Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am very pleased to present this appropriations bill to the Senate. It is the culmination of a lot of hard work by all of the members of our subcommittee, as we conducted hearings to review the proposed budget from the Department of Homeland Security, and as we listened to those who have responsibilities for managing the various directorates and other agencies and activities that come within the ambit of the responsibilities of the Homeland Security Department.

We learned a lot in the hearings. We learned about new procedures that were being developed and deployed. We learned about new technologies that were being explored. In the bioterrorism area, we were learning about the research that is being done to make our capacity more sophisticated and capable of protecting the health and safety of all Americans from attacks in that area.

We have been challenged as we have never been challenged before to look again carefully at how we go about protecting the citizens of our great country. The experience of September 11, of course, stays in our mind as something that is unthinkable. The fact that it did happen is still unbelievable, and we realize that we have the responsibility-- representatives of the people of this country serving in Congress today--to try to get it right so that kind of thing can't happen again.

We are blessed to be served in the administration by people such as Tom Ridge, the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. The President recommended this new Department be created. The Congress responded. The Governmental Affairs Committee, on which I served at that time, dealt with the challenge of the legal framework of defining the responsibilities of a new department and what activities would come under the Department. We brought together under this one Department 22 different Federal agencies, or at least parts of 22 different agencies. Some, such as the U.S. Coast Guard, were transferred underneath the jurisdictional responsibility of the Department to help make our effort more coherent, more effectively and efficiently managed, and to achieve the goal of making our country safer and more secure for the citizens who live in the United States. I think we have made great progress.

This bill specifically provides funding of $33.1 billion for the Department of Homeland Security for this next fiscal year, 2005. This is the second appropriations bill to fund the Department which began its operations short of a year and a half ago. The new Department has made substantial progress to merge the agency functions and the employees who were transferred under its responsibilities and to undertake its new duties to better secure and more effectively protect our great Nation.

We also have seen a new system put in place called the US VISIT Program to screen visaholders and to stop potential terrorists and those who may be dangerous, because they have committed crimes in the past, from entering our country to start with. US VISIT, through biometrics and other new innovations, has already identified, apprehended, or arrested more than 400 individuals. Through the science and technology directorate, the Department has aggressively moved forward on the successful testing of the first commercial portal monitors and handheld radiological identifiers to detect the smuggling of materials which could be used to build weapons of mass destruction. Federal air marshals have been deployed. State-of-the-art technologies have been introduced, and cockpit doors have been modified to increase the safety of air travel.

I know there can be criticism leveled at the efforts of the Transportation Security Administration which has been the agency identified with the responsibility for overseeing aviation security and many other areas of responsibility. But let me remind Senators--and this is contained in our committee report--I invite the attention of the Senate to the report, on page 31, where we talk about aviation security. My good friend, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, mentioned people who might bring in bombs or material that can be used as explosives to blow up planes and otherwise harm us.

The Transportation Security Administration aviation

security account [in this legislation] provides for Federal

aviation security by employing the most efficient screening

of all passengers and baggage, deployment of onsite law

enforcement, continuation of a uniform set of background

requirements for airport and airline personnel, deployment of

the most current explosive detection technology, and creation

of a model workplace.

The aviation security activities include funding for

Federal and private contract passenger and baggage screeners,

including personnel compensation and benefits, training, and

human resource services; passenger checkpoint support; air

cargo security; procurement and maintenance of explosive

detection systems; and checkpoint support.

I suggest that the $4,386,083,000 for aviation security contained in this bill is designed to meet the needs we have for improved and safer air travel, working with the airlines who are spending

their own money in many of these and other areas. I suggest we have the safest air transportation system in the world. And we are going to continue to monitor the activities. We are going to continue to engage in oversight and interaction with the Federal agencies involved, as well as Department of Homeland Security officials, to see that we stay on course and that we continue to upgrade, improve, and take advantage of the latest technologies to guarantee the safety and security of American citizens.

Looking at another area, efforts have been undertaken to increase our stockpile of antibiotics, vaccines, and other medications to protect Americans in the event of a terrorist attack and to identify and develop new countermeasures to protect Americans against new biological threats. Today our first responders, those who work at the fire departments, the police departments, the emergency medical centers, have been provided with resources from the Federal Government to buy necessary equipment, to increase training to better protect our communities throughout the country.

Including the resources in this bill we are presenting today to the Senate, over $12 billion will have been appropriated to our State and local partners across the country, over $2.5 billion to firefighters alone.

The Department of Homeland Security has made important strides in this last year. The bill we present to you today will allow the Department to continue to build on its success and make our Nation even more secure.

If Senators look at the provisions in the bill, they will see that it reflects suggestions made by Senators on both sides of the aisle. This is a bipartisan bill. It is not a Republican bill or a Democratic bill, it is an American bill. It is a bill to protect the safety and security of all Americans. Our committee held hearings and listened to every suggestion made by all Senators for the levels of appropriations for all of these activities.

