[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 27 (Thursday, February 13, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2414-S2423]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, usually I begin my diatribes on the
appropriations bill by lifting up the appropriations bill for all to
see; one, it hasn't been delivered and, two, I note by the
[[Page S2415]]
size of the existing copy down by the desk of the manager that it would
be quite a task to pick up this year's appropriations bill. At my
advanced age, I might be in danger of sustaining a hernia. But I still
think that this probably is--if I may borrow a phrase from one of our
longtime adversaries--the mother of all appropriations bills. It is
some 5,000 pages.
I can safely say that I have not read it. My staff has been
feverishly going through certain parts of it, each being parceled out.
Clearly, we have a mammoth conference report on this omnibus
appropriations legislation, which nobody has been able to review,
examine, and debate. I say that not without sympathy for the Senator
from Alaska, who is faced with a situation where negotiations--in fact,
they are going on almost as we speak, or are being completed as we
speak. Certainly, the reasons for the delay--some 4 months of delay--
was not under his control. But I want to discuss this very briefly in
context.
The context that we are looking at with this legislation is a huge
looming deficit that is in front of us and growing in size almost as
far as the eye can see. The eye used to be able to see for 10 years.
Now we have changed the procedures where the eye can only see for 5
years. But only a short time ago, we were awash in huge surpluses. I
will never forget when Alan Greenspan testified before Congress in
favor of the 2001 tax cuts because we wanted to make sure we didn't
spend down the debt too fast. We didn't want to spend down that debt
too quickly because that would have some bad effects on our economy.
Well, we don't have to worry about spending the debt down too quickly
now. In 2001, we had a $127 billion surplus. We are living in a
different time now. The Congressional Budget Office recently forecast a
larger than expected deficit of $199 billion for this year; and last
week, with the result of the President's budget for 2004, the OMB
projected record deficits of $304 billion this year and $307 billion
next year.
I have, as chairman of the Commerce Committee, seen enough of our
needs for security and safety at our airports, railway stations, ports,
all over America, to tell you that we have very large expenditures
ahead of us. Those expenditures are justified when we are talking about
the security of this Nation. The funding for the Transportation
Security Administration was justified. I am proud that we not only
passed the legislation, but we funded that enormous effort to ensure
the security of our airports, which is still not complete. But the fact
is, we will soon run out of borrowing authority and might have to look
to other sources of funding, such as the Social Security trust fund, in
the absence of a legislated increase in the debt ceiling.
There are a lot of words that are not used anymore around here, but
the one that has completely and totally disappeared is the good old
``lockbox.'' I wonder what happened to the good old lockbox. That was
the one we were going to put Americans' payments into Social Security
into and we were never going to touch it again.
Not only is our economy in distress, we are also one step closer to
war. There are threats to national security that must be disposed of.
Yet this appropriations bill, in my view, has not changed since last
year. In fact, it is predictably about 11 times worse. The amounts
associated with each earmark may not seem extravagant, but taken
together they represent an incredible diversion away from Federal
programs that have undergone the appropriate merit-based process.
I have two problems with this process. One, of course, is the
appropriating of moneys that are really unnecessary and unauthorized
and wasteful, very wasteful, but also in this legislation are many
fundamental policy changes and, of course, I object, as chairman of the
Commerce Committee, that it didn't go through my committee. But I
object to it even more when we have not had the open debate and votes
taken on matters that have national implications that are fundamental
policy decisions.
Let's go back to some of the necessary earmarks: First, $280,000 for
asparagus technology and production in Washington; $220,000 to research
future foods in Illinois--only in Illinois, of course.
My colleagues may note, as usual, the need for these earmarks are
nearly always geographically based.
Next is $700,000 for the Midwest poultry consortium in Iowa; $250,000
for research on the interaction of grapefruit juice and drugs. I always
wondered what kind of experiments these are. One of our all-time
favorites, made famous a number of years ago, is money that was spent
to study the effect on the ozone layer of flatulence in cows. One
always wondered about the testing procedures used to determine those
effects on the ozone layer. This is another one that intrigues the
observer. Regarding the interaction of grapefruit juice and drugs, of
course, one's imagination can be stimulated by the prospect of the
interaction of grapefruit juice and drugs.
Then we have $600,000 for tristate joint peanut research in Alabama;
$500,000 for Missouri, Iowa, and Illinois Corn Growers Association for
a pilot program to develop ``production protocols.''
Again, I have to sometimes display my ignorance. I didn't know that
in order to grow corn, there was a particular requirement for a
protocol regarding production.
I see that the Senator from Iowa just came on the floor. He may be
able to illuminate me on the production protocols associated with corn
growing. But whether he can or not, there will be $500,000 being split
up between his State, Missouri, and Illinois to their corn growers
associations. But this won't be an overall production protocol; this is
only a pilot program. So I am sure there will be a great deal of
additional money coming once we develop the pilot program for
production protocols of growing corn.
Next is $50,000 to combat ``feral hogs'' in Missouri. You know,
somewhere I had a little depiction of feral hogs. I did not know that
they were a threat to civilization as we know it, or at least enough to
require $50,000 to combat feral hogs. Sometimes one would get the
impression that perhaps the people in Illinois could fund their own
combat scenario with feral hogs. Nonetheless, we will be coming in with
50 grand to combat those feral hogs, which I am sure are a serious
scourge.
There is $500,000 to continue hybrid poplar research in Wisconsin. I
am sure next year we will have a continued program to develop
production protocols for growing corn; $2 million for the biomass
gasification research facility in Birmingham, AL. Again, I look forward
to seeing what that is all about.
And then, staying right on this important mission of gasification, we
have another $500,000 for the gasification of switchgrass in Iowa.
Perhaps switchgrass can be part of the production protocol of corn. But
one doesn't know; $1 million for the National Agricultural Based
Industrial Lubricant Center; $10 million to develop a high-speed data
transmission between the Library of Congress and education facilities,
libraries, and networks serving western North Carolina. I did not know
there was a special need in the western part of North Carolina, as
there might have been for other parts of the country. But we will spend
$10 million to do that; $500,000 to be split between the Alexandria
Museum of Art and the New Orleans Museum of Art for activities relating
to the celebration of the Louisiana Purchase bicentennial celebration;
$200,000 for the replacement of Minton tile in the Capitol complex; $1
million for a company called Culpepper Glass in Warrenton, VA, that
produces glass display cases for the Library of Congress. I assume, of
course, there is no other company that could produce glass display
cases for the Library of Congress. That is why the Culpepper Glass
Company in Warrenton, VA, had to be designated in this legislation; $3
million for an award to the National Technology Transfer Center for a
coal slurry impoundment pilot project in southern West Virginia; $1
million for an automated nursery project in Mississippi; $500,000 for
Vermillion Community College in Ely, MN, for the development of a
professional forest harvester program.
Mr. President, if my colleagues will indulge me, I have to go back to
my favorite from last time for just a moment. I know the hour is late,
but this is too much. We were able to keep, through very serious
contemplation and discussion among conferees, $1 million for a DNA bear
sampling study in
[[Page S2416]]
Montana; $1 million will be spent to sample the DNA of bears in
Montana.
Because these appropriations are never discussed with nonmembers of
the Appropriations Committee, one can only imagine and conjure up an
idea as to how this might be used. Approach a bear: That bear cub over
there claims you are his father, and we need to take your DNA.
Approach another bear: Two hikers had their food stolen by a bear,
and we think it is you. We have to get the DNA. The DNA doesn't fit,
you got to acquit, if I might.
I think it is important to appreciate that this $1 million for a DNA
bear sampling study could solve a lot of crime in Montana. It is a
pretty high-crime area. It seems to me that is, indeed, a very
worthwhile expenditure of the taxpayers' dollars.
