A resolution commending the University of Virginia Cavaliers women's lacrosse team for winning the 2004 NCAA Division I women's lacrosse National Championship.

Madam President, because of the circumstances, I really don't have a prepared statement. I wish to outline for the Senate how we intend to proceed. We have been working for some time trying to obtain a process by which we could proceed to act on the 11 appropriations bills for the fiscal year 2003 which were not completed by the end of the last Congress.

I commend my good friend from West Virginia and his staff for assistance in working with us to work out this procedure. These bills that will soon be included in an omnibus amendment to

this continuing resolution are familiar to the Senate. We worked on them throughout the last year. And I wish to say that to the best of my knowledge the components of this bill, except for one portion, were worked on on a bipartisan basis by the staffs of the 11 subcommittees that handled these 11 bills. I can't say that there has been total agreement on the part of anybody as to what we have done, but we have proceeded to reduce the 11 bills that were involved to the amount of the President's request, which was $750.5 billion, plus an amount that is represented by a budget request for the fire items that are included in the bill of $825 million. In doing so, we come down considerably in many of these bills.

But I point out to the Senate that the Government has been operating under the CRs that have been passed since October 1. All of the agencies affected by these bills have been operating on the basis of the 2002 appropriations level--the enacted level of funds for those agencies. If we do not finish these bills now, they will continue to act under the 2002 level until obviously we do something to take us down to the end of this fiscal year.

I have taken the position that the sooner we can enact these 11 bills the better off all the agencies are, and the better off the Congress is because our job is to turn to the requirements of the law to deal with the fiscal year 2004 bills through the budget process and through the consideration of the 13 bills that we have in the Appropriations Committee through the individual subcommittees and get them done this year--God willing--according to the normal schedule and before September 30. We cannot do that if we labor over these bills intensively for a period of time.

I am pleased to say that everyone concerned has been very cooperative, and, above all, the members of the Appropriations Committee on both sides of the aisle have worked hard to get us where we are today.

The amendment that I will soon present contains not only that portion that I mentioned in terms of a series of bills but it contains the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies appropriations for fiscal year 2003. It provides budget authority for Agriculture, rural development, and the nutritional programs.

There is in this bill $670.4 million--more than the President's request--and more than $1.1 billion more than 2002.

I have a whole series of highlights on this bill. I don't want to take the time of the Senate to outline the individual ones. We will do that as we proceed on the bill. There are definitely needs for the programs for each of these items.

The second bill we have is the Commerce, State, Justice and related agencies appropriations bill. Again, this is the recommendation of the subcommittee as adjusted by the process I just outlined. It is approximately $2.5 billion above the 2002 enacted funding level.

These, of course, are a series of highlights. I may later ask to put them all in the Record as part of my opening statement. I want to review these outlines later. I do not make that request now.

We also have the District of Columbia appropriations bill. It makes appropriations for the District of Columbia. It is an item that is substantially higher than the President's request. It is a total of $512 million in discretionary budget authority for the District of Columbia.

We have the energy and water appropriations bill. It recommends $26.164 billion for 2003. It exceeds the President's request by $649 million, and it exceeds the 2002 level by $900 million.

We have the foreign operations bill among the 11 included in this amendment. This bill is $221 million below the President's request. It is also below the fiscal year 2002 level by $73.5 million.

The Department of the Interior bill provides $19.18 billion in total discretionary budget authority--an increase of $641 million over the enacted level of 2002. It is $36 million over the President's budget request for 2003.

The Labor-Health and Human Services bill deals with the President's request, which was $131.9 billion. This bill as recommended by my amendment will be $131.3 billion. The details will be in the items that I will put in the Record.

On the Department of Transportation and related agencies, we recommend $64.6 billion for 2003. This is $9.4 billion more than the President's request of $55.2 billion. I do not have a figure above the 2002 level. I will put it in the Record later.

We have the Treasury and general government appropriations bill. This provision is in the bill at $34.5 billion. The President's request was $34.2 billion, and the 2002 level was $32.8 billion. This is another area where it is above the President's request.

The last section is the section that deals with items that have been added to the 13 bills. One is to fund the election reform bill that was enacted in the last Congress. The maximum authorized level for that program for 12 months for fiscal 2003 was $2.35 billion. For the remainder of the bill, this amendment that I offer will fund election reform at $1.5 billion.

For drought relief, we have set a target of $3.1 billion. The provisions of the bill as presented by the Agriculture Committee and others will adjust the mandatory programs in order to provide relief for the drought that has occurred.

We also have a provision dealing with Medicare adjustments, dealing with physicians' payments and payments for rural hospitals. The total amount would be $1.6 billion. These items would be offset by a 1.6- percent across-the-board cut on the other 11 bills.

We have done our best to present to the Senate--I have, working with the members of the committee and their staffs--a bill to meet the requirements of the administration, to meet the requirements of the agencies, and to present a bill that can be taken to conference and worked out with the House in conference.

Madam President, I point out, the House has not passed any bills. The House has passed this continuing resolution, to give us a House-passed bill, to return this bill to the House for their consideration. We are hopeful that the House will enact its own version and send it to conference. As has been outlined already by the unanimous consent agreement that is in place, we will seek a conference with the House at the earliest possible time.

I urge Senators to consider the problem we face, and that is the problem of catching up with the bills we should have enacted last year. I point no fingers as to reasons we did not. The Senate Appropriations Committee, under the chairmanship of Senator Byrd, did report out all the bills. We were prepared to act, but circumstances at that time made it impossible for us to pass those bills.

Under the circumstances now, we cannot afford the process of passing separate bills, facing vetoes or veto threats, and having bills go back and forth between the Houses. If we are going to catch up and start the process of dealing with the 2004 appropriations, as is our duty in this new Congress, we must put these requests of the past, for the remainder of this fiscal year, in place. We must pass this amendment or something similar to it as soon as is possible, as soon as the Congress can agree and the President will concur with our actions.

I will say, I have discussed this at length with the Office of Management and Budget. I cannot say they approve of what we are doing, but I can say they approve of the fact that we are doing something. So that is what I am asking the Senate to do tonight, to start the process of doing something on these accumulated items that must be faced by this Congress as quickly as possible.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record summaries from which I read partially.

