Floor Statements

I reserve the right to object.

Mr. President, today I introduce, with Senators Campbell, Domenici, Hatch, Inouye, and Murkowski, the Federal Land Recreational Visitor Protection Act of 2003.

Across our State of Alaska, Western States, and areas of the Northeast, local governments and businesses struggle each year to remove potential avalanches or recover form the disastrous effects of avalanches. The West Wide Avalanche Network calculated avalanche damage totals for the Western U.S. between $600 thousand and $800 thousand annually. These costs do not include the economic losses from town cut- off by avalanches. In our state alone, the Safety Center estimates upwards of $18 million in direct damages both to private property and economic losses over the past 5 years.

While such damage can bring hardships to many local communities, none can compare with the loss of a friend or family member. The U.S. averages 30 deaths a year from avalanches, a majority of which are results of recreational activities in unmitigated avalanche areas. Some States set aside money for rescues prior to the winter season, knowing that the resources required to clear all avalanche threats are not at hand.

This bill brings those resources to the entities that need them the most, enabling us to significantly reduce the effects of avalanches on visitors, recreational users, transportation corridors, and our local communities.

Mr. President, today I introduce, with Senators Campbell, Domenici, Hatch, Inouye, and Murkowski, the Federal Land Recreational Visitor Protection Act of 2003.

Across our State of Alaska, Western States, and areas of the Northeast, local governments and businesses struggle each year to remove potential avalanches or recover form the disastrous effects of avalanches. The West Wide Avalanche Network calculated avalanche damage totals for the Western U.S. between $600 thousand and $800 thousand annually. These costs do not include the economic losses from town cut- off by avalanches. In our state alone, the Safety Center estimates upwards of $18 million in direct damages both to private property and economic losses over the past 5 years.

While such damage can bring hardships to many local communities, none can compare with the loss of a friend or family member. The U.S. averages 30 deaths a year from avalanches, a majority of which are results of recreational activities in unmitigated avalanche areas. Some States set aside money for rescues prior to the winter season, knowing that the resources required to clear all avalanche threats are not at hand.

This bill brings those resources to the entities that need them the most, enabling us to significantly reduce the effects of avalanches on visitors, recreational users, transportation corridors, and our local communities.

Madam President, I rise today to bring to the Senate's attention the dedicated service of one of my employees and great friends, Ruth Burnett. Ruth runs my Fairbanks office and has been a fixture with her husband, Wally, in the Fairbanks community for almost 50 years. All of her children have worked in my Washington office at one time or another, but currently Ruth is the only Burnett on my staff.

April 19 is Ruth's birthday and one which commemorates a year that she will be happy to have behind her--as Queen Elizabeth once remarked, ``an annum horribulous.'' Last fall, Ruth was diagnosed with ovarian cancer, underwent surgery, and immediately began an aggressive treatment of chemotherapy. By her birthday next week she will have completed her chemotherapy protocol and will begin rebuilding her strength. Her son Shane and daughters Pam and Suzy will join Wally and Ruth in Fairbanks to celebrate her birthday.

I could go on about Ruth's courage, her ever-optimistic outlook on life, her faith, and her boundless energy, but I think an article written by her 10-year-old granddaughter Emily Combs captures Ruth quite well. Catherine and I and my entire staff who work with Ruth on a daily basis send her our warmest wishes for a happy birthday and the beginning of a great new year.

I know the Senate joins me in wishing Ruth and her family well on the occasion of her birthday and in wishing her a speedy recovery.

I ask unanimous consent to print a short story by Emily Combs.

I thank my colleague for his inquiry and would respond that we have provided billions of dollars to the Army, with knowledge that there are uncertainties remaining in our action in Iraq. Certainly I would encourage the Army to place purchase of these bandages among their highest priorities, given the indications I have seen of the lives to be saved.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from California. My only reason for standing right now is to inquire of the Senator from California if it is possible to have a time limit on her amendment.

Madam President, I do thank the Senator from California. It is our hope that we will be able to get all of the amendments that are in line now completed in time to start voting by 11:50, following the Democratic caucus. So I appreciate her courtesy. And whatever is possible to enter into a time agreement, I would like to explore that. I thank her for her courtesy.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

After conferring with the Senator from California, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from California control the time until 10 minutes of 11 and that I control the time thereafter until 5 minutes after 11.

Reserving the right to object--I would not object--I consent that Senator Boxer control the time until 5 minutes of 11 a.m., and if we extend that time, we would then control the time until 11:15.

We do not have a time agreement on Senator Bayh's amendment. He is next in order. The Senator asked to extend the time by 5 minutes, and I asked to extend by 5 minutes. That does extend the time when another amendment would be taken up until 11:15; that is correct.

The Senator from Alaska controls time at 5 minutes of 11.

I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.

Regular order.

Madam President, I say to the Senate that as a pilot, almost every pilot I know shudders over the thought of weapons that are heat-seeking missiles. I commend the Senator from Arizona for what he has done already on the commitment of trying to get a study. I do not want to leave the impression here--it is classified, but there are some commercial planes that are outfitted for some defenses against some weapons. But all you have to do is think of ``Blackhawk Down'' to know it is not that simple.

The Air Force has been working in research and development on a system. It is being tested on one plane so far. As a matter of fact, it is too large for most of our commercial aircraft. We don't know how soon it will be before we can get technology that can be fielded for civil aviation. There are several systems available that can detect the shoulder-fired weapons. However, they are not effective on all of them, and the problem is, if we are going to say that our civilian airlines are safe, to find a system that is safe.

Currently, we have some. As I said, one of these systems is deployed on commercial aircraft to try to see how effective it might be. These systems currently that are being deployed cost about a million dollars a plane. I just do not see many commercial airlines that are ready to put out $1.5 million for each plane to try to defend it with a system that is not deemed to be effective by the Air Force so far.

The Boxer amendment earmarks $30 million from within the counterterrorism fund for this project to equip our commercial airlines with a system to defeat heat-seeking missiles.

This will reduce the fund; the counterterrorism fund has been assumed to provide additional dollars for agencies within that department. One hundred and twenty million dollars is assumed in this bill to pay for the passenger screeners and other costs incurred at additionally secured airports.

We have tried to be very discrete about this fund. This is not a bill to deal with the problems of commercial airliners. This is a bill to deal with funding the war. Again, I want to say we have three wars going on, and this is not part of the war. We already have taken this up in Commerce. We have a study coming because of it. I hope that bill will pass.

I share the absolute fear that Senator Boxer reflects in terms of the problem of passenger aircraft having some defense against shoulder- fired missiles. Again, I wish we could all take a look at ``Blackhawk Down.'' There is no question they are out there and they are very much a fear in terms of terrorism. But that is what the Department of Homeland Security is for and that is why the research and development money that is in the defense bill that has already been passed this year, and that research is going on.

Madam President, I regret deeply that this is not the way to solve the problem. The problem is going to be solved with a study that we have asked for of what can be done and the funding that would follow that study. I hope it gets here in time to deal with it on the 2004 bill.

Again, I do not know anyone else who fears these as much as pilots. Passengers to a great extent understand the problem but you have to be a pilot to understand total consequences of having something that you cannot control from within the cockpit.

It is true we have these systems on high-performance airplanes. They are extremely heavy. As I said, they cost more than $1.5 million apiece.

Madam President, $1.5 million added to the cost of a high-performance airplane we are buying for war purposes, that is one thing. This does not affect that. Those systems have already been perfected under the Department of Defense, and they are adequate for our needs in defense.

I point out in the 12 years we have flown over Iraq on the so-called CAPs Program, we have not lost one plane to a heat-seeking missile to my knowledge.

That is military. We are trying to say can we put them into civilian airlines? Can we put them into commuters? What size do we need?

It is a research program. I don't know how long it would take. I was told at one time it would take up to 2 years to develop this system. But we should approach this action from the point of view of research and development first and not a mandate, and particularly not take money out of the bill as it is right now.

We do have, by the way, some of them that are applicable to the commercial system. It is dealing with a laser system. That system will be available for installation in commercial airlines by fiscal year 2006, under the current system. As I said, we are trying to accelerate research and development and ability to defend small aircraft and helicopters. There just is none available today that can do that, that are affordable.

I reluctantly agree with the chairman of our committee. I believe the language in the Cargo Security Act that was the product of Senator Boxer's efforts on the Commerce Committee should be allowed to go forward. We should study this important issue. But we should not be taking money from other homeland security efforts and directing it be spent on pilot projects for systems that have not yet been demonstrated to be effective.

We are monitoring this. I say in all sincerity, I think the Commerce Committee has Senators on both sides of the aisle who are committed to following this through, to finding the best way to defend passenger aircraft from shoulder-fired missiles.

This is not the way to do it. Reluctantly, I do move to table the amendment.

I ask unanimous consent the Boxer amendment, amendment No. 472, be set aside until the hour of 1:50, and at that time the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the amendment with no second-degree amendments in order to the amendment prior to the vote. I further ask unanimous consent there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided immediately prior to that vote.

I want to announce that will be the first vote in a sequence that will start at 1:50 p.m. this afternoon.

