Congressional Record Weekly Update

Return to the Congressional Report Weekly.

1A) ENVISIONING A NEW AMERICA
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, on July 6th when I began the trip from Cleveland, I caught a glimpse of a misty rainbow, evanescent in a nearly cloudless western sky. It is one of nature's paradoxes that you do not need rain to have a rainbow. A many colored, broad spectrum reality can be perceived at any time if we train ourselves to look for that light. When a storm does occur, the rainbow is nature's gift. How brilliant is a rainbow against a very dark sky.

Hope informs us to look for light in all situations, under all conditions, in all persons, in all nations. How important it is at this time in our nation's history that we attempt to comprehend the light which shines in the darkness. How important it is that we grasp how a shaft of light can spring from the luminous nature of our own hearts and light a new path for ourselves, our loved ones, the nation we love and a world so in need of love.

Today, even as we celebrate the red, white and blue, our nation is bathed in the off colors of threat levels of conjured attacks. We are cautioned to be ever on the alert, to beware the stranger, to travel warily, to watch the crowds, to watch the skies. We are offered the strange solace of nuclear weapons we should never wish to use, missile systems which do not work, metal detectors, bomb sniffing dogs, war planes patrolling our major cities, the FBI marching parade routes and attending religious services. And we are told to have a nice day.

The projections of a menacing external environment breeds fear which percolates paranoia which becomes withdrawal and isolation.

Americans know intuitively fear is not our home. Indomitability fostered Independence. Courage created a Constitution. Fearlessness birthed freedom. Francis Scott Key's Star Spangled Banner gave insight into the American character when, in the closing lines he asked: ``Oh say does that Star Spangled Banner yet wave, o'er the land of the Free and the home of the Brave.'' Key made a connection between freedom and bravery. At Gettysburg, Lincoln declaimed we were ``conceived in Liberty'' and asked whether a nation so conceived could endure a Civil War.

It is worth asking today if a nation conceived in Liberty can long endure. A war on terrorism, where fear and democracy are at odds. It is worth contemplating the cost to liberty in the face of assertions that the only way we can protect our freedoms is to become more dependent on the armed power of government, or to give up some of our constitutional rights.

It is only courage which can meet the thief at the door or the terrorist in the crowd. It is only courage which gives us the ability to recite resolutely Lincoln's prayer that a ``government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish''. It is only courage which can enable us to see with our heart the possibilities which still exist for America as the nation of our dreams, as a beacon of hope for the world.

So today let us begin the work of summoning all the love and courage we have in our hearts and send it out as a stream of brilliant light to lift the darkness which has dropped like a shroud over the consciousness of some of our countrymen and women.

Today let us envision a new role for America in the world. Let that vision be informed by the immortal intimations of our founders. Let that vision spring from our spiritual intuition. Let that vision be expressed in our every word. Let that vision leap from the golden chalice of our hearts. Let that vision be incarnated through our hands. Let us fashion a new nation through a new vision, filled with new hope from which new possibilities arise.

Let America begin anew in Afghanistan. Stop the bombing. We have no quarrel with the Afghan people. The Taliban are overthrown. Al Queda has fled. Bin Laden has vanished. And yet the bombs still drop, indiscriminately. Is there any American who has not been shaken at the mere thought of the horror of U.S. warplanes bombing a wedding celebration in the village of Kakrak, killing dozens of innocent civilians?

Whatever moral authority our nation had at the beginning of the conflict is rapidly being lost. This act does not represent America. Democracy does not wed terror. This act must not be cloaked in the irresponsible and inhuman euphemism of ``collateral damage''. Stop the bombing. Let an international police force continue in Afghanistan. Let the humble people of Afghanistan be spared friendly fire issued from skies. Enough of bombing the villages to save the villages! Stop the bombing!

Let America begin anew in Iraq. Stop planning for an invasion. The lives of a quarter of a million young American men and women must not be placed in jeopardy. Put a renewed emphasis on preventive diplomacy instead of pre-emptive strikes. Practice deterrence. Practice containment. Do not practice war in Iraq. Practice instead humanitarian aid to children who are dying because hospitals lack medical supplies. If Saddam Hussein would visit destruction upon his people let us not compound their woes.

Let America begin anew by putting an end to the Bomb as the ultimate metaphor. Let us lead the way towards the abolition of nuclear weapons. Let us set aside plans for a missile shield. Let us end the manufacture of new nuclear weapons. Let us stop the testing of nuclear weapons. Let us disavow any right to a nuclear first strike. Let us begin again to work toward nonproliferation worldwide and secure the goal of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty which is a world free of nuclear threats. Let us put an end to the bomb as the ultimate metaphor.

Let America once again confirm its leadership and secure its position as a righteous nation among nations by fully participating in the global community through treaty-making and upholding international law. Let us reinstate the ABM Treaty, so that all nations who possess or would possess nuclear weapons can trust the United States will not try to gain advantage.

Let America fulfill a half century commitment to the use of outer space for peaceful purposes by setting aside plans to weaponize space and leading the way to ban all weapons in space, which is the purpose of HR 3616.

Let America commit to the Kyoto Treaty to protect this planet earth and to assure all nations that we recognize our responsibility to limit the production of greenhouse gases. In this we demonstrate an understanding of the interconnectedness of all life. In this we ensure the life of the planet far into the future. In this we show confidence in the future. In this we show a love of life.

Let America spare this planet and its people the scourge of biological and chemical weapons by leading the way toward world-wide agreement of the Biological and Chemical weapons conventions.

Let America commit itself to the Landmine Treaty and the Small Arms Treaty.

Let America pledge itself to justice everywhere by supporting the International Criminal Court.

Let us bring a new awareness to America. One which speaks and listens compassionately to those with whom we disagree. One whose power derives from the morality of our principles, not the armaments of our military.

Let America lead the way for a world at peace through inclusionary governance, upholding human rights, protecting workers' rights everywhere, assuring sustainability through enabling renewable energy resources to be brought forth.

Let America replace its principles of perpetual war with new organizing principles which protect the natural world, and affirm the interconnectedness of all life. Let us make nonviolence an organizing principle in our society through the creation of a Department of Peace.

Let us be the generation which began the work with people of all nations which leads to the day when war itself becomes archaic. ``Not to believe in the possibility of permanent peace is to disbelieve the godliness of human nature'' said Gandhi.

We can evolve. We can understand that war, violent death, the arms race, threats, terror, environmental destruction, adverse global climate change, corporate corruption, poverty, ignorance and sickness are not our ultimate destiny. Our eternal home is not eternal darkness. We are made for something better, a higher purpose, a higher calling here and now.

[Page: E1333]  GPO's PDF

The world's ills represent conditions which are not beyond our understanding nor beyond our control, but which yield to human intelligence, the wisdom of the human heart and the aspirations of the human spirit.

As we face uncertain times, let us call upon our capacity for love. Let us call upon our capacity for hope. Let us call upon our capacity to believe in ourselves and in each other. Let us call upon our capacity to make a difference. Let us call upon our capacity to evolve as a nation. Let us call upon our recognition of the power of unity which brings us here, and which enables us to envision the America of our fondest dreams.

2A) Sale of Israeli Arrow Weapon System to India
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise on the House floor this evening to discuss the sale of the Israeli Arrow Weapon System to India.

According to several reports, Mr. Speaker, there is support within the Pentagon and support from Israel to make the sale of the Arrow Weapon System a reality. However, Secretary Powell and the State Department are preparing to express objection to India's purchase of this missile defense system from Israel, due to the current military standoff between India and Pakistan.

I sent a letter today to Secretary Powell, requesting that the Secretary not delay or oppose India's purchase of this missile defense system from Israel.

I strongly believe that the State Department's support for the Arrow Weapon System sale to India would further solidify the new defense relationship between the United States and India. For the past several months, the U.S. and India have participated in numerous joint military exercises which have fostered a strong defense relationship between the two countries, which share democratic interests and have been working together well against global terrorism.

In addition, the Arrow Weapon System was created to defend against short-range and medium-range ballistic missiles. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, India's interest in the Arrow Weapon System is to improve missile defense , not offense, which is a key factor regarding this sale that needs to be considered.

There have also been reports that indicate that India is preparing to buy parts from the United States for military equipment such as helicopters, jets and radar systems. The sale of this equipment was initially delayed due to sanctions imposed on India in May 1998. Those sanctions have been lifted for nearly one year and I requested that the sale of this equipment not be delayed as well due to the current situation between India and Pakistan.

Mr. Speaker, I am hoping that during Secretary Powell's trip to India this week, he will voice approval of this Israeli sale to India. This is a positive step for U.S.-India relations and because of the defensive nature of this defense system, the U.S. should not delay this sale due to the conflict between India and Pakistan.

July 23, 2002.
Hon. Colin Powell,
Secretary, U.S. Department of State,
Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. SECRETARY:

According to several reports, there is support within the Pentagon and support from Israel to make this sale a reality. However, I understand that during your upcoming trip to India, you are preparing to express your objection to India's purchase of this missile defense system from Israel, due to the current military standoff between India and Pakistan.

I strongly believe that the State Department's support for the Arrow Weapon System sale to India would further solidify the new defense relationship between the United States and India. For the past several months, the US and India have participated in numerous joint military exercises which have fostered a strong defense relationship between the two countries, which share democratic interests and have been working together well against global terrorism.

In addition, the Arrow Weapon System was created to defend against short-range and medium-range ballistic missiles. Therefore, India's interest in the Arrow Weapon System is to improve missile defense , not offense, which is a key factor regarding this sale that needs to be considered.

There have also been reports that indicate that India is preparing to buy parts from the United States for military equipment such as helicopters, jets and radar systems. The sale of this equipment was initially delayed due to sanctions imposed on India in May 1998. Those sanctions have been lifted for nearly one year and I request that the sale of this equipment not be delayed due to the current situation between India and Pakistan.

I am hoping that during your trip this week, you will voice approval of this Israeli sale to India and I thank you for taking my views into consideration.

Sincerely,

Frank Pallone,

3A) Joint Resolution Calling for Congress to Vote on Resolution for Use of Force Against Iraq
S.J. RES. 41. A joint resolution calling for Congress to consider and vote on a resolution for the use of force by the United States Armed Forces against Iraq before such force is deployed; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the RECORD.