Madam President, again, I thank my friend from West Virginia for his courtesy. I know that while I have been working on these other matters, my friend has had a very erudite statement prepared, and I am prepared to listen to it.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I believe under the unanimous consent request that now is the time for me to offer my amendment.

Amendment No. 1

Mr. President, there is an amendment at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

The Senator from West Virginia has an amendment to offer. I thank him for his comments. We are in substantial agreement, except in the conclusion. We both feel that the Government of the United States should not operate under a continuing resolution. What it means is that our agencies are not moving forward in 2003 at the rate actually requested by the President in 2001 for the fiscal year 2002.

Times have changed. They have changed considerably. Each of these agencies are subject to new laws that were passed both in 2001 and 2002 with regard to the programs that they administer. They cannot do those new programs without new money.

As the Senator from West Virginia said, they are currently operating on autopilot. I am an old pilot and autopilot is a wonderful thing to have, but it doesn't know how to change course unless someone turns the dials. Autopilot cannot take you off or land you. It only continues on the course that it is on. It will fly right into a mountain if you don't change the course. There is a mountain ahead of us, which is the mountain of unfulfilled commitments in the Federal Government, which both the President and Congress have made and changes that were made since the President first conceived the budget of 2002.

I do believe that the Senator is right. I would have joined him last year in proceeding as we did with the bill as reported. But it is different now. We are ready to start a new Congress. We, hopefully, will have our organization resolution soon, and we will be working toward complying with the laws that we work under--the Budget Act--and the requirement that we pass 13 appropriations bills for 2004.

We cannot get there if we pass these bills separately. As I said before, we

will face the prospect of disagreement with the House and endless conferences on 11 bills, and possibilities of vetoes and motions to override, and all the time it will take. Mr. President, it will be June before we get down to the business of this Congress if we do not follow the recommendation to proceed that has been made now by me on behalf of the President and on behalf, I believe, of all the members of our committee.

We have differences on what should be in the bill, but the main thing is that we should proceed. I await the offering of the Senator's amendment. I know pretty well what is in it, and I regret that I cannot join him this year in supporting it.

Is the amendment now pending before the Senate, Mr. President?

I yield to the Senator from West Virginia.

Amendment No. 2

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, presented a chart showing the major elements of the $5 billion homeland security package. Eventually, this homeland security money, since it is money that people involved in that area want, we will address not only this year, in this 2003 bill, not only in the 2004 bill, but out into 2005. This Homeland Security Department has not even formed yet, as we know. There are several components in the existing Government that will be transferred into homeland security, and they have funding in this amendment I have offered.

For instance, Senator Byrd wants to add to this amendment I have offered $1.4 billion for State and local assistance to combat terrorism, but we already have spread throughout the 11 bills $2.2 billion to deal with the same concepts. We have money for first responder radio equipment. We have money for emergency planning and training.

Last year, I supported this money that Senator Byrd wants in his amendment for this bill--in a series of bills, as a matter of fact. The problem we face now is, should we continue to operate at the 2002 level until we can find an agreement with the President as to the amounts Senator Byrd wants to add to the President's request or should we move forward through the way we allocated money in the bill for the various elements of homeland security in the existing Departments? The money we put in the existing Departments will be transferred to Homeland Security as that Department is formed.

Senator Byrd wants to put up an additional $1.8 billion for border security. Again, in the period ahead we will spend money like that, but in these bills already is a total of $4.3 billion, and we are looking at a period of less than 8 months to spend that money.

I have presented the amendment that is before the Senate now because we want to find a way to work with the President to close the books on the 2003 appropriations. We cannot do that if we continue to battle with the administration and try to give them money beyond what they believe is necessary.

At the time we were looking at this last year, we thought the Homeland Security Department would have been created before September 30 of last year. We wanted to put up money so it would be there for the Homeland Security Department to be transferred to start spending in October. This money would be started to be spent in late February or March.

I am trying to make a point. Take airport security; Senator Byrd wants an additional $720 million. We have already appropriated substantial monies that are in the supplemental from last year for airport security. We have tried to fund the needs of the Transportation Security Administration. We already have an additional $374 million in these separate portions of the amendment I have offered.

I am trying to emphasize the fact that we do not need to give this Department of Homeland Security more money beyond what has been asked.

On nuclear and energy security, I do not disagree with the statements that have been made about the needs for additional money. In this amendment I have offered is $1.650 billion for that function. Senator Byrd wants to add another $296 million. I understand he is trying to fully fund the estimated needs of homeland security for the future, which is a laudable goal, but we are trying to stay within some sort of budget constraint.

As I said, let's finish the job of getting the books closed on how much the agencies have to spend in the remainder of fiscal year 2003.

On Federal law enforcement with the FBI, Senator Byrd wants to add $212 million to the $1.2 billion already in the bill. I am urging the Senate to listen in terms of the concepts we have worked out. Stop this battle with the President over how much is needed for the agency that has not even been established yet. The various components of that agency, the Homeland Security Department, will have enough money coming into this new Department to fully fund whatever they can do by the time they get organized as a Department.

I urge the Senate to oppose the amendment offered by the Senator from West Virginia--not because he is not right at estimating the future needs of homeland security--because we believe we are right in saying, let's fund now the money that can be spent before the end of this fiscal year, be spent before September 30. I am confident we have sufficient moneys in this amendment that we have offered in the 11 separate sections which would normally be separate appropriations bills, enough money to deal with the problems of homeland security.

Beyond that, I remind the Senate the President still has some money left from the $20 billion we gave him after 9/11. If there are any defects here, he has more than $5 billion in that account and can allocate it if it is necessary to establish Homeland Security so long as it is working toward establishing the facilities and entities we need to prevent further repetition of the catastrophe of September 11.

I hope the Senate will listen. To adopt the Byrd amendment will be to prolong the conference. If it was in a bill that would go to the President, he would veto it. Then where are we? Maybe I am too pragmatic about this, but it is time to get this job done. The amendment I have offered will get the job done. There will still be some differences with the House. As a matter of fact, there will still be some differences with the administration because we have increased some items that they do not want to see increased and we have decreased some they do not want decreased. But overall, we are within the total limit and parameters of the requests of the President.