I now ask, if it is appropriate, and I believe it is, unanimous consent with regard to the amendment Senator Bayh will offer, that there be 20 minutes of debate under the control of the proponent, 10 minutes under control of myself, and no second-degree amendments in order prior to the vote. I further ask this amendment, when we are finished, and I shall make--I may not make a motion to table this--but a vote in relation to this amendment to be taken, if required, at the hour of 1:50, following the Boxer amendment.

I have no objection. The Senator has been waiting to speak. I am pleased to amend my request that there be 30 minutes under the control of the proponents and 10 minutes under my control.

Mr. President, I can yield to the Senator from Massachusetts or proceed now, at his request.

All right. I yield myself such time as I may use. I don't think I have a request from anybody else on this side.

I compliment the Senator from Indiana on this amendment. The House has $94 million in a smallpox vaccine fund. I have a little conflict of interest here because I am one of the few Members of the Senate who has taken the smallpox vaccination again. I have had it many times in my life. Going back, as a 19-year-old, I first got it when I was admitted to the Army.

There are some 4 million responders who could be vaccinated under this amendment, as I understand it. The figure that has been used by Senator Bayh is $85 per person. The current costs range somewhere from $20 to $284 a person, depending on who does the estimates. The administration's current estimate is that it would cost $13 per person to deal with 4 million responders. There are already funds allocated to health departments, and I believe we should take this up in the regular bill when we go to the 2004 bill.

I remind the Senate that this bill is for the period from now until September 30. We are not going to appropriate moneys beyond September 30 unless, on a bipartisan basis, we find it is necessary. So far, it has not been necessary. There are other health needs, such as TB, West Nile virus, and HIV. Now we have this terrible situation coming out of China.

There is no question that many people are interested in this subject, and I can state without any question that our leader, Dr. Frist-- Senator Frist--is very interested in that subject. So I merely state that I wish to discuss the amount of this amendment with the Senator from Indiana. I do not believe we should put up more money than is necessary for this fiscal year. We should process the moneys for beyond this fiscal year in the normal bill. I will be very pleased to discuss that with him.

I have no request for Senators to speak on this side. I hope we will have a portion, at least, of Senator Bayh's amendment in this bill for fiscal year 2003, and I reserve a sufficient time to make a motion on or in relation to this amendment, if that is necessary. I hope it will not be necessary.

I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time and listen to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. President, for fiscal year 2004, this provides $3.7 billion for biodefense, and $940 million is included for grants to States and local health departments. Those departments already have funds to implement a vaccination strategy. There is no need to add more money here for State and local health departments.

I am willing to discuss the amounts necessary for the vaccine. Again, I reserve my right to reserve sufficient time that I might make a motion on or in relation to the amendment, if necessary, when the voting starts at 1:50.

I yield back the remainder of whatever time I have. I believe the Senator from Florida is here to offer the next amendment, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I agree to the time, but I have not seen the amendment.

I do not think there will be a problem.

If the Senator is prepared to renew his request, I am prepared to agree.

Mr. President, this amendment would provide an additional $375 million for VA medical care to address the medical needs of returning veterans from the war in Iraq.

This funding would be used to meet the funding requirements of the Veterans Programs Enhancement Act of 1998 which entitles, for 2 years following participation in combat, that any active duty service member is immediately eligible to receive VA health care upon release or separation from service.

These funds will be needed at some point in the future but this amendment does not meet the requirements of this supplemental as funding that is needed immediately to address concerns related to homeland security or the war in Iraq.

And while I agree with my colleagues that VA medical care is not meeting the medical needs of veterans in a timely manner and there is much to be improved, the problem is as much systemic as it is funding. However, this funding is not needed now on the heels of the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations bill in which we appropriated some $23.9 billion for VA medical care. This funding level was an increase of some $2.6 billion over the fiscal year 2003 level and $1.15 billion over the fiscal year 2003 Budget Request. The VA medical system has all the funds that it can absorb this year and will be able to meet the medical needs of any returning veterans from the war in Iraq.

We will need additional funding for VA medical care in the future but that is the job of the fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005 appropriations bills.

I also do not want to leave my colleagues with the false impression that VA medical care is broken. Yes, there are problems with patient backlog, but I can assure you that Secretary Principi has made a commitment to fix VA medical care and has made significant strides in addressing veteran concerns, reducing patient backlog and improving VA medical care.

What is the time situation?

Mr. President, I have to agree with my colleague from Florida that additional funds will be needed in the VA medical care account in the future. That, again, is a job for the 2004/2005 bill. Those people are coming out of the service and are cared for a period of time after they leave the service and the VA picks them up at the end of that time. This $365 million is strictly for the medical needs of returning veterans from the war in Iraq.

I remind the Senate we appropriated $23.9 billion for VA medical care for fiscal year 2003. That was $2.6 billion over the amount made available in 2002 and $1.50 billion more than the President request. The VA medical system was adjusted for what we believe will be the demands on the VA for returning veterans during the period of this fiscal year.

Again, there is no question there will be additional funds to meet medical needs of returning veterans and they will be defined, I am sure, as we get into the fiscal year 2004 bill.

I do know that there are some problems in the VA, but they are not in funding. They are systemic problems that need to be addressed. I have every confidence in the current Secretary of the Veterans' Administration, Secretary Principi. He has visited with me personally. As a matter of fact, he worked here in the Senate. We know him well. He was a staff member to the Senate committee. I do believe he is sincere in telling us these funds are not needed at this juncture.

The funds that may be needed in the future must be addressed on the basis of the needs as the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan and the war on terrorism proceed.

I state categorically to the Senate I do not oppose additional funds to meet the medical needs for returning veterans. I will oppose putting them up now. Only 3 months ago we gave the VA $2.6 billion more than they asked.

The situation is a difficult one. When the Senator finishes his statement, I intend to move to table his amendment because it is not our proper process now to deal with returning veterans' needs from the VA that might exceed funds already available for fiscal year 2003.

I hope to work with the Senator from Florida. I assure him, obviously, there are many of us here on the floor of the Senate who are veterans. We would not in any way take action to deny the funds that are necessary to meet their needs, particularly these gallant people who are over there now.

No one on the floor of the Senate yet has mentioned the stories on the front pages of all papers in America today about the gallant young lady who fought the fight in Iraq, almost to her own death, and after the death of several of her colleagues. She was trained as a supply clerk. She is one of the veterans, now, that will have needs. I assure the Senate we are going to see those needs are met. Jessica Lynch is an example for all Americans, and particularly for young women. I have had several comments about her gallantry and we are all inspired by her gallantry. But the subject now is what is her need?

There is available, for this fiscal year, the balance of the $23.9 billion that this Department already has. When the time comes, I am confident that Secretary Principi will request additional funds for fiscal year 2004 as they are defined, but let's not precede that. Let's not put additional money up.

This will be money for 2003. I state categorically there is no evidence any additional money is needed in fiscal year 2003 for the Veterans' Administration.

As soon as the Senator has completed using his time, I will make a motion to table his amendment, regretfully.

Mr. President, I now move to table the amendment of the Senator from Florida. I ask unanimous consent that it be set aside to occur in the sequence that beings at 10 minutes of 2.

I am not prepared to agree to the yeas and nays at this time.

I apologize. I thought the Senator used his time.

Mr. President, I have no intention to deny that. I may wish to ask the Senator to modify his amendment at a later date, so I would like to not get the yeas and nays yet, but I will agree to them when the time comes, if necessary.

I thank the Senator. I do make the motion to table and reserve the right to decide what to do.

Under our understanding, we will have Senators from our side of the aisle offer amendments now. I see the Senator from Nevada here. He has an amendment.

Before that, if he doesn't mind, I ask unanimous consent that we return to the amendment of Senator Bayh and have it put before the Senate.

I send to the desk a modification of that amendment on behalf of Senator Bayh and his cosponsors and myself.

The amendment has now been modified according to the submission I made?

I now urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada has an amendment, and I know he is willing to accept a short time agreement. But I would ask him to offer it, have it read, and then we will see how much time may be required.

Mr. President, has it been read? Was the amendment read in full?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there be 30 minutes on each side for this amendment. I do not know how much time Senators might request, but I have been informed there may be several Senators who wish to discuss the matter, and 30 minutes on a side would be sufficient.

Does the Senator from Nevada wish to be recognized?

Mr. President, I withdraw the request for the unanimous consent, but I do believe there is going to be substantial need for time on this one.

I thank the Senator.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Ensign amendment be temporarily set aside so we might consider an amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. President, I understand there may be several Senators who wish to speak on the amendment of Senator Ensign. It would be my desire that we accommodate those people but then go back to the McCain amendment until he has finished. The Ensign amendment will be with us for a little while this afternoon.

Does the Senator from Arizona wish to enter into a time agreement?

For the interest of Senators, could we have some timeframe?

I thank the Senator.

Amendment No. 481

Parliamentary inquiry. It is my understanding there are two amendments that will be voted on consecutively now, is that correct?

I ask unanimous consent the McCain amendment be added as the third amendment to be voted on in that queue.

Mr. President, it is my understanding I have already moved to table the amendment of the Senator from California.

I am trying to work out the sequence. What is the second amendment in the queue?