This is the second year of this bill, as I said, but I think we have made important strides forward. I particularly thank again the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for his cooperation, his support, and his assistance during the development of this bill and the conduct of our hearings and the presentation of the final work product to the Senate today.

I am going to close my remarks--and I will be prepared to receive any suggestions for changes in the bill or amendments or other statements from Senators--by quoting from something Tom Ridge said with which I was particularly impressed. Our Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security said:

Homeland security is about the integration of a nation,

everyone pledged to freedom's cause, everyone its protector,

and everyone its beneficiary. It's about the integration of

people and technology to make us smarter, safer, more

sophisticated, and better protected. It's about the

integration of our national efforts, not one department or

one organization, but everyone tasked with our Nation's

protection. Every day, we work to make America more secure.

Every day, the memories of September 11th inspire us to live

our vision of preserving our freedoms, protecting America,

enjoying our liberties, and securing the homeland.

I am happy to compliment the distinguished Senator for his description of the damages in Florida. We are all keenly aware, because the of the images on television, and the description in the newspapers, conversations with friends and family members in that State, how terrible those storms have been and the devastation that has been caused.

One thing that reminds me of the history of my own State is the terrible force of the wave action. I can remember when Hurricane Camille struck the Mississippi Gulf Coast in, I think, 1969, that storm did more damage than any other hurricane that had ever hit that part of the gulf of Mexico. I recall going down to the gulf of Mexico and visiting that area, seeing how devastating the damage was and how long it took to recover from it. As a matter of fact there are still scars. There is one shrimp boat about 2 blocks inland now that is sitting there as a reminder of the force of that hurricane.

The fact of the matter is, and the Senator is correct, the $2 billion the Congress has approved for a supplemental appropriation for the Federal Emergency Management Agency is targeted just to the Disaster Relief Fund. This is, as the Senator knows, to provide emergency assistance of food, shelter, debris cleanup--taking care of the emergency situation that exists. That fund was going to be exhausted this morning when the President signed the bill appropriating this additional money. So, with this funding, that account is taken care of.

As the Senator indicates, there is a lot of other damage that is outside the jurisdiction of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies may have responsibilities and they may not have sufficient funds to meet all the needs for which some people are entitled to reimbursement or some kind of disaster relief under Federal law. For that reason the President indicated in his request to Congress which he submitted on September 6--and I'll read this. He said:

The enclosed request requires immediate action by the

Congress to ensure that the immediate response efforts to

these recent disasters continue uninterrupted. I anticipate

making a further request in the coming days that will provide

for a comprehensive response and recovery effort addressing

the impact of both of these hurricanes. In addition, federal

government agencies will continue their response and recovery

efforts using existing resources and programs.

What we get from that is the President is submitting and, we have been advised by the President's staff, that in the coming days there will be another supplemental appropriations bill requested by the President. It will not be the bill that we are considering today, though. This is the annual appropriations bill that funds the entire Department of Homeland Security, Coast Guard, the Secret Service--the 22 various agencies that are combined within the ambit of the Department of Homeland Security.

I suggest to the Senator we would welcome any suggestions he has for inclusions in the additional supplemental that will be before the Congress soon, at the request of the President.

Mr. President, before we start agreeing on times for votes, that is above my pay grade. We have a distinguished majority leader, and we will have to consult with him and other Senators.

It depends on what his amendment is. We may all rejoice and vote for it. Who knows? Again, we may not.

Mr. President, a point of order. I have no objection to the dispensing of the reading of the amendment, but a point of order. Is there already an amendment pending from the Senator at the desk? Is this the second amendment or is this a different amendment?

Fine.

Mr. President, it is always instructive to listen to the distinguished Senator from New York talk about programs and activities that are of major concern to his constituents, particularly in the New York City area, but New York State generally. We appreciate his observations and his expression of concern about technologies and advancements and new ways of protecting the citizens of his State and our country against nuclear threats or other threats to our security. We think the Department has made important progress in these areas, analyzing and understanding the technologies that are available.

We have included, for example, encouragement for additional investigations in this area. I am reading from page 84 of the committee report now. It says:

The Committee expects a significant expansion of the

Countermeasures Test Bed being conducted with the Port

Authority of New York and New Jersey in testing technologies

to detect radiation/nuclear threats to include railway,

general aviation facility monitoring, expanded roadways

coverage, and an additional seaport.

The Committee is aware of technology proposals developed

with national laboratories to facilitate the inspection of

containerized cargo for fissile materials as a part of the

normal off-loading process at the Nation's seaports.

The Department is focused on the importance that we all believe should be paid to this area of interest and concern. We know that existing technologies are being deployed by agencies at ports of entry, including the U.S. Coast Guard and the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection. They provide an effective nuclear countermeasure system, but continued focused development can considerably extend these capabilities in order to develop technologies for application to specific locations, including those in the intermodal transportation system, in the maritime domain, at border ports of entry, and in the aviation industry.

