[Congressional Record: November 15, 2001 (Senate)]
[Page S11878-S11886]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr15no01-175]
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002--CONFERENCE REPORT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
proceed to the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R.
2500, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
2500), ``making appropriations for the Departments of
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and
for other purposes,'' having met have agreed that the House
recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate,
and agree to the same with an amendment, signed by all of the
conferees on the part of both Houses.
(The report is printed in the House proceedings of the Record of
November 9, 2001 page H7986.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). Under the previous order,
there are 45 minutes for debate of which Senator Hollings, Senator
Gregg, and Senator McCain have 15 minutes each.
Who yields time?
Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I yield myself such time as is
necessary.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I am very pleased to present to the
Senate today the FY 2002 State, Justice, Commerce, and related agencies
conference report. The conference report before you combines the
strongest components from both the Senate and House bills which passed
a few months ago, and it addresses new priorities that have arisen
since September 11.
I could not have done this without the help of the ranking member,
Senator Gregg. He and his staff have worked diligently with me and my
staff to produce a fair, well balanced, and bi-partisan bill. I also
want to thank Chairman Wolf and ranking member Serrano, as well as
their staffs, for their commitment to a positive and constructive
conference. The outcome of this conference is a bi-partisan and bi-
cameral piece of legislation. In fact, the House passed this bill 411-
15 yesterday. I now call on the Senate to pass this bill as well.
I have always said that the funds appropriated under this bill affect
the lives of all Americans in so many different ways. However, the
importance of this bill became even more apparent in the aftermath of
the September 11 attacks. The conference report before you today meets
the following three goals: One, it provides funding at the Federal,
State, and local level to combat terrorism here at home.
In fact, that is exactly what we were debating with Senator Gregg's
initiative on counterterrorism at the time the Pentagon was struck that
morning.
Second, it provides funds to protect American citizens and employees
of
[[Page S11879]]
the American Government, while overseas, and three, this bill continues
the numerous domestic programs that have had, and will continue to
have, a positive impact on the American way of life.
First, this bill continues to fund the counter-terrorism programs
under the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), Office of Domestic
Preparedness (ODP). Most of these funds go directly to States in the
form of formula grants for the purchase of equipment to respond to
terrorist incidents at both the State and local level. The distribution
of funds among State and local agencies are based on State plans that
each State must submit to ODP prior to receiving grant funds. Funds
provided to the office of domestic preparedness are also used to
provide training to State and local law enforcement officials, as well
as to provide real-time emergency exercises for first responders and
Federal, State, and local executives.
The bill also provides a significant increase in funds over last year
to ensure that agencies have the resources they need to prevent and
fight terrorism. For example, the fiscal year 2002 bill includes a $280
million increase over last year for the Federal Bureau of
Investigations and a $700 million increase for Immigration and
Naturalization Services.
Second, as in past years, the conferees have placed significant
resources--$1.3 billion for worldwide security upgrades and $458
million for Embassy construction--into ensuring that our overseas
facilities are adequately protected. U.S. citizens and overseas
employees utilizing these facilities should be safeguarded against
possible terrorist attacks--and the funding provided in this conference
report will help assure that they are.
Finally, the conferees have placed great emphasis on continuing
funding for domestic programs that have a positive impact on the
American way of life. It is imperative that the terrorist attack
against this Nation does not force us to abandon the vital domestic
programs that have made us a great nation. This conference report
ensures that those vital programs are not neglected. It continues
programs that make our Nation's primary and secondary schools safer by
providing grants for the hiring of school resource officers. Funds are
provided to protect all Americans by increasing the number of police
officers walking the Nation's streets, providing additional funds to
fight the growing problem of illegal drug use, guarding consumers from
fraud, and shielding children from internet predators. In addition,
people throughout this country benefit from weather forecasting
services funded through this bill. These Americans include farmers
receiving information necessary to effectively manage their crops, and
families receiving lifesaving emergency bulletins regarding tornadoes,
floods, torrential rains, and hurricanes. This conference report
continues to assist States in their efforts to manage overwhelming
economic growth in our coastal communities. It also provides funds to
preserve our few remaining pristine estuarine areas. Funding is
provided to assist our small businesses, to gather economic statistical
data, to perfect our census process, to promote export of American
products. All of these are vital programs that have contributed daily
to the strength of this Nation.
In all, the CJS bill totals $39.3 billion in budget authority, which
is $1.2 billion above the fiscal year 2001 amount. The Departments of
State, Justice, and Commerce, as well as the Judiciary, all receive
significant increases over prior year appropriations. I would like to
take a few minutes to go over some of the specific funding highlights
from the SJC bill the conferees are presenting to the Senate:
Once again, the FBI's Preliminary Annual Uniform Crime Report
released this past May demonstrates how well these programs are
working. According to the FBI's report, in 2000, serious crime has
decreased 7-percent from 1998, marking 9 consecutive years of decline.
This continues to be the longest running drop in crime on record.
Bipartisan efforts to fund DOJ's crime fighting initiatives have
impacted this reduction in crime during the past 10 years.
The conference report provides $3.5 billion for the FBI, which is
$280 million above last year's funding level. To meet the critical need
of sharing and storing information within the FBI, the bill provides
the FBI with $142 million for the FBI's Computer Modernization Program,
Trilogy. In addition, the conference report provides significant
funding increases for vital programs such as $6.8 million to improve
intercept capabilities; $7 million for counter-encryption resources;
$12 million for forensic research; and $32 million for an annex of the
engineering research facility, which develops and fields cutting edge
technology in support of case agents.
The conference report provides $1.48 billion for DEA, $129 million
above last year's funding level. Increased funds are provided for
technology and infrastructure improvements, including an additional $13
million for DEA's laboratory operations for forensic support.
