Floor Statements

Mr. President, I announce that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will conduct a hearing on May 15, 2003 in SR-328A at 11:30 a.m. The purpose of this hearing will be to review the nominations of Glenn Klippenstein, Julia Bartling, and Lowell Junkins to be a member of the Board of Directors of the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation.

Mr. President, I announce that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will conduct a hearing on May 14, 2003 in SR-328A at 2:00 p.m. The purpose of this hearing will be to discuss the implementation of the 2002 Farm Bill.

Mr. President, fifty years ago, President Eisenhower and Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson had the foresight to acknowledge that the future of American agriculture was dependent on the development of creative marketing tools and foreign markets for U.S. food and agricultural products. With that in mind, the Foreign Agricultural Service, FAS, was created to represent American agricultural interests worldwide.

During the past 50 years, the employees of FAS, working in coordination with partners in the agricultural community and other U.S. international agencies, have crafted important tools and programs to develop and expand foreign markets.

Recognizing the ever changing global economy, FAS has effectively developed the necessary resources to negotiate trade agreements, open and maintain foreign markets, and address international food crises and development needs.

Today, exports of American food and agricultural products have grown from less than $3 billion in 1953 to over $50 billion, experiencing a trade surplus year after year.

The realities of today's global marketplace, as well as the challenges facing American agricultural producers abroad, make the mission and continued success of the Foreign Agriculture Service more important than ever.

Therefore I rise today to submit resolution to congratulate the Foreign Agriculture Service on the 50th anniversary of its creation, and commend its dedicated employees for helping to create benefits for American farmers and ranchers by expanding global markets and reducing barriers to free trade.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, our State of Mississippi lost one of its finest citizens when Dr. Arthur Guyton was killed in an automobile accident on Thursday, April 3. He was a preeminent cardiovascular physiologist whose ``Textbook of Medical Physiology'' is the best known and most widely used medical school textbook in the world.

His research on hypertension and heart function was performed at the University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson and is the basis for the level of mankind's knowledge of these subjects today. He was a graduate of the University of Mississippi and the Harvard Medical School.

He published his textbook in 1956, which was largely a compilation of the lecture notes he used when he was teaching physiology in the early 1950s at the University of Mississippi in Oxford.

He and his wife Ruth are the parents of 10 children who are all physicians and engaged in the practice of medicine. Some are working at such leading medical centers as Duke and Johns Hopkins. Dr. Guyton's father was also a medical doctor who practiced in Oxford, MS, and was dean of the Ole Miss Medical School. No family in America is more prominent in the field of medicine.

Our thoughts and prayers are with this distinguished family. We extend to them our sincerest condolences and the thanks of a grateful nation for their continuing contributions.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the article published in the Clarion-Ledger newspaper in Jackson MS, on April 4 be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, it has been our hope that we could get the cooperation of the Senate in funding what are essential needs of the Department of Homeland Security for the balance of this fiscal year. In trying to determine what those amounts are for all of these new activities, the 22 agencies that have been folded into this new Department under the jurisdiction of Secretary Tom Ridge, we had hearings. We have questioned agency officials to determine how we could help support the administration's effort to improve the security of our homeland, to fund the activities of those agencies that are involved in the war effort in Iraq, such as the Coast Guard, to be sure that they could meet their responsibilities.

We did this in a very careful and deliberate way, knowing full well that because of the concerns and the fears that exist throughout the country about terrorism attacks and because of the increase in the threat levels that from time to time are announced, there is no way we could assuage the concerns of everybody with just money. But money helps. If a State or locality believes it is not able to afford what it thinks it needs to do right now to protect its citizens, there is pressure that builds on elected Members of this body. All of us feel this pressure right now to be sure that we do the best job we possibly can to put money in the hands of those agencies and those government officials that can make a difference in terms of our national security needs.

We didn't just think up these numbers and throw them in the bill. They are based upon estimates we have received from each agency, the President's request that was submitted to the Congress, and the testimony from the recent hearing when Secretary Ridge appeared before our committee and we had an opportunity to talk with him about these needs.