Specifically, the committee included in this section of the bill to which this amendment is directed great latitude in approving grants that can be the subject of applications from not only States but local jurisdictions such as port security areas.

Of the total provided by the committee for urban area security initiative grants, $150 million is for port security grants; $150 million is included for rail and transit security grants; $10 million is available for inner city bus security grants for the improvement of ticket identification, the installation of driver shields, the enhancement of emergency communications, and further implementation of passenger screening; $15 million is also included for trucking industry security grants to continue the Highway Watch Grant Program.

This committee had the responsibility of trying to help ensure that across the broad range of urban area security concerns funds were available for grants to local areas and to States to deal with these new challenges.

The committee believes the Department's practice over the past 2 years to allocate appropriated funds could be improved. We suggested, for example, that they all not be made available

early in the fiscal year but to leave some opportunities for later grantmaking authority so that if any new discoveries or intelligence of recent terrorist threat information became available, these funds could be targeted to higher risk areas and where we would get more for our money.

It is easy to offer an amendment to double an appropriation, and that is what this amendment does. We have $150 million in the bill for this one particular grant program within the broad urban area security initiative grants. What the Senator from New York is doing is asking that be doubled.

You can just about go through this bill, I suggest, and find every incremental amount that is in this bill and pick out one and offer an amendment to double it and make a good persuasive case why it would be better off if we could spend twice as much money as we have allocated for that one activity. That is a pretty easy argument to make. But it is also a cheap shot, and the reason I am calling it a cheap shot is that we have within this Urban Area Security Grant Program $1.2 billion for discretionary grants to high-threat urban areas. The Secretary has to make these decisions on the basis of the applications and the proposals that are submitted to the Department.

If we in the Congress are going to go back through the bill and try to second-guess every one of these accounts and double it and ask for a vote, you could easily double the whole cost of the bill. We have a $33.1 billion bill. It probably would be harder to get a vote to double that to $66 billion, but you could make some arguments why we could spend that amount of money. But could we spend it in a thoughtful way that would efficiently and responsibly use the taxpayers' dollars in this area of concern, homeland security?

We have had 2 years of experience in writing this bill. Last year, we ended up having to make points of order on the basis of the fact that some of the amendments were in excess of the allocation that was given to this subcommittee.

I understand the full committee has been meeting this afternoon during the last hour to review the amount of funding that would be available to each subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee. And I understand soon, if it has not already been done, there will be filed with the Senate this allocation, and this subcommittee will have a limited amount of money to use in writing this bill.

I am not suggesting we have gotten the cart before the horse, but I am suggesting that before we vote on this amendment, I want to be sure I know what the allocation amount is for this subcommittee. It is not just targeted to the amendment of the distinguished Senator from New York that I do this, but any amendment that would come in and double an amount without any more justification than it would be good if we could spend twice as much as we are spending. And that is really the argument.

Sure, it would be good if we could spend twice as much as we are spending in a lot of areas, but we have to make the choices within a framework of funds available to the committee for a wide range of activities, all of which are very important. We have to choose among programs of the U.S. Coast Guard, programs of the Transportation Security Administration, of the Secret Service, of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and many others whose accounts are funded in this annual appropriations bill.

I am hopeful we can withhold action on this particular amendment and let us have an opportunity to review the committee's work.

So awaiting the further advice of the chairman of the Appropriations Committee or his staff, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the Senator talks about we have sort of rubberstamped what the President has asked for in some of these areas. We have agreed with the President on some of his initiatives because we thought he was right, but when we thought the administration was wrong or where they have requested funds, as he pointed out, in the railroad area, for security programs there, this committee has recommended and the Congress has agreed to add funds over and above what has been requested by the President.

In this particular area, where the Senator is coming in now and doubling the amount of money we have in this one particular grant program--we have appropriated for this program almost $500 million, specifically for port security grants, since fiscal year 2002. We are addressing this issue. This is the point, and I am not apologizing for the decisions this committee has made and that have been ratified by both Houses of Congress and approved in the appropriations conference report. We have appropriated almost $500 million specifically for this program. We have asked for another $150 million this year. That is not enough, he says; double it.

We can talk about it on and on and on and go into all the other accounts that involve security in urban areas, high threat areas, but we have to realize there is a limit. Some Senators think we can come in and double the amounts in individual accounts and it will not matter, but if we keep on doing that before this bill is passed, we will have added no telling how much to the deficit. We would have put the administration in a position where they are going to have to either ask for deferrals or recisions of funds. If they cannot possibly get grants out to people who are qualified to use the money or can justify the use of the funds, we cannot pour the money on the ground, and I am not going to stand here and go along with suggestions that amount to spending more because it sounds as if we are going to be doing more. It does not necessarily follow.

I am hopeful we will have in place within the next few minutes some information about the total allocation of funding to this committee, because without that we can continue to add money for individual accounts in this bill for the rest of today and tonight and on into the weekend and then we will have to go back through and start striking funds that have been added so we will be consistent with the allocation to the subcommittee.