To combat drugs that are reaching our streets and our children, the
conference report provides $32.8 million to fight methamphetamine and
encourages the DEA to increase its efforts in fighting heroin and
emerging drugs such as oxycontin and ecstacy. The conference report
also directs the DEA to renew its efforts to work with Mexico in
combating drug trafficking and corruption under the country's new
President Vicente Fox.
For the INS, the conference report includes $5.6 billion, $2 billion
of which is derived from fees. This is an $800-million increase over
last year's funding level and provides the necessary resources to
address border enforcement and benefits processing.
For border enforcement, the bill provides $66 million for 570
additional Border Patrol agents, and $25.4 million for 348 additional
land border inspectors. To better equip and house these enforcement
officers, the conference report provides $2 million for Border
vehicles, $22 million for Border equipment, such as search lights,
goggles and infrared scopes, $40 million to modernize inspection
technology; and $128.4 million for Border patrol and detention facility
construction and rehabilitation.
For INS' benefits processing efforts, the conference report provides
an additional $45 million to specifically address the case backlog and
accelerate processing times.
This conference report includes $3.24 billion for the Office of
Justice Programs, which is $425 million above the amount requested by
the President. This bill provides for the funding of a number of
important law enforcement programs.
The conference report provides $251.4 million to the Office of
Domestic Preparedness for equipment and training of State and local law
enforcement regarding counter terrorism activities. In addition, $2.4
billion has been provided for State and local law enforcement
assistance grants. Within this amount; $594.4 million is provided for
the Byrne State and Local Law Enforcement Program; $400 million is
provided for the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program; $390.5
million is provided for Violence Against Women Act, VAWA, Programs,
including programs to assist disabled female victims, programs to
reduce violence against women on college campuses, and efforts to
address domestic and child abuse in rural areas; and $565 million is
provided for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program which
reimburses States for the incarceration costs of criminal aliens.
Within the amount provided for the Office of Justice Programs, a
total of $305.8 million has been included for Juvenile Justice
Programs. These funds will go toward programs aimed at reducing
delinquency among at-risk youth; assisting States in enforcing underage
drinking laws; and enhancing school safety by providing youth with
positive role models through structured mentoring programs, training
for teachers and families so that they can recognize troubled youth,
and training for students on conflict resolution and violence
reduction.
The conference report includes $1.05 billion in new budget authority,
for the COPS Office which is $195.3 million above the President's
request. As in prior years, the Senate has provided up to $180 million
for the Cops-In-Schools Program to fund up to 1,500 additional school
resources officers in fiscal year 2002, which will make a total of
6,100 school resource officers funded since Senator Gregg and I created
this program in 1998.
[[Page S11880]]
The conference report reflects Congress' continued commitment to
providing grant funds for the hiring of local law enforcement officers
through the Cops Universal Hiring Program. Although the President did
not seek funding for this program in fiscal year 2002, the committee
has provided $150 million to continue to hire officers, as well as to
provide much needed communications technology to the Nation's law
enforcement community.
Within the Cops budget, the conference report provides increased
funding for programs authorized by the Crime Identification and
Technology Act, CITA. In fiscal year 2002, $197 million is provided for
programs that will improve the retention of, and access to, criminal
records nationwide, improve the forensic capabilities of State and
local forensic labs, and reduce the backlog of crime scene and
convicted offender DNA evidence.
And finally, the conference report has provided $70.4 million within
Cops to continue the Cops Methamphetamine Initiative. These funds will
provide for the clean-up of meth production sites which pose serious
health risks to law enforcement and the surrounding public. Funds will
also be provided to State and local law enforcement to acquire training
and equipment to safely and effectively dismantle existing meth labs.
A total of $5.51 billion is provided for the Department of Commerce
in fiscal year 2002, this conference report focuses on the goals of
improving departmental infrastructure and promoting the advancement of
technology. The Department of Commerce consists of 37,000 employees
working in agencies as diverse as the Economic Development
Administration, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
and the Bureau of the Census. They are highly-trained experts who are
responsible for a huge array of critical programs. These employees help
minority businesses and small manufacturers flourish, run trade
missions to open foreign markets to American goods, forecast
hurricanes, estimate the Nation's gross domestic product, set standards
and measurements recognized and used world-wide, fly satellites, manage
the Nation's fisheries, conduct censuses, and process patents. These
missions of the Department of Commerce are the glue that holds together
the U.S. economy, both domestically and abroad.
There is no doubt as to the importance of the missions under the
purview of the Department of Commerce. There is, however, a crisis
looming in terms of the infrastructure available to the employees who
work there. The conference report we have before us begins to turn the
tide on infrastructure needs. In all cases, the conference report funds
the President's request for capital upgrades. This includes new
information technology systems at the Minority Business Development
Agency, the Bureau of the Census, the Economic Development Agency, and
the Office of Economic and Statistical Analysis. The conference report
includes a $76 million increase for the next generation of polar-
orbiting satellites. It also includes a new radio spectrum measurement
system at the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration. We also encourage the United States Patent and
Trademark Office to reflect on its infrastructure needs and to report
back on what we can do to help in the future.
The conference report provides $3.26 billion for NOAA. Funding is
included to begin construction of 2 new research vessels and to
refurbish 5 others. In addition, funding is included for repairs at the
Beaufort, Oxford and Kasitsna coastal laboratories. Sufficient funding
is provided to begin construction on regional National Marine Fisheries
Service buildings in Hawaii and in Alaska. The bill provides funding to
start building visitor facilities at national marine sanctuaries.
The funding provided in this conference report for these purposes is
a down-payment on the future of a robust Department of Commerce. I
believe that the people at the department are its greatest asset and
that these targeted funds will allow these professionals to better do
their jobs for decades to come.
