[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 135 (Saturday, November 20, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11740-S11751]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
                     Record in November 19, 2004.)

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 30 
minutes equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the 
Appropriations Committee. Who yields time?
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, we are now in day 51 of the fiscal year. In 
order to finally bring the fiscal year 2005 appropriations season to a 
close, the Senate has before it a $388 billion, nine bill, 3,016-page 
monstrosity of a bill. Here it is, right here on the desk. Take a look 
at it.

[[Page S11741]]

  Of the nine appropriations bills in the bill, only two were ever 
debated in the Senate. The conference report includes a miscellaneous 
division that contains 32 unrelated provisions, most of which have 
never been considered by the Senate.
  There is not a single Member in this body who can say that he or she 
has read this bill. It contains complex and controversial matters. It 
contains an across-the-board cut of eight-tenths of 1 percent that 
arbitrarily reduces veterans medical care programs, health care 
programs, highway construction, and global AIDS programs.
  At midnight last night, a 64-page small business reauthorization bill 
was put in the bill without consultation. It contains controversial 
matter that was not in the freestanding bill that the Senate debated 
over a year ago.
  During the development of the appropriations bills this year, the 
House and Senate reviewed the President's budget carefully and, in some 
cases, approved provisions that moved the Nation in a different 
direction from that which the White House wanted. The White House 
issued veto threats on several of these issues.
  The Senate provision to block the administration's overtime 
regulation which could eliminate overtime pay for 6 million Americans 
is dropped from the bill.
  Provisions that were in both the House and Senate bills concerning 
Cuba trade are all gone.
  The Senate provisions to overturn the Mexico City family planning 
policy and modify the Kemp-Kasten rules for funding the U.N. Population 
Fund have disappeared.
  At midnight last night, at White House insistence, and through the 
intervention of the House Republican leadership, the language that 
would have required a fair competition before Federal jobs are 
contracted out was pulled from the bill.
  Yet here we are on a Saturday, 51 days into the fiscal year, forced 
to vote on this monstrosity in the form of a $388 billion unamendable, 
unread conference report.
  The bill is entitled ``Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005.'' It 
should be entitled ``Lame Appropriations Act, 2005.''
  The Federal fiscal year started on October 1. While we have been 
waiting for the Republican leadership to bring appropriations bills to 
the floor, the country's schools, the country's hospitals, the veterans 
seeking health care, the FBI agents fighting terrorism, the 
construction workers wanting to build bridges and highways, the 
farmers, and the scientists across America have had to wait.
  Why the delay? First, despite the fact that we have a Republican 
President, a Republican House, and a Republican Senate, our Republican 
Government could not produce a budget. We had a record deficit for 
fiscal year 2004 of $413 billion. This Bush deficit exceeded the 
deficit record that he set for fiscal year 2003 of $375 billion.
  Yesterday the President signed a bill to increase the debt limit to a 
record $8.2 trillion--$8.2 trillion of debt, and yet we do not have a 
budget. Without a budget, the appropriations process was delayed. We 
are living in a land of make-believe.
  For months, the Senate pushed aside work on appropriations bills to 
focus on political debates. We pushed aside the people's interest so 
party interests could take center stage before the elections, but in 
doing so we failed, once again, to get our job done. This is a lameduck 
Congress, but the lame politicking in this Senate started long before 
this week.
  Time after time, we have put a hold on the investments in this Nation 
that every Senator knows we must make in order to put points on a 
political scoreboard, like this is some big game. But when we play 
games like these, the real losers are the American people.
  Fifty-one days into the fiscal year and, once again--this is not the 
first time--once again, we have a mammoth, unamendable omnibus 
conference report in front of us. Sadly, it has become almost an annual 
ritual that we shackle ourselves with these omnibus monstrosities. It 
is not good--not good for the Senate, not good for the American people, 
not good for your political system. We did in 1996, 1997, 1999, 2000, 
2001, 2003, and 2004.
  When I was chairman from 1989 to 1994 and again in 2001, we produced 
13 individual bills annually.
  That is the way to protect Congress's power of the purse. That is the 
way to protect the American people. That is the way to respect Members' 
rights to debate important legislation. We should not go down this road 
again next year. The woolly mammoth became extinct ages ago. I hope one 
day that the same will be said for such mammoth appropriations bills.
  The fact that we have such massive legislation on our desks tonight 
is not the fault of the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the 
senior Senator from Alaska, Ted Stevens. He would have moved Earth and 
sky if it had meant finishing 13 individual appropriations bills on 
time. But not even his Herculean efforts could change the plain and 
honest truth of this Senate. Namely, when it comes to this Senate 
today, politics wins every time.
  I would be remiss if I did not thank my chairman, my colleague, my 
friend, Senator Ted Stevens. This will be the final appropriations 
conference report that Senator Ted Stevens will guide through this 
Chamber, and how we will miss that fine, steady hand at the helm. While 
he does not leave the Appropriations Committee, thank God, he does 
leave the chairmanship after this session.
  I thank him for his unflinching friendship over the years. We do not 
always agree, Senator Stevens and I. No. I respect his views. I hope he 
respects mine. And the same can be said of the chairmen and ranking 
members of the appropriations subcommittees, both when this side is 
under control of the Senate and when this side is in the minority. At 
the end of the day, we always know that party is not the most important 
aspect of life. Faith in God, love of family, the Constitution and the 
country, Senator Stevens knows, as I do, that these are far more 
important than the fate of a partisan agenda.
  Because of the limitations placed on the Congress by the 
administration, more veterans will go without medical care. I have to 
say that this administration meddles in the appropriations process more 
than any other administration I have ever seen in my 46 years as a 
Senator, and as my 52 years as a Member of the Congress.
  Fewer children now will receive the educational services promised by 
this President and this Congress in the No Child Left Behind Act. 
Scientists will be left scrambling for research dollars. Families 
living in rural America will see their clean water pushed off for 
another year. This bill shortchanges America's future, and I say to all 
Senators that because of the President's arbitrary limits on 
discretionary spending, $8 billion worth of increases above the 
President's budget request that were contained in the bipartisan Senate 
appropriations bill were eliminated.
  Now, that is the White House meddling, a White House that does not 
seem to recognize that there is a Constitution of the United States; a 
White House that does not seem to recognize that there is a separation 
of powers; a White House that does not seem to remember that the 
legislative branch is not indeed subordinated to the executive branch. 
Relative to the Senate bills, title I education for the disadvantaged 
is cut by $661 million; special education by $658 million; the National 
Institutes of Health by $537 million; EPA clean and safe drinking water 
grants are cut by $312 million; VA medical care by $235 million; $975 
million in cuts in public housing; $277 million is cut from the 
National Science Foundation and the effort to help communities to hire 
new police officers; the COPS program is cut by $154 million.