What I am asking the Senate to do, and the reason I put in the suggestion for a quorum when I first made the point of order, is to await the advice of the Committee on Appropriations. I am told they sent the information over electronic device, but we need it written on paper so Senators can read it and can understand what the limitations are. So I am hopeful we can await the advice of the full committee on the action that has been taken today. I would appreciate it very much.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I indicated earlier that the Senate Appropriations Committee met earlier this afternoon to approve the subcommittee funding allocations. The allocations approved are the same as those provided earlier by the full committee, for this subcommittee's information. For Homeland Security appropriations, the approved fiscal year 2005 discretionary spending allocation is $32 billion in budget authority and $29.873 billion in outlays. The bill reported by the committee is at the $32 billion discretionary budget authority allocation and $144 million below the outlay allocation. The allocations for this bill are $897 million in budget authority and $730 million in outlay above the President's request, showing the priority the committee has placed on Homeland Security accounts and its appropriations.

This is a fiscally responsible allocation and Members will be required to provide offsets for any additional spending proposed by amendments to be added to this bill, or the amendment will be subject to a 60-vote Budget Act point of order, I am advised. Therefore, I make a point of order against the Schumer amendment under section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act that the amendment provides spending in excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation.

Mr. President, I think the Senator asked for a parliamentary inquiry. I don't have standing to rule on parliamentary inquiries. That is the responsibility of the Chair.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate vote on the motion to waive in relation to the pending Schumer amendment at 4:45 p.m. today, with the debate until that time equally divided in the usual form.

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

Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Madam President, it occurs to me that this is an issue that probably ought not be on this bill. As a matter of general principle, it is a legislative decision. It seems to me the committee of jurisdiction would probably be the committee chaired by the distinguished Presiding Officer.

Having said that, that doesn't make this amendment go away by itself. We have to dispose of it. We have to deal with it. Frankly, I am confused about how the amendment got added to the House Appropriations Committee bill. I am told it was an amendment offered on the floor and it was adopted by the House. This seems to me an amendment that ought to be at least discussed in conference. If we adopt the Leahy amendment without changing it at all, then we are stuck with the language, it seems to me. I don't know how you get away from having this provision in the final version of the bill, and this appropriations process would have been subverted and it would have been distorted.

This is not an appropriations amendment. We are not talking about an amount of money to be appropriated for any particular purpose. Immigration services are provided, of course, by the Department of Homeland Security and apparently the Department feels it ought to have flexibility in the administration of that program. We are singling out an employment circular to prohibit its effectiveness on an appropriations bill. I think it is fairly convoluted.

I don't like the process. The Senator from Wyoming comes in and offers a modification, which basically requires the Department to provide information on its intentions.

It must submit to Congress not later than 60 days before making an award.

This is an award for providing services under the auspices of the Bureau of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Before it makes an award to someone to provide these services, it has to go through certain steps and make this disclosure to the Congress.

It seems to me that this is an appropriate place to at least call time out and let us put this issue on hold and give the Appropriations Committee an opportunity to consider it in conference. We would have to resolve the differences between this amendment and this provision in the Senate and the one adopted by the House.

I fully support the amendment offered by the Senator from Wyoming.

Let me add one other note. The administration submits to the committee after we write a bill in the Appropriations Committee a Statement of Administration Policy. Looking at their Statement of Administration Policy on the bill as reported by our Appropriations Committee, you get down to the bottom of page 2 where it talks about competitive sourcing, it states:

The administration has adopted a reasonable and responsible

approach for ensuring the fair and effective application of

public-private competition. On a government-wide basis,

competitions completed in fiscal year 2003 are estimated to

generate savings, or cost avoidances, of more than $1 billion

over the next 3 to 5 years. The House version of the bill

contains a provision that would block DHS from using

competition to choose the best public or private sector

source to handle basic administrative tasks associated with

the processing of immigration applications and benefits. We

understand an amendment may be offered on the Senate floor

that would also preclude public-private competition and turn

back DHS' efforts to significantly improve customer service

for immigrants. If the final version of the bill were to

contain such a prohibition, the President's senior advisers

would recommend that he veto the bill.

So I can't stand idly by and see this provision be included in the bill and risk the veto of this Homeland Security appropriations bill that we have worked very hard to craft, after hearings and hearings, and with the good assistance of other Senators on the subcommittee such as the distinguished Senator from Vermont. I would hate to see all of our work go for naught and have to start over with a vetoed bill.

I am urging Senators to vote for the Thomas amendment and let us take this issue to conference and see if it can be resolved in a way that gets the bill signed and takes care of the concerns expressed by the distinguished Senator, my very good friend from Vermont.

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

Mr. President, so there is no illusion about who is responsible for suggesting we have a vote on the Thomas amendment, it is me. It is not the majority leader. As the manager of this bill, I think we ought to follow the regular order. The Senator from Vermont laid down an amendment. The Senator from Wyoming offered an amendment to the amendment. It is in order.

