[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 3 (Thursday, January 22, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S129-S157]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
      RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2673, 
which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A conference report to accompany H.R. 2673, making 
     appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 
     Drug Administration, and related agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there will be 
4\1/2\ hours equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of 
the Appropriations Committee or their designee for debate only.
  Who seeks recognition? The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I yield myself about 10 minutes, if that 
is appropriate.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORZINE. I thank the Chair.
  First of all, I want to speak today about this appropriations bill 
that is now on the floor. I have serious ambivalence about how we 
should deal with the specifics of this measure. I know members of the 
Appropriations Committee, led by the Presiding Officer, have worked 
long and hard. They have worked in a fair way to try to make sure they 
put together the best final product they can, have been sensitive to 
the needs of their colleagues, and have worked to try to be balanced 
about how they brought forth this final product. Unfortunately, through 
the conference process, a product has emerged that differs from that 
sought by our leaders here in the Senate.
  It is with some ambivalence that I feel the need to express some of 
the reasons why I will not be supporting the Omnibus appropriations 
bill for 2004. It contains what I believe are serious policy flaws 
that, furthermore, don't deal actually with the appropriations process. 
They go far beyond what should be addressed, debated and concluded in 
the democratic forum of this Senate, and in the House.
  It seems to me that the most serious problem here is not even those 
policies, although they are very important in and of themselves, but 
this process that has somehow overturned the policies supported by wide 
majorities in both houses, policies we worked so long and hard to deal 
with--I think this process is out of kilter.
  But I also believe that, at a policy level, they are important, 
things such as overtime. It is just hard to believe when we can pass a 
dividend and capital gains tax cut to help those who are already doing 
well to improve wealth, and, to put it in economic terms, to reward 
capital, we are turning our backs on labor and on work.
  I don't mean labor in an organized sense. I mean our workforce, the 
people who work. It seems to me that people who work should have at 
least the same value attested to their efforts as people who invest. 
Here we are talking about 8 million people who will come off these 
rolls of potential overtime benefits. For what reason? For what reason 
are we doing this when we want to reinforce the work ethic in this 
country? And these are the people who have modest to middle-income 
positions in our society.
  It is extraordinarily difficult to understand this decision when you 
consider the context that both this Senate and the House of 
Representatives have opposed changes to our overtime rules. This bill 
is a turnaround from the will of both bodies on this matter. It is 
incredibly difficult for me to understand why we are moving forward 
with this bill when we have something that strikes at the heart of what 
it is we value in this country. Work ought to be something that is 
rewarded. It ought to be recognized. It has been a part of the 
consensus we have in this country. Obviously, it is broadly conceived 
as being the right thing by the majority of folks in both houses and on 
both sides of the aisle. I have grave difficulty understanding this. It 
goes to the fundamental essence of how our economy works. Work ought to 
be valued at least the same as capital in this society.

  Here we are turning our backs on it. We are sending the wrong signal 
to our kids, and to society in general. It is a big mistake, in my 
view--so big that I think it actually compromises the value of the 
overall piece of legislation.
  Second, I have serious concerns about media concentration. Of course, 
a lot of us do not often like things that are said in the media. We 
don't like that to-and-fro which impacts us individually. But society 
is better by it. It is a lot better when we have a healthy debate of 
ideas and different viewpoints come out. That is what democracy is 
about.
  The last time I checked, both sides of this body supported the media 
concentration rule at 35 percent. And somehow we have a different rule 
than what was agreed to by both houses. I heard the distinguished 
minority leader speak to the essence of the institution, and the 
institution is broader--not just the Senate but the Senate and the 
House. How can we reach agreements on things and then come out with a 
different result on something as important as how we communicate with 
the public in this country? How do we change the dynamics of political 
debate and news coverage on which the people rely to fulfill their 
civic duty and gather information to make decisions, such as who they 
are going to support? How will they make informed decisions when we 
have this concentration? It is an incredibly difficult concept for me 
to understand.
  We don't raise a lot of cows in New Jersey, but we eat a lot of meat. 
I don't understand the country-of-origin labeling issue. Why would we 
not take the steps that are necessary to protect the American people 
and to protect the country's economic interests so we can keep the 
export markets open? This is not fundamentally sound on either the 
safety of the public or our own economic security. Why are we trying to 
cut jobs in this country? It is bad enough that we are cutting 
overtime. Now we are undermining our ability to actually be effective 
in the global market because we are making policy that reflects a 
narrow interest as opposed to the public's interests and the broader 
economic interests of the country.
  It is hard to understand at a period in time when we are down 2.3 
million jobs

[[Page S130]]

in less than 3 years, where there hasn't been the kind of growth in 
economic reality of people's lives--that is, going to work: jobs. Here 
we have something that endangers the public and strikes at the heart of 
economic growth. Economic growth makes a difference in families' lives 
in America: jobs. I have trouble understanding this.
  I heard my distinguished colleague from New Jersey yesterday come 
down and talk about the destruction of records on the purchase of 
firearms after 24 hours.
  Where are we coming from in a world where we have a war on terror 
with people who like to buy guns and go and use them for purposes that 
are antagonistic to the security of the American people? We are passing 
a law that is going to make that activity much more available. We can't 
check out records of air flights into the United States in a week, and 
now we are willing to say that we are going to take records on the 
purchase of a gun and have them destroyed within 24 hours? Please, 
somebody tell me the rationality of that in the midst of a war on 
terrorism.
  Our President spent three-quarters of the State of the Union address 
talking about how we need to protect Americans both at home and abroad, 
and we turn around and embed in this legislation--by the way, not pass 
in this body--we turn around and change a fundamental issue with regard 
to gun safety in this country. It is very hard for me to understand 
that. We are turning our backs on protecting the American people.

  I heard my colleague from New Jersey say this is a real deal where he 
comes from, a real deal. Seven hundred people in my State--10 people in 
my hometown--died on 9/11. I don't understand why we are changing the 
elements of safety and security of the American people in an 
appropriations bill. Why are we doing that? What special interest is 
arguing for that? What interest makes that so important we do that here 
and now? I find it incredible we think this is the right way to move 
forward on gun safety.
  Overtime and the value of work, free expression of political opinion 
in our country as reflected in our media rules, and the gun law changes 
in this climate of heightened concern about homeland security, I don't 
understand why these major policy moves are embedded in an 
appropriations bill, particularly when both Houses--at least on parts 
of these issues--have already said this is not the direction we want to 
take.
  Mr. REID. If the Senator will yield for a question, will the Senator 
also agree--to complicate matters with what we are doing here today on 
the overtime issue, which is so important to so many millions, not 
hundreds, not thousands but so many millions of Americans--the Senator 
is aware that no matter what happens on this piece of legislation, the 
President now can do whatever he wants? Whether this passes or not, the 
President can do whatever he wants; is the Senator aware of that?
  Mr. CORZINE. To be honest, I believe I have a sense that the 
President can do whatever he wants to do with regard to this issue. I 
think they have already done that. This authorization is embedded in 
this bill. But I know they can stand back and stop this with the same 
regulations they proposed to start.
  Mr. REID. Again, I ask my friend the question, we have in one of 
these appropriations bills a prohibition, a piece of legislation that 
would prevent the President from exercising his authority to take away 
overtime rights for people all over America; is the Senator aware of 
that?
  Mr. CORZINE. The distinguished Senator from Nevada, our assistant 
minority leader, is exactly right. I have read those exact words and 
know the President can use his authority for good or he can turn his 
back on Americans.
  Mr. REID. The Senator is aware that some time, for lack of a better 
description, in the dead of night, where there was no one from the 
public present, even though the House and the Senate passed provisions 
dealing with overtime, the Senate is aware it was stripped from the 
bill?
  Mr. CORZINE. I understand this is not part of the legislative process 
that we have all been a part of in the Senate and that in the House of 
Representatives.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. MurkowskiI). The time of the Senator is 
expired.
  Mr. CORZINE. If the Chair will yield 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, I repeat, the policies of this bill on 
overtime, media concentration, and certainly gun safety records are 
just incredibly out of connection with the reality of the world in 
which we live today. Work should be valued, open debate should be 
valued, and the safety of our citizens, our homeland security, should 
be valued.
  Again, I compliment the leadership on its work on this appropriations 
bill. I just do not understand why we have had to mix it up and put it 
into a bowl of seriously flawed policies. There is a whole series of 
other policies, including vouchers in the school system, that have 
occurred without real debate--and I could go on--but overtime in this 
country is a value of work. Media concentration was designed so that 
America could have a free press and a free debate. We ought to be 
making sure we protect these fundamental rights. It ought to be done in 
a democratic way. I hope my colleagues will stand with us on principle 
on the Omnibus appropriations bill to fix it and come back to the 
fundamental underlying appropriations process.
  Mr. STEVENS. I call attention to the Senators, as the leader's 
opening statement indicated, it is entirely possible a vote on the 
cloture motion will occur before 2 p.m. There are 4\1/2\ hours of 
debate equally divided prior to this second cloture vote, but those 
Members who want to speak should indicate to their respective floor 
leaders if they want to speak so we are not going to have anyone 
disturbed over relying on the concept that there are 4\1/2\ hours when 
there probably will not be 4\1/2\ hours of debate.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield.
  Mr. REID. I appreciate very much the Senator making this statement. 
If there are Members desiring to speak and use the full 4\1/2\ hours, 
they have a right to do that. However, there have been requests on our 
side and on the majority side from Senators who would like to vote 
earlier. We would have to vote by 12 o'clock. So it would cut off 2 
hours. We cannot vote at 12:30 because we have a policy luncheon 
starting at 12:30 and we have two votes.
  If Members wish to speak, if they would notify the floor staff on 
both sides, we will divide up the time. If someone cannot come until 
this afternoon, that is the way it will be; we will have a vote at 2 
o'clock.
  I repeat what the distinguished President pro tempore has said: Some 
Senators wish to move forward more quickly, and we will do whatever the 
will of the body is, but we need to notify Senators as soon as 
possible.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, we are prepared to work with the 
minority in that regard and have the vote earlier if that is desired. I 
just want to call attention to the fact that Senators ought to take 
that into consideration in terms of whether or not they want to come to 
the floor and make a statement. If there is no indication anyone wants 
to speak, obviously we will go to a vote earlier.
  At this time, I yield to the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, the 
right to designate the time allocated under the time agreement on this 
side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORZINE. Will the Senator from Alaska yield for a unanimous 
consent request?
  Mr. STEVENS. I am happy to yield for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of the concurrent resolution 
which I will send to the desk correcting the enrollment of the omnibus 
conference report. The resolution restores the Senate language barring 
the implementation of the regulations which will deny overtime pay to 
millions of workers; that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and 
the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.
  Mr. STEVENS. Reluctantly, I must object to that request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Parliamentary inquiry to the distinguished minority

[[Page S131]]

whip: Is it premature to ask for unanimous consent to change the time 
of the vote?
  Mr. REID. It is. I say to the distinguished Senator from Texas that 
we are now waiting to hear from a number of Senators who have indicated 
they want to speak. It is a question of whether they can do it before 
lunch or if they have to do it after lunch. We are trying to work on 
that as quickly as possible.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, it would be in everyone's interest, 
once our Senators are notified, if we could set that time so our time 
could be roughly equally divided before then.
  With that, Madam President, I will speak on our time and talk about 
the importance of passing the omnibus bill. This is a bill that 
encompasses many departments in our processes in the Senate. Normally, 
we try to pass each department separately so we can deal with those 
issues separately. Because of various circumstances, we now have a bill 
that takes in several major departments. Therefore, there are things 
that have not been debated separately. I know there are concerns that 
have been raised. However, we must pass this bill if we are going to 
have the will of today's Congress take effect for the appropriations 
between now and October 1 of this year.

  If we do not pass this bill--the alternative is a continuing 
resolution--it means that last year's priorities would prevail, and 
there would be some major losses in funding for the next 9 months of 
this year.
  Let's take, for instance, the veterans. Today we would lose, by not 
passing this bill, the ability to fully serve our veterans in their 
health care. Continued operations under a continuing resolution would 
force the Veterans' Administration to curtail the hiring of new 
physicians and nurses, pharmacy costs would continue to rise, and we 
would not have the money to pay for the added expenses that we are 
seeing in the medicine benefits to veterans. The waiting list for 
veterans medical care would start to rise, and it would mean the VA 
would not be able to expand its long-term care services under the old 
priorities.
  Part of our bill this year that is before us today expands veterans 
medical benefits. If we pass a continuing resolution, we would not be 
able to increase that medical service. We have new veterans with 
medical needs coming home now from Iraq and Afghanistan. The idea that 
we would not fully fund the needs of veterans today is unthinkable. 
That is what would go by the wayside if we do not pass the omnibus 
bill.
  Let's talk about education. In the bill, Pell grants maintain their 
historically high maximum award of $4,050 to help disadvantaged 
students achieve the dream of a college education. Afterschool centers 
are increased in funding to $1 billion.
  Impact Aid--now, Impact Aid is for school districts that have a high 
number of bases, military personnel in that school district. Impact Aid 
helps the school district overcome the fact that you cannot tax Federal 
property. If a base is a major part of a school district, that is 
nontaxable property. Yet military personnel send their children to 
these schools. So the Federal Government has always made up the amount 
that would be lost in property taxes by giving Impact Aid. It is 
increased $49 million over last year. That will be lost for the next 9 
months if we do not pass this bill, thereby further strapping the 
school districts in the places that have a high volume of military 
personnel.
  Wouldn't that be an incredible thing to say to our active duty 
military: Oh, we are putting more responsibility on you. We are putting 
more burden on you. Many of you are overseas, but you have to worry 
about the school districts not having the money to fully educate your 
children while you are serving our country. Is that really a message we 
want to send today to our military personnel?
  Head Start funding, to help prepare our disadvantaged young children 
to learn and succeed in school, it is boosted by $148 million in the 
omnibus. That would be lost for the next 9 months if we do not pass 
this bill, so we would not be able to get those programs geared up with 
the reforms that we are trying to put in place that make Head Start 
more of an educational experience rather than just a play experience 
that is day care. We are trying to give these young children the 
opportunity to proceed, before they get to kindergarten, with the very 
best early childhood education possible.

  When I was home over the holidays, I visited one of these target Head 
Start centers, where children in the 3-year-old class and the 4-year-
old class were learning their ABCs. They were learning their numbers. 
They were learning the computer. There were 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds 
working on the computer. This is the kind of Head Start Program we want 
to fund. That would be possible if we pass the omnibus bill. That would 
certainly be curtailed if we do not pass the bill.
  The National Cancer Institute would have $148 million more over the 
next year if we pass the omnibus bill. But if we stick with last year's 
priorities, the National Cancer Institute will have to stop its funding 
increases. Many people know, with the increase in health care research 
in the National Cancer Institute, we have been able to make great 
headway in fighting cancer, in finding the cause of cancer, and then 
finding something that will fight that particular cause of cancer.
  The Geraldine Ferraro Cancer Education Program would be funded in 
fiscal year 2004 $5 million. It would help educate the public on issues 
surrounding blood cancers. None of this funding would be provided under 
a continuing resolution. So that is $5 million that would go to the 
education of cancers such as lymphoma, leukemia, multiple myeloma, 
which is very important because these are the cancers that have 
historically been underfunded. Many people now are getting these 
cancers when they are not really aware that they need to have their 
blood checked but because they are losing energy. It is a terrible 
disease. The Geraldine Ferraro Cancer Education Program funding would 
lapse if we do not pass this bill.
  Election reform. We made major steps in the right direction on 
election reform this year. The Help America Vote Act would be providing 
funding to States to make sure they follow through on Congress's 
commitment to strengthen the electoral process. None of this funding 
would be available under the continuing resolution.
  In a very important Presidential election year, when we are going to 
elect every Member of the House and when we are going to elect one-
third of the Senate, do we really not want to fully fund the reforms to 
assure our electoral process is fair, that it is a system where people 
can count on their vote counting? I hope not. That is $1.5 billion in 
the omnibus bill that would not be funded for the next 9 months, until 
October 1, if we do not pass the bill.
  So we obviously would not have any of these reforms in place if we do 
not fully fund and pass the omnibus bill that is before us today.
  The Millennium Challenge. This is a program that would be both 
authorized and funded at $1 billion this year to help developing 
countries achieve economic growth, to lay out alternatives to poverty, 
violence, and terrorism. This is very important in our war on 
terrorism. If we keep terrorists from being able to lock into a country 
that is very poor, we will give the people of that country hope, hope 
that there is something else besides just violence and continued 
poverty. Economic possibilities, economic opportunities are what will 
make a difference in many of these countries.
  The FBI is a very important part of homeland security. We now have 
put the FBI into the same grid that works in homeland security, with 
intelligence sources to try to pick up the signals that maybe there 
would be another terrorist attack.
  Under the omnibus bill, the FBI will be able to hire 229 new agents, 
receiving $138 million in program improvements to help in the fight 
against terrorism. If we do not pass this omnibus bill, we will go 9 
months without allowing the FBI to gear up for what we are asking them 
to do; and that is, to hire the agents to be a part of our homeland 
security.
  The International Trade Administration is funded at $28 million more 
this year. What would we lose if that funding goes by the wayside? This 
is what is focusing on many countries' compliance with trade standards, 
China's compliance with trade standards. We

[[Page S132]]

have heard many concerns raised in our country about China complying 
with fair trade standards. We need to make sure China and every country 
meets the standards they have signed on that they would meet, standards 
that require intellectual property to be protected.
  We don't want to allow people to copy the videotapes or the movies or 
the books that are being written by other people and not pay the 
intellectual property requirement to do so. But we need the enforcement 
capability. That will be lost.
  We are targeting countries for cultural exchanges and education 
programs. One of the long-term goals in the war on terrorism is to try 
to bring people from countries that do not have democracy, that do not 
know freedom, to our country for cultural exchanges, for education, to 
show public education, giving our children the opportunity to learn, to 
read and write and learn math, to be able to function in a world that 
will create an economic base for a country. Many of the countries that 
are the home bed of terrorism do not have these freedoms.
  Cultural exchanges are one of the long-term goals that we have in the 
war on terrorism to have people come from these countries to see what 
happens when you have a strong system of public education, to see what 
happens when you have freedom, to see how people can live when there is 
the right to free speech, when there is the right to a free public 
education that would give our young people the economic opportunities 
that education will give them.
  A long-term continuing resolution that would not give any of these 
priorities that we have put in place in the bills that have come out of 
these committees would cause a $5.5 million budget shortfall for the 
Small Business Administration. That would be almost a 20-percent 
reduction in their budget. Programs that help small businesses compete, 
such as the 7A program, would eventually be shut down if we have a 
continuing resolution rather than this omnibus bill.
  As I have gone through my State during the past 2 months, I have 
found many small business people complaining that the Small Business 
Administration offices are being shut down, the services are not there, 
the opportunity to have Small Business Administration loans and 
counseling is not as it used to be. If we pass a continuing resolution 
instead of this omnibus bill, we will lose almost 20 percent of the 
Small Business Administration budget.
  It is very important we pass this bill, if we are going to fully fund 
our veterans health care, if we are going to fully fund the schools in 
our home district military bases so that people on active duty serving 
our country will not have to worry that their children in school are 
not getting their full educational opportunities this year.
  The National Cancer Institute, with a $148 million cut over the next 
9 months will have to stop the progress they are making in many arenas 
for finding the cure and the cause of cancer.
  We are in a major election year. We would not fund the reforms that 
Congress has passed to assure every vote is counted, that we have good 
voting machines so that we won't have an issue such as what happened in 
Florida in the last Presidential election. We are helping States to 
have the integrity of the ballot in this very important election year 
for our Congress and for the President.
  The International Trade Administration must be able to make sure that 
our intellectual property rights are met by countries such as China and 
other places that copy movies, copy books that don't pay the 
intellectual property requirements; the long-term exchange programs 
that will help us fight terrorism by giving the young people from a 
country that does not know freedom the opportunity to see what freedom 
and public education can bring; cutting back on the FBI--all of these 
are the things that would happen if we don't pass this omnibus bill.
  It is my hope that we will have the opportunity to pass this bill 
today so we can put the imprimatur of Congress today on the next 9 
months of funding in this fiscal year rather than rely on a bill that 
passed 2 years ago which doesn't take into account some of the reforms 
that have been made in Congress. It is my hope that Members will see 
that our veterans' needs and the needs of our active-duty military 
children in education and in cancer research will prevail. We will pass 
this bill and give our children a chance, and our country a chance, to 
have the increases we need for our homeland security, and the education 
of our children, and the research into cancer to find the cause and the 
cure. We must pass the omnibus bill to go forward in all of these 
aspects.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. 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. REID. Madam President, we have run a hotline. We have notified 
what Senators we thought would be interested in coming. Senator Kennedy 
and Senator Clinton have indicated they wish to speak. We have asked 
Senator Kennedy to come now. He will be here momentarily. Senator 
Clinton will be here at around 11. What we propose--and hopefully the 
majority will be here momentarily--is that the vote occur at noon 
rather than 2 o'clock, with the time evenly divided. If Senator Kennedy 
is ready to proceed, I ask that we would look at the unanimous consent 
agreement and consider Senator Kennedy's time in light of that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I will contact the leader's office.
  Mr. REID. He is supposedly on his way down here now.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I look forward to working with the distinguished 
Democratic whip to see if that can be put forward and locked in. I hope 
we would then start from a point to have equally divided time up until 
the vote at noon.
  Mr. REID. So everyone should be aware that the vote will likely occur 
at 12 noon today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, there are a number of provisions in 
this legislation, the omnibus bill, that have been talked about. But I 
hope my colleagues will give consideration to the fact that the 
appropriators and the Republican leadership stuck into this omnibus 
bill a number of different provisions that never passed the Senate or 
the light of day or the smell test. And took out provisions to help 
millions of Americans. One of the provisions that they took out of the 
omnibus bill was a provision that was supported by the Senate and 
supported by the House in a bipartisan fashion. That was the amendment 
to tell the Bush administration that they could not deny workers 
overtime. His proposal would affect 8 million workers. Yes, this is an 
enormously important omnibus bill. Yes, it is important that we deal 
with the problems in education and health. I yield to no one in my 
concern in those areas.