  These are big numbers. Honestly, they probably do not mean much to 
people, but behind each dollar is an American citizen. Cuts to special 
education mean that fewer children with disabilities will receive the 
specialized services they need. Cuts to title I mean that young people 
living in poor school districts will have fewer classroom opportunities 
to brighten their paths to their future. Fewer dollars for COPS means 
fewer officers on the streets, the very time when crime is up and the 
terrorist threat is very real across America.
  That brings us to where we are today. The legislation before us 
includes some increase above the President's request for such programs 
as veterans medical

[[Page S11742]]

care, highways, low-income home energy assistance, State and local law 
enforcement, the manufacturing extension program, Amtrak and Corps of 
Engineers construction. However, I cannot vote for this Omnibus 
appropriations bill, and I extend my sincere apologies to my colleague, 
Ted Stevens. I honor him and I will always remember him as one of the 
very finest chairmen of the Appropriations Committees under whom I have 
served in my 46 years in this body, but I cannot vote for this Omnibus 
appropriations bill.
  I intended this morning to vote for it. Omnibus bills bring the White 
House to the table and put them in charge. I have said that time and 
time again. Let me say it again. Omnibus bills bring the White House to 
the table and put them, the White House, in charge. Omnibus bills allow 
the White House to set arbitrary ceilings on spending. Omnibus bills 
preclude Members' rights to debate significant issues. Omnibus bills 
produce bad legislation, such as the ill-conceived language on giving 
staff authority to review tax returns.
  Need I say more? No, I shall not say more. I will vote no.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia 
for his comments. He has been my good friend for a long time. He and I 
have worked together now through my 36 years in the Senate, and as he 
states, we have not always agreed, but we have always been able to work 
together in the spirit of friendship and real understanding. I really 
have great admiration for the Senator from West Virginia.
  This is my swan song. I had expected to stand before the Senate and 
be proud of the product we have before us. I consider what happened in 
terms of the staff mistake a stain upon my service as the chairman.
  Mr. President, H.R. 4818, the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill 
was the legislative vehicle for the fiscal year 2005 Omnibus 
appropriations bill.
  The conference report includes $388.4 billion in discretionary 
funding for the following nine appropriations bills: Agriculture, 
Commerce-Justice-State, Foreign Operations, Interior, Energy and Water, 
Labor-HHS, Legislative Branch, Transportation-Treasury, and VA-HUD.
  Our fiscal year 2005 spending will be within the $821.9 billion 
discretionary cap.
  The conference report includes an across-the-board cut of 0.8 percent 
for each appropriations bills.
  This bill will provide the needed funds to keep this Government going 
for this fiscal year.
  As my chairmanship of our Appropriations Committee draws to a close, 
I want to take a few minutes to acknowledge and commend some close 
friends and some of the hardest-working and most dedicated staff I have 
had the privilege to work with.
  Let me begin with my good friend from West Virginia, our committee's 
ranking member, Senator Byrd, who has been a member of the committee 
since 1958. He and I have worked together throughout my 36 years in the 
Senate and it has been an honor to lead this committee with him since 
1997. We have not always agreed, but we have always been able to put 
our differences aside and work toward the common good. I especially 
want to thank him for his efforts over the past year. We both had hoped 
and worked toward getting our appropriations bills across the floor on 
an individual basis. But, this was not possible. And, I want my good 
friend to know how much I personally appreciate his and his staff's 
cooperation in recent days as we've brought this process to a close. I 
will miss the partnership we have shared on this committee.
  Chairman Bill Young of Florida has been my partner across the Rotunda 
since 1999. He has become a good friend and ally in our steadfast 
efforts to complete our work. He, too, is stepping down from his 
chairmanship and I want to take this opportunity to thank him and his 
staff for their assistance and perseverance in getting our work 
completed. Bill has great respect for the institution that we serve and 
for his beloved House Appropriations Committee. His heart continues to 
be with the men and women of our Armed Forces. After the House 
recesses, he and his wife Beverly regularly visit wounded soldiers up 
at Walter Reed Medical Center. I hope Bill Young will be returning as 
chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. We will continue 
to work as a team dealing with modernization of our weapons systems, 
our military personnel programs, and the national security of this 
great country.

  Over the years, I have had opportunity to work with Dave Obey as both 
chairman and ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee. 
Congressman Obey and I have been on opposite sides of a number of 
issues, but I know of few Members who have his great intellect and 
passion. Dave Obey is a truly dedicated Member of Congress who cares 
about the institution, and the legislative process. He is a realist who 
gives his all in debate, but understands compromise and the need to 
move the business of Government forward.
  I ask unanimous consent to have a chart printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                           FY 2005 Conference

                        [In millions of dollars]                     BA
Agriculture......................................................16,982
Commerce, Justice, State.........................................40,027
Energy and Water Development.....................................28,488
Foreign Operations...............................................19,705
Interior.........................................................20,039
Labor, HHS, Education...........................................143,309
Legislative Branch................................................3,575
Transportation, Treasury.........................................25,846
VA, HUD, Independent Agencies....................................93,861
Weatherization (division J).........................................230
Other items (division J)............................................107
Across-the-board 0.8 cut (division J)............................-3,471
Crime Victims Fund (limitation)....................................-283
                                                               ________
                                                               
    Total discretionary spending................................388,415
                                                               ________
                                                               
Requested emergencies:
  LIHEAP                                                            300
  Postal equipment                                                    7
  Sudan                                                              93
  Mr. STEVENS. Now, I would like to turn to the clerks of our 
subcommittees.
  Pat Raymond has worked for me for more than three decades in the 
Senate and will be retiring at the end of the year. Pat began as my 
scheduler on my personal staff. She has supported me on the 
Governmental Affairs, Rules, and Appropriations Committees.
  From flextime, to postal reform, to the Federal retirement system, 
and as staff director on this Agriculture Subcommittee, and earlier on 
the Treasury Subcommittee, Pat has never lagged in her dedication to 
hard work. Always thorough and precise, always a stickler for details, 
Pat's also well-known as a quick study.
  Even more important than the attributes I have mentioned, has been 
Pat's loyalty to me personally, to this institution, and to our Nation. 
As an Alaskan, she understands the true ``can do'' pioneer spirit that 
has made it possible for her to accomplish even the toughest of 
challenges.
  The Energy and Water Appropriations bill, in particular, was put 
together in record time. The product represents a truly remarkable 
accomplishment. It is comprehensive, yet elegant in its simplicity. It 
sets out an ambitious course for the Corps of Engineers, Department of 
Energy, and Related Agencies. With few words, it cuts through years of 
red tape. After reading the bill, the phrase ``the Secretary shall'' 
has become one of my favorite phrases in the English language.
  Tammy Cameron, our majority staff director, Drew Willison, our 
minority staff director, and their able staff worked on a bipartisan 
basis and negotiate a bill with the House in 48 hours. They pulled a 
rabbit out of a hat I thought was long dead. Tammy just took on this 
new assignment 2 years ago having worked with Senator Campbell on the 
Treasury Subcommittee. She has learned a complex subject matter in a 
very short time, and has earned the respect of the highest ranking 
generals in the Army. On behalf of Senator Byrd and the entire full 
committee, I want to congratulate Tammy and the entire staff and extend 
my heartfelt thanks. And, I hope when these proceedings are concluded, 
they will all go home to bed and sleep for a week.
  Scott Gudes is one of those staffers who has become a member of my 
family. He keeps moving back into the

[[Page S11743]]