One reason there is some concern is that the Secretary asked for flexibility. There were some members of the committee who questioned him pretty sharply about why he needed flexibility, that it is the role of the Congress to make sure we appropriate money for specific purposes and not just write a blank check.

Well, we didn't write a blank check. We have written not only the provisions of the bill with specificity about how the funds we are appropriating are to be used, but we also have accompanied the bill with a written report that spells out, in the case of the counterterrorism fund, what our understanding of the needs are and the estimates that we received from the agencies. So in spite of the suggestions we have heard by the proponents of this amendment, we do have some specificity.

We have, for example, put in the committee report, with respect to the Department of Homeland Security's 30-day surge associated with immediate or emerging terrorism-related prevention and response activities, the following: Bureau of Immigration and Customs enforcement, $55 million. Federal Protective Service overtimes operations and maintenance for the air program and other related costs are included in that. For the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, $1 million. The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, we have $65 million. That includes overtime, operation costs of assets, impact on user fee collections and other logistics costs, and on and on. Transportation Security Administration, $120 million, overtime for passenger screeners, operation costs of assets, contract hiring, service training, and State and local expenses. We enumerate several other activities with specificity in that connection.

One thing the Senate needs to know, the Breaux amendment deletes the entire provision, the funding for the entire provision of the counterterrorism fund. I will read it. This is what it says; it is very clear: ``Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, funding under the heading Department of Homeland Security, Departmental Management, Counterterrorism Fund, shall be zero,'' knocking out $1.132 billion. Then $500 million is zeroed out of the Department of Justice, General Administration, Counterterrorism Fund.

Think about what you are being asked to do. This amendment is suggesting that you disregard the efforts by the committee in the writing of a meticulously drafted committee report that specifies our understanding of where these funds are going to be spent, and you trade that for this amendment that is offered, as we are in the closing hours of consideration of this supplemental bill and assume that these recommendations are going to be superior to the ones the committee has proposed to the Senate.

I am suggesting this is not a good way to legislate. The Senate ought to reject this amendment. These are efforts and activities of our Government that are too important for the Senate to be asked to substitute the judgment of a new list of activities with new numbers beside them that are not related to estimates from the agency, are not related to any testimony we have received in any of our hearings, but yet amount to a rewrite of this entire section of the supplemental appropriations bill.

There is some money in here for States and localities. We hope the Senate understands that we have written in here some requirements that get the money out faster to States and localities. It requires that 80 percent of the funding go directly to localities in some of the grant programs administered by the Department of Homeland Security.

We have made a concerted effort to ensure that the taxpayers will get their money's worth out of the funds appropriated in this bill. For example, although this amendment adds money for the Coast Guard, we set up a separate section for funding of Coast Guard activities. We put in $580 million directly to the Coast Guard. I have to admit, that was not requested by the administration, but we wanted to be sure their activities, particularly with regard to Operation Iraqi Freedom, were fully funded.

The Coast Guard has been mobilized, in effect, as a part of our war against terror in the Persian Gulf area, so-called Operation Iraqi Freedom. But they also have responsibilities here for homeland activities. The bill reported by the Committee on Appropriations gives the Secretary discretion to use fiscal year 2003 funds from the counterterrorism account to allocate funding to the Coast Guard for additional operation expenses. That includes Operation Liberty Shield. The bill fully funds the administration's request in support of the Coast Guard and general terrorism prevention, preparedness, and response capability.

There is absolutely no basis for the $200 million estimate in the amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana. It is just added on. If there is evidence, if there is a request, if there is documentation, then we need to see it. We ought not be asked to support add-ons to this bill to make it sound as if we are underfunding the legitimate needs of these agencies in the protection of the security of our country.

I suggest the Senate should look very carefully at this amendment.

I will cite one other area. This amendment puts in $131 million for increased border and maritime protection operations. What this amendment does is double the amount that the administration says they need, just doubles it: If what we suggest is good, then twice as much ought to be twice as good.

That is not good reasoning and the Senate ought to reject the amendment.

Mr. President, contrary to the suggestion of my friend from Louisiana, the committee is requiring the administration to respond and spend the money as provided in this bill. I am reading:

Prior to the obligation of any funds, the Secretary of

Homeland Security is required to submit a notice to the

Committee on Appropriations. The committee expects this

notice to be accompanied by a full and complete justification

of the costs to be reimbursed by agency accounts, including a

detailed breakdown by program, project and activity.