  All we are asking is that we take the omnibus bill and put back in 
the protection for workers. Or we could have the Bush administration 
rescind its proposal to deny workers overtime protections.
  We have challenges in our economy, but one of the great challenges in 
our economy is not that firefighters, nurses, and police officers are 
being overpaid. That is not the problem we are facing in our economy. 
But that is going to be the effect if this particular omnibus bill goes 
through. The administration will implement its overtime provisions. As 
I mentioned yesterday, it is not just those individuals I mentioned--
firefighters, nurses, and police officers--it is also the veterans.
  Listen to this, America. Since the time of the passage of the Fair 
Labor Standards Act, the United States has accepted the concept of a 
40-hour week. Then workers who worked more than 40 hours would get time 
and a half. That has been an accepted part of the American workplace 
since the 1930s, when the Fair Labor Standards Act was passed. But now 
this administration has made a proposal to effectively eliminate the 
requirement to pay overtime to 8 million Americans, which includes 
firefighters, police officers, and

[[Page S133]]

nurses. But they also put into this provision those who will be 
excluded. Listen to this. Those who will also be excluded will be those 
who receive the standard requirement and equivalent training in the 
Armed Forces. Do you hear that? Training in the Armed Forces. Over in 
Iraq, American service men and women have been trained. We have the 
best trained military in the world. The challenge of having a good 
military is to have the best in training, the best technology, the best 
leadership, and the best support for the families at home. Those are 
the elements of an effective military force. Now what we are saying to 
those who are in the military, the service men and women who have taken 
that training, which makes our military so superior--and being superior 
results in the saving of lives of service men and women--we are saying 
that kind of training in the Armed Forces will mean when you get back 
home, you fall into that category of the 8 million who will be 
precluded from getting overtime.
  Can you imagine that? We have 200 training programs in the military. 
Great numbers of them fall within this particular provision of training 
in the Armed Forces. For the life of me, I cannot believe why this 
administration would write into their proposal that the training in the 
Armed Forces will mean you are going to be excluded from overtime pay. 
I just do not understand that. I just do not understand it. I wish 
those on the other side of the aisle who support that particular 
provision would come out here and explain that.
  I want to mention another important provision in this overtime pay, 
the effect of which hits a particular group in our society, and they 
are the women who are working in the American workforce. Two factors 
have made life for middle-income and working families at least 
plausible and livable. One is the fact that women have entered the 
workforce and, secondly, many of these families have mortgaged their 
homes to deal with the problems of tuition escalation and other things, 
such as emergency health needs. The fact is there is no what they call 
in economics ``elasticity'' left in this. They don't have other members 
of the families who can work once the husband and wife are working. You 
don't have another husband and wife to go out there and you only have 
one home and if you mortgage that to educate your kids you just can't 
do very much more. You are depending, to a significant extent, on 
overtime pay. I want to remind the Senate about what has been happening 
in the workforce. The middle-income mothers work 55 percent more hours 
today than 20 years ago. Here it is: It was 895 hours in 1979, and in 
2000 it was 1388 hours--almost double what they were working in 1979, 
over a 20-year period. Why are they working? To provide for their 
families. What are we saying to these mothers who are working hard and 
making some overtime? We are saying to the mothers and to the women in 
the families you are not going to be able to get that benefit either. 
You are not going to be able to get the benefit either. This falls 
particularly hard on the 8 million Americans who will be outside of the 
overtime definition, for the veterans who came back from Iraq in the 
military forces, because it will be said you are a professional now, 
you have had training in the Army. We have read in your record that you 
have had some training, so even though you are doing this job, we don't 
have to pay you overtime. It says that in the Armed Forces training 
regulation.

  This provision falls unduly harsh on the women. As women have 
increased their time in the paid labor market, their contributions to 
family income have also increased. These contributions have been 
particularly important to lower and middle-income families. An increase 
in time spent at work creates childcare and other family challenges. 
These added hours have had a negative effect on a parent's ability to 
be at home after school, help with homework, or care for an ill or 
aging family member.
  The Bush proposal would take away overtime protections for millions 
of American women, ensuring that they work longer hours for less pay. 
Women who are working today are going to work longer hours for less 
pay. That is the result of the overtime provision. Make no mistake 
about it. Our amendment protecting overtime--saying to the President 
that he can't take away overtime pay--was taken out of the omnibus bill 
after it was passed on the floor of the Senate and in the House of 
Representatives. But the Republican leadership knew they could not win 
on the Bush proposal on the floor and they took it out of this bill--
challenging this body to take it or leave it.
  This is one Senator who is going to leave it because of what it is 
going to do to working families, for the women and veterans in this 
country. Women tend to dominate retail services and sales promotions 
that would be particularly affected by the Bush proposal. The increase 
in overtime, often with little advance notice, would take away from the 
families, disrupt the schedule of working parents, as well as impose 
additional childcare and other expenses. Women's groups like Nine-to-
Five, the American Association of University Women, National 
Organization for Women, National Partnership for Women and Families, 
and the YWCA express their strong support for the Harkin-Kennedy 
amendment to preserve the overtime protections. Those are the leading 
women's groups--National Organization for Women, National Partnership 
for Women and Families, YWCA. Effectively, every group that represents 
women in our society strongly opposes these provisions which are 
written in by the Republican leadership denying overtime.
  These organizations representing women--Nine to Five, the American 
Association of University Women, the National Organization for Women, 
the National Partnership for Women and Families, and the YWCA--have all 
indicated their strong opposition to the overtime provisions. They know 
the adverse impact on women.
  I wish to point out that of the millions of Americans who will lose 
their overtime, not only do we have police officers, nurses, and 
firefighters, but if we look at other categories, we see cooks, 
clerical workers, a large percent of which are women, physical 
therapists, dental hygienists, bookkeepers, lab technicians, graphic 
artists. These are major professional groups where, in a number of 
those areas, women are the majority of workers, so they would be 
adversely affected. This provision adversely affects veterans and 
adversely affects women.
  Today's New York Times points out what my colleague, my friend, John 
Kerry, mentioned as a veteran himself in Exeter, NH.
  This is the New York Times story:

       An omnibus spending bill has been stalled in Congress in 
     partisan dispute over provisions to which Democrats object. 
     One would allow the Bush administration to press ahead with 
     rules that Democrats say could strip millions of their right 
     to overtime pay. Hitting that theme, Mr. Kerry said the 
     president would treat those who trained for some skilled jobs 
     in the military as professionals ineligible for overtime pay, 
     adding this ``made my blood boil.''
       ``We need a president who understands that the first 
     definition of patriotism is keeping faith with those who wore 
     the uniform of the country,'' Mr. Kerry, a Vietnam veteran, 
     said. . . .

  It could not be said any better than that.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire New York 
Times article be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Jan. 22, 2004]

          Ignoring Other Candidates, Kerry Turns Focus on Bush

            (By David M. Halbfinger and Randal C. Archibold)

       Exeter, NH, January 21.--Surging in the New Hampshire 
     polls, Senator John Kerry ignored his rivals on Wednesday and 
     blasted President Bush on health care and charged that new 
     rules on overtime supported by the administration would bar 
     many veterans from overtime pay.
       Mr. Kerry said the president had rightly praised American 
     troops and veterans in his State of the Union address. ``But 
     once again it's an example of a say-one-thing-and-do-another 
     administration,'' he said, pointing to the overtime dispute.
       An omnibus spending bill has been stalled in Congress in a 
     partisan dispute over provisions to which Democrats object. 
     One would allow the Bush administration to press ahead with 
     rules that Democrats say could strip millions of their right 
     to overtime pay. Hitting that theme, Mr. Kerry said the 
     president would treat those who trained for some skilled jobs 
     in the military as professionals ineligible for overtime pay, 
     add in that this ``made my blood boil.''
       ``We need a president who understands that the first 
     definition of patriotism is keeping

[[Page S134]]

     faith with those who wore the uniform of the country,'' Mr. 
     Kerry, a Vietnam veteran, said at Daniel Webster College in 
     Nashua.
       He spoke as two new polls showed him taking the lead in New 
     Hampshire. The separate polls, in the Boston Herald and the 
     Boston Globe, each put Mr. Kerry 10 points ahead of his 
     closest rival, Howard Dean, although surveys in primaries are 
     notoriously unreliable because of the difficulty in 
     identifying likely voters.
       Mr. Kerry also began commercials showing people praising 
     his ``leadership and experience'' and emphasizing his 
     endorsement by the Concord and Nashua newspapers.
       Wednesday night at Phillips Exeter Academy, he drew about 
     1,000 people, easily his largest crowd for a stump speech in 
     New Hampshire.
       In his noon speech in Nashua, he rolled out a few new 
     phrases to depict the president as out of touch with everyday 
     Americans and in the thrall of the ``special interests.''
       ``You can tell from his State of the Union address that the 
     President is facing re-election,'' Mr. Kerry said. ``I wish 
     he'd face reality. Watching President Bush's speech last 
     night, one thing kept coming back to me: He just doesn't get 
     it.''
       He invoked ``the unheard majority in the health care 
     debate,'' saying, ``We need a president who's going to make 
     sure their voice is finally heard, that they have access to 
     the White House, not just those who contribute significantly 
     to campaigns.''
       Mr. Kerry said he would reverse rules barring Medicare and 
     states from negotiating for discounts on bulk purchases of 
     prescription drugs and repeal a ban on re-importing American-
     made drugs from Canada. He called on Mr. Bush to work with 
     states like New Hampshire that have tried to start re-
     importation.
       Deriding the Medicare bill enacted last year as a benefit 
     only for pharmaceutical companies, Mr. Kerry said, ``If I'm 
     president, I pledge to you, we will repeal that phony bill.''
       As Mr. Kerry aimed his fire at the White House, the second-
     place finisher in the Iowa caucuses, Senator John Edwards of 
     North Carolina, briefly detoured to his native South 
     Carolina, where the Democratic primary will be held Feb. 3.
       At a packed sandwich shop in Greenville, Mr. Edwards 
     sounded his themes of spreading optimism and hope in a 
     country he sees dispited by job loss, financial insecurity 
     and shrinking education opportunities. And naturally he 
     emphasized his roots in a state whose primary he says he must 
     win to remain in contention. ``I was born here, I still have 
     a lot of family here,'' Mr. Edwards said to raucous applause, 
     adding, ``This is part of who I am and I intend to compete 
     every way I know how.''
       Later, back in New Hampshire, Mr. Edwards reprised a line 
     comparing his electoral potential in the South to that of his 
     northeastern rivals. Answering a question at Roland's diner 
     in Nashua on how he would get his agenda through a Republican 
     Congress, he said: ``The question is, who on the top of the 
     Democratic ticket can go everyplace in America and campaign 
     with the candidates and strengthen their ability to get 
     elected?''
       He added, ``In Georgia, do you want John Edwards 
     campaigning with you? Do you want Howard Dean campaigning 
     with you? Do you want John Kerry campaigning with you?''
       Later Wednesday evening, Mr. Edwards drew one of his 
     largest crowds yet in New Hampshire, some 400 people who 
     filled a V.F.W. hall in Portsmouth to overflowing. He drew 
     strong applause for his vow to diminish the influence of 
     special interests in Washington who he said block legislation 
     favorable to low-income and middle-class Americans.
       ``Let me tell you what we should do with these Washington 
     lobbyists,'' he said. ``We ought to cut them off at the 
     knees. The truth is these people are stealing your 
     democracy.''
       Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, who moved to Manchester rather 
     than compete in Iowa, called the New Hampshire primary race 
     wide open and talked up his ability to beat Mr. Bush as he 
     spoke to high school students and business leaders. He urged 
     voters to weigh his experience, consistency and 
     predictability.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, finally, I would have thought that 
since Tuesday--it is now Thursday--we would have heard someone on the 
other side come down and defend stripping these provisions out of the 
omnibus bill. The silence has been deafening. One would think if they 
were going to take these out, at least they would have the guts to come 
down here and explain to the American people why. Why did they take 
them out? Who took them out? Who asked that they be pulled out? What 
was the reason, after it had been supported by the Senate and House of 
Representatives? But all there is is silence--silence--from the 
Republican side.
  That says something, does it not, when we are talking about something 
which has already been addressed in both Houses, passed in the Senate, 
passed in the House, and stripped out in the dead of night and there is 
silence on the other side.
  American workers deserve better. We deserve to understand what the 
process was in taking out this provision that has been passed by the 
Senate, and the leadership refuses to give us an opportunity to have 
another vote to put it back in. Why are we not having a vote to be able 
to restore it? It doesn't take any time. We would agree to half an 
hour, with time evenly divided. Let's hear them defend the Labor 
Department's regulation, a regulation that will affect women, a 
provision that works unfairly against veterans, a regulation that is 
unfair to firefighters, police, and nurses. Where is the justification? 
There is silence on the other side.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, I yield.
  Mr. REID. What the Senator is saying--I say in the form of a 
question--there may be silence on the other side but it is a little 
hard, with mad cow disease floating across the world and occurring in 
our country, for me to comprehend how anyone could defend not having 
country-of-origin labeling in this bill.
  The Senator from Massachusetts has been in the Senate for an extended 
period of time. Madam President, with all of his experience, can he 
think of any reasonable rationale, logical argument that can be entered 
to defend their having taken something that passed the House and Senate 
dealing with country-of-origin labeling, namely, that if you buy a hunk 
of meat, you should know from where it comes?
  In all of the Senator's experience, his ability to articulate as well 
as anybody in the country today, could he in his mind figure out a way 
to defend that position?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Well, the logic of the Senator's argument is so 
overwhelming and the common sense of it is so compelling.
  Mr. REID. Could I ask another question?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Let me complete this. As the Senator remembers, at the 
time we heard about the mad cow disease, there was not a family in 
America that was not asking what is the safety in terms of the food we 
are eating, the meat product our children and our families eat. All 
America was concerned about it. We have an opportunity to do something 
about it. We know what can be done about it.
  As I hear the Senator from Nevada, it would not take an awful lot of 
time. I know the Senator's amendment. I do not think it would take more 
than half an hour to be able to include those provisions that would 
give the kind of additional health safety protections for the American 
people. It is not an absolute guarantee for every situation, but it 
would make a major difference. How long does the Senator think it would 
take to include those provisions that would provide the country-of-
origin protection?
  Mr. REID. I disagree strenuously with the Senator about needing half 
an hour. It could be done in 5 minutes, 2\1/2\ minutes on each side. 
This is so clear cut. The Republicans en masse would vote in favor of 
this.
  This is something that has been directed from 16th and Pennsylvania 
Avenue. It was done in the dead of night. The Republican leaders did 
not follow the legislative prerogatives within the Constitution and 
caved to the President and corporate America.
  This would take 5 minutes. We are going to have a chance to vote on 
this, and when we do, it will overwhelmingly pass.
  Mr. KENNEDY. We could do it now, am I correct, or do it if there was 
agreement?
  Mr. REID. We could do it now in 5 minutes. Nobody will oppose it. I 
dare anybody to come to this floor and oppose what is going on in this 
country on mad cow. My 13-year-old granddaughter at dinner Monday night 
asked her little 8-year-old brother, Aiden: Would you like a piece of 
mad cow? Even children are afraid of this.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Well, there you are.
  Mr. REID. Could I ask the Senator another question? I apologize. I 
hope I am not imposing too much.
  Relying upon the experience of the Senator from Massachusetts, whom 
we have all heard on many occasions explain as well as anybody who 
could on an issue, we have a situation where the President of the 
United States has indicated for a while now that he wants

[[Page S135]]

to take away overtime for millions and millions of Americans, and we, 
the Congress assembled, the House and the Senate, said we do not want 
him to do that, and we passed provisions and laws saying he cannot do 
that.
  Again, in the dead of night, the Republican leadership in the House 
and the Senate caved in to 16th and Pennsylvania Avenue. Now, I ask the 
Senator from Massachusetts, can he come up with any logical argument as 
to why the American people should be faced with police officers, 
firemen, nurses, cooks, paralegals, dental hygienists, social workers 
not being able to get overtime?
  Overtime went into effect during the Depression, 70 years ago. Can 
the Senator come up with any way anyone could articulate a defense of 
having this overtime provision in this legislation?
  Mr. KENNEDY. The answer is special privilege, special interest. Just 
to add to what my good friend from Nevada pointed out, the Department 
of Labor then had the gall to publish suggestions to show American 
business how to make sure these 8 million were not going to receive the 
overtime. This is just special interest politics: Mad cow, overtime, 
power of special interests. These are the similar kinds of interests 
that denied this institution the opportunity to permit negotiation of 
drug prices under Medicare. What is in the public interest there? 
America is finally going to find out the Bush administration is 
primarily interested in protecting the special interests, not the 
public interest.
  That is what I heard across the various small towns, communities, and 
farms in Iowa. The American people are beginning to get it and nothing 
illustrates it more clearly than the proposed overtime change in 
regulations which so adversely affects not only these 8 million 
Americans but particularly members of the Armed Forces, returning 
veterans, and the women in our society.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Madam President, I will be very brief. I want to address a 
change in the time we will be voting today and move that ahead. I want 
Senators to know just as soon as possible. I will propound a unanimous 
consent request and then comment on it for 1 minute.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote on the 
conference report now occur at 12 noon; provided further, that the time 
prior to the vote on cloture be for debate only, and that the time be 
equally divided between the chairman or ranking member or their 
designees, with the final 10 minutes equally divided between the two 
leaders or their designees; provided further, that all of the 
provisions of the previous order remain.
  Mr. REID. Twelve noon today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Twelve noon today.
  Mr. FRIST. That is correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twelve noon today. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Parliamentary inquiry: The time would be equally 
divided from now or from the beginning of the session?
  Mr. REID. If there is a problem with time and more time is needed for 
the majority, we will include Senator Kennedy's time. We only have 
Senator Kennedy and Senator Clinton. If somebody else comes, I am sure 
we will not have trouble dividing up the time.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. That is fine. I didn't know how it would come up. I 
wanted to make sure, if we have some people before 12, that there is 
some way to accommodate them.
  Mr. FRIST. Madam President, we have been working with both sides of 
the aisle to make sure people have had adequate time to address this 
issue over the last day and a half. These are very important issues and 
why we have brought this bill to cloture votes and another vote. So the 
vote will be at 12 noon, with the understanding that this will give 
people adequate time to speak. We will stick with the time being 
equally divided.
  To clarify, the vote will be at noon, an hour and 20 minutes from 
now. If we are successful with that cloture vote, there will be another 
vote right after the first vote. So we would have both of those votes 
between noon and 1 o'clock.
  At that point, if we are successful, the plan is to go to the pension 
rate reform bill. We would begin debate on that bill today, as well as 
amendments today and tomorrow.
  The reason I am making this announcement now is because I want to put 
everybody who is interested in that pension reform legislation on 
notice that they need to be around today, tomorrow, and Monday, during 
which we will debate and offer amendments.
  If we are successful with these two votes and we get on the pension 
bill, I will be able to say no more votes today or tomorrow if we can 
stack those votes for Monday afternoon. We will have no votes after the 
omnibus bill today if we can make progress on the pension bill and come 
to an agreement that we will stack those votes for late Monday 
afternoon.
  Mr. REID. Will the majority leader yield? The ranking member of the 
HELP Committee, Senator Kennedy, has indicated he is ready to begin 
some debate on this bill on our side this afternoon. Senator Baucus, as 
you know, is recovering from that accident where he fell. He will not 
be here. The Finance Committee is aware Senator Kennedy will be 
managing the bill on our side. So we are ready to proceed on this 
matter as soon as the omnibus work is completed.
  Mr. FRIST. Madam President, I very much appreciate that 
participation. Coming back on January 20, there were a lot of things 
going on. This weekend people are going back to their States to have 
certain meetings. It is important we continue the business. I 
appreciate the work on both sides this week. It has been a productive 
week on many important issues, and we will continue to make progress 
over the course of the day.
  If it goes as outlined--I would like to be able after the second vote 
today to begin the pension debate, with both sides having people 
available--we would have no more votes Thursday or Friday--I am not 
making that announcement now, but hopefully later this afternoon--and 
then we will stack votes for Monday afternoon. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the Senator from New York is on the 
floor and Senator Bennett is on his way, but I want to take a moment 
and say I understand some of the concerns that have been raised, but 
this is a bill that puts Congress's imprimatur on spending for the next 
9 months. It does not take last year's priorities. It takes this year's 
priorities.
  We have had a chance to talk about it. We have had a chance to 
debate. We have had amendments earlier in the process. There has been a 
full vetting of the differences on this bill. My bottom line is, are we 
going to let this bill fail and have a continuing resolution that will 
go from January to October 1 and fail to enact the reforms in election 
law that will ensure the integrity of the ballot in our country during 
a Presidential election year? Are we going to keep $148 million from 
going into the National Cancer Institute when we are doing great 
research on the causes of cancer and the potential cures? Are we going 
to fail to meet the needs of our veterans by not allowing the hiring of 
physicians and nurses, not fully funding the pharmacy costs which are 
going through the roof, which we must fund for the veterans who are 
needing drugs as so many people in our country do? Are we not going to 
fully fund the impact aid schools where our military children go to 
school while their parents are in Iraq and Afghanistan? Are we going to 
let those schools' budgets be cut back? I ask, what is the alternative 
to passing this bill? The alternative is using last year's budget, last 
year's priorities, and not putting the stamp of this Congress on these 
priorities in place.
  I think we have to look at our choices. The choices are increasing 
the FBI, increasing impact aid for our schools, increasing National 
Cancer Institute funding, increasing the ability to make sure China and 
other countries are complying with intellectual property laws. We will 
lose a lot if we do not pass this omnibus bill today and go forward 
with the funding programs for next year on an orderly basis.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.

[[Page S136]]

  Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, I listened to the debate with respect 
to the fiscal year 2004 Omnibus appropriations bill that is before us. 
I agree with many of the points my friend from Texas was making about 
the important appropriations in this bill and the necessity for 
providing the funds needed to run the significant, critical programs of 
our Government. It is regrettable, therefore, that we are confronted 
with this particular choice. It was an unnecessary choice. It is a 
false choice.
  The appropriators worked very hard. I have the highest respect for 
members of the Appropriations Committee. In their hard work, they 
produced recommendations about what funding was needed for the critical 
functions of our Government. If that is what we were voting on today, I 
do not know that there would be a debate. I am confident there would be 
overwhelming support for that part of the bill. But we all know what 
happened was not the bill that came out of the Appropriations Committee 
or the bills that came out of the Senate. Instead, in a conference 
committee, legislation was inserted into this appropriations bill that 
has far-reaching consequences.

  So here we are being asked to support the ongoing funding of the 
functions of our Government, which all of us agree is important, at the 
cost of supporting some very serious changes in our laws that will have 
far-reaching consequences for the people who live in our States and our 
country.
  As Members of the legislative body, the legislative branch of 
Government--because we have three branches, three coequal branches 
under our Constitution--we have two primary responsibilities. First, we 
are the voices of the people who elect us. That doesn't mean we always 
agree with every constituent. That would be impossible. I have 19 
million constituents. But it does mean that we listen and we pay 
attention and we try to make the very best judgments we can about what 
is in the interests of the people we represent.
  Then, second, we are part of the system of checks and balances among 
the branches of Government our Founders so brilliantly invented.
  I believe this omnibus bill and the process through which it was 
constructed violates both of those primary duties. This bill is laden 
with provisions that were rejected by a vote in this body, and some by 
votes in the other body. We took a vote. We said, representing the 
people of New York or Nevada or Utah or America, we are for it or 
against it but here is where we stand. Apparently the majority vote is 
no longer the rule in Congress, much to my amazement and distress. That 
is because this bill has many provisions which were rejected, which 
were turned away, yet here they are in the bill. We are asked that we 
either vote for everything or risk the loss of funding for critical 
Government functions. To me, it just defies our constitutional system.
  There is a phrase, ``under cover of darkness.'' I think this bill 
represents, ``under cover of conference.'' This is one of those 
processes that may sound a little arcane and even boring to people 
watching at home or sitting in the gallery, but this is the way our 
Government in this body, the Congress, works. The Senate passes 
something. The House passes something. Then, in order to work out any 
differences between the two Houses, they go to what is called a 
conference committee where they say: Here is what you passed, and here 
is what you passed. How do we compromise? Compromise is the very 
essence of a legislative body.
  But that is not what happened this time. What happened is that the 
conference committee became a separate, equal, powerful, independent 
legislative body run by the administration. It was under cover of 
conference that the White House unilaterally added provisions to this 
bill which reflect their political ideology and agenda, whether or not 
the duly elected Members of the House and the Senate agreed.
  Nowhere is the antidemocratic nature of this process more apparent 
than in the denial of overtime pay protections for 8 million Americans, 
including 450,000 New Yorkers. This is a significant overhaul of our 
Nation's worker protection laws. It was proposed under a cloak of 
secrecy without a single congressional hearing, without a single public 
hearing.
  As many of my colleagues remember, when the previous administration, 
the Clinton administration, issued regulations governing how we work 
today with computer terminals and repetitive kinds of procedures which 
cause carpal tunnel syndrome and other sorts of problems, regulations 
were issued to help redesign the workplace and protect the modern 
worker, particularly office workers but also people on assembly lines 
who do repetitive work hour after hour. The Clinton administration 
Labor Department issued ergonomics regulations. That is the phrase that 
describes how we try to improve the workplace to deal with these kinds 
of stresses.