I ask for the yeas and nays on the Boxer amendment.

Mr. President, this amendment takes money from the Transportation Security Administration allocation for passenger screening and other costs to be incurred for additional security at airports. There is no current technology that can fulfill this need. The systems are too heavy for most commercial aircraft. We do have underway research and development in the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security to try to develop the kind of devices that provide this protection.

This is not a wartime request. This bill is a wartime request. We do not want to see the Senate vote amendments that would earmark the homeland security moneys in this bill. I have opposed them before and the Senate has voted against this action before. I have previously made a motion to table.

If it is 30 seconds, I don't object, but the 30 seconds have a way of going on and on. Not the Senator's 30, but with all due respect.

No objection to 30 seconds on each side.

Thirty seconds on each side.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, the next order of business is the amendment of the Senator from Florida, Mr. Graham.

I see my friend is here. Maybe he would like to announce, we have reached agreement to modify his amendment. We will put it in the managers' package because it is being withdrawn. We have reached accommodation with the Senator from Florida, after further conversation with the VA administration.

I yield to my friend for a minute if he would like.

Madam President, I thank the Senator. It is the proper thing to do.

I yield now to the Senator from Nevada.

Amendment No. 488 Withdrawn

Madam President, we still have another amendment to vote

on in the queue according to previous agreement.

I ask for the yeas and nays on the McCain amendment.

This is an up-or-down vote.

Madam President, the Senator from Iowa has expressed opposition to this amendment. I do express opposition to it myself. I would like to take the balance of the time to tell the Senate we are working to try to finish the bill. This is the last of the amendments that is part of this package. We will struggle to put together another series of amendments to vote on no later than 4 o'clock. We have, for very strong reasons, at least one Member and others who requested we try to finish this bill as early as possible today. I urge Senators to contact us to see if there are any further amendments we might work out and not have to vote. But there will be some votes probably by 4:30.

I am finished.

I took the time in opposition. I thought I was entitled to take the time in opposition. As manager, I oppose the amendment. I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute on the other side.

I move to reconsider the vote.

With due respect, we are still negotiating with several people, including Senator Kohl. I urge not putting that amendment in yet. If we are going to make the deadlines some want to meet, we will have to work some amendments out.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

May I inquire if the Senator is willing to have a time agreement for his amendment?

I asked if the Senator would be willing to discuss a time agreement on his amendment?

The custom, as the Senator from Nevada says, is 20 minutes on your side, 10 minutes on this side on amendments we didn't intend to work out, with the understanding the vote will be delayed.

I ask unanimous consent there be 30 minutes, 20 minutes for the Senator from Louisiana and 10 minutes under my control, and with the vote to occur at a time to be specified after consultation with my friend from Nevada.

No second-degree amendments.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I remind Senators we are going to come up on a series of votes soon. This bill is a bill the President asked us to move quickly on to provide moneys for the ongoing events in Iraq and Afghanistan and the war on terrorism. We are now being besieged by amendments for homeland security. As a matter of fact, we have been besieged by homeland security amendments as long as I can remember.

The problem is, apparently there is an assumption here on the floor that the Federal Government is responsible for every single dime spent by any city or county or State in the interest of security. I always thought this was a mutual security society, and the cities and States and counties did what all they could do, and we would follow up and do the balance. Now it seems we are getting to the point where we are asked to provide each city, each State, each county with the full cost, not only of their systems for security against terrorism, but for their overtime.

I again ask the Senate, how much overtime are the people out in the desert in Iraq getting? How much overtime are the people right here on the floor, who are going to be working late tonight, getting? And they are going to be working over the weekend. It is high time people realized, I will not support financing every city, every town, every county, every State for every dime they say they need for homeland security. I think we should wake up. There is just so much that can be put on the Federal taxpayer.

We are running an enormous deficit. On the one hand, my colleagues on that side of the aisle are beating on this President every day for a deficit, yet there isn't one amendment here that doesn't go billions above the request the President made. What for? For war. Not for homeland security. There is a very small amount for homeland security. It was associated with moneys that were necessary to prosecute the war.

Now we are going to the total concept of homeland security, whatever it may be. Politically it may be good. I expect to read about these in 2004 in every single spot combating anyone over here who voted with me to table these amendments. I hope the American public wakes up to what is going on. I don't think the average person working for wages expects their money they pay into the Treasury is going to be used to pay overtime money in every city, every State, every village in this country.

When I inquired about several of these amounts, I was told they were to pay overtime. We have not accepted those amendments. We will continue to oppose them. Any campaign I hear about in 2004 where any of our people are attacked for votes made here, I will pay my own expense and go defend them. I will defend them and tell the American public what is right.

Everyone ought to be part of homeland security. There ought to be volunteerism. There should be people paid by the cities, by the counties, by the States, and by the Federal Government. We are providing the money for the Federal people. This bill is full of money to pay those who are in Federal employment to increase the level of homeland security. But what we are hearing now is that every city wants more. Every State wants more. It is time we realize we ought to have a debate about this in terms of what is the Federal policy.

I remember we used to have debates about federalism and what it means. It doesn't mean the Federal taxpayer pays every dime everyone wants in order to get ready for a potential terrorist attack. I have said this before. I had one mayor from a very small village in my State ask me to help him to get a new fire truck for homeland security. When I looked into it, I found out they didn't have a fire station. As a matter of fact, most of the roads weren't paved. This concept that everybody is going to get part of the money we put up for homeland security, I believe, is wrong.

As we vote, I hope the Members on my side stand up and be counted in terms of protecting this bill that the President wants. I keep hearing we have a war going on. Well, I see three wars out there, and I don't know how long any one of them is going to go.

The President deserves our support. Our people in uniform deserve our support, and the people fighting in Iraq are not the primary concern of homeland security. This bill is. This is a bill for supplemental assistance for national defense and a very small amount

for homeland defense--$4.6 billion out of almost $78 billion. Yet we are spending most of our time on the floor debating adding to the $4.6 billion. I hope that does not go on much longer. As a matter of fact, it isn't going to go on much longer because I am not going to continue to accept amendments that are directed toward just beefing up homeland security for political purposes. I accepted the amendment of the Senator from Florida when he cut it down to five-sevenths of what he wanted, and we fund it after the balance of this year.

PFC Jessica Lynch

This gets to the point where I would like to talk about something else for a minute. I mentioned before today that I read in this morning's paper the tremendous story of one of our brave young soldiers, PFC Jessica Lynch. I asked my staff to look up more about her.

As we all know from reading the papers, she is 19 years old. She is a supply clerk with the Army's 507th Ordnance Maintenance Company supporting the 3rd Infantry Division advancing toward Baghdad. I am sure Senator Byrd knows that PFC Lynch is from Palestine, WV. I know he joins me in recognizing this brave young woman.

I remember so well standing on the floor of the Senate years ago, when we had the draft, urging that we extend the draft so it covered everybody who was 19, male and female. That was defeated. People thought that young women should not be in combat at all. This young woman shows what happens when a brave, young American woman is in combat.

She was taken captive, as we all know, by Iraqi forces on March 23, after her company was ambushed near the southern city of Nasiriyah. She was rescued Tuesday from an Iraqi hospital after 8 days in captivity. It was obvious that the hotel had been used as a military command post. She suffered two broken legs, a broken arm, and at least one gunshot wound during her ordeal. They found her at her position and the magazine on her gun was empty. Most of the people in her detail had been killed. She survived.

I think this is a tremendous example of the young people who are involved in this war. She is the first POW to be rescued since World War II, Mr. President. I believe it is something I would like the Senate to think about for a moment. We commend the outstanding work of our Special Forces and the other units involved in the joint operation, including Marines and Army Rangers, who rescued this young woman. I think their efforts are a demonstration of our military's commitment to never leave a soldier behind.

We have invested a great deal in the Special Forces. Just recently, I flew to Tampa and visited with Special Forces Command. We will continue to rely on their expertise. This recent success is proof that our investment is paying dividends in saving American lives, and it demonstrates the critical need of Congress to continue to support America's Special Forces and to support this bill and get this bill to the President as soon as possible.

Above all, I want to commend Jessica Lynch for her commitment to this country, her patriotism, her courage, and to thank her for her outstanding service.

I yield the floor.

Regular order.

Amendment No. 494

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, we have asked Members to stay who have amendments they might wish to consider. If the Senator from Nevada is prepared, we could go through some of those and see what the time constraints may be in getting the bill finished tonight.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I now yield to the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when Senator Schumer offers his first-degree amendment regarding first responders, upon the reporting of the amendment it be set aside and Senator Specter be recognized to offer a first-degree amendment on the same subject; that the amendments be debated concurrently with a total of 30 minutes of debate to be controlled by Senator Schumer and Senator Specter-- actually, I asked my colleague to yield me 5 of those minutes--or their designees, and that no amendment be in order to either amendment prior to a vote in relation to each amendment; upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Specter amendment to be followed immediately by a vote in relation to the Schumer amendment.

Mr. President, we are doing everything we can. I thought we were going to finish by 5:30 but we are having votes that we might otherwise not have had, if we proceeded with the agreements we had previously. But we are doing our best to be finished. My feeling is this vote will take place at about 7:30, between 7:30 and 7:35. After that, we are inquiring to see how many more votes. There are two votes, actually.