While we are at it, I want to jump out of line here a second:
$202,500 to the National Peanut Festival Fairgrounds for the
construction of the National Peanut Festival Agriculture Arena in
Dothan, AL. I was interested in the National Peanut Festival. I did not
see it much on television or hear much about it. So I went to the Web
site, and I think you will be comforted to know we are spending this
$202,500 for the 9-day celebration of the peanut harvest, which
includes a variety of competitions, including recipe contests, beauty
pageants, and tennis tournaments. Included for your viewing pleasure on
this Web site is a very interesting picture. I am sorry my colleagues
cannot see it, but I would be willing to provide them with copies, but
there are three individuals standing by a contraption that I have not
seen before, and it says farmers demonstrate antique peanut harvesting
equipment at Pioneer Peanut Days. Again, it seems to me that is a
worthwhile investment of $202,500.
I have also one more that is kind of interesting: $900,000 for the
Show-me Aquatic Center for Development; $900,000 for the Show-me
Aquatic Center in Missouri. We found a picture of it. It says: ``Please
Touch Me Museum, 210 North 21st Street, Philadelphia''--this is the
270,000 Please Touch Me Museum, I apologize. That is for kids and
grownups. Of course, I had that confused with the very important
facility that is in Missouri. I certainly would not want to confuse the
different States.
One of the more remarkable aspects of this bill is in the HUD
section, under EDI. There are 885 individual earmarks. Some of them are
very interesting. Of course, there is $202,500 to continue the
rehabilitation of the former Alaska Pulp Company mill site in Sitka,
AK. I am reluctant to ask the Senator from Alaska how much that
continuing rehabilitation is going to cost us overall.
We have a lot of important construction: $45,000 for the city of
Tuscumbia, AL, for construction of facilities associated with the Helen
Keller Festival; $90,000 for the city of Prattville, AL, for the Boys
and Girls Club of Prattville.
I mentioned the peanut festival. Here are a couple new ones: $810,000
for the city of St. Louis, MO, for lighting sidewalks, curb, and street
furniture along Kings Highway Boulevard and Chippewa Street. It must be
a fairly serious situation there that we need to spend $810,000 down
there on Kings Highway Boulevard and Chippewa Street in St. Louis.
I mentioned the Show-Me Aquatic Center in Missouri; $105,000 for the
Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute in Columbia, MO, to
analyze commercial shipping alternatives; $90,000 to the city of
Natchez, MS, for a feasibility study to develop a slack water port.
That is just for a feasibility study; $135,000 to the Culinary and
Hospitality Academy Center of Las Vegas, NV, for construction related
to the expansion of an education training center. For those of you who
have not visited Las Vegas lately, I can tell you it is a very
depressed and deprived area, and I can certainly understand why the
Culinary and Hospitality Academy Center would need $135,000. I thought
they could use some of mine.
For the arts, we have $162,000 for facilities renovations and
improvements for the Woolworth Theater in Glens Falls, NY; $162,000 for
the Catskill Mountain Foundation in Hunter, NY, for reconstruction of
the Tannersville Theater; $180,000 to the Bethel Performing Arts Center
in Bethel, NY, for construction of a performing arts facility; $225,000
to the village of East Syracuse, NY for the renovation of the Hanlan
pool; $270,000 to Garth Fagan Dance Studio in Rochester, NY, for
construction of a new theater for the Garth Fagan Dance
Studio; $121,500 to the Bedford County Agricultural Society in
Pennsylvania for facilities improvements at the Bedford County
Fairground; $202,000 to the New York Agricultural Society for
facilities improvements to the New York Expo Center Arena and Livestock
Expedition Hall, and I mentioned the Please Touch Museum in
Philadelphia, PA.; $810,000 to the City of Fort Worth, TX--another
impoverished area--for waterfront facilities construction for the
Trinity River Basin Project; $180,000 to the Shenandoah Valley
Discovery Museum for facilities expansion; $216,000 to the Virginia
Living Museum in Newport News, and the list goes on.
There is a certain common thread one will find throughout these 885
projects. I am sorry I did not have time to total it up, but it would
have to be in the tens of millions of dollars. There is one common
thread. About 95 percent of these projects that are earmarked belong to
the States that are represented by members of the Appropriations
Committee.
I joke a lot about this, and I will continue to do so, but that is
not right. That is not the right thing to do.
I regret the conferees choose to adopt a special interest provision
for one foreign cruise ship company at the expense of all other
companies. The last time Congress meddled in this area with hollow
promises of spurring the American shipbuilding industry, it ended up
costing the American taxpayers $185 million in loan guarantees. It was
one of the most egregious I have seen of egregious things to take the
money from a billionaire that--excuse me. We took no money from the
billionaire who runs river boat casinos and who tried to build two
ships in Pascagoula, MS, which every expert knows is not possible. The
project failed and the American taxpayer was on the hook for $185
million.
Not satisfied with costing the American taxpayer $185 million, a
Senator from Hawaii put into this bill a requirement that grants a
subsidiary of the Malaysian-owned Norwegian Cruise Lines the exclusive
right to operate three large foreign-built cruise vessels in the
domestic cruise trade. This will be permitted notwithstanding the
Passenger Vessel Services Act, which requires vessels transporting
passengers between ports in the U.S. to be U.S.-owned, U.S.-built,
U.S.-flagged and U.S.-crewed.
I am not a fan of those requirements. But why in the world do we make
exception for a law in an appropriations bill when you know what the
result is going to be? By granting exclusive rights to one cruise line,
there will be no competition and the people who want to cruise Hawaii
will pay much higher prices than for a commensurate cruise that people
would take out of the East Coast.
I do not know if the Presiding Officer has ever been to Miami, but
there are all kinds of ships cruising out of Miami, going all different
places, for all different purposes, at very low cost. That is because
they are all competing against each other.
The Senator from Hawaii puts in a violation of law, and an
exclusivity which is going to cost people who want to cruise the
Hawaiian Islands an enormously greater amount of money. Why? That is
crazy. I would have thought the Senator from Hawaii, after costing the
taxpayers $185 million because of a provision he put in an
appropriations bill--it never went through my committee which has
oversight of it. It was never mentioned in my committee--after costing
the taxpayers $185 million, the Senator from Hawaii then pulls this
one. I am angry about it, and I will continue to be angry about
it because the citizens of my State of Arizona would like to cruise the
Hawaiian Islands and they would like to do it at the cheapest possible
cost. When there is no competition, there is not low cost.
There has been no analysis of granting this exclusive exemption from
the Passenger Vessel Services Act to the ``Norwegian Cruise Lines''
owned by a Malaysian company. Nor have the committees of jurisdiction
had an opportunity to consider the proposal.
[[Page S2417]]
I tell the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Hawaii, we are
going to have a hearing on this issue, we are going to have a GAO
investigation, and we are going to find out why they lost $185 million
because of a provision put into this bill. We are also going to get an
estimate of how much this exclusivity is going to cost my citizens who
want to go on a cruise at the least possible cost. I will not quit on
this issue. It is wrong, and it is the wrong way to treat this process.
We will have hearings in the Commerce Committee, and we will expose
this for what it is--disgraceful.
There are numerous other provisions in this conference report that
circumvent the clear jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee. It
incorporates almost wholesale a bill passed last year by the House of
Representatives regarding air traffic control towers. The provision
expands on the class of air traffic control towers that is eligible for
Federal money. I am all for aviation safety and it may be a good
provision. I am troubled by several aspects of it.
First, the provision does not make new towers eligible for
reimbursement. It makes eligible towers that were built beginning in
1996, over 7 years ago. At least the provision passed last year by the
House provided that an airport tower would be eligible for a grant
under this program only if the Secretary certified that the selection
of the tower for eligibility was based on objective criteria giving no
weight to any congressional committee report, joint explanatory
statement of a conference report, or statutory designation.
I wish to congratulate my House colleagues because they were
concerned about the pork barrel projects practice and tried to insulate
this particular program from such behavior. Guess what. That provision
that eliminated no objective criteria giving no weight to any
congressional committee report, joint explanatory statement of a
conference committee, or statutory designation was eliminated. Why
would that be eliminated, I wonder?
The conference report also includes a provision and implements a
whole new funding scheme for airport security projects. I am very
concerned about funding for airport security. This is a reauthorization
year for aviation programs and the Senate Commerce Committee, the
committee of jurisdiction, has already begun hearings of FAA issues.