house. Scott began with me on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee 
working with Sean O'Keefe, where he learned with a real master. And he 
has used what he learned with Sean ever since.
  He served for almost 5 years as deputy under secretary for Oceans and 
Atmosphere at NOAA, and worked as the acting NOA administrator under 
secretary in 2001. 1 worked closely with him to resolve the Stellar sea 
lion crisis which threatened to close down Alaska's fisheries, and 
almost closed down the Senate. As many of my colleagues will recall, 
while others were drinking eggnog, Congress remained in session until 
days before Christmas while we resolved that crisis. Scott was 
instrumental in that effort, and helped administer the resolution we 
adopted.
  He formerly worked for Fritz Hollings on the Commerce-Justice-State 
Subcommittee as well as on the House Foreign Operations Subcommittee. 
He has a reputation as a fair, even-minded problem solver, and has a 
heart for the world's oceans. As NOAA administrator, he had a 
reputation for rolling up his sleeves and working as crew on research 
vessels, and he has rolled up his sleeves for us.
  The senior Senator from Pennsylvania often refers to Bettilou Taylor 
as the 101st, and for good reason. She has helped me craft new 
initiatives in Alaska to address health care, labor, and education. 
Just yesterday, I got a report on the Denali Commission clinic effort, 
a program Bettilou created. To give an example of the difference just 
one person can make, since she instituted this program, there are now 
41 new health care clinics in remote villages in Alaska that had none, 
and another 67 in the planning stage and another 26 under construction. 
Because of Bettilou and her staff, thousands of rural Alaskans now have 
health care where they had none before.
  She is hard driving, but fair; creative but down to earth; demanding 
yet caring. She knows health policy and education probably better than 
any single person in the Senate including her subcommittee chairman, 
and she can run circles around her adversaries. The word ``can't'' is 
not in her vocabulary. I once described one of her bills as a ``work of 
art.'' She is truly one of the Mona Lisa's of the Senate.
  Mary Dietrich began with me on the Labor/HHS Subcommittee. She has 
worked now for several years as the clerk on the DC Subcommittee, and I 
think it is no small coincidence that the District's finances turned 
around about the same time Mary showed up. She has worked closely with 
the City government in helping them shepherd the city toward financial 
solvency, and has taken a particular interest in programs for children 
and the arts. At the staff level, she almost single handedly pushed 
through the DC voucher program that no one else thought had a chance of 
succeeding. But she persevered, and today hundreds of poor children are 
attending some of the cities best private schools. They will never know 
who Mary Dietrich is and will never be able to thank her, but today I 
say thank you on their behalf and on behalf of the Senate.
  While Bono has led the public effort to address the worldwide crisis 
of AIDS/HIV, there is another rock star behind the scenes who has 
shaped our Nation's response to that crisis. Paul Grove has drafted 
dozens of provisions to improve the lives of people around the world--
from people living with AIDS and TB to children without limbs who 
receive wheelchairs. Together we have created a new program to bring 
fresh water to dozens of African villages which has changed thousands 
of lives each day.
  Paul is a child of the Foreign Service and has lived across the 
globe, including 2 years with the International Republican Institute in 
Cambodia. Paul is quietly competent, but his actions speak loudly about 
the kind of person Paul is and the difference he has made in the world.
  Rebecca Davies is a woman who has found her moment in history. Tough 
and uniquely qualified, Rebecca Davies has undertaken the task of 
helping create a whole new department of the government with the most 
important role of our time, protecting our Nation from terrorism. She 
formerly served as Deputy of the Appropriations Committee with service 
on the Budget Committee. I can probably count on one finger the number 
of people who have the knowledge of the Federal budget process that 
Rebecca Davies carries in her head.
  She has worked on the Treasury Subcommittee, Agriculture Subcommittee 
and each time left her mark. Together we created a series of programs 
for rural America while she was at Agriculture from rural water and 
sewer programs to funding to reduce the high cost of energy to funds to 
address public facilities in poor rural communities. As a result of her 
efforts, the honey bucket, what used to be the primary sewer system in 
Alaska, will soon be the subject of a museum exhibit.
  I rest better each night knowing that Rebecca Davies is looking out 
for our Nation's homeland.
  Bruce Evans began his career on the Alaska scene with my former 
colleague, Slade Gorton. A product of the Senate, Bruce is known by all 
as a practical problem solver with a great wit and a ``can do'' 
attitude. Of all the subcommittees I have worked with, I have probably 
thrown as much at Bruce Evans as any staffer on my committee. From 
timber harvest to oil and gas development, if I am working on a 
controversial issue, you can bet Bruce Evans is finding the solution.
  With Bruce's insight and quiet competence, together we have improved 
the lives of Alaska Natives from health clinics to alcohol treatment to 
fire fighting to save villages from destruction. And while I don't have 
a public reputation as an environmentalist, Bruce has worked quietly on 
my behalf to protect Alaska's wildlife. He created the State wildlife 
grant program funded this year at about $70 million, provided resources 
for research on wildlife from walrus to polar bears, provided the funds 
to take the Aleutian Canada goose off the endangered list, and restored 
Alaska's fisheries. Denali National Park is often called the crown 
jewel of the national park system. Bruce Evans is one of the crown 
jewels of the Appropriations Committee.
  Carrie Apostolou began her career with me on the VA-HUD Subcommittee. 
Intensely organized and detail oriented, ``slipping through the 
cracks'' is something you never have to worry about with Carrie. She 
has shepherded the Capitol Visitor Center through the process, and is 
responsible for the unprecedented security improvements we all see 
everyday. When the Capitol Visitor Center opens in 2006, it will be a 
testament to Carrie's persistence.
  Dennis Ward, came to our committee 2 years ago with a strong and wide 
ranging military background. He served in the Air Force as an officer 
for 18 years, taught political science at the U.S. Air Force Academy, 
and was a political affairs officer at the Ballistic Missile Defense 
Organization. He is diligent and tenacious and his abilities were 
evident to all of us when he worked fervently to complete action on the 
Military Construction Appropriations bill earlier this year. I look 
forward to a continued close working relationship with Dennis, as I 
continue my work on defense issues.

  Jon Kamarck is one of the leading public housing experts in the 
Congress. He is known as a tough adversary, but kind and compassionate. 
He has exercised the committee's oversight responsibilities with vigor, 
and many an agency has trembled in its boots when Jon finds 
indifference or incompetence. He has a reputation for demanding 
compliance with the laws he helps write, because he is as passionate 
about good Government as he is about helping people. There is a kinder, 
gentler side of Jon Kamarck agencies don't always see but I have seen 
as he meets with Eskimo people with no running water or works with low 
income people living in squalor. If ever there was a staffer who 
embodied my personal motto it is Jon Kamarck: ``to hell with the 
politics, just do what's right.''
  And last of all, but first among equals is Sid Ashworth. Sid knows 
more about the Department of Defense than just about any one I know. 
She is responsible for the largest annual budget of any department, and 
has overseen revolutionary changes in our national defense from smart 
bombs to stealth bombers. She has the daily burden of reading 
intelligence reports, living every day with the knowledge of the 
threats that plague us. A former Defense civilian from Hawaii, Sid has

[[Page S11744]]