If it would be in order, I ask the second vote be 10 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that the second vote on this sequence to come be 10 minutes in length.

We will do everything we can to shorten the time.

We can't do it because we are still reviewing the managers' package.

Senator, I don't think the Schumer amendment is there yet.

Mr. SCHUMER addressed the Chair.

Mr. President, I have asked for a portion of the time of the Senator from Pennsylvania because we had worked to try to reach an agreement between the two amendments so that they would be put together and have an amendment we could adopt. We are unable to do that.

I am compelled to state I will oppose the first-degree amendment of Senator Schumer. It is a situation where, as far as I am concerned, there is ample money in the House bill, if we are compelled to raise the amount that is in our bill. But it is the kind of situation where we prefer to have this amendment not be adopted now, so we can find a way to work the matter out with the House.

We have $100 million in the bill. The Schumer amendment, as I understand it, as drafted, now adds $600 million. I oppose going to that height. That would, in effect, take it to the level of the House. And the administration opposes the level in the House bill.

Mr. SCHUMER addressed the Chair.

Mr. President, will the Senator allow me to interrupt for a problem that has come up.

The problem has come up in connection with the unanimous consent agreement. There was no time allocated to those who might want to oppose the Specter amendment. And, as I understand it, a Senator on the Democratic side wishes to oppose the Specter amendment. In fairness, I ask unanimous consent she be given 5 minutes to speak; and if it raises additional items the Senator has not spoken to that he wishes to speak to, I would allocate an additional 5 minutes to Senator Specter, so there would be a comment back and forth. All right. I make that request.

I thank the Senator from New York.

How much time remains, Mr. President?

Mr. President, I want to make clear what I stated before. I do support the Specter amendment. By virtue of the approach the Senator from Pennsylvania has enunciated, we end up with more moneys in this area of great concern, but we increase the amount of money in the bill by $200 million. There was already $100 million in the committee-reported bill.

I do accept Senator Specter's approach to this. I am hopeful we can convince the House to recognize that this is the proper way to allocate the money the President requested and convince them that the amount we have in this bill is sufficient to meet the objectives we all seek to attain.

I urge Senators to vote for the Specter amendment. Again, reluctantly, I state I am opposed to the amendment offered by the Senator from New York and his colleagues.

Mr. President, I move to table that amendment.

Mr. President, I would like to be able to discuss what we are going to do now. We have the managers' package that has some problems. We have to decide how to get out of it. It is my suggestion that we listen to the Senator from Arizona on some of the objections he has to items in the managers' package and see what we can do after the Senator explains his position.

How long would the Senator like to talk?

I ask unanimous consent we listen to Senator McCain for 10 minutes and see what objections we can possibly remedy with the problems he has with the managers' package.

I ask unanimous consent to be recognized when he has finished.

Mr. President, I have great respect for the Senator from Arizona. He provides really a service to the Senate to make us think about these issues. I have thought about all of these. In fact, a dozen Senators on either side are already carrying a grudge because they didn't get their amendment through the process to even get to the Senator from Arizona because they were rejected by someone in the committee of jurisdiction.

Let me say to the Senator, for instance, the $10 million for the South Pole is not an add-on. We took that money off an account and put it in there because they had a disastrous winter. This is the last supplemental for this year, as far as we know. Only another tragedy and the war could bring us to another supplemental. We are going into regular bills after this bill. We will have nights such as this on some of them, probably.

The money for the Department of Energy was identified by several Members, and that is security at nuclear facilities. It was debated on the floor. It was raised here and debated. I asked them to put it into the package because it was my opinion that it was, frankly, raising the bill a little too much, and I didn't want it to look as if I was accepting those amendments. There are a few others that we accepted that go in the bill. As you say, there are times that it is possible to reduce amendments voted on the floor in conference; but when the Senate votes overwhelmingly for an amendment on the floor, it is difficult to deal with in the House--if the House doesn't want to put the full amount up and to reduce it, or negotiate it.

We have several amendments. Senator Kohl's amendment, for instance. He has been courteous in allowing us to put that amendment--it will pass, by the way; I know it will pass. I will tell the Senate that there is not an amendment in this managers' package that I believe would pass the Senate if raised individually.

Why do we have a managers' package? Because we have cleared each amendment with the committee of jurisdiction, cleared by the majority and minority on the subcommittee involved in our Appropriations Committee, and cleared by Senator Byrd and myself, and we have cleared them or offered them to Senator McCain and to Senator Reid, or whoever wants to look at the package can look at it. It is a package of convenience.

By putting these amendments together on items we think would pass anyway, we might be able to go home at a decent hour tonight. I might be able to keep my commitment to the Senator from Hawaii to be in Hawaii with him when he gets his great honor on Saturday. That may not be possible because I have a job and I will stay until we do it.

It is also a problem that a couple of the Senators have already departed, and they are relying on us to put these in the package because they had other problems with family, and they are not here now. I can think of three of them who are gone who have amendments in here. We passed judgment on a collective basis. It hasn't just been myself, or myself and my colleague, or our staffs. Everybody in the system is involved in clearing a bill, including the Senator from Arizona who knows I cleared several with him as chairman of the Commerce Committee.

All I say is, I am prepared to proceed in any way that the Senate wishes to proceed with the amendments. There are 25 amendments in this package. They call it the first package. Several are being cleared that will go in this. There is a group of, I think, six that is still out there being cleared. Of these, Senator McCain has agreed with 11 out of the 25. He agrees to modify four others that were not in my accounting. So we can proceed with those on a consent basis and see if the Senator wants to call up the amendments. We are going to be here for a long time if we do that, but in fairness I don't have the ability to withdraw these and say the Senators cannot offer them. They allowed us to use them in the package mechanism so we could save time for the Senate. It is obviously not going to do that. I am prepared, however, as soon as I get the balance of this, to offer them all and let the Senator object and then we will move them one at a time.

I yield to my friend.

If we finish this Tuesday, the bill cannot be finished by next weekend because we have to have time for both Houses to prepare a chart on a bill such as this, to see what our differences are, so we can go into conference and deal with the differences. If we pass this bill Tuesday, the House will pass it Tuesday or Wednesday, and we will not be able to get it finished by a week from Friday.

Yes, sir.

In the conference on the supplemental, following the procedures the Senator from West Virginia and I have used in the past, we will have the full committee.

Yes.

Mr. President, my great friend from West Virginia today told me of the difficult problems he has and wanted to leave by 5:30. I thought we might make that. Again I find myself apologizing to my friend twice in 2 days.

I thought we would finish the bill in time for the Senator to be with his wife.

I thank the Senator.

Will the Senator yield?

No, I will wait.

Mr. President, I am grateful to the Senator from Arizona for that suggestion. I point out to him before we proceed--and we will proceed; I will ask Senator Kohl to be prepared to offer his amendment, and following that we will offer the managers' amendment--but just this afternoon, I was notified that travel and transportation for members of the armed services was not authorized in some circumstances. One of these amendments authorizes transportation of families of the people who have been injured to Germany, or wherever they are, so they can see their loved ones. They did not have that authority. An amendment in this bill will do that.

They also do not have the money and authorization to buy, for a young person injured and coming back not on a

gurney, but needs civilian clothes, something different to wear other than a military uniform because of the injury--we have a provision in here for the purchase of civilian attire for medical evacuation of members of the Armed Forces. Those came to me at 6 o'clock. I think they are relevant to this bill, one of the six the Senator has not seen yet. There are a lot that came up.

I suggest we proceed. The managers' package concept replaces the old litany of amendments that were offered and offered and offered. I remember one time we were here 40 hours. That is what you get into when you do not have a managers' package.

Is Senator Kohl here?

Will the Chair lay before the Senate Senator Kohl's amendment?

Amendment No. 455

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 455.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the consideration of Senator Kohl's amendment, the amendments that I shall offer en bloc be considered en bloc, and adopted en bloc as a managers' package.

I withdraw the request.

I intend to renew the request. This is a unanimous consent that the amendments we have here in the managers' package be considered en bloc following the vote on or in relation to the amendment offered by Senator Kohl.

Mr. President, I don't know of anyone on our side who asked for time on the amendment. I believe the Senator has explained it. I ask unanimous consent that when we start consideration of this vote, there be no further amendments in order, and that immediately following the vote on the managers' package, we go to third reading of this bill, and we have a procedure arranged so that we would hold this bill at the desk until the House bill arrived and it would automatically be married to the House bill and sent to conference as soon as possible.

Mr. President, the Senator's amendment would change the procedure for every Department or Agency in the Federal Government in terms of the concept of what must be published in the Federal Register. It also has an exception for withholding publication of any document that is classified.

But in the period of time we are in right now, I don't have time to research this in terms of what does this do to the Department of Defense, what does it do to the CIA, what does it do to the FBI, what does it do to every other organization of the country. I have tried to clear this. There is a great deal of what has been eliminated, but I, too, am a member of this Governmental Affairs Committee, and I could not ever remember taking it up in the Governmental Affairs Committee. I understand what it is, but I don't understand its impact on the agencies I am supposed to protect in terms of the Department of Defense.