Yet the appropriators have taken it upon themselves to establish a
brand new funding scheme that has never been vetted, discussed, or
voted on by the authorizing committee. Some might start to wonder just
what the Commerce Committee's role is in policy decisions regarding the
programs under its jurisdiction.
This provision authorizes a new $2.5 billion program over 5 years for
airport security projects without any discussion that I am aware of.
The TSA was not consulted about this provision. It seems the special
interest groups who were shopping this provision were the only ones
that mattered. If this had gone through the regular legislative
process, at least all parties could have been heard.
There are many different ways to fund security projects. This
provision may be a good one. It mirrors a similar program set up at the
FAA. However, the Department of Transportation Inspector General
proposed several other ideas to our committee.
Another provision would allow airports to give airport improvement
program money back to the FAA so the agency can hire staff to speed up
environmental reviews of airport projects. This is an area in which the
Commerce Committee took action last year and will continue to pursue
this year. It should not be addressed in an appropriations bill.
I commend the conferees for their attempts to help protect the
investment the American taxpayers continue to provide to Amtrak. The
conference report, which provides Amtrak $1.05 billion for fiscal year
2003, includes conditions that require the funding to be appropriated
on a quarterly basis through formal grant agreements with DOT. The
conferees worked to ensure that Amtrak reserved sufficient funds to
meet its contractual obligations with State and local subdivisions for
commuter and intercity corridor services. Amtrak should not be in a
position to shut down commuter operations as it threatened last summer
because it does not have sufficient funds to operate its entire
network.
The conference committee has slightly reduced Amtrak's appropriation
from that provided in the Senate-passed measure, but it has also
postponed repayment of Amtrak's $100 million loan from DOT.
The conferees authorized the Secretary of Commerce to award grants
and make direct lump sum payments of up to $50 million to support
travel to the United States. To carry out this new authority, the
appropriators established the United States Travel and Tourism
Promotion Advisory Board and provided $50 million. This tourism board
has never been considered by the authorizing committee of jurisdiction.
Nor did the Department of Commerce have any input on the creation of
this new board. Who came up with $50 million--and establish a new
bureaucracy? The U.S. Travel and Tourism Promotion Advisory Board, and
gives them $50 million.
I am pleased to see the conferees appropriated money for election
reform. The conference report on NOAA provides more than $490 million
in earmarks, and just for aquatic, not atmospheric programs of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, to go toward 150
earmarks. The administration did not request funding for these programs
in the budget, and many programs they did request funding for are
underfunded or zero funded.
The conference report appropriated an astounding $100 million for
fisheries disasters assistance. Of this amount, $35 million is for
direct assistance to the State of Alaska for any person, business, or
town that has experienced an economic hardship even remotely related to
fishing. This is in addition to the $20 million they are also getting
for developing an Alaskan seafood marketing program. Of the remainder,
$35 million is for the shrimp industries in the Gulf of Mexico and
South Atlantic to provide far-reaching assistance for many aspects of
these fisheries; $20 million is provided for voluntary capacity
reduction programs in the Northeast and west coast fisheries; $5
million is for Hawaiian fishermen affected by fishing area closures and
other management rules; and $5 million is for blue crab fisheries
affected by low harvests.
The conference report requires the Department of Commerce and Coast
Guard to provide coordinated, routine support for fisheries monitoring
and enforcement through use of remote-sensing aircraft and
communications assets, with particular emphasis on Federal waters
seaward to South Carolina and Georgia. Without review by the
authorizing committee, we have no basis for knowing why this is a good
use of Federal dollars and resources.
The conference report earmarks $10 million to promote and develop
fishery products and research pertaining to American fisheries funds to
develop an Alaskan seafood marketing program. Ten million is a lot of
money to be spending on a marketing program.
As far as the Coast Guard is concerned, managers earmark a total of
$83 million of the Coast Guard budget. That earmark is an increase of
$10 million over last year, and many of them have obviously never been
proposed.
In HUD, as I mentioned, 885 targeted grants.
I also will talk for a minute about the lowly catfish, one of my
favorite subjects. We know the lowly catfish has been the subject of a
great deal of debate and discussion on the floor of the Senate due to
the fact that in another appropriations bill, we changed the name of
the catfish that comes from Vietnam to basa. But now the lowly catfish,
those that are still named catfish because they are raised in the
United States, we are now qualifying catfish for livestock compensation
programs. Catfish are cows.
As my colleagues know, the livestock compensation program is a
Federal farm program that compensates eligible livestock producers,
such as owners of beef and dairy cattle, sheep, goats, or certain
breeds of buffalo that have suffered losses or damages as a result of a
severe drought. Now it is the catfish.
I often take issue with various farm policies that disproportionately
benefit large agribusinesss or farms at the expense of farmers and
taxpayers, and
[[Page S2418]]
those that compromise American agricultural trade commitments. This
effort to compensate catfish farmers from a farm program that is
intended for livestock stands out. I am certain that catfish proponents
will offer a dozen different explanations to justify this provision. In
fact, the last time we discussed this, one of my colleagues from
Tennessee talked about in his State there are catfish that leave the
water and travel in herds, so perhaps that is why we are now calling a
catfish a cow. But not even hog, poultry, or horse producers are
eligible under the livestock compensation program. Why should catfish
then get livestock payments?
We know labeling continues to be a nationally significant
agricultural issue. Again, the issue was addressed in the
appropriations bill.
The Army Corps of Engineers is, of course, one of the favorite
places. Not only are there a lot of earmarks, but there are significant
changes in policy or law under the rubric of this appropriations bill.
In this legislation, the administration is prevented from proposing or
even studying changes to the Army Corps of Engineers civil works
program, such as reorganizing aspects of the agency's management
structure, without specific direction in an act of Congress. It seems
to me that is remarkable micromanaging.
I guess I have taken enough of my colleagues' time at this late hour,
and I know we should be voting on this bill and leaving. I point out
again, this bill which the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations
Committee described as the largest appropriations bill in the history--
and I certainly take his word for it--in my now 17 years of monitoring
these things, has the largest number of earmarks by far. I find that
wrong for a variety of reasons, but one of them being that we are
supposed to be in a war. We are about to ask young men and women to
make sacrifices. In fact, some of them in the next few weeks may make
the ultimate sacrifice. And here we are, business as usual, business as
usual, larding on porkbarrel projects, running up the deficits to
historic proportions in some respects. I imagine it is historic as far
as the turnaround is concerned, from a $127 billion surplus to a $300
billion deficit. I mind that very much. I think it is wrong. I think it
is the wrong signal to send to the American people about our
seriousness of addressing the challenges of the war on terror.
But I am also disturbed about the policy changes that are made in
appropriations bills which render authorizing committees nearly
irrelevant. It is not the right thing to do. There are provisions in
this bill--and I will be providing them for the record--of many policy
changes that should have required hearings, debate, votes on specific
issues. Instead, they are decided by a small group of Senators and
House Members rather than all of us being able to exercise not only our
privileges but our responsibilities as we determine the policies that
affect the future of our citizens in our respective States.
I ask unanimous consent that a document entitled ``Commerce Committee
Provisions'' be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Commerce Committee Provisions
ncl provision
Mr. President, I regret that the conferees chose to adopt a
special interest provision for one foreign cruise ship
company at the expense of all other competitors. The last
time Congress meddled in this area with hollow promises of
spurring the American ship building industry, it ended up
costing the American taxpayers a whopping $185 million. I
shudder to think that we are meddling again.
The conference report grants a subsidiary of the Malaysian-
owned ``Norwegian Cruise Lines'' (NCL) the exclusive right to
operate three large foreign-built cruise vessels in the
domestic cruise trade. This will be permitted notwithstanding
the Passenger Vessel Services Act, which requires vessels
transporting passengers between ports in the U.S. to be U.S.-
owned, U.S.-built, U.S.-flagged, and U.S.-crewed. While I am
not a fan of those requirements, I cannot support granting a
waiver for one company.