  The Republicans in Congress attacked the Labor Department for issuing 
these regulations, claiming they had rushed to judgment because the 
Clinton administration held only 27 days of public hearings--27 days. 
Here we are being asked to vote to radically change the overtime 
compensation rules of our country, and we have never had a public 
hearing from this administration. Nevertheless, the changes, when they 
were announced, got a huge outpouring of reaction and a lot of scrutiny 
from workers and unions and people who know what it means to have to 
work hard and be told you are going to work hard and you are not going 
to be paid any more money for it. Many tough questions were asked.
  As Members of the House and Senate learned more about these 
proposals, we became concerned and we said wait a minute, we don't 
think that is fair. On September 10 of last year, with bipartisan 
support, we addressed this proposed rule and we saw, in the House, a 
motion passed to instruct the conference committee to adopt the Senate 
language, which was on a bipartisan basis, to reject changes under 
these kinds of circumstances in the overtime compensation laws.
  Now what has happened? You would have thought that ended it. But, no, 
the administration has refused to comply with the wishes of the 
majority of both Houses of Congress, and I believe the majority of 
Americans. So we are faced with an Omnibus appropriations bill that 
radically changes laws that have been in place since the 1930s. I just 
think everybody needs to understand this. This is not a partisan 
statement. This is not a political claim. This will take away overtime 
protection from American workers, whether you are Democrat or 
Republican, an Independent or pay no attention to politics.
  I don't think most experts believe that workers will work less. In 
fact, the productivity gains that have been occurring are largely 
because workers in America are actually working longer hours, not fewer 
hours. In fact, the General Accounting Office found that workers who 
already are not covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act protections are 
more than twice as likely to work overtime; three times as likely to 
work 50 to 60 hours per week.
  This is going to have a particularly disadvantageous impact on 
Americans who live in high-cost areas such as New York City. When you 
look at what the new rules are and the way the administration has 
rubbed salt into these wounds by not only changing the rules but 
sending out circulars to employers to tell them how they can avoid even 
getting into a position where they might have to pay overtime, it is 
not a far reach to conclude, as have many experts who have looked at 
this, that we are seeing with this bill a direct cut in the take-home 
pay and the yearly income of people who work really hard and who will 
continue to work hard for less money.
  Three of the groups that will be most impacted are police officers, 
nurses, and veterans. The International Union of Police Associations 
and its general counsel, who is widely recognized as one of the 
Nation's leading experts on the Fair Labor Standards Act, estimates 
that 50 percent of our police officers will lose their overtime 
provision if this regulation is implemented.
  I don't look forward to the next orange alert in any community in our 
country where police officers are put on 12-hour shifts, maybe 16-hour 
shifts, where they are asked to work double- and triple-time shifts to 
protect us, and all of a sudden, no more overtime.
  The same with nurses. I have an extraordinary admiration for nursing.
  I know from many of the nurses with whom I work and speak on a 
regular

[[Page S137]]

basis that they are already being forced to do a lot of overtime 
because of cost pressures on hospitals. They are being asked to do an 
extra shift. They come to the end of the week, and they are being asked 
to work weekends. Many nurses are concerned about the quality of their 
work, being under pressure when they have already put in a 40-hour, 50-
hour, or 60-hour workweek. But now we are going to ask them to keep 
working and not pay them. I am sorry, I don't understand what reality 
our friends on the other side and on the other end of Pennsylvania 
Avenue live in. We are losing nurses at a rapid rate because the 
working conditions with mandatory overtime are already so difficult. 
The average age of the American nurse is 45. These are mostly women. 
But they are women and men with lots of responsibility, training, 
commitment, and devotion. They don't mind working hard, but they have 
families. They have their own health to worry about. All of a sudden 
they are going to be told their job depends on them putting in that 
extra time. But we are sorry, we changed the overtime rule.
  Right now, nurses who do not have a 4-year degree could be denied 
overtime under these proposed rules if they have ``experience in 
nursing.'' How absurd is that? Of course, they have experience in 
nursing. They are nurses.
  It used to be if you had a professional degree above a certain level 
you were considered a professional, you worked for a salary, and you 
weren't going to get overtime. But a lot of LPNs and others, after they 
have worked a year or 2 years, all of a sudden have experience even 
though they don't have a 4-year degree. So now this administration is 
telling their employers to work them because they are now experienced. 
That is their equivalent.
  The cynicism of this is breathtaking. It bothers me greatly to see 
this great body be part of such a fraud.
  Look at the estimates. Two hundred and thirty-four thousand LPNs will 
lose overtime. You know that a lot of nurses are going to continue to 
walk away from nursing. It is hard enough if you are paid for these 
long, difficult hours. But not to be paid for them? I just think we are 
going to be exacerbating the nurse shortage and undermine the quality 
of care available to patients.
  The final category I will mention is our veterans. We have heard a 
lot of rhetoric about veterans in the last couple of days, haven't we? 
I am very proud to represent hundreds of thousands of veterans. I am 
very proud of the men and women serving us in uniform today. Yet this 
bill takes away the overtime protections to which many veterans in the 
workforce are now entitled.
  Right now, under the law as it is written before this regulation can 
go into effect, only workers with a 4-year degree in a professional 
field can be labeled professional, and, therefore, denied overtime. The 
Bush administration, under this regulation, would do away with this 
requirement. They would allow training in the Armed Forces to 
substitute for a 4-year degree. I know we have an all-volunteer 
military. I am very proud of the young men and women who sign up to 
serve our country. I know when they are recruited they are told: Here 
is the training you can get and the additional education you can obtain 
in the Armed Forces. This is not only an opportunity to serve your 
country but to put you in a good position for the future when you get 
out of the military service if you do not make it a career. You will 
have tremendous opportunities because of these skills.

  Now we are turning around and breaking faith with our veterans, too. 
We are basically saying: You know that training we gave you, that 
education you acquired in the military? Now it is going to count 
against you. You take a job where otherwise you would be entitled to 
overtime--say you become a police officer and an MP in the Army; you 
don't have a college degree, but you served as an MP. All of a sudden, 
guess what. You are not eligible for overtime anymore.
  It is very hard to justify in a jobless recovery like the one we are 
allegedly in that we would make life harder for working Americans; that 
we would tell the police and firefighters and nurses and veterans and 
others, guess what. We are going to take money out of your pocket in 
order to satisfy employers who do not want to be fair to you.
  We wouldn't have needed these laws if everybody lived by the golden 
rule, would we? If everybody got up every morning and said I am going 
to treat people the way I want to be treated, I am going to treat my 
employees the way I want to be treated, we would not have to have this 
law, or probably any other law. But we know, with human nature being 
what it is, that we have to have some protections for those people who 
are in less powerful positions. We are just tearing up that social 
contract right now.
  There are many other provisions in this omnibus bill that either were 
voted against by this body and stuck in anyway or never considered. I 
am finding this an amazing experience being in the Senate. Everything 
that I read in civic books and that I thought was what happened in our 
legislative body is just being upended and thrown out the window.
  Another provision slipped into the omnibus which was earlier rejected 
by this body on a bipartisan basis will delay the implementation of 
mandatory labeling of the country from which meat and vegetables are 
imported. I want to know where my food comes from. I would be happy if 
I could buy only food from New York because I would like to support my 
New York farmers. I would like to know whether that is a New York apple 
or a Chinese apple. Somebody else can go ahead and buy the Chinese 
apple. I want to buy the New York apple. I sure want to know where the 
meat I eat comes from. That is what this body voted for.
  But in response to pressure from a small group of the meat and food 
industry executives, the administration did the bidding of the special 
interests instead of the vast majority of Americans. Once again, why 
are we surprised? And they stuck language into this Omnibus 
appropriations that will prevent consumers like us from knowing where 
the food we purchase is grown, and they will overturn a law that is 
very important to the farmers I represent and to American farmers and 
producers around our country. It is stunning that this would be done at 
a time when we were really focused on our flood supply, when we know we 
need to do whatever we can to protect our food from disease and 
possible terrorism.
  The mad cow issue that arose a few weeks ago is something that has 
gotten everybody's attention focused on the quality of our food and the 
safety of our food.
  The idea of a country-of-origin requirement was passed as part of the 
farm bill in 2002. Here it is 2004, and this administration wants to 
undo the will of the democratically elected majority of the Houses of 
Congress.
  There are many more examples of what is wrong in this omnibus, 
whether it is reimposing the national television ownership cap that was 
already rejected in both Houses, making our media less diverse, more 
concentrated, and less responsive to local issues.

  Senators McCain and Hollings held extensive hearings on this issue. 
They produced a Senate resolution to restore meaningful, cross-
ownership limits on television stations and newspapers. It passed by a 
vote of 55 to 40. That was a bipartisan majority vote. The legislative 
branch did its job. We held the hearings, we got the evidence, we did 
the argument and debate, and we had the vote. It doesn't seem to matter 
to the folks on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. If it crosses one 
of their special interests, by George, we don't care about democracy. 
We don't care about majority votes. We don't care about bipartisanship. 
We are going to deliver to the people whom we think are on our side 
when it comes to special interests.
  It is distressing and it is something about which I think every 
American should be concerned. We are undermining the checks and 
balances of our Constitution. We are undermining accountability. We are 
undermining the coequal branches of Government.
  If all we wanted was a king, we would have put a king into the 
Constitution to do whatever the king wanted to do. What do we need a 
democracy for? Why do we need to elect people to come to the Senate to 
express their opinion, hold hearings, and have votes? Let us just cede 
all authority to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. They want

[[Page S138]]

control of the executive branch. They want control of the congressional 
branch. They want control of the pork. Why don't we just all give up 
and go home? It doesn't seem to matter what we vote on. It doesn't seem 
to matter what the majority says. The administration calls the shots, 
and people in this body let them do it. It is astonishing to me.
  Another example: We are diverting limited educational resources to an 
untested, unproven, private school voucher plan which was not included 
in the Senate-passed bill. I think, once again, we are doing something 
that has no support in this body and we are letting it happen because 
the administration wants it to happen.
  We also have an across-the-board cut in this bill, not debated by the 
Senate, stuck into the bill at conference, taking away money from 
agencies of the Government, appropriations already signed into law, 
including the Department of Homeland Security.
  I could go on and on. It is astonishing what happened under cover of 
conference. It is hard to justify a process that is so flawed, so 
antidemocratic--with a small ``D''--so beholden to and in the pocket of 
special interests, so willing to buckle under and do the bidding of the 
administration, whether or not it is in the best interests or the long-
term benefit of our Nation.
  It is our responsibility to do the business of those people who sent 
us here. By ignoring the will of the majority, by turning our backs on 
the Senate and the House, we are making a mockery of our system.
  I know very well that during the previous administration the other 
side of the aisle would be up in arms. And they should have been if 
something such as this had gone on, no doubt about it.
  I hope we will continue to stand against this mockery of the 
democratic process and the undermining of our legislative 
responsibility.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. I have listened with interest to the Senator from New 
York and will respond to several of the things she said.
  I notice the chairman of the Appropriations Committee in the Chamber. 
I do not wish to intrude on his time unduly because he is the real 
expert on this process and can explain why we are where we are far 
better than I can.
  I do have personal reactions to several of the comments the Senator 
from New York has said. She talks about things that have not been 
passed by the Senate and gives two examples--country-of-origin labeling 
and vouchers--and says we are ignoring the will of this body.
  But what she does not comment on and may not realize is that in both 
these instances, the House of Representatives took a diametrically 
opposed position to that which was taken by the Senate. The purpose of 
conference is to deal with that kind of a challenge.
  I will talk about the country-of-origin labeling because I was 
personally involved in it. The House of Representatives said: 
Absolutely, we are going to kill this program. The Senate said: 
Absolutely, we have to keep this program. There is not a lot of room 
for negotiation between those two positions.
  For her to say it is terrible, what came back from conference was not 
what the Senate passed and somehow we did it because the administration 
told us to do it ignores the fact that the House of Representatives has 
exactly the same amount of power under the Constitution as the Senate. 
And they took a very firm position.
  What we came up with, in conference, and I was the one who suggested 
it so I have direct knowledge, was a compromise that said we will not 
take the House position and kill this program, but since the House will 
not take the Senate position and implement it immediately, let's simply 
delay the effective date to give us time to figure out a way to make it 
work, if it is possible to work.

  I don't consider that under cover of darkness. I don't consider that 
a violation of what we learned in civics class about the way to resolve 
problems between the House and the Senate. I think it is a legitimate 
position that comes to a compromise between the House's firm statement 
and the Senate's firm statement and says we will keep the law, which is 
what the Senate wanted, but we will delay the implementation, which is 
not quite what the House wanted. I view that as a win for the Senate 
position.
  I am a little bit troubled to have the Senator from New York say we 
have violated the spirit of the Constitution with this kind of a 
compromise and this kind of accommodation between the two.
  I have said this before and undoubtedly will again. I learned from my 
father when he served in this body this truth: We legislate at the 
highest level at which we can obtain a majority. Many times the process 
of getting to a majority is not pretty. Many times things are done 
which in civics class people would get very upset about, but in order 
to get a majority to get the thing done, this is where we are.
  This bill represents the highest accommodation of all the interests 
we can arrive at for which we could obtain a majority.
  One other comment that I would like to make with respect to the 
Senator from New York and her constant repetition that all we did in 
this conference was buckle under to the will of the administration; all 
we did was accept the administration's position and over and over 
again; we ignored our responsibilities as the legislative branch and 
said whatever the king wants we will give him. This is the rhetoric we 
get.
  I have not been here as long as many Members and certainly not as 
long as the chairman of the full committee who will speak next but I 
have been here long enough to have been in a number of Appropriations 
Committee conferences, most of them under the previous administration, 
the Clinton administration to which she referred, and I tell my 
constituents, in every conference of the Appropriations Committee on 
which I have sat--and there are a number of them--when the Clinton 
administration was in power, the Clinton administration made its wishes 
very much known. And in every instance the veto threat that came out of 
the Clinton administration was, if you do not increase spending above 
the amount you are talking about in this bill, the President will veto 
it.
  There were times when we gave in to that pressure from the 
administration. We felt it so necessary to pass the appropriations 
bills and fund the Government that we would grit our teeth and say, all 
right, we will, even though it was not adopted in either House we will, 
in fact, increase spending in order to avoid a veto threat.
  The veto threats we have heard out of the Bush administration have 
been the other way. The veto threats out of the Bush administration 
are, these spending numbers are too high and we have to cut them down 
in the name of fiscal responsibility.
  I make that point because one of the things being said in this 
political season is that the Republicans have given up on fiscal 
responsibility; the Republicans are responsible for the runaway 
spending. I have been there. I have been at the conference committees. 
I can assure all Members that this administration is no more active in 
the conference committees than the previous administration, and all of 
the pressure out of the previous administration was to increase the 
spending whereas the pressure out of this administration has been to 
try to get the spending under control. I simply want to get that 
information clearly on the record as we go into this political season.
  With that, I yield the floor so we can hear from the other Senators.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss recent progress 
regarding amendment 13 to the Northeast Groundfish fishery management 
plan.
  The omnibus appropriations bill we are currently deliberating will 
pause the implementation of amendment 13 for 5 months. This pause was 
added at my request because of inequities in this fishery management 
plan that unfairly discriminates against Maine fishermen. Since I 
announced in November that I would seek to delay implementation of 
amendment 13, considerable progress has been made to address the 
inequities in it.
  Last week, the New England Fishery Management Council's Groundfish 
Committee held an emergency meeting

[[Page S139]]

to address these problems. The committee made excellent progress. 
Specifically, it forwarded a recommendation to the council regarding a 
minimum allocation of 10 ``B'' days-at-sea for all permit holders. This 
significant change will ensure that no fishermen are shut out of the 
fishery entirely. Further, the committee forwarded a recommendation to 
the full council advocating a decrease in the conservation tax for 
days-at-sea transfer. Both of these recommendations will soften the 
impact of amendment 13 on Maine's fishermen.
  The groundfish committee also charged their advisors with identifying 
``B'' fisheries in the Gulf of Maine. It is crucial that these 
fisheries are developed to ensure Maine's smaller vessels, which do not 
have the capacity to reach the grounds currently open, can utilize 
their ``B'' days-at-sea. Finally, the committee asked their advisory 
panel to examine the problem of steaming time, which has long worked to 
Maine's detriment.
  I recently received a letter from David Borden, chairman of the New 
England Fishery Management Council, confirming that ``all of the issues 
that [I] consider important to Maine fisherman are now being actively 
evaluated and considered by the New England Fishery Management 
Council.'' Chairman Borden goes on to assure me the language that I 
included in the omnibus, ``provided the necessary focus for the fishery 
management process to address these issues on a timely basis, and that 
process is well underway.'' I very much appreciate the chairman's 
candor and his willingness to work with me to address the aspects of 
amendment 13 that disproportionately harm Maine fishermen.
  It is clear that in the months since my provision was added to the 
omnibus, the New England Council has acted in good faith to meet the 
concerns of Maine fishermen. Given these developments, I am prepared to 
lift my objections to an implementation date of May 1, 2004 for 
amendment 13. I will work with my colleagues to examine ways to lift 
the funding restriction included in the omnibus. I do this in good 
faith, and ask for good faith in return. My continuing effort to lift 
this funding restriction is contingent on both the council and the 
conservation community continuing to actively address the concerns I 
and Maine's fishing community have raised.
  I am pleased that my provision had its intended effect of focusing 
the council's attention on the legitimate concerns raised by the Maine 
fishing community. I am confident that the council will continue to 
work to improve amendment 13 for the benefit of all New England 
fishermen.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the sections of the 
consolidated Appropriations bill, H.R. 2673, that pertain to funding 
for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State. I want to 
recognize the conferees, especially CJS Appropriations Chairman Gregg 
and ranking minority member Hollings for their hard work on this bill.
  It has been just over 2 years since the horrific September 11 attack 
against our country. We must remain vigilant in fighting the threat of 
terrorism. Our priorities should reflect the need to ensure the 
security of our people. The Justice Department leads our Federal law 
enforcement efforts that are so critical to protecting our country.
  Securing the safety and security of Americans at home and abroad 
should continue to be the number one priority in the Federal law 
enforcement budget. Such security requires providing Federal law 
enforcement agencies, as well as State and local law enforcement 
agencies, with the tools necessary to combat terrorism. Providing 
adequate funding for these tools is essential to law enforcement's 
ability to protect America. I am pleased that the Omnibus 
appropriations bill reflects this priority.
  While we must continue to safeguard America from future terrorist 
attacks, we should, at the same time, exercise fiscal discipline in 
order to promote our economy. We face difficult budget decisions but I 
am optimistic that with the improving economy we can balance the need 
to fund fully the programs necessary to protect Americans with the 
continuing need to exercise the fiscal discipline that our constituents 
deserve.
  I am especially pleased that approximately $62 million will be 
appropriated to the Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force FTTTF. This 
independent agency is responsible for coordinating and sharing 
information among agencies which is crucial to preventing terrorist 
attacks. The FTTTF is tasked with an enormous responsibility--gathering 
information from and sharing intelligence with--the CIA, the FBI, the 
National Security Agency and the Departments of Justice, Homeland 
Security, Treasury, State and Defense. Breaking down the walls between 
our agencies is critical to our national security, and I applaud the 
increase in funding for the Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force.
  While our Federal law enforcement agencies have focused on combating 
terrorism, they also carry the burden of investigating and prosecuting 
other significant crimes. I am pleased to see that the bill includes 
almost $557 million for Interagency Drug Enforcement which reflects 
funding for the multiple Departments, including the Department of 
Homeland Security, the Department of Treasury, and the Department of 
Justice, which are responsible for cooperating and bringing together 
the expertise of each of the Federal agencies with the efforts of state 
and local law enforcement to combat major narcotics traffickers and 
money launderers. This represents a significant increase to assist law 
enforcement operations.
  I am especially pleased that the Conferees accepted the House funding 
levels for the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA at approximately 
$2.2 billion rather than the Senate's level which would have severely 
hampered the DEA. At a time when the DEA is shouldering a greater 
burden in fighting drug trafficking, I commend the Senate for 
increasing the DEA's funding to make sure that our communities receive 
all the help they can to reduce the scourge of drugs.

  I am also pleased to see that the bill funds the Juvenile 
Accountability Block Grant, JABG, program which was recently 
reauthorized as part of the ``21st Century Department of Justice 
Appropriations Authorization Act,'' P.L. 107-273. Congress reformed the 
federal role in the nation's juvenile justice system by providing 
relief from burdensome federal mandates and authorizing block grant 
assistance to States and local governments, which includes 
accountability-based juvenile justice programs. The authorization act 
strengthened the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant program.
  With the passage of Trade Promotion Authority in 2002, Congress set, 
as one of its priorities, the successful negotiation of free trade 
agreements. As many of my colleagues are aware, the burden of 
negotiating these agreements falls on the Office of the United States 
Trade Representative, USTR. I submit that in order for USTR to do its 
job, we must ensure that they have the adequate resources necessary to 
perform the job that we demand of the agency.
  Let's examine some of the realities at USTR. One year prior to the 
passage of TPA, USTR's workload was comprised of two trade agreements. 
One year after the passage of TPA, USTR's has taken on more than five 
times its prior workload, negotiating nearly a dozen Free Trade 
Agreements and pursuing several dispute settlement talks.
  And the complexities of the negotiations before and after the passage 
of TPA have changed. Under the mandates of TPA, through the course of 
negotiating any Free Trade Agreement, U.S. negotiators seek: strong 
Intellectual Property Rights protections; access to telecommunications 
markets; access to financial markets; strong biotechnology protections; 
increased access to the services markets; strong investment 
protections; reasonable labor protections; common sense environmental 
protections; access to the e-commerce market; to ensure the safety of 
imported food; and strong dispute settlement mechanisms that help to 
protect America's economic interests. This is no small feat.
  I am pleased that the conferees accepted the House level of funding 
to this important agency which provided an additional $5 million--
bringing USTR's funding to $41,994,000. This additional funding is 
consistent with the marked increase in the agency's workload and will 
help ensure that USTR will be able to adequately fulfill their 
Congressional mandate.