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

Joint Resolution

CALLING FOR CONGRESS TO CONSIDER AND VOTE ON A RESOLUTION FOR THE USE OF FORCE BY THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AGAINST IRAQ BEFORE SUCH FORCE IS DEPLOYED

Whereas, Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections;

Whereas, Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities;

Whereas, in his January 29, 2002 ``State of the Union'' address the President characterized Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an ``axis of evil'';

Whereas, the Secretary of State distinguished Iraq from Iran and North Korea in his testimony before the Senate Budget Committee on February 12, 2002, stating that ``for several years now [it has been] a policy of the United States government that a regime change would be in the best interest of the region, [and] the best interest of the Iraqi people'';

Whereas, in his February 12, 2002 testimony, the Secretary of State specifically stated, ``With respect to Iran and with respect to North Korea, there is no plan to start a war with these nations'', raising the implication that the United States had a plan to start a war with Iraq;

Whereas, there have been repeated reports in the news media on U.S. plans to use force against Iraq and statements by the President and the Vice President on the intention of the United States to use force against Iraq:

(a) The New York Times February 16, 2002, quoting Vice President Cheney saying, ``The President is determined to press on and stop Iraq ..... from continuing to develop weapons of mass destruction'' and intends to use ``the means at our disposal--including military, diplomatic and intelligence to address these concerns'';

(b) New York Times on July 9, 2002 quoting President Bush on Iraq: ``It's the stated policy of this government to have regime change and it hasn't changed. And we'll use all tools at our disposal to do so.''

Whereas, Congress has the exclusive authority to declare war under Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution;

Whereas, the President has authority under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution as Commander-in-Chief, which authorizes him to take military action in an emergency when Congress does not have time to deliberate and decide on a declaration of war or the equivalent authorization for the use of force;

[Page: S7166]

Whereas, within the past half century, Presidents have unilaterally initiated military actions in Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Lebanon, Panama, Somalia and Kosovo;

Whereas, President George H.W. Bush, although initially stating publicly that he did not need congressional action, ultimately requested authorization from Congress, which was granted in January 1991, to use force against Iraq under circumstances similar to the present situation;

Whereas, there is adequate time for the Congress to deliberate and decide on the authorization to initiate military action against Iraq;

Whereas, if Congress takes no action in the current situation where there is adequate time to deliberate and decide, there will be a significant further, if not virtually complete, erosion of congressional authority under Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution;

Whereas, this resolution takes no position on whether such authorization should or should not be granted by Congress;

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress consider and vote on a Resolution authorizing the use of force by the United States Armed Forces against Iraq before such force is deployed against Iraq.
 

3D) WMD Civil Support Teams
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi moves that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 4546 be instructed to insist upon the provisions of section 1551 of the House amendment (relating to the establishment of at least one Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Team in each State).

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under rule XX the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) each will control 30 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

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

Mr. Speaker, we as a Nation have learned a heck of a lot in the months after September. As a member of the Committee on Armed Services, one of the things we have been told for years and that we were asked not to talk about was the very large number of nations that possess weapons of mass destruction. Now it has been published in so many magazines that it is hardly a secret anymore, but I think the people of America are well aware that almost 30 nations have some form of weapons of mass destruction, be it chemical, biological or nuclear.

They are also aware because of published reports that many of the nations that possess these weapons are not in very good control of these weapons. So it is now just considered a matter of time until a terrorist group gets their hands on a chemical weapon, a biological weapon or a nuclear weapon.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say that as a nation, we are unprepared for

[Page: H5603]

that eventuality. One of things this committee has done very wisely in years past is to fund 30 years through the National Guard, 22-member teams that would be in a position to train local first responders; and then with the proper equipment and with the proper training, be in a position to respond to such an attack.

Mr. Speaker, we have offered an amendment in the committee with the help of our chairman that was adopted, I believe, by unanimous votes of the committee to put one of these teams in every State, to come up with the necessary funds, approximately $190 million, so that there is a weapons of mass destruction civil support team in every State.

I see this very much like I see my local fire department. I go out of my way to see to it that there will never be a fire in my house, but the fact of the matter is there well could be and it could be right now. And since it could be, I want my local fire department to have the training and the equipment to respond to that to minimize the damages and the loss of human life. I see a weapons of mass destruction team in every State as just like that. I pray to God that it never happens, but I have to presume it will happen. And when it does happen, I want every State in the Union to have a core of competency within several hours of these people to respond.

Should it be a biological attack with a crop duster over a football stadium, or a chemical attack in a subway of a huge city, or someone stealing the mosquito control truck and driving down the streets in the middle of the night.

Each State has to have the availability to detect whether or not this actually occurred, detect what happened, have the equipment so the first responders do not themselves die from exposure when they go to see what happened; and then be in a position to instruct the local governors, instruct the local guard, instruct the local responders what to do to minimize the damage and the loss of human life.

Again, I want to thank our chairman and we are all going to miss the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) a great deal for his cooperation on this, and it could not have passed without his cooperation. I want to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Maloney), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) and all the people who contributed to co-sponsoring this amendment. It was a team effort to make it happen, and it will take a team effort between our National Guard, our policemen and our firemen, our governors, our State police to see to it that at least we have an ability to respond to that attack when it happens.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I support the motion of the gentleman in that it endorses a position taken by the Committee on Armed Services on this matter just a few short days ago. It is also consistent with the provision that passed this House earlier this May.

We had a good debate in considering the provision and it is clear that the proponent made a compelling case in the number of States that presently face deficiencies in receiving proper coverage from existing weapons of mass destruction civil support teams. Whether that means that this precise formulation in this provision is the right solution remains to be seen. But it is clear that the conference must address this issue and bring it back to the House; a formulation that improves the abilities of the State presently without such a team to receive such assistance in the event of a weapons of mass destruction event.

I appreciate my colleague bringing this important matter forward and look forward to working with them in a conference to arrive at the best possible solution.

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

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, again I want to thank a great American, a great patriot, someone who served this country well in World War II and still serves this country well in the year 2002, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) for his help on this and for everything he has done.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Armed Services, the father of two young people in uniform serving their country.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity to complement the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) on this effort and his colleague from Connecticut (Mr. Maloney) who have worked hard and were successful in offering the amendment that was adopted unanimously in the Committee on Armed Services.

I think this is very important. Although Missouri has a civil support team, and I am so very proud of the Missouri National Guard and the work they are doing, I think it is important that all States have the same type of response and protection. The measure that is represented in this motion by the gentleman from Mississippi is one that was adopted. It was on a bipartisan effort and it is particularly important that we shift our national attention to the task of defending our Nation against terrorism.

This is an excellent motion and I thank the gentleman for allowing me to be part of this today, to endorse the important motion to instruct, and with the hopes that the efforts of the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Maloney) will be elected positively by this Chamber and we thank also the chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) for his cooperation and support in this regard.

Mr. STUMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).

(Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me time.

I rise and will not oppose this motion to instruct as I did not in the committees, but I rise to basically let our colleagues understand what is at play here.

Please do not feel assured because Members vote for this motion to instruct. It is not going to do what you are being led to think it will do. Now, I say that because I would not be in this body were it not for the first responders of this country.

I grew up in a fire service family, became chief of my own department, went back and got a degree in fire protection and ran training programs for fire companies. In my home town, where I eventually became mayor and was the fire chief, had two of the largest refineries on the east coast and also had chemical plants and had the largest fire in America in 1975.

I have traveled across the country as the founder and chairman of the Fire Caucus. I have been to the gentleman's State three times. I have been in all 50 States on every disaster and spoken to all major national fire groups. There is no fire department in America that gets its training from the National Guard. National Guardsmen, by their nature, are part-time soldiers. They are there to respond when requested.

Do my colleagues know what the time is for a RAID team to be called to active duty in a disaster? Is it 10 minutes? Is it 1 hour? Twelve hours. You will not have a RAID team on a scene until twelve hours.

Now, the Marine Corps Seabird team which was specifically stood up by the Congress for chemical, biological and nuclear incidents, has a mandate to be on the scene in four hours. We only have one of those, and they are specially trained full-time people. Please do not think that the National Guard is going to be your first responder. It will never be your first responder.

Now, do we need to have the fire service trained by a group of National Guardsmen? No way. In the last 100 years every fire at an oil refinery, at a chemical plant, we do not call the National Guard in. The local fire and emergency responders are there. They understand what it takes to deal with weapons of mass destruction. I do not know one soldier that has ever been in a real life chemical incident. I do not know of any. But I can tell you there are hundreds of fire companies that respond to chemical fires every day in this country.

[Page: H5604]

How do we expect the National Guard to train the fire fighters when they have been doing this for 100 years?

Mr. Speaker, I talk to all the fire service groups. There are 32,000 departments in the country. They are America's first responder. When an incident occurs, whether it is a chemical, biological or nuclear incident, the first responder on the scene will be a fire truck, a paramedic, a local police car or it will be some other type of emergency response. It will not be a National Guard team. They need to have the equipment and the preparation to deal with that incident in the first hour. This amendment does not do that.

This amendment does not give them equipment. There is no fire department in America asking for a State RAID team. None. Or a civil response team. None. There is no national fire organization, not the IAFF, not the National Volunteer Council, not the NFPA, not the Arson Investigators, not the Fire Instructors, the seven major groups, none of them are asking for this.

[Time: 12:30]

I am not saying it does not serve a purpose. Having a State National Guard civil response team can help. It can provide resources, it can provide access to Federal assets, but it is not going to be the end-all, cure-all; and if we think that, then we are only lying to ourselves, and more importantly, we are frustrating the first responders across the country.

So I say to my colleagues when they vote for this measure, which I will vote for, understand that we are not solving the problem of local emergency responders. What they are asking for is more equipment. They know how to deal with chemical plant fires. They go in there every day. A National Guardsman who is a part-time person or even full-time does not fight chemical plant fires, does not know what it is like to go into an environment involving petro chemical situations. Firefighters do.

Our focus in this country in the debate on homeland security needs to be reinforced by the domestic defender of this country, the first responder, and that is not the National Guard. It is the 1 million men and women in 32,000 organizations who every day respond to our disasters. The National Guard can back them up and support them. That is an important role, and I supported that role; but these teams are not going to be able to instantly respond to a terrorist incident. Twelve hours minimum for them to get activated.

The first responder is the group that our focus should be on when we get to conference, just like this Congress allocated $100 million and then $400 million for the first responder; that is where the focus should be.

So I say to my colleagues I will support this resolution. I applaud my colleague for his leadership. He is a great American and a great member of the committee; but I want my colleagues to understand, please do not think that this amendment and this motion to instruct is going to solve the problem of homeland security. Go talk to the local fire companies when we are done with this vote, go call them on the vote and say is it really a priority in southern Mississippi that they want a civil response team, and they will say what in the heck is a civil response team. I cannot even have a fire truck response because they do not have enough money; we do not have enough volunteers. That is where their focus needs to be, and they are the kind of things we should be doing to support them.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and former firefighter from Pennsylvania makes an excellent point. There are 32,000 fire departments in this Nation. Do my colleagues not think we ought to have at least one of them in every State that has got the capability to respond to a nuclear or biological or chemical attack? I have no clear conscience that we have even one in the State of Mississippi.