We have had a debate on it. He is entitled to a vote on his amendment. We ought to have it. If his amendment prevails, then we vote on the amendment as amended. Nobody is going to filibuster the bill on this side. I am not going to. I am not going to filibuster my own bill because of this amendment. I want people to understand it is not this big an issue. It is not going to bring down the Senate and block consideration of this bill as far as I am concerned.

I will give a quick answer. I am not going to, by unanimous consent, deprive any Senator of a right to offer an amendment. That is what I would be doing if I would, by agreement, say that you can offer an amendment and have a vote on it without any other Senator having an opportunity to modify it.

That is not in the rules of the Senate. It is inconsistent with the traditions of the institution to do that.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I do not know what the amendment is. It was sent to the desk. It would be nice to know what it is so we would know whether we should agree to the unanimous consent request to limit 2 minutes to a side.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. If this is an amendment that has already been before the Senate and to which an amendment has been added, is it in order for the Senator to put before the Senate the same amendment as an amendment?

Mr. President, I have no objection to the request for the time agreement.

I strongly urge Senators to vote against the Leahy amendment.

Mr. President, I send to the desk three amendments that are making technical changes to the bill. They have been cleared on both sides of the aisle. I ask they be considered and agreed to en bloc.

I ask my statement on each of these amendments be printed in the Record.

Madam President, this amendment makes necessary technical changes in the bill language authorizing the Government Accountability Office--GAO--to perform review activities to verify air carriers' calendar year 2000 security costs and makes funds available to GAO for this purpose.

Amendment No. 3587

This amendment makes a technical correction to the bill in conformance of Public Law 108-271 renaming the General Accounting Office the Government Accountability Office.

Amendment No. 3588

This amendment makes technical corrections to bill language for the Government Accountability Office to report on the progress of the Secure Flight program.

Madam President, it is certainly OK with me for Senator Byrd to offer his amendment any time he wants to offer it. We are not putting one Senator in front of another. But he is the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, and we would be happy to see him offer his amendment when he wants to in the morning.

If it suits Senator Byrd, it suits me. There are some amendments on the list that we have been reviewing hoping to agree those would be the only amendments in order to the bill. I don't know how close we are to reaching an agreement on that or whether the acting leader is empowered to sign off on those agreements. We probably should wait until Senator Byrd is here though.

Madam President, I encourage Senators to let us know if they intend to offer an amendment to this bill. We would like to have a finite list of amendments so we can expedite final conclusion of this bill tomorrow or as soon as possible.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I thank the Senator from Alabama for his kind words. He is both a colleague and a neighbor to my State of Mississippi. As neighbors, our two States have a strong appreciation for a strong and capable Coast Guard.

As the Senator from Alabama is well aware, the Coast Guard has been moving slowly on the Maritime Patrol Aircraft Modernization pending a review of their requirements for specific types of aircraft throughout the Coast Guard. I am very sensitive to the Senator's concerns with this slow pace of Maritime Patrol Aircraft modernization. I would say to the Senator, that I firmly believe and am committed to the Coast Guard's modernization effort under the Deepwater program, which includes the Maritime Patrol Aircraft requirement.

I share the Senator's assessment that the extension of our maritime surveillance is critical to our security interests. The Coast Guard selected the CN-235 as the optimal solution for the Maritime Patrol Aircraft mission and I continually encourage the Commandant to aggressively pursue the modernization of all assets to address the mission needs of the Coast Guard. It is clear that the Maritime Patrol Aircraft requirement has been delayed due to the Coast Guard review and I support any expedited effort to ensure that the long-term maritime patrol mission requirement is addressed.

Mr. President, further reserving the right to object, the leader is absolutely correct when he suggests there may very well be another supplemental request submitted. This request that is being presented to the Senate tonight is in response to a direct request from the President for $2 billion to replenish a fund that has run out of money, or will be exhausted in the morning.

The House is acting tonight to approve the request of the President for the additional $2 billion. The Senate should act tonight also, without getting into discussions of additional funding for other disasters or other needs around the country, because this situation is an ongoing disaster in Florida. Without these funds being made available tonight, in response to the President's request, they will not be able to continue the debris removal, providing shelter and food for those disaster victims who need those benefits. The disaster relief fund will be exhausted.

So my hope is we can consider additional requests, such as the one being suggested by the distinguished leader from South Dakota. We will carefully consider any other requests, but tonight is not the time to get into the business of picking out which other amendments or additions should be included in this dire emergency request we are being called upon to make to the Senate.

Mr. President, I am pleased that we are finally able to proceed with this legislation and remove serious barriers to American agricultural exports.

Since the World Trade Organization ruled against the United States over our Foreign Sales Corporation and Extraterritorial Income tax rules, we have had ample time to address this issue. In fact, the Senate Finance Committee reported legislation that would bring the United States into compliance with our trade obligations on October 1, 2003.