We are going to maintain oversight. Who is not going to get money if this amendment is adopted? The U.S. Secret Service, law enforcement training requirements, emergency preparedness and response, and other important activities are going to be zeroed out of this bill.

Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

That is correct. I ask unanimous consent that the Breaux amendment be temporarily set aside and a vote occur on or in relation to the amendment at 4:45 p.m.

Yes, a motion to table was made. I now ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, the Senator from Missouri has an amendment, and there will be a short discussion of it, and it may not require a vote.

I have no objection to that request, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I don't have first-hand knowledge of the agreement with respect to the Senator's amendment. I assume this is the Merchant Marine amendment.

I have no objection to her proceeding until we vote at 4:45.

The yeas and nays have been ordered, I think, Mr. President.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume under the order.

Mr. President, this amendment is a modified version of the amendment the Senate just acted on a little while ago offered by the Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Breaux. That amendment was tabled by the Senate. This amendment would strike the appropriations provided in the committee bill of $1.135 billion for the Department of Homeland Security Counterterrorism Fund and replace it with specific supplemental appropriations for various Department of Homeland Security accounts. It includes a number of specific earmarks and proposals that have been included in other amendments that have been offered to this bill but have been either tabled or defeated.

These additional amounts have no direct relationship to additional costs borne by the agencies as a result of heightened security related to the Iraqi war as part of Operation Liberty Shield.

For example, this amendment proposes to add an additional $160 million for the Customs and Border Protection account. Of this amount, $35 million is proposed for the Container Security Initiative. That is nearly three times the fiscal year 2003 regular appropriations level of $12 million; and $125 million for radiation portal monitors and other equipment, over two times the regular fiscal year 2003 appropriation level of $45.7 million.

It does not seem to me to make good sense to add these amounts of money at this time to a supplemental of immediate need to pay costs related to the war and Operation Liberty Shield.

We are 8 months into this fiscal year. The amendment proposes an additional $452 million in supplemental appropriations for the Transportation Security Administration. It includes $100 million for port security grants when the fiscal year 2002 funds have not been completely awarded. Ninety million dollars in 2002 funds have been rewarded, and $105 million in applications are being currently examined, and there is another $150 million in 2003 appropriations.

It also includes the $55 million proposed by the amendment offered by the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, which the Senate already tabled earlier today. This amendment being presented to the Senate now is a proposal that we have already rejected.

The amendment proposes $5 million for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. This is more than double any supplemental funding requirements identified to us by the agency. We have asked the center what they need to meet their responsibilities. We tried to find out what the requirements are and to make this bill coincide with those requirements. We are not talking about a full fiscal year, we are talking about the balance of this fiscal year, this supplemental appropriations.

This amendment proposes an additional $300 million on top of the $2 billion recommended separately in the bill for the Office for Domestic Preparedness. Listen to this: For the Coast Guard, it adds an additional $73 million. This is on top of $580 million provided separately in this bill for the Coast Guard costs related to Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Liberty Shield. Of that amount, $42 million is for port security assessments, when the highest estimate we know of to complete this is $37.8 million. Another $7 million is for the purchase of radiation detection equipment which is currently under study. Specifically, the Coast Guard is studying what the cost to purchase this equipment will be. So it is difficult to determine the funding required until that study is complete.

Further, the amendment proposes $40 million in supplemental funds to implement the Automated Identification System and other tracking systems when only $4 million is proposed for fiscal year 2004.

Think about that: This supplemental amendment proposes $40 million in supplemental funds for something when only $4 million is proposed for fiscal year 2004.

Finally, it proposes $105 million for the Counterterrorism Fund and specifies the transfer of these funds to other Federal agencies rather than proposing to appropriate these funds directly to those agencies-- $20 million to the District of Columbia, $10 million to the National Park Service.