In terms of advancing technology, in addition to the satellite
programs, research vessels, radio spectrum management systems and other
programs that I mentioned earlier, the bill provides $674.5 million for
the National Institute for Standards and Technology, NIST. This amount
aggressively funds scientific and technical research and services that
are carried out in the NIST laboratories in Gaithersburg and in
Boulder. The bill provides the current year funding level of $60.7
million for new ATP awards. The ATP is an industry-led, competitive,
and cost-shared program to help the U.S. develop the next generation of
breakthrough technologies in advance of its foreign competitors. ATP
contracts encourage companies to undertake initial high-risk research
that promises significant widespread economic benefits. Over one-half
of the ATP awards go to small companies.
In the aftermath of the bombings of Dar es Salaam and Nairobi, the
Department of State focused more on the security of our overseas
infrastructure and peacekeeping missions than on the ``quality of
life'' needs of its employees. Secretary of State Colin Powell should
be commended for taking the approach that the morale of his employees
does not have to be compromised in the name of safety. The conference
report before the Senate today takes a good first step in that same
direction. The conference report provides $7.36 billion in funding for
the Department of State, an increase of $761 million above last year's
appropriated level of $6.6 billion. This funding level includes $95
million for the Secretary's ``new hire'' initiative which will provide
for an increase in 360 personnel, along with $12 million for training
and recruitment, and $162 million in human resources enhancements. The
conference report provides funding for recruitment, spousal employment,
and civil service mobility. Funding also is provided for an additional
186 security personnel and for the replacement of obsolete equipment
and motor vehicles overseas.
The conference report before the Senate today also addresses a
significant weakness in the State Department's information technology
infrastructure. The worldwide web has become essential to the conduct
of foreign policy. Yet, at this moment, most of the State Department's
overseas posts are dependent on obsolete computers and communications
equipment to process information, and most posts lack secure internet
browser access for their employees. Full funding is provided in this
conference report to bring the internet to the desk top of all
employees by January 2003 and also to protect the Department's
classified global computer system from cyber-terrorism.
Finally, full funding in the amount of $1.3 billion is provided for
worldwide security upgrades and $458 million for Embassy construction.
Again, under Secretary Powell's leadership in the selection of General
Williams to head the foreign buildings operations, millions of U.S.
taxpayer dollars have already been saved in the re-evaluation of
current construction projects. This prudent action should expedite the
construction needs highlighted in the Crowe report and put us ahead of
schedule in addressing the security needs of our vulnerable facilities.
Let me conclude by saying again this is a solid piece of legislation
that addresses issues that affect the daily lives of all Americans. It
is a good bill that balances the needs on many diverse missions, and
the interests of members from both parties and both Houses. Every year,
we face difficulties with respect to limited funding and multiple,
sometimes competing, priorities. This year was no different. And, as in
past years, the CJS conferees made those decisions in a bipartisan,
bicameral, and judicious manner. This could not have happened without
the assistance of Senator Gregg and the endless hours of work that both
my and his staff put into drafting the conference report before the
Senate today. Specifically, I would like to thank my clerk, Lila Helms,
along with Jill Shapiro Long, Luke Nachbar, and Dereck Orr as well as
Senator Gregg's minority clerk, Jim Morhard, along with Kevin Linsky,
Katherine Hennessey, and Nancy Perkins.
This is a great conference report before the Senate and with the help
of my colleagues, I look forward to swift passage at the end of this
debate.
I thank the distinguished Chair. I again thank my distinguished
ranking member.
[[Page S11881]]
I yield the floor and retain the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, as I understand the regular order, the
Senator from South Carolina has 15 minutes, I have 15 minutes, the
Senator from Arizona has 15 minutes, and then we go to a vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, does the Senator from New Hampshire seek
recognition?
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I inquire of the managers if I may have 5
or 6 minutes to raise a point.
Mr. GREGG. I will be happy to yield you 6 minutes of my time after I
have finished.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Thank you.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I begin by congratulating the Senator
from South Carolina for bringing this bill forward. He has done a
superb job. This is a bill that has a lot of moving parts. It covers a
broad sector of the agencies of the Federal Government, some of the
most critical agencies, of course, being the Justice Department, the
State Department, the Commerce Department, SEC, FTC, FCC, and SBA. The
list goes on and on, so it is a complex bill.
As is typical of the Senator from South Carolina, he has handled it
with great ability and acumen. As a result, we have before us what I
think is an extraordinarily strong bill, and a bill which aggressively
funds and promotes these agencies, and the primary roles of these
agencies, as well as making a point of focusing on certain initiatives
which are critical to better governance in this country, especially in
light of September 11.
A large percentage of the terrorism dollars that are domestically
oriented, and the initiatives that are domestically oriented, are tied
up in this bill with over $1.1 billion of funding. The initiatives
which are necessary in order to secure strong action on the part of the
Justice Department and the State Department are also part of the policy
in this bill.
So I congratulate the Senator from South Carolina for doing a superb
job. But he could not have done it, and I could not have participated
in this bill, without having exceptional staff. His staff, headed up by
Lila Helms, has done an exceptional job. His staff has been extremely
supportive of the efforts on our side of the aisle, and has worked with
our staff, led by Jim Morhard, extraordinarily well. I specifically
thank my staff people, including Jim Morhard and Kevin Linskey,
Katherine Hennessy, and Nancy Perkins. They all work around the clock
at this time of the year, and we very much appreciate it. We have
produced an exceptional bill because of those efforts.
The Senator from South Carolina has highlighted what amounts to the
key areas in the bill, but I do want to return to a couple items and
make a point to reinforce the commitment that this bill makes in those
areas.
First is the area of terrorism, as I mentioned. This committee long
before this bill was brought forward, has focused a great deal on the
issue of how we try to get ourselves up to speed to deal with
terrorism. Regrettably, obviously, we were not up to speed when
September 11 occurred. But in the past, this committee orchestrated the
Central Command Center for Crisis Management at the FBI. It has
orchestrated the legate services overseas in order to try to improve
our intelligence capabilities.