forged a close working relationship with Charlie Houy that mirrors my 
own relationship with Dan Inouye. Sid is a woman who operates in what 
is sometimes viewed by some as a man's world. She has broken through 
stereotyped, and is universally revered by secretaries and generals 
alike. She is innately fair, intensely dedicated, and fiercely loyal. I 
am glad I have her by my side every day.
  I also want to acknowledge a few of the hardworking staff from the 
other side of the aisle. Terry Sauvain, Senator Byrd's staff director 
on our committee, has worked tirelessly along side of my staff to get 
our work done for the year. Terry has long been known as someone who is 
able to effectively work on both sides of the aisle. He is known as the 
master of West Virginia and my staff has learned a great deal from him 
since I became chairman in 1997.
  Chuck Keiffer, Senator Byrd's minority staff director, also deserves 
my thanks. He came to the Appropriations Committee 4 years ago from the 
Office of Management and Budget and has vast experience on the fiscal 
issues. I want to acknowledge him and thank him for his assistance and 
service during my tenure as chairman.
  And finally, I want to thank Charlie Houy, the minority clerk for the 
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. Charlie has been with the 
Appropriations Committee for nearly 20 years, working for both the 
minority and majority. He is a consummate expert on defense issues and 
is well respected by those at the Department of Defense and his 
colleagues on the Hill. As chairman of the Defense Subcommittee, I look 
forward to continuing to work with Charlie and thank him for all of the 
hard work he has put in over the past year. I am proud to say he is my 
friend.
  Mr. President, we deal with a lot of important and controversial 
issues in this body. Maybe nowhere is that more the case than on this 
Senate Appropriations Committee.
  I have been fortunate to have had the opportunity to chair this 
committee with so much history and tradition. Senator Byrd has often 
reminded us of the historical context of this committee and our role 
which was specified by our Founding Fathers in the Constitution. And, I 
would be remiss if I did not note that I and all our members have been 
fortunate to have been supported by such outstanding professional 
staff.
  I remember when Senator John C. Stennis was preparing to leave the 
Senate in 1988. And he attributed his long and distinguished career to 
just a few things. The first, was good staff.
  So, I want to take a minute to recognize one such individual, our 
committee staff director, Jim Morhard. Jim is a consummate 
professional. He has truly done it all here on appropriations. He 
joined the committee after a career in the Navy Comptroller's office, 
and then in the Senate under Senators Wilson and Kasten. Jim staffed 
the military construction bill as both the minority and majority staff 
director. Jim worked on Defense Subcommittee and with some reluctance, 
answered my request for him to take over the Commerce-Justice-State 
Subcommittee. This is considered by many the most difficult of our 13 
subcommittees to handle.
  At Commerce-Justice-State, Jim Morhard distinguished himself working 
as ``clerk'' or staff director under Senator Judd Gregg. Jim dealt with 
a variety of issues from Securities and Exchange Commission fees to 
NOAA fisheries programs to small business technical assistance. Long 
before September 11, 2001, Senator Gregg and Jim sought to wake up the 
Justice Department and FBI and enhance our counterterrorism programs. 
On September 11, many of those first responders had taken part in 
training in counterterrorism exercises that were put forward by our 
Commerce-Justice-State Subcommittee.
  In early 2003, I asked Jim to move up and become staff director for 
the entire committee. There was no staff that I considered more capable 
or prepared. Jim has always carried out his tasks with tact, fairness 
and bipartisan spirit. He has great expertise at the technical aspects 
of the appropriations job. He can make ``the numbers work'' and draft 
the bill and report language. And, he has the creativity to critically 
analyze programs and policies and come up with compromises that move 
the institution forward.
  I think about the same day Jim came on board, we began work on the 
first of two Iraq/Afghanistan supplementals. I think he has been 
working tirelessly ever since, shepherding through these bills and 
helping me get the 2004 and this 2005 omnibus appropriations bills 
through the Senate, through conference and to the President for 
signature.
  The executive branch has countless programs to recognize employees 
and excellence. Unfortunately, we here in the legislative banch do not. 
But, one should not assume that we do not recognize personal and 
professional excellence when we see it. And, I want to express my 
appreciation to Jim on behalf of the committee and the entire Senate 
for a job well done.


     the bering sea nonpollock groundfish fisheries buyback program

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, as part of the fiscal year 2005 
Consolidated Appropriations conference report there is a section that 
provides for a vessel buyback program for the Bering Sea/Aleutian 
Islands nonpollock groundfish fisheries. Senator Murray, is it your 
intention that section 219 of Title II of the 2005 Consolidated 
Appropriations conference report is only to provide for a non-pollock 
groundfish fishery capacity reduction program for catcher processor 
vessels engaged in these fisheries in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands?
  Mrs. MURRAY. That is correct. Section 219 is intended to provide a 
vessel buyback program to be financed through a capacity reduction loan 
for this fishery.
  Mr. STEVENS. It is my understanding that the North Pacific Fishery 
Management Council will develop the fishery management plans for the 
Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands non-pollock groundfish fisheries and 
nothing in this section should be construed to impede or change the 
council's development of these plans. Is this your understanding?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Yes. This section should not be interpreted as requiring 
the North Pacific Fishery Management Council to rationalize these 
fisheries. In fact, nothing in this section should interfere with the 
council process with respect to development of fishery management plans 
for this fishery or any ongoing work of the council on fishery 
management plans or ``rationalization'' of other fisheries.
  Mr. STEVENS. Senator Murray, there is language in this section that 
states that future amendments to the fishery management plans in the 
Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands should not ``penalize'' members of any 
catcher processor subsector for achieving capacity reduction under this 
act or any other provision of law. Could you explain in greater detail 
what this means? In particular, I want to make sure that nothing in 
this act would preclude the North Pacific Fishery Management Council 
from accommodating CDQ interests in future Bering Sea and Aleutian 
Islands non-pollock fishery management plans.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Yes. This language does not prevent the North Pacific 
Fishery Management Council, National Marine Fisheries Service, or any 
other agency from enforcing any Federal law with respect to any member 
of this sector, including the conservation and management provisions of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The act shall not prevent the council from 
raising the CDQ share of the harvest for this fishery consistent with 
past Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands rationalization efforts or as part 
of any eventual rationalization process. And finally, this reference to 
penalties should never be construed to prevent the council from 
implementing initiatives to reduce bycatch in this sector, which has 
historically had the highest bycatch rates in the Bering Sea/Aleutian 
Islands.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, over the last several hours, much debate 
has taken place regarding section 222 of division H of this omnibus 
appropriations bill. I wish to associate myself with the remarks of 
many of my colleagues that have insisted that this egregious provision 
be removed. And, I wish to thank the majority leader and minority 
leader for establishing a path forward that will ensure that this 
provision will never become law.
  Under the agreement announced earlier by the majority leader, the 
entire

[[Page S11745]]