This provision provides an unfair competitive advantage to
NCL at the expense of all other cruise ship operators. No
other company will be allowed to operate foreign-built U.S.-
flag cruise vessels in the domestic market other than NCL. It
effectively creates a de facto monopoly for this one foreign
company to operate in the Hawaiian Islands, and West and East
Coast cruise trades.
Again, I remind my colleagues, the last time we provided
special treatment for one shipping company, it came at a
price tag of $185 million. American Classic Voyages' failed
``Project America'' venture was aided by special exemption
language included in the 1998 Department of Defense
Appropriation Bill. When American Classic Voyages filed for
bankruptcy in October 2001, the American taxpayers paid the
price. At what point are we going to say enough is enough,
and put a halt to gambling away the hardworking Americans'
tax dollars?
Mr. President, there has been no analysis of the value of
granting this exclusive exemption from the Passenger Vessel
Services Act to NCL, nor, more importantly, have the
Committees of jurisdiction had an opportunity to consider the
proposal and analyze its overall impact on the maritime
industry.
The special interest provision represents yet another
piecemeal approach to U.S. maritime policy. But instead of
promoting a sound and reasoned U.S.-flag cruise vessel
promotion proposal, the conference report rewrites maritime
policy and grants one foreign-owned company a waiver from
U.S. laws.
We should be working to promote competition in the domestic
cruise market, and for that to take place, there needs to be
a level playing field for all operators. But the special NCL
provision may well severely hamper any effort to jump-start
the U.S.-flag cruise market, leaving most coastal states with
no regular U.S.-flag cruise ship service.
We learned the hard way from the failed ``Project America''
venture that domestic-built ships require far more capital
investment than vessels built abroad. By giving NCL, and NCL
alone, a free pass on U.S. laws, as provided under this
conference report, will only keep all other competitors at
bay because they have no incentive to even attempt to secure
the significant financing required to comply with the U.S.-
build requirement for U.S.-owned cruise vessels.
This special provision for NCL will very likely lead to
further economic difficulties for the domestic cruise
industry, and places its future growth at risk.
aviATIoN
Mr. President, there are numerous other provisions in this
conference report that circumvent the clear jurisdiction of
the Commerce Committee. For example, it incorporates almost
wholesale a bill passed last year by the House of
Representatives regarding air traffic control towers. The
provision expands on the class of air traffic control towers
that is eligible for federal money. While I'm all for
aviation safety and this may be a good provision, I'm
troubled by several aspects of it.
First, the provision doesn't just make new towers eligible
for reimbursement, it also makes eligible towers that were
built beginning in 1996--over seven years ago.
Things were very different seven years ago. Bill Clinton
was President and I had more hair. I know President Clinton's
theme song was ``Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow,'' by
Fleetwood Mac, but I find it very difficult to believe that
airports that built towers in 1996 had any expectation they
should get reimbursed by the federal government seven years
later. It's awfully nice that we're willing to do that. I
didn't know this omnibus bill was also the first economic
stimulus package of the year. Had I known, I might have
sought inclusion of a payroll tax holiday!
Secondly, at least the provision passed last year by the
House provided that an airport tower would be eligible for a
grant under this program only if the Secretary certified that
the selection of the tower for eligibility was based on
objective criteria, giving ``no weight to any congressional
committee report, joint explanatory statement of a conference
report, or statutory designation.'' I wish to congratulate my
House colleagues. Clearly, they were concerned about the pork
barrel politics practiced by the appropriators and tried to
insulate this particular program from such antics. However,
the appropriations committee decided that this took away too
much of their power and deleted the provision. I don't mean
they rewrote the provision. They literally crossed it out in
the conference report.
Mr. President, the conference report also includes a
provision that implements a whole new funding scheme for
airport security projects. I am very concerned about finding
for airport security. This is a reauthorization year for
aviation programs, and the Senate Commerce Committee, the
committee of jurisdiction, has already begun hearings on FAA
issues.
Yet the appropriators have taken it upon themselves to
establish a brand new funding scheme that has never been
vetted, discussed, or voted on by the authorizers. Some might
start to wonder just what the Commerce Committee's role is in
policy decisions regarding the programs under its
jurisdiction.
This provision authorizes a new $2.5 billion program over 5
years for airport security projects without any discussion
that I am aware of. The TSA was not consulted about this
provision. It seems that the special interest groups who were
shopping this provision were the only ones that mattered. If
this had gone through the regular legislative process, at
least all parties could have been heard. There are many
different ways to fund security projects. This provision may
be a good one, it mirrors a similar program set up at the
FAA. However, the DOT Inspector
[[Page S2419]]
General proposed several other ideas to our committee.
Another provision would allow airports to giver Airport
Improvement Program (AIP) money back to the FAA so the agency
can hire staff to speed up environmental reviews airports
projects. This is an area in which the Commerce Committee
took action on last year and will continue to pursue this
year. It should not be addressed in an appropriations bill.
While the earmarking in this legislation is as egregious as
ever, the raiding of existing accounts for unrelated purposes
is equally appalling. The AIP program is supposed to be
devoted to the infrastructure needs of our nation's airports.
Yet the conference report takes tens of millions of dollars
out of AIP to pay for the FAA's costs of administering the
EAS program, and the Small Community Air Service Development
Pilot Program. These are worthy activities and programs, but
it violates the long-established purpose of AIP to use monies
for these things. This continual raiding of AIP which is also
being encroached upon by the appropriation of security costs
from it will slow the necessary development of the nation's
infrastructure. We may be in an aviation funding crisis this
year if this wholesale taking of money from accounts that are
for capacity, infrastructure and modernization does not stop.
Amtrak
I want to commend the conferees for their attempts to help
protect the investment that the American taxpayers continue
to provide to Amtrak, which since 1971, has received federal
subsidies totaling $26 billion--an enormous sum for a system
that serves less than one percent of the traveling public.
The conference report, which provides Amtrak $1.05 billion
for FY 2003, includes conditions that require the funding to
be appropriated on a quarterly basis through formal grant
agreements with the Department of Treasury (DOT). Amtrak also
will be required to spend its appropriated funds only on
items identified in its business plan and approved by DOT.
And, such funds may only be spent on existing plant and
services, not on grandiose or far-fetched expansion plans.
These controls are a step in the right direction.
The conferees also worked to ensure that Amtrak reserves
sufficient funds to meet its contractual obligations with
state and local subdivisions for commuter and intercity
corridor services. Amtrak should not be in a position to shut
down commuter operations, as it threatened last summer,
because it does not have sufficient funds to operate its
entire network. Commuter operations, such as those on the
Northeast Corridor, are funded by state and local governments
and clearly should continue to operate even if other Amtrak
operations should cease. Further, Corridor trains that the
states are helping subsidize also should also receive
priority. Continuing to operate Northeast Corridor services,
off-Corridor commuter service, and those trains financed in
part by the states would preserve service for 93 percent of
Amtrak's combined intercity and commuter ridership.
While the conference committee has slightly reduced
Amtrak's appropriation from that provided in the Senate-
passed measure, from $1.2 billion to $1.05 billion, it also
has postponed repayment of Amtrak's $100 million dollar loan
from DOT, effectively providing Amtrak's $1.15 billion, or
only $50 million less than the $1.2 billion Amtrak requested.
Although Amtrak may end the year with less than its targeted
$75 million in working capital, it should be able to continue
operating while Congress considers the long-term future for
intercity passenger rail service. I look forward to a full
and open debate on this issue.
Tourism Board
Mr. President, the conferees authorize the Secretary of
Commerce to award grants and make direct lump sum payments of
up to $50,000,000 to support ravel to the United States. To
carry out this new authority, the appropriators establish the
United States Travel and Tourism Promotion Advisory Board and
provide $50,000,000. This Tourism Board has never been
considered by the authorizing committee of jurisdiction, nor
did the Department of Commerce have any input on the creation
of this new Board. This is another example of authorizing
language in an appropriations bill and $50,000,000 is an
enormous amount of money for an initiative that has not yet
been fully vetted.
NASA
Mr. President, I commend the conferees for their efforts to
address the funding needs of the Space Shuttle Columbia
accident investigation. Just yesterday, the Commerce
Committee held a hearing on the investigation, and I agree
that the Congress should be supportive of the Columbia
Accident Investigation Board. We must find the cause of this
horrible tragedy, and ensure that such an accident never
happens again.