It was as a result of this committee that we undertook two major
exercises in the area of terrorism, the top-off program, which showed
us that we had cracks, but it also showed us where we needed to go. A
lot of what is happening in the post-September climate is as a result
of information we were able to develop especially out of the Denver
bioterrorism top-off exercise.
The bill specifically has in it the creation of a Deputy Attorney
General for Combating Terrorism, the concept being there are a lot of
different agencies, a lot of different moving parts just within the
Justice Department that have responsibility for terrorism--the INS,
obviously; the DEA; most importantly, the FBI; and the Justice
Department itself. There needed to be a central focus where there was
one person thinking solely about the issue of how Justice specifically
manages the question of terrorism.
There were some questions as to how this individual would relate to
the Attorney General, and specifically to Governor Ridge in his role.
My view is that he complements Governor Ridge in that he or she will
give Governor Ridge a single point of contact where he can get action
within the Justice Department and cut through red tape and turf. And,
hopefully, as a result, this person will increase the capabilities of
Governor Ridge as we try to manage the Federal response to terrorism.
So I think it is an initiative which makes sense, and I understand that
it has been worked out.
Secondly, I congratulate the chairman and his staff and the
participation of our staff in the area of NOAA. This is an agency which
is really one of the premier science agencies in our country; of
course, specifically, science related to the atmosphere and ocean.
The maintenance of a series of vibrant NOAA programs is extremely
important if we, as a country, are going to have the science we need in
order to protect, preserve, and improve those resources, the ocean and
our air, and manage issues such as hurricanes and tornadoes, and other
potential God-driven catastrophes, and be ready for those events so
that we can handle them more effectively as a Government.
In addition, as the Senator mentioned, we have made a huge commitment
in the area of technology. This is a very important function for us,
not only in the Justice Department but equally important in the State
Department, where they really have been lagging in their technological
capability. We think progress is being made in this area, rather
dramatic progress, as well as, of course, as was mentioned, the attempt
to upgrade our facilities overseas, and especially harden them in light
of the terrorist threat which they confront.
One area that was left out of this bill, which was not left out
because of any actions by the chairman--it was left out because of the
House Ways and Means Committee--was the issue of conflict diamonds.
When this bill passed the Senate, it had language in it which would
limit the use of conflict diamonds. Conflict diamonds are those
diamonds being produced primarily in Sierra Leone. They are diamonds
which have blood on them. They are diamonds which are being used to
fund not only the terrorist elements in Sierra Leone, known as the RUF,
but it appears now there is a connection between those diamonds and al-
Qaeda and the organizations of Osama bin Laden. These diamonds, where
people are basically held in slavery in order to produce them, and
children are used, child labor is used, and people are tortured in
order to produce these diamonds, should not be on the open market in
free countries.
Therefore, we put in language which would attempt to set up a system
that would track diamonds. Diamonds are an important part of our
culture, especially when we get around the holidays. There are a lot of
folks who express their love and concern for individuals by using
diamonds, but we want Americans to know when they buy diamonds they are
not funding terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda or the RUF.
Regrettably, that language--which I think is very important, and
which I know the chairman on the House side, Congressman Wolf, strongly
supported because he was one of the authors of this language on the
House side--was forced out of the bill on a procedural issue raised by
the House Ways and Means Committee. It is my understanding the Ways and
Means Committee is going to have hearings on this issue. I hope they
have them soon. I hope we do not leave this session of Congress without
having passed effective conflict diamond language.
Again, in conclusion, I thank Chairman Hollings. I thank his staff,
led by Lila Helms, and I thank my staff, led by Jim Morhard. I thank
them all for the excellent job in producing what I think is an
exceptional piece of legislation, which more than adequately
aggressively funds our efforts to try to address the issue of
terrorism, but it also strongly funds the agencies which are under our
jurisdiction, especially agencies such as NOAA.
[[Page S11882]]
Madam President, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes.
Mr. GREGG. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from New
Hampshire.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I thank my colleague for
the 5 minutes.
I simply want to use this time to raise a point that I think should
concern all of us in the Senate in terms of procedures. I understand
that the Parliamentarian would rule against me and so, therefore, I
will not offer it. I cannot because of the unanimous consent agreement,
but I raise this point--and I hope the Parliamentarian will pay
attention--because I believe this is a serious matter.
There was language in both the House and Senate bills that dealt with
taxpayer dollars not being used to interfere in any pending lawsuits
with some of the survivors of the Bataan Death March.
It was a controversial issue, but both the House and the Senate
agreed verbatim with the language. Not one word, no date, no comma, no
letter, nothing, nothing misspelled, no changes in spelling; it was
verbatim. The language was exactly the same.
Under rule 28.2, it states:
Conferees shall not insert in their report matter not
committed to them by either House, nor shall they strike from
the bill matter agreed to by both Houses. If new matter is
inserted in the report or if matter which was agreed to by
both Houses is stricken from the bill, a point of order may
be made against the report, and if the point of order is
sustained, the report is rejected or shall be recommitted to
the committee of conference if the House of Representatives
has not already acted thereon.
This is very complicated and it is parliamentary language. It is
difficult to understand. In essence, what has happened here is the
House and the Senate, as prescribed by rule 28.2, had identical
language. And because under the rules you substituted the Senate bill
for the House bill, you have now used that as a technicality to rule
against me and to rule against this provision.
What happens is, the House and the Senate agree on something. You go
into conference. Nobody disagrees. But it comes out. Mysteriously, it
is taken out by somebody in the conference committee, of which the rest
of us are not privy. It violates the rules. And if it does not violate
the rule, it violates the spirit and intent of it, clearly.
This is very troubling. It is not just this issue. It could be any
issue down the road where somebody has worked hard on both sides, the
House and Senate, to put in the language. Then it is taken out in
conference in violation directly of rule 28.2. It clearly violates it.
When you say you can substitute a Senate bill for the House bill to
get around that, that means any provision to which we agree can be
held, if you want to apply that standard. That is simply wrong.