conference report on the omnibus appropriations bill, once passed by 
the Senate, will be held at the desk and will not be forwarded to the 
President for his signature until the House has passed a correcting 
resolution that will nullify section 222. That correcting resolution 
will also be passed by the Senate today.
  With that guarantee in place, and with the knowledge that section 222 
of division H of the omnibus bill will never become law, I am pleased 
to vote in favor of the bill so that the people of my State and all 
other States can reap the benefits of the important programs funded in 
this bill.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, unfortunately, in the Omnibus bill, the 
Republican leadership blocked Senator Harkin's amendment to repeal the 
administration's rule that denies overtime protections to 6 million 
workers. Bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate strongly 
supported the Harkin amendment and it was part of our Senate bill.
  In fact, the Senate has voted four times to block the Bush overtime 
rule, and the House has voted twice to block it. Yet, the Republican 
leadership keeps refusing to accept the will of Congress and the will 
of the American people. Instead, it continues its unfair assault on 
America's workers and their right to overtime pay.
  In today's economy, workers are obviously concerned about losing 
their jobs, their pay, their health benefits, their retirement 
benefits, and their unemployment checks. Now more than 6 million 
employees also have to worry about losing their higher pay for working 
overtime.
  These men and women are nurses. They are police officers. They are 
school teachers. They are long-term care workers. They are assistants 
in mental health facilities.
  Make no mistake, overtime cuts are pay cuts. When workers lose their 
overtime pay protection, they still work longer hours, but they get no 
extra pay for doing so, even though they have had the right to time-
and- a-half pay for overtime work ever since the 1930s.
  Clearly, we need a policy to create more jobs, not eliminate jobs. By 
taking away workers' right to overtime, the administration's rule 
undermines job creation, since it allows businesses to require 
employees to work longer hours for no extra pay, rather than hire new 
workers.
  Pure and simple, denying overtime is a thinly veiled cut in workers' 
pay and boost employers' profits. In this troubled economy, it makes no 
sense to ask any workers anywhere in America to give up their overtime 
pay.
  Instead of making hard-working men and women work longer hours for 
less pay, businesses should create new jobs by hiring more employees to 
do the work.
  We know that employees across America are already struggling hard to 
balance their family needs and their work responsibilities. Requiring 
them to work longer hours for less pay will impose an even greater 
burden in this daily struggle.
  According to the Families and Work Institute, two of the most 
important things that children would most like to change about their 
parents are that they wish their parents were less stressed out by 
their work, and they wish they could spend more time with their 
parents.
  The General Accountability Office says that employees without 
overtime protection are twice as likely to work overtime as employees 
covered by the protection. In other words, businesses don't hesitate to 
demand longer hours, as long as they don't have to pay higher wages for 
the work.
  Protecting the 40-hour workweek is vital to protecting the work-
family balance for millions of Americans in communities in all parts of 
the Nation. The last thing Congress should be doing is to allow the new 
antiovertime rule to make the balance worse for workers than it already 
is.
  Congress cannot look the other way while more and more Americans lose 
their jobs, their livelihoods, their homes, and their dignity. Denying 
overtime pay rubs salt in the wounds of this troubled economy. Denying 
the will of Congress and the American people in this Omnibus bill 
doesn't settle the issue. This battle is far from over. The fight will 
continue until workers' overtime rights are restored.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I oppose this omnibus appropriations 
bill. It has become something of an annual event to consider these 
massive, must-pass measures. Because this particular bill has come to 
us in the form of a conference report, we are unable to even offer an 
amendment to the legislation. Those who crafted this measure are, of 
course, fully aware that this bill is completely shielded, and as a 
result they were free to include numerous provisions that would 
certainly have generated amendments were they to come to the body in an 
amendable vehicle.
  There are many questionable provisions, all of them safe from the 
scrutiny that the amendment process affords. There will be a few 
editorials written lamenting some of these provisions, but that will be 
it. Absent some extraordinary action by Congress, they will become law 
along with the rest of this measure.
  Others will detail the billions of dollars of unauthorized, earmarked 
spending included in this bill. Let me just note that these 
questionable provisions come at a very real cost. First and foremost, 
by approving these provisions, Congress shirks its duty as stewards of 
the taxpayers' money. We have an obligation to our constituents to 
ensure that the money we levy in taxes is spent wisely.
  Beyond that, by providing funding for these unauthorized, earmarked 
programs, we are diverting funds from areas that our constituents have 
told us are true priorities. I am deeply concerned, for example, about 
the level of funding provided for the National Institutes of Health, 
NIH. Providing an increase of less than 3 percent is not sufficient to 
maintain the current pace of biomedical research.
  I am pleased to have supported successful recent efforts to double 
the NIH budget, and abruptly slowing the growth of the NIH will 
undermine the progress that has been made through this doubling. It is 
important that we provide NIH with the funding it needs to ensure that 
we receive the extraordinary health and economic benefits that this 
vital biomedical research provides.
  At a time when our country is facing increases in the number of 
people diagnosed with serious, costly diseases such as cancer, 
Alzheimer's disease, heart disease and diabetes, as well as an ever-
present bioterrorism threat, biomedical research needs to be a national 
priority, and as such it needs to be adequately funded.
  Devoting billions of dollars to unauthorized special interest 
earmarks also means less funding for our children. Again this year, 
Congress and the administration have underfunded elementary and 
secondary education programs. As schools around our country settle in 
to their third year under the No Child Left Behind Act, NCLB, we will 
pass an appropriations measure that does not give states and districts 
the funding that we promised them in exchange for higher accountability 
standards. The law requires that States and districts comply with NCLB 
as a condition of receiving funding, yet we are not providing them the 
promised resources that will help them to succeed. And I am concerned 
that the NCLB accountability structure will sanction schools that fail 
to meet adequate yearly progress despite the fact that Congress is not 
providing these important resources.

  In addition, just 1 day after the Senate and the House passed the 
conference report reauthorizing the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act, we will pass an omnibus spending bill that underfunds 
the fiscal year 2005 authorization level contained in that very 
conference report.
  Again we are failing to provide the full 40 percent of special 
education costs promised to the States when IDEA was enacted in 1975, 
and, ironically, we are doing it 1 day after telling States that the 
IDEA conference report puts them on the path to full funding in 6 
years. The IDEA reauthorization conference report authorized $12.3 
billion for fiscal year 2005, and the omnibus spending bill before us 
contains $11.5 billion for this purpose. Thus, before the ink on the 
IDEA conference report is even dry, we are already breaking a promise 
contained in it to the tune of more than $800 million.
  I regret that the Senate missed an opportunity earlier this year to 
make

[[Page S11746]]

special education spending mandatory, and I regret that the well-
intentioned authorization levels in the IDEA conference report are 
becoming little more than an empty promise 24 hours after the Senate 
and the House agreed to these funding levels.
  As bad as what is in this omnibus appropriations bill is what is not 
in it. The administration was again successful in blocking language 
included in the both the House bill and the committee-passed bill in 
the Senate that would have reversed the harmful provisions of the 
Department of Labor's new overtime rule. Despite repeated bipartisan 
opposition to this rule in both houses of Congress, the small group of 
Members who drafted the omnibus conference report stripped out these 
provisions, which would have prevented millions of workers from losing 
their overtime benefits under the Bush Administration's rule. I am 
disturbed that--for the second year in a row--an omnibus appropriations 
conference report was used as a vehicle to override the will of a 
majority of Members of both houses with respect to this harmful rule.
  And, I am disappointed that the conferees chose to delete language 
that would have halted the administration's campaign to contract out 
additional Federal jobs to the private sector. Federal employees should 
have the right to compete for their jobs on a level playing field.
  In addition, I continue to oppose the Administration's efforts to 
reclassify thousands of jobs that are critical to our national security 
as not ``inherently governmental'' in nature in order make these jobs 
eligible to be contracted out.
  I also want to especially note that because this omnibus 
appropriations bill comes to us in an unamendable form, there will not 
be a rollcall vote on the automatic, back door Member pay raise. As my 
colleagues know, that issue is germane to the Treasury-Transportation 
Appropriations bill and thus an amendment forcing a vote on the Member 
pay raise can be offered to that bill without being subject to a point 
of order. But, because the Treasury-Transportation bill has been folded 
into this omnibus package, no one will be able to offer an amendment to 
force a vote on what will be a roughly $4,000 pay raise that is 
scheduled to go into effect in January.
  This is not the first time the Member pay raise has been shielded in 
this manner. In one instance, the Treasury-Postal bill was slipped into 
the conference report on the Legislative Branch appropriations bill, 
and thus completely shielded from amendment. And during 2002, the 
Senate did not consider the Treasury-Postal bill at all.
  This makes getting a vote on the annual congressional pay raise a 
haphazard affair at best. And it should not be that way. No one should 
have to force a debate and public vote on the pay raise. On the 
contrary, Congress should have to act if it decides to award itself a 
hike in pay. This process of pay raises without accountability must 
end. I have introduced legislation to do just that, but until that 
legislation is enacted, Senate leadership should not shield the 
Treasury-Transportation appropriations bill from amendments.
  Finally, let me join others in expressing my concern about inclusion 
of a provision in this bill that could reduce access to the full 
spectrum of reproductive health services. This provision is far too 
controversial to be shoved into a must-pass Government spending bill, 
especially when the committee with jurisdiction did not have a chance 
to consider it and the Senate did not have a chance to debate it.
  Mr. President, the appropriations process needs reform. I have been 
pleased to join the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici in advocating 
biennial budgeting, and certainly we need to seriously consider that 
reform. I have also joined with my good friend, the Senator from 
Arizona, Mr. McCain, in advocating a change to Senate rules that would 
permit points of order to be raised against many of these extraneous, 
unauthorized earmarks, and this body should seriously consider that 
reform as well.
  The Senate needs to act on those reforms and others before we 
consider another one of these giant, must-pass omnibus appropriations 
bills.
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I want to concur with 
the statement issued earlier by Chairman Grassley of the Senate Finance 
Committee regarding section 222 of this bill.
  I don't understand the reasoning or motivation behind this provision. 
But it is clear that it could be easily abused.
  This is a great example of how the process is inadequate in terms of 
passing legislation without legitimate input from the Members of this 
body.
  The thought of an individual Member of a legislative body, including 
this one, having access to tax records of individual Americans is 
unacceptable and must be changed; but equally importantly the process 
needs to be changed.
  I am not attributing bad motives, but this must be changed and I take 
the chairman of the Appropriations Committee at his word that it will 
be changed.
  We need to change this process to ensure mistakes like this are not 
made in the future.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to briefly express my 
concern with section 205(d) of the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act. This subsection addresses endangered species issues 
in the Middle Rio Grande in New Mexico.
  These issues, particularly in the midst of an ongoing drought, have 
been very controversial in my home State. Over the last year or 2, 
however, there has been a commitment by the diverse stakeholders and 
interest groups in the Middle Rio Grande region to cooperate on 
creative approaches that would address endangered species needs. These 
approaches all have the goal of balancing the need for environmental 
restoration with a recognition of the need to protect the interests of 
water users who are dependent on the limited supply provided by the Rio 
Grande.
  One thing that has helped to foster this cooperative approach is to 
fully and completely discuss the different issues facing the 
stakeholders. This process has included legislation. Last year, the New 
Mexico delegation collaborated on a legislative provision that was a 
response to a controversial court decision affecting water use in the 
Middle Rio Grande. While this effort was not without some controversy, 
the end product was the result of much discussion and debate, and 
seemed to be accepted, even embraced, by most of the stakeholders.
  Section 205(d) of the Energy and Water bill, while somewhat innocuous 
on its face, undermines the practice of full disclosure and debate. The 
provision provides the biological opinion controlling water operations 
in the Middle Rio Grande, with full protection from legal challenge for 
a period of 10-years--the effective timeframe of the opinion. In last 
year's appropriation bill, we provided a maximum of 2 years of 
protection, which was the most controversial aspect of the provision.
  I am concerned that this provision, that will most certainly be 
enacted into law without any notice or significant comment, may disrupt 
the cooperative environment that has developed over the last few years. 
If so, it would be a most unfortunate turn of events. The biological 
opinion, at least up until now, appears to be effective in allowing 
water use in the Middle Rio Grande to continue without jeopardizing the 
existence of the endangered species in the region. That is a positive 
step. Moreover, given the progress being made and the cooperative 
methods being employed, section 205(d)'s 8-year extension of a 
controversial provision, is an unnecessary distraction at this point in 
time.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I want to address a troubling provision 
in the Criminal-Justice-State, CJS, Appropriations bill, contained in 
the omnibus, that applies to any nonprofit legal services organization 
receiving funding from the Legal Services Commission, (LSC). This 
``private money restriction'' precludes these nonprofits from using any 
of their private funds--including individual donations, foundation 
grants, and State and local government funds--for any non-LSC-qualified 
services.
  The private money restriction places an unfair and costly burden on 
private and other non-Federal funds dedicated to helping families in 
need. As a result of the private money restriction, most