Unfortunately, other NASA provisions are included in the
conference report that should be handled by the authorizing
committee of jurisdiction. For example, the conference report
establishes a NASA working capital fund for capital repairs,
renovations, rehabilitation, sustainment, demolition, or
replacement of NASA real property. As Chairman of the Senate
Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over NASA, I am
fully aware of NASA's declining infrastructure and the need
to ensure safety of NASA missions. In light of the
Space Shuttle Columbia accident, I think it would be a
prudent course of action if we fully consider this
provision in the context of an overall review of NASA,
which is currently underway. No hearings have yet been
held on this proposed working capital fund, nor has it
been considered by the full Senate. I do not question the
conferees' strong interest in addressing NASA funding
needs, but I note this is yet another case of authorizing
on an appropriations bill.
I am particularly concerned by provisions in the conference
report that would establish a NASA demonstration project
regarding an enhanced-use lease of real property. The
Commerce Committee has not had a change to review this
language, and no hearings have been held on this enhanced
lease scheme. The leasing of public property deserves a
public discussion.
election reform
I am pleased to see that the conferees appropriated almost
$1.5 billion to implement the election reform bill. This
funding is a good start for a process to improve our system
of election administration and renew the public's confidence
in our election system. I am especially pleased that this
conference report includes payments to help states to promote
disabled voter access.
noaa
The conference report provides more than $490 million in
earmarks and programs just for the aquatic--not atmospheric--
programs of the National Oceanic and Atmosphere
Administration. This funding will go toward more than 150
line items. The Administration did not request funding for
these programs in their budget, in fact, many programs that
they did request funding for are underfunded or zero-funded.
The conference report appropriates an astounding
$100,000,000 for fisheries disaster assistance. Of this
amount, $35,000,000 is for direct assistance to the state of
Alaska, for any person, business, or town that has
experienced an economic hardship even remotely related to
fishing. This money is in addition to the $20,000,000 they
are also getting for developing an Alaskan seafood marketing
program.
Of the remainder:
$35,000,000 is for the shrimp industries of the Gulf of
Mexico and South Atlantic, to provide far-reaching assistance
for many aspects of these fisheries;
$20,000,000 is provided for voluntary capacity reduction
programs in the Northeast and West Coast groundfish
fisheries;
$5,000,000 is for Hawaiian fishermen affected by fishing
area closures and other management rules; and
$5,000,000 is for blue crab fisheries affected by low
harvests.
The report also provides these hand-outs without requiring
any accountability for how the money is actually spent. These
appropriations were made without offering any form of
justification or rationale. How much federal money do these
regions really need, if any? If these needs are legitimate,
how do they compare to the needs of other regions? We'll
never know, because these appropriations circumvented every
stage of committee review, consultation, analysis, and
authorization. We have no basis for determining how necessary
this is or whether or not this is sound policy.
Furthermore, the conference report requires the Department
of Commerce and Coast Guard to provide coordinated, routine
support for fisheries monitoring and enforcement through use
of remote sensing, aircraft, and communications assets, with
particular emphasis on federal waters seaward of the costs of
South Carolina and Georgia. Again, without any review by the
authorizing committee, we have no basis or knowing why this
is regional program is a good use of federal dollars and
resources is this really the best use of limited Coast Guard
resources, at a time when our country is under a heightened
terror alert?
The conference report also earmarks $10 million from the
``Promote and Develop Fishery Products and Research
Pertaining to American Fisheries'' fund, to develop an
Alaskan seafood marketing program. $10 million is whole lot
of money to be spending on a marketing program, yet we are
given no details on exactly what this federal funding will be
used.
coast guard
The conference report and statement of managers earmarks a
total of $83.962 million of the Coast Guard budget. The level
of Coast Guard earmarks increased over $10 million compared
to the enacted FY02 Coast Guard budget.
In this critical time when the Coast Guard is so hard
pressed to carry out it Homeland Security missions, in
addition to its many traditional missions, it is indefensible
to be earmarking the Coast Guard's budget for pet products.
Adding insult to injury, the Committee report takes the Coast
Guard to task for devoting its scarce resources to homeland
security at the expense of its other traditional missions,
yet in the same report, they earmark critically needed
resources for other projects. This type of micro-management
serves only to tie the Coast Guard's hands and deny it the
flexibility it needs to respond to very real threats.
We all know the Coast Guard is underfunded and definitely
in need of additional personnel and resources. Our first step
should be to give it is full budget without these unrequested
and restrictive earmarks.
Here are just a few examples.
[[Page S2420]]
The statement of managers earmarks $1,600,000 for enhanced
oil spill prevention activities in the waters of Washington
State. This earmark was not requested by the Administration
and I think it should probably receive an award for the most
creative language. It states, and I quote, ``the Committee
expects the Captain of the Port to use his professional
judgment in allocating these funds to measures that he
believes will best protect these waters. Such measures
could include a cost sharing arrangement with the State of
Washington for the hiring of a rescue tug at Neah Bay.
However, these funds could be allocated to alternative
measures if, in the view of the Captain of the Port, such
alternative measures will provide a superior level of
protection.'' Does anyone wonder what decision the
Appropriations Committee expects this Coast Guard captain
to make?
$4 million is for LTS-101 helicopter engines.
The statement of managers earmarks $10,000,000 of the Coast
Guard's Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements budget
for a new line item entitled ``Security Surveillance and
Protection.'' What does this mean? The Senate report vaguely
stated that this provision is to develop and acquire
equipment that will improve security surveillance and
perimeter protection capabilities in the Nation's ports,
waterways, and coastal zones. In other words, it could mean
almost anything.
The statement of managers earmarks $16,000,000 for costs
associated with repairing and rebuilding the Coast Guard's
Integrated Support Center at Pier 36 in Seattle. These funds
are in addition to the $10,000,000 earmarked for this project
in the FY 2002 Transportation Appropriations bill. None of
these are funds were requested by the Administration and this
project is not one of the Coast Guard's highest priorities
for shoreside construction. My question is, how much will be
earmarked for this project in next year's budget?
Of particular note, the Conference report earmarks over 27
percent of the Coast Guard's research and development budget
for specific projects. These earmarks will hinder the Coast
Guard's efforts to better surveil our ports, create new
technologies to detect explosives and weapons of mass
destruction, and develop non-lethal technologies.
The statement of managers earmarks $1,000,000 to support
the continued development, demonstration, and evaluation of
engineered wood composites at Coast Guard facilities. The
statement of managers also earmarks $1,000,000 for a pilot
project to test automatic search and rescue spectral imaging
technology for Coast Guard C-130 aircraft solely located at
Kalaeloa, Hawaii.
Once again we are seeing an Appropriations Bill attempting
to circumvent the authorization process. This bill would
limit the funding for Coast Guard flag officers to 37. The
Coast Guard is authorized under Title 14 to have 48 flag
officers and currently has 37 flag officers on active duty.
As the Coast Guard grows in size to meet its new homeland
security missions it will not have any of its authorized
flexibility to promote additional flag officers. If there is
a concern that the Coast Guard has too many flag officers,
then that concern should be raised through the Commerce
Committee.
The bill authorizes the Coast Guard Yard at Curtis Bay,
Maryland and other Coast Guard specialty facilities
designated by the Commandant to enter into joint public-
private partnerships and in doing so may enter into
agreements, receive, and retain funds from and pay funds to
such public and private entities, and may accept
contributions of funds, materials, services, and the use of
facilities from such entities. This provision would enable
the federally subsidized Yard to indirectly compete with
private industry for shipbuilding contracts. This is
authorization language pertaining to the Coast Guard Yard
that is clearly within the jurisdiction of the Commerce,
Science, and Transportation Committee. Nonetheless prior to
the consideration of this legislation by the Appropriations
Committee, it did not consult with or notify either the
Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee concerning
the changes in law.
Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada had an inquiry. I
yield to the Senator from Nevada.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Just so the two leaders know, does the Senator from
Illinois know for how long he wishes to speak?
Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator from Nevada what the plans are for this
evening?
Mr. REID. What we are working toward is having final passage on the
bill this evening, if all things work out right.
Mr. DURBIN. I certainly don't want to delay final passage.
Mr. REID. Why doesn't the Senator proceed.
The Senator from Georgia also wishes to speak for 3 minutes?
Mr. STEVENS. Yes.
Mr. REID. Why don't we have the Senator from Georgia speak first for
3 minutes, and then the Senator from Illinois speak. If the managers
want to speak then, they can do so. I so ask unanimous consent.
Mr. STEVENS. It is 5 minutes and 3 minutes, is that correct?
Mr. REID. He's going to stop whenever you want him to.
Mr. STEVENS. All right.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I don't think I will take my full 3
minutes. I just want to rise and say that while, Mr. Chairman, I am
going to vote for the omnibus bill, I am really disappointed with the
agriculture disaster portion in this omnibus bill. On the Senate side,
we debated and discussed this issue at length. The chairman of the
Senate Agriculture Committee, who is also chairman of the Senate
Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee, I thought did an excellent job
of putting together a package that accomplishes the goal of getting
funds immediately in the hands of farmers all across America. My
farmers have had 5 rough years back to back, and they need money now.
Under the provisions that came out of the conference committee, which
was basically the House provision, farmers across America are not going
to be getting funds until probably August, September, or October.
Farmers are going to be out of business if they don't get relief now.
To pass this provision in this bill I think is the wrong approach. I
don't like that provision in the bill. I do support it. I know the
chairman had a very difficult time with this particular issue as well
as other issues, but I think that is wrong and I wanted to register my
objection. I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Appropriations
Committee, I know the amount of labor and work that goes into the
preparation of a bill of this magnitude. I also know when you postpone
the orderly process of passing spending bills and wait an extra 4 or 5
months, there is an opportunity for mischief. I think only in time will
we be able to sift through 1,600, 1,800, 2,000 pages of this bill to
find out in painful detail what is included.
There are several things that have come to my attention. I would like
to draw them to the attention of my colleagues here in the Senate.
Let me start by saying there is one issue most people don't like to
talk about and I am going to raise this evening because I think it is
critically important. The District of Columbia is a city which is
governed by a mayor, a city council, and 535 wannabe mayors in the
Congress.
It seems that every Member of the House or Senate who wanted to be a
mayor at some time in their lives decided at some point to make a
decision for the District of Columbia. I think that is unfortunate. The
people of this city, like every city, have a right to govern
themselves. Occasionally that intrusion of congressional mischief can
reach a perilous state. Let me give an example.
The AIDS rate for the AIDS disease in our Nation's Capital is the
highest in the country. It is 10 times the national average. More and
more women are being diagnosed with AIDS in Washington, DC. DC health
officials reported last October 616 new AIDS cases in 2001 alone, 33
percent among women. In 1981 women only accounted for 7 percent of AIDS
cases.
City health officials in Washington estimate 40 percent of AIDS cases
are associated with injected drugs.
The question is, how can we stop this AIDS epidemic in the Nation's
Capital, which is not only infecting more and more women and children,
but appears to be out of control. Frankly, there are programs that
work. One of the programs is not popular to talk about. Most of my
colleagues run away from it, but you cannot run away from reality. It
is a needle exchange program. It is a program that invites addicts in,
in an effort to try to first give them a needle that is clean, and then
bring them into rehabilitation so they can stop their addiction.
There are those who say don't give them clean needles because they
will just keep using them. But you know what they will use, they will
use dirty needles and pass the AIDS epidemic on and on and on.
I am not expert in this area. I get squeamish talking about needles
and
[[Page S2421]]
injections. But the fact is, the people who are experts, the American
Medical Association and medical officials, have said it works. Put
these programs on the street corners and in the storefronts of
Washington, DC, and we can start reducing the AIDS infection rate in
our Nation's Capital.
There is no reason in my mind why the people of the District of
Columbia should not be able to use their own money to try this approach
to reduce drug addiction and reduce the AIDS epidemic in their
hometown.
Across the United States, there are programs in many States. But
sadly enough, the Members of the House of Representatives have put in a
provision that prohibits the District of Columbia from even using its
own tax dollars to in any way support this kind of project.
Some of the very congressmen who beat on the desk and beat on their
chest and talk about how they are going to fight these needle exchange
programs represent districts and States where these programs take place
today. This is a sad outcome in this bill. I hope those who reflect on
it will realize they are taking some high and mighty moral position and
people will die because of it.
Stand by the doctors, stand by the professionals. Stop playing mayor
and city council for the District of Columbia. Sadly, this
appropriation continues to do so.
Exhaustive scientific review has found that needle exchange programs
are an effective way to slow the spread of HIV and AIDS. In a speech
last September. Dr. Joseph O'Neill, Director of the Office of National
AIDS policy indicated that the administration did not oppose the use of
state and local funds to support needle exchange programs.
The American Medical Association, the American Nurses Association,
the American Association of Pediatrics, and the American Public Health
Association endorse these programs. The Institute of Medicine
identified access to sterile syringes as one of four ``unrealized
opportunities'' in HIV prevention in a publication issued last year.
The IOM committee recommends that the Administration ``rescind the
existing prohibition against the use of Federal funds for needle
exchange to allow communities that desire such programs to institute
them using federal resources.''
Former Surgeon General David Satcher, MD stated that:
There is conclusive scientific evidence that syringe
exchange programs, as part of a comprehensive HIV prevention
strategy, are an effective public health intervention that
reduces transmission of HIV and does not encourage the
illegal use of drugs.
Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, MD concluded that needle
exchange programs are an ``effective means of preventing the spread of
the disease [HIV/AIDS] without increasing the used of illicit drugs.''
He called limiting the use of state and local funds for these programs
``counterproductive.''
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that there
were 156 needle exchange programs operating in the United States in 81
cities and 31 States last year, many of which receive state and local
financial support for their activities. None of these programs receive
Federal support at this time.
The CDC publication also indicated that 95 percent of needle exchange
programs in operation referred clients to substance use treatment and
counseling programs, and over half provide on site voluntary HIV
testing and more than a quarter also screen for hepatitis B and C.
In 2000, four needle exchange programs were functioning in my home
state of Illinois.
In spite of the overwhelming support from public health and medical
professionals, we here in Congress have once again prevented the
District of Columbia from using its own local funds to finance these
lifesaving programs. I was pleased that the Omnibus Appropriations bill
passed by the Senate allowed the District of Columbia to use LOCAL
funds to finance a needle exchange program. Washington, DC has one
needle exchange program, Prevention Works, that is supported with
private funding. Both the Mayor and Police Chief support the program.
However, I am deeply disappointed to learn that the conference report
we are considering today maintains the irresponsible status quo, which
prevents the District from using its own locally generated revenue to
finance needle exchange programs.
This conference report disregards the expert opinions of former
Surgeon Generals David Satcher and C. Everett Koop, leading medical and
public health organizations, the Director of the Office of National
AIDS policy and the Institute of Medicine.
It is my sincere hope that next year we will stop politicizing this
issue and recognize that the District of Columbia, just like all of our
home states and districts, deserves to have all possible resources at
its disposal to combat this devastating public health crisis.
The same is true when it comes to attorneys' fees for special
education. Think about this. In every school district in America, if
you have a disabled child and want that child to have an education, you
have a right to say to the school district: Here is my child who needs
the education. If the school district contests it and says this child
doesn't have a disability and we are not going to pay for a special ed
teacher, you have a right to appeal that decision. That's the case
across America.
Sometimes, because it is complicated and expensive, attorneys are
involved to represent the parents and the school district and to
resolve their differences. It happens every day across America.
In the District of Columbia it has gotten out of hand. Some law
firms--only a few--have exploited the parents of disabled children and
turned in attorneys' fees requests to the District of Columbia public
school system that are way out of line. Some of these firms have become
shady operations that offer not only attorney counseling, but special
education services, a package that raises many suspicions.
