, we can't run and hide under the bed,'' said Boston resident Philip West, as he checked his luggage with American Airlines at Terminal B at Logan Airport yesterday. West, a helicopter pilot, was headed to Dallas for a pilot's convention.

     ``We have to go out,'' he said. ``I believe if it's our time to go, it's our time to go.''

     At Logan, tighter security was visible, with more State Police and trained dogs on patrol and more car inspections on entry to airport garages, during curbside stops, and an additional roadblocks on airport roads.

     The increased presence seemed to comfort Dorchester resident Marlene Francis, who, along with her 4- and 10-year old children, was preparing for a flight to Jamaica.

     ``I believe in the security people here, and I try not to think about these things because I am traveling with my children,'' Francis said, as she waited in line at a security checkpoint. ``What's meant to be will be.''

     At malls and hotels in and around Boston, security directors were reluctant to discuss what precautions they were taking. Law enforcement and transportation officials also were reticent about the heightened alert.

     FleetCenter managers urged ticket holders to arrive an hour early for a Bruins game yesterday to comply with added security procedures, including the use of metal detectors at entrances. And the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority also increased security to reflect the orange alert, according to spokesman Joseph Pesaturo.

     The Coast Guard also stepped up patrols around Boston, a spokeswoman said, and the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority increased security and patrols at key spots around the state's water supplies.

     Bridges also became a focus of attention. ``We've instructed our maintenance people who patrol the roads on a daily basis to be extra vigilant and keep an eye out for any stalled vehicles, particularly near bridges,'' said Jon Carlisle, a spokesman for the Executive Office of Transportation and Construction.

     Boston's mayor, Thomas M. Menino, could not be reached for comment on the terrorism response yesterday. However, Menino, who also serves as president of the US Conference of Mayors, expressed concerns about the cost of the fight against terrorism during his address to the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce two months ago.

     There, Menino announced that he is assembling a national coalition of state and local officials to urge Congress to pass the security funding measure as part of Bush's federal budget proposal when lawmakers return next month.

     Boston has spent $2.6 million in extra security since Sept. 11 terror attacks, Menino said. It's unclear how much the city would reap if the federal package were approved.

     ``This is money we were promised for police and fire and terrorism protection,'' he said in his address. ``We cannot allow Congress to keep fiddling while the states and cities burn their reserves and exhaust their funds.''

     Other local officials echoed that sentiment.

     ``It's a very difficult situation. There are no additional dollars,'' said New Bedford's mayor, Frederick M. Kalisz, whose city is bracing for substantial cuts.

     ``The alert requires a certain level of patrol visibility at our airport and waterfronts, and the federal dollars just haven't come down to local governments yet,'' he said. ``In a time of taxed dollars, we have to increase the patrols with local patrol officers that we use in our neighborhoods.''

     In Springfield, Mayor Michael Albano said 57 firefighters will receive layoff notices by Monday, in addition to the 76 police officers he just laid off. Albano said the state budget cuts hurt more than the failure of the federal government to fund local security.

     Downsizing police and fire departments ``is inconsistent with national policy, and it should be inconsistent with state policy,'' he said. ``The governor has weakened our front lines during a national alert.''

     Eric Fehrnstrom, a spokesman for Governor Mitt Romney, said federal, state, and local governments ``should spend whatever is necessary'' to protect local cities and towns. ``There has to be more federal involvement,'' he said. ``Governor Romney will stand shoulder to shoulder with the state's mayors in making sure they receive adequate federal dollars to respond to the needs of our local communities.''

     After the boost in the national alert, Romney flew back to Boston two days early from an Olympics anniversary celebration in Utah, to make sure he would be here in the event of an emergency, Fehrnstrom said.

     Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations bill. I oppose this bill because it is a significant step backward from the bills that the Appropriations Committee reported last year unanimously.

     The most troubling departure from these committee-passed bills is in the critical area of homeland security. Compared to the levels unanimously approved last year by the Senate Appropriations Committee, this bill makes deep cuts in the Transportation Security Administration, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, community policing, FEMA disaster assistance, the DOT Office of Domestic Preparedness, firefighter grants, port security, American embassy security, and many other homeland security needs.