Again, it is sort of the difference between the Pennsylvanias of the world and the Mississippis of the world. Over half the cities in Mississippi are 10,000 people or less. They are by design low-tax and, therefore, low-service. There is an incredible turnover, I am sorry to say, because they do not pay as well as they should. So we do need a core competency in every State. No one is going to say that this makes the world safer from a chem biological attack.

I can tell my colleagues right now, if a crop duster were to fly over a football field at Old Miss or Mississippi State and release a substance, I really do not think there is anyone in the State of Mississippi right now who can run the test to determine whether or not it was just diesel fuel, whether it was water, or whether it was a chemical or biological agent. There is no one that I know of that can show up in the protective gear to take those tests that I know I will not be endangering their lives just to ask them to go take the test.

These are core competencies that every State needs, not just the 30 States that presently have them.

Mr. Chairman, I am honored again that so many people from both sides of the aisle have chosen to sign on to this and help us with it. One of those people is helping even though his State already has a weapons of mass destruction civil support team; that has been a big help on this. It is the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz).

Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding me the time.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) made a great point when he said that the response team would take about 12 hours to respond. Can my colleagues imagine how long it will take in Texas? Texas is a big, big State. Those of us who reside close to a military base, we have peace of mind that the people who reside around that military base, they know that they can respond when needed.

But if my colleagues take my State, where we have four military bases, south of Corpus Christi, Texas, we have 7 million people. We do not have a military base. What we do have is a border between the United States and Mexico where it is supposed to be the front door to trade. We have thousands of vehicles that cross the border. We have a deep water sea port, people that go back and forth. However, we do not have a military base of active military duty people that can respond to an emergency like this.

Texas has one in the great city of Austin, Texas; but for my district way down south, it is 950 miles to El Paso. It is 850 miles to Amarillo. We just happen to have a big State, and I am encouraging that we provide another team in south Texas, and I think that this motion to instruct makes a lot of sense. I think that this will give people in every State peace of mind that we have people who are prepared and ready to respond to any type of emergency.

Mr. STUMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time, and I would like to yield to my good colleague from Pennsylvania to make another remark about this issue.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding to me.

I just want to clarify the point that somehow we do not care about the small rural towns in America. I was the fire chief of a town of 5,000 people, then the mayor, all volunteer, no pay; and in the gentleman's State of Mississippi, the bulk of his firefighters are volunteer, not paid anything. Eighty-five percent of the 32,000 departments in America are volunteer.

The fact is they have been trained. We trained 125 of the largest cities, and we now have an active program to train as many departments as possible.

In 1975, I had a chemical-carrying tanker make a U-turn at the Delaware River and ram an oil tanker at the dock in my town of 5,000 people. It burned out of control for 3 days and killed 29 people. It was the largest fire in America that year. The entire incident was handled with volunteers. It was not handled by the National Guard. That was a chemical incident.

My colleague might call it not a weapon of mass destruction. Well, when we have a chemical-carrying tanker filled with vinyl acetate and polymers and it explodes with an oil

[Page: H5605]

tanker, that is a chemical incident. It may not be a terrorist incident, but we handled it.

The point that I am trying to make is we should not be looking to the military to do what has been done every day by our fire service. They are the first responders. Give them the equipment. So that in Texas, where my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), is, we do not just have one team, we have teams all over the State who are properly prepared and equipped.

Every department needs to have a capability. That is what they are asking for. They are asking for the tools and the resources in all 32,000 departments. That is what we should be advocating, not some artificial response, one in a State that can come in 12 hours later. We need to have this capability in every department, and this is why the program that we have established for grants with bipartisan support is the right way to go.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank my colleague for his remarks; and, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to talk briefly about the bills that we are sending to conference here because I think there has been a little confusion because of the time deadlines and the exigency and having to move these bills, particularly this second piece of the defense bill, which is kind of unprecedented, this second $10 billion segment and adding that to the $383 billion base bill.

I just want to say at this time, this has been an exercise in which we have had to move expeditiously; but the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), our chairman, and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), our ranking member, have really worked together and brought out the best in terms of our bipartisan concern and our bipartisan caring about how we shape the U.S. military.

We have got some major challenges right now. We have to try to modernize, and we are way behind the modernization curve. We are probably $30 billion per year short in terms of replacing all the tanks, trucks, ships, and planes that have to be replaced so our guys are driving equipment that is halfway modern.

At the same time, we have got to keep the wheels turning in this war against terror, and we have a major operation going in Afghanistan that is costing us a couple of billion dollars a month. Beyond that, we have got our air operations in the Iraq theater and in other parts of the world that are taking a lot of operational dollars.

In this last piece, this $10 billion piece that we moved that is going into conference today, we have got a lot of things that we have to have for the next couple of months in this next fiscal year. We have got things like military pays, combat-related pays going to the war fighters and to their families. That is an important piece of this. We also have intelligence money because we are going to need some new intelligence assets, as this is going to be a fairly large burden now for us to carry, but we have to have it because we are now entering the phase in this war against terror where the people who wanted to come to the war, basically come to the sound of the American guns and meet us on the battlefield, are no longer with us; and the people who remain now and the al Qaeda and the other organizations that support them now have to basically be hunted down.

That is very difficult. It requires a large and effective intelligence capability, and this is why we are having to build a significant amount of the budget into that area.

We also have operational requirements. We have got all the spare parts, and if my colleagues were over there recently, and I had the good fortune to be there with a CODEL a week or so ago, and if my colleagues were over there watching the operators in the theater with C-17s, the C-130s, all of the carrier aircraft and the supporting aircraft, we have got a lot of steel we have to keep in the air and spare parts is critical, and a lot of this money goes to the spare parts sector in the first couple of months of the next fiscal year.

So I think we have got a good package, and I hope everybody would vote to move this to conference quickly.

I just wanted to finish up by saying that our folks, staff folks and our leadership, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), have really put, as well as all the members of the committee have, put a lot of hard work in trying to get these disjointed pieces that now are kind of mismatched with the Senate's pieces of the defense bill into play and into conference; and it is going to be a difficult process to make this thing work. I think we are going to be able to get it because we have got a lot of great people working it.

I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) for his work and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for his, and I hope the House moves expeditiously to take us to conference.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

There is something I do think needs to be addressed, and the folks who work with me have been good enough to point this out, and I think the public needs to know this. The original time of 12 hours that my friend from Pennsylvania makes reference to was when there were only 10 of these teams to cover the entire continental United States. We are now in the process of going to 30 teams which shortens the distance from the responders to those that need to be helped.

What this will do is get us up to 54 teams, which the goal is to have a team within 4 hours; and again, without getting into a spitting contest, the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the States that were left out are rural States, low-tax States, where we do not have the money to equip 32,000 teams or at least trying to get one in each of these States; but I would also point out that some of those States are very large States, including Connecticut, which has almost 6 million people, and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Maloney) will be speaking to that in a minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) to speak out of order.

(Mr. BONIOR asked and was given permission to speak out of order.)

MICHIGAN OFFICE VANDALIZED

Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, last night my office in Michigan was vandalized under the cover of darkness with despicable words of hatred. My family and I and my staff are saddened and angered by this deplorable act, but we will not let it defeat us or deter us from fighting for what we believe in.

Hate crimes are cowardly acts that cannot and will not be tolerated under any circumstances. They hurt us not just as individuals but as a community. People in every city, county, village in Michigan deplore these acts in the strongest possible way.

We must confront acts of hatred and refuse to let them intimidate us. We have to reach out to each other when these attacks occur and not let hate crimes fuel more hatred in ourselves.

[Time: 12:45]

My family and I are, and always have been, committed to ending these acts of violence. Whether there is an attack on Jewish Americans, Arab Americans, African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Sikhs, or Muslims, the message must be very clear, an attack upon one is an attack upon all. Hatred has no place, no place, in our country.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) has 17 1/2 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) has 18 minutes remaining.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

A lot of people are making this happen, and again this could not happen without the great cooperation of the gentleman from Arizona, so I want to thank him again.

The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) and the 8 million people in that State will benefit from this. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) and the 8 million people from New Jersey will benefit from this. And, Mr. Speaker, I want to correct myself. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Maloney) and the 3 1/2 million people from Connecticut will benefit from this.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Maloney).

[Page: H5606]

Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of this motion.

The first comment I want to make is that it is absolutely correct that what we are doing here today will not solve all the problems. It will not solve all the problems in regard to emergency response and it will not solve all the problems in regard to the war on terrorism. It is not intended to. What it is intended to do is to solve a part of the problem.

We are doing many, many other things, both in terms of the Defense Department, the individual services, the reorganization of our national government in regard to homeland defense, making resources available to local fire departments, and making resources available to local police departments. We are doing many, many things. The goal here today is to do one other very, very important thing, which is to make sure that each State in this country has a civil support team in regard to weapons of mass destruction.

This year's defense bill supports legislation which I introduced, H.R. 3154, that currently has nearly 50 cosponsors. That legislation requires the Secretary of Defense to establish at least one weapons of mass destruction civil support team in each State and territory. The defense authorization bill that we did earlier this year includes sense of Congress language which establishes that as national policy for our country, one weapons of mass destruction civil support team in each State and in each territory.

The bill before us today provides the funding that is necessary to make that a reality for each of our States and each of our territories. Each CST is a federally funded asset under State control. To date, Congress has authorized 32 teams. I believe that each State and territory should have a team capable of responding to the threat of a weapon of mass destruction in their State as a matter of priority, as a matter of our doing one of the many things we are doing to improve the security of this country.

In the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, New York, which has a team, their highly trained civil support team swung into action as part of the first response to the attack. The special unit of 22 full-time National Guard members, they are National Guard members but they are full-time on call within 4 hours, have two major pieces of equipment, a mobile analytical lab, and a mobile communications facility. The first allowed the team to identify any chemical or biological agents at the World Trade Center. Fortunately, that was not the case. The second allowed the team to coordinate communication among the first responders.

My colleagues, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) is correct that the fire department is going to be there first, the police department is going to be there first, the EMS is going to be there first, but the civil support team is going to be there within, we hope, 4 hours, as the goal, not the 12 but 4 hours, and will be providing that analytical capability and will be providing that communications capability. In the case of New York, they did exactly that, assisting with coordination of communications with the first responders, the incident commander, and the Department of Defense.