[[Page S140]]

  I was hoping to see language in the bill which would ask the General 
Accounting Office, GAO, to look into several issues that will be 
relevant in the preparation of the 2010 census. What I would have liked 
to see could have been as simple as the following: the potential cost 
of any 2010 Overseas Census; the use of emerging technologies, 
including the internet, in any overseas enumeration; the feasibility of 
using State or Federal systems for assigning Americans living outside 
of the United States for purposes of appointment of Representatives in 
Congress among the several states; and the different ways of 
determining some legal basis for whom should be counted.
  These are important issues that need to be more fully explored. In my 
State of Utah, where some 14,000 Utah residents are serving an overseas 
mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints and are not 
counted in any census--this is an especially critical issue. I submit 
that these four issues are not only important for Utahns but for the 
nation as a whole. There are many citizens of this great Nation that 
are either temporarily living or working overseas that are not counted 
in the decennial census. The Congress needs to identify the best and 
most cost effective ways to ensure that every citizen is counted.
  I would have also liked this bill to correct a provision enacted in 
Section 211 of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations Act of 1999. That section was challenged before the WTO 
following its application in a U.S. lawsuit addressing the 
enforceability of a trade name confiscated by the Cuban government in 
1960 without compensation to the owner. The court found the trademark 
to be unenforceable by the plaintiff entity, which had acquired the 
alleged rights to the mark from the Cuban government. Congress should 
bring the United States into compliance with the decision of the WTO 
Appellate Body in that case.
  The WTO found in favor of the United States on the section 211 
challenge in all respects but one: it concluded that section 211 was 
drafted in a manner that transgressed the national treatment and most-
favored-nation obligations under the TRIPS agreement. At issue was the 
language of section 211 specifying that the Cuban Government, Cuban 
nationals and their non-U.S. successors are ineligible to own, and 
therefore enforce, confiscated trademarks. We should clarify that the 
prohibition on owning trademarks confiscated in Cuba applies to all 
nationals, not just Cuban nationals and their successors, thus removing 
the basis of the WTO's criticism.
  While I urged the chairman and ranking Democratic member of the 
Appropriations Committee to look seriously at including this language 
in the bill to correct previous appropriations language, I do want to 
make it clear that it does not constitute a waiver of the Judiciary 
Committee's jurisdiction over this or any related matter.
  Again, I want to thank the Conferees for their efforts.
   Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would like to remark briefly on a 
matter of critical importance to me, related to one of the bills 
included in this omnibus, VA-HUD. The Senate Committee on 
Appropriations' Report on VA-HUD contains language directing the Agency 
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry--ATSDR--to assess the lead 
levels at the Tar Creek Superfund site in Oklahoma, and to submit a 
report to Congress on this assessment no later than July 31, 2004. As a 
Senator from Oklahoma, and as the chairman of the Environment and 
Public Works Committee, I cannot emphasize enough the importance of 
this endeavor to more fully understand the elevated lead levels we're 
seeing in this community, particularly in children. As the chairman of 
the committee with jurisdiction over both Superfund and ATSDR, I would 
like to take this opportunity to elaborate on my expectations of ATSDR 
in connection with this directive: I am urging ATSDR, in collaboration 
with the Oklahoma State Health Department, to work to identify 
significant sources and pathways of exposure to lead that may be 
contributing to elevated blood lead levels in children at the Tar Creek 
Superfund site in Oklahoma.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to express my 
disappointment with the Omnibus appropriations bill.
  It is not without some reservation that I rise today to make this 
speech. As a member of the Appropriations Committee I know how hard it 
is to draft these bills each year. Senators on both sides of the aisle 
have worked long and hard to produce each of the seven bills that are 
wrapped into this package. Chairman Stevens and Senator Byrd were 
tireless in their efforts to move these bills along and have tried to 
keep this process on track despite the difficult hand they were dealt.
  Unfortunately this year, under the influence of the administration 
and the pressures of partisanship, the process broke down. It is now 
the middle of January, nearly four months into the fiscal year, and 11 
out of 15 Cabinet-level departments are running on a temporary spending 
measure. This stopgap measure has already caused disruptions in 
services and cuts to many social programs.
  We should not be in this situation. Had we considered these bills in 
regular order we would have passed most of them long ago. The foreign 
operations title was written in a bipartisan manner and every member of 
the conference committee--Democrat and Republican--signed the 
conference report.
  I strongly support this portion of the omnibus, and I want to commend 
my friend from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, for working with me in such 
a bipartisan way to produce what I believe was probably the best, most 
balanced outcome we could have achieved.
  Although the amount contained in the foreign operations conference 
report fell far short of the amount requested by the President--a fact 
which I find mystifying since the President's party controls both 
Houses of Congress--it is an improvement over the previous fiscal year. 
It contains several new initiatives, as well as additional funds for 
some very important programs.
  I supported Senator Daschle's effort last December to pass the 
foreign operations bill independent of the omnibus. If we were given 
the opportunity to vote on the foreign operations portion of the 
omnibus by itself--and frankly I do not understand why we have not been 
given that opportunity--I would vote aye.
  Instead the administration and congressional leadership used the 
pressure to pass these bills as a vehicle to move their agenda forward. 
Several provisions were added, and in some cases removed, to the 
package at the last minute and behind closed doors, sometimes in direct 
contradiction to votes taken on the Senate and House floors. We are now 
in a situation where the omnibus is mired down in debate over 
controversial issues unrelated to the underlying bill.
  These are issues as serious as how much overtime our Nation's workers 
should be paid. The Bush Labor Department announced plans last March to 
overhaul the Federal rules on overtime pay. The new rules would 
redefine eligibility for overtime, adversely affecting nearly 8 million 
American workers who earn between $22,100 and $65,000 annually. I am 
troubled that so many working families in this country will no longer 
be entitled to time-and-a-half pay. And I find it disingenuous that the 
Labor Department is planning to include in the regulations a list of 
cost-cutting suggestions for businesses that will show them precisely 
how they can avoid paying overtime compensation to their employees.
  On September 10 of last year I joined a bipartisan group of Senators 
in opposing the administration's overtime compensation changes. By a 
vote of 54 to 45 the Senate approved an amendment to the Labor-HHS 
appropriations bill to overturn the regulations for another year. The 
House joined this effort less then a month later when they instructed 
their conferees to support the Senate provision. Unfortunately the 
President threatened to veto the fiscal year 2004 Omnibus 
appropriations bill if it contained this provision. Late at night, 
without the consent of the full conference committee, congressional 
leaders relented and against the will of Congress the provisions were 
removed from the final bill.
  The Labor Department now expects to have its regulations finalized by 
the end of March. And in testimony before

[[Page S141]]

the Senate Labor Appropriations Committee yesterday the Secretary was 
unwilling to not only delay implementation of the regulations, but even 
to listen to the debate about how many workers will lose overtime pay 
because of the regulations.
  Just 2 nights ago President Bush implored us to do more to help 
struggling, working families across this country. He said we should 
lower their taxes so they have more money to spend. He said we should 
implement new savings incentives so they have more money saved up. And 
he said we should implement new programs to promote family life so they 
will spend more quality time together. Unfortunately, the actions of 
this administration to reach into the pocketbooks of hard-working 
families--to take away their overtime pay and keep them apart for even 
longer hours--speak much louder than the President's words.
  The will of the Senate was also thwarted when it came to regulating 
the safety of our Nation's food supply. Consumers have said, in large 
numbers, that they want basic information about the food they consume. 
A recent nationwide poll indicated that 82 percent of American 
consumers think food should be labeled with country-of-origin 
information. That is why Congress mandated country-of-origin labeling--
otherwise known as COOL--as part of the recently passed farm bill. The 
language of the COOL law states that only beef born, raised, and 
slaughtered in the United States can be labeled a U.S. product. Only 
with the country-of-origin labeling law will consumers be afforded a 
choice about the origin of the food they purchase and consume. The 
recent discovery of a mad cow case in Washington State from a Canadian 
cow has made clear the need to implement COOL immediately.
  Unfortunately, the Bush administration has stridently opposed COOL. 
Language was included in this bill that effectively kills the labeling 
law and denies consumers essential information about the meats, fruits 
and vegetables they purchase.
  The trend of bucking popular sentiment continued when it came to the 
issue of FCC media ownership caps. On June 2 of last year the FCC 
issued a ruling that would have relaxed media ownership restrictions 
from the 35 percent cap to 45 percent. After public outrage and much 
debate, the House and Senate approved legislation reinstating a 35-
percent limitation on FCC media ownership caps. Despite this the White 
House successfully lobbied for last-minute increase of a permanent cap 
at 39 percent.
  This so-called ``compromise'' would only serve to the advantage of 
media conglomerates--several of whom are already in violation of the 
35-percent cap and who would otherwise be required to divest some 
assets in order to comply with the rule. There is no evidence that a 39 
percent cap will protect the diversity of voices, or foster the 
competitive health of the information and entertainment industries. In 
fact, reasoned analysis suggests precisely the opposite. Unfortunately, 
Democrats were not in the room when this decision was made. The doors 
had been closed and communication had ceased.
  I could go on. This mammoth bill includes a provision that will pave 
the way for contracting out thousands of Federal jobs. Bipartisan 
agreements were reached that would have provided basic protections for 
federal employees, yet these protections were dropped. Both the Senate 
and House voted on provisions that would have eased the restrictions on 
travel to Cuba, but this provision mysteriously disappeared in 
conference. Titles of the bill that were closed out during conference 
meetings were reopened after deals had been struck; compromises that 
were reached on a bipartisan basis were overturned later without 
consultation. This is not how we should be doing business. It is 
undemocratic. It is not how the American people expect us to represent 
them.
  The omnibus provides over $820 million in long overdue funds that are 
desperately needed by Federal agencies, including hard fought increases 
for veterans medical care and the fight against global aids. But it is 
packaged with tainted goods.
  Today I will vote to invoke cloture on this bill. These provisions 
could be fixed if the will was there, but the other side of the aisle 
has made it clear that they will not negotiate. Delaying this bill any 
longer will only do more harm to our agencies and the people they 
serve. But I will vote no on final passage. I cannot support the 
omnibus as it is written. It is a flawed document in both policy and 
process.
  I hope that over the next few months we can start to restore the 
spirit of compromise, bipartisanship and consultation that used to be 
commonplace in the appropriations process. Another year like this will 
do permanent damage to this institution. We deserve and expect better 
in the United States Senate.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, there are many parts of the Omnibus 
appropriations bill that I support.
  There is $225 million in the bill to help prevent fires and erosion 
in southern California. It provides over $1.5 billion in funding for 
the COPS program and other local law enforcement assistance. It funds 
all of our education programs, including $1 billion for afterschool 
programs, and a $710 million increase in funding to help local schools 
educate disadvantaged students. It provides a $1 billion increase in 
funding for health research. It includes a $4.3 billion increase for 
veterans health care. And it includes many of my requests for funding 
for California projects.
  I wish we had a true appropriations bill that contained these things 
and only these things. I could vote for that. But this bill contains 
much more than that.
  Our efforts to increase funding for health research are undermined 
when this bill leaves us more vulnerable to mad cow disease. Our 
efforts to fund job programs are undermined when this bill takes away 
overtime pay from millions of hard-working Americans. Our efforts to 
fund law enforcement are undermined when this bill makes it harder for 
law enforcement to track down criminals who use guns. Our efforts to 
fund election reform measures are undermined when this bill allows 
media conglomerates to control more of the information the public 
receives.
  If the Republicans had just let well enough alone, we would have had 
a good bill that I could have supported. But, I cannot support this 
bill.
  Let me discuss each of these issues.
  First, this bill allows the administration to take away the overtime 
rights of millions of workers. Last spring, the administration proposed 
regulations that strip some workers of their right to overtime 
protection. Both the Senate and House voted to reject this regulation. 
But, this bill allows it to go forward.
  The result is that when President Bush signs this bill, millions of 
workers including police officers, firefighters, emergency workers, and 
nurses will lose their overtime pay. Overtime pay now accounts for 25 
percent of the income of workers who work overtime. Without that pay--
with this new regulation many working families will be poorer.
  The new rule will also threaten job creation. Requiring employers to 
pay a premium for overtime work encourages employers to hire more 
workers instead of forcing their existing workers to work longer hours. 
And the longer hours that America's working parents would have to work 
without overtime protections are hours that the new rule would steal 
from families. With the stroke of a pen, parents will have to work 
without overtime pay, and they will be forced to be away from their 
families.
  We have to make the economy work for working families. Stripping 
workers of overtime protections fails that test. This is a travesty 
against every American who believes in fair pay for work.
  Second, this bill makes us more vulnerable to mad cow disease. The 
2002 farm bill includes a provision requiring that food products be 
labeled by their country of origin. This not only promotes U.S. 
agriculture, it enables consumers to know if the food they are buying 
is safe and healthy. It allows consumers to determine where food is 
from and to make purchases for their families based on this 
information. It allows consumers to know which beef in the grocery 
store was from Canadian cattle and which beef was born, raised, and 
processed solely in the United States.
  The Senate passed an amendment to the Agriculture appropriations bill 
endorsing country-of-origin labeling. But

[[Page S142]]

this omnibus bill delays its implementation for 2 years.
  The American people should not have to wait 2 years before they have 
the right to know that the food they are buying is safe and healthy. 
They should have that right, right now.
  Third, the Omnibus appropriations bill would gut the Brady law by 
requiring the FBI to destroy gun buyer records within 24 hours of the 
sale of a weapon.
  Right now, when someone buys a gun, an instant background check is 
conducted and then the FBI keeps that record for 90 days. Since many 
guns used in the commission of crimes are purchased soon before the 
crimes are committed, this 90-day database makes it easier for law 
enforcement to trace guns used in crimes and to find criminals.
  This bill eliminates that database and makes it harder for our hard-
working law enforcement officers to do their jobs and make our streets 
safer.
  Finally, the omnibus bill allows a single company to own TV stations 
that reach 39 percent of the country. This comes after both the House 
and Senate voted to leave the limit where it is now at 35 percent.
  In addition, this bill would permit more mergers between newspapers 
and TV stations in the same local markets.
  This means that the door is opened to massive consolidation of the 
most important news outlets in local media markets. And that means few 
voices instead of many voices. It means that even fewer people--a 
handful of gigantic media companies--will be in control of the 
information the American public receives.
  Groups as diverse as the National Rifle Association, the National 
Organization for Women, the National Council of Churches, Parents 
Television Council, Consumers Union, and the Leadership Conference on 
Civil Rights oppose changing the rules. In fact, the Senate and House 
voted not to change the rules. But the Omnibus appropriations bill 
defies the will of the Senate and House and provides a belated holiday 
gift to big corporations.
  We can do better. We must do better. Until we do better, we should 
defeat this bill.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to discuss briefly the fiscal year 
2004 Omnibus appropriations bill passed today by the Senate.
  When the Senate was debating this measure, there were two motions to 
invoke cloture on the conference agreement. I opposed both motions. I 
did so in the hope that the Senate would revisit and revise several 
issues about which I have deep concerns.
  One issue is that the conference report allows the Labor Department 
to, in effect, deny overtime pay to approximately 8 million workers 
across our country. While both the House and the Senate opposed this 
policy by partisan majorities, that opposition was ignored by 
Republican conferees. Many workers who now qualify for overtime pay 
would find their jobs reclassified as a managerial or professional 
position, thus making them ineligible for overtime pay if they work in 
excess of 40 hours. This change is significant because overtime pay can 
provide as much as 25 percent of a worker's annual income. Instead of 
working towards creating new jobs and helping working families and 
individuals, the legislation creates yet another obstacle for millions 
of Americans to provide for themselves and their families.
  Second, the conference agreement delays the implementation of a 
mandate that requires country-of-origin labeling of meat. In an age 
where justified concerns are growing over the safety of our food 
supply--particularly beef products--I feel that it is important for our 
agricultural policies to include necessary information and safeguards 
for consumers. The issue of country of origin labeling on certain food 
items such as meats and produce is an effective way to address this 
issue providing consumers with a measure of control and choice in their 
food purchases.
  Third, the conference agreement excludes Senate-passed and House-
passed measures to reimpose a 35 percent national television ownership 
cap that the FCC rescinded in June 2003. Instead the conference 
agreement establishes a 39-percent cap. The FCC ruling and the 
conference language, in my view, could clear the way for further 
consolidation in the broadcast media industry that could potentially 
allow a small number of owners to control a large proportion of our 
country's news, information, and entertainment sources, thus 
threatening to hurt both consumers and our democracy.
  Fourth, the conference agreement provides for the distribution of 
school vouchers to students in the District of Columbia public school 
system. Federally funded vouchers are bad policy for the District and 
for our Nation. Vouchers do not have a proven or substantial record of 
success. Students who receive vouchers have no guarantee that they will 
be accepted into the private school of their choice while parents have 
no means with which to know whether or not the private school is 
raising their child's achievement level. All we know for sure about 
vouchers is that they deprive public schools of vitally needed 
resources.
  Finally, the conference agreement critically underfunds educational 
activities in the No Child Left Behind Act by $8 billion and in title I 
by $6 billion. By denying localities adequate federal funds with which 
to raise school standards, student achievement and infrastructure 
standards, we are denying millions of children and their families 
across the country the educational resources they need to succeed.
  Regrettably, these provisions were neither revisited nor revised, and 
cloture was subsequently invoked.
  When the conference agreement was before the Senate for final 
consideration, I voted in favor of the bill. Despite the shortcomings 
mentioned above, I felt the legislation contained several important 
provisions that benefit both the country at large and the people of 
Connecticut. For instance, it contains $1.5 billion for States to make 
technological upgrades to their election systems. It also contains $1.2 
billion in added resources for special education. In addition, it funds 
vital priorities in health care, law enforcement, and transportation.
  On balance, I believe this conference agreement, while needlessly 
flawed, is worthy of support. I intend to continue to work to rectify 
its shortcomings.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it is difficult to oppose this bill because 
it funds many programs that I support and contains a number of 
provisions that I worked to have included. However, once again we are 
being asked to vote on legislation that does not reflect the will of 
the House and Senate. This bill cuts funding for important programs, 
while at the same time includes provisions not approved in either the 
House or Senate, while failing to include provisions passed by both 
chambers.
  Manufacturing has been hit hard in this country. Of the 3 million 
private sector jobs lost during this Administration, the vast majority, 
about 2.6 million, are in manufacturing. This bill drastically cuts one 
of the few programs we have to spur manufacturing. This is intolerable. 
The Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and 
Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP, program, which cofunds a 
nationwide system of manufacturing support centers to assist small and 
midsized manufacturers to modernize to compete in a demanding 
marketplace, is cut by 60 percent in this legislation.
  Although the program was funded at $105.9 million last year, the 
President requested an 88 percent cut in the program to only $12.6 
million in his fiscal year 2004 budget. The House approved $39.6 
million and the Senate $106 million in their appropriations bills. This 
conference report adopts the House level of $39.6 million, a 60 percent 
cut to the program. The President and the Republican-controlled House 
of Representatives didn't even compromise with the Senate, despite the 
support of 58 Senators pressing for a funding level of $110 million. 
They are not willing to assist small and medium sized manufacturing 
companies who are facing strong import competition and job losses.
  Further, this bill will deprive over 8 million workers of overtime 
pay. The administration proposed a regulation to end overtime pay for 
millions of working men and women. Although the House and Senate both 
voted to oppose this regulation, their will was ignored because of 
White House pressure and the language was dropped in conference. This 
omission will negatively impact such public servants as police

[[Page S143]]

officers and firefighters, including our military personnel who return 
home to become police officers or firefighters.
  Both the Senate and House versions of the fiscal year 2004 Commerce-
Justice-State spending bill included language prohibiting the FCC from 
implementing its decision to allow a single company to own more TV 
stations in the same market. The current cap is 35 percent. Despite the 
expressed will of both houses, the bill before us allows more media 
concentration and raises the cap to 39 perecent. Allowing this kind of 
media consolidation could be harmful to consumers.
  Further, language in the bill mandates that the Justice Department 
destroy background check records for the purchase of guns within 24 
hours of the gun purchase. Under current regulations, the Bureau of 
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms can retain the records from gun 
purchases for up to 90 days. This 90-day period gives law enforcement 
the opportunity to review and audit gun purchase records for illegal 
activity and problems with the background check system. The provision 
requiring the destruction of records within 24 hours was inserted into 
the bill without a debate or discussion of its potential impact. It is 
incomprehensible that we are in a heightened state of alert to guard 
against terrorism yet we are not providing law enforcement with more 
than 24 hours to examine information on weapons' purchases.
  Language in this bill will also postpone the country-of-origin 
labeling, COOL, rule that was previously enacted. The House bill would 
have delayed that provision for one year. This conference report 
contains a 2-year delay. Not only did the Senate strongly reject this 
provision previously, but, more importantly, this delay undermines 
efforts to ensure the safety of our nation's food supply. The recent 
mad cow incident in Washington underscored the importance of being able 
to trace the origin of agricultural products. If the infected cow had 
not been voluntarily marked as being of Canadian origin, we would not 
have been able to determine the origin of the disease in such an 
expeditious fashion. Making COOL mandatory will ensure that such 
incidents can be traced more quickly.
  The omnibus bill also denies many struggling Americans much-needed 
support services. For example, Section 105 of the Labor-HHS portion of 
the bill will allow the government to rescind unspent, though already 
obligated, welfare-to-work funds. By instructing the Secretary of Labor 
to recapture ``unexpended'' funds rather than ``unobligated'' funds, 
Michigan and several other states could lose a significant amount of 
this important funding. Michigan is threatened with losing $16 million 
that it has obligated in welfare-to-work funds for FY04. If Michigan 
loses these funds, Detroit alone will be unable to provide 6,000 
welfare recipients with job search services, education and training 
programs, and other employment-related services.
  We need to protect our citizens from terrorism and crime, yet this 
bill fails to adequately fund the COPS program, an invaluable tool in 
making our streets and schools safer. To date, the COPS program has 
helped add thousands of police officers and school resource officers in 
Michigan. Unfortunately, this legislation cuts the COPS hiring program 
by $80 million--a 40 percent cut from 2003 levels and a more than 60 
percent cut from 2002 levels.
  At a time when we are asking so much of our military, this 
legislation provides inadequate funding for our nation's veterans. This 
legislation cuts nearly $2 billion from the budget passed by the Senate 
in the spring allocated $63.77 billion for services at the Veterans 
Administration including health care, burial services and other 
commitments. This shortfall shortchanges our nation's veterans after we 
have made great demands on them and strong commitments to them.
  This bill also fails our children by mandating a .59 percent across-
the-board cut which would reduce funding for No Child Left Behind 
programs by over $73 million, resulting in 24,000 fewer kids being 
served by title I. Overall, the Title I Education for the Disadvantaged 
Program would be $6 billion below the level authorized by the No Child 
Left Behind Act that the President signed in January of 2002. This cut 
in funding would also reduce Head Start funding by $40 million, 
resulting in 5,500 fewer kids attending Head Start.
  I am also concerned about the private-school voucher program that 
this omnibus bill would create in the District of Columbia. This is a 
proposal that was stripped from the Senate's D.C. Appropriations bill, 
but squeaked through the House by just a couple of votes. I do not 
believe we should take our scarce taxpayer dollars away from public 
schools, where over 90 percent of our nation's children are educated, 
and divert them to private schools. Furthermore, in the No Child Left 
Behind Act, Public Law 107-110, Congress included strong accountability 
standards to demand better results from administrators, teachers, and 
students for all public schools. I believe we should concentrate on 
improving the educational level of all students at all DC public 
schools, rather than take some students out.
  This bill severely underfunds Great Lakes and other environmental 
programs, highway construction projects, law enforcement programs and 
funding to our veterans. I cannot support this legislation as it has 
been brought to the floor on a ``take it or leave it'' basis, violating 
procedures which assure the Senate's input. I hope that we can work out 
some corrective legislation which will have the broad bipartisan 
support many of these important programs deserve.
 Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the 
conference report to accompany the fiscal year 2004 Omnibus 
Appropriations bill, H.R. 2673. I would first like to thank the 
appropriators on both sides of the aisle, especially Chairman Ted 
Stevens and Ranking Member Robert Byrd, for their diligent efforts in 
crafting this daunting funding package, and particularly for their 
agreement on several provisions significant to the people of Georgia 
that will meet urgent needs in transportation, education, agriculture, 
and homeland security.
  This body has an obligation to the American people to ensure the 
continuing operations of our government by annually appropriating 
needed funding. We also have the obligation to spend consistently 
within the budget restraints created by the budget resolution--the 
general agreement between Congress and the executive branch in terms of 
spending limits which this body adopted last April for fiscal year 
2004. We have met this obligation since this bill adheres to that 
agreement.
  The spending package before us funds a majority of the agencies and 
programs of the U.S. Government. Passing this omnibus appropriations 
bill toady will allow us to increase our efforts in fighting terrorism; 
it will strengthen our state and local first responders with increased 
funding; it will provide additional medical care and other benefits to 
millions of veterans and address the needs of our Nation's schools and 
universities.
  For example, the omnibus bill includes $260 million for the Centers 
for Disease Control located in Atlanta for desperately needed building 
improvements. The CDC is home to some of the brightest and best 
scientists in the world and this money will contribute to the 
renovation of many dilapidated buildings in desperate need of repairs 
and modernization. this bill is also a very important to the State of 
Georgia. There are vital programs across the State that will receive 
necessary funding once this bill is passed and signed into law by the 
President.
  I support the passage of this conference report to the fiscal year 
2004 Omnibus Bill. Although an unforeseen medical emergency will not 
allow me to actually cast my vote today for cloture or passage of this 
conference report, I encourage my colleagues to support the passage of 
these measures.