My position is the same on this amendment as it was on the Breaux amendment which the Senate tabled. We have carefully examined the proposal from the administration for supplemental funding. The request was submitted to our committee. We had hearings. We had opportunities to talk with the agencies that are going to be spending these funds. We have made a concerted effort to find out what the needs are and to respond to those needs in this supplemental appropriations bill.

We might be wrong, but we are certainly not coming in and disregarding the needs of the agencies and throwing money out here and pretending that is going to solve all the problems at a time when we are concerned about the deficit, people are worried about our economy, we are trying to be sure we do not make decisions that make it harder to create new jobs and return good health to the economy.

We are under a lot of pressure from the added costs for the war in Iraq. We know that. We are under a lot of pressure for the added costs to defend our cities and localities against terrorist attacks. It is a big challenge to do what is right and to make the best judgments on these subjects. But I can assure the Senate that a concerted effort and a very thoughtful effort has gone into the development of the funding levels in the bill before the Senate. I am prepared to defend it and to not apologize for the amounts we put in here because it reflects a good-faith effort to do what is right.

I urge the Senate to reject the amendment.

Mr. President, it is with some trepidation that I oppose the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia because I have enjoyed working with him on this committee and in the Senate for a long time.

There may very well be provisions in this amendment he offers that should be seriously considered for inclusion in the fiscal year 2004 appropriations bill.

Right now, we are having hearings in the various subcommittees of Appropriations looking at the budget requests for 2004. Every committee is involved in that process, every subcommittee is involved in that process. But this is an appropriations bill that is targeted to the needs that are arising from Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Liberty Shield, the functions of the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security.

It is a very narrow and limited area that we are concentrating our attention on right now. Some of these programs are hard to estimate in terms of what is really needed for the remainder of this fiscal year in addition to the funds that have already been appropriated in the regular appropriations bills for the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security.

But the President submitted this request, asked for the funds to finish out this fiscal year. We know we can add funds and probably use them later on, but this is not the last bill we will consider during this calendar year, that funds these Departments and these activities. We have the 2004 bill coming up after the supplemental appropriation. I ask Senators to take that into account. If we have underfunded anything as a result of mistakes made, we can make up those shortfalls in the year 2004, but right now this is what the administration says they need.

I am not the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. I have not devoted all of my personal attention to that job as has Secretary Ridge. The President and his other staff members and the executive branch have. We have to respect their right to participate in this process. Just because we think we can improve upon what they have suggested by adding funds to these accounts--even funds that have been considered and rejected today by the Senate--let's vote on it again.

This amendment contains a lot of things that have already been considered today and rejected by this Senate. So think about that, as well.

I don't think I need to take up any more time. I am prepared to yield back my time. I do yield back the time on this side. When the Senator has used all his time, it would be my intention to move to table the amendment.

Mr. President, I move to table the amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

I understand there are discussions with the acting leader on the other side. Senator Hollings has a sense-of-the-Senate amendment dealing with taxes that we could take up now and have a debate on it and have a vote in relation to that amendment that would follow immediately after the vote on the Byrd amendment. I will be happy to yield to the Senator.

That is satisfactory with this side.

Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from South Carolina is one of my best friends. It is always a pleasure to hear him address the Senate on a subject about which he feels strongly and where he is truly an expert. He served as one of the first members of the Budget Committee and helped shape budget policies in Congress for many years.

I remember that it seems like last week we were debating the budget resolution that contained provisions relating to assumptions about tax policy

and fiscal policy for the next fiscal year. The Senate had an opportunity to consider and vote on a lot of amendments and provisions in that budget resolution having to do with tax policy.

Of course, we all know that what we are confronted with is a request from the President for funding for supplemental funds for the balance of this fiscal year to help finance the war in Iraq and to help finance Operation Liberty Shield by providing funds to the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense.

While this sense-of-the-Senate resolution offered by the Senator from South Carolina does raise a subject about which we have thought and discussed a good bit in recent weeks, we hope the Senate will approve a motion to table the amendment and continue to work our way through this bill so we can complete action on the appropriations measure tonight if at all possible. We can go to conference with the House and work out differences between their bill and ours and get these funds in the hands of the administration so we can get about the business of protecting the security of our homeland and waging a winning war against terror. That is the purpose of this legislation. We hope the Senate does not get too sidetracked on what our mission is tonight.