As we are all too well aware, the war on terrorism is not being just waged in Afghanistan but also here at home. Since September 11, the civil support teams that exist already have responded to more than 200 requests for support from civil authorities for actual or potential weapons of mass destruction incidents, including the anthrax attacks. Support teams have also supported national events, including the 2001 World Series, the 2002 Super Bowl, and the 2002 Winter Olympics.

The anthrax attacks and the more recent threat of a radiological dirty bomb clearly highlight the increased need for National Guard counterterrorism capabilities to be stationed across our country. It is important, as the gentleman from Mississippi has said, that each State have its own team, not just in time of crisis but also during training. It is in that training with the local first responders that the National Guard teams develop the effective coordination they need in emergency situations.

It has been said here earlier today that that training has not previously existed. That is correct, and that is the point. We need to make sure that that training is available, that that training occurs, that that coordination between the local first responders and the State first responders is done in line with the National Guard, the civil support teams, which gives us access to the national assets.

Some argue that the issue is simply a matter of geographic coverage. The New York team, for example, is located just outside of Albany. That is 2, 3, maybe 4 hours from most places in the State of Connecticut. Maybe that should suffice. The reason it does not suffice is for two reasons:

One, it does not provide that integrated training with the local and State officials. The National Guard civil support team in New York, guess what, they train with the State of New York emergency responders, not the State of Connecticut emergency responders. We need to make sure that our State and every other State has that integrated training that exists.

Secondly, in terms of response time, what happens when, as in the case of New York, that team was called upon? Then where is Connecticut? We were lucky that there were only three attacks. There was New York, Washington, and the air over Pennsylvania, but there could have been five attacks. There could have been an attack in Boston at the same time there was an attack in New York. Where would Connecticut have been? New York's team had already deployed.

We supposedly have backup by a team outside of Boston. What if Boston had been attacked? And, indeed, the Boston team cannot get effectively to Connecticut in the 4 hours. Stamford, Connecticut, is a long way from the Greater Boston area. Waterbury or Danbury, Connecticut, is a long time from the Greater Boston area. So we need to make sure that Connecticut in fact has its own team, as should every other State and territory that has the potential for these kinds of attacks. And I do not stand here alone in making that argument. The Secretary of the Army in the February issue of the National Guard Association magazine said, ``Yes, I do. I think the weapons of mass destruction civil support teams are a tremendous initiative. Right now the Congress has funded 32. And I would be surprised if we did not end up with at least one in each State and territory. So I would see us going beyond the 32 teams in the future, and I think we will have a lot of congressional support for that because it is a tremendous capability,'' said the Secretary of the Army.

The September 2001 GAO report entitled Combating Terrorism makes a similar point which is this is not the only thing we should be doing, but this is one of the things we should be doing. ``The Department of Defense plans, and officials suggested, that there eventually should be a team in each State, territory, and the District of Columbia, for a total of 54 teams.''

Let us do everything we can to secure our country. Let us make sure that our first responders locally have the resources they need. Let us make sure that our armed services have every resource they need. Let us make sure that our men and women in the armed services have the pay that they need, as we have done over the past several years under the leadership of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), ranking member, and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), chairman, and other members of the committee. We have made great progress. Let us do all these good things. But as we do all these good things, let us make sure we do something else that is very important, which is make sure that each of our States and territories has a civil support team to train and be prepared and be ready and be available should the emergency arise.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In closing, I do want to thank all the members of the Committee on Armed Services. Again, this passed our committee unanimously. I want to particularly commend the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones); the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton); the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.

[Page: H5607]

Stump), our good chairman; the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Maloney); and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), our ranking member, for helping to line up those people to cooperate on this.

Mr. Speaker, it is a sad fact, but a fact, that in the past year a biological attack on the United States has gone from ``what if'' to ``what is next.'' The person who perpetrated the anthrax attacks that have killed about five people in our country has not been apprehended. The question is, was that a one-time event or was it a practice run for something bigger? I hope it was a one-time event, but in the event that that person or those persons who did that were planning something bigger, I think it is imperative that we have some group in each State that is prepared to respond to that attack. I would ask my colleagues to support this unanimously.

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

Mr. STUMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I take this opportunity to thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for all the hard work that he has put into this project, and also the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

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

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to instruct.

There was no objection.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct offered by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

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

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 419, nays 2, not voting 12,

4A)Chemical Weapon Precursor Licensing
TITLE XI--CHEMICAL WEAPON PRECURSOR LICENSING

SEC. 1101. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this title:

 (1) The term ``chemical weapon precursor'' means a Schedule 1 chemical agent or a Schedule 2 chemical agent, as such terms are defined in section 3 of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6701).

 (2) The term ``licensee'' means a person holding a license under this title.

 (3) The term ``qualified person'' means a person found by the Secretary to meet such qualifications as the Secretary may, by rule, prescribe to protect the public health and safety from the misuse of chemical weapon precursors. No person who has been convicted of a criminal offense under this title or under any similar or related provision of Federal or State law shall be a qualified person for purposes of this title.

SEC. 1102. LICENSE REQUIRED.

 After December 31, 2002, no person may purchase, sell, or distribute in interstate commerce any chemical weapon precursor unless such person is licensed under section 1103.

SEC. 1103. ISSUANCE OF LICENSES.

 (a) APPLICATION.--Any qualified person may submit to the Secretary an application for a license to purchase, sell, or distribute in interstate commerce a chemical weapon precursor.

 (b) ISSUANCE.--Upon receiving an application containing such information as the Secretary may require, the Secretary is authorized to issue a license to such person to purchase, sell, or distribute in interstate commerce a chemical weapon precursor if the Secretary finds that such person is a qualified person and if such person agrees to comply with this title and the regulations under this title.

 (c) TERM; REVOCATION.--A license under this section shall remain in effect for such term as the Secretary may prescribe, except that the Secretary may at any time revoke such license if the Secretary determines that the licensee has failed or refused to comply with this title or any regulation under this title.

SEC. 1104. REQUIREMENTS FOR MAINTENANCE OF LICENSE.

 Each licensee shall comply with each of the following requirements and such other requirements as the Secretary may establish by rule to carry out the purposes of this title:

 (1) The licensee shall report any suspicious purchases or sales of chemical weapon precursors.

 (2) The licensee shall maintain and make available to the Secretary and to Federal, State, and local law enforcement authorities records of the purchase, sale, or distribution of chemical weapon precursors. Such records shall be in such form and shall contain such information as the Secretary shall, by rule, prescribe.

SEC. 1105. PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION.

 Any person who violates any provision of this title or any regulation under this title shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 for a first offense and not more than $20,000 for a second or subsequent offense. If such violation was intentional, such person shall be subject to a criminal penalty of up to 10 years in prison in addition to such civil penalties.

5A)  A True Committment to Homeland Security

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, the Senate will soon have before it the fiscal year 2002 supplemental appropriations conference report. This legislation provides for the defense of this Nation, both at home and abroad.

Specifically, the bill provides $14.4 billion for the Department of Defense. It allocates $5.5 billion to New York to complete the promise made to provide $20 billion to help recover from the terrorist attacks on September 11. Another $1 billion is for Pell grants, $417 million for veterans' medical care, $400 million for election reform grants, and $2.1 billion for foreign affairs.

The bill also provides $205 million for Amtrak. Amtrak is an integral piece of the Nation's transportation network. For many rural communities, Amtrak represents the only public transportation connection to the rest of the Nation. But without the funding contained in this bill, that connection is in danger of being severed. Because of growing financial pressures, Amtrak needs an infusion of funding soon or else it faces bankruptcy. The $205 million included in this supplemental appropriations bill will stave off bankruptcy and give the passenger railroad, which is under new management, time to craft sound plans for the future.

Most importantly, this bill provides $6.7 billion for homeland security, including $3.85 billion for the Transportation Security Administration. That is why this funding bill is so important. This funding will take steps now--without delay--to plug the holes in our Nation's defenses here at home. Congress has not hesitated when it comes to funding homeland security efforts. In two supplemental bills--the one approved shortly after the attacks and the one before the Senate today--Congress has invested $15 billion to protect Americans from another terrorist attack and to better respond should, God forbid, another attack occur.

The funding initiatives shaped by Congress have helped to hire more border patrol agents, increase the scrutiny of cargo shipments at our seaports, and accelerate the purchase of vaccines against smallpox. We have funded critical training and equipment purchases for local police, fire, and medical personnel. We have helped to train doctors and local health departments to detect and treat a biological or chemical weapons attack.

The money allocated in December has helped to hire more than 2,200 INS border agents and Customs inspectors on the northern and southern borders. The INS is now implementing a system for tracking foreign students in this country--a system funded in the first supplemental bill. The Nation's police, fire and medical personnel are getting better training and equipment for detecting and responding to potential biological, chemical or nuclear attacks. The FBI is hiring hundreds of new agents. 750 more food inspectors and investigators are being hired. The number of ports with Food and Drug Administration investigators is being doubled. 324 additional protective personnel are being hired to protect our nuclear weapons complex, and additional resources are being spent on efforts to destroy or secure nuclear materials overseas.

The legislation that will soon be before the Senate today will accomplish even more. It will accelerate the purchase of bomb-detecting machines at airports and provide much-needed resources at the local level. The funding will strengthen port and border security; tighten protections at our nuclear facilities; and better ensure the safety of food and drinking water supplies.

The legislation provides $701 million for first responder programs, $343 million above the President's request. This conference report, which will be voted on tomorrow morning, includes $150 million for firefighters, with the funds going directly to the local fire departments. In the spring, when the firefighter grants that Congress allocated in the $40 billion supplemental where made available, more than 18,000 fire departments across the country applied for assistance totaling more than $3 billion. Yet only $360 million was available to meet the demand. The administration did not request any additional funding for this program. However, the need is clear. Our first responders want to be prepared to respond to attack; Congress and the President need to provide the necessary resources so those first responders will be ready.

And in this supplemental bill, State and local governments will receive $100 million to improve interoperability of communications equipment for fire, police, and emergency medical technicians. The inability of local police and dire departments to communicate with each other when responding to the World Trade Center attack has been identified as a major Achilles' heel in a defense of our homeland. The funding in this legislation will help to eliminate that inability and to develop uniform standards for interoperable State and local law enforcement, firefighting and emergency medical communications equipment. The administration requested no funding for this important need.

Another $54 million, $22 million above the President's request, will strengthen the Federal Emergency Management Agency's search and rescue teams. Currently, there are 28 FEMA search and rescue teams around the country that can be deployed to major disasters to assist local first responders in search and rescue operations. This funding will be used to upgrade equipment and training for responding to events involving a biological, chemical, radiation or nuclear attack.