I hope tomorrow the Senate will be looking at this. There will be further debate tomorrow morning. The leader will, of course, state what the procedure will be. We expect a vote sometime around noon or soon thereafter on the Byrd amendment. I am hopeful that the Senate will work with us to try and understand my job now is to get this amendment to conference.

As I told the Senate Members, the House has not passed any of these bills. It passed some of them last year. We did not act on them. We passed some last year and they did not act on them. We are trying to restart the 2003 conference and there will be an overall conference on all 11 bills at one time if the Senate will give us the support to pass this bill and take it to conference.

There will be individual differences as far as amendments are concerned. As a matter of fact, there are some things in this amendment I personally would change, but they have been brought here by the work of the subcommittee chairmen and ranking Members of the individual areas covered by these bills. I think it is the best course to follow, to take this amendment to conference, to go to the House and say, let's get these 11 bills finished so the agencies will know for certain the money they have. Even the homeland security bill was not passed when we originally contemplated passing the appropriations to fund it.

I am confident we have done the best we can under the circumstance. Again, I do not criticize Senator Byrd. Eventually, we will spend more than $5 billion in addition to what we have in the amendment before the Senate. However, we do not need it now. I sat through all the hearings that have been mentioned, that Senator Byrd had on the needs for homeland security across the Nation. I remember going to small towns in my State when the mayor told me they needed a new fire truck. They needed a new fire truck? They have never had a fire truck. There is not anyone in the country that does not want some of this homeland security money. The question is, what is needed now to go on with the job and protect the country. I believe our amendment does it.

I send to the desk a statement prepared by the individual subcommittees that goes along with 11 components of this bill. Had we had the meetings of

the separate subcommittees and reported separate bills, we would have prepared 11 reports. Instead, I am submitting for the Record to be printed the overview and summary of each of the components so there will be no question in the future of what is intended by the provisions of the amendment I have offered if it is enacted. I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment offered by the distinguished chairman, perhaps ranking member, depending on the time of the month in January of this year, of the Senate Appropriations Committee. He has led the fight in the Senate on these issues dealing with homeland security, an extremely important subject for this Senate.

I wish to talk about why his amendment is a very important choice for us to make. This is, after all, about making choices. It is not a case that there is not the money to do one thing or the other; it is a matter of making the choices of what the right things are for this country's future. Emerson once said that common sense is genius dressed in work clothes. Common sense with respect to homeland security to me is to understand that post-9/11, we are in an urgent situation to protect our country at home. We are prosecuting the war against terrorists here and abroad, and we have an urgent requirement to protect our homeland.

The head of the CIA just a couple months ago said to the Nation that we are as vulnerable today to a terrorist attack as we were on September 10, the day before that devastating terrorist attack on our Nation. The head of the CIA said: We are as vulnerable today as we were the day before that devastating attack.

If that is the case, then the question is, What more do we need to do and how soon must we do it to give a measure of assurance to the American people that we are doing everything possible to thwart those terrorists who would attack our country?

I wish to talk about a couple areas of homeland security that my colleague, Senator Byrd, has spoken about previously and spoke about again this evening, and addresses in his amendment. I wish to talk about the security of our country's ports.

I come from a State that does not have any ports. North Dakota is not surrounded by oceans, so we do not have ports. I did recently tour one of our large ports in this country. That follows on the heels of a tour I did several years previous. I was curious as to what kind of security exists in America's ports.

I know we get 5.7 million containers coming into this country every year stacked on container ships. These 5.7 million containers pull up to a dock at 2 miles an hour, then are offloaded on to 18-wheel trucks, and they motor off to the rest of the country. I also know of the 5.7 million containers that come into our country every year, 100,000 of them are inspected, 5.6 million are not.

One asks the question: We spend a lot of money and time talking about an antiballistic missile program or a missile defense system to protect against an incoming ballistic missile or a ballistic missile traveling 10 or 15,000 miles an hour. So we spend $8 billion creating a ballistic missile defense system.

How much money do we spend protecting against the threat of a ship with a container carrying a weapon of mass destruction coming to a dock at 2 miles an hour at one of America's major ports in America's major cities? The answer is we do not spend nearly enough.

I recently, with the Customs Service and others, toured one of our country's major ports. This is a port that gets a great deal of freight and commerce from Asia. I was very impressed with the men and women who worked there. I was very impressed with what they do there. I took a look at their x-ray technology in which they x-ray containers that are on an 18-wheel truck, having been taken from the deck of a ship. This technology is remarkable. What they are doing at the Customs Service is extraordinary, but they are desperately short of funds. They are incapable, in my judgment, of assuring the American people that of these 5.7 million containers reaching America's ports, they are able to inspect a sufficient number to give us a measure of confidence that terrorists will not use these containers with which to attack our country.

We might all remember the story about a fellow who was a suspected terrorist who actually put himself in one of those large containers. In that container, he included a heater, a cot, water supply, a GPS system, a computer--he had all the comforts of home locked with him in a container, shipping himself from the Middle East to Canada, presumably then to go from Canada into the United States.

If someone decides to ship a weapon of mass destruction in a container aimed at this country with only 2 percent of the containers being inspected at our docks, how confident are we that we have the homeland security and homeland protection we need and deserve at this point?

Senator Byrd includes in this amendment the resources that are necessary to add to that measure of confidence, to create more inspections, to provide more security at America's ports, and that is important.

He also in this amendment deals with the issue of border security. I do represent a State that has a long and common border with the country of Canada. Just a couple of months ago, there were concerns across our country about five men, suspected terrorists, who apparently entered the U.S. through Canada. We did not know who they were. We did not know where they entered our country. We did not know what they planned to do. But there was a national manhunt for five men from those parts of the world from which terrorists have originated who entered our country, and we were searching for these individuals. Apparently they were never found.

The point is, they were supposed to have entered our country through Canada. How would one do that? Along the border between the United States and Canada, we have a great many ports of entry where we have very little security, as a matter of fact. Prior to our Appropriations Committee adding some money in the last year and a half, at many ports of entry in North Dakota, when the ports of entry closed because they are open only a certain portion of the day, at the end of the day, at 9 o'clock or 10 o'clock at night, they put up an orange rubber cone, and that was the security to keep terrorists out of this country or to keep out those who are not supposed to enter this country.