I hope Senators will be aware. We called over to the Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over tax policy, to let them know about the amendment and that we had an opportunity for them, if they wanted to, to come over and speak on the subject. Not having had a request for time, I am prepared to yield time back and proceed to a vote on the Byrd amendment or in relation to the Byrd amendment and then the Hollings amendment.

Mr. President, if there is no problem with that, I yield back the time on this side. I move to table the Hollings amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

There is no objection on this side.

My understanding is Senator Stevens wanted an opportunity to talk about that.

I ask for the yeas and nays if they have not been ordered.

Mr. President, the bill reported by the committee provides an additional $2 billion in supplemental appropriations to enhance assistance to State and local first responders. It does so in a manner which builds on the State strategies; provides funding for enhanced security of critical infrastructure, and allows the Secretary to target funds to high threat urban areas.

This amendment does more than just boost funding for the Office for Domestic Preparedness. It mandates mechanisms for the dispersal of Federal funds which would dilute the impact of the supplemental funding altogether.

The amendment which has been offered requires a direct pass-through of grant funds to States within 30 days. This requirement would negate the strategic planning process the Office for Domestic Preparedness has developed and implemented with States to allocate funds to those with greatest need and it would undermine the States' regional approach which is currently supported by the majority of States.

The amendment requires that funds for grants be allocated to States based on the minimum grant requirement in the USA PATRIOT Act and the remaining amounts being distributed on a per capita basis. This is what is being done currently. However, it mandates that the funds be allocated to States within 30 days of enactment of the Act. This would not allow time for the States to submit a plan for the use of the funds requested which ensures some degree of accountability that Federal funds will be used to cover allowable costs.

The amendment further requires that not less than 80 percent of each State's funds be made available to units of local government based on population. Of the 80 percent mandated to go to localities, the amendment then requires 20 percent be used ``shall be for''--``costs of law enforcement, fire, emergency medical services, and other emergency personnel, including covering overtime expenses.''

In addition, the amendment allows grant funds to be used for ``personnel funds''. It does not define what this means. Does this mean hiring personnel or reimbursement of costs of existing personnel, or both? What is the baseline for determining this? What will ensure that Federal assistance supplement and not supplant existing levels of effort?

The amendment also does not define units of Local Government. If it truly means all local units will receive funds based on population, the Federal funding will be diluted by giving many small jurisdictions small grants. And, it will most likely cause further delay, if you consider there are over 3,100 counties, each containing townships, villages or other governmental units, and the States are required, as this amendment mandates, to disperse all these funds to this number of jurisdictions based on population within 30 days, and then to make sure that 20 percent of those funds be allocated only for specified purposes, as the amendment requires.

Where the current system relies on planning-based decisionmaking, this amendment resembles revenue sharing.

I realize that changes to the current system may be merited. Questions have been raised about the appropriate Federal share of the additional cost to States and local governments of terrorism preparedness and response efforts; what should properly be a Federal responsibility; and the formula for distributing funds, and the extent to which it properly reflects risks and vulnerabilities.

However, changes should be made after careful review by the authoring committees of jurisdiction, not done on this supplemental appropriations bill. The chairman of the Senate Government Affairs Committee has already announced a series of hearings, beginning next week, to review the Department of Homeland Security's grant programs and their effectiveness.

I do know that with respect to making a decision on this here today, the current process is preferable to what is being proposed by this amendment. This amendment would only make things worse.

The same is true for the mechanism proposed by this amendment to deliver critical infrastructure protection funds to States. It would require funds be distributed on a per capita basis to States. Once funds are available to States, 50 percent must be made available to local jurisdictions within 30 days of receipt.

Again, it would dilute the funds being made available for security costs related to protection of critical infrastructure, which are intended to help State and local governments cover additional costs resulting from Operation Liberty Shield. Again, this is not targeted assistance, it is a revenue sharing approach to a problem.

The amendment also provides an additional $155 million for grants under the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act. There is no indication that additional funding is needed at this time. The Department of Homeland Security is still processing applications for the $745 million made available for fiscal year 2003.