One of the major weaknesses in our homeland security is the virtually non-existent protections at the Nation's ports. Cargo containers are piled up by the thousands at ports, depots, and huge outdoor warehouses. American ports are home to oil refiners, chemical plants, and nuclear facilities. A hijacked vessel that crashes into a port could be used to ignite volatile fuels or gases and produce an explosion that equals one caused by hundreds, maybe thousands of tons of dynamite. American ports receive 16,000 cargo containers per day and 6 million containers each year, but less than five percent of those containers are inspected. That means a terrorist has at least a 95 percent chance of sneaking weapons of mass destruction into the United States. That is not acceptable.

Congress, through this supplemental legislation, provides $739 million for port security programs, $465 million above the President's request. This conference report includes $125 million for port security grants through the Transportation Security Administration. Last fall, Congress approved $93 million of unrequested funds for port security grants. DOT received $692 million of applications for the $93 million we provided. The administration did not request additional funding for this purpose.

Another $528 million in this bill is for the Coast Guard for port and maritime security, $273 million above the President's request. Increased funds would be used to expedite vulnerability assessments at our Nation's ports, rather than follow the administration's slower plan to do the assessments over the next 5 years. The money would add two new maritime safety and security teams; purchase a total of 6 homeland security response boats; and expand aviation assets as well as the shore facilities to support them. Another $39 million would help the Customs Service to target and inspect suspect shipping containers at overseas ports before they reach American ports. The administration requested no funds for these activities.

Another major concern is the security of the Nation's nuclear facilities. The U.S. Department of Energy needs funds for this effort, but the Office of Management and Budget chose not to forward the Department's request to Congress. This legislation recognizes the need, heeds the warnings, and provides $235 million to improve security of the nuclear weapons stockpile, national nuclear labs, and nuclear weapons plants. Funds are included to establish a ``911'' system for local first responders to call when confronted with nuclear hazards, enhanced funding for the National Center for Combating Terrorism, expansion of radiological search teams, and establishment of a National Capital Area Response Team at Andrews Air Force Base.

Just a few weeks ago, the White House warned of a possible terrorist attack on the Nation's banking system. It was a vague threat, but the potential for a terrorist organization to use computers and technology to short-circuit our financial system is clear. That is why this conference report includes $147 million--$128 million above the administration's request--for cyber security to help deal with the threat to Federal and private information systems.

Our long and porous land borders represent a daunting challenge in terms of homeland security. The Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Customs Service are already hiring more than 2,200 agents and inspectors with the funding Congress allocated in December. This legislation on which we will vote tomorrow, takes the next step, providing $120 million for border security, including $32 million for Immigration and Naturalization Service construction to improve facilities on our Nation's borders and $25 million for better equipment.

When it comes to security at the Nation's airports, no one should doubt Congress' commitment. I note that, earlier today, the U.S. Secretary of Transportation testified at a hearing and charged that Congress is hamstringing his new Transportation Security Administration. Secretary Mineta has complained about a lack of flexibility in Congressional funding. Before the Transportation Secretary takes shots at Congress, I wish he would consider the facts. I hope that he will. This legislation provides $3.85 billion for the Transportation's Security Administration. The conference report provides $471 million for unrequested airport security efforts, including $150 million to ensure that all small and medium airports have funds to implement the FAA's new airport security guidelines and that large airports have some additional funding to meet those requirements. $225 million is provided above the President's request for explosives detection equipment and $42 million is provided to improve the security of the FAA air traffic control system. In light of the recent tragedies at the Los Angeles International Airport, when a man walked to an airline ticket counter and started shooting, Congress provides $17 million to improve airport terminal security. In addition, $15 million is provided for improved air to ground communications for the air marshals. If there is a problem on a plane, the security personnel on the ground need to know about it.

The Transportation Secretary has charged that less flexibility translates into less security at our airports.

Well, last fall, when Congress approved the $40 billion emergency supplemental, we gave the administration flexibility. The President had the authority to allocate $20 billion and he gave $1.3 billion to the Transportation Security Administration. But did that flexibility lead to efficient government? Not necessarily. The Transportation Secretary, while pointing a finger at Congress, ignores the fact that his hand-picked Under Secretary of Transportation Security promptly spent $418,000 to refurbish his personal office in what I am told is a beautiful mahogany. That must be one of the most stunning offices in the entire Department of Transportation. I would suggest that the Secretary's finger pointing be flexible, and that he turn his finger to his own department. Try that,

[Page: S7220]  GPO's PDF

Mr. Secretary. He cannot in good conscience charge Congress with the inefficient operations of the Transportation Security Administration when is own personnel have wasted money and opportunity, missed their own internal deadlines for improving airport security, and failed to provide adequate budget information to Congress. Instead of looking for someone to blame for failures, the Transportation Secretary should be working internally to fashion a much more efficient and responsive Transportation Security Administration.

Another area of focus for this Congress is nuclear non-proliferation. We have heard a great deal of discussion about the potential for a ``dirty bomb''--a small nuclear device no larger than a briefcase that, if exploded, can contaminate a broad area with radiation for many years. The best way to stop a dirty bomb is to minimize the opportunity for terrorists to get their hands on nuclear material. This supplemental bill includes $100 million to protect fissile material abroad, purchase radiation detectors, and establish international standards for securing fissile material.

The Department of Defense will receive, through this legislation, $14.4 billion for its activities around the world. There can be no doubt as to the commitment of Congress to the men and women in the Armed Forces. We will always ensure that they have the resources and equipment necessary to fulfill their mission to protect American interests throughout the world.

However, the Secretary of Defense, in the Administration's supplemental request, asked for authorities that are currently invested in other Cabinet secretaries and in the Congress. The Defense Secretary asked for the authority to spend $100 million in foreign countries as he sees fit. Congress said no. The Defense Secretary asked for the authority to pay bounties for the death of those he deems to be terrorists. Congress said no. The Defense Secretary asked for the authority to spend $30 million to indigenous groups around the world who arguably are assisting in the war on terrorism. Congress said no.

The Framers of the Constitution crafted a delicate balance between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the Federal Government. These new authorities for the Secretary of Defense would jeopardize that balance. Congress should not give this Secretary--or any other Secretary--extraordinary authority for the sole purpose of making the Secretary's job easier.

If the President signs this bill, he will have 30 days to decide whether to designate over $5.1 billion as an emergency. If he does not make the emergency designations, the funds cannot be spent. Within the $5.1 billion, there is nearly $2.5 billion for homeland security. If the President does not make the emergency designation, he will block nearly $2.5 billion in homeland security investments, many of which I have just outlined. Firefighters. Police officers. Port security. Border security. Airport security. Search and rescue teams. Food safety. Drinking water safety. All these and more are involved. I hope that the President will join with Congress in this bipartisan approach to homeland security. I hope that he will declare these items to be an emergency, and make these important investments immediately to protect the American people from terrorist attacks.

In addition, if the President decides not to make the emergency designation, he also will block funding for the National Guard and Reserves. He will block funding for election reform. He will block funding for combating AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria overseas. He will block flood prevention and mitigation; embassy security; aid to Israel and disaster assistance to Palestinians; wildfire suppression; emergency highway repairs; and veterans health care.

These critical appropriations for the American people have been delayed for months, sometimes as a result of administration intervention. The time has come for its speedy passage and the President's signature.

The Senate Appropriations Committee held 5 days of hearings on this bill and benefited greatly by hearing testimony from our Nation's first-responders, terrorism experts, mayors, Governors and Cabinet officials--from seven departments and from the Director of FEMA. We have produced a fair and balanced bill that fills many of the gaps in our homeland defense that were identified in our hearings.

 I want to thank, once again, my friend and the Ranking Member of the Appropriations Committee, the Senior Senator from Alaska, Senator TED STEVENS, for his cooperation, for his leadership along the way in the conduct of the hearings, the markup of the bill, in the debate on the floor. I also want to thank our House counterparts, Appropriations Committee Chairman C.W. ``BILL'' YOUNG and Ranking Member DAVID OBEY for their cooperation and commitment to completing action on the legislation. I would be recreant if I did not thank the staffs who have worked so hard to finish this bill. On the Republican side, I thank Steve Cortese and Andy Givens and all of the professional and subcommittee staffs. On the Democratic side, I thank the Committee Staff Director, Terry Sauvain, my Deputy Staff Director Charles Kieffer, Edie Stanley, and Nancy Olkewicz, and all of the professional and subcommittee staffs for their long, long, long hours and days and weekends. Their tireless efforts have resulted in legislation, this legislation that we will vote on tomorrow, legislation that will help to protect American lives.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

5B)  Supplemental Approps for Recovery from Terrorism
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will proceed to the consideration of the conference report.

(The report is printed in the House proceedings of the RECORD of July 19, 2002, at page 4935.)

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, how much time is allotted for debate on the conference report?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty minutes equally divided between the chairman and the ranking member.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Madam President, Senator Stevens is on his way. He is the ranking member on the Appropriations Committee and he will share the time with me. I have been informed he has indicated I should proceed immediately with my statement, and he will shortly reach the floor and speak on the conference report himself.

The Senate will then vote on the conference report for the fiscal year 2002 supplemental appropriations bill. This conference agreement provides critical investments in national defense, both at home and abroad. Let me say that again. This conference report provides critical investments in national defense, both at home and abroad. So let the world know that the Appropriations Committee has acted expeditiously, working with the House Appropriations Committee in conference, and that Senators on both sides of the aisle have worked hard with their staffs to provide for these investments in the Nation's defense, both at home and abroad.

This agreement is the result of true bipartisan, bicameral cooperation, and I urge its adoption.

Last fall, America was in shock. The World Trade Center and the Pentagon had been attacked. Thousands of Americans had lost their lives to the brutal terrorist attacks. Our eyes were opened to the new reality of war in the 21st century, a different kind of war. No longer were we immune from attack on the homeland that we all love. No longer did the great oceans shield our country from the violence that had scarred so many nations elsewhere in the world. The danger was real. The enemy was among us, not just in some foreign land on another continent. We could not ignore the massive gaps in our security any longer.

In response, within days of the attacks, Congress adopted a $40 billion emergency supplemental bill to fund our military efforts overseas and to protect Americans from further attacks at home. I say that again. Within 3 days, Congress adopted a $40 billion--not million but $40 billion--emergency supplemental bill to fund our military efforts overseas and to protect Americans from further attacks at home.