European Union tariffs on our farm exports have steadily increased, making them increasingly less competitive in international markets. The EU retaliation list includes about 400 agricultural, food and forest product tariff lines of imports from the United States. Proceeding with this legislation will help us regain market share and export opportunities that will have added benefit for truckers, rail lines, shippers and related businesses. This will help the export of U.S. agricultural products to hit a projected record of more than $60 billion this year.

In addition, I am pleased that an agreement could be reached to allow for the consideration of a tobacco buyout amendment to this legislation. I commend our members of the Senate Agriculture Committee who have worked diligently to reach this point. Particularly, Senators McConnell, Chambliss, Dole and Miller and their staffs have brought us to this point through careful negotiation.

Over the past decade, tobacco producers have seen their tobacco quota cut in half and resulting in an economic crisis among tobacco-dependent communities. This buyout provision will provide the estimated 57,000 tobacco farms in the United States the

necessary resources to continue their livelihood or transition into more diversified operations. The amendment is also a move in the right direction in eliminating the archaic tobacco quota system. It is my hope that this important provision will enable tobacco producers the ability to better compete in a free market system.

As chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, I look forward to working with my colleagues in both the Senate and House of Representatives to ensure that farmers in the United States who choose to continue to grow tobacco will have that opportunity. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying bill.

Mr. President, I commend the chairman and the committee staff for their outstanding work in bringing this legislation to the Senate for consideration.

I note that the committee included funding in the Defense Appropriations bill to address the threat of Improvised Explosive Devices, IEDs, in the Iraq theater. Specifically, I am referring to the inclusion in Title IX of the bill which appropriates $25,000,000 for a force protection initiative using the Rapid Equipping Force concept.

It is my understanding that the money is to be used to help our deployed soldiers fight the current IED threat that we hear so much about in the war in Iraq.

Would this money also be used to address the force protection issues of counter-fire and detection techniques that exist in the technology base, such as sensor technologies that have demonstrated real-time detection, classification and location of enemy fire?

I thank the Senator for his clarification of this issue.

m1a2 sep tank modernization

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the calling of the quorum be rescinded.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 580, S. 2507; that the Cochran amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements be printed in the Record.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am pleased to present to the Senate S. 2507, legislation to reauthorize the child nutrition programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture for the next 5 years. Over the past year and a half, the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry has held hearings and received suggestions from a wide range of interests for improvements in the programs that are authorized in this bill. The committee worked diligently to draft a consensus bill that will ensure the continuation of proven Federal Government support for meeting the nutritional needs of school children and others who will benefit from these programs. I would like to thank especially the distinguished ranking member of the committee, the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, for his assistance and for continuing the longstanding tradition of a bipartisan approach to the development of child nutrition bills in our committee.

The committee met on May 19, 2004, and reported the bill unanimously. This bill reflects the commitment of the committee to ensure that our Nation's children have access to the nutrition they need to lead a healthy life. All of the worthwhile and important initiatives contained in this bill will play a significant part in ensuring that our children have access to good nutrition.

The programs authorized in this bill touch the lives of one out of every five people in this country, including over 37 million children and nearly 2 million lower income pregnant and postpartum women. According to the Congressional Research Service, total fiscal year 2004 spending for these programs will be an estimated $16.4 billion, and the administration's fiscal year 2005 budget anticipates spending $16.85 billion. The Budget Committees of both the Senate and House have seen fit to include new mandatory money that will enable us to continue otherwise expiring provisions contained in current law. Even though we had no money for new initiatives, we believe the committee has put together an overall package that improves these programs while protecting the interests of the participants.

Important components of the bill are: Protection of the integrity of school meal program benefits, participation of for-profit child care centers in the Child and Adult Care Food Program,

protection of school meal benefits for military families, expansion of the Summer Food Service Program Lugar Pilots, expansion of the Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program, and improvements to the WIC Program.

I would also like to clarify section 203(e)(10) of the bill, which is designed to contain costs in the WIC program in order to ensure that all eligible participants can receive benefits through the program. Given the new provisions in the law, it is important that States publish their allowable reimbursement levels for WIC program vouchers. Also, because of changes contained in the bill, it would be important for USDA to review and modify risk profiles used when examining retail food stores for compliance with program rules. There is a related provision in our bill that prohibits certain vendors from providing incentive items to entice program participants to come to their stores unless the free merchandise is food or of nominal value. The Secretary is given the authority to define merchandise of nominal value. A reasonable interpretation of this provision would permit the Secretary to prohibit stores from giving away lottery tickets. Given the extremely small chance of winning a large amount of money as advertised by the lottery, the actual ticket is probably of very little value. However, some observers' perceived value of a ticket is greater than the actual value. A reasonable interpretation of this provision would give the Secretary the authority to prohibit lottery tickets under this provision.

We have worked hard to craft a bipartisan, consensus-based bill, as evidenced by the letters of support we have received from organizations including the American Dietetic Association, the American School Food Service Association, America's Second Harvest, the Food Research and Action Center, National Council of La Raza, Bread for the World, the National Milk Producers Federation, the International Dairy Foods Association, and the National Food Processors Association. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Addition of New States to the Fruit and Vegetable Program

I do not disagree with the Senator from Iowa.