The polite ones who enter this country illegally say they would get out of the car, remove the cone, drive into this country, and replace the orange cone. Those not so polite would shred that cone at 60 or 70 miles an hour, with nothing to stop them.

We changed some of that at ports of entry, but we have a 4,000-mile border. There is not a ghost of a chance that the Border Patrol and others who are required to provide the security on this country's northern border can possibly do all that is necessary to keep terrorists from entering our country.

Despite that, we have the Immigration Service, the Customs Service, the Border Patrol, and others doing heroic work, but they need more resources. They are short of money. And that also is included in Senator Byrd's proposal.

Last July in Congress, we on the Appropriations Committee passed by a wide margin a supplemental appropriations bill that included $2.5 billion for homeland defense, port security, as I mentioned, the security of nuclear plants in our country, airport security, cyber security, and training for police and fire personnel, the first responders for any terrorist attack. Yet the President decided he would not use that $2.5 billion. He blocked it, and this amendment restores much of those funds.

I know earlier today we had people come to the Chamber and talk about those who want to spend money. There are those who say this is all about spending money. This is a rather small amount compared to what we did for Defense, for example, in this year.

The President asked for and we agreed to increase Defense spending nearly $45 billion in this year. We face some very significant challenges in Iraq, North Korea, terrorists. We call on young men and women in this country to put on their uniform and, in a moment's notice, be called up, put on a ship or airplane and shipped to the farthest points of the world to protect our country. We increased that spending in a very significant way.

Just a year ago--in fact, a year ago this week--I was in central Asia. I was in Afghanistan and Uzbekistan and toured those areas where our young men and women--American soldiers--were defending our liberty and freedom.

I do not think anyone will ever want to shortchange them in what we do to spend money to protect them, and I commend Senator Byrd, Senator Stevens, and Senator Inouye for their leadership in making certain we make that investment. But it is not only with respect to this Nation's defense that we must make investment. We also must make those investments in our homeland security. If we fail to do that, there will be a time, after some additional national tragedy as a result of a terrorist attack, when we will ask the question: Why did we not plug that hole? Why did we not add those resources? Why did we not have those additional inspections?

We can avoid all of that if we simply make wise and prudent investments in homeland security in this legislation. I prefer we not be required to spend any money on homeland security. I prefer we live in a world in which there is not a terrorist threat, in which those who have evil in their hearts, such as Saddam Hussein and others, would not exist and we would live in peace and harmony and not have to worry about protecting our homeland. But the attacks of 9/11, which killed thousands of innocent Americans, by those holed up in caves in the mountains of Afghanistan plotting the murder of innocent people tell us we can never again be sure that that kind of world will exist.

We must understand that terrorists want to do damage to this country and kill innocent Americans. As a result,

we simply must have adequate homeland security and adequate protection. That is all this amendment offered by Senator Byrd does.

We will have an opportunity to discuss other issues with respect to the omnibus bill. Although I have been talking about homeland security, I fully agree with Senator Stevens and Senator Byrd that we should handle these appropriations bills this way. It is the only way we can solve this issue of getting the eleven bills done, getting to a conference, getting them to the President, and getting them signed. So there is no disagreement about that. Senator Byrd and Senator Stevens are absolutely correct. This is what we should do. We should do it this month and get these priorities funded. But as I say that, the question is: What priorities? What choices?

I have not yet seen the entire amendment or the entire omnibus bill that has been offered. I expect I will be able to review some of it this evening and perhaps tomorrow. But this is significant legislation. I know what part of it is. Chairing one of the subcommittees on appropriations, I know what is in that subcommittee. With Senator Campbell and me working closely together, I know what is in that particular part, but the rest of it I am not aware of, and I think most Members would not be aware of the specific provisions. We need to work together in the coming days to make sure the choices we make in terms of priorities are the right choices.

I will have a lot to say on a couple of other issues, but I want to specifically say to Senator Byrd, I think this amendment makes eminent good sense. It is an important amendment, an urgent amendment, and represents one of our first priorities: Making the right investment for homeland security.

There is a part in this omnibus bill that deals with disaster legislation, drought relief, for farmers. I do not know this for sure, but my understanding is the money for that actually comes out of the agricultural spending base, which in my judgment should not happen. Second, it is only about half the size of what is needed.

By a very wide margin, we passed last year a $5.9 billion disaster relief bill for drought relief for a major part of the country's agricultural producers. That is about what we need. In my judgment, we are going to have to amend this provision.

My understanding also is that in order to get part of this money, there is an across-the-board reduction, and I believe there are certain areas where we cannot do across-the-board reductions. Having said all of that, we need to debate those amendment by amendment. This first amendment is an important amendment. As Senator Byrd said, and let me hasten to say as well because I serve on this committee, the leadership of Senator Stevens is exemplary. I am proud to be on this committee, whether under his leadership or Senator Byrd's. Our differences in choices with respect to both the White House and those who support this amendment are not meant to be disrespectful but are an assertive difference, representing what we believe to be an urgent priority.

There is no greater priority than to make sure we have done what we can do to thwart the efforts of terrorists to attack this country, and in a number of areas we are markedly and substantially deficient in homeland security investment. We have known that for some long while. This is the time to correct it. It is not spending, it is an investment, just as it is an investment in this country when we make the kind of appropriations we need to make for defense. We have done that. Now we need to make the same judgment with respect to homeland security.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, first, I thank my esteemed colleague and dear

friend, Senator Ted Stevens, for his characteristic courtesy, and for his friendship, and for the cooperation he has shown to me over many years of working together.

I thank him for joining with me, last year, in reporting out of our committee all appropriations bills before the close of July.

I thank all of the Republican members as well as the Democratic members of my committee who voted unanimously to report those 13 bills out of the Appropriations Committee, without a single vote cast against those bills.

I am sorry that the situation has developed, as it has, when I must oppose the distinguished Senator's amendment. I always do whatever I have to do to meet my own conscience and to deal with requirements that are incumbent upon me as the chairman of the committee or as the ranking member of the committee, whichever is my role at the particular time.

I do not like to be in a position of differing with my friend from Alaska, but there are times when we do have to differ. In this case, I find myself at odds with him, but I want to say here that it is only for the purposes of advancing this bill. It certainly does not cut across our friendship, as far as I am concerned, when I have to differ with Senator Stevens, and differ with him vigorously. He is still my friend.