[[Page S11747]]

civil legal services providers are forced to stop providing non-LSC-
qualified services altogether. Many of the most vulnerable individuals 
and families--such as certain legal immigrants, including some battered 
women and children, mothers in prison trying to maintain visitation and 
custody of their children, and elderly homeowners seeking to file class 
actions to protect themselves from predatory lenders--find themselves 
without access to legal services at all.
  LSC has attempted a ``fix'' for this problem by allowing 
organizations to use their own private funds for non-LSC-qualified 
services only if they create physically separate nonprofits with 
separate staff, offices and equipment. Wasting scarce private resources 
on duplicate staff and offices adds significant costs and results in 
fewer families being served.
       Congress can provide a real ``fix'' for this problem by 
     amending the CJS Appropriations bill to treat the privately 
     funded activities of legal aid nonprofits equally with the 
     privately funded activities of other nonprofits. In 
     particular, we can require LSC grantees to abide by the same 
     longstanding rules promulgated by the Office of Management 
     and Budget for nonprofit grantees of Federal agencies and by 
     the IRS for all nonprofit 501(c)(3) and (c)(4) organizations, 
     as well as new rules promulgated by the Bush administration 
     for faith-based groups. These rules authorize nonprofits 
     receiving Federal funds to engage in various privately funded 
     activities without requiring them to maintain physically 
     separate entities with separate staff and equipment.
       Under this alternative approach, the restrictions on 
     Federal LSC funds would still apply, whether one agrees with 
     them or not, but they would allow local providers and donors 
     to use private money to serve their communities as they see 
     fit. I hope that in future discussions about the CJS 
     Appropriations bill, we can consider this alternative 
     approach to the problems that this bill will create for 
     America's families and service providers.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am pleased to see that Section 219 of 
Title 2 of this Act includes the statutory language necessary to 
authorize and implement a Non-Pollock Groundfish Fishing Capacity 
Reduction Program for the catcher processor sector of the Bering Sea 
and Aleutian Islands SAI This program represents a positive step 
forward for the Puget Sound-based commercial fishing industry. Passage 
of this Act concludes more than a year-long effort to craft an 
appropriate capacity reduction program for the catcher processor sector 
of the BSAI non-pollock groundfish fisheries.
  Reducing capacity in these fisheries will improve the ability of the 
North Pacific Fishery Management Council to manage the groundfish stock 
and contribute to the long term economic viability of the many 
businesses and people involved in the harvesting, processing and 
delivery of the highest quality seafood products to consumers. This is 
important not just to the fishermen who take such great risks up in the 
frigid waters of the North Pacific, but to the myriad of small 
businesses throughout the Puget Sound region that support this 
industry: ship repair yards, equipment suppliers, insurance brokers, 
transportation companies, and marketers.
  My predecessor, Warren Magnuson, set out 24 years ago to put in place 
a system to Americanize and manage our nation fishery resources. His 
hard work and vision, championed also by a young Senator from Alaska, 
Ted Stevens, led to the innovative regional council structure we know 
today. I am proud that the North Pacific Council has managed the 
fisheries in its jurisdiction so successfully that it is singled out in 
this country as a model for maintaining sustainable fisheries.
  Despite the success of the North Pacific Council in maintaining 
healthy fish stocks, there have been problems in the region as a result 
of overcapacity in the fishing fleets. The North Pacific Council has 
addressed many issues to help prevent overcapitalization, including 
license programs and limited entry requirements, but once there are too 
many fishing vessels it becomes a very challenging problem. These are 
situations where development of fisheries has outpaced the ability of 
the resource to support, either biologically or economically, the 
fleets of fishing vessels built to harvest this national resource. 
There is a Federal nexus here, when overcapitalization is the result of 
Federal programs or Federal management decisions. Congress has a record 
of stepping in when needed to assist in resolving these problems, and 
this Act follows the American Fisheries Act, the West Coast Groundfish 
Buyback, and the Crab Buyback in the North Pacific.
  I disagree with those who say that this is a problem caused by the 
fishermen alone, and that they should bear the brunt of any economic 
consequences of an overcapitalized fishery. Yes, they do have 
responsibilities, and this bill makes them part of the solution. It is 
the remaining fishermen who will be responsible for repaying the loans 
used to reduce capacity in the fleets. That is an investment from them 
to preserve their future in these fisheries, and it will contribute to 
the broader economic stability of the Puget Sound region.
  I must add that fisheries legislation is never easy to draft. It is a 
very technical subject overlaid with the very lively history of 
participants in the fisheries. As Maggie noted on the eve of passage of 
the original fisheries management act:

       We cannot satisfy everybody. I know fishermen pretty well. 
     They are pretty hard to get to agree on a lot of things. They 
     are independent people.