I cannot in good faith accept that.

I renew my request that following the vote on the managers' package, no further votes be in order and we proceed immediately to third reading under the proceedings as outlined, which will be outlined in fuller detail at that time, but it will mean that will be the last vote of the day and we will not vote past taking the bill to third reading.

The Kohl amendment comes first.

We will have a dialog here about the debt ceiling amendment, and I have given my word to the Senator from West Virginia that we would withdraw the amendment. I want to have that dialog. That can take place after the vote. I assured everyone that will be handled in a proper way. I have been asked to make a record of why we did not proceed with the debt ceiling amendment, and I would like to do it at that time.

I renew my request.

The parliamentary situation is: We will vote on the Kohl amendment, we will vote then on the managers' package, and then the bill will go to third reading under the outline we provided at that time, and there be no further votes or amendments in order to this bill.

I would say there are amendments at the desk that have been modified or agreed to and put into the managers' package. So I ask that those be withdrawn. I believe all the Members involved know what has been done on those amendments. I ask that they be withdrawn and-- there are four of them.

I will withdraw the other amendment when we have the dialog after the vote.

I ask for the yeas and nays on the Kohl amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, a series of amendments. I ask that these amendments be considered en bloc and they be adopted en bloc by one rollcall vote.

I withdraw that. Is it possible we might have a voice vote? I will be happy to have a voice vote.

I renew the request that the managers' package at the desk be considered en bloc and adopted en bloc. Does the Senator want a rollcall vote? Without a rollcall vote.

I call the attention of the clerk to the fact that there are several original amendments in that package, and they will be properly handled.

It just means they were not numbered. We took out some amendments and put a new one in its place, but we did not make it a substitute for the amendment that is in place.

I thank all Members for their patience and courtesy. And as the leader said, this is the last vote. We will handle the problem of moving this matter to third reading after this vote. There will be no further votes tonight. Have we adopted the managers' amendment?

Mr. President, according to the Treasury Department, the statutory limit on the national debt needs to be raised. The amendment I offered yesterday would have increased the debt limit so as to avoid the risk of a default. I understand the concerns that have been raised about this amendment by the other side, and I am willing to withdraw the amendment if the majority can be assured that the Senate will pass a freestanding bill to increase the debt limit with the cooperation of the minority and without unnecessary delay, and there will be no necessity to file cloture to bring this bill to a vote. I know the distinguished Democratic whip has discussed this with the Democratic leader and others, and I would ask if he is able to give those assurances at this time.

I appreciate the cooperation of the Democratic whip, and given his assurances, I withdraw my amendment dealing with the debt ceiling.

Do we have the yeas and nays on final passage? I am too tired. We are going to third reading. We are finished. I am going to do that right now. We are done.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the passage of S. 762, the bill be held at the desk; provided further that when the Senate receives the House companion bill to S. 762, the Senate proceed to its consideration, all after the enacting clause be stricken, the text of S. 762, as amended, be inserted in lieu thereof; provided further the bill then be read for a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the Senate then insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate; finally, I ask unanimous consent that passage of S. 762 be vitiated and it be placed back on the calendar at that time and that the conferees be the entire Appropriations Committee.

Parliamentary inquiry: There is no further business to be had on that bill; right?

Good night, ladies and gentlemen.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the chairman and ranking member, with the concurrence of both leaders, to be permitted to make technical and conforming changes as necessary to the supplemental appropriations bill. The bill was put together pretty quickly, and we want to do it carefully. We have cleared this with both leaders and with both sides of the aisle.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be allowed to conduct a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 3, 2003. The purpose of this hearing will be to review the reauthorization of child nutrition programs.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 3, 2003, at 10 a.m., to conduct an oversight hearing on ``The Federal Reserve Board Proposal on Check Truncation.''

The committee will also vote on the nominations of Mr. Alfred Plamann, of California, to be a member of the Board of Directors of the National Consumer Cooperative Bank; Mr. Thomas Waters Grant, of New York, to be a director of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation; Mr. Noe Hinojosa, Jr., of Texas, to be a director of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation; and Mr. William Robert Timken, Jr., of Ohio, to be a director of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Thursday, April 3, 2003, at 9:15 a.m., to hear testimony on the Purchasing Health Care Services in a Competitive Environment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 3, 2003 at 10 a.m. to hold a hearing on Western Hemisphere Nominations.

Nominees: Mr. Lino Gutierrez to be Ambassador to Argentina; Mr. James Foley to be Ambassador to Haiti; and Mr. Roland W. Bullen to be Ambassador to Guyana.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 3, 2003, at 2:30 p.m., to hold a hearing on NATO enlargement.

Witnesses: Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia--Dr. F. Stephen Larrabee, Senior Staff Member, RAND, Arlington, VA; Bulgaria and Romania--Mr. Janusz Bugajski, Director, Eastern Europe Project, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, DC; and Slovakia and Slovenia-- Dr. Jeff Simon, Senior Fellow, National Defense University, Washington,

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, April 3, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., in SD 226.

I. Nominations: Edward C. Prado to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit; Richard D. Bennett to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Maryland; Dee D. Drell to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Louisiana; J. Leon Holmes to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas; Susan G. Braden to be Judge for the Court of Federal Claims; Charles F. Lettow to be Judge for the Court of Federal Claims; Raul David Bejarano to be U.S. Marshall for the Southern District of California; and Allen Garber to be U.S. Marshall for the District of Minnesota.

II. Bills: S. 274 Class Action Fairness Act of 2003 and S. 731 Secure Authentication Feature and Enhanced Identification Defense Act of 2003 (``SAFE ID Act'').

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Airland of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 3, 2003, at 2:30 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force aviation and air-launched weapons programs, in review of the Defense authorization request for fiscal year 2004 and the future years defense program.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, before we start this supplemental, these are difficult times so I will take this opportunity to recognize all of those in uniform who are serving our country both at home and abroad during these wars, the war against terrorism, the war in Afghanistan, and the war in Iraq. I especially want to ask the Senate to keep in mind those who have given their lives in the defense of our country and in our opposition to these terrible scourges that beset us now.

We do have a war going on, and the President, as our Commander in Chief, has asked for our help to provide vitally needed funds in the most expeditious manner possible. I have spoken to each of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and they tell me that their money will start running out. For most of them, that will start in May. For the Navy, it will start in June. In any event, the only way to ensure these funds will be available and get to the services in time to meet their needs is to send this bill to the President before we leave Washington for the usual Easter recess. If we do not have it done before then, I am going to do my best to insist we stay here and forego the recess until we get this bill done. I believe that will not be necessary, and so far I have seen good bipartisan support to meet the objective of getting this bill to the President so that funds will be available to our troops. I hope that attitude will continue on the floor.

The House Appropriations Committee completed its work on the version of this bill yesterday. They will begin consideration on the floor very soon. We all know that they act first on a bill of this type so we will have to wait. It is my hope I can ask the Senate to get this bill to third reading by no later than tomorrow evening so it will be ready and our staffs can work over this next weekend to get ready for a conference. I will propose that the Senate actually take this bill to the point where it is actually sent to conference as soon as the House has passed its bill so we can go to conference early next week. It is my sincere hope the Senate and the House will act together to get this bill, as I said, to the President as quickly as possible.

The President of the United States asked for $74.7 billion in new budget authority in the supplemental request he sent to us. The bill before us provides $76.7 billion in new authority. It also contains an aviation relief portion that will provide both new budget authority and other benefits. The budget authority is $2.025 billion, and other benefits are $1.475 billion. The total for this bill, including the airline relief portion, in both new budget authority and other benefits then totals $78.7 billion.

This supplemental responds to the immediate needs of the troops in the field, provides important international assistance to our allies, and tries to deal with the most vital homeland security and defense needs facing our Nation.

We fully funded the President's request of $62.6 billion for defense efforts in prosecuting the war with Iraq. These funds will be used to conduct military operations in Iraq, support our coalition partners, and replenish crucial munition and other vital military procurement funds that have already been consumed in getting our troops to the war zones. The President's request included $30.3 billion for costs that were already committed or incurred. The sealift, the airlift, and equipping our combat forces has come at great expense.

Last week in our hearing with Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, Senator Byrd and others raised concerns with respect to the Department's request that these funds be appropriated to what we call the Defense Emergency Response Fund.

We will hear the acronym DERF on the floor. That means Defense Emergency Response Fund. In developing the bill before the Senate, Senator Byrd, Senator Inouye, and I have tried to strike a proper balance between congressional oversight and providing the Department with the necessary flexibility to prosecute the ongoing war in Iraq. Senator Byrd, I am sure, will speak for himself with regard to the flexibility in this bill. There is some flexibility for the President.

In this bill we provided $11 billion to the Defense Department in the Defense Emergency Response Fund. It can be spent in response to the Commander in Chief's directions. It is an account to give them the enhanced flexibility they need to manage the conduct of the war. The House has provided a larger amount. I am sure we will meet in conference to decide what is the proper amount of flexibility necessary for the present Department of Defense.