I understand what he has to do, as he sees his responsibilities. And I have to do what I have to do as I see my responsibilities. Our friendship is unaffected. I want to assure him of that, as far as I am concerned.

Last July, almost 6 months ago, the Senate Appropriations Committee completed action on all 13 of our appropriations bills, each on a bipartisan unanimous vote. These bills restored essential funding for programs that the President proposed to cut.

We provided $1.1 billion more than the President requested for veterans medical care. We restored the $8.6 billion cut proposed by the President in highway funding. The President proposed only a 1 percent increase for education programs. He would have turned the No Child Left Behind bill into another unfunded mandate. Our bill provided a 6 percent increase for education, including key funding to reduce class size.

We included sufficient funding to keep Amtrak operating. We restored over $1 billion of cuts that the President proposed for State and local law enforcement programs.

We fully funded the President's proposed increases for homeland security programs, but we provided the funds through existing programs that our Nation's fire and police organizations support. We provided a significant increase for the Securities and Exchange Commission in order to investigate corporate fraud. We provided $400 million for election reform.

Now this White House believes that these increases represent wasteful and unnecessary spending. Last year this White House worked with the House Republican leadership to slow the appropriations process down. The House has not passed a regular appropriations bill in nearly 6 months.

Let me repeat that. The House of Representatives has not passed a regular appropriations bill in nearly 6 months.

The domestic agencies of the Government are now operating under the sixth--the sixth--continuing resolution, which expires on Friday, January 31.

My friend, Senator Ted Stevens--who is the very able ranking minority member of the Appropriations Committee, who will soon succeed me as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and who has already succeeded me as President pro tempore of the Senate--and I worked together to produce those 13 bi-partisan bills last summer. Each of those 13 appropriations bills was reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee with a unanimous vote--not a single vote cast against any one of the 13 appropriations bills.

After the election, however, the President indicated his determination to limit discretionary spending to the arbitrary figure of $751.3 billion. This level will necessitate cuts of $9.8 billion from 11 of the bills approved last July. After providing for modest increases for homeland security programs, the substitute that Senator Stevens is forced to offer provides for a virtual freeze in all other domestic spending.

I oppose the $9.8 billion cut that is contained in the substitute. The needs of the American people for homeland security, for education, for transportation, for veterans, for public health, and for other programs have not gone away. The needs are still there as plain as ever.

I am not being critical of my colleague, Senator Stevens. I am not being critical of the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Mr. Young of Florida. However, the President has now thrown down the gauntlet and is insisting on a $9.8 billion reduction, resulting in cuts in priority programs designed for what? Designed to defend our homeland, to educate our children, to improve our transportation systems, and strengthen our law enforcement programs.

I am extremely disappointed, not with Senator Stevens or the other members of the Senate Appropriations Committee or my friend, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Mr. Young, or his ranking member, Mr. Obey, but with this administration, with this White House and its lack of vision and knowledge regarding the needs of the people of this country.

With great fanfare, the President signed numerous authorization bills this year that would increase spending demands for many of these same important programs. Last January he signed the No Child Left Behind Act with great fanfare. The President signed the No Child Left Behind Act which had passed the Senate 87 to 10 and which endorsed additional resources in important education programs for our children. Last May, the President, Mr. Bush, signed a border security bill with great fanfare, which had passed the Senate 97 to nothing, which authorized strengthening glaring and dangerous weaknesses in our border security. Last July, President Bush signed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act which had passed the Senate 89 to nothing, and which addressed shameful corporate fraud that bilks innocent people. In October, Mr. Bush signed the election reform bill with great fanfare which had passed the Senate 92 to 2 to help State governments overhaul the Nation's outdated and corruptible electoral system. In November, President Bush signed legislation which had passed the Senate 95 to nothing to improve security at our ports.

Yet in order to reduce our bills by $9.8 billion, the omnibus legislation that we will consider this week will cut education by $1.5 billion. It will cut homeland security programs by $1 billion, including cuts of $627 million for border security, $23 million from port security and $132 million from first responder funds. It will cut Securities and Exchange Commission funding below the levels in Senator Hollings' bill by $94 million.

This omnibus legislation will reduce Head Start funding by $202 million. It will reduce job training by $534 million. It will reduce low income home energy assistance by $300 million.

The new omnibus bill will cut Amtrak funding by $374 million, a level that will result, I am told, in the termination of Amtrak service.

In addition, the bill includes 1.6 percent across the board cut on all domestic programs. This represents a $435 million cut in the National Institutes of Health. It represents a $182 million cut to Education for the Disadvantaged. It represents a $372 million cut in Veterans Medical Care. On top of these cuts, every homeland security initiative in this package is reduced by 1.6 percent. This is no way to govern. We must move forward on this legislation. As much as I chafe about these mindless cuts, we cannot allow the domestic agencies of our government to continue operating on automatic pilot for the rest of the fiscal year. The people elected us to make choices about how we invest their tax dollars. There will be amendments offered in the coming days to restore some of the cuts contained in the substitute to be offered by Senator Stevens for homeland security, for education, and for other worthy programs. I urge Members to consider these amendments carefully and to ponder the impact of the reductions in this bill.

These should not be up or down party-line votes. When the Congress

passed, with broad bi-partisan votes, and President Bush signed, authorization bills for homeland security, for port security, for border security, for investigating corporate fraud, and for No Child Left Behind, we all recognized that these programs required adequate resources. We did not vote to address these critical problems with rhetoric alone. We have heard plenty of rhetoric. We collectively decided that these were real problems that needed real solutions. To solve these problems requires resources, not empty promises. I urge every Member to reflect on their support of these authorization bills as they decide how to vote on amendments that will be offered in the coming days. Let's make the rhetoric match the resolve.

While I oppose the $9.8 billion in cuts which are being required by the administration as the price to move these bills, I recognize that an even worse alternative is to fail in our duty to enact appropriation bills and allow the United States Government to operate without sufficient funding for the remainder of this fiscal year. I believe my colleague, Senator Stevens, is of a similar frame of mind. He is doing what he sees as his duty. He is a good soldier. He has my profound empathy.