  This sentiment remains very much true today. We have worked hard to 
accommodate a variety of perspectives in this bill, and I am satisfied 
that the results are positive.
  The Non-Pollock Groundfish Fishing Capacity Reduction Program for the 
catcher processor sector of the BSAI authorized in this Act is a 
legitimate use of Federal resources to restore balance in these 
fisheries and to promote their long term viability. I look forward to 
working with the people in the fishery and representatives from the 
National Marine Fisheries Service and the North Pacific Council to 
implement this program consistent with the intent of Congress.
  The purpose of this program is to reduce excess harvesting capacity 
in the catcher processor sector of the BSAI non-pollock groundfish 
fisheries. Reducing excess harvesting capacity will contribute to the 
future rationalization and long term stability of these fisheries. This 
statement is intended to clarify certain provisions contained in the 
Act and to facilitate its prompt implementation.
  Subsection (a) provides definitions relevant to this Act and defines 
the four subsectors participating in the capacity reduction program: 
AFA trawl catcher processors, longline catcher processors, non-AFA 
trawl catcher processors, and pot catcher processors.
  Subsection (b) authorizes a $75 million capacity reduction program 
for the BSAI non-pollock groundfish fisheries.
  Subsection (c) allocates the $75 million in loan authority among the 
four catcher processor subsectors to reflect their relative 
participation in the non-pollock groundfish fisheries: $36 million to 
the longline catcher processor subsector; $31 million to the non-AFA 
trawl catcher processor subsector; $6 million to the AFA trawl catcher 
processor subsector; and $2 million to the pot catcher processor 
subsector. In the event any of the subsectors does not use the funds 
allocated to them by January 1, 2009, then any remaining funds roll 
over to a fund available to all four subsectors.
  Subsection (d) establishes the basic contractual relationship between 
members of a subsector who choose to participate in a capacity 
reduction plan by agreeing to sell their license, their vessel, or 
both, to the Federal Government. Before the Secretary may disburse 
funds, a seller must enter into a binding reduction contract with the 
Federal Government, subject only to approval of a capacity reduction 
plan pursuant to a referendum described in subsection (e). The binding 
reduction contract must include provisions governing revocation of all 
Federal fishing licenses, fishing permits, and area endorsements issued 
for a vessel, and if relevant, the scrapping of a vessel, that is 
purchased through a capacity reduction plan authorized by this Act. It 
is intended that licenses currently attached to a vessel and all 
associated vessel catch history will be retired.

  It is anticipated that the subsectors will use their loan authority 
to reduce both active and latent capacity. The importance of 
encouraging the elimination of latent licenses is to prevent the re-
capitalization of the fishery from within the fleet. The August 2004

[[Page S11748]]

Department of Commerce report on addressing overcapitalized fisheries, 
U.S. Action National Plan of Action for the Management of Fishing 
Capacity, identifies latent capacity as a serious problem to be 
addressed in capacity reduction programs. The report cautions that 
simply targeting active vessels with large catch histories may result 
in ctivating the latent boats and licenses, and frustrating the intent 
of the buyback effort. Unless latent capacity is addressed, the goal of 
the Non-Pollock Groundfish Fishing Capacity Reduction Program will be 
undermined.
  When dealing with active capacity, a participant will sell both a 
vessel and its qualified licenses. However, when eliminating latent 
capacity, there may be circumstances where only a license is purchased 
through the capacity reduction program. This could occur when a vessel 
has sunk or was otherwise destroyed by fire or accident, and is not 
presently active in the BSAI non-pollock groundfish fisheries. There 
also will be circumstances where vessels have little or no catch 
history, but have qualified for a license. In this situation such 
vessels and licenses represent another form of latent capacity and 
should be targeted in specific capacity reduction plans. In some cases 
there may be no current vessel named on a qualified license. The price 
paid to purchase such licenses associated with a sunk or destroyed 
vessel is expected to be less than the price paid for an active vessel 
and its licenses.
  Subsection (e)(1) establishes a framework within which individual 
subsectors may develop capacity reduction plans. This includes a fee 
system that will repay the full amount of a capacity reduction loan 
amount in a timely fashion. The subsectors may use negotiations, 
bidding systems, a reverse auction, or other methods appropriate for 
identifying excess capacity to be reduced. This flexible approach is 
intended to utilize the knowledge and incentives of the participants in 
a subsector to develop capacity reduction programs that maximize the 
elimination of excess fishing capacity at the least cost and in the 
shortest time.
  Subsection (e)(2) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to review and 
approve capacity reduction plans devised by each subsector. Once a 
subsector completes its capacity reduction plan, it is submitted to the 
Secretary for review to determine consistency with this Act. Subsection 
(e)(2)(A-E) sets forth the requirements for Secretarial approval. To 
approve a subsector capacity reduction plan, the Secretary must 
determine that plan is consistent with the requirements of subsection 
(b) of section 312 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, with certain exceptions 
spelled out in this Act. Each subsector plan must include a fee system 
for full and timely repayment of the loan, and must achieve the maximum 
sustained reduction in fishing capacity for the least cost in the 
minimum amount of time. Maximum sustained reduction may be demonstrated 
through a showing that the vessels and licenses to be purchased will 
achieve the greatest reduction in harvest capacity through use of the 
loan authority available to a subsector. Data related to vessel catch 
history and performance capabilities may be used to satisfy this 
provision.
  Subsection (e)(2)(E) expressly allows subsectors covered by this Act 
to upgrade their vessels to achieve efficiencies in fishing operations. 
This provision does not alter the existing statutory or regulatory 
restrictions on vessel length, tonnage or horsepower. The North Pacific 
Council retains authority to tailor vessel upgrades to meet the goals 
of fisheries management plans within its jurisdiction.
  Subsection (e)(3) authorizes the Secretary to oversee referenda by 
each subsector to approve capacity reduction plans and requires the 
Secretary to notify subsector participants of an upcoming referendum. 
Following secretarial review and approval of a subsector capacity 
reduction plan, the Secretary is required to notify, to the extent 
practicable, all members of the subsector affected by such plan. The 
Secretary notice will include information on the proposed fee system, 
the schedule, procedures, and eligibility requirements for 
participation in a subsector referendum, and an estimate of the 
capacity to be reduced. This is purely a notice requirement--not a 
rulemaking--and it is not required to be published in the Federal 
Register.
  Subsection (e)(4)(A) authorizes the Secretary to implement the 
individual subsectors capacity reduction plans. Within 90 days after a 
successful referendum, the Secretary is required to publish in the 
Federal Register a notice that includes the specific terms and 
conditions governing the purchase of licenses and vessels and a 
description of the fee system established for repayment of the loan. 
This is not a rulemaking. The purpose of this notice is to provide a 
public record of what has been purchased and how the loan is to be 
repaid.
  Subsection (e)(4)(B) expresses the intent of Congress that Section 
312(e) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act not apply to the capacity reduction 
plans governed by this Act.
  Section (e)(5) establishes the authority of the Secretary to collect 
fees from the remaining members of a subsector necessary to repay the 
debt obligations incurred as a result of an approved capacity reduction 
plan. It is intended that the Secretary exercise this authority through 
regulations that will govern the fee collection system and ensure that 
the Federal Government can collect such fees. These regulations will 
bind the remaining members of a subsector and obligate them to repay 
the capacity reduction loan. Revenues to cover the loan repayment fees 
will be derived from the sale of fish harvested in the BSAI non-pollock 
groundfish fisheries.
  Subsection (f) establishes the required actions by entities other 
than the Secretary to impose restrictions on vessels, revoke licenses 
and associated fishing rights, and scrap vessels. Subsection (f)(1)(A) 
requires the National Vessel Documentation Center, at the request of 
the Secretary, to revoke any fishery endorsements issued to a vessel 
under section 12108 of Title 46, U.S.C. It is expected that the 
National Vessel Documentation Center will annotate each buyback vessel 
documentation with language provided by the Secretary to notify future 
purchasers that they will not be able to receive any fishery 
endorsements. Subsections (f)(1)(B and C) require the Maritime 
Administration to restrict a vessel to U.S. flag status and refuse to 
grant approval for foreign registration or operation under foreign 
authority by such vessel. Subsection (f)(2) requires that vessels 
purchased under this Act designated for scrapping conform to the 
procedures established for a reduction vessel under section 600.1011(c) 
of Title 50, CFR. Scrapping of vessels pursuant to this provision shall 
be overseen by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration--
NOAA--and performed consistent with NOAA requirements. The cost to 
scrap a vessel will be paid by the buyback participant.
  Subsection (g)(1) specifies the eligibility criteria for 
participation in the BSAI Non-Pollock Groundfish Fishing Capacity 
Reduction Program. It also limits participation in the BSAI non-pollock 
groundfish fishery to ensure the goal of capacity reduction is 
achieved.
  Subsection (g)(2) expresses the sense of Congress that the North 
Pacific Council continue with its efforts to rationalize the BSAI non-
pollock groundfish fisheries. This statement is intended to reinforce 
the Council commitment to adopt such management measures necessary to 
promote stability in these fisheries. This includes final action in a 
timely fashion on Amendments 80a and 80b, and the development and 
approval of sector allocations for the BSAI Pacific cod fishery. It is 
the understanding of Congress that the North Pacific Council will take 
final action on Amendments 80a and 80b by the fall of 2005, and adopt 
BSAI Pacific cod sector allocations by the end of 2005. Amendments 80a 
and 80b are particularly important to the non-AFA trawl catcher 
processor subsector as this fleet seeks to comply with the North 
Pacific Council pending Improved Retention/Improved Utilization--IR/
IU--requirements. It is essential that the North Pacific Council take 
final action on Amendments 80a and 80b prior to implementing new IR/IU 
requirements.
  Subsection (g)(2)(B) makes clear that subsectors who eliminate excess 
capacity through a capacity reduction plan authorized by this Act not 
be penalized by the North Pacific Council. This provision is intended 
to discourage the Council from reducing a subsector

