Congressional Record, Volume 150 Issue 3 (Thursday, January 22, 2004)

[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:

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.

____________________