We also are proposing that the great majority of the defense funds, totaling nearly $51.5 billion, be appropriated into specific accounts for the services so that wherever possible they meet the needs directly. We have provided $35 billion for operation and maintenance activities; $13.7 billion for military personnel to maintain critical operation capability and readiness; and $3.7 billion to replenish munitions expended in combat operations.

We have also included $500 million for the Defense Health Program to provide adequate care for both Active and military Reserve personnel and their families.

There is another $550 million for fuel costs and $489 million for the Department's efforts to combat the oil well fires started by the Iraqi forces so far.

This bill appropriates $1.7 billion to cover costs associated with classified activities undertaken in Iraq and in the global war on terrorism.

We have also responded to the President's full request for $7.8 billion for international relief and recovery efforts in Iraq, international support for allies in the region, and other critical needs to continue the fight on global terrorism. The committee's recommendation includes $2.4 billion for the Iraqi relief and reconstruction fund. That is over $2 billion for the Foreign Military Financing Program, which we call FMF. The bill also provides up to $9 billion in loan guarantees to Israel, $300 million in assistance to Egypt, and $1 billion in assistance for Turkey. It includes the request for $150 million for the U.S. emergency fund for complex foreign crises, a new account that enables a quick response to unforeseen global challenges.

Finally, the bill reimburses fiscal year 2003 foreign assistance accounts that Congress authorized the President to borrow from to pre- position humanitarian assistance for Iraq.

The bill also reflects the commitment of Congress to address homeland defense requirements by providing $4.6 billion, roughly $400 million above the President's request, for key homeland security requirements.

We have provided the President's request of $2 billion for the Office of Domestic Preparedness to assist State and local governments in federally coordinated terrorism readiness and other security enhancements during this time of heightened threats.

The committee recommendation also included $1.1 billion for the Department of Homeland Security for counterterrorist activities. Secretary Ridge has given the flexibility in this account to allocate funds both within and outside the Department of Homeland Security for terrorism preparedness and response.

The bill also includes $580 million for the Coast Guard operations to enhance the protection of our ports and borders and in support of the Department of Defense activities in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Liberty Shield. We have also supported the recommendation of $34 million to provide compensation to individuals who have sustained injuries due to our smallpox vaccination program.

As I mentioned earlier, the bill includes a package of targeted relief to address the dire situation facing the aviation industry.

I highlight the main provision in that package and I will speak at greater length later. In this bill is a total of

$2.9 billion in relief for air carriers, the airlines. Specifically, the bill suspends the fee that both passengers and carriers pay for the 6 months of the balance of this current fiscal year. It will suspend this fee that is currently charged on the ticket taxes, but it is actually currently being borne by the industry because the cost of flying is so low due to competitive factors of the economy. It also provides $1 billion to reimburse the carriers for the costs incurred with the new security mandates of the Transportation Security Administration imposed following the terrorist attacks on September 11. These were unfunded mandates, and in this bill we fund those that have been completed since September 11 until the end of this fiscal year.

The bill extends for 1 year the war risk provisions included in our bill in previous years. Specifically, we passed last November a bill to establish the Department of Homeland Security or specific insurance provisions for war risk in that bill. The result of this provision in this bill is we anticipate will save the airlines about $800 million.

The package also includes $375 million to address security-related costs at our airports. I congratulate my colleague from Washington for bringing up this issue. Those are also unfunded mandates. They were funds expended by the airports to meet the requirements of the Transportation Security Administration, and the funds in this bill should reimburse airports for security readiness operating expenses and provide additional funding for the modification of airports necessary to the installation of bomb detection equipment for the balance of the fiscal year.

Finally, this bill also extends unemployment benefits for an additional 26 weeks for qualifying aviation workers who have lost their jobs because of the downturn in the economy that affected the airlines.

I see my friend is here. I don't want to speak too long, but I believe this bill is very important. There is no question we need the funds to sustain our vital military operations around the world. There are really three wars still going on: The war against terrorism, the war in Afghanistan, and the war in Iraq. This is a very serious problem for those overseas and for those who manage our Department of Defense. I think the worry over where funds are coming from to meet the increasing demands in the three different wars is pressing upon our military commanders and civilians in charge of the Department of Defense.

It is my hope the Senate will be considerate in the number of amendments that are offered and the issues before the Senate.

I thank the former chairman from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, for the insight and advice he has given to me. I do not represent that this bill reflects entirely his point of view, but he has been a partner, once again, in working with me as I tried to work with him. I do think he has been very instrumental in seeing to it that this bill is before the Senate at this time.

I have stated to others, and I say it again publicly, one of the reasons I am trying to get through this bill tomorrow night is I hope to be with my good friend from Hawaii when he receives the recognition he deserves in his home State on Saturday.

I recommend the bill to the full Senate. I urge Senators to come forward and identify their amendments so we can see what we can work out, if there are subjects that can be worked out. I admit readily there may be some items we have not addressed in this bill so far. I would very much like to do that.

I do hope as the Senate proceeds with this bill, we keep in mind the fact that within instantaneous communication, I am informed that some of the forces that are overseas in both Afghanistan and in the Iraqi war watch us almost as much as we watch them. This is one bill they are going to watch. They are very astute young people. They understand this country. They understand the risks they are taking. They understand in particular they want this country's economy to be healthy when they come back.

We must keep in mind what we are doing, continuing the expenditures that are extraordinary expenses brought upon this country by the events of September 11. During this period, I will recite some of those amounts that we put forward already.

There has been a tremendous strain on our economy because of these three different types of wars, but they are wars that I personally believe we must fight. We must provide those who are fighting those wars everything they need to be successful and to be safe.

I recommend this bill to the full Senate and hope we will finish it by tomorrow night.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I want the Senate to be on notice--this is an issue we have to face. I send an amendment to the desk.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be temporarily set aside. I will discuss it soon. I have another amendment at the desk.

Madam President, there is a typing error in the first line of amendment No. 436. It should be ``chapter 3,'' and it appears ``chapter 2.'' I ask that the typing error be amended.

Madam President, I raise this subject of combat pay, or pay for imminent danger. Having received such combat pay in World War II, I have been interested in this issue. During the gulf war in 1991, when combat pay was $110 a month, we raised that to $150 a month. Right after that war, the imminent danger pay was made permanent at $150. It has gone up 40 percent since 1991. We suggest it go up 50 percent to $225 a month. With regard to family separation and allowance, it is currently $100. We recommend it go up 100 percent to $200.

That is an expensive proposition. The cost of this for the balance of the year is $375 million, and the cost for a full year will be $650 million. This is a reachback amendment. It covers everyone from the time they were exposed to imminent danger. For family separation, it is the same, from the time they were separated.

I know there is a controversy, and I have had a little discussion with the Senator from Illinois. As I told the Senator, there are probably--I believe this is the case--more families in Alaska connected with the military than any other State in the Union, as the current occupant of the chair knows.

On the other hand, the moneys we have to have for modernization, for munitions, and for many other items come out of the same account. This is the operations and maintenance account. This bill already contains a massive amount, $30.3 billion, to replace in that account what has already been spent in mobilizing the military, including, by the way, the amount that has been spent so far for paying imminent danger pay at the rate of $150 a month. It is an issue we should address, but we ought to keep in mind that what is going to happen after this war is this will become permanent. It is a new base and it is a staggering increase in cost for personnel. I fully support it. As a matter of fact, I wish I could say we have nothing but billionaires in this country, and we could pay these people what they really deserve for being overseas, what their families really deserve when one or both parents are overseas.

As a practical matter, there has to be a reasonable balance in what we are doing. This subject can be reviewed by the Armed Services Committee later. We have the 2004 bill coming, and we can have this discussion again. I believe we ought to take this action and be as reasonable as possible in doing it.

I know there is a difference of opinion. I hope the Senate will agree to this amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Warner be added as an original cosponsor to this amendment.

Madam President, I ask the distinguished Senator of the Armed Services Committee to review it. I raised this at one of the first hearings we had before the Appropriations Committee. I raised the question of what to do about imminent danger special pay. The Department has not given us a recommendation yet. I think they have other things in mind right now, but we have in mind the families in particular.

I spent some time with families in Alaska this last weekend, an enormous number of military families. Not one of them raised the question of imminent danger pay. Not one of them raised the question of their family separation pay. I was with literally 200 or 300 members of the armed services over the weekend at a special recognition in Fairbanks, AK, for the members who serve in the armed services.

I think this is the right thing to do, and I think this is the right time to do it, but I hope the Senate will do it right and not just have a figure that is pulled out of the air. These are figures that represent an increase, again, of 50 percent for imminent danger pay and a 100-percent increase for the family allowances on a monthly basis. I think that is very reasonable under the circumstances.

If there are additional amounts that should be provided, I welcome the Department of Defense so informing me. I do believe the Senate ought to agree with it without debate. As I said, if the Armed Services Committee and our Appropriations Committee believe more is needed as we go on, if this war goes on, God forbid, into fiscal year 2004, then we should address it.

Again, I say, in all sincerity, we are doing a lot of things for our military families, and I think they are all wonderful. When I was overseas, I did not talk to my family for over 18 months. Now a military person can call his or her family every day, thanks to Senator McCain. They have absolute assurance of instant communication whenever they can get to a phone.