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and I have debated this over and over
again as to whether to cap the fees that can be paid to attorneys and
what to do about it. In the Senate we raised the cap on attorneys' fees
for DC special education to $4,000 maximum per case. I hope that is
enough to take care of these cases. But I will tell you I do not
believe we should be imposing a cap on attorneys' fees. The parents of
these poor children who are disabled should not be denied legal
representation.
I am happy Senator Hutchison and I could agree on limiting the
attorneys' activities so those questionable activities, those criminal
activities will stop. But I think we should put an end to this cap on
attorneys' fees and say to the DC public school system once and for
all, for goodness sakes, offer kids with disabilities the kind of
special education opportunities that are available across America. This
provision capping attorneys' fees in this appropriation bill I think is
a mistake.
Not only are such caps an intrusion on home rule and local spending
prerogatives, I do not believe that imposing a cap on payment of
attorneys' fees is the way to address significant and long-standing
problems with the delivery of special education services to children in
the District of Columbia. These fees arise because parents are forced
to bring due process actions against the city school system--and the
parents win their cases.
It is unacceptable for Congress to impose a dollar cap on how much
the City may pay attorneys who win these cases, particularly after a
judge has awarded a fee based on a reasonableness standard. However, I
do support language in this bill which addresses concerns about
particular attorneys who have shamelessly taken advantage of the
system.
I support a complete bar on paying attorneys' cases in which the
District's Chief Financial Officer, CFO, determines that an attorney,
officer, or employee of the firm has a pecuniary interest in any
special education diagnostic services, schools, or other special
education service providers.
Furthermore, I believe the provisions in the Senate bill which
mandate stronger ethical standards are appropriate.
I support the provisions in the bill dictating that the District's
CFO require disclosure by attorneys in IDEA cases of any financial,
corporate, legal, board membership, or other relationships with special
education diagnostic services, schools, or other special education
service providers before paying any attorneys' fees; that the CFO may
[[Page S2422]]
require certification by counsel that all services billed in special
education were rendered; that the CFO report to Congress quarterly on
the certifications and the amount paid by the government of the
District of Columbia, including the District of Columbia Public
Schools, to attorneys in cases brought under IDEA; and that the
District's Inspector General may audit the certifications to ensure
attorney compliance.
It is my hope that these provisions will produce needed
accountability. I am glad they were retained in the final product.
I am disappointed, but not surprised, that the cap remains in this
final version of the bill. I share the sentiment that abuses of this
program need to stop. I want to work to address that problem and to
figure out why the District has had such perennial problems with its
ability to meet the needs of its children in special education.
But it is wrong for this Republican Congress to deprive children of
legal recourse when they are denied services to which they are
entitled. It is wrong for the Republican Congress to preclude the
District of Columbia from using its own funds to make all legitimate
payments in this critical special education program.
There is another provision that was slipped in this bill as it
relates to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and the Freedom
of Information Act. This provision is an enormous setback to the
efforts of State and local governments to combat illegal firearms
trafficking. It undermines the very purpose of the Freedom of
Information Act.
This act entitles citizens to open access to Government records,
prevents the Government from shielding its activities from public
scrutiny. The City of Chicago, which I represent, filed a Freedom of
Information Act request to obtain information about the ATF trace
database. The purpose, of course, is to determine which gun sellers and
manufacturers were responsible for selling guns to criminals.
In response to these rulings, the gun industry went to the House
Appropriations Committee and asked for a rider in this bill to prevent
the ATF from complying with the FOIA request and telling the City of
Chicago and the public what they were doing.
This provision sets a dangerous precedent because it essentially
directs a Federal agency not to comply with the Federal court ruling,
thus undermining the very purpose of FOIA. If litigants can be denied
information under FOIA through legislative action--even when a Federal
court has upheld this request--FOIA itself is in jeopardy.
There is no cost justification for this. This doesn't have anything
to do with appropriations. This is an effort by the gun industry to
stop cities that are ravaged by gun crime from going after the
irresponsible gun dealers who are selling guns to criminals. And the
NRA and the gun industry are shielding them with this rider in the
appropriations bill.
I was joined by Senators Jack Reed and Ted Kennedy in urging that
this provision not be included. Unfortunately, it was.
Let me acknowledge also, as has been said by some of my colleagues,
that I am very concerned about the language of funding for homeland
security in this bill. The Senate, in its version of this bill, added
almost $4 billion in homeland security funds to be sent back to the
State and local governments to protect America. As I stand and speak on
the floor of the Senate, we are warning families across America that we
are in orange alert and that they have to take special precautions to
protect themselves and their children from the possibility of
biological and chemical warfare and dirty radioactive bombs.
Sadly enough, we are not providing the resources for the State and
local governments to meet this challenge. Make no mistake, America is
prepared to attack in the Middle East, but America is not prepared to
defend itself at home. That is a sad reality. This bill cuts out almost
$4 billion that would have gone for some very important purposes:
Additional money for the Transportation Security Administration for
monitoring airports; additional money for the INS and border security
to stop those from coming in this country who are bent on bad behavior;
community policing grants to try to help communities have someone on
the other end of the line when you dial 9-1-1, cut $130 million; FEMA
disaster recovery assistance, cut by $1 billion; the Department of
Justice Office of Domestic Preparedness, cut by $1 billion; firefighter
grants, cut by $150 million; interoperable communications equipment
grants, cut by $235 million--the No. 1 priority in my State so that the
police and firefighters and medical first responders can communicate,
cut in this appropriations bill from the Senate level.
These cuts, frankly, came at the request and with the approval of the
White House and the Office of Management and Budget.
Emergency Operation Center, cut nationwide by $155 million; port
container security, cut by $45 million; port technology demonstration
projects so that we can see dangerous cargo coming in these ships, cut
by $1 million; explosives training initiative, cut by $7 million; and
$42 million from embassy security.
I pray to God that nothing happens to this country as a result of
terrorism. But I think we have been derelict in our duty to provide the
resources to State and local governments to protect families and to
protect communities and businesses across America. This bill, with its
$4 billion in cuts off the Senate level, leaves us in a precarious
situation and one that I hope does not come back to haunt us in years
to come.
Let me conclude on a positive note. I thank the Senator from Alaska.
Despite these words of critique, I personally appreciate, as does
Senator DeWine, the personal interest and initiative he took in the
global AIDS epidemic. His decision on the floor to approve an amendment
which we offered is going to mean that thousands and maybe more will
have their lives saved. I thank the Senator from Alaska. He has been a
leader on this issue all the way. We have reached a 42-percent increase
in funding to fight the global AIDS epidemic through his cooperation
and leadership. I thank him very much.
I yield the floor.
I ask unanimous consent that a statement entitled ``Underfunding
Homeland Security'' be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Underfunding Homeland Security
At a time when the Administration is ramping up for war
overseas, one would think we would be doing everything
possible to fortify our security at home as well.
That's certainly what the Administration has led us to
believe, but oddly enough, we're poised to pass this 1100
plus page omnibus bill that slashes funding for the pillars
of homeland security.
And after cutting funds for first responders, for airport
security improvements, for community police officers and
more, what do they propose? That Americans fortify their own
homes with duct tape and plastic sheets. This Administration
can and must do better to protect the safety of the American
people.
This bill leaves significant gaps in funding for homeland
security priorities.
The Republican-controlled conference committee rejected
increases in homeland security funding that were approved
unanimously last year by a Democratic-led Appropriations
Committee. Instead, the Republican-controlled conference
imposed an additional 0.65 percent across-the-board cut to
all federal programs, leaving already cash-strapped
initiatives in even greater need. The results of the
cumulative cuts, which total more than $4.4 billion, include:
First Responders: This bill cuts $2.98 billion from
activities designed to aid first responders. Cuts include a
$1.59 billion reduction for the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA)--including a $150 million cut to firefighter
grants--as well as a $235 million cut to funds for police and
firefighters to purchase communications equipment and a $155
million cut to fund emergency operations centers.
Police/Law Enforcement: The bill reduces funding for
Community Oriented Policing (COPS) public safety and
community policing grants by more than 40 percent--from $330
million to $200 million. This cut would completely eliminate
funding needed to hire 1,360 community-based police officers.