                 Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in 1999, I helped enact the Emergency Steel 
Loan Guarantee Program to give American steel companies in difficult 
financial circumstances ready access to capital to enable them to 
restructure their operations, improve their productivity, and ensure a 
future for their hard-working employees.
  For more than 4 years, this program has successfully granted Federal 
loan guarantees to companies like Hannah Steel in Fairfield, AL, and 
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation in my home State of West 
Virginia. Without the benefit of these Federal loan guarantees, it is 
almost certain that these

[[Page S144]]

companies would have gone out of business. Today, however, they are 
vibrant companies continuing to support thousands of workers, their 
families, and entire communities.
  The fiscal year 2004 omnibus appropriations bill, has included a 2-
year extension of the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program, which 
otherwise would have expired on December 31, 2003. The extension was 
included, without objection, in the omnibus appropriations bill that 
passed the U.S. House of Representatives; it was strongly supported by 
the full Senate Appropriations Committee; and it is now awaiting final 
action in the fiscal year 2004 omnibus bill now pending before the 
Senate. A separate provision was included under Division B of the 
fiscal year 2004 omnibus directing the Department of Commerce to 
rescind $100 million in prior year unobligated balances. It is my 
understanding that the provision was included in order for the CJS 
Subcommittee to meet their allocation.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. The full committee ranking member's understanding of 
the circumstances and provision is correct.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I understand and respect the very tough 
decisions the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee had to 
make in order to meet their allocation, but now, I understand that the 
U.S. Commerce Department intends to use that provision to rescind $17.7 
million for the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program even though they 
do not have the legal authority to do so.
  Receiving reports that, only a few weeks ago, the U.S. Commerce 
Department was pursuing this particular rescission, I wrote to the 
Comptroller General of the United States, who heads the General 
Accounting Office and issues decisions in the area of Federal 
appropriations law. I wrote to the Comptroller General, David Walker, 
on December 22, 2003. I inquired as to whether the Commerce Department 
would have the legal authority to rescind funds from the Emergency 
Steel Loan Guarantee Program under the terms of H.R. 2673, the fiscal 
year 2004 omnibus appropriations bill. On January 15, 2004, I received 
a definitive response from the General Counsel of the GAO, which states 
that the U.S. Commerce Department is without legal authority to rescind 
the balance of unobligated funds from the Emergency Steel Loan 
Guarantee Program. The GAO stated that the unobligated funds for the 
steel loan program, by law, are available only to the Board of the 
Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program, and those funds are not 
available to the Commerce Department.
  The exact words of the legal opinion that I have received from the 
GAO are as follows:

       The Secretary of Commerce may not legally rescind $17.711 
     million as planned from the unobligated balance of 
     appropriated funds in the Emergency Steel Guarantee Loan 
     Program to satisfy the rescission mandate in the fiscal year 
     2004 omnibus appropriations bill.

  The GAO legal opinion further states:

       Accordingly, we conclude that the unobligated balance of 
     the $140 million appropriation from the 1999 Steel Act is not 
     ``available to the Department of Commerce'' and thus would 
     not be subject to the section 215 rescission. Thus, the 
     Secretary of Commerce may not legally rescind $17.711 million 
     as planned from the unobligated balance of appropriated funds 
     in the Emergency Steel Guarantee Loan Program.

  So, I would ask my friend and colleague, Senator Hollings, the 
ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on 
Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary, if he agrees that the 
Commerce Department has no legal authority to rescind the unobligated 
balance of funds from the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program in 
light of the legal opinion I have just obtained on this matter?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. My response to my friend and the ranking member of the 
Senate Appropriations Committee is I absolutely agree the Commerce 
Department does not have the authority to rescind funds from the 
Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program.
  Mr. President, it is clear. The Commerce Department has no legal 
authority to rescind these funds and should keep its hands off of the 
money in the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program.
  Mr. BYRD. Absolutely. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my 
letter to the Comptroller General, David Walker, dated December 22, 
2003, and the GAO legal opinion dated January 15, 2004, be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                  Committee on Appropriations,

                                Washington, DC, December 22, 2003.
     Hon. David M. Walker,
     Comptroller General, U.S. General Accounting Office, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Walker: With this letter, I am seeking the view of 
     the U.S. General Accounting Office on an issue related to the 
     implementation of H.R. 2673, a bill making omnibus 
     appropriations for FY 2004. Section 215 of Division B--
     Departments of Commerce, Justice and State of the bill, would 
     direct the Department of Commerce to rescind $100,000,000 of 
     unobligated balances available to the Department of Commerce. 
     In anticipation of enactment of H.R. 2673, the Department is 
     preparing to rescind $17,711,000 from unobligated balances 
     from the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program authorized by 
     Public Law 106-51.
       Public Law 106-51 (Section 101) established the Emergency 
     Steel Loan Guarantee Board for purposes of administering a 
     loan guarantee program. The Board is made up of three 
     members, the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the 
     Federal Reserve System, who serves as Chairman of the 
     Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Board, the Secretary of 
     Commerce and the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange 
     Commission. Section 101(f)(5) of the Act appropriated 
     $140,000,000 for the costs of the loans guaranteed by the 
     Board. In addition, the Act (Section 101(j)) appropriated 
     $5,000,000 to the Department of Commerce to administer the 
     program. However, at issue is the Department's plan to 
     rescind some of the $52,000,000 of unobligated balances of 
     budget authority made available to the Board under Section 
     101(f)(5) for guaranteeing the loans.
       Section 215 of Division B of H.R. 2679 only would permit 
     the Department of Commerce to rescind obligated balances 
     available to the Department of Commerce. Section 101(f)(5) of 
     P.L. 106-51 clearly appropriates funds to the Board, not to 
     the Department of Commerce. The Secretary of Commerce is a 
     minority member of the Board. The Chairman of the Board is 
     the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
     System. Pursuant to P.L. 106-51, loan guarantee agreements 
     with affected steel companies are signed by the Executive 
     Director of the Board, not by the Secretary of Commerce.
       I seek the legal opinion of the U.S. General Accounting 
     Office on whether the Department of Commerce would have the 
     authority under section 215 of Division B of H.R. 2673 to 
     rescind unobligated balances that are available to the 
     Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Board under section 101(f)(5) 
     of P.L. 106-51 for the purpose of guaranteeing loans.
       With warmest wishes, I am
           Sincerely yours,
     Robert C. Byrd.
                                  ____



                               U.S. General Accounting Office,

                                 Washington, DC, January 15, 2004.
     Subject: Proposed Rescission by Department of Commerce of 
         Unobligated Emergency Steel Guarantee Loan Program 
         Appropriation

     Hon. Robert C. Byrd,
     Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. 
         Senate.
       Dear Senator Byrd: This responds to your request of 
     December 22, 2003, for our opinion on the Department of 
     Commerce's (Department) plan to rescind $17.711 million of 
     the unobligated balance of amounts appropriated for the 
     Emergency Steel Guarantee Loan Program (Program). The 
     Department has indicated that it would draw on the 
     unobligated balance of the Program's appropriation to help 
     satisfy a $100 million rescission that would be required by 
     H.R. 2673, the bill making omnibus appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2004, if enacted. You asked whether the unobligated 
     balance of the Program's appropriation is available to the 
     Department for that purpose. For the reasons provided below, 
     we conclude that the Program's appropriation is not available 
     to the Department for purposes of the $100 million 
     rescission.

                               Background

       In the findings section of the Emergency Steel Loan 
     Guarantee Act of 1999 (Steel Act), Congress noted the loss of 
     jobs and company bankruptcies in the steel industry as a 
     consequence of increases in steel imports. Emergency Steel 
     Loan Guarantee Act of 1999, Pub. L. No. 106-51, 101(b), 113 
     Stat. 252 (1999). Congress found that ``a strong steel 
     industry is necessary to the adequate defense preparedness of 
     the United States'' and that industry problems were causing a 
     decline in the willingness of private institutions to loan 
     money to U.S. steel companies. Id. Congress passed the Steel 
     Act, which established the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee 
     Program, in order ``to provide loan guarantee to qualified 
     steel companies.'' Id. Sec. 101(d).
       To administer the program, the Steel Act created a three-
     member Loan Guarantee Board comprised of the Secretary of 
     Commerce, the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange 
     Commission, and the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the 
     Federal Reserve System. Pub. L. No. 106-51, Sec. 101(d), (e).

[[Page S145]]

     To fund the costs of the loan guarantees, the Steel Act 
     appropriated $140 million. Id Sec. 101(f)(5) (``For the 
     additional cost of the loans guaranteed under this 
     subsection, included the costs of modifying the loans . . ., 
     there is appropriated $140,000,000 to remain available until 
     expended.'') Also, the Steel Act provided the Department of 
     Commerce with an administrative support role and appropriated 
     $5 million to the Department for that purpose. Id. 
     Sec. 101(j) (``For necessary expenses to administer the 
     Program, $5,000,000 is appropriated to the Department of 
     Commerce, to remain available until expended. . . .'')
       The Commerce Department's fiscal year 2004 appropriation, 
     currently before the Senate, would include a rescission of 
     $100 million. Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, 
     the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2004, 
     H.R. 2673, 108th Cong., Div. B, Sec. 215 (2003) (hereinafter 
     Omnibus Bill) (``Of the unobligated balances available to the 
     Department of Commerce from prior year appropriations with 
     the exception of funds provided for coral reef activities, 
     fisheries enforcement, the Ocean Health Initiative, land 
     acquisition, and lab construction, $100,000,000 are 
     rescinded.''). Subject to the limitation that the rescission 
     come from ``unobligated balances available to the Department 
     of Commerce from prior year appropriations,'' the law would 
     give the Secretary discretion to identify the sources of the 
     rescission. Id. (``Provided, That within 30 days after the 
     date of enactment of this section the Secretary of Commerce 
     shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the House 
     of Representatives and the Senate a report specifying the 
     amount of each rescission made pursuant to this 
     section.'').

                               Discussion

       At issue here is whether unobligated Program funds are 
     ``unobligated balances available to the Department of 
     Commerce'' for rescission. The language of the $140 million 
     appropriation itself does not identify to whom the 
     appropriation was made, only the purpose of the 
     appropriation. The Steel Act states, ``there is appropriated 
     $140 million'' for the costs of the loan guarantees that the 
     Board approves. The issue for us is one of statutory 
     construction: Is the Program's $140 million appropriation 
     available to the Board or to the Department? In interpreting 
     statutes, the Federal courts have developed a number of well-
     recognized conventions, which are also known as canons of 
     statutory construction. One important canon is that words 
     should be considered in the context of the entire statute. 
     See United States v. Cleveland Indians Baseball Co., 532 U.S. 
     200, 217 (2001); United States Ass'n of Texas v. Timbers of 
     Inwood Forest Assocs., 484 U.S. 365, 371 (1988). We apply 
     that canon of statutory construction in this case.
       The provisions in a statute should not be viewed in 
     isolation but in the context of the entire statute. In 2001 
     in United States v. Cleveland Indians Baseball Co., the 
     Supreme Court stated that ``it is, of course, true that 
     statutory construction `is a holistic endeavor' and that the 
     meaning of a provision is `clarified by the remainder of the 
     statutory scheme.' '' 532 U.S. 200, 217. See also 2A 
     Sutherland, Statutes and Statutory Construction Sec. 46:05, 
     at 154 (6th ed. 2000) (``A statute is passed as a whole and 
     not in parts or sections and is animated by one general 
     purpose and intent. Consequently, each part or section should 
     be construed in connection with every other part or section 
     so as to produce a harmonious whole.''). In our case law, we 
     apply this canon of construction with equal vigor. See, e.g., 
     Matter of Jacobs COGEMA, LLC, B-290125.2, B-290125.3, at 8, 
     Dec. 18, 2002 (``In ascertaining the plain meaning of the 
     statute, we necessarily look to the particular statutory 
     language at issue, as well as the language and design of the 
     statute as a whole.''). See also B-286661, Jan. 19, 2001.
       When the 1999 Steel Act created the Program, it specified 
     that the Program was ``to be administered by the Board.'' 
     Pub. L. No. 106-51, Sec. 101(d). The Steel Act gave the Board 
     decision-making powers to ``approve or deny each application 
     for a guarantee.'' Id. Sec. 101(e). At the same time, the 
     Steel Act provided an appropriation to finance the costs of 
     these guarantees; it said that ``there is appropriated 
     $140,000,000 to remain available until expended.'' Id. 
     Sec. 101(f)(5).
       Congress finances federal programs and activities by 
     providing ``budget authority.'' Budget authority is a general 
     term referring to various forms of authority provided by law 
     to enter into financial obligations that will result in 
     immediate or future outlays of government funds. See 
     Sec. 3(2) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control 
     Act of 1974, 2 U.S.C. Sec. 622(2) and note, as amended by the 
     Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-
     508, Sec. Sec. 13201(b) and 13211(a), 104 Stat. 1388, 1388-
     614, and 1388-620 (Nov. 5, 1990). An appropriation, such as 
     the $140 million one enacted for the Program, is one form of 
     budget authority. Within the context of the 1999 Steel Act, 
     only the Board has authority to incur an obligation against 
     the $140 million appropriation by committing the federal 
     government to a loan guarantee. It is the Board who can 
     approve applications for loan guarantees, and it is the 
     Board's approval of an application that financially obligates 
     the United States. For this reason, we view the $140 million 
     appropriation as available to the Board, not to the 
     Department. While the Secretary of Commerce, as a Board 
     member, has a vote in whether to approve an application for a 
     loan guarantee whose costs are charged to the $140 million 
     appropriation, the Secretary, by himself, cannot approve an 
     application and cannot incur an obligation against the 
     appropriation.
       The Department asserts that the $140 million is a Commerce 
     Department appropriation because the Steel Act appropriated 
     $5 million to the Department to cover the costs of 
     administrative support to the Program. Specifically, the 
     Steel Act appropriated $5 million to the Department ``for 
     necessary expenses to administer the Program.'' Id. 
     Sec. 101(j). The Department notes that historically Commerce, 
     Treasury, and OMB have always treated the $140 million as a 
     Commerce appropriation. The Department performs all of the 
     Board's bookkeeping and provides other administrative 
     support. The Department carries the Board's staff on the 
     Department's payroll. Treasury, the Department says, has 
     assigned the Program's appropriation a Commerce Department 
     account symbol, and OMB reports the Program's activity as 
     part of the Department's budget.
       We agree that the Department has an administrative role 
     with regard to the Program's appropriation; however, the 
     Department's argument is not persuasive when considered in 
     the context of the Steel Act. The Department fails to 
     recognize that while the Steel Act appropriated funds to the 
     Department ``for necessary expenses to administer the 
     Program,'' the word ``administer,'' when viewed in the 
     context of the entire Steel Act, has a particular and very 
     different meaning than its use earlier in the Steel Act when 
     the Steel Act specifies that the Program ``is to be 
     administered by the Board.'' In this regard, the Steel Act 
     captioned the Sec. 5 million appropriation, ``Salaries and 
     Administrative Expenses.'' When contrasted with the very 
     clear decision-making authority provided the Board to 
     approve loan guarantee applications, it seems equally 
     clear that the Steel Act intended the Department to 
     perform ministerial administrative tasks, such as 
     recording obligations as a bookkeeper, and provided a 
     specific appropriation to cover these expenses, whereas it 
     intended the Board to perform decision-making 
     ``administrative'' tasks, such as incurring obligations. 
     The Department's Treasury's and OMB's historical treatment 
     of the Program's appropriation that the Department finds 
     relevant is consistent with the Department's 
     administrative support role.
       Furthermore, the words Congress selected in sections 101(f) 
     and 101(j), especially when viewed in the context of the 
     Steel Act, support the conclusion that Congress made the $140 
     million appropriation available to the Board and not to the 
     Department of Commerce. In appropriating money for 
     administrative support, Congress expressly appropriated the 
     money to the Department: ``$5,000,00 is appropriated to the 
     Department of Commerce, to remain available until expended.'' 
     Id. at 101(j) (emphasis added). Had the Congress intended the 
     Program's $140 million appropriation, enacted in the same 
     Steel Act, to be available to the Department as well, we 
     would have expected the Congress to use the same phrasing as 
     it did in enacting the $5 million appropriation. The fact 
     that the Congress chose not to use that phrasing for the $140 
     million appropriation, especially when the Congress clearly 
     said that the Program funded by that appropriation was to be 
     administered by the Board, believes the Department's 
     assertion.
       The Department makes three other arguments. First, the 
     Department points out that in Division B, Title II of the 
     omnibus bill, section 211 would provide extra funding for 
     administrative support. Omnibus Bill, Div. B, Sec. 211, 
     Section 211 would authorize the Secretary of Commerce to use 
     $2 million of the unobligated balance of the $140 million 
     appropriation to supplement the $5 million previously 
     appropriated for administrative support. The Department 
     argues that Congress would not have made that money available 
     to the Department had Congress not viewed the $140 million as 
     a Commerce Department appropriation. The Department offered 
     no support for its argument, and we found no support for its 
     argument in our review. As we explain in this letter, all 
     indications are that the $140 million is not available to the 
     Department. In fact, regardless, of whether the appropriation 
     is available to the Department, Congress still would need to 
     act to make any amounts available for administrative support. 
     The $140 million appropriation, as enacted, is available only 
     for the costs of the loan guarantees and not for 
     administrative support. There is another appropriation, the 
     $5 million appropriation, that was enacted specifically for 
     administrative support.
       Second, the Department notes that last year, Congress 
     enacted a rescission in the fiscal year 2003 omnibus 
     appropriations act of the unobligated balance of the 
     appropriation for the Emergency Oil and Gas Guaranteed Loan 
     Program. This program was created at the same time, in the 
     same public law, for similar purposes, and in a similar 
     manner as the Steel Program. When the Oil and Gas Guaranteed 
     Loan Program expired last year, Congress rescinded the 
     remaining $920,000 unobligated balance in that program. 
     Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the 
     Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2003, 
     Pub. L. No. 108-7, Div. B, 117 Stat. 11, 106 (2003) (``Of 
     the unobligated balances available [in the Emergency Oil 
     and Gas Guaranteed Loan Program account] from prior year 
     appropriations, $920,000 are rescinded.''). The Department 
     interpreted the 2003 rescission language as a direction to 
     Commerce to rescind the money. The Department argues that 
     the section 215

[[Page S146]]

     rescission in the Omnibus Bill is like the oil and gas 
     rescission. In our view, the fact that in both instances 
     it is the Department's responsibility to take appropriate 
     action to accomplish the rescissions does not mean that 
     the appropriations are available to the Department. 
     Rather, the Department's responsibility is based on its 
     statutory role to provide administrative support, such as 
     bookkeeping. also, we note that Congress explicitly 
     rescinded the oil and gas unobligated balance. That is not 
     the case before us here.
       Lastly, the Department finds support in the fact that 
     section 215 in the Omnibus Bill specifically exempts from the 
     $100 million rescission ``funds provided for coral reef 
     activities, fisheries enforcement, the Ocean Health 
     Initiative, land acquisition, and lab construction,'' but 
     does not exempt the Program's appropriation. Omnibus Bill, 
     Div. B, Sec. 215. Commerce asserts that this implies that the 
     Program's noninclusion in this list means that the Program's 
     funds are not exempt from, and thus subject to, the 
     rescission. We are not persuaded. The $140 million is not 
     listed in the bill because it is not a Commerce 
     appropriation, as are funds provided for coral reef 
     activities, fisheries enforcement, the Ocean Health 
     Initiative, land acquisition, and lab construction.

                               Conclusion

       Accordingly, we conclude that the unobligated balance of 
     the $140 million appropriation from the 1999 Steel Act is not 
     ``available to the Department of Commerce'' and thus would 
     not be subject to the section 215 rescission. Thus, the 
     Secretary of Commerce may not legally rescind $17.711 million 
     as planned from the unobligated balance of appropriated funds 
     in the Emergency Steel Guarantee Loan Program to satisfy the 
     rescission mandate in the fiscal year 2004 omnibus 
     appropriations bill.
       If you have any questions, please contact Susan A. Poling, 
     Associate General Counsel, at 202-512-5644.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                Anthony H. Gamboa,
                                                  General Counsel.