I would just say to the Parliamentarians that we ought to clarify
this. If this is what we are going to do, then throw out rule 28.2 and
say it is irrelevant. You are throwing it out because you are using
this substitute which is a gimmick to take out language that somebody
just decided they didn't like.
Again, the language is the language. You have a bunch of POWs now who
are going to get screwed by this, to put it bluntly. That is not the
issue as much as it is who is next and how many times does this have to
happen before we correct it and do the right thing.
I am not picking on this particular bill or the two managers here.
The point is, it happens to be something I was involved in and I know
about it.
If I had had the chance, I would have made the Parliamentarian rule.
But I didn't get down here in time before the unanimous consent. I
think you should rule and we can prove that it is an incorrect ruling.
You have to decide. I hope we will take 28.2 out, if that is what we
are going to do. My preference is that it would stay in and you would
stop the interpretation, because if you can substitute a Senate
substitute for the House, how then can you have a conference? What is
the purpose of a conference if you can say, I am going to substitute
the Senate version for the House version, take the House version and
throw it out the window? That is where it goes, right out. There is no
conference. You have now substituted bill A for bill B, and there is no
conference. And anything that you have in here, whatever you have in
this book, in your report, is no good. The language is irrelevant
because you have now said you can substitute one bill for another.
It is wrong. It is absolutely wrong. It is what makes the American
people sick of what we do here, that they see stuff passed. They see it
in both Houses. They see it go into conference, identical language. At
least you could have changed the date and made it legal. Instead, you
took verbatim language and threw it out. It is wrong. And I want to
make that point. I am very sorry it happened.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, the distinguished Senator from New
Hampshire, generally speaking, is correct. We tortured over this.
Bottom line, the White House opposed it. So question: Do we pass a bill
that is going to be approved or do we pass a bill that is going to be
disapproved?
On page 171 of the report language:
The conference agreement does not include language proposed
in both the House and Senate bills regarding civil actions
against Japanese corporations for compensation in which the
plaintiff alleges that, as an American prisoner of war during
World War II, he or she was used as slave or forced labor.
The conferees understand that the Administration strongly
opposes this language, and is concerned that the inclusion of
such language in the act would be detrimental to the ongoing
effort to enlist multilateral support for the campaign
against terrorism. The conferees strongly agree that the
extraordinary suffering and injury of our former prisoners of
war deserve further recognition, and acknowledge the need for
such additional consideration.
In fairness to the position of the White House, we did have in 1951
the treaty of San Francisco settling the claims of prisoners of war
against the Japanese Government. Maybe it wasn't adequate. For 50 years
we have adhered to that treaty, and now with the terrorism attacks in
the United States out with an affirmative action plan to win friends
and influence people, to form a coalition, now is no time for us to
take treaties and start abrogating them 50 years past or 1 year hence.
The truth is, the U.S. Senate ratified that treaty. On this
particular vote, the Senate bill was--the Senate bill--in the nature of
an amendment to the House bill. The entire bill was in the nature of an
amendment. That is how technically, under the rule cited by my
distinguished colleague from New Hampshire, it can be found as
parliamentarily sound. That is what we had to do in order to get the
bill approved. I am sorry these occasions arise. It was a measured
judgment.
We agree with our distinguished colleague from New Hampshire, but
that is the best we could do under the circumstances.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Will the Senator yield for 30 seconds?
Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I say to the Senator from South Carolina,
you are correct. I am not challenging the technical aspect. I think it
is a violation of the spirit of the rule. My point is, I know how you
feel about it. We had the debate on the floor. I respect your view. I
know you respect mine. The House, by 393 to 33, disagreed with you. And
the Senate, by a vote of 58 to 34, disagreed with you. I thought we had
separate but equal branches of Government. If the White House wants to
veto the bill over that, then veto the bill over it. We will bring it
back here and talk about it. I don't think it is right to violate the
spirit and intent of the rules.
Mr. HOLLINGS. It was just like President Lincoln, during the Civil
War, when he put a vote to his Cabinet and all the Cabinet voted aye
and President Lincoln voted no. And he said: The ``no'' vote prevails.
That is what prevailed here.
I yield the remainder of our time under the agreement.
national domestic preparedness consortium
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I thank Chairman Hollings and
Senator Gregg for their leadership and efforts on the Commerce,
Justice, State appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002.
[[Page S11883]]
This bill contains funding for many of the important law enforcement
activities and counterterrorism training that is vital in the wake of
the September 11 attacks.
I want to comment on one aspect of this bill and that is the funding
for the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium. The consortium has
been fulfilling the important role of training the Nation's first
responders and training cities and communities on how to assess their
own vulnerabilities to an attack for over 3 years. I believe the bill
funds the consortium at a level of $13.969 million, divided evenly.
This is a significant reduction in funding from last year, and it is my
understanding that additional funding is expected to be provided in the
supplemental appropriations bill.
The components of the consortium each have an important role to play,
however, the National Emergency Response and Rescue Training Center,
NERRTC, at Texas A&M has been the leader in the number of first
responders trained. It would be my hope and willingness to assure
increased funding for the NERRTC and the consortium as a whole.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I will be happy to review the need for increased
resources for the consortium and consider further funding in the
supplemental bill.
Mr. GREGG. I agree that additional funding for the consortium should
be considered in the supplemental bill to support our antiterrorism
efforts.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank Chairman Hollings and Senator Gregg for their
consideration.
detention facility on choctaw reservation
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I would like to take the opportunity to
clarify language included in the Commerce, Justice, State,
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002. My distinguished colleague,
the chairman of the CJS Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. Hollings,
worked with me to ensure that a very important project for the
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians was included in the Senate version
of the bill and the subsequent conference report.
The Senate-passed version contained $16,300,000 for the construction
of an adult and juvenile detention facility on the Choctaw Reservation.