Incentive Criteria for Reduction of Nonresponse Rates and Substitution

Mr. HARKIN, Mr. President, I hope to clarify the operation of certain provisions in the bill. As the chairman knows, the section of the bill titled, ``Household Applications,'' provides school districts with an incentive to reduce the nonresponse rate during the income verification process. I would like to offer an example of the operation of 10- percent improvement criteria in nonresponse rates, so that the committee's intent is not misinterpreted. A district with a non- response rate of 40 percent, for example, would have to reduce its nonresponse rate to 36 percent, in order to meet the 10-percent improvement criteria and be entitled to maintain existing verification procedures under current law.

The Senator is, indeed, correct in his calculations. The provision calling for a 10-percent improvement in S. 2507 would operate in precisely the manner that the Senator from Iowa described.

The Senator is once again correct. This bill recognizes that there are certain situations when it may be nearly impossible for a school district to get in touch with the families of children who are eligible for this program. In situations such as those the Senator described, and other similar ones, the school district may decline to verify up to 5 percent of the approved applications selected for verification and replace those applications with other approved applications.

Mr. President, I agree with the distinguished Senator from Georgia on the importance of breakfast to our children's education.

Mr. President, this provision is being added as a part of the floor consideration of this legislation. Therefore, there is no accompanying report language which explains its effect. We appreciate the contribution the Senator from Alaska has made to the Senate's consideration of this legislation. Will the Senator please share her views on this provision?

Mr. President, I would like Senator Murkowski to explain her rationale for offering this provision.

Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator's explanation.

The explanation that Senator Harkin has offered with regard to this provision of the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 is absolutely correct and is consistent with the committee's intent. In including the amendment to Medicaid law, it was certainly not our goal or intent to allow all Medicaid information to be shared with local educational agencies. We intended to allow States to share only such limited Medicaid information that was necessary to verify eligibility in the School Lunch or School Breakfast Programs. Any interpretation to the contrary is inconsistent with the intent of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

I agree that the Senator from Michigan has correctly cited the conference report of the 2002 farm bill, and I appreciate all of her hard work on this issue.

I agree that the USDA has not followed the language from the 2002 farm bill conference report. I suggest that the Senator from Michigan and I work with USDA to try to facilitate greater purchases of fruits and vegetables in the nutrition programs.

I thank the distinguished Senator from Colorado for yielding to me. I also thank him for his leadership on this issue in the Armed Services Committee. He has been a key proponent and a very persuasive supporter of the National Missile Defense Program and missile defense generally.

This amendment would undermine the ability of our Department of Defense to go forward in the deployment and protection of our country through the use of ballistic missile technology and capabilities. These capabilities have been developed in response to legislation that was approved by the Congress and signed by the Chief Executive to develop a missile defense capability that could defend the United States against missile attack.

We have made great progress since those initial authorizations were approved by the Congress. We are now in a position of actually deploying a system that is workable. The testimony of General Kadish before our Appropriations Committee and before the Armed Services Committee has clearly indicated the successful progress of this program to date. We should continue to support it and we should defeat this Boxer amendment.

Mr. President, I announce that the Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation and Rural Revitalization of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will conduct a hearing on June 24, 2004 in SD-562 at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this hearing will be to Review the Implementation of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act.

subcommittee on national parks

Mr. President, I announce that the Subcommittee on Production and Price Competitiveness of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will conduct a hearing on June 23, 2004 in SD- 628 at 10 a.m. The purpose of this hearing will be to examine proposed legislation permitting the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to register Canadian pesticides. Agenda: S. 1406.

subcommittee on energy

Mr. President, with the death of President Ronald Reagan, our Nation has lost a very successful and inspirational leader. He led us to believe in ourselves and our system of Government, our market economy, and our ability to defend freedom and liberty against all threats.

President Reagan had a contagious sense of optimism. He believed deeply America was capable of solving our problems through our democratic process of self-government, and that other nations could do the same.

His greatest success was improving our economy and establishing a more peaceful and cooperative relationship with the former Soviet Union, in particular with the former Communist countries of Eastern Europe.

The Berlin Wall was a symbol of intransigent tyranny. He called for it to be torn down and it was, giving the people of Eastern Europe the opportunity for freedom and hope for a brighter future. We will always remember President Reagan's great smile, his good humor, his sincerity, and his love of country. We are a better Nation and the world is a safer place because of Ronald Reagan.

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

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

I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 542, S. 1887.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, as the Senate continues its consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act, I wish to commend our military forces for the exemplary and successful performance of their missions in the war on terrorism.

This bill provides the authorization for appropriations of funds needed to enable them to continue to protect our national security interests in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the world. In Afghanistan, the Taliban leadership has been removed and is no longer able to provide a safe haven for al-Qaida operatives or to train terrorists or to plan attacks against people around the world. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein is in prison, and 46 of the most wanted operatives in his regime are no longer a threat to others.