                          Organic Agriculture

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the conference 
agreement with regard to the fiscal year 2004 Agriculture 
Appropriations bill includes funding for important programs addressing 
organic agriculture. However, many of the important details regarding 
Congress' intent for the administration of USDA organic programs were 
enumerated in the House and Senate reports, without reiteration by the 
statement of managers.
  As stated in the preface of the statement of managers:

       [T]he House and Senate report language that is not changed 
     by the conference is approved by the committee of conference. 
     The statement of the managers, while repeating some report 
     language for emphasis, does not intend to negate the language 
     referred to above unless expressly provided herein.

  Therefore, in keeping with this general rule, it seems appropriate to 
engage in a colloquy to assure that there is no confusion regarding 
congressional intent on the important USDA programs affecting organic 
agriculture.
  First, as stated in the Senate report, $1.5 million is provided for 
the National Organic Program, within the Agricultural Marketing Service 
account.
  I would like to reiterate that it is my intent, as ranking member of 
the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, that some of the increased 
funding provided for this important organic program at USDA be used to 
more fully comply with some of the requirements of the Organic Foods 
Production Act of 1990, the authorizing statute for this program. 
Consistent with the Senate report on this matter, part of this funding 
should be used to hire an Executive Director for the National Organic 
Standards Board, NOSB, to create an ongoing peer review panel to 
oversee the USDA accreditation process for organic certifiers, and to 
improve scientific technical support for the NOSB.
  I would ask my colleague from Vermont, the ranking member of the 
Agriculture Subcommittee on Research, Nutrition, and General 
Legislation if he concurs with my comments on this matter?
  Mr. LEAHY. As one who has worked a great deal in this area, I say to 
my friend from Wisconsin that I do agree with his comments and concerns 
on this matter, and believe his remarks are in keeping with the Senate 
report language on this matter, as well as the final conference 
agreement.
  Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator from Vermont.
  In addition, as specified in the Economic Research Service section of 
the House report, $500,000 is provided for the analysis and compilation 
of data related to organic production, marketing and trade. The Senate 
report further elaborates on this matter within the Agricultural 
Marketing Service section, and ``encourages AMS to work with ERS, NASS 
and RMA on the collection of segregated data on the production and 
marketing of organic agricultural production and marketing, as directed 
in the 2002 Farm Bill. Specifically, data should be collected on 
prices, yields, acreage and production costs in the organic sector.''
  It is critically important that all USDA collection data agencies 
coordinate in the effective use of these funds to meet the requirements 
of the Organic Production and Market Data Initiative--Section 7407--of 
the Food Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. However, I would 
like to add that it is my intention that the Senate report language be 
used to provide guidance to USDA in the use of the $500,000 provided 
under the Economic Research Service account in the House report, and 
that ERS be the lead agency in coordinating this effort.
  Again, I would ask my friend from Vermont, if he would concur with my 
comments regarding the organic data collection provisions of the AMS 
and ERS accounts of the Agriculture portion of this omnibus 
appropriations bill?
  Mr. LEAHY. I do concur with the Senator from Wisconsin on his 
comments and concerns about the organic data collection and analysis 
provisions in the Agriculture portion of this omnibus appropriations 
bill.


                        small engines provision

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, some of my constituents are asking 
questions about the meaning of the small engines provision included in 
the fiscal year 2004 omnibus appropriations conference report. They 
raise the question about whether subsection (c) applies only to ``new'' 
and ``nonroad'' spark-ignition engines smaller than 50 horsepower. That 
was my understanding. I ask my colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond, 
one of the authors of this provision, whether that was his intent?
  Mr. BOND. I say to my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, 
that I intended this provision to apply only to the adoption or 
enforcement of standards or other requirements relating to ``new'' 
engines, not existing engines or ``in-use'' engines. Also, I have heard 
from other colleagues and stakeholders regarding their desire to 
address in-use engines. I did not intend that this new language to 
apply to voluntary State programs aimed at reducing emissions from 
existing engines such as the Texas Emission Reduction Plan.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank my colleague, and ask whether he intended the 
language to apply only to ``nonroad'' engines?
  Mr. BOND. Yes, I believe the entire provision, including subsection 
(c), should apply to adoption or enforcement of standards or other 
requirements relating only to nonroad engines.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank my colleague. I ask him also about his intent 
of the provision to apply only to nondiesel engines.
  Mr. BOND. Yes, I believe the entire provision, including subsection 
(c), should apply to adoption or enforcement of standards or other 
requirements relating only to nondiesel engines. I used the term spark-
ignition to have that meaning.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank my colleague again. I ask him also about his 
intent of the provision to apply only to engines smaller than 50 
horsepower.
  Mr. BOND. Yes, I believe the entire provision should apply only to 
engines smaller than 50 horsepower and not engines larger than 50 
horsepower. So, in summary, the intent of this provision is to apply to 
adoption or enforcement of standards or other requirements relating to 
the control of emissions from new nonroad spark-ignition engines 
smaller than 50 horsepower.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank my colleague for clarifying the intent of 
this provision here today.


                          california wildfires

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I briefly engage the distinguished 
majority leader in a colloquy about an issue of great importance to me 
State. I am pleased that the legislation before us provides $225 
million in badly needed assistance to help the State of California 
recover from last autumn's devastating wildfires and to prevent a

[[Page S147]]

similar tragedy in the future. Of this total made available, $25 
million is provided to compensate California's farmers who suffered 
losses in the fires.
  The package of aid that I drafted contained language that would have 
deemed losses suffered in those fires to be the result of a natural 
disaster, raised the cap on payments for those losses under the Tree 
Assistance Program to $200,000, and would have provided upfront 
payments under that program instead of reimbursements for replacement 
costs.
  It it my understanding that a portion of the language was 
inadvertently left out of the final conference agreement that I had 
discussed with the majority leader and his staff. Is that the majority 
leader's understanding?
  Mr. FRIST. The Senator is correct. As I am sure the Senator from 
California can appreciate, Senators and their staff were working under 
severe time constraints to finalize the conference report. In this 
difficult environment, the language the Senator refers to was not 
included in the final legislation. It is my understanding that under 
the extreme time constraints imposed on staff to file the legislation 
and the lateness of the hour when this issue was brought to the 
conference, staff were unable to include the language.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the majority leader for that clarification. 
Those elements of the relief package are crucial to the recovery of 
agricultural producers in my state. Some of the disaster programs 
administered by the Department of Agriculture do not provide relief for 
losses due to arson. However, it is clear to me that the wildfires in 
California were a natural disaster. Those losses would not have been 
incurred, if not the drought conditions in high Santa Ana wind 
conditions. Additionally, as many of the losses were of high value 
specialty crops, an increased payment cap is needed for adequate 
recovery effort.
  I would ask that the majority leader work with me to ensure that the 
administration address the intent of my omitted language, so that USDA 
can administer the relief as intended and the effected producers can 
recover their losses.
  Mr. FRIST. I commend the Senator for her dedication and diligence on 
this issue. I will work with her to support the intent of her omitted 
language for the $12.5 million funding provided in the legislation for 
the tree assistance program. I will discuss this issue with officials 
at USDA and it is my hope that the issues she has raised can be 
addressed by administrative action once the regulations are issued 
implementing this section of the legislation. However, if this is not 
possible due to statutory law, I commit to work with her to enact 
legislation that will address this unique problem of disaster 
assistance for producers of high value specialty orchards.


           rural economic development grant and loan program

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am very concerned that the Department of 
Agriculture has not been allocating funds built up in the account for 
the Rural Economic Development Grant and Loan Program called the 
``cushion of credit.'' Rather than providing these funds to local rural 
electric cooperatives and telephone cooperatives where they can be used 
to create jobs and improve the economy of rural America, a considerable 
sum has been built up. There has never been as large a sum unspent as 
we have seen over the past year. USDA needs to put this money to work 
as the law intends.
  Mr. KOHL. The Senator from Iowa is correct. These are not 
appropriated funds, but money that has been paid to the Rural Utility 
Service by local REC and telephone cooperatives when they retire debt 
at an early stage. And, there has always been a presumption that the 
money would be made available on a timely basis for qualified proposals 
for economic development. The department should allocate these funds to 
qualified applications as quickly as possible.
  Mr. BENNETT. I agree with the Senator from Iowa and my ranking 
member. There is a long history of the Rural Economic Development Grant 
and Loan Program being a very effective tool to provide capital for 
many worthy job creating projects. I concur that the Department should 
release the funds sitting in the cushion of credit account to qualified 
applications as quickly as possible.


                           polio eradication

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise today to thank the ranking member 
of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, my distinguished colleague from 
Vermont, Senator Leahy, for his support of the ongoing efforts to 
eradicate polio by 2005, and especially thank him for working to 
include language recommending $30 million in the Senate report 
accompanying the FY 2004 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill.
  The international effort to eradicate polio has made tremendous 
progress. Since the global initiative began in 1988, more than 3 
million children in the developing world, who would otherwise have 
become paralyzed with polio, are walking because they have been 
immunized. The number of polio cases has fallen from an estimated 
350,000 in 1988 to approximately 1,500 cases in 2002. The target date 
for the last case of polio is 2005. When the world is certified polio 
free, immunizations can cease and the U.S. will save $350 million 
annually while the world will save at least $1.5 billion.
  The major partners in the global polio eradication effort have joined 
with national governments around the world in an unprecedented 
demonstration of commitment to this historic public health goal. As the 
initiative runs its course, total victory can only be guaranteed 
through continued and unwavering commitment to the goal of a polio-free 
world.
  It is my further understanding that the House report recommended not 
less than $25 million for USAID's global polio eradication activities 
in FY 2004.
  This is similar to last year, and the final disposition was $27.5 
million for polio eradication in FY 2003. My question to my friend from 
Vermont is how much does he expect USAID to allocate for these 
activities in FY 2004?
  Mr. LEAHY. I want to recognize the Senator from Iowa for his 
leadership on this issue. He has been a champion of polio eradication 
and his efforts have paid off in the continuing U.S. support for the 
global polio eradication effort. As my friend has said, for FY 2004, 
like in prior years, the House and Senate Foreign Operations 
subcommittees recommended $30 million and not less than $25 million, 
respectively. It is my expectation that USAID will provide $27.5 
million in FY 2004. This is no time to reduce our support for this 
effort as we approach the finish line.
  These funds will allow for accelerated polio eradication activities, 
improved surveillance for polio and other diseases, and support for 
cease-fires in conflict zones for National Immunization Days. The 
United States is the largest international donor for the Polio 
Eradication Initiative, and the success of this program should be a 
source of pride for all Americans.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank my friend from Vermont for this clarification and 
for his and the Appropriations Committee's efforts to reach the goal of 
a polio-free world.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in favor of the FY04 Omnibus 
Appropriations Conference Report, despite major concerns I have with 
how this bill was put together and with a number of items in the bill.
  Nevertheless, we are faced with an up or down vote. On balance, I 
believe that the bill is a net positive and I will support it.
  The best you can say about this bill is that it is a mixed bag. There 
are items in the bill that are good for California and the Nation, but 
there are a number of harmful legislative provisions attached to the 
bill and on a number of issues the administration was allowed by the 
majority to override the will of the Senate.
  For example, among the harmful provisions that I hope we can reverse 
is language which requires next-day destruction of background check 
records of sales where a gun buyer successfully clears a Brady 
background check and is permitted to purchase a firearm. I also look 
forward to the Senate taking action to prevent implementation of the 
administration's proposed rules on overtime compensation.
  Before I talk further about the bill, I want to talk about the 
serious and wholly avoidable problems associated with the process by 
which we reached a final agreement on this package.
  The ranking member of the Appropriations Committee and others are

[[Page S148]]

correct in highlighting those issues. If for no other reason then that 
we should avoid them in the future.
  Senator Byrd is correct when he says that adopting this conference 
report or facing a year long continuing resolution at FY03 levels are 
not the only paths out of this impasse.
  If the majority leadership in the Senate and the House had chosen, we 
could have worked out the serious concerns that Senators of both 
parties have with this legislation. We all knew that there are only a 
handful of major issues.
  However, the majority did not show any willingness to address 
overtime pay, country of origin labeling for meat products, media 
ownership rules, or outsourcing of Federal jobs.
  Senator Byrd also eloquently laid out in his letter to the majority 
leader the instances in which the administration, at the eleventh hour, 
was permitted by the majority to prevail over the will of the Congress. 
I would like to quote what he wrote:

       Several very controversial legislative riders were added at 
     the last minute by the Bush White House. Disappointingly, the 
     Republican Congressional Leadership, at the insistence of the 
     White House, capitulated to changes that were not even 
     contemplated when the bills were before the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate.
       Overriding the will of the Senate, the bipartisan overtime 
     regulation prohibition, which passed the Senate by a vote of 
     54-45, was dropped. The resulting Bush administration plan 
     would eliminate overtime pay protections for as many as 8 
     million American workers who currently are eligible for 
     overtime pay. These hard-earned overtime dollars often make 
     the difference between workers providing a better life for 
     their families or just making ends meet.
       Overriding the will of the Senate and at the behest of the 
     cattle and food marketing industries, the Bush administration 
     actively and officially supported language in the omnibus 
     conference that would delay implementation of mandatory 
     country-of-origin labeling of meat and meat products. Despite 
     the potential danger to American consumers of any delay, the 
     country-of-origin labeling for meat and meat products, 
     enacted as part of the 2002 Farm Bill and scheduled to take 
     effect this fiscal year, would be delayed by two years.
       Overriding the will of the House and the Senate, the one-
     year limitation on the FCC media ownership rule was turned 
     into a permanent cap at 39 percent. The practical effect of 
     changes demanded by the White House is to protect Rupert 
     Murdoch's Fox television network and CBS-Viacom from having 
     to comply with the lower 35 percent ownership caps that 
     conferees had included in the original conference report. The 
     White House is boosting special corporate interests at the 
     expense of the people's interest for balanced news and 
     information.
       Overriding the will of the House and Senate conferees, and 
     again at the Bush administration's insistence, 400,000 
     Federal workers will lose job protections. During 
     negotiations, Congressional Democrats and Republicans agreed 
     to provide basic protections for federal employees whose jobs 
     have been targeted by the Bush White House for privatization. 
     Because of White House intransigence, those basic protections 
     were dropped. What remains provides so many loopholes for the 
     Bush administration to privatize Federal jobs that little 
     protection is provided for workers. The administration's 
     policies encourage unfair treatment of dedicated public 
     servants, many of whom are being forced into early retirement 
     or the prospect of reduced benefits and lower pay.

  At this point, the only choice we have is between this omnibus, which 
funds the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Justice, State, Labor, 
Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, Education, Housing and 
Urban Development, Transportation, and Treasury.
  Under a year long continuing resolution, these departments would be 
funded at last year's levels. And as a result, major programs which 
benefit millions would be severely underfunded, and many needed 
projects, including hundreds in California, would receive no funding.
  Indeed, there are a number of items in the bill of particular 
importance to me and to California that I would like to highlight: $225 
million for California wildfire relief and prevention; $85 million for 
COPS grants for interoperable communications; A 5-year Pilot Program 
for school choice in Washington, DC; Increased NIH Funding; and Funding 
for Election Reform.
  If the Omnibus were not to pass, then none of these programs would 
receive necessary funding.
  As we all know, California suffered devastating wildfires last fall. 
These fires consumed a total of 738,158 acres, killed 23 people, and 
destroyed approximately 3,626 residences and 1,184 other structures.
  And this is just the tip of the iceberg. In California, 8.5 million 
acres of Federal land are at the highest risk of catastrophic fire, so 
it is critical that we protect our forests and nearby communities and 
avert a similar catastrophe in the future.
  That is why I am so pleased that Congressman Jerry Lewis and I were 
able to secure $225 million in emergency funding.
  This funding will help prevent mudslides, provide relief for farmers 
whose crops were burned, and eliminate a million trees killed by the 
bark beetles.
  This funding is critical to helping prevent future fires.
  As we saw in November, trees killed by the bark beetle become 
kindling in a serious fire, and put homes and lives at risk.
  Removing them is a necessary first step toward preventing fires like 
the ones we experienced from happening again.
  The bill also includes $85 million in grants to help first responders 
better communicate with each other in times of crisis.
  In all too many jurisdictions, police, fire and emergency medical 
service personnel can't communicate with each other over the radio when 
an emergency occurs. This means slower response times, less 
coordination between agencies and lives lost.
  To help remedy this problem, I sponsored an amendment to the 
emergency spending bill passed last year, which provided $109 million 
to improve the compatibility of first responders' communications 
systems.
  Half of this funding would go to police departments and half would go 
to fire and emergency departments.
  And in the Omnibus Appropriations bill there is $85 million in 
additional COPS grants for interoperable communications for police.
  There are about 2.5 million public safety first responders who 
operate in the United States today, stationed in some 18,000 law 
enforcement agencies, 26,000 fire departments and 6,000 rescue 
departments.
  When I speak to representatives of these departments, they tell me 
that obtaining compatible communications systems is their No. 1 
homeland security priority.
  The need is certainly there. The recent Council on Foreign Relations 
Independent Task Force on Emergency Responders report on homeland 
security funding--entitled ``Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously 
Unprepared''--determined that the minimum interoperable communications 
need over the next five fiscal years is $6.8 billion.
  As America continues to confront the threat of terrorism, it will be 
increasingly important to give our law enforcement, fire and emergency 
personnel the tools they need to respond to a possible terrorist attack 
effectively and safely.
  This will allow fire, police and emergency medical services personnel 
to better communicate in times of crisis and will ultimately help save 
lives.
  I am also pleased that the Omnibus Appropriations bill contains the 
$40 million DC School Choice plan to provide educational scholarships 
for 2,000 low-income students in troubled public schools in Washington, 
DC.
  Washington, DC, has the third highest per pupil spending in the 
Nation--$10,852 a year goes to the education of each child. Yet, it has 
15 failing schools and some of the lowest test scores in the country.
  Before supporting Mayor Anthony Williams request for this 5 year 
pilot program, I thoroughly scrutinized the legislative language as it 
related to the constitutional safeguards, the criteria, the 
monitoring--and I believe the program which was ultimately agreed to is 
balanced, fair, and constitutionally sound.
  To develop the best program we could and one that would stand a 
constitutional test, we made certain that the bill contained language 
that closely follows the Supreme Court decision in Zelman v. Simmons-
Harris to help fortify it against legal challenges.
  We helped ensure that the District would have a fair method of 
acceptance for students using vouchers in private and parochial schools 
and that there would be full accountability and sufficient oversight by 
Mayor Williams.
  We made sure that the scholarship students would be given the same 
test

[[Page S149]]

that their peers in public schools receive and that their test scores 
would be evaluated by an unbiased researcher.
  No money is taken from the public schools. As a matter of fact, $13 
million in new money is provided to public schools and $13 million in 
new funds is added for public charter schools.
  As a result of this program, some 2,000 students from failing schools 
will have that opportunity for one of these scholarships over the next 
5 years to go to the private school of their parents' choice.
  This is a worthy trial.
  This bill also includes an $835 million increase in funding for the 
National Institutes of Health.
  While this is less than the $1.5 billion increase I sought on the 
Senate floor with Chairman Specter and ranking member Harkin, the 
increase is essential to furthering the advances made by NIH 
particularly in the field of cancer research.

  Working together, Congress and two Presidents successfully completed 
a doubling of the NIH budget over the past 5 years.
  Although the fiscal year 2004 budget increase for NIH is smaller than 
I had hoped for, every dollar spent will yield health dividends for 
people.
  Because of the mapping of the human genome and the advances in 
molecular biology, it is now possible to develop and target drugs to 
specific ailments and therefore to break frontiers, to cross barriers 
and make uncharted progress.
  The NIH is the gold standard for the discovery of these new, targeted 
cancer drugs such as Gleevec which is used to treat patients with 
chronic myeloid leukemia.
  It is my hope that we can press on even further with the progress 
made in the fiscal year 2005 so that NIH can move closer to funding the 
optimal percentage of grant applications it receives.
  I am pleased that the Omnibus Appropriations Conference Report meets 
the Federal Government's commitments under the Help America Vote Act, 
HAVA, which reformed the way elections are administered.
  While the President requested only $500 million for HAVA 
implementation, the conference report provides $1.5 billion for 
payments to States for the purpose of meeting Federal election 
standards established in the act.
  Following enactment of this legislation, it is vital that these funds 
be quickly disbursed to the States and localities so that they may 
implement changes to voting systems in time for the 2004 Federal 
elections.
  As I said before, beyond process, I have a number of serious problems 
with the substance of the bill, and I will work over the next year to 
try to fix them.
  One of the most egregious provisions, buried in the bill at the 
behest of the gun lobby, is a provision which requires next-day 
destruction of background check records of sales where a gun buyer 
successfully clears a Brady background check and is permitted to 
purchase a firearm.
  Currently, records of criminal background checks are retained for up 
to 90 days in order to allow the Department of Justice to effectively 
identify, prevent, or prosecute attempted or completed illegal 
transactions.
  The ability to retain a record of these transactions for up to 90 
days allows law enforcement to audit the system to ensure its integrity 
and to correct errors that may have occurred--for instance, when a gun 
buyer is able to purchase a weapon when he should have been prevented 
from getting it.
  If those records are destroyed in 24 hours, the ability to correct 
such mistakes is gone.
  A July 2002 report by the General Accounting Office found that the 
90-day retention of records allowed the FBI to investigate more than 
200 purchases that were initially approved, but later found to have 
been sales to prohibited purchasers.
  The Department of Justice will also lose the ability to adequately 
verify whether someone on the terrorist watch list has attempted to 
purchase a firearm, because the records will no longer exist.
  According to the Washington Post, at least 12 and as many as 250 
individuals on the terrorist watch list have attempted to buy firearms 
in recent months.
  The bill would also prohibit ATF--now BATFE--from finalizing a 
proposed rule to require licensed gun dealers to conduct regular 
inventories of their firearms.
  The purpose of the rule is to promote more timely reporting of 
missing and stolen firearms, in order to help ensure that firearms are 
not ending up in the wrong hands, as in the case of the rifle used in 
the DC-area sniper shootings last Fall.
  Without such a requirement, gun dealers engaged in illegal sales can 
easily claim theft when their illegally-sold guns turn up in crime.
  That may be what happened to the Bushmaster assault weapon used by 
John Muhammad in the DC-area sniper shootings.
  Although Muhammad, a prohibited purchaser, acquired the weapon from a 
licensed gun dealer in Takoma, WA, many months earlier, the store 
reported the gun ``stolen'' only after investigators arrested Muhammad, 
recovered the gun, ran a trace, and contacted the store.
  This provision should never have been put in this bill, and I will 
work to reverse it.
  In addition, I have serious concerns about the impact of delaying 
country-of-origin labeling.
  As we now know, mad cow disease entered the United States via a cow 
born in Canada. Had we had labeling in place, we could have more 
quickly traced the cow back to Canada.
  Furthermore, polls show that 80-90 percent of Americans want their 
food to be labeled. In my home State of California, we have the 
``California Grown'' program that promotes awareness, consumption and 
value of California agricultural products, helping the State's 
consumers enjoy the best of the California harvest.
  All Americans deserve what Californians currently have: the 
opportunity to know where their food comes from, and to choose 
American-grown products should they wish.
  Last year the White House proposed redefining the job descriptions of 
millions of workers and thus eliminate their right to Federal overtime 
protection. Left alone, these rules will go into effect this year.
  The proposal could wipe out overtime pay protections and increase 
work hours for at least 8 million workers nationwide. This would result 
in huge pay cuts for many workers.
  In my State of California, State law will protect most workers from 
the deleterious effects of this rule change. Unfortunately, public 
employees who are not covered by collective bargaining and some in the 
film industry could lose overtime protection if the administration's 
rule is implemented. And, although most workers in California will 
maintain their right to overtime through protections granted by State 
law, the rule change represents a movement in the wrong direction when 
it comes to enhancing worker protections.
  For more than 65 years, we have maintained an appropriate balance 
between family life and work life by requiring employers to pay certain 
workers time-and-a-half when they work more than 40 hours in a single 
week.
  This requirement has protected the 40-hour work week, which has been 
a hallmark of our economy for more than six decades.
  Our workers are more productive then ever; yet, these new overtime 
rules will penalize those individuals who have literally built this 
Nation.
  The men and women who will be most hurt by the rules will be the 
hourly workers that maintain our streets, ring up our groceries, and 
respond to our calls to 911.
  Given the still high unemployment rate and the uncertainty still 
plaguing our economy, this is not the time to be making it harder for 
our hardest workers.
  Rather, it is a time when we should be helping all workers achieve 
fairness in the workplace.
  As I laid out, there are serious deficiencies in both the substance 
of and process by which this conference report was completed. That 
said, I believe that on balance the conference report is better for 
California and the Nation than the alternative and I will support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Alaska.