The tribe has encountered many obstacles as it has sought to satisfy
both the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Justice Department through
compliance with their varying jurisdictions, regulations, and varied
interpretations of law enforcement for Indian tribes over the past
decade. These delays have resulted in a deterioration of law
enforcement, and an escalation in the costs of the facility. Further
delays will only exacerbate these problems.
The Choctaw Tribe is firm in its view that detention is essential to
the maintenance of law and order of the reservation. The detention
facility the tribe currently utilizes was built by the Bureau of Indian
Affairs in 1973 as a temporary holding facility designed to hold 18
prisoners for up to 72 hours. Today, an average of 33.4 offenders are
being held daily. Because of the lack of space, only the most serious
and repeat offenders are incarcerated and the tribal court has been
forced to rely on ``deferred sentencing'' for less serious offenses.
This has created a large backlog of convicted inmates waiting to be
placed in jail. The current facility is simply inadequate to meet
existing needs and the projected law enforcement needs of the tribe and
its growing population.
The tribe is in need of a new facility and the gentleman from South
Carolina recognized this requirement and included funding for the
construction of the Choctaw jail in the Senate bill. I thank the
conference committee for its inclusion of language directing the
Department of Justice to fund the Choctaw detention facility. I would
like to clarify, however, that it was the intention of the Senate to
provide $16,300,000 for the construction of the Choctaw jail facility.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Indeed, my colleague from Mississippi is correct. The
Senate did include funding in the amount of $16,300,000 for the Choctaw
Indians to construct their jail facility. It was the intention of the
Senate that the tribe receive this needed funding for this project as
noted in the conference agreement.
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I thank the Senator for clarifying this
issue and for his support of this project.
slave labor in japan
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise to express my deep disappointment
with the conference committee on the FY 2002 Commerce-Justice-State
appropriations bill for eliminating the provision that would allow
World War II POWs, who served as slave laborers in Japan, to have their
day in court.
The amendment, sponsored by Senator Smith of New Hampshire and
myself, would have prohibited the U.S. State Department and the
Department of Justice from blocking attempts by American veterans to
obtain compensation in court from Japanese companies who used the POWs
for slave labor during WWII.
Some 30,000 Americans were taken prisoner in the Philippines in the
months following Pearl Harbor and forced to perform as slave laborers
for Japanese companies. For more than 3 years, our POWs endured
horrific conditions and received little or no compensation. It is wrong
and unfair that the U.S. Government is using taxpayer dollars to fight
against these men and women who served and suffered for us during WWII,
and deny them the compensation they deserve.
Some 60 families and POW survivors in Iowa are affected.
I ask the Senator from New Hampshire if it was appropriate for the
committee to cut out this provision, considering both the House and
Senate voted to include it in the bill?
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, this decision clearly
disregards the wishes of the House and Senate. I taught history and
civics when I was a teacher. I always taught my students that
conference committees were intended to resolve differences between the
House and Senate versions. There is not difference in this case.
Let me read from the report:
The conference agreement does not include language proposed
in both the House and Senate bills regarding civil actions
against Japanese corporations for compensation in which the
plaintiff alleges that, as an American prisoner of war during
World War II, he or she was used as slave or forced labor.
There was no difference between the two versions, just a decision by
a small group of conferees to impose their own will on both Houses of
Congress. This is not the way things should work.
The House passed this amendment in July with a 393-33 vote. The
Senate later passed the exact same provision with a 58-34 vote.
Congress should not turn its back on the 700 prisoners of war and
their families who are seeking long-delayed justice. They have gone to
court to demand compensation from the Japanese companies that used from
for slave labor. Throughout the war, these Americans worked in mines,
factories, shipyards, and steel mills. They labored every day for as
long as 10 hours a day in dangerous working conditions. They were
beaten on a regular basis. They were given no compensation by these
companies.
Now they deserve their day in court without interference by the U.S.
State Department or the Department of Justice. That's what our
amendment had set out to do--allow our POWs to seek the long-delayed
justice and compensation they deserve.
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I rise to offer for the record the
Budget Committee's official scoring of the conference report to H.R.
2500, the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2002.
The conference report provides $38.656 billion in discretionary
budget authority, of which $567 million is for defense and $438 million
is for conservation activities. That budget authority will result in
new outlays in 2002 of $26.126 billion. When outlays from prior-year
budget authority are taken into account, discretionary outlays for the
report total $38.847 billion in 2002. By comparison, the Senate-passed
version of the bill provided $38.641 billion in discretionary budget
authority, which would have resulted in $38.744 billion in total
outlays. The conference report does not include any emergency
designations.
Because the conference report exceeds the outlay allocation provided
to the subcommittee for conservation activities, the report is in
violation of section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
[[Page S11884]]
I ask for unanimous consent that a table displaying the budget
committee scoring of this bill be inserted in the Record at this point.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
THE CONFERENCE REPORT TO H.R. 2500, THE DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002, SPENDING COMPARISONS--CONFERENCE REPORT
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General
purpose Defense Conservation Mandatory Total
------------------------------------------------------------\2\---------\2\-------------------------------------
Conference report:
Budget Authority.................................... 37,651 567 438 572 39,228
Outlays............................................. 37,853 631 363 581 39,428
Senate 302(b) allocation: \1\
Budget Authority.................................... 37,651 567 439 572 39,229
Outlays............................................. 38,653 0 203 581 39,437
President's request
Budget Authority.................................... 37,178 465 284 572 38,499
Outlays............................................. 38,016 538 259 581 39,394
House-passed:
Budget Authority.................................... 37,534 567 440 572 39,113
Outlays............................................. 37,913 632 360 581 39,486
Senate-passed:
Budget Authority.................................... 37,782 604 255 572 39,213
Outlays............................................. 37,880 660 204 581 39,325
SENATE-REPORTED BILL COMPARED TO:
Senate 302(b) allocation: \1\
Budget Authority.................................... 0 0 -1 0 -1
Outlays............................................. -169 0 160 0 -9
President's request:
Budget Authority.................................... 473 102 154 0 729
Outlays............................................. -163 93 104 0 34
House-passed:
Budget Authority.................................... 117 0 -2 0 115
Outlays............................................. -60 -1 3 0 -58
Senate-passed:
Budget Authority.................................... -131 -37 183 0 15
Outlays............................................. -27 -29 159 0 103
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For enforcement purposes, the budget committee compares the conference report to the Senate 302(b)
allocation.