Plus, this additional funding, as well as an additional $130 million proposed for the Department of Justice Community-Oriented Policing Services, is proposed on top of the amendment's requirement that 20 percent of local jurisdictions' share of State grants be used for ``law enforcement, fire, emergency medical services, and other emergency personnel, including covering overtime expenses.''

The bill reported by the Appropriations Committee includes $2 billion in supplemental appropriations for the Office for Domestic Preparedness to assist State and local governments to expand their capacity to prepare and respond to potential terrorist acts.

It provides an additional $1.42 billion for grants to States, at least 80 percent of which must be passed through to local governments. This funding is for the acquisition of equipment, training, excercises, and planning. It is intended to assist States to more aggressively implement their statewide domestic preparedness strategies.

In addition, the committee-reported bill provides an additional $30 million in direct technical assistance to states for a variety of activities, as needed, including support for plan development and implementation of exercises.

It also provides $450 million, as requested by the President, for State grants to assist State and local governments with the costs of augmenting security at critical infrastructure facilities during the period of hostilities with Iraq. This recognizes the new requirements imposed on States and localities by the immediate need for heightened protection of critical infrastructure facilities. We understand

that the department has already reached out to States to ensure security measures are under way for the most sensitive sites and has been working with governors in developing site protection plans so that these funds can be released rapidly.

Lastly, it provides an additional $100 million to be targeted to high-risk urban areas, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security.

The amendment offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania would alter the amounts recommended in the committee-reported bill to provide total supplemental appropriations of $600 million for assistance to high- threat urban areas and the total supplemental appropriations for the Office for Domestic Preparedness to $2.2 billion. I support the Specter amendment, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment offered by Senator Schumer.

Mr. President, the Senate was enriched enormously by the services of the late Senator from New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

He was appreciated and respected for his intelligence, his sense of humor, his seriousness of purpose, and the warmth and steadfastness of his friendship.

His death last week saddened this Senator very much. His funeral services at St. Patrick's Church here in Washington last Monday attracted a large crowd of friends, former colleagues, and staff members as well as his attractive family. This manifestation of friendship reminded me why Pat Moynihan was such a successful public official. He liked people, and they liked him.

He took his job as U.S. Senator from New York very seriously. He worked hard for funding for the New York Botanical Gardens. He was also an active and effective member of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution where it was my good fortune and pleasure to serve with him.

He transformed the City of Washington, D.C. through his determined efforts to enhance the beauty and protect the architectural integrity of Pennsylvania Avenue.

His scholarly articles and books on the subject of the cultural and social history of our nation were informative and influential. The correctness of his assessment of the importance of the family unit in our society changed our attitudes about the role of federal government policies.

His influence was also felt on tax policies as a member of the Senate Finance Committee.

I convey to all the members of Pat Moynihan's family my sincerest condolences.

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

Mr. President, the amendment of the Senator from Louisiana would add over $1 billion, which would be earmarked for National Guard and Reserve equipment.

The amendment proposes to increase the supplemental appropriations fund to add funding for something that the Department of Defense does not tell us is a high priority.

Equipment is not requested to be funded in the supplemental or in the budget that was submitted by the President for the next fiscal year.

Most of the items the Senator is describing are for the purposes of training. What we are trying to do today is provide funds for the Department of Defense to wage the war on terror and to pay for what is needed now so that we can win a victory in Iraq and protect the security of our homeland, not for items that will reach their destination or be usable by the Guard and Reserve Forces 2 years from now. And that is what these funds will do. They are for future projects.

Three of the projects are for construction--$20 million worth of construction projects--so they are not warfighting funding program dollars that are requested by the administration of this Congress at this time.

The committee has made available a sum of $11.019 billion in the Defense Emergency Response Fund that can be used for any of these items that the military thinks are necessary in order to wage the war on terror, so we are not denying the military the opportunity to spend funds for purposes such as the Senator describes. But we are not telling them they have to. We are not earmarking funds and saying you have to spend this for this purpose at this time.

The bill that is before the Senate also contains $1 billion in procurement accounts that can be used for Guard and Reserve Forces. So we are not ignoring the Guard and Reserve in this bill. The Guard and Reserve equipment, and the use of them in the operations at this time, is fully provided for in the bill.