[[Page S150]]

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the last 10 
minutes before the 12 o'clock vote is reserved for the leaders.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have not been on the Appropriations 
Committee as long as Senator Byrd but I have been there for many years 
and I can state to the Senate that it is not the first time the Senate 
has been faced with the prospect of voting for a conference report 
which had deleted items that had been passed by both the House and the 
Senate.
  I say, frankly, I have voted for the items that had been deleted. One 
of them was the overtime provision. One was modified and that is the 
one concerning ownership limitations under the jurisdiction of the FCC 
of over-the-air media.
  In each instance, the reason for our yielding was the other 
provisions of the bill. We had provisions the House is violently 
opposed to which many Members on both sides of the aisle thought were 
absolutely necessary for their constituencies or for the Nation.
  I bluntly state I believe the best thing we can do is get a bill that 
will not be vetoed. We were looking at this in December, hopefully 
trying to get it passed. We are looking at it today, and I fervently 
pray it will pass because I know the harm being done to a lot of people 
all over the country by these bills not having become law when they 
should have before October 1 of last year.
  I will speak about one particular area that has been criticized 
substantially, and that is the Bering Sea Aleutian Islands crab 
rationalization plan.
  This plan, which was recommended to us by the regional council, was 
created under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and accomplishes two primary 
objectives of immediate concern: First, conservation and management of 
the crab resource; and, second, ending the deadly and inefficient race 
for this fish.
  All of the press attention and misinformation on processor quota 
share has effectively twisted a fishery management plan for one fishery 
in the Bering Sea into a national debate on the regional council 
process and the U.S. fishery policy.
  I remind my colleagues that the rationale behind the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act was to allow the various regions to craft their own unique fishery 
management plans to answer the conservation and management goals of 
their localities. The crab rationalization plan is no different in this 
regard. The North Pacific Council recognized all components of the crab 
fishery as a balanced, connected system, rather than competing parts. 
The only difference with the crab plan is a procedural one. Congress 
specifically directed the North Pacific Council to develop a plan that 
balanced harvesters, processors, and communities. Now Congress must 
implement the council's proposal.
  The North Pacific Council voted unanimously--11 to 0--to recommend 
this voluntary, what we call, three-pie cooperative that recognizes 
investments made by harvesters, processors, and communities. It is a 
product of extensive analysis with numerous opportunities for public 
comment, hundreds of hours of public testimony, and an open and 
transparent public debate by the council.
  The Alaska communities that are dependent on the crab resource being 
processed in their plants all support the plan. The vast majority of 
opposition has come from a vocal minority that want to receive a better 
deal and environmental groups that do not want any form of 
rationalization and would like to lock up marine resources. The state 
of the Bering Sea crab fisheries is poor, and the crab plan developed 
through this regional council process needs to be implemented now.
  Opponents of the crab rationalization plan raise concerns about 
anticompetitive effects and potential antitrust violations. The crab 
plan is not exempt from antitrust laws. It is not exempt from antitrust 
laws. In fact, the provision specifically states the Secretary may 
revoke any processor quota share held by a person found to have 
violated antitrust laws. The plan contemplates no private, 
anticompetitive action, and will be ``actively supervised'' by the 
council and the State of Alaska.
  Despite the fact that the crab plan is not exempt from antitrust laws 
and will be reviewed by the council, which can make changes as needed, 
and there will be a mandatory information collection and review process 
developed by the Secretary of Commerce and the Department of Justice to 
determine whether any illegal or anticompetitive acts have occurred, 
opponents still point to an opinion letter by the Department of Justice 
that theorizes about ``potential'' anticompetitive abuses. Nowhere does 
the Department of Justice opinion letter state that individual 
processor quota shares violate antitrust laws.
  The Department of Justice letter--it is an opinion letter--recommends 
that, what we call, IPQs not be used because they are economically 
inefficient. However, the Department of Justice admits it ``did not 
consider factors outside the purview of antitrust laws such as the 
social goal of protecting jobs in historic fishing villages or 
balancing the regulatory effects evenly among harvesters and 
processors.''

  This is where the Department of Justice letter and most opponents of 
the crab plan miss the point entirely. The Magnuson-Stevens Act 
requires the regional councils to consider--and I quote again--
``protecting jobs in historic fishing villages.'' This consideration 
required by law will always be economically inefficient.
  Pursuant to national standard 8 under the Magnuson-Stevens Act:

       Conservation and management measures shall take into 
     account the importance of fishery resources to fishing 
     communities in order to (A) provide for the sustained 
     participation of such communities, and (B) to the extent 
     practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on such 
     communities.

  That is section 301(A)(8) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
  The North Pacific Council's crab plan is completely consistent with 
the goals of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to provide for the sustained 
participation of remote coastal communities in the Bering Sea in the 
crab fishery and minimize adverse economic impacts on these 
communities.
  I remind the Senate that half the coastline of the United States is 
off my State of Alaska. This council had an enormous problem to deal 
with, and it dealt with it unanimously.
  Next, the opponents argue that the crab plan is precedent setting and 
will spread to other regional councils. This is a fishery management 
plan for only one fishery in the Bering Sea. In fact, the provision of 
the bill specifically provides that ``a council or the Secretary may 
not consider or establish any program to allocate or issue an 
individual processing quota or processor share in any fishery of the 
United States other than the crab fisheries of the Bering Sea and 
Aleutian Islands.'' It would take another act of Congress to approve a 
similar plan.
  This crab plan is not precedent setting. It is an extension of the 
efficiencies and successes achieved under the American Fisheries Act, 
which we call the AFA. However, where the AFA has a closed class of 
processors that can participate in the Bering Sea pollock fishery, the 
crab plan provides for an open class of processors and allows for new 
entrants in the processing sector.
  Opponents of the crab plan have argued that processor quota share is 
not needed to make the fishery safer or to provide for protections for 
the communities. My suggestion is these individuals who make those 
comments should visit the Pribilof Islands 800 miles west of my home 
near Anchorage. The Pribilof Islands are located in the middle of the 
Bering Sea. Or they should visit Dutch Harbor in the middle of January 
when the crab fisheries are in full swing. They can come by my office 
and see a picture of a crab fishing boat in mid-January, with ice 5 or 
6 inches on the deck and on the rigging.
  The middle of January is a terrible time, but that is the time when 
this great crab resource must be harvested. These communities are 
dependent on this crab resource and have made substantial investments 
to process rapidly the product during the mad race for fish in the 
current derby-style fishery. That means there was a very short period 
of time in which the crab could be harvested, and all the boats rushed 
in from everywhere trying to see if they could catch a portion of that 
resource. These communities have become dependent upon the crab 
resource crossing their docks.

[[Page S151]]

  Now, the crab fishery is a unique one in that there is a very high 
dollar value for a small amount of resource that can be processed 
quickly. If the crab plan only provided for harvester-only quota share, 
it would ultimately result in a de facto processing quota for the 
exclusive group of boat owners that control the harvesting rights to 
the resource.
  Currently, in the Bering Sea crab fishery there is a surplus of 
catcher-processor vessels and floating crab processors that can be 
leased or bought cheaply. This mobile processing capacity in 
combination with a harvester-only share would enable fishermen to form 
cooperatives and vertically integrate such that none of the crab 
resource would ever have to come to shore-side processors.
  Substantial investments made by shore-based processors would be lost 
and communities such as Unalaska, Adak, St. Paul, St. George, Akutan, 
and King Cove would lose out on processing jobs, taxes, and associated 
revenues. The North Pacific Council understood this and developed a 
plan that recognized the commitments made by all sectors of this 
fishery and tied the resource to the communities that have historically 
processed the crab.
  Safety will also be achieved by this crab plan; this point is 
irrefutable. The reality is, if we do not pass the crab plan in its 
entirety now, it will be many years, possibly even 10 years, before the 
council could develop another rationalization plan and fully implement 
it.
  The North Pacific Council is developing other comprehensive 
rationalization programs for the Gulf of Alaska groundfish fisheries 
and will likely turn to the Bering Sea nonpollock groundfish fisheries 
after that. This council cannot simply stop work on these other 
programs and address crab rationalization again. It would be extremely 
unfair to those other fisheries and would result in those programs 
having to be completely redone because data and factors would 
inevitably change causing the council recommendations and 
considerations to be vastly different.
  If the crab plan does not move forward in its entirety the deadly 
race for fish will continue.
  I believe some harsh realities about the Bering Sea crab fishery will 
illustrate why we must implement this provision immediately. The Bering 
Sea/Aleutian Islands crab fishery is rated the most dangerous 
occupation in the United States. From 1990 to 2001, there were 61 
fatalities and 25 vessels were lost; and in the recent October 2003 red 
king crab fishery, boats were lost and a person killed. This past 
October crab fishery was one of the worst weather-wise ever, with 
nearly constant gale force winds and huge ocean swells. Under the crab 
plan fishermen could have chosen to wait until the weather cleared to 
harvest the crab.
  That is the main point. Instead of regulating the time within which a 
crab must be caught, they regulate the catching of the crab and let the 
fishermen decide when it is safe to fish. Lives will be saved if we 
approve this plan.
  Conditions are even more extreme during the winter crab fishery in 
the Bering Sea when it is almost always dark, extremely cold, and the 
seas send freezing ocean spray that ice down the crab vessels. I have a 
picture of that in my office. The derby-style fishery requires 
deckhands to work all day and all night, outside on icy decks, in 
rolling 10- to 20-foot seas, retrieving 700-pound steel pots, sorting 
crab and then dropping the pots in new places.
  Obviously, this is very dangerous, but it is also very inefficient 
and damaging to the resource. The boats are racing to harvest the crab 
before the guideline harvest levels are reached, which requires them to 
pull their pots early not allowing them to ``soak'' longer, permitting 
younger crabs to escape. The result is the younger crabs are 
unnecessarily killed causing the stocks to suffer. We require the 
returning to the sea of the younger crabs. This plan will assist in 
implementing that requirement.
  If we do not implement this provision lives will continue to be lost 
and the resource and the environment will suffer. The opposition of a 
vocal few that believe they deserve a better deal and environmental 
groups that want to turn the waters in the North Pacific into vast 
marine reserves or ``no-take-zones'' are behind the opposition to crab 
rationalization. Their attacks are shameful, self righteous, and 
disingenuous. We have an obligation to protect the crab resource in the 
Bering Sea and prevent any further loss of life in this fishery. This 
is exactly what crab rationalization will achieve and to argue anything 
else is just not true.
  Three years ago Congress directed the North Pacific Fishery 
Management Council to analyze the management of the Bering Sea Crab 
fisheries and determine whether rationalization was necessary. The 
North Pacific Council completed its study and recommended a 
rationalization program that recognized the historical participation in 
the fishery of remote Alaska fishing communities, harvesters, and 
processors. The ``Three-pie Voluntary Cooperative Program'' developed 
by the North Pacific Council protects the resource and ends the 
dangerous race for fish. Section 801 of Title VIII-Alaskan Fisheries of 
the FY2004 Consolidated Appropriations conference report directs the 
Secretary to implement the North Pacific Council's crab rationalization 
program in its entirety.
  Section 801 amends section 313 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act by adding a new subsection 313(j). 
Paragraph 313 (j)(1) directs the Secretary to approve and implement the 
North Pacific Council's rationalization program for the Bering Sea/
Aleutian Islands crab fisheries, including all trailing amendments. It 
also clarifies that the Secretary may approve and implement additional 
trailing amendments approved by the North Pacific Council. The 
Secretary must implement all parts of the crab rationalization program 
that were reported to Congress between June 2002 and April 2003, and 
all trailing amendments including those reported on May 6, 2003, no 
later than January 1, 2005. Any further amendments approved by the 
Council should be corrective in nature or address unforeseen problems 
with the overall functionality of the crab rationalization program. 
Primary elements of the Voluntary Three-pie Cooperative crab program 
that made three separate allocations, one to the harvest sector, one to 
the processing sector, and one to defined regions, should not change as 
this was the basis of understanding of how the crab fisheries would be 
rationalized in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. It is imperative 
that the deadly and inefficient race for crab in the harsh winter 
months in the Bering Sea ends. Congress expects the Secretary to meet 
the statutory deadline of implementation of the rationalization program 
in time for the 2005 crab fisheries. Congress does not expect the 
Council to revisit particulars of the crab rationalization program that 
were part of the initial report to Congress in June of 2002, such as 
individual harvest shares, processing shares, the 90/10 split of 
``Class A'' and ``Class B'' shares, regional share designations, 
voluntary harvester cooperatives, and community development quota 
allocations, to name a few.
  Paragraph 313(j)(2) directs the Secretary to approve all parts of the 
North Pacific Council's crab program, including harvester quota, 
processor quota, and community protections. It also includes a non-
severability clause that prevents a court from overruling only certain 
parts of the program. If any part of the program is found to violate 
the law, the entire program fails and the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands 
crab fisheries will operate under their current open-access management 
scheme. It also prevents processors from improperly seeking crab 
deliveries harvested under a harvester's open-delivery quota.

  Paragraph 313(j)(3) authorizes the North Pacific Council to recommend 
to the Secretary and necessary changes after implementation of the crab 
program to continue to meet conservation and management goals set out 
in the program for the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands crab fisheries.
  Paragraph 313(j)(4) specifies that the loan program defined under the 
crab rationalization program for captains and crew be authorized 
pursuant to relevant sections of Title XI of the Merchant Marine Act as 
amended for fisheries financing and capacity reduction and for direct 
loan obligations for fisheries financing and capacity reduction. The 
loan program for crab fishing vessel captains and crew members is to be 
a low interest loan program similar to

[[Page S152]]

the loan program under the halibut and sablefish IFQ program.
  Paragraph 313(j)(5) authorizes $1,000,000 each year from funds 
available in the National Marine Fisheries Service account for Alaska 
fisheries activities to implement the program.
  Paragraph 313(j)(6) specifies that the antitrust laws of the United 
States apply to the crab program. It requires the Secretary of Commerce 
to work with Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission to 
develop and implement a mandatory information collection and review 
process to monitor the crab program and ensure no anticompetitive acts 
occur among persons receiving individual processing quota. If any 
person receiving individual processor quota is found to have violated a 
provision of the antitrust laws the Secretary may revoke their 
processor quota share.
  Paragraph 313(j)(7) requires individual processor quota share under 
the crab program to be considered a permit and subject to sections 307 
(Prohibited Acts) and 308 and 309 (penalties and criminal offenses) of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. It 
specifies that, like individual fishing quota, issuance of individual 
processor quota share does not confer any compensation right if it is 
revoked or limited, and does not create title or other interest in or 
to any fish before purchase from a harvester.
  Paragraph 313(j)(8) specifies that the restriction on the collection 
of economic data in section 303(d)(7) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act will 
not apply for any processor that receives individual processing quota 
under the crab program. In addition, the restriction on the 
confidentiality of information in section 402(b)(1) will not apply when 
the information is used to determine eligibility or verify history for 
individual processing quota. This is consistent with the exception to 
the confidentiality of information requirement under the Magnuson-
Stevens Act for verifying catch under an individual fishing quota 
program.

  Paragraph 313(j)(9) specifies that sections 308 (civil penalties and 
permit sanctions), 310 (civil forfeitures), and 311 (enforcement) of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act will apply to the processing facilities and 
fish products of any person holding individual processing quota. In 
addition, to ensure compliance with the crab program it may be 
necessary for the Secretary to inspect a processor's facilities, 
therefore facilities owned or controlled by a person holding individual 
processing quota will be subject to the prohibited acts of section 
307(1) subparagraphs (D), (E) and (L) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
  The North Pacific Council is recognized for developing novel and 
innovative approaches to conservation and management of the abundant 
fisheries in the North Pacific. The ``Three-pie Voluntary Cooperative 
Program'' for rationalizing the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands crab 
fisheries is another example of that creativity. It is the product of 
three years of public meetings and discussion by industry sectors, 
citizens and affected communities, two years of discussion and 
development by the North Pacific Council and its Advisory Panel, and 
nearly two years of extensive and thorough analysis by Council staff, 
with technical assistance from the National Marine Fisheries Service, 
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and independent economists and 
fisheries consultants.
  The Council meticulously constructed the crab rationalization program 
to achieve bold conservation and management goals for the resource; but 
also considered the very unique reality of a high value, capital 
intensive, high risk fishery that is prosecuted entirely in the distant 
waters of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. The Council has done a 
great job crafting the Three-pie Voluntary Cooperative crab 
rationalization program and it is expected to implement the program in 
its entirety, including all trailing amendments, as reported to 
Congress in June of 2002. The Council should not revisit the 
particulars of the crab program, but should continue to work with the 
Commerce Department of ensure that the crab program is implemented in 
its entirety in time for the 2005 winter crab fisheries.
  The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires fishery management plans and 
amendments to provide for the sustained participation of communities in 
the fisheries it had historically depended on for employment and 
economic opportunity. Small, isolated communities like St. Paul and St. 
George located on the Pribilof Islands, and Adak on the Aleutian chain 
have become dependent on the crab resource crossing their docks. This 
plan slows down the pace of the fishery, achieves efficiencies in 
harvesting the resource, manages and conserves the resource better, and 
helps decapitalize the fishery.

  While there will inevitably be a degree of economic dislocation in 
the communities dependent on the revenues. The crab rationalization 
program addresses these concerns by tying the crab resource to the 
communities that historically processed the crab. Processor quota share 
is a form of community protection which maintains historical processing 
capacity in the communities. Processor quota share should remain in 
those unique, isolated committees like St. Paul, St. George, King Cove 
and Adak; communities completely dependent on the crab fishery, that do 
not benefit from multispecies processing and other economic 
opportunities. The North Pacific Council determined that for the crab 
fisheries, processor quota share was a necessary safeguard to protect 
the investments made by the processing sector and more importantly, to 
maintain the economic benefits in the communities that have 
historically depended on the resource.
  Section 802 of Title VIII-Alaskan Fisheries directs the Secretary in 
consultation with the North Pacific Fishery Management Council to 
establish a pilot fisheries management program that recognizes the 
historic participation of fishing vessels and fish processors in the 
central Gulf of Alaska rockfish fishery. The provision delineates the 
years and types of rockfish that should be considered for a pilot 
rationalization program to allow for increased use and value in the 
fishery. The pilot rockfish program will expire when the North Pacific 
Council authorizes a comprehensive rationalization program for Gulf of 
Alaska Groundfish and implemented by the Secretary, or 2 years from the 
date of implementation, whichever is earlier. The pilot program 
contemplates new entrants into this fishery and provides a set-aside of 
up to 5 percent of the total allowable catch of such fishery for 
catcher vessels not eligible to participate in the program. In 
addition, the five percent that is available for new entrants must come 
into Kodiak, Alaska for processing and can be processed by processors 
that have not historically participated in the fishery. The North 
Pacific Council will establish catch limits for nonrockfish species and 
non-target rockfish species currently harvested along with pacific 
ocean perch, northern rockfish, and pelagic shelf rockfish, which 
should be based on historical harvesting of such bycatch species. The 
Gulf of Alaska rockfish pilot program should also recognize the 
historic fishing and processing participation of catcher-processors 
that have historically participated in this fishery, and should utilize 
the same years and species of fish considered under the provision.

  The intent of the pilot program is to consider the historic 
participation of all of those that have been involved in the fishery. 
The Gulf of Alaska rockfish pilot program does not authorize individual 
processing quota share for processors in this fishery. The ``historic 
participation of fish processors'' under this pilot program should be 
considered pursuant to the cooperative model under the American 
Fisheries Act, or any other manner the North Pacific Council determines 
is appropriate. This provision in no way authorizes individual 
processor quota share for the comprehensive Gulf of Alaska groundfish 
rationalization program that the North Pacific Council is currently 
developing. This pilot program is intended to allow for better 
conservation and management of the central Gulf of Alaska rockfish and 
extend the work year for processing jobs in Kodiak.
  Section 803 of Title VIII--Alaskan Fisheries directs the Aleutian 
Islands pollock allocation to the Aleut Corporation for economic 
development in Adak, Alaska. If the North Pacific Council opens the 
Aleutian pollock fishery, the allocation of pollock for economic 
development in Adak will be

[[Page S153]]

restricted by the prohibited acts contemplated under section 307 of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and subject to 
the penalties and sanctions under section 308 of the Act, including the 
forfeiture of any fish harvested or processed. Two classes of vessels 
may harvest this pollock allocation: vessels that are 60 feet or less 
in length overall and have a valid fishery endorsement can harvest the 
Aleutian pollock allocation and deliver it to Adak for processing; and 
vessels eligible to harvest pollock under section 208 of Title II of 
Division C of Public Law 105-277 are permitted to form partnerships 
with the Aleut Corporation to harvest the Aleutian Islands pollock 
allocation for economic development in Adak. Section 803 does not waive 
the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, Endangered Species Act, 
National Environmental Policy Act or any other federal laws. The North 
Pacific Council and NMFS should be cautious in implementing section 
803(a) to ensure that any reopening of a directed Aleutian Islands 
pollock fishery is accomplished in full compliance with all applicable 
law, and without disrupting 2004 groundfish fisheries which have 
already commenced.
  In an effort to gradually establish a small boat fleet in Adak, 
subsection (b) of section 803 provides that during the years 2004 
through 2008, up to 25 percent of the Aleutian allocation may be 
harvested by vessels 60 feet or less in length overall. During the 
years 2009 through 2013, up to 50 percent of such allocation may be 
harvested by vessels 60 feet or less in length overall. After the year 
2012, 50 percent of such allocation shall be harvested by vessels 60 
feet or less in length overall, and 50 percent shall be harvested by 
vessels eligible under section 208 of Title II of Division C of Public 
Law 105-277. Establishing a small boat fleet will be critical for the 
economic diversification of Adak and the revenues generated from the 
use of the Aleutian Islands pollock allocation will allow for greater 
investment opportunities in this community. For purposes of 
implementing this section, section 206 of the American Fisheries Act 
(AFA) is redefined so that the allocations in section 206(b) of the AFA 
should only apply to the Bering Sea portion of the directed pollock 
fishery.