\2\ The 2002 budget resolution includes a contingent ``firewall'' in the Senate between defense and nondefense
spending. Because the contingent firewall is for budget authority only, the Senate appropriations committee
did not provide a separate allocation for defense outlays. This table combines defense and nondefense outlays
together as ``general purpose'' for purposes of comparing the conference report outlays with the Senate
subcommittee's allocation.
Notes.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for consistency with scorekeeping
conventions.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I thank the conferees of this bill for
their hard work. This legislation provides funding for fighting crime,
enhancing drug enforcement, and responding to threats of terrorism. It
further addresses the shortcomings of the immigration process funds the
operation of the judicial process, facilitates commerce throughout the
United States, and supports the needs of the State Department and other
agencies.
This conference report spends at a level 4.9 percent higher than the
level enacted in fiscal year 2001. In real dollars, this is $828
million in additional spending above the amount requested by the
President, and a $1.9 billion increase in spending from last year.
Once again, however, I find myself in the unpleasant position of
speaking before my colleagues about parochial projects in yet another
conference report. I have identified $1.8 billion in earmarks, which is
greater than the cost of the earmarks in the conference report passed
last year, which totaled $1.5 billion. so far this year, total
porkbarrel spending has already hit a staggering $9.6 billion.
There are hundreds of millions of dollars in porkbarrel spending
throughout this bill. The avalanche of unrequested earmarks buried in
this measure will undoubtedly further burden the American taxpayers.
While the amounts associated with each individual earmark may not seem
extravagant, taken together, they represent a serious diversion of
taxpayers' hard-earned dollars at the expense of numerous programs that
have undergone the appropriate merit-based selection process.
Let me read a quote from Allen Schick, a congressional expert at the
Brookings Institution:
Pork thrives in good times and bad. The problem is not the
individual project, but the cumulative effect. . . . When you
add up the total, it just blows your mind.
Now I want to turn to some examples of earmarks in this bill:
There is $250,000 for the Central California Ozone Study; $500,000
for the International Pacific Research Center at the University of
Hawaii; $1 million for the National Coral Reef Institute in
Hawaii; $3.7 million for the Conservation Institute of the Bronx Zoo;
$750,000 for the Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation; $3.35 million
for the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College;
and $6 million for the Thayer School of Engineering at Dartmouth
University for the nanocystalline materials and biomass research
initiative.
There are many more projects on the list that I have compiled, which
will be available on my Senate Web site.
Once, again, I must remind my colleagues that the administration has
urged us to maintain our fiscal discipline to ensure that we will
continue to have adequate funds to prosecute our war against terrorism,
to aid those in need, and to cover other related costs. We should let
the people who run the programs we fund decide how best to spend the
appropriated funds. After all, they know what their most pressing needs
are.
I am also greatly concerned by the Appropriations Committee's
decision to fund the controversial Advanced Technology Program at
$184.5 million. In his budget request, the President recommended that
Congress suspend new funding for ATP, pending a reevaluation of the
program. The Secretary of Commerce has not released the results of that
review nor any recommended changes to the program to the Commerce
Committee. I urge my colleagues to await the results of the Secretary's
review, before we consider funding this program. As we all know, the
country is currently involved in both war and economic downturn, and
this $184.5 million should be spent on higher priorities than a welfare
program for special corporate interests.
Furthermore, I am equally concerned that of the $62.4 million in the
National Institute of Standards and Technology's Construction account,
$41.5 million is for non-construction related ``pork'' projects.
Earlier this year, I wrote to the Secretary of Commerce expressing my
concerns about the physical conditions of the NIST laboratories, home
of two recent Nobel Prize winners. I am amazed to see that we are more
concerned about ``pork'' than supporting world-class research
facilities.
Several items provided under funding for the State Department stand
out for their questionable role in advancing American foreign policy
interests. The report language directs the Department to make available
$500,000 to the Northern Forum, which works to ``improve international
communication, cooperation, and opportunities for economic growth in
northern regions of countries'' around the world. I am from the
Southwest, so perhaps I am geographically biased, but I have trouble
understanding how this earmark serves the national interest.
There is also a $200,000 earmark for a conference in human
trafficking at the University of Hawaii in this bill. I am pleased the
conference report does not include language earmarking $9 million for
the East-West Center, as proposed in the Senate bill, although it does
contain a plus-up for the center of $500,000, and it does not include
Senate language earmarking $5 million to the State of Hawaii for
hosting an Asian Development Bank meeting.
Five new educational exchange earmarks found their way into this
conference report, although the report language refers only to
``$500,000 for one-time seed funding for five new exchange activities
listed in the Senate chart.'' Since the conference report neglects to
list them, I will: they are the Jointer Fellowships in War, the Padnos
International Center, the UNI-Cedar Falls Russo-American Exchange, the
UNLV Global Business Exchange, and the UNR International Business
Exchange. In addition, the conferees have generously provided $400,000
for ``exchanges to build linkages between American and foreign
musicians and musical institutions.''
In closing, I urge my colleagues to curb our habit of directing hard-
earned taxpayer dollars to locality-specific special interests.
Mr. INOUYE. I rise to congratulate and commend Chairman Hollings and
Senator Gregg and their staff for their tireless work in crafting the
Conference Report on the Fiscal Year 2002 Appropriations Bill for the
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State and the Judiciary. Because
of their efforts, we have before us today a fair bill that puts aside
partisan politics in favor of delivering to the American people the
governmental programs and support they need. I know from personal
experience how difficult it can be to strike balances among competing
interests, and the introduction of the tragic events of September 11,
2001, have only compounded these difficulties.