This is the U.S. Senate. We are 100 Senators who have taken an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. We serve with Presidents. We don't serve under any President, I have served with 11 Presidents, not under any President. The votes that we will take on this important legislation, especially those relating to the defense of our homeland and the education of our children, are not about politics. They are about doing what is right and what was promised to the people of this country.

I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the $9.8 billion of cuts contained in the substitute compared to the fiscal year 2003 bills reported last July by unanimous vote in the full Appropriations Committee, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this Nation faces a turning point as we are challenged once again by the threat of attack on our shores. We know that terrorists live among us. Yet we do not know where they will strike, or when, or how they will strike. With endless warnings in mind, and with a clear realization of our many homeland security gaps, it is time that Congress invest the necessary resources in homeland security to match its rhetoric and to match the rhetoric of this administration. So I have offered an amendment that would accomplish three goals:

First, it would restore the $1 billion in reductions in homeland security initiatives made from the original committee-passed appropriations bills and for which every member of the Appropriations Committee voted--every member, 29 members of the Appropriations Committee, with 15 Democrats and 14 Republicans.

Second, it would restore much of the $2.5 billion in emergency homeland security funds that passed this Congress overwhelmingly in the summer of last year, but which was rejected by this White House.

Finally, this amendment would fund the priorities that Congress has found so necessary and that President Bush has signed into law. This amendment would fund the Airport Security Act that created the Transportation Security Administration and placed rigorous, new safety standards on the Nation's airports. This amendment would fund the border security authorization bill that passed the Senate by a vote of 97 to 0 and that President Bush signed into law last May. This amendment would fund the port security authorization bill that passed the Senate by a vote of 95 to 0 and that President Bush signed into law last November.

These dollars address our Nation's most critical needs. These funds would help to shore up our Nation's defenses and save lives at home.

The Congress has voted to create the Department of Homeland Security, but that Department is months--if not years--away. I read in the Washington Post today about the slowdown in the fulfillment of that dream, but that Department is months--if not years--away from being a strong defense against terrorist attacks. There are many details to be worked out. We cannot wait to address gaps in our Nation's defenses while this new Department is organized. Terrorists will not wait to attack. We cannot afford delay. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the amendment be printed in the Record at this point so that all Senators, members of the press, and the people at large may read on tomorrow the contents of the amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the international coffee crisis. With much of the world focused on Iraq and the Middle East, it is perhaps not surprising that a crisis affecting tens of millions people, on virtually every corner of the Earth, has received little attention.

The worldwide price of coffee has plummeted almost 70 percent over the last several years. This has devastated the economies of poor countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America; it has ruined the livelihoods of millions of people; and it has damaged our foreign aid and counter-narcotics efforts in these countries.

For example, over the last few years, the United States has provided almost $3 billion to Colombia for counter-narcotics assistance. This has made Colombia the top recipient of U.S. assistance outside of the Middle East.

Even though this is an extremely generous amount of aid, the goals and objectives are being undermined by the collapse of coffee prices. Last year, Colombia's President Alvaro Uribe wrote a letter to me, in which he stated:

[T]he impact of the international coffee crisis on

Colombian coffee growers has been devastating. In Colombia,

more than 800,000 people are directly employed on coffee

farms and another three million are dependent on coffee for

their livelihood. Colombian coffee farmers are struggling to

cover their cost of production, and the problems of

oversupply and a decline in coffee prices has brought poverty

and uncertainty to Colombia's coffee-growing regions, which

were previously free of violence and narcotrafficking

activity. Additional support from the United States will help

improve this dire situation in Colombia and other developing

countries around the world which are also being impacted by

oversupply and falling prices.

A range of humanitarian relief agencies, with operations around the world, further support President Uribe's views. For example, an Oxfam report on the topic found:

The coffee crisis is becoming a development disaster whose

impact will be felt for a long time. Famlies dependent on

money generated by coffee are pulling their children,

particularly girls, out of school, can no longer afford basic

medicines, and are cutting back on food. Beyond farming

families, national economies are suffering. Coffee traders

are going out of business, some banks are in trouble, and

governments that rely on the export revenues that coffee

generates are faced with dramatically declining budgets for

education and health programs and little money for debt

repayment.

The United States is, by far, the biggest importer of coffee. At the same time, we provide billions of dollars of foreign aid to nations impacted by the coffee crisis. It is common sense. The United States has a strong interest in finding a solution to this international problem.

A couple of years ago, several of us in Congress started asking questions about what the administration is doing to address this issue. It is safe to say that we were disappointed with the answers.

There are some good programs being run by different agencies within the Government. But, there are so many agencies involved--State, USAID, Agriculture, USTR, Treasury--and there are times when one hand does not seem to know what the other is doing. For example, USAID has programs in Latin America to help coffee farmers find alternative livelihoods, because of the

overproduction that exists in the global market. At the same time, we found another program that was encouraging Bolivian farmers to get into coffee production. In other words, two steps forward, one step back.

What is worse, the administration does not seem to have a comprehensive strategy across agencies to effectively address the international coffee crisis. Nothing to get everyone on the same page and working towards the same goal. Nothing that outlines a plan on how to deal with the crisis.

This is not just my opinion, this is the bipartisan, bicameral view in Congress.

To address these shortcomings, a number of us have come together across party lines and from different sides of the Capitol. We have pushed hard to move forward on this issue.

During the final days of the 107th Congress, I along with Senators Specter, Dodd, and Feinstein, successfully sponsored S. Res. 368, which called attention to the coffee crisis and urged the administration to formulate a comprehensive, multilateral strategy to address the problem. Although this measure passed the Senate, the administration has been slow to respond, and, as a result, we were forced to include a provision in the Fiscal Year 2004 Foreign Operations bill that requires the Secretary of State to report to Congress on any progress made in formulating this strategy.

To this day, the administration has not come forward with this strategy. While we should take care to make sure this strategy is done right, it has taken the administration too long. This is not a situation that will just go away. We have to act, and that makes coming forward with a strategy all that more important. I urge the administration to finish the job.

Here in the Senate we are doing what we can to respond to the crisis. We were successful in getting the Senate to serve fair trade coffee. And, I am also pleased to report that we helped USAID and Green Mountain Coffee enter into a public-private partnership to implement development projects to address the crisis. These were smaller, but important accomplishments.