That funding helped our U.S. troops to bring the downfall of the Taliban, the shakeup of the terrorist al-Quida network, and the start of worldwide commitment to end terrorism--wherever it could end, if we could end it at home, that initial funding paid for more than 2,200 agents and inspectors to guard our long, porous borders with Canada and Mexico. The foreign student visa program, which has been identified as one of the Immigration and Naturalization Service's chief loopholes, is undergoing a tighter tracking system because of funding that Congress this body and the House included in that initial funding package.

Across the country, local police officers, firefighters, and emergency medical teams are receiving new training and equipment to handle threats that, before last fall, they hardly considered possible. Who would have imagined that their community fire department and paramedics would need training on how to respond to a chemical or biological or radiological attack? Bake sales and bingo nights could not possibly fund terrorist response efforts. Congress had a responsibility to respond, and Congress did respond. We responded within 3 days. We knew what our duty was. We knew where our duty lay--and we acted.

Federal law enforcement also benefited from the work of this Congress, from the work of this committee, this Appropriations Committee. Because of the funding contained in the initial supplemental bill, the FBI started to hire hundreds of new agents. Because the Appropriations Committees in both Houses appropriated the moneys, more than 300 additional protective personnel were hired to protect the Nation's nuclear weapons complex. Air marshals are coming on board to protect our planes. Madam President, 750 food inspectors were hired to ensure the safety of the meals served at America's kitchen table because--and they were able to do this--because this Appropriations Committees, which I chair, and which Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska has chaired before me, and on which he now sits as the ranking member, because this committee acted in a bipartisan way. No split; no aisle between the two parties on the Appropriations Committee. We joined together. We did not have to be told. We did not have to be ordered. We knew where our duty lay. So 750 food inspectors were hired.

These are just a few, just a few of the examples of the good work that came about because of the investments, the infusion of funds by Congress, starting with the Appropriations Committees, because of the commitment of the men and the women of this body to identify the gaps in homeland security and invest funds--your money, the taxpayers' money--to close those gaps.

In the months that followed that first supplemental, many congressional committees held hearings on homeland security. In the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senators Stevens of Alaska and I convened 5 days of hearings. They were long.

They were arduous. They were time consuming. They were tiring. Members heard from mayors. Members heard from Governors. Members heard from county officials. We received testimony from police officers, from firefighters, from local health officials, from terrorism experts, from experts on port security, from experts on water security and nuclear security. Seven Cabinet Secretaries and the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, appeared before this Appropriations Committee. The House Appropriations Committee did not hold a hearing. The Senate Appropriations Committee held a hearing. And Senator Stevens and I joined in selecting everyone. Everything was done in a bipartisan way. So seven Cabinet Secretaries and the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency appeared before the Committee, as well as two former colleagues--Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia and Senator Warren Rudman of New Hampshire.

What we learned was eye opening. What we learned was that despite all of the efforts of Congress and of the men and women at the local level, the task before us was massive. As a result of the incredible backlog of homeland security needs, one truth was clearly evident; namely, this country was not prepared. We are vulnerable today.

Earlier this summer, it seemed the administration issued another terrorist warning to the American people almost daily. Those warnings only underscored the fact that the new enemy lives in our midst--here among us. So, as Christopher Wren would say, if you seek my monument, look about you. If you seek the enemy, look about you. He is somewhere. He is invisible. But he is sure in our midst.

So the enemy, the new enemy, lives among us, moving through our society with ease, crafting life-threatening weapons with everyday aspects of life: Tanker trucks, postal mail, airplanes, waste radiological material from hospitals and energy plants. Any of these, and more, we are told can be fashioned into weapons to cause death, destruction, fear, panic.

The Appropriations Committee of the Senate heard testimony that indicated America's adversaries could cripple the U.S. economy without great difficulty. That was one of the main objectives of the enemy. They could cripple the economy, but at a far greater cost than any corporate scandal even. The enemy can disrupt the economy without great difficulty and at far greater cost than even any corporate scandal, and the roots of a corporate scandal are running deep, as we know.

Yet what we do not know is the most vexing: Where will the terrorists attempt to strike next? And when? We may not know the answer to those questions until it is too late and the attacks are upon us.

What this Congress has a responsibility to do is to invest in protections that work to prevent attacks before they can occur, and we must help to train our emergency responders to be prepared should another attack strike within our border. We need to do more. We need to do more now. That is why the conference report before the Senate is so critical.

This afternoon, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee is writing legislation to create a new Department of Homeland Security. But that Department, no matter how well crafted, will take time before it can be an effective tool against terrorism. I am thankful for the fact that the ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, sits on that committee.

We all know where the holes are in our protections--borders, ports, at our nuclear facilities, and throughout our transportation system. If we know where those holes are, then surely the terrorists know, don't you think?

We should not wait--we must not wait--for the next fiscal year or the next calendar year to plug the holes in our homeland security. Congress and the President should make the critical investments that will protect Americans now--today!--without delay.

This conference report makes those investments. It directs $6.7 billion for homeland security initiatives, including $3.85 billion for the Transportation Security Administration. Another $14.4 billion will allow the men and women in the Armed Services to continue to track down those responsible for the terrorist attacks almost 11 months ago. The conference report also fulfills Congress's promise to the people of New York to provide $20 billion to help them recover from the attacks on the World Trade Center with a final installment in this bill of $5.5 billion. The remainder of the funding will go toward other national emergencies including fire suppression in the West, flood recovery efforts in the Midwest and South, and veterans' health care. The shortfall in the Pell Grant program is resolved, and Amtrak, the nation's passenger rail service, will be able to stave off bankruptcy, because there are $2.5 billion included in this conference report for Amtrak.

This is a balanced bill, a responsible bill, and one that I hope the President will sign. I hope he will sign all of this emergency funding into law quickly.

Why do I say ``all of this emergency funding''? I say that because Congress gives the President a choice. We have stated that it is the Congress's position that these investments are an emergency and they should be made. If the President signs this bill, he will have 30 days to decide whether to agree with Congress and designate more than $5.1 billion in this legislation as an emergency. If he does not make the emergency designation, the funds cannot be spent.

How much time do I have?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for an additional time not to exceed 7 minutes and that my partner, my fellow Senator, my colleague, may be also allowed that time, and that the time for the vote be changed accordingly.

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

Mr. BYRD. Within the $5.1 billion there is nearly $2.5 billion for homeland security. That includes funding for firefighters, police officers, port and border security, and airport security, search and rescue teams, food safety, drinking water safety.

Let me back up just a moment. The self-imposed interruption might cause listeners to lose sight of just where we were.

So we say the President has 30 days in which to decide whether to agree with Congress and designate more than $5.1 billion in this legislation as an emergency. If he doesn't make the emergency designation, the funds cannot be spent--I am talking about the President. If he doesn't make the designation, the funds can't be spent. Within the $5.1 billion--that is what we are talking about--included as emergencies, within that $5.1 billion which the President must agree to if it is to be spent, there is nearly $2.5 billion for homeland security. That includes funding for firefighters, police officers, port and border security and airport security, search and rescue teams, food safety, drinking water safety.

If the President does not make the emergency designation, he will block nearly $2.5 billion in homeland security investments. I hope that the President will join with Congress in this bipartisan approach to homeland security, declare these items to be an emergency, and make these important investments immediately to protect the American people from terrorist attacks.

In addition, if the President decides not to make the emergency designation, he also will block funding for the National Guard and Reserves; election reform; combating AIDS, tuberculosis; and malaria overseas; flood prevention and mitigation; embassy security; aid to Israel and disaster assistance to Palestinians; wildfire suppression; emergency highway repairs; and veterans health care.

These critical appropriations for the American people have been delayed for too long, sometimes as a result of Administration intervention, and the time has come for its speedy passage and the President's signature.

Once again I want to thank my Ranking Member, Senator Stevens, the former chairman of this committee, for his dedication, his assistance, and, indeed for his leadership on this bill. If it were not for Senator Stevens, his work, this bill would not be here today. Without his hard work and constant efforts, we would not be here to present this conference report to the Senate today. I also thank our House colleagues, Chairman BILL YOUNG of Florida and Ranking Member DAVID OBEY of Wisconsin, for their cooperation and commitment to the well-being of the American people.

Between the supplemental bill last fall and this conference report, Congress has approved $15 billion for homeland security initiatives, $5.3 billion above the President's request. This legislation is a real victory for the American people. It speeds protections that are so desperately needed at our borders and our ports. It provides vital training for police, firefighters, and emergency medical personnel. Through this legislation, Congress is making investments today that will help to protect Americans from terrorist attack for many years to come.

I urge my colleagues to support this conference agreement, and I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I am pleased to join the Chairman of our Committee, Senator BYRD, in recommending this conference report to the Senate. The consideration of this conference report today in the Senate, following its overwhelming adoption in the other body yesterday, reflects the true consensus that surrounds this agreement.

While not an easy process, the compromises reached on this bill meet the most vital Defense and Homeland Security needs facing our Nation.

In addition, this agreement fulfills the commitment of the Congress and the President to meet the needs of the victims of the attacks of September 11 of last year.

While passed in very different forms by both Houses of Congress, this conference report adheres to the priorities submitted to Congress by the President. With the funds added by Congress in the form of contingent emergency appropriations, the President will have even greater flexibility to address challenges not fully foreseen when his request was transmitted on March 21, if he approves the emergency designation.

Additional funds for the Department of Defense will address the mobilization of National Guard and Reserve personnel from around the Nation. Funds for port security grants and the Coast Guard will protect our Nation's maritime commerce and trade.

Funds added in this bill for aids response in Africa will jump start the international effort to address that scourge.

The House and Senate Both included additional funds to assist Israel, and those prepared to join Israel in seeking a permanent and lasting peace.

The conference report makes an initial down payment to respond to dramatic flood and fire emergencies in several states, particularly in the West.

While many activities were reduced during the conference to meet the funding limit sought by the President, and the OMB, one component not touched was support for New York. Governor Pataki and Mayor Bloomberg deserve our continued support for their leadership and determination to recover from the attacks last year. This bill keeps our word to New York and to those officials.

Despite suggestions from OMB, the conferees rejected any cut to the funding for reconstruction and renovation of the Pentagon.

Restoration of the sector of the Pentagon damaged on September 11 is on track for re-opening on the one year anniversary of the attack--really our Nation's center of military strategy. We will keep faith with those who died defending our Nation at the Pentagon as well as those in New York.

I want to commend our Chairman, Senator BYRD, and the House Chairman, BILL YOUNG, for their exceptional work to bring this conference report before the Congress.

Along with House Ranking Member OBEY, I have worked to ensure completion of this bill prior to the August recess and in time to make a difference during the remainder of this fiscal year.

If the President makes the certification that he has the authority to do within 30 days after passage of this bill, the moneys will be available to use for the contingent emergencies we have specified. The sooner that happens, the better it will be for our Nation.