The efforts of my friends, Chairman Hollings and Senator Gregg, were
supported by the work of their extraordinary staff. Under the
leadership of
[[Page S11885]]
Ms. Lila Helms on the majority side, and Mr. Jim Morhard on the
minority, this dedicated crew stayed late and came in on weekends to
help my distinguished colleagues put together a conference report that
every one of us can vote for with pride.
Accordingly, I also wish to extend my congratulations to each member
of Chairman Hollings' staff, Ms. Lila Helms, Ms. Jill Shapiro Long, Mr.
Luke Nachbar, and Mr. Dereck Orr, and to each member of Mr. Gregg's
staff, Mr. Jim Morhard, Ms. Katherine Hennessey, Mr. Kevin Linsky, and
Ms. Nancy Perkins.
Ladies, gentlemen, my esteemed colleagues, I salute you all.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I am pleased to vote for the Commerce,
Justice, State, and the Judiciary, CJS, conference report today. This
legislation is critical to our continuing efforts to fight terrorism
and increase homeland security.
I am troubled, however, that the conference report appropriates only
$14.4 million for the Police Corps Program, an amount which I believe
is insufficient to adequately fund this critically important program. I
strongly support the $30 million level of funding that was included in
the Senate version of the CJS appropriations bill. The CJS conference
report before us today slashes the budget of the Police Corps program
in half. It is more important now than ever before that we work to
ensure that Americans feel safe within their communities and that our
Nation's police forces have strong federal support.
The Police Corps Program helps police and sheriffs' departments to
increase the number of officers with advanced education and training.
It provides Federal scholarships to highly motivated students who agree
to serve as police officers or sheriffs' deputies for at least 4 years.
Participants in the program are assigned to areas of the country that
are in the most desperate need for additional officers. All of the
participants serve on community patrol.
The benefits of this program can be seen in many ways. By encouraging
educated young men and women to enter into the police force, Police
Corps improves the quality of law enforcement in towns and States
throughout the country. Police Corps reduces the local costs of hiring
and training new officers by providing Federal funding law enforcement
training. In addition, the Federal Government pays police departments
that hire participants $10,000 a year per participant for the first 4
years of service.
Police Corps also offers a scholarship program for children of
officers killed in the line of duty. Eligible children can receive up
to $30,000 to cover educational expenses. There is no service or
repayment obligation and the application process is non-competitive. I
can think of no time in our recent history more appropriate than now,
in the wake of the terrible loss of police officers on September 11, to
ensure that this program is adequately funded.
Every police department in the country is being called upon to
increase their vigilance, to expand their duties, and to do more to
respond to the threat of terrorism. Increased funding for the Police
Corps Program would improve the quality and capabilities of police
departments throughout the country by educating and training qualified,
motivated young people. The whole country stands to benefit from this
program. I deeply regret that the CJS conference report does not
contain, at a minimum, level funding for the Police Corps Program and
am saddened that the program has been so drastically cut.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, I would like to draw attention to what I
believe is an unconstitutional amendment that was recently added to the
final conference report of the FY02 Commerce, Justice, State and the
Judiciary Appropriations Act. This amendment, which was first offered
by Senator Craig on September 10 in the Senate version of the bill,
would prohibit any U.S. funds from being used ``for cooperation with,
or assistance or other support to, the International Criminal Court or
the Preparatory Commission.''
The Craig amendment, which was opposed by the administration, seeks
to prevent our government from having a role in shaping the definition
of the crime of aggression and other key issues pertaining to the
International Criminal Court, ICC. It is my belief that this attempt to
curtail the power of the President to negotiate treaties is
unconstitutional and I urge the administration to remain engaged in a
process vital to our country's national security.
In addition to highlighting the constitutional concerns raised by
this amendment, I would also like this opportunity to raise a broader
concern. The legislative maneuvering that led to the adoption of this
amendment follows European Union and German requests that our
government refrain from adopting anti-ICC legislation. In late October
the Belgium Foreign Minister Louis Michel wrote on behalf of the
European Union to Senator Daschle and Secretary of State Colin Powell,
expressing the EU's strong support for the ICC. German Foreign Minister
Joschka Fischer wrote to the Secretary of State directly on October 31,
noting that, ``In view of the international effort against terrorism .
. . it is particularly important for the United States and the European
Union to act in accord in this field too.'' He continued, ``The future
International Criminal Court will be a valuable instrument for
combating the most serious crimes. It will provide us with an
opportunity to fight with judicial means crimes such as the mass murder
perpetrated by terrorists in New York and Washington on 11 September
2001.''
While Members of the Senate may have real questions and concerns
pertaining to the ICC, now is not the time to be pushing legislation
that undercuts the administration's efforts to work with our closest
allies in building a strong coalition against terrorism. In addition,
the President's recent order allowing military tribunals to be created
for trials involving members of al Qaeda suggests that a long-term
fight against terrorism will include a variety of legal structures
ranging from Lockerbie type tribunals to the International Criminal
Court. It is thus imperative that our government remains engaged in the
development of the ICC. I strongly hope that the Bush administration
will do that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. It is my understanding, Madam President, that the Senator
from Arizona, who had the other 15 minutes, is willing to yield back
his time. I believe that is correct. So I yield back our time on this
side, and I understand we are setting the vote for 12:45.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the time is yielded back.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask unanimous consent that all time on the conference
report be yielded back and the Senate vote on adoption of the report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the
final vote on the conference report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference
report to accompany H. R. 2500. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Torricelli) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 1, as follows:
[[Page S11886]]
[Rollcall Vote No. 340 Leg.]
YEAS--98
Akaka
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--1
McCain
NOT VOTING--1
Torricelli
The conference report was agreed to.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
____________________
|
Add to del.icio.us