Other accomplishments include working with the private sector, and encouraging major companies such as Procter and Gamble and Dunkin' Doughnuts to serve fair trade coffee.

Much of the recent debate on the coffee crisis surrounds U.S. membership in the International Coffee Organization (ICO). As Chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, I included $500,000 in the Fiscal Year 2003 Foreign Operations bill for a U.S. contribution to the ICO, if the United States rejoined by June 1, 2003. This move was hailed by a diverse range of groups, including the National Coffee Association, Oxfam International, several Latin American governments, the Speciality Coffee Association of America, and the Colombian Coffee Federation.

Unfortunately, this deadline has come and gone with no decision. However, it triggered a debate within the administration on the issue of ICO membership. That debate continues to this day.

This is not an indictment on those working on this issue in the administration. To the contrary, those in the State Department, USAID, and other agencies working with Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Shaun Donnelly, are talented individuals. They have been responsive to concerns raised by Congress, and I know they are working hard to resolve this issue and find a solution to the coffee crisis.

To ensure that these funds were not lost, the Commerce-State-Justice Subcommittee, under the leadership of Senators Gregg and Hollings, honored my request to include another $500,000 for a contribution to the ICO in the Fiscal Year 2004 CJS Appropriations bill. I applaud their leadership on this issue. Along with relentless pressure from Representatives Cass Ballenger and Sam Farr, the help of the Commerce- State-Justice Subcommittee sent a clear signal to the administration: Congress is not going to go away on this issue.

We were recently informed that the State Department supports the U.S. membership in the ICO. This is a positive step, but the administration as a whole has yet to endorse this view.

What is the hold-up? This process has been dragging on for months. It should end, and the U.S. should rejoin the ICO. This is something that U.S. industry, humanitarian NGOs, key friends and allies, and a bipartisan group in Congress supports.

Some may recall the way the ICO used to operate in the past, working as a cartel to stabilize coffee prices. But, nobody is talking about rejoining the ICO to establish a cartel over the coffee market. The ICO is a reformed organization and its chartering agreement has been substantially rewritten, specifically to get the ICO out of the business of price-fixing. The idea of a coffee cartel is an idea on the ash heap of history. I would not support it. I suspect no one in this Chamber would.

I support U.S. membership in the ICO, but recognize that is by no means a silver bullet. Membership alone is not enough to solve the international coffee crisis. Rather, it is one arrow in the quiver, and it can be an effective tool, when used as an integral part of a comprehensive strategy that includes funding for alternative assistance for coffee farmers, working with friends and allies, and the deep involvement of other international organizations such as the World Bank. This is the appropriate role for the ICO.

There are some compelling reasons for rejoining that have been put forward by experts who follow this issue closely. I want to briefly summarize a few of them:

U.S. participation in the ICO would help strengthen the implementation of resolution 407, which establishes quality guidelines on coffee exports. Although not perfect, ICO resolution 407 is a serious, multilateral attempt to help address the international coffee crisis that a number of economists believe could have a meaningful impact. According to some industry leaders, it also enhances competition in the coffee industry.

U.S. participation would help the ICO become more effective in addressing the coffee crisis. Many European nations have said they would be more willing to invest and commit additional resources to resolving this crisis through the ICO, if the U.S. were participating. The European Community (EC) recently called on the U.S. to rejoin. Because the U.S. and EC are not producing nations, this momentum would help the ICO pursue goals to more effectively address development issues associated with the coffee crisis, while helping the ICO continue to move away from discredited policies of the past.

U.S. membership in the ICO would focus more senior level attention, and inter-agency cooperation, on this important foreign policy issue within the administration. This would go a long way in overcoming some the problems stemming from a lack of coordination between agencies that I mentioned earlier.

The ICO engages in projects to help address the crisis: price risk management for Africa, disease control, and market development projects. Moreover, the ICO is also promoting diversification in cooperation with multilateral agencies such as the FAO, UNCTAD and the World Bank. These strategies could all be enhanced through U.S. membership in the ICO.

ICO membership would send an important signal to the rest of the world that the United States is committed to working collaboratively on every possible solution to this problem. This would be an important diplomatic step on an issue that many of our friends and allies in the developing world care deeply about.

Again, the ICO is not a perfect solution. But, if a $500,000 contribution can help begin to solve a crisis that is undermining billions of dollars in U.S. foreign assistance, devastating the livelihood of millions of people around the word, and causing severe economic damage to key developing countries, I say its well worth the investment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, Senator Byrd has offered an amendment. I would like to address that amendment.

Senator Byrd has been an advocate, for many months now, of doing something to properly fund homeland security. One member of our caucus referred to it as hometown security. The Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Nelson, referred to it as hometown security, and that is really what it is. It is to make sure the cities and towns in our States have the protection that is necessary as a result of the terrible events of September 11.

The bill I am interested in is part of S. 11 from the Energy and Water Subcommittee. For the next half hour or so, I will be the chairman of that committee. That will change sometime this evening.

Senator Domenici and I have had a longtime relationship on this subcommittee. I have been chairman; he has been chairman; we really have worked extremely well together. He has been, from my perspective, extremely good to work with. He is an absolute expert on numbers, having been the chairman of the Budget Committee and having been so long with the Appropriations Committee. It has been a pleasure to work with him.

But Senator Domenici, I am sure, recognized that this bill, our bill, should have more money--more money as it relates to homeland security. During last year's consideration of the supplemental spending bill for homeland security, when we were in the majority, we included hundreds of millions of dollars for nuclear security, funding that had been requested by the administration and by the Department of Energy but was rejected by the Office of Management and Budget. During final negotiations on that supplemental, we agreed to provide funding for these activities on a contingency basis. In essence, we provided the money but gave the President the opportunity to accept it or not. He decided not to accept it. I think that is really wrong. I am disappointed and sorry that is the case. I believe it was unreasonable that the President declined to request emergency funding for nuclear security for which his own Department of Energy was screaming. We didn't invent this. This came from his own Department of Energy.

So this evening Senator Byrd has offered it again and is making another effort to give this administration the funds they need to keep nuclear and other deadly material safe and secure in this country. As always, I am grateful to Senator Byrd for his leadership in this area.

The bill Senator Domenici and I have brought to the floor for many years is a big bill, approximately $24- or $25 billion, and it is all discretionary. It is the only subcommittee in which the money is discretionary, all of it. It has many important components. Tonight we are only going to talk about that part relating to nuclear security.