But above all, I urge all Members of the Senate to approve this conference report and send it to the President as quickly as possible so it will be possible to get this money to our people--particularly to the Department of Defense and all our people in uniform--by the beginning of August.

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I rise today in support of an improved supplemental appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002. I am glad to see that the Senate conferees have reassessed their position and agreed to reduce the amount they had originally sought by more than $2.5 billion. The conference report now totals $28.9 billion, which is only $1.8 billion over the President's request, and an amount he said he would support.

Additionally, the vast majority of the funds will now be appropriated as a contingent emergency, giving the President discretion on whether they should be spent, instead of forcing him to designate ``all or none'' of the non-defense funding items as emergency items.

The bill has been improved in other areas as well, signifying a marked realignment of priorities by the conferees. For example, I am pleased that this report increases defense funding by $330.9 million. Although this is an increase over the President's request, the conferees used updated Department of Defense execution data to make many of their adjustments. They also made rescissions to un-executable programs and took back unobligated funds resulting from revised economic assumptions in order to offset much-needed increases to the defense budget. I note that the increase is primarily focused on operations and maintenance, $723.6 million, an area most critical to the Department.

Specifically, I support increases to the Navy flying hour account by $140 million, the ship operations account by $225 million, the Air Force airlift account by $626 million, and the Army's logistical support account by $1.03 billion. These increases will go a long way in helping our troops around the globe. In the procurement line, much of the funding is related to purchasing advanced C3I equipment. And in the Research and Development line, the conferees provided additional funds to upgrade existing C3I programs, increases that will be crucial to the successful execution of our war on terror.

Additionally, this bill includes the American Service Members' Protection Act language that was proposed by both Chambers, and it maintains the Senate's provision giving our military the flexibility to conduct operations in coordination with international efforts to pursue foreign nationals accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.

On the domestic front, I would also note that the conference report includes $100 million in disaster assistance for fires and floods, funds that are critically important to the State of Arizona. I strongly believe that this amount of funding is still woefully inadequate to address the dire circumstances surrounding the fires in the Western States; however, I am confident that there will be other legislative opportunities in which to adequately fund these firefighting efforts.

While this bill has improved in many ways, I still believe it spends too much money on low-priority programs that are not truly emergencies, for example, provisions dealing with another Amtrak bailout and numerous non-emergency pork projects such as coral reef mapping. That said, especially given the need to support our war on terrorism, the merits of this legislation now outweigh its deficiencies. Although not perfect, the bill deserves the support of my colleagues. President Bush has asked that we get this bill to his desk before August recess. I am glad that we will be able to do so.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I support this important supplemental appropriations bill, which primarily contains crucial spending that is immediately needed for homeland security purposes. I commend the managers for their efforts on it. I know that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the ranking member worked hard and diligently, as did others, to complete this bill. And I know that they are not responsible for its delay. I am glad the bill will now go to the President, and this funding can go quickly to meet urgent national security needs.

I would like briefly to highlight three topics touched upon by the bill, items which are not the largest matters dealt with here, but which I consider to be very important. The issues are workforce development, disaster assistance and veterans' health care.

First, as chair of the Employment, Safety and Training Subcommittee, with jurisdiction over workforce development issues, I want to address the elimination of emergency funding for job retraining services through the Workforce Investment Act, WIA, which occurred late during the conference on this bill.

What has happened in connection with WIA programs is, I fear, just the tip of the budgetary iceberg. Although confronted with severe economic distress and uncertainty and record unemployment, we are being told by the administration that we lack the resources for key job-training services. Having spent our surplus on tax cuts for the well to do, we do not have the resources to fund services that are essential in helping displaced workers train for and find new employment and in helping businesses find the skilled workers they need to stay competitive in our global economy.

Yet investments in a skilled workforce are precisely what we need right now. As former Treasury Secretary Rubin recently said, to rebuild confidence in our financial markets and economic system, ``[b]udgeting priorities should heavily emphasize preparing our future workforce to be competitively productive in the global economy ..... ''

The irony is that additional support for WIA was in the President's initial fiscal year 2002 supplemental request. He proposed $750 million for WIA, including the restoration of last year's $110 million rescission of dislocated worker formula funds. The Senate and the House followed, both including WIA funding at lower levels.

But then, in the quest to reach the overall target the President and OMB Director Mitch Daniels set for the emergency supplemental, all of the WIA funding was cut.

Frankly, this seems to contradict what the President is saying elsewhere. Just yesterday the President was quoted as saying that his biggest concern about Sunday's record bankruptcy filing by WorldCom was the effect on employees who lose their jobs. Well, the best thing we can do for people who have lost their jobs through Enron, WorldCom, and the other bankruptcies is to help them retrain and retool to find new jobs.

And earlier this year when he submitted his supplemental request, we were told: ``The President's supplemental budget request provides the urgent assistance that is needed now to ensure that affected workers get the assistance and jobs they need.''

This decision is a harsh one for the tens of thousands of workers who will not get the training they need to retool their careers. Already they are finding that the courses they want to take are closed or they are put on endless waiting lists. Workers dislocated because of the impact of trade and certified to receive Trade Adjustment Assistance find they are unable to get training because States have run out of resources and the National Emergency Grant funds that typically see the States through such shortages are themselves depleted

It is harsh as well for businesses that cannot find the skilled workers to stay competitive and take advantage of market opportunities to help fuel our economic recovery.

And it also threatens to undercut WIA's key reforms. States and localities, along with their private sector partners are now at a critical stage in the process of building the new systems called for in WIA. Without adequate funding and without stable funding this essential systems building will be undermined.

Moreover, all of this is happening while the new WIA infrastructure is being stretched to its limits with demands for services triggered by the catastrophic after effects of September 11, the highest unemployment in years, and the continuing dislocations from the largest bankruptcies ever seen in this Nation's history.

This is why I am concerned. This is why I felt I had to speak out. I understand that we are not going to change the fiscal year 2002 emergency supplemental to address this problem. But I do want my colleagues to understand the full impact of the decisions that have been made in this bill concerning some very important priorities. I urge my colleagues to reflect on these implications so that when we take up the fiscal year 2003 Labor/HHS Appropriations bill, we will be especially careful not to further undermine the WIA programs that are so critical to American workers, businesses, and our economic recovery.

The second topic I would like to address is disaster assistance. As a result of severe flooding in Northwestern Minnesota 17 counties are under a federally declared disaster: Becker, Beltrami, Clay, Clearwater, Itasca, Kittson, Koochiching, Lake of the Woods, Mahnomen, Marshall, McLeod, Norman, Pennington, Polk, Red Lake, Roseau, and Wright.

In the 17 counties that are currently included in the federally declared disaster, 1,785 homes were damaged. In Roseau alone over 1,180 homes were damaged.

I am pleased that the supplemental includes some much needed funding for FEMA. The disaster assistance included here represents a down payment in terms of the assistance that the families, businesses and communities in my State will need as they move forward and begin the process of rebuilding their homes, offices and cities.

The Minnesota Recovers Task Force estimates that there will be over $85 million in disaster funding needs as a result of this spring/summer flooding. Of this amount, nearly $50 million will be eligible for FEMA funding. That will leave approximately $35 million in recovery needs that will not be covered by existing FEMA and SBA assistance programs.

I am working closely with my colleagues, Senator Dayton and Representative Peterson, to secure additional flood recovery funding in the fiscal year 2003 HUD Appropriations bill. This funding will be used for the distinct purpose of meeting unmet needs for buyouts, relocation, rehabilitation, long-term recovery, and mitigation to aid the business community of Roseau, MN and the surrounding counties that have received a Federal disaster declaration. The funding will be used in coordination with other Federal, State, and local assistance.

While these FEMA programs are very important, unfortunately they are not geared to handle agricultural losses. In Northwest Minnesota an extraordinary rich agriculture region now lies devastated. According to the Farm Service Agency, this season's crop losses are estimated at more than $267 million across 14 counties. Overall, total agricultural flood losses, including damage to agricultural small businesses, are estimated at more than $370 million.

That is why Senator Dayton and I introduced legislation to provide disaster assistance to agricultural producers last week. This legislation is a starting point to providing the needed assistance to farmers, many of whom, without this emergency assistance will be driven off their farms.

I believe the supplemental appropriations bill would have been the appropriate place to add emergency agricultural disaster assistance to cover weather-related losses. However, the Bush administration continues to oppose any emergency appropriation to provide disaster assistance to farmers. The administration's position is that in order to provide any relief to family farmers who lost their crop due to a flood or drought, money must be taken away from commodity program supports that assist other farmers. In other words, they are saying that when the President signed the farm bill, that was going to be all farmers could expect until 2008, no matter what.

That doesn't work for Northwestern Minnesota. The farm bill was not a disaster-assistance bill. It is a 6-year policy to help stabilize farm income and rural economies. Its funding is absolutely needed for that purpose.

We tried to include separate, emergency weather-disaster assistance in the farm bill, but the administration opposed that, too. They also opposed it when we tried to include it in the supplemental appropriations bill. When Congress decides to help areas affected by hurricanes or fires, we don't tell people to pull their emergency assistance out of somebody else's highway fund. Sometimes the Federal Government just needs to be there for people. The President needs to change his position and help us get some assistance to Northwestern Minnesota.

Finally, the supplemental appropriation bill includes $417 million for veterans health care that I requested which was included in the Senate's bill. These funds are critically important to the veterans in Minnesota. The need for services has simply overwhelmed the VA and in some ways there is more of a crisis now in VA health care now than there was even during the era of flat-lined budgets.

The $417 million for Veterans health care in this bill will mean that Minnesota's Network, VISN 23, will get an additional $19 million to reduce waiting times, keep clinics open, open new clinics, and improve the quality of healthcare. This is very badly needed.

I want to thank Senators MIKULSKI and BOND on the VA-HUD Subcommittee especially, because I know they fought to keep this money in conference, as well as Senators BYRD and STEVENS. We did right by veterans in this supplemental.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I rise to comment briefly about Title II, the American Service Members Protection Act of H.R. 4775 in order to clarify the Senate''s intent in insisting on the retention of Sec. 2015 of that Title which was added during Senate consideration of the supplemental.

I read with interest the remarks of Chairman HENRY HYDE during House consideration of the conference report on July 23. I am certainly not in any position to dispute his comments concerning the first 14 sections of Title II relating to the American Service Members Protection Act, ASPA, as I was not a party to those discussions. I leave it to the administration and to others involved in those discussions to make that judgment.