We hope the Senate will reject the amendment. It has not been requested by the Department of Defense. The requests the Department are making for waging the war are met by the funding provided in the bill.

Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, with the consent of the Senator from Arizona, I ask unanimous consent that there be 30 minutes equally divided for debate prior to a vote in relation to the McCain amendment, with no amendments in order to the language of the amendment.

I so modify my request.

Mr. President, the Senator has my assurance that will be the case.

Mr. President, I find, in reviewing the report of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over appropriations for the Department of Transportation, that $50 million is needed by the Maritime Guaranteed Loan Program. This is a program that provides subsidies for guaranteed loans for purchases of vessels built in U.S. shipyards and includes the guarantee for facilities or equipment pertaining to marine operations related to any of those vessels.

The committee report contends that the program is critical for those who transport military equipment and supplies to deployed military forces during time of war. There is currently only $1 million available in this account for pending and new loan guarantees. There are future maritime projects also which can use these funds.

There is a critical need for auxiliary maritime sealift capacity during time of war. This program has provided loan guarantees for companies that have ordered cargo ships which are available to serve as a military auxiliary fleet to the Department of Defense during overseas operations. Without the funding in the committee recommendation, ship owners will not have access to this financing system which has proven to help sustain our Nation's commercial, energy transportation, and military sealift needs.

I urge the Senate to reject the McCain amendment.

I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Lott.

I have no objection to the additional time the Senator is requesting.

Can the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee offer me assurance that budget resolution agreement will leave policy decisions regarding payment limitations to be resolved by the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

I thank the Senator for his cooperation.

superfund

Mr. President, I express my strong opposition to a provision in the budget resolution that proposes to shift $1.4 billion in mandatory spending over the next 10 years from agricultural programs, budget function 350, to the Conservation Security Program, budget function 300, compared to projected mandatory spending under the Agriculture Committee's jurisdiction under current law. I am pleased that the budget resolution does not require the Agriculture Committee to report legislation reducing mandatory spending pursuant to a budget reconciliation instruction, nonetheless this proposal amounts to a policy recommendation that the Agriculture Committee shift spending away from agricultural programs and towards the Conservation Security Program.

More importantly, as I understand it, the $1.4 billion in agricultural program savings is to be achieved by reducing farm support program payment limitations below those that were agreed to as part of the 2002 farm bill, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, FSRIA. Specifically, the proposal would reduce statutory payment limitations for farm program payments to producers of covered crops-- wheat, feed grains, oilseeds, cotton, and rice--from $40,000 to $20,000 for direct payments and from $65,000 to $30,000 for counter-cyclical payments. In addition, the proposal would include certificate transactions and loan forfeitures under the marketing loan program's payment limitation.

I oppose this proposal for a number of reasons. First, the FSRIA, enacted less than a year ago, has already reduced farm program payment limits compared to the 1995 farm bill. Second, the FSRIA, established a Commission on Application of Payment Limitations which is to analyze and make recommendations related to this issue to the President and to the House and Senate Agriculture Committees in a report that is due on or before May 13, 2003. Clearly, the Senate should consider the Commission's findings before it endorses a further policy change in this area. Third, the budget resolution should provide us with a broad plan for Federal revenues and expenditures but leave policy decisions within that budget framework to the Appropriations Committee, in the case of discretionary spending, and to the various

authorizing committees such as the Agriculture Committee, in the case of mandatory spending. This proposal violates that principle by attempting to dictate policy to the Agriculture Committee without having any impact on the overall level of Federal expenditures. Fourth, because their crops cost more to produce, southern cotton and rice farms tend to be larger, on average, than wheat, corn, and soybean farms in other regions. The payment limit proposal would reduce Government payments to larger farms, hurting southern cotton and rice producers the most. It is unclear, at best, what the proposal's changes to the marketing loan program would mean for our farmers. This is a program that has been highly successful in helping our farmers remain internationally competitive without undue Government involvement in the marketplace.

Taken together, the proposal's payment limitation changes could seriously undercut the farm safety net that was a principal goal of the FSRIA, particularly for southern producers of cotton and rice. I strongly oppose this provision.

