Thad Cochran

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. 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. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. 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. COCHRAN

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

Mr. COCHRAN. 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. COCHRAN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. 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. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. 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. COCHRAN

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

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

Mr. COCHRAN. There is no objection on this side.

Mr. COCHRAN. 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.

Mr. COCHRAN. That is satisfactory with this side.

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

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

Mr. COCHRAN. 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. COCHRAN. 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.

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

Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.

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

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

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

Mr. COCHRAN. 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.

Mr. COCHRAN. 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.

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