Thad Cochran

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. 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. COCHRAN. 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.

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

Mr. COCHRAN

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

Mr. COCHRAN. 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.

Mr. COCHRAN. 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.

Mr. COCHRAN. I so modify my request.

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

Mr. COCHRAN. 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.

Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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, 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. COCHRAN. 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.

Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Senator for his cooperation. superfund

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. I hope Senators will vote against the amendment.

Mr. COCHRAN. 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. COCHRAN. 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.

Mr. COCHRAN. 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. COCHRAN

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

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

Mr. COCHRAN. 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.

Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. 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. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. 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.