Our military forces have helped provide an opportunity for Iraq to start a transition to democracy. The President's envoy to Iraq, Ambassador Paul Bremer, has led this impressive transition to peace and sovereignty. Under Ambassador Bremer's leadership, and with the assistance of many courageous Iraqi citizens, unemployment has fallen by nearly one-half. And for the first time in decades, Iraq's marketplaces are filled with consumer goods. More than 395,000 jobs have been created for the Iraqi people. All 22 universities and 43 technical institutes and colleges are open. Almost 2,500 schools have been rehabilitated, and 240 hospitals and more than 1,200 health clinics are now open for the Iraqi people. Five million children have been immunized for measles, mumps, and rubella. Electricity generation has surpassed prewar levels and is more evenly distributed now than it was before. The number of telephone subscribers, including cell phone users, is nearly one-third above the level it was before the liberation began. More than 90 percent of Iraqi towns and provinces have local government councils. These are individuals who have voluntarily assumed responsibilities for moving their communities into this new era of self-government.

Iraq has a functioning judiciary now and is on its way to providing true and equal justice for all. More than 200,000 Iraqis are now serving in their own security forces, and 25,000 troops from other countries are present in Iraq as well, contributing to the peacekeeping operations.

This authorization bill also provides support for other defense activities in the central command area of responsibility and elsewhere around the world where our interests are threatened. It is important that we pass this bill.

Chairman Warner and Senator Levin and their committee staff members have worked hard to put together a comprehensive authorization bill for the day-to-day operation and activities of our military forces. The bill provides essential authority for the funding that is necessary to keep our troops safe in the field, enabling them to protect themselves with the latest technologies and innovations that are available.

The amendment that has been offered by the chairman and ranking minority member authorizes an additional $25 billion in supplemental appropriations for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The other day, our Appropriations Committee, the Subcommittee on Defense, conducted a hearing with General Pace, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff, and representatives from the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Defense, the civilian leadership. We were able to question them about the use of these funds and what it was for.

It is specifically allocated to services. It is not just a lump sum of money available to spend in any way the Department or the military chooses, but it is described in this supplemental appropriations bill that will be before the Senate as well.

This contingent emergency reserve fund is important to ensure that the Department of Defense has the ability to respond to the rapidly changing environment in which our troops are currently operating. The authorization for this additional funding helps ensure that the core funding authorized in the bill for routine operations of the Department, such as the training of troops, base operations, maintenance, and the planned procurement of equipment continue uninterrupted in the

next fiscal year, while still ensuring that our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq have the resources needed to perform their important missions.

This funding will likely be used to provide ammunition and supplies, fuel for aircraft and vehicles, and maintenance for the equipment, and to provide force protection needs, such as body armor and other armor for vehicles that are used by our troops.

In my State of Mississippi, more than 3,000 National Guard and Air National Guard troops have been deployed since Operation Iraqi Freedom began. A few weeks ago, we welcomed home to our State a battalion of combat engineers who had been sent to Iraq right after the airport at Tikrit had been overtaken. They built a perimeter around that airfield to protect it and to protect this operation from those who would do harm to our troops. They built structures for the defense of other military forces and activities throughout northern Iraq. Then they came home. They came home to the welcome that was earned--well earned-- because of their brave service. They suffered not one casualty in the performance of their duties. They were under fire, but they protected themselves successfully. Thirty-two members of that battalion received Bronze Medals for their heroism and their courage under fire.

It makes me very proud that these soldiers from my State carried out their mission so successfully and with such distinction. I am proud of them and other troops from our State and throughout the country who have been called on to serve in this war on terrorism, many without complaints, many volunteering for that service in particular.

It has been a very impressive performance in behalf of the security interests of our great country. We appreciate their service, we appreciate their skill, and we want to be sure this legislation contains the resources that will be necessary for them to continue to safely carry out their duties in the future.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a Senate Joint Resolution appointing a citizen regent to the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution. I am pleased that my fellow Smithsonian Institution Regents, Senators Frist and Leahy, are cosponsors.

The Smithsonian Institution Board of Regents recently recommended the following distinguished individual for appointment to a 6-year term on the on the Board: Eli Broad of California.

I ask unanimous consent that his biography and the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a Senate Joint Resolution appointing a citizen regent to the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution. I am pleased that my fellow Smithsonian Institution Regents, Senators Frist and Leahy, are cosponsors.

The Smithsonian Institution Board of Regents recently recommended the following distinguished individual for appointment to a 6-year term on the on the Board: Eli Broad of California.

I ask unanimous consent that his biography and the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

I was pleased to work with the administration and my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee to secure funding for the program. It is my intention that any unobligated balances of funds appropriated for project BioShield remain available until expended, as the law requires, to ensure that the program has adequate resources in fiscal year 2005 to continue developing necessary countermeasures.