I remember seeing one young man who was wounded, and the embedded journalist had a satellite phone. He asked: Would you like to call home and tell them you are all right? And we all watched him call his family. That is the wonder of technology.

These are the realities of money, and our job is to manage the money of the United States. The first amendment I put in was to raise the debt ceiling of the United States because of what we have had to do since September 11. I want people to think about--and Senators should think about--the hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money we have spent so far because of September 11.

Let's stay reasonable as we continue to increase that spending. We have to pass that amendment. We are going to have to raise the debt ceiling of the United States. Other people want to pick a figure out of the air. I say let's raise it by the amount of what we have already authorized to be spent in these three wars and homeland security. That seems to me to be reasonable. I will debate that one later, but right now I think this is a reasonable request in the Senate: Increase the imminent danger pay by 50 percent, increase the overseas allowance for families and the family separation allowance by 100 percent. I hope the Senate will support this move. It is a reasonable thing to do.

I call on the Department of Defense to come up with some basic studies as to what is necessary. It may be that portions of that family separation allowance should be bifurcated. These are all volunteers now. In the past, we went to war with draftees. Most of us did not have families. During World War II, it was a rare thing to meet somebody who was a married person. Now, practically all of them are married. As a matter of fact, in some instances, such as the families I visited over the weekend, I remember distinctly talking to three different couples who are both in the armed services. When they go overseas, they get two family separation allowances, and necessarily so. This may not be enough in some of these circumstances, but I think it is the duty of the Department of Defense to come up with a recommendation for a permanent solution to this problem. There is no question that the $150 we had in place has not been adjusted now since 1997, and it

should be. This is the time to adjust it. I think this is a reasonable adjustment, 50 percent for the imminent danger pay, $100 for the family separation allowance.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield?

I am sorry. It is my memory we discussed that ceiling problem and the Senator said he did not want to take it up.

We don't have the same memory, as a practical matter.

I understand the Senator's position. I did introduce it and set it aside because I wanted people to understand I believe it is my duty to see to it that this subject is addressed during the consideration of this bill. I am informed we will reach this problem sometime in June, July, or August, unless we do lift the debt ceiling. I do not think we can go through this period of war and have that hanging out there and be a subject that might constrain defense spending.

What I have done is introduced an amendment to this bill that says we will increase the debt ceiling by the amount we have spent since September 11 to meet the interests of our Department of Defense, homeland security, and reaction to September 11. If the Senator says that is open ended, I don't think it is open ended. I can figure it out fast and we will be glad to put the number in there if that will satisfy the Senator's objection. I do think it will be an interesting debate. We, undoubtedly, will have to raise the question, but based on our long friendship, I sincerely apologize if my memory is incorrect.

Unless it is perfected as the Senator suggests in terms of a problem with regard to the money.

The whole bill is legislation.

I repeat my apology. My memory is we discussed whether we should address it, the debt ceiling.

In my office, sir.

I apologize. I have addressed this with several other Senators. I apologize and I have taken it upon myself to say it is my error, but the amendment is there and it is my duty to raise the subject of the debt ceiling.

Will the Senator yield?

That is the reason I introduced it and had it set aside so we could address the question of whether we should make it a closed subject. We can calculate that amount right now. But it may be changed before this bill is over. The bill keeps going up. It is already up more than the President asked for, and I believe it to be another $5 or $6 billion before we get the bill to conference.

In any event, the problem is, what are we going to do? Do we proceed with the three wars we have going up on, and then, my God, we may not be able to do that because if we do that we will exceed the debt ceiling.

The President has the power--under food and forage--to start spending money. We have a program for other purposes, for the conduct of these three wars. I take the position he should not be constrained at all by a debt ceiling. It is my duty to raise that debt ceiling.

Again, I apologize to my friend. I would like to address, when the Senator is finished, Senator Durbin's comment about the pending amendment. This is not the pending amendment.

Madam President, is the pending business the Durbin amendment to the Stevens amendment?

Madam President, I am pleased to yield to the Senator from Illinois. I believe we have reached an agreement on this amendment, and I would be glad to have him modify his amendment if he wishes to do so.

Madam President, I now ask that this be deemed the original amendment before the Senate, that it be the Stevens-Durbin amendment, plus any other Senators who wish to add their name to it.

I ask that the Senate cast a unanimous vote in support of this raise of combat pay and family allowances for our men and women who are in harm's way.

Madam President, I would like to make sure we show this was a unanimous vote. Beyond that, I have a letter I received from the Boeing Company which is relevant to what we have just done, because some of the people who are covered by this amendment are men and women of the National Guard and Reserve. The Boeing Company has notified me it has 2,000 valued employees who serve our Nation in the military as members of the National Guard and Reserve. They state:

Over the last 3 years, some 950 men and women have proudly

stepped forward for differing periods of military duty in

support of the September 11-related operation. To date,

371 Boeing teammates have been activated for Operation Iraqi

Freedom, with many more receiving notice of impending call-

up. To stress our commitment, Boeing has extended the

benefits we provide these citizen soldiers because we want

them to be able to focus on their military mission--with no

worry that their families are provided for in the interim.

For a period of up to 60 calendar months, we will make up the

difference between their military and Boeing pay, plus

maintain their medical, dental and life insurance benefits.

We have also extended reemployment rights to these talented

teammates for up to five years of military service. Boeing's

long-standing policy provides these benefits for 90 days.

I am not doing this to blow up Boeing, although I think it is a tremendous gesture. I ask unanimous consent that the letter, in full, be printed in the Record.

This shows much of the problem that the Senator from Illinois has been trying to handle, the problem of people who have been called up who are not regulars. Theirs is a problem that is more acute than those who are in the military and are called up and they have their full military pay continue. The civilian pay of those who have been called up is many times quite a bit in excess of what they get in the military.

We have very complicated problems in a period of the callup cycle we are in right now because our country has called up people for the war on terrorism, called up people for the war in Afghanistan, and are now calling up people for the war in Iraq. Sometimes there have been multiple callups in the same calendar year. It is a very difficult problem to deal with, and I urge the Armed Services Committee to work on it and give us a comprehensive package so we do not have to deal with it in regard to appropriations bills.

That is my point I make now. I prefer that not be the case.

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

Madam President, the Secretary of Defense is giving a classified briefing, and I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess until 3:30.

Madam President, what is the pending business?

I ask that that may be set aside for the Senator from Nevada.

Set them both aside, I assume.

Amendment No. 440

Madam President, I am grateful to my friend from South Carolina for the way he has put this amendment. Unfortunately, it is part of a large stream of amendments. If this were the only amendment offered for Coast Guard expenses and to homeland security in addition to this bill, as manager of the bill, I would have no difficulty in dealing with it. But we expect a whole series of amendments during this period.

I want to point out this bill came to us as a defense supplemental for the purpose of meeting the needs of the conduct of three separate war operations. We have a war on terrorism, a war in Afghanistan, and a war going on in Iraq. Of the total that we have coming out on the committee bill, we have $78.7 plus billion. It is really $78,736,600,000. Even Everett Dirksen thought that was a lot of money. But when you look at this, what was asked for, for the total for homeland defense, $4,676,000,000, that is on top of what has already been appropriated for the Department of Homeland Security in the omnibus bill we just passed and what will be appropriated in the fiscal year 2004 that is coming.

I know many people, including myself, believe there should be more money allocated to homeland security. But what should we do? If I were to say I would accept the Senator's amendment, but behind it there is a total of $6.5 billion that I have been told so far dealing with homeland security amendments, another $6.5 billion will lead this bill to being assaulted in the House and severely questioned by the President. We don't have the emergency procedure available. We don't have a budget. So this can't be dubbed an emergency under the Budget Act and just sent downtown and ignored by the President, which is something we have done in the past. This either has to be in the bill or it is not going to be in the bill.

I want the Senator to know, as I have said, we believe there is money here. Requests are going to come at us for purchasing of community- oriented policing policies, interoperable equipment problems, the problem of firefighters and emergency medical service teams in terms of their equipment that is currently not interoperable. We have money I certainly think is needed in terms of the screening equipment and new technology screening at ports. That is another $110 million.

Once you start down this line, you have to ask yourself, why aren't these being raised in the 2004 bill. None of them are going to be spent this year. This isn't money for the immediate emergency. This is money that should be addressed in the 2004 bills. They are still pending out there. We will have this same debate on the 2004 bills. These same amendments will be offered then.

Why don't we wait until then? That is my advice to the Senate. Let's wait. We know these are pending requests. We know many of them are very important, and some of them I shall join in urging we try to get money. But right now we are trying to get money for the President so he can handle these wars. This is not port security. It is not interoperability of equipment. It is not money for Guard and Reserve equipment. It is not money that is going to be spent next year.

(Mr. CORNYN assumed the chair.)

This is money for this year--not only this year, but within the next 8 weeks it has to be to the armed services. I say to my friend, very respectfully, when the time comes, I am going to have to move to table this amendment, although I hate to do it because I agree with it in many ways. But it is not the only thing coming at us. Every one of these, like another straw on the camel's back, will take more time to deal with in conference with the House and with the President, and meanwhile we don't get the money out there for the troops.