Mr. President, my good friend from Vermont has told us what the amendment provides in way of an increase in spending. But what he did not tell us is it increases taxes by $6 billion over the period of 2004 through 2007. It increases the spending caps and it changes the reconciliation instructions.

What also is contained in this budget resolution is $28 billion in discretionary spending for the homeland security function. This amendment is aimed at one small part of the budget resolution, and it increases that account, though, by 85 percent.

Today, we have received from the President a supplemental budget request for homeland security asking for an additional $4.2 billion. The administration is making a very strong effort, under the competent leadership of Secretary Tom Ridge, to have a coordinated national strategy. While this amendment is well intended and we all support the goal of strengthening our effort to deliver the safety and health assistance that is needed at the local levels, this amendment is unnecessary and the bill takes care of the problem.

Mr. President, we are all very concerned about making adequate funds available for this account, but we also have in the budget--and Senators should recognize this--$28 billion in discretionary spending in the homeland security function of the budget resolution.

What the Senator from Connecticut did not let you know was--and I am sure he will be glad to admit this is the case--this amendment would cause taxes to go up. The amendment increases taxes by $23.7 billion over the period of time from 2004 to 2007. It increases the spending caps, and it changes the reconciliation instructions.

We just received from the President today a supplemental budget request for homeland security in the amount of $4.2 billion. The President is giving strong leadership on this issue, trying to organize a national strategy to help not only first responders, firefighters, and others, but have a national strategy for making our homeland safer and our people more secure.

I hope Senators will vote against the amendment.

Mr. President, the resolution already provides $2.1 billion for a variety of local law enforcement grant programs, as well as an additional $500 million at the Department of Homeland Security specifically for grant programs to local law enforcement entities.

Under an arrangement at the Department, Governor Ridge has made clear that discretionary funds going to the States are passed through to local governments and localities.

One thing the Senator did not point out was if this amendment is adopted, it is going to increase taxes by $9 billion over the period from 2003 to 2007. It will also increase the spending caps.

This resolution we have before us already provides for funding for the strategy for making our homeland

safer and our people more secure. I urge Senators to vote against this amendment.

Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. President, this amendment will increase the fiscal year 2003 totals in the budget resolution to provide an additional $3.5 billion in funding for homeland security.

Based on information about possible terrorist attacks against U.S. interests, the Secretary of Homeland Security earlier this week raised the national threat alert level to orange, indicating a higher risk of terrorist attack. We must support the actions being taken across our country to mobilize Federal response assets, strengthen the protection of our transportation systems, tighten security at our borders and ports, increase public health preparedness, and improve the capabilities of first responders.

Secretary Ridge confirmed in a letter today that a supplemental appropriations request will be sent to Congress by the President in the near future to support homeland security efforts. This amendment will accommodate additional funding to meet these immediate homeland security needs, and I urge Senators to support it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the letter I described addressed to the Honorable William Frist, Senate majority leader, from Tom Ridge be printed in the Record.

I move to reconsider the vote.

I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. President, I call the attention of the Senate to the fact that back in my State of Mississippi, our legislature is in session, and our State senate has adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 605, under the leadership of our Lieutenant Governor, as presiding officer of that body, Amy Tuck. And the president pro tempore is Travis Little.

The operative clauses are:

That we do hereby declare our complete support for and our

great pride in the Armed Forces of the United States,

particularly the men and women from the State of Mississippi,

both in the Middle East and elsewhere, who are participating

in and supporting military operations. . . .

And it goes on to say:

That we do hereby express our support of President George

W. Bush and the President's cabinet for their courage and

decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

There are whereas clauses in another part of that resolution.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire concurrent resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I announce that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will conduct a hearing on March 20, 2003, in SR-328A at 10:30 a.m. The purpose of this hearing will be to consider the nomination of Vernon Bernard Parker to be Assistant Secretary of Agriculture.

subcommittee on national parks

Mr. President, I announce that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will conduct a hearing on March 26, 2003, in SR-328A at 10 a.m. The purpose of this hearing will be to review the reauthorization of child nutrition programs.