     The agricultural disaster assistance provisions in bill are also of great concern to my State of South Dakota and many other States. The provisions provide limited assistance to producers by cutting important conservation assistance in the Farm Bill. The provisions provide only half the assistance needed to address the scope of natural disaster across the country. Finally, the provision provides assistance to select producers who did not suffer from natural disasters. The Senate voted three times last year for a measure that would have compensated all drought victims for their loss. Unfortunately, objections by the White House and the House Republican leadership stopped this aid from making it to producers.

     I am also very concerned about the anti-environmental provisions in the bill. One provision would dramatically expand the forest stewardship contracting program until 2013. This provision would eliminate the current cap on pilot projects and require the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to open up more than 70 million acres to potential logging. The timber companies, not the Forest Service, would pick the trees to be harvested. In addition, the bill would eliminate judicial review for the Tongass National Forest land management plan; remove language protecting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge;

  [Page: S2439]

  exempt the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System from environmental review; and cut funding for important conservation programs.

     For these reasons, I oppose this conference report and urge my colleagues to oppose it as well.

     The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.

     Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks of the distinguished majority leader, the Senate proceed to vote on the adoption of the conference report with no intervening action or debate.

     The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

     The majority leader.

     Mr. FRIST. Madam President, before we vote I will take a minute to outline the schedule. This will be the last vote prior to the Presidents Day recess. The Senate will be in session tomorrow. However, no rollcall votes will occur during Friday's session.

     At the conclusion of Friday's business, we will adjourn until Monday, February 24, under the order. At noon on Monday, February 24, Senator Chambliss will deliver George Washington's Farewell Address. Following the address, the Senate will resume consideration of the Estrada nomination. In addition, on February 24, we will consider S. 151, the Protect Act. Members should expect to vote on passage of that bill at approximately 5:30. I will notify all Members when the exact time is locked in.

     I thank all Members for their cooperation during this busy period. Again, this will be the last vote before the recess. The vote will be conducted in a few minutes, and the Senate will be in session tomorrow.

     Mr. STEVENS. I ask for the yeas and nays.

     The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

     There is a sufficient second.

     Mr. REID. Madam President, will the majority leader yield for a question?

     Mr. FRIST. Yes.

     Mr. REID. Can Members be assured that there will be no vote prior to 5:30 on the Monday we come back?

     Mr. FRIST. That assurance will be given.

     The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back for debate on the conference report?

     Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask that the time of the ranking member be yielded back.

     Mr. STEVENS. I yield back all time.

     The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference report. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.

     The legislative clerk called the roll.

     Mr. FRIST. I announce that the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. MCCONNELL) is necessarily absent.

     Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. GRAHAM), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. KERRY), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. LEAHY) are necessarily absent.

     I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. KERRY) would vote ``no''.

     The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?

     The result was announced--yeas 76, nays 20, as follows:

  [Rollcall Vote No. 34 Leg.] YEAS--76

     Akaka

     Alexander

     Allard

     Allen

     Baucus

     Bayh

     Bennett

     Biden

     Bond

     Breaux

     Brownback

     Bunning

     Burns

     Byrd

     Campbell

     Cantwell

     Carper

     Chafee

     Chambliss

     Clinton

     Cochran

     Coleman

     Collins

     Cornyn

     Craig

     Crapo

     DeWine

     Dole

     Domenici

     Dorgan

     Ensign

     Enzi

     Feinstein

     Frist

     Graham (SC)

     Grassley

     Gregg

     Hagel

     Harkin

     Hatch

     Hollings

     Hutchison

     Inhofe

     Inouye

     Johnson

     Kohl

     Kyl

     Landrieu

     Lincoln

     Lott

     Lugar

     McCain

     Mikulski

     Miller

     Murkowski

     Murray

     Nelson (FL)

     Nelson (NE)

     Nickles

     Reed

     Roberts

     Santorum

     Schumer

     Sessions

     Shelby

     Smith

     Snowe

     Specter

     Stabenow

     Stevens

     Sununu

     Talent

     Thomas

     Voinovich

     Warner

     Wyden

  NAYS--20

     Bingaman

     Boxer

     Conrad

     Corzine

     Daschle

     Dayton

     Dodd

     Durbin

     Edwards

     Feingold

     Fitzgerald

     Jeffords

     Kennedy

     Lautenberg

     Levin

     Lieberman

     Pryor

     Reid

     Rockefeller

     Sarbanes

  NOT VOTING--4

     Graham (FL)

     Kerry

     Leahy

     McConnell

     The conference report was agreed to.

     Mr. FRIST. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

     The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

  END

  
  Return to the Congressional Report Weekly.