I hope the Senate will stay with us. Let's restrict this bill to the emergencies related to the war effort, and the homeland security money in here is related to the war effort. It is nuclear security, it is a transfer of treasury for homeland security. One of the items is a smallpox amendment which is already in the bill. Those moneys can and will be spent before September 30 of this year. They must be. We don't have an extension on them. They are all money to be spent this year.

This money the Senator seeks is money that could be spent over the next 2, 3 years. Who knows how long it will be before we identify the tracking systems that can track and monitor vessels in U.S. waters that are better equipment than we have now. We have some, but it is not good. We know that. It is not up to date. In particular, I seek to join in trying to check the backgrounds of transportation workers. I would very much like to be involved in finding ways to finance the screening equipment that deals with containers coming into our ports. But this isn't the place to do it.

I told the Senate before this morning--I have asked the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the individual service chiefs when this money is needed. They started in early May and continued through June, so this money has to be there. It cannot be there if we get items to continue this bill and carry us into a period beyond the recess we intend to take for Easter. I say respectfully to my friend, it is just not something we can handle.

The administration takes the position that the 2003 bill and 2003 supplemental and the 2004--those are all fiscal years--appropriations bills have started the process of providing money for port security, customs, transportation, law enforcement, domestic preparedness, and other items.

The bill we have in place--the 2003 Appropriations Act--contains the largest increase for Coast Guard in the history of the United States, over $1 billion more than 2002. The Senator from South Carolina and I were partially responsible in that. We joined together in that fight on the omnibus bill. At 2004, the discretionary funding of the Coast Guard will be increased by another billion and a half, another 36 percent over 2002. That will add to the Coast Guard in excess of $2.5 billion for the period of 2004.

Now, we are moving toward these things, but we cannot do them all in this bill, which is designed to be a supplemental for 2003.

By the way, I am very concerned about the container security initiative. The Senator from New York and I have worked on that. We are continuing to try to push and push and push to identify the type of technology that could give us the ability to increase the surveillance on containers as they are placed on ships destined for the U.S. We want to reach out and put them on the foreign ports. We don't have to wait until they are in our ports before we discover things dangerous to us.

I commend the Senator from New York and the Senator from South Carolina for working on this, but we don't need more money now. We need some results, as far as the basic investments in technology. The President's

budget has $375 million in the 2004 budget for just that--initiatives and technology investments, radiation detection, x-ray machines for cargo containers. That is not even available yet. We don't have the state-of-the-art equipment to do what some of these amendments insist we must do--and things I want to do in the long run.

This Senator still represents more than half of the coastline in the United States. Everything we eat and consume and put on our backs comes to us from outside of our State. We are the one State totally dependent upon transportation, particularly marine transportation. I will work night and day with my friend to see we can get there when we develop the technology that we can approve. But we cannot put the money out in front of the technology. I think we have to have more money for assessments, portal monitors, maritime safety, and response teams--I support those--automated identification system, long-term security programs, transportation worker IDs. But these are not wartime-related costs.

We are in three wars at one time. Please, let me ask the Senate to remember that. That is what my job is--to try to get the bill passed as quickly as possible to address wartime-related costs at the request of the President of the United States. That is what I intend to do.

This amendment should not be included in wartime supplemental funding. I regret that when the time comes I shall move to table my friend's amendment. I don't know whether he wants to respond or not. I don't know whether we want to vote at this time or not. A lot of things are going on in the building. I will rely on the leadership. I ask my friend if he wishes me to allow him to respond.

Mr. President, I regret the problem we have with regard to the funding for these items. I call attention to the fact that we are trying to get a supplemental appropriations bill to deal with the costs of the war primarily, not just one war but the war against terrorism, the war in Iraq, and the war in Afghanistan.

I know of no other way to do it than to say we have reached a limit as far as what we are going to do. This thought just came to my mind. We have gone beyond the President's request to deal with the most pressing need, and that is the aviation industry relief. We have some benefits for that industry, almost $4 billion, that deal with trying to give that industry the ability to rejuvenate the economy. If they come back, the whole economy comes back, in my judgment.

In any event, the more we put in the supplemental, the more we will have a situation where we will not get that either. The aviation industry relief, I am told, needs to be finished almost immediately. Some of these companies are going into chapter 11 right now. Others are indicating that they may cease operation.

I really believe the major factors in this bill are defense, homeland defense and aviation industry relief. I urge the Senate to think about it and confine it to that.

I move to table the amendment of the Senator from South Carolina, and I ask that the vote on that amendment take place following the amendment of the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu. I further ask that prior to Ms. Landrieu, the Senator from Colorado and the Senator from Arkansas share 15 minutes on the amendment they have, which it is my understanding we are in the position now where we will adopt that amendment. I do not know the final status of the amendment of the Senator from Louisiana so I will not move to adopt it, obviously, since it is not before us yet. But that will be my intention when we finish.

My friend from Nevada and I are trying to estimate when these votes would take place. I want 5 minutes to respond to the Senator from Louisiana after she offers her amendment. So it would be 5:15 that we would be voting.

Reserving the right to object, I think we should go back and forth.

I certainly have no objection to the Senator's unanimous consent request.

It is my understanding that there will be no second- degree amendments to the Landrieu amendment or to the amendment of the Senator from Colorado.

That does not apply to subsequent amendments.

The Senator from Colorado is first. He and the Senator from Arkansas share 15 minutes.

What is the pending measure? The first vote will occur on the amendment of the Senator from Colorado?

But under the unanimous consent request, we vote first on the Hollings amendment; is that correct?

One second till I straighten this out. I don't care which one. This Senator has no priority on it. I am agreeable to either one first. The amendment I am trying to address after that, though, is the amendment of the Senator from Colorado. What has happened to it in my absence?

I thank the Chair.

The Senator has that right. I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the motion to table the Hollings amendment occur first.

I have no objection. I ask for the yeas and nays on the Hollings amendment.

On a motion to table. I have made that motion.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 452

Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: What is the pending business now?

Madam President, could we have order in the Chamber.

I yield to the author of the amendment first. The Senator from Louisiana is entitled to 1 minute. I hope my colleagues will let her speak.

Madam President, where is the Sergeant at Arms?

Madam President, of the $62.6 billion requested by the President for defense, no less than $10.8 billion in this bill is for the direct support of the Guard and Reserve for this fiscal year. The monies that the Senator from Louisiana wishes would be spent in 2004.

I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Arizona.

On each side is all right with me.

Madam President, the money that is in this bill will help the Guard that has been called up. That is the case. We want to help the people who are fighting the wars now. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I deeply regret that as manager of the bill I am constrained to make a point of order that the Senator's amendment violates rule XVI and that it is legislation on an appropriations bill. It is a totally new title, and while we do have some clauses that might be legislation, we have not accepted any bills as such. I make a point of order under rule XVI that it is legislation on an appropriations bill.

I object.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I am informed there is a modification of the Allard amendment at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that the Allard amendment be replaced by the modification--a total substitute.

I ask that we consider the Allard amendment as pending before the Senate and it be agreed to.

I move to reconsider the vote.

I am advised by the majority leader, with the consent of the minority leader, there will be no more votes tonight. We expect a series of votes in the morning, and we urge Senators to let us know if there are any amendments that have been hinted at, to let us know if they intend to raise them tomorrow.

We expect a full day tomorrow, and we hope to finish this bill tomorrow night. I thank all Members for their courtesy and consideration and yield to my friend from Nevada.

I thank the Senator from Nevada. He is very cooperative and very much aware of the problems dealing with the floor from his own experience, and I appreciate his help on this bill no end.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the Senate Appropriations Committee has adopted rules governing its procedures for the 108th Congress. Pursuant to Rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, on behalf of myself and Senator Byrd, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the committee rules be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in

Arms Act is an important piece of legislation that will address the growing problem of junk lawsuits filed with the intention of driving the firearms industry out of business. I thank Senator Craig and Senator Burns for their efforts to ensure this legislation is addressed and moved through Congress.

This act does not curtail the legal rights of victims who suffer injuries from the actions of firearm or ammunition manufacturers. The purpose of this legislation is to prevent the multiple lawsuits that have materialized which name the firearms and ammunition industries as defendants and attempt to hold these industries liable for the criminal acts of a third party.

These frivolous lawsuits target the legitimate firearm and ammunition industries in attempts to destroy these industries. If firearm and ammunition manufacturers were forced to pay for the criminal acts of third parties, the concept of fairness would be eliminated. The impact of these suits would also affect this country economically and socially. Any limitation of one's constitutional right to bear arms is not acceptable. The destruction of the firearms and ammunition industries would cause many Americans to lose their jobs. In addition, if the firearms and ammunition industries were destroyed, the right to lawfully bear arms may be curtailed. Many Alaskans depend upon the right to bear firearms for subsistence purposes as well as for self- defense.

Courts across the Nation are wasting valuable time on frivolous lawsuits. At this time, 28 States have enacted legislation to prevent frivolous lawsuits against the firearms and ammunition industries based on the criminal behavior of others. I encourage all of my colleagues to join me and take a stand against the lawsuits that attempt to abuse the legal system of this great country, by supporting the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.