This amendment provides $25 million to enhance the safety and security of nuclear and other materials at the Department of Energy Office of Science Laboratories, nationwide; another $25 million for the National Nuclear Security Administration, to enhance security during the transport of nuclear weapons and materials nationwide; and $35 million for construction and renovation activities of the National Center for Combating Terrorism, again funding that the Department of Energy asked the White House to provide.

Again, we didn't dream it up, saying this would be great for New Mexico because they have a lot of things goings on there, or Nevada, or Idaho, or Mississippi, where a lot of these activities take place. The Department of Energy came forward with this recommendation. Again, the White House refused the recommendation that its own Department brought forward.

We are also requesting $90 million for increased safeguards and security needs throughout the nuclear weapons complex. Funding is provided for explosive detection equipment, protective force support, hardened perimeter barriers, and consolidation of special nuclear materials and complex-wide security improvements. A minimum of $25 million is provided for cybersecurity activities.

Just reading this off should give every person within the sound of my voice pause. Why have we been asked this by the Department of Energy? We have been asked to do this because we need safeguards throughout the nuclear weapons complex that are not now there.

Funding is provided for explosive detection equipment. We don't have that

equipment. I hate to say it here on the Senate floor, but we don't. We are lacking.

Protective force support. That means we don't have enough people making sure the materials are safe, that the facilities are safe.

Hardened perimeter barriers. It seems to me, if we have been told by the Department of Energy that we should have hardened perimeter barriers, that means that what we have now is inadequate.

Consolidation of special nuclear materials, and complex-wide security improvements.

Also, $56 million is provided for the Defense Environmental Administration Restoration and Waste Management Program at the Department of Energy to enhance safeguards and security at nuclear and weapons cleanup sites at Savannah River in South Carolina, Hanford in Washington, Idaho, and in Tennessee.

Mr. President, you, as a new Senator, did not come and say: Senator Domenici, Senator Reid, will you give us some money for Oak Ridge, in Tennessee? You didn't do that. The Department of Energy recognized there were needs at that very important facility, important for this country, and that is why Senator Byrd has stuck in this amendment before this body, $56 million, part of which would go to Oak Ridge to make sure there is enhancement of safeguards and security at nuclear weapons cleanup sites, at this facility and these facilities.

There is $14 million for the Defense Facilities Closure Projects, the program at DOE, to enhance the safeguard and security of these sites nationwide.

The amendment also provides $25 million for the National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center in New Mexico and $25 million for the National Energy Laboratory to conduct critical infrastructure assessments at critical energy supply facilities nationwide.

The funds provided in the Byrd amendment for nuclear safety are critical for ensuring the safety of the American people in the post-9/ 11 era. I don't expect the White House to take my word for it. They should, however, listen to their own Department of Energy. I did, and the nuclear safety language in the Byrd amendment reflects what we were told, what they said was needed.

We also have some new information that has come out. We have a report that has been done, and we know there are some Nuclear Regulatory Commission employees who worry that safety training requirements for the nuclear facilities are outdated and ``leave the security of the nuclear sites . . . vulnerable to sabotage.''

Should we not go forward with this work? Yes, we should. It is extremely important that we provide this money. If there were ever an emergency need in the history of this country, it would be to take care of the nuclear facilities.

They have inadequate security guards. One security company is working at one facility and another, which has the lowest bid, at another facility. It simply is not the way to do business.

All over America we have 101 nuclear powerplants. There are workers who are questioning the safety of these facilities. A recent survey commissioned by the NRC found that a third of its employees question the agency's commitment to safety, and almost one-half say they are afraid to speak up at the NRC. Employees who are designated to protect these plants from terrorists and others are afraid to speak up for fear they will get fired or their jobs will be changed or they will be transferred.

According to the survey conducted by an outside firm, these people complained that the NRC is influenced by the nuclear industry and that its regulatory powers have atrophied. The poll was based on surveys completed by one-half of the agency's employees. The most dramatic findings came up when pollsters sorted responders by rank. Although almost 90 percent of the agency's executive-level employees answered favorably on the questions regarding the Commissions's commitment to safety, less than two-thirds of those in the midlevel ranks answered that they were afraid.

The study said those differences point to the political influence of the nuclear industry. NRC officials declined comment.

We should be very concerned about workers at the NRC who are afraid to come forward and say: We do not have proper safety standards, and we are afraid to come forward and tell our own bosses what is wrong. Why? Because they are so driven by the nuclear power industry.

It has been nearly a year since the President warned us in his last State of the Union Address how vulnerable our nuclear facilities are. But the NRC has still not taken any clear steps to secure the safety and security of our Nation's nuclear powerplants. That is not acceptable.

We know the inspector general of the NRC paints a very bleak picture of their safety and security. A few days ago, the NRC's inspector general released a survey of the employees. I have talked about that to some extent.

This amendment is a very important amendment if we are concerned--I know everyone is concerned--about the safety and security of our nuclear-generating facilities.

Senator Byrd is to be commended for asking us to support him in making sure that we have adequate resources to protect our nuclear facilities.

I repeat what I said earlier when I talked about some of the things that the Department of Energy has said is so important. If we ignore them, and if the administration ignores them, it is simply not right.

This money enhances the safety and security of nuclear and other materials. It will enhance security during the transport of nuclear weapons and materials. There is money for construction and renovation activities of the National Center for Combating Terrorism; for increased safeguards and security needs throughout the nuclear weapons complex. Funding is provided for explosive detection equipment, protective force support, hardened perimeter barriers, consolidation of special nuclear materials, and complex-wide security improvements.

I see the Senator from Washington is on the floor. There is $56 million, as I have mentioned, for the Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Program to enhance safeguards and security at nuclear and weapons cleanup sites, such as the one at Hanford in Washington. I would place it throughout our complex.

There is money for the Defense Facilities Closure Projects Program to enhance safeguards and security at these sites. This is important. If we pass the Byrd amendment for no other reason--and there are lots of other reasons to talk about--money is provided in my subcommittee of appropriations for making our nuclear weapons facilities throughout the country and our nuclear powerplants throughout our country safe and secure. They are not safe and secure now. That should be of concern for every American.