  Subsection (c) of section 803 codifies one of the longest standing 
conservation and management measures of the North Pacific Fishery 
Management Council, the 2 million metric ton cap for groundfish in the 
Bering Sea. The optimum yield for groundfish in the Bering Sea and 
Aleutian Islands Management Area shall not exceed 2 million metric 
tons. Upon the recommendation of the North Pacific Council and approval 
of the Secretary of Commerce, and only if consistent with the 
conservation and management goals and requirements of the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the allocation of 
Aleutian pollock for economic development in Adak, may be in addition 
to the 2 million metric ton optimum yield. This treatment of the 
Aleutian Islands pollock allocation would only be during the 2004 
through the 2008 fishing years, but only if harvests in excess of the 
cap do not result in overfishing and then only to the extent necessary 
to accommodate a directed pollock fishery in the Aleutian Islands and 
should not adversely affect the current participants in the Bering Sea 
pollock fishery in the near term. Eventually this pollock allocation 
will come under the combined optimum yield for all groundfish in the 
Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 2 million metric ton cap by taking 
proportional reductions in the total allowable catches for each of the 
existing groundfish fisheries as necessary to accommodate the 
establishment of the Aleutian Island pollock fishery.
  Subsection (d) of section 803 allows the North Pacific Fishery 
Management Council to recommend and the Secretary to approve an 
allocation of Aleutian Islands pollock to the Aleut Corporation for the 
purposes of economic development in Adak pursuant to the requirements 
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The 
North Pacific Council should consider pollock allocations given to the 
various groups that participate in the Community Development Quota 
program to recommend a reasonable amount of the Aleutian Islands 
pollock to the Aleut Corporation for purposes of economic development 
in Adak and in no case should this amount exceed 40,000 metric tons.
  Nothing in this section requires the North Pacific Council to open 
the Aleutian Islands pollock fishery. The Council should not take any 
action in regards to this fishery which would require a new 
consultation under the current biological opinion or Endangered Species 
Act covering Steller sea lions.
  Section 804 of Title VIII--Alaskan Fisheries prohibits any Regional 
Fishery Management Council or the Secretary from approving any fishery 
management plan or plan amendments to allocate or issue individual 
processing quota or processor share in any fishery of the United States 
other than the crab fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands.
  In closing, I don't know of any time when we have tried to be 
bipartisan on a greater scale than in these seven bills in the omnibus 
bill. I personally have reviewed requests from Senators from both sides 
of the aisle. We have done our utmost to meet the most urgent needs in 
their States. We have talked to chairmen of the various committees and 
tried to work with them. In some instances the chairmen disagreed, but 
we have taken positions that are consistent with a majority of the 
committees in those instances.
  I believe this is a good bill. The problem we face now in this 
cloture vote--I hope all Senators will consider it--is we are in an 
election year. We must once again face 13 appropriations bills for 
2005. If we do not approve this bill, this omnibus bill, we will have 
to turn and go back and try to do what we should have done by October 1 
of last year. That will obviously impede consideration of 2005 bills 
and, in my judgment, would ultimately lead to a post-election session. 
I don't know how many other Senators have lived through post-election 
sessions that were contentious, but I believe one this year would be 
very contentious. I hope the Senate will set its goal not to be in 
session after the election this fall.
  We have Members who are retiring. Some Members may be defeated. The 
object of getting done before the election is to put to rest the 
disputes in the Senate and go on to the Presidential election and give 
time after the Presidential election to get ready for the next two 
Congresses which will come under the term from 2005 to 2009.
  I thank all members of the committee for their cooperation with me. I 
have enjoyed working with the minority leader, Senator Daschle, the 
assistant minority leader, Senator Reid, as well as our leaders, 
Senator Frist and Senator McConnell, and with Members of the House.
  This was a most difficult bill. It has been most difficult because of 
the fact we are at war. We are not only at war, but we created a new 
department which had to be funded and people had to be taken from the 
existing departments in order to staff that new department. We had to 
figure out the allocation of funds to this new department in a fair way 
that did not disturb the functions of the balance of these entities 
that were left in the former departments.
  This Congress ought to congratulate itself for having reacted to the 
post-September 11, 2001 tragedy. We created a department which has made 
the United States safer, and we have funded the needs of our men and 
women in the Armed Forces who have answered the call of our country and 
our Commander in Chief.
  I pray in this year 2004 we will not have any further disasters of 
that type, but the war on terrorism continues. A lot of the money that 
is in this bill goes to try to stave off further attacks on our people 
and historic objects in this country. We all are conscious of how much 
money that is taking. All you have to do is go through any airport to 
realize how life has changed since September 11, 2001. The money in 
this bill has been efficiently allocated. To the maximum extent 
possible, we have tried to deal with the requests of every Senator.
  I see the minority leader now. He and I have talked at length about 
the COOL program, the country-of-origin labeling. I opposed that 
provision. We deleted it here in the Senate. Again, when we got to the 
conference, it was not possible to have the conference

[[Page S154]]

complete without that provision in it. It was a judgment that we ought 
to get the bill to the Senate and get it approved and avoid a veto. I 
am not happy about that.
  There are other provisions in this bill I am not happy about. But I 
can state to the Senate, in all, this bill is a good consensus. It is 
good for the country, and it will fund the agencies that need the money 
now. We could not fund this Government during a period of war that is 
going on in Iraq and our war on terrorism under a continuing 
resolution. I thank the minority leader for his statements the other 
day. The worst dream the chairman of the Appropriations Committee can 
have is the problem of facing up to whether the Deficiency Act will 
require shutting down the Government if we don't pass the bills. I hope 
and pray we will pass this bill today and avoid that contingency.
  Mr. President, there are several provisions in the FY04 Omnibus 
Appropriations bill that merit further explanation.
  The Transportation measure included $8 million for runway lighting in 
Alaska. Of the funds made available, it is the Committee's expectation 
that $3 million would be made available for laser technology in 
Girdwood, Alaska and Merrill Field in Anchorage, Alaska upon 
certification of the technology. I urge the FAA to act as quickly as 
possible to favorably approve the certification petition.
  The Transportation bill included $2.3 million for ``trail and parking 
improvements'' for the Seward multi-agency visitor center in Seward, 
AK. Those funds are also available, if necessary, for the acquisition 
and completion of the plaza between Washington Street and the beginning 
of the historic Iditarod Trail in the Park Service/Portico Group plan.
  Both the VA-HUD bill and the Agriculture appropriations bill include 
funds for rural water and sewer improvements in rural Alaska. The VA-
HUD bill directs that beginning in FY05, EPA must set aside 25 percent 
of the funds for hub communities and a priority list must be 
established that will remain in effect for three years. The Rural 
Development Administration should follow the same process so the funds 
can be administered together to reduce administrative overhead.
  In the Energy-Water appropriations bill adopted earlier, questions 
have been raised concerning Congress' intention with respect to the 
Douglas Harbor. Congress provided $3 million to the Corps of Engineers 
to construct the causeway and breakwaters at the harbor entrance. The 
Committee urges the corps to commence construction of that project 
during this construction season if at all feasible.
  Funds were included in the Commerce, Justice, State section of the 
bill and earlier in the Interior appropriations bill concerning mass 
marking of fish that should be implemented to be consistent with one 
another. Both bills fund mass marking of fish produced in federally 
funded hatcheries. Marking refers to modifying the appearance of an 
immature fish in a hatchery so that when it matures there is an 
external mark that identifies it as originating from a hatchery. Mass 
marking refers to marking all or a substantial proportion of the fish 
releases from a hatchery. By mass marking the hatchery fish, fishery 
management agencies can direct fishery harvests on marked hatchery 
production while avoiding unmarked fish that might come from a depleted 
or endangered stock.
  However, fishery management agencies all along the Pacific coast, in 
both Canada and the United States rely on one type of marking as a 
basis for identifying different stocks of salmon and obtaining 
information on those stocks that is vital to conservation and 
management programs. To assure that the mass marking program does not 
interfere with this crucial scientific program, it is the committee's 
intent that mass marking programs supported by Federal funding will 
ensure that hatchery Chinook salmon that are marked by removing all or 
part of the adipose fin are also tagged with a microwire tag or 
alternatively mark the fish with some other mark. This will help 
preserve the validity of the existing stock identification data base 
while also realizing the objectives of the mass marking programs by 
enabling increased harvests of threatened or depleted stocks.
  The Justice Department budget within the Commerce, Justice, State 
bill included $12.5 million for internet safety for children. The 
committee urges the department to work with I-SAFE consistent with the 
Senate Report.
  Mr. President, the significant number of Alaskans that are 
descendants of our original indigenous Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut 
inhabitants are a great source of pride and a unique part of our 
heritage. A majority of those Native Alaskans reside in one of more 
than 200 small rural villages.
  Alaska is also unique in that, since the purchase of Alaska in 1867, 
Congress has adopted and implemented an Alaska Native policy that is 
different in a most important respect from the Native American policies 
that Congress has adopted and implemented in the ``lower 48.''
  Congress created Native corporations and since statehood has required 
Alaska Natives to comply with the same criminal, civil, and regulatory 
enactments of the Alaska State Legislature to which all other Alaska 
residents are subject.
  Like all citizens of my State, Alaska Natives participate in the 
development of those enactments by electing residents of the 
communities in which they live to serve in the Alaska State 
Legislature. In that regard, I am immensely proud that Alaska has a 
tradition of Native American involvement in the State political system 
that is unrivaled by that of any other State. The first Alaska Native 
was elected to our territorial legislature in 1924. In 1959 ten Alaska 
Natives served in the first Alaska State Legislature. And today, 10 of 
the 60 members of the 23rd Alaska State Legislature are Alaska Natives.
  During the Clinton administration, the Secretary of the Interior, his 
solicitor and Ada Deer, the Under Secretary of Indian Affairs, argued 
that there are more than two hundred sovereign tribal governments in 
Alaska. Many believe that policy was wrong, as a matter of law, while 
others assert that tribes have always existed. The provision in this 
bill creating a rural justice commission does not take sides in that 
dispute. Rather it seeks a practical solution to the issue of rural 
justice and law enforcement.
  One of the more pressing problems we now face is the issue of 
Department of Justice grants that have been issued to Alaska Native 
tribes. These grants have been used to create tribal courts that in 
some instances may exceed their lawful jurisdiction and to hire tribal 
police who are not currently authorized to enforce State laws.

  Since the Appropriations Committee reported S. 1585 to the Senate in 
September, I was contacted by a number of Alaska Native leaders who 
have expressed legitimate concern that the State of Alaska's and the 
Federal Government's criminal justice systems need to be configured in 
new and innovative ways in order to better meet the unique law 
enforcement challenges that we face throughout rural Alaska. In order 
to facilitate an analysis of, and a constructive dialogue regarding, 
that very important subject, at my request the conference committee 
that I co-chaired included section 112(a)(2) in title I of division B 
of the H.R. 2673 conference report. This provision establishes an 
Alaska Rural Justice and Law Enforcement Commission that will study the 
criminal justice system in rural Alaska and then submit recommendations 
to Congress and the Alaska State Legislature regarding ways in which 
those systems can be improved.
  Also at my request, the conference committee include a new section 
112(a)(1) which prohibits the Department of Justice from making grants 
to Alaska Native organizations that are located in communities that 
have fewer than twenty-five permanent Alaska Native residents, as well 
as communities that are located within the municipality of Anchorage or 
one of six designated boroughs. The purpose of section 112(a)(1) is to 
allow rural communities grants to continue during the fiscal year 
during which the Alaska Rural Justice and Law Enforcement Commission 
will be developing its recommendations.
  I want to emphasize that the conference committee does not intend the 
enactment of section 112(a)(1) to express a view as to whether the 
108th

[[Page S155]]

Congress believes that either a prior Congress or the Secretary of the 
Interior, acting lawfully pursuant to authority he has been delegated 
by Congress, has created ``federally recognized tribes'' in Alaska. Nor 
does the conference committee intend the enactment of section 112(a)(1) 
to create ``federally recognized tribes'' in Alaska by implication. The 
amendment takes no position on the issues which are now pending before 
the courts.
  I also note that when this provision was originally drafted, we hoped 
the bill would become law back in September. The deadlines established 
in the amendment reflected that hope. But now, in January 2004 those 
deadlines are unrealistic and unachievable. Therefore the Commission 
should have through this year to complete its work and issue 
recommendations.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as I understand it, each leader has 5 
minutes prior to the vote. I spoke early this morning. Let me again 
summarize my concerns.
  I have heard others express the fact that on the country-of-origin 
labeling, we had one position in the Senate and the House had another, 
and that this represents a compromise. I will come back to that issue. 
I acknowledge that in the case of country-of-origin labeling, the House 
and Senate had two different positions. I would say, though, that on 
the issue of overtime, on the issue of media concentration in 
particular, both had rollcall votes cast in the House and in the Senate 
taking strong positions in opposition to what has now been presented to 
us in conference.
  My earlier remarks expressed the deep concern for the institution 
when in conference there is an ability on the part of a few people to 
override the majority in both the House and Senate on issues as 
important as these. So I think we have to be concerned about democracy 
and about our Republic as occasions such as this arise. Maybe it is not 
unprecedented, but I don't care how unprecedented or precedented it may 
be, it is a bad practice. I believe it ought to be stopped.
  I also expressed this morning my concern about media concentration. I 
will not elaborate, except to say I am troubled when not only the White 
House but those in the House who hold a different position can override 
the majorities in the House and Senate.
  I am also concerned about the policy itself. Increased media 
concentration is not good for this country, and those who advocate and 
support the free enterprise system certainly would have to share that 
concern. We will say a lot more about that also in the future.
  My two greatest concerns have to do with the overtime provision and 
country-of-origin labeling. For the life of me, I cannot understand why 
this body, this Congress, would ever want to take away the rights to 
overtime and make the extraordinary statement today that we are not 
going to reward work, that people who work overtime, work hard and play 
by the rules, are actually going to be penalized for working hard and 
overtime in a week or a month.
  I know of a lot of people who desperately need these resources to 
make ends meet, pay for groceries, for insurance, and the house 
payment. For us, as an official Government policy, to say, no, we are 
going to devise ways in which to deny you overtime pay for the first 
time in 70 years is abhorrent. It is just wrong.
  I know I only have 5 minutes, so I will leave it at that. Simply 
again, I will reiterate how deeply concerned many of us are for this 
dramatic change in the way we look at rewarding work.
  Finally, country-of-origin labeling. We have had an unfortunate set 
of circumstances in the last month right around Christmas; we had the 
first case of mad cow disease. The administration has done some things 
right, but, for the life of me, I cannot understand why they would not 
support an action already in law and a policy in 43 other countries--an 
action that simply says we have a right to know not only the contents 
of our food, not only the nutritional value of our food, but the origin 
of our food. We know the origin of everything else. Why is it so hard 
for us that we have to say we need 2 more years to study whether it 
makes sense for us to know the origin of our food?
  The Japanese are saying: We are not going to give you 2 years. You 
are not going to export food to our country unless you can tell us 
where it came from. We are going to deny American exports so long as 
you cannot label them.
  Again, the administration is saying that doesn't matter; we are for 
free trade; we just don't care whether the Japanese want us to label 
our food.
  Some have suggested there ought to be a voluntary system. We have 
tried that. Give me a break. That will not work because it has not 
worked for years, decades, generations. We need a mandatory system.
  I am out of time. I will simply say this, and I will use leader time 
for the additional time. I know there is a need to vote soon. These 
issues will not go away. We intend to come back with congressional 
review resolutions, amendments, freestanding bills, to Rule XIV bills 
on the calendar. We will come back on these. This is not the end but 
the beginning. We will not rest until this job is done.

  I have indicated to my colleagues that I intended to make a unanimous 
consent request, as we have with some of these other provisions. I will 
do so at this time before I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
immediate consideration of a concurrent resolution, which I shall send 
to the desk, correcting the enrollment of the omnibus conference 
report, striking the language which delays the implementation of 
country-of-origin meat labeling regulations; that the concurrent 
resolution be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the 
table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, the time has come to move ahead and 
complete the unfinished work of the first session of the 108th 
Congress.
  We have had good debate over the course of the morning and 
yesterday--in fact, this week. I have made it very clear as to the 
importance of this vote, the significance of the vote we will take in 4 
or 5 minutes. If we fail to enact this legislation, we will do very 
clear things. We will curtail our efforts in the fight against 
terrorism; it won't be as effective. We will weaken funding for our 
food security system if we don't pass this legislation. We will not 
have as secure and as strong a system inspecting our food. We will 
create hardships for millions of veterans, which is unnecessary. That 
is what this vote, in part, is about. We would put at risk millions of 
lives of people who suffer from AIDS and the global effort to fight one 
of the most moral humanitarian and public health challenges of our 
time. We would be shortchanging the needs of our schools, our 
communities, our States, and needy and disadvantaged Americans.
  There are people who have said this legislation spends too much. I 
will once again point out and stress what I mentioned 2 days ago. This 
bill abides by the spending limits agreed to by Congress and the 
executive branch, excluding those two emergency supple- mentals enacted 
last year for the conflicts in Iraq.
  Appropriations spending authority will increase less than 3 percent 
between the year 2003 and 2004, with passage of this bill. The 
alterative to passing this bill is stark--a full-blown continuing 
resolution for the seven outstanding appropriations bills.
  Compared to doing the right thing and passing this legislation, 
Senators do have to be reminded one more time that the alternative 
would mean title I and special education programs would be reduced by 
$2 billion; the National Institutes of Health would be cut by $1 
billion; veterans medical care would be reduced by $3.1 billion; 
highway funding would be reduced by $2.2 billion; global HIV/AIDS 
funding would be reduced by nearly $1 billion. That is what is at stake 
in this legislation.
  The legislation doesn't please everybody. That is what much of the 
debate has been about over the last 48 hours. I recognize that, and I 
recognize that part of the legislative process is for us to come 
together and express our beliefs and wishes and have that debate and 
compromise.

[[Page S156]]

  Compromises are never going to please everybody. There are provisions 
in the bill I would have preferred to be different, but I have learned, 
especially over the course of the last year as majority leader, that 
you do the best you can. Compromise and negotiation are part of the 
legislative process.
  I want to respond, as the Democratic leader made clear in his remarks 
this morning, the legislative process isn't over with this legislation. 
It is not over. This is another very important step that we have taken, 
but issues that have been expressed as issues of concern on the floor 
of the Senate will--and I understand that--be revisited again and again 
in our legislative process. The great thing about our legislative 
process is that people will have that opportunity.
  It is time to move on the country's demand that we complete action on 
this bill and, thus, in closing, I do ask all my colleagues to vote for 
cloture and move America forward.
  I yield the floor.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule 
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, 
which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the conference 
     report to accompany H.R. 2673, a bill making appropriations 
     for the Department of Agriculture and Related Agencies for 
     fiscal year 2004, and for other purposes:
         Bill Frist, Rick Santorum, George Allen, Robert F. 
           Bennett, Jon Kyl, Ted Stevens, Kay Bailey Hutchison, 
           Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Mitch McConnell, Judd Gregg, 
           Orrin G. Hatch, John Cornyn, Christopher Bond, Saxby 
           Chambliss, Sam Brownback, Larry E. Craig, Richard 
           Shelby.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate 
that debate on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2673 shall be 
brought to a close? The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. 
Chambliss), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), and the Senator 
from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel), are necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), the 
Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Lieberman), are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay''.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Talent). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 61, nays 32, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 2 Leg.]

                                YEAS--61

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dole
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reid
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--32

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Graham (FL)
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lincoln
     McCain
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Baucus
     Chambliss
     Domenici
     Edwards
     Hagel
     Kerry
     Lieberman
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 61, the nays are 32. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Under the previous order, the question now is on the adoption of the 
conference report to accompany H.R. 2673.
  Mr. FRIST. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second. The yeas and nays are ordered. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. 
Chambliss), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), and the Senator 
from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), the 
Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 65, nays 28, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 3 Leg.]

                                YEAS--65

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Reid
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--28

     Allard
     Bayh
     Biden
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Graham (FL)
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     McCain
     Reed
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Baucus
     Chambliss
     Domenici
     Edwards
     Hagel
     Kerry
     Lieberman
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GREGG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I voted against cloture and 
against the fiscal year 2004 Omnibus appropriations conference report 
because it does not fund West Virginia's priorities--short changing 
veteran's healthcare by about $700 million and education by $6 billion, 
as well as many other essential programs. I was also very concerned 
that provisions were added to the legislation at the insistence of the 
White House and over the will of both Houses of Congress to cut 
overtime pay for 8 million workers. Not long ago, the Senate and the 
House rejected this administration's Department of Labor regulation 
that would reduce the overtime pay of workers, and yet this bill 
includes just such a change.
  The process that produced this bill was unfair and does not give 
Congress its due opportunity to protect the priorities of the citizens 
of our states. This kind of process means West Virginia loses its right 
to be properly represented.
  Additionally, the will of Congress to implement stronger food safety 
provisions to require country-of-origin labeling for meat products has 
been ignored. This legislation delays action on such labeling for 
another two years; a troubling result given the concerns about mad cow 
disease.
  In previous action, the House and Senate conferees agreed to provide 
basic protections for Federal employees targeted for privatization by 
the administration, yet this legislation guts such protection placing 
400,000 Federal workers in jeopardy without protections.

[[Page S157]]

  What's more, this legislation included an across-the-board cut in all 
programs, and that is not a responsible budget practice. Such a cut 
means that 24,000 fewer children will be served by title I in their 
schools, 26,500 fewer veterans will get health care, and $170 million 
will be lost for needed highway construction.
  Under the process imposed in this must pass legislation, Senators 
have no chance to offer amendments or make changes. This is simply not 
right, and therefore, I vote no in protest. I vote no, to taking away 
the rights of West Virginians.
  I understand that the votes are there to pass the underlying 
legislation to keep the government functioning and provide support to 
West Virginia projects. I agree that VA healthcare funding needs to be 
increased, but this bill falls far short. I agree with the $1 billion 
increase for the Title 1 education program, but I also must point out 
that we are still $6 billion short of the amount promised for the No 
Child Left Behind Act.
  Again, my vote is a protest vote against the effort to rob West 
Virginia of its representation in the appropriations process and in 
opposition to the egregious provisions inserted into this legislation 
without bipartisan support, or full and fair discussion. I am pleased 
that after over 4 months, Federal funding is decided, but the process 
must be changed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.

                          ____________________