Aviation/Port Security: The bill cuts $170 million from
Transportation Security Administration (TSA), impeding
efforts to improve airport security, and cuts $46 million
from port security funds. The bill also makes cuts to the
U.S. Customs Service, resulting in the loss of more than 200
employees and compromising the implementation of the
Container Security Initiative and other homeland security
efforts. The INS/border security budget is also reduced by
approximately $182 million.
[[Page S2423]]
Other Cuts: The bill also cuts programs to train state and
federal law enforcement and security personnel by nearly $50
million, including a $7 million cut to the Explosives
Training Initiative and $42 million to embassy security.
A supplemental appropriations bill would be necessary to
provide funding adequate to meet the homeland security needs
of localities across the country in advance of any military
action in Iraq.
illinois
States and localities are still waiting for the funds
promised to them. The States have legitimate concerns.
There's a lot of brave talk about fighting terrorism, but
when it comes to paying for it, this administration has not
delivered.
In my home State of Illinois, we have an Illinois Terrorism
Task Force (TTF). This is a collective body representing 50
agencies addressing emergency needs throughout the state of
Illinois. They have told me that a minimum of $100 million is
required to cover security expenses in Illinois for FY03.
The Terrorism Task Force originally asked for $320 million
in federal funding and then scaled back its request to the
current level ($100 million) in anticipation of federal
budget cuts.
According to the TTF director Mike Chamness, these funds
are crucial to Illinois' ability to properly address the
threat of terror.
Without these dollars, programs designed to secure Illinois
will cease to exist.
First responders will be ill-equipped and prepared to
address emergency situations.
Major items in the TFF's $100 million request include:
$25 million for first responders' respiration equipment
upgrade (nuclear, biological, and chemical).
$14.4 million for communication systems (interoperable
communications equipment for police, firefighters, and state/
local emergency operations centers).
Elite Terror Response Team: under current funding Federal
monies have not been available to send teams for the ``Elite
Response'' training.
It is imperative that my home state of Illinois--like every
other State in this nation--provides their front-line first
responders the best equipment, the essential tools, and the
finest training available. We rely on their readiness and
should expect nothing less. These funds are needed sooner,
not later.
city of chicago
Now let me tell you about the funding needs for Homeland
Security in the City of Chicago.
The City of Chicago had made an assessment of total budget
needs for homeland security at around $175 million
The top ticket item in Chicago is the Chicago public safety
radio migration plan which is estimated to cost $80 million.
The migration allows for all agencies to communicate in an
interoperable manner on a daily basis without major equipment
modification or complicated system changes.
Among other important needs are:
Emergency Responder Training and Equipment--$7.9 million.
CPD is requesting first responder training, first responder
equipment and secondary responders unit training.
Emergency Operations Center Expansion--$10 million. This
expansion will provide incident manager with real-time live
video, satellite imagery, building X, Y, and Z coordinates
and other state of the art technologies.
Hazardous Materials Equipment--$7 million. The Chicago
Department of Environment is requesting hazardous materials
response equipment for any large, widespread or egregious
hazardous incident.
need to do much more than duct tape & plastic
We can't stand up and say we're truly doing everything we
can to ensure that our cities and counties, bridges and
roads, airplanes and trains are as secure as possible and
that our fellow Americans are safe on our soil if this bill
is what represents the level of our commitment to fund
programs to ensure homeland security.
I fully expect the President to come back to Congress and
ask for additional funds to support our military needs
overseas. Without question, we must address these needs. But
it would be unconscionable to increase funding for military
activities in Iraq and neglect our security needs at home. If
war comes with Iraq, the battle lines will be expanded to
include our country. We simply cannot afford to leave
American citizens unprotected.
____
ATF/Freedom of Information Act Provision (Re: City of Chicago Lawsuit
vs. Gun Industry)
Another provision slipped in to the appropriations bill at
the last minute involves the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms and the Freedom of Information Act.
This provision would be an enormous setback to the efforts
of state and local governments to combat illegal firearms
trafficking and would undermine the very purpose of the
Freedom of Information Act.
The Freedom of Information Act entitles citizens to open
access to government records and prevents the government from
shielding its activities from public scrutiny.
The City of Chicago filed a FOIA request to obtain
information from an ATF trace database. A U.S. District Court
and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ordered
the ATF to release these records.
In response to these rulings, the gun industry went to the
House Appropriations Committee and asked for a rider to
prevent the ATF from complying with this FOIA request.
This provision sets a dangerous precedent because it
essentially directs a federal agency not to comply with a
federal court ruling, thus undermining the very purpose of
FOIA. If litigants can be denied information under FOIA
through legislative action--even when a federal court has
upheld the request--FOIA itself is in jeopardy.
There is no cost justification for this provision. The City
of Chicago demonstrated in its litigation that it would take
the ATF less than 10 minutes to assemble and release the data
is has requested.
I was joined by Senators Reed and Kennedy in urging that
this provision not be included, and I am disappointed that it
was.
In the past, I have challenged the Senate and the President
to back up the high priority we have placed on the global
AIDS pandemic with adequate resources.
[Senator DeWine has even called me a ``bull dog'' on this
issue. I took that as a great compliment.]
This 2003 appropriations process demonstrated that the
Senate does indeed recognize the need for increased resources
to fight global AIDS.
In December, I, and 15 other Senators, sent a letter to
appropriators asking them to increase overall AIDS spending
by 50 percent over 2002 levels. At the time we were looking
for an increase of $236 million.
While facing $9-$10 billion in cuts throughout the FY 2003
appropriations bill, the Foreign Operations Subcommittee
responded to this request, and managed to find an additional
$41 million for global AIDS.
The Senate Labor, Health and Human Services Subcommittee
agreed to match House approved levels, increasing the funds
going to the CDC's Global AIDS Program by about $15 million.
While this increase of $56 million was welcome,
unfortunately, it was not enough.
Senator Mike DeWine and I set out to achieve that 50
percent increase, and through a floor amendment to the
omnibus bill, sought another $180 million to bring overall
spending on Global AIDS to $1.525 billion.
This amendment was accepted--its success demonstrates the
Senate's sincere commitment to fighting global AIDS.
$100 million of these funds were slated for the U.S.
contribution to the Global Fund--the world's primary
organization to monitor and support worldwide AIDS
prevention, treatment and care programming.
And the remaining $80 million would go to USAID global AIDS
programs.
Well, during conference, we lost $80 million of the $180
million total. But, nevertheless, I count this as a victory
for the global AIDS pandemic.
In the end, an additional $50 million was secured for the
Global Fund, bringing the U.S. contribution up to $350
million for 2003, and an additional $50 million went to
bilateral programs.
This omnibus bill designates $1.2 billion for global AIDS.
That is a 46 percent increase over what Congress appropriated
in 2002.
The President's 2003 budget request suggested an increase
in funding of global AIDS funding of 29 percent. I would say
we have come a long way.
We will need this type of increase--at least a 50 percent
increase--each year until we can close the gap between
expenditures and resources necessary to fight this pandemic.
The President's FY04 budget request amounts to an increase
of only 32 percent over the $1.4 billion the U.S. will spend
overall on global AIDS in 2003.
[This bull dog] I will be back, asking that at a minimum we
achieve a 50 percent increase in global AIDS funding each
year for the next few years.
We must continue to do more for the 42 million people
worldwide who are living with HIV/AIDS and prevent a good
portion of those that will become newly infected in 2003.
During the last ten minutes I have been speaking,
approximately 58 people have died from AIDS, 11 of those were
children.
A 15-year-old boy in Botswana faces an 80 percent chance of
dying of AIDS.
By 2010, it is estimated that sub-Saharan Africa alone will
be home to 20 million AIDS orphans; that's 20 million
children who have lost one or both parents due to AIDS.
We must act now to help those who today suffer from the
impact of HIV/AIDS as well as to change the future of today's
children.
We know the situation is dire. We have data to support what
program work. Now its time to fund the programs that work.
The 2003 appropriations bill helps us to take yet another
tiny step forward in fighting global AIDS.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________