I do, however, know something about the intent behind Sec. 2015 as I was the author of the amendment that was ultimately included in the Senate passed version of ASPA. A review of the Senate debate makes clear that I was offering the second degree amendment because of my concern with respect to the complexity of the House passed language which was offered as a first degree amendment by Senator Warner. As written, I was concerned that it unduly restricted the ability of the President to cooperate with international efforts to bring to foreign nationals accused of genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity to justice if he chose to do so.

Sec. 2015 makes clear that regardless of the other sections contained in Title II, the President is not prohibited from rendering assistance to any such international efforts, including to the International Criminal Court. An amendment to exclude cooperation with the ICC was proposed during the conference on H.R. 4775, but was rejected by the conferees. Therefore, as the language now stands the President has the discretion to cooperate with any and all international efforts to bring such criminals to justice.

I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to clarify an important addition to the House version of ASPA.

FUNDING OF HUMANITARIAN GOODS THROUGH COMMERCIAL SHIPPING

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, the supplemental provides language supporting the shipment of humanitarian supplies to poor nations. My friend from Alabama was the initiator of this language and I was hoping he could provide the Senate with more information on this topic.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I would be glad to discuss the national Forum Foundation's TRANSFORM Program. With the help of my good friend from Alaska, I offered an amendment to the supplemental that was accepted by the Senate. I understand that it was modified during conference--but will now permit organizations, such as the National Forum Foundation's TRANSFORM program, to receive the much needed authority to receive funds to pay for administrative expenses.

TRANSFORM began 3 years ago as a natural extrapolation of the Denton Program. The Denton Program allows U.S. Air Force Transport aircraft under the control of CINCTRANS to deliver overseas on a space available basis, humanitarian aid donated by 501(c)(3) charity organizations.

In analyzing the transportation of humanitarian aid, the National Forum Foundation has learned that commercial ships have 2000 times the space than our Air Force aircraft and with the export-import imbalance, are usually relatively empty departing our ports.

The TRANSFORM program brings the 501(c)(3) charitable organizations, which collect and wish to distribute these goods, to the commercial shipping lines willing to carry them space-available. The charity has to be indoctrinated to conform to the loading dates and times, port locations and the

[Page: S7268]

specific loading manner required by the ship-line. TRANSFORM exercises special means to ensure no delays in ports or customs issues.

Finally, TRANSFORM's system has a leverage of 250-1 meaning that for every dollar of its budgetary expenses, TRANSFORM gets $250 to needy recipients.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, may I make an inquiry to my friend from Alabama? Is it correct that the TRANSFORM program recently gained global recognition of its activities at a transportation conference hosted by USAID? I understand that in speaking of its activities, the World Food Programme's representative praised the program and offered it the use of spare space on their ships. This spurred others to offer their vessels--such as American President Line, Maersk and CSX.

Mr. SESSIONS. My friend from Alaska is correct. And I must commend him for the work that he did with the help of the House foreign Operations Subcommittee on this issue. The conferees were able to ensure that organizations that are working for the benefit of developing communities on behalf of the United States government and charitable organizations receive the assistance they need to execute their much laudable goals. I am very grateful to him for this support.

Mr. STEVENS. I am optimistic that the larger this program becomes, the more humanitarian aid will be delivered to those in need around the world. Gain, I thank my friend for bringing this amendment and look forward to its future success.

(At the request of Mr. STEVENS, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD.)

• [Begin Insert]

 Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I commend Senators BYRD and STEVENS and the entire Appropriations Committee, as well as the leadership of Senators WARNER and MILLER for ensuring that American soldiers, sailors, aviators and marines will not be subject to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). (I, unfortunately, could not be here to offer an amendment on June 6 as I was recovering from surgery to replace a valve in my heart.) With inclusion of the American Servicemembers Protection Act, ASPA, in the emergency supplemental appropriations bill we can all be proud that the Congress put these brave men and women at the top of our priority list.

During Senate action on the emergency supplemental appropriations bill, Senator WARNER offered a unanimous consent request to include section 2015 in ASPA as generous gesture in the face of concerns raised about the spirit of the legislation. I have been assured by Senator WARNER that he did not intend to limit in any way the applicability of the bill or the binding nature of its substance. The hortatory nature of section 2015 was plain at the time it was adopted, and confirmed by the fact that, during debate shortly before ASPA was overwhelmingly approved, no Senator uttered a word--not a single word--to suggest that section 2015 made any substantive change to ASPA whatsoever.

Section 2015 was not part of ASPA language negotiated with the Administration. It merely reiterates that ASPA applies only to the International Criminal Court. It does not apply to other international efforts to bring to justice foreign nationals accused of genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity.

Section 2015 must be read in line with ordinary canons of statutory construction. Our courts have long affirmed that in interpreting laws the specific controls the general unless otherwise provided. There are many very specific provisions in ASPA about what is permitted and what is forbidden regarding the International Criminal Court. Had the Senate wished to weaken ASPA's restrictions through section 2015--thereby weakening its protections for American servicemembers--it would have had to amend them, strike them, or not withstand them directly. However, this would have been completely inconsistent with the plain language of the legislation, and the intent of its supporters.

The full text of sections 2004, 2006, and 2011, along with other provisions of the American Servicemembers' Protection Act, was adopted by the Senate by a vote of 78-21 when I offered an amendment to the Defense Appropriations for fiscal year 2002 bill on December 7, 2001. When Senator WARNER offered these same provisions as an amendment to this supplemental appropriations bill, the Senate had essentially the same debate it had on December 7th of last year. No Senator suggested that section 2015, which was included by voice vote during the final minutes of debate, was intended to alter the legislation that passed the Senate previously. The final vote in favor of the ASPA amendment, 75-19, reflected complete uniformity with the December 7, 2001 legislation.

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, the conference agreement includes bill language recommending that $1 million should be provided by the Administration for programs and activities which support the development of independent media in Pakistan. This action was taken by the conferees in recognition of the important role independent media will play in improving democracy in Pakistan. I am aware of the excellent work that has been done by Internews in this area and urge that their experience be used in the development of this project.

I also want to note that the agreement includes report language encouraging the United States Agency for International Development and the Department of State to provide $1 million for programs and activities that provide professional training for journalists from the Middle East. My colleagues and the Administration should know that Internews and Western Kentucky University have jointly conducted similar training for journalists from Indonesia and Southeast Asia. This has been a very successful partnership, and I expect that funding provided in the supplemental bill will be used to expand these efforts to the Middle East, particularly Egypt.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I come to the floor today deeply disappointed by the outcome of the final agreement on the supplemental appropriations bill, which deleted the Senate recommendation of $400,000,000 for dislocated worker assistance under the Workforce Investment Act.

I know that to break the impasse with OMB to get this supplemental enacted, with vitally important items for national defense and homeland security, the leadership of the House and Senate had to agree to reduce the overall size of this supplemental. Our leadership was hard-pressed by the administration to accept unpopular cuts. Sadly, the final agreement eliminated all supplemental funding for dislocated worker assistance.

Most disturbing was the elimination of the $110,000,000 component which had been requested by the administration, and included in both House and Senate versions of the supplemental, to restore last year's rescission of dislocated worker funding. This rescission was enacted when it appeared there was sufficient unspent carryover funding in a brandnew workforce system, and Congress needed to offset an emergency supplemental for Low-Income Home Energy Assistance. Since that time, spending by local workforce agencies has accelerated, while the economic downturn has resulted in a continuing, nagging rise in unemployment. In the last year, more than 2 million workers have lost their jobs.

Fortunately, July marks the beginning of a new program year under the Workforce Investment Act, and $1,549,000,000 in new dislocated worker funding will be available for the next 12 months. Of this amount, the law provides that the States receive $1,239,200,000, or 80 percent, with the remaining $309,800,000 available for the Secretary of Labor to target areas particularly hard hit by mass layoffs. Nevertheless, I am fearful that the deletion of supplemental funding will send the wrong message to local sponsors of job training projects that will cause them to slow down spending of funds that are so desperately needed by the growing numbers of dislocated workers. As chairman of the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee, I intend to do my best to send a strong message that Workforce Investment Act funding will be maintained despite the attempt of the President to slash more than $500 million out of the fiscal year 2003 budget. At my recommendation, the Senate Appropriations Committee has fully restored these proposed cuts in the fiscal year 2003 budget, recommending a total of $5,633,364,000 for job training for the program year beginning in July of 2003. We rejected the President's proposal to cut dislocated worker assistance by $177,500,000, maintaining the appropriation at $1,549,000,000. We also fully restored the President's proposed cuts of $362,000,000 in youth job training programs, recognizing that young adults, ages 16 to 24, have been disproportionately affected by the decline in total employment over the past year. I wish we could have done more, but our subcommittee's allocation was extremely tight.

In conclusion, let me say I am not at all satisfied with the level of resources devoted to employment and training services, and I intend to work with my colleagues to explore every means to further augment assistance for the more than 8 million Americans who are now unemployed.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I rise today to speak about the conference report for the Supplemental Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002. When we debated the Senate version of this bill in June, I stated my strong opposition to any item included that was not for the stated purpose of the bill: the ``further recovery from and response to terrorist attacks on the United States.'' As I said before, using the guise of responding to the terrorist attacks of September 11th to spend federal funds on items that obviously have nothing to do with fighting terrorism is war profiteering.

The conference report before us today contains $28.9 billion in federal spending. That is about $1.8 billion over the President's budget request of $27.1 billion--a request, I might add, he made over three months ago--but at least it is lower than the $31.4 billion in the Senate-passed bill.

Even so, I have reviewed the conference report to determine whether the bill contains items that are low-priority, unnecessary, wasteful, or have not been appropriately reviewed in the normal, merit-based prioritization process. I understand that some of these provisions may be meritorious, or included in unfunded priority lists for certain agencies. However, I have listed them because they were not requested by the President or should not be considered an ``emergency'' for funding purposes on this bill or are unrelated to our war on terrorism and should be considered for funding in the regular appropriations process. All told, I have identified approximately $5 billion in such spending in the conference report.

Before I proceed, I want to especially commend the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Mitch Daniels, for his valiant charge to reign-in the free-spending ways of Congressional appropriators. In this town, the louder the opposition gets, the more sense you are making, so keep up the good work Mr. Daniels--and let them howl.

In the absence of a Senate-passed budget resolution, we need fiscal discipline now more than ever. Where we once saw surpluses as far as the eye could see, now we have mounting deficits, a national debt clock that is again ticking, and both houses of Congress voting to raise the government's debt limit by $450 billion. You don't have to be a five-time Jeopardy winner to grasp the bottom line: With the tremendous demands on the federal budget today and with the coming retirement of the Baby Boom generati