[[Page S11749]]

BSAI non-pollock groundfish allocations as a result of that subsector 
reduction of fishing effort through programs authorized under this Act. 
This does not preclude the North Pacific Council from exercising its 
authority to manage these fisheries, including taking actions to 
address bycatch concerns or changes in stock levels. In addition, this 
Subsection would not prevent the North Pacific Council from raising the 
CDQ share of the harvest for this fishery consistent with past Bering 
Sea and Aleutian Islands rationalization efforts or as part of any 
eventual rationalization process.
  Subsection (h) requires the Secretary to report annually to the 
relevant Congressional oversight committees on the implementation of 
this Act. Reports shall include details on the individual capacity 
reduction plans, an assessment of their cost-effectiveness, and the 
achievement of the goals set forth in section 312(b) of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I comment on the portion of the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 that reauthorizes the Small 
Business Administration. Of particular importance to me is the 
inclusion of many aspects of my prior bills, the Small Business 
Administration 50th Anniversary Reauthorization Act of 2003, S.1375, 
which was approved by the Senate on September 26, 2003 by unanimous 
consent, and of my more recent SBA bill, the Small Business 
Reauthorization and Manufacturing Assistance Act of 2004, S.2821. These 
provisions reauthorize for 2 years the programs administered by the 
Small Business Administration under the Small Business Act and the 
Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and contain significant 
improvements to the SBA's lending and technical assistance programs.
  For over a year, I have worked with the House Small Business 
Committee and the administration, making numerous attempts to 
accommodate my colleagues and to resolve outstanding issues that 
blocked the passage of a comprehensive bill. Various forms of my 
original bill have been introduced over this period in order to help 
move the other body's stalled legislation, while in the meantime our 
Nation's small businesses have waited to receive the benefits of 
improved SBA services that are contained in this bill.
  The vast majority of businesses in each State in this country are 
small businesses. In Maine, 98 percent of businesses are small 
businesses. By enacting these provisions Congress is fulfilling its 
obligation in helping our entrepreneurs reach their American dream.
  The SBA is a vital resource not only for our Nation's 25 million 
small businesses, but also for the millions of Americans relying upon 
small business ownership as an alternative to the ``traditional 
workplace'' where corporate America once offered life-long futures for 
workers.
  The SBA's fundamental purpose is to ``aid, counsel, assist, and 
protect the interests of small-business concerns.'' The methods for 
carrying out Congress mandates include a wide array of financial, 
procurement, management, and technical assistance programs tailored to 
encourage small business growth and expansion. As the economy continues 
to recover and grow, it is essential that Congress send a message that 
affirms long-term stability in the programs the SBA provides to the 
small business community.
  In the 50-year period since the establishment of the SBA, there have 
been many revisions and additions to the methods and organizational 
structure used by the SBA to respond to the evolving needs of small 
business. This bill builds upon those changes creating a stronger 
foundation for the SBA to deliver its programs.
  Since 1953, nearly 20 million small business owners have received 
direct or indirect help from one of the SBA's lending or technical 
assistance programs, making the agency one of the government's most 
cost-effective instruments for economic development.
  The SBA current loan portfolio of more than 200,000 loans, worth more 
than $45 billion, makes it the largest single supporter of small 
businesses in the country. Last year alone, lenders have made 83,912 
loans to small businesses in the SBA's two major loan programs, with a 
total value of $16.5 billion.
  Moreover, the SBA Small Business Investment Company program's current 
portfolio of more than 16,900 financings with an initial investment 
amount of $17.2 billion makes it the largest single equity-type backer 
of U.S. businesses in the Nation. Since 1958 the venture capital 
program has put more than $42.3 billion into the hands of small 
business owners, and this year it has produced investments of more than 
$2.6 billion in small businesses.

  The SBA estimates that in the last fiscal year its loan and venture 
capital programs have provided small businesses with $19.7 billion in 
various forms of financing, enabling small businesses to create or 
retain 716,144 jobs.
  In my home state of Maine alone, almost 2,500 SBA loans have been 
provided since 1999, for a total of over $288 million, to small 
businesses that might not have qualified for loans through alternative 
channels. These loans are critical to providing capital to small 
businesses in every state and now more will be available to them for 
supplying this country with additional production, jobs, and income.
  Through a great deal of hard work, many aspects of S.1375 that 
improved the SBA's largest loan program--the 7(a) program--were 
included in the omnibus package. To give you some examples, a National 
Preferred Lenders Pilot Program will be created, in which lenders 
already operating as Preferred Lenders in the 7(a) program in many 
districts can be granted Preferred Lender status on a nation-wide 
rather than district-by-district basis, thereby greatly increasing the 
program's efficiency. The maximum size of 7(a) Express loans have been 
increased from $250,000 to $350,000 and the maximum 7(a) guarantee is 
increased from $1 million to $1.5 million.
  The SBA 504 loan program, which supports real estate and machinery 
investments, will also benefit. The maximum 504 guarantee, previously 
$1 million, is increased to $1.5 million for a general 504 guarantee 
and $4 million for a guarantee that supports a manufacturing project. 
For a loan that supports one of the nine ``public-policy'' goals named 
in the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, the maximum guarantee is 
increased from $1.3 million to $2 million.
  Let me share some additional highlights of the provisions that are 
included.
  As Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and 
Entrepreneurship, co-chair of the Senate Task Force on Manufacturing, 
and Senator from a state with a rich manufacturing history, I am keenly 
aware that our nation's economy and security depends on our industrial 
base.
  Unfortunately, manufacturing jobs in the United States have declined 
since their historic peak in 1979 and that loss has accelerated in 
recent years. Small business manufacturers constitute over 98 percent 
of our nation's manufacturing enterprises. It is impossible to 
overstate the role of small manufacturers within the overall 
manufacturing industry and our nation's economy.
  The bill includes a section that derives from S. 1977, the Small 
Manufacturers Assistance, Recovery, and Trade, SMART Act, which I and 
original cosponsor Senator George V. Voinovich introduced on November 
25, 2003. Specifically, it establishes a Small Business Manufacturing 
Task Force within the Small Business Administration, charged with 
ensuring that the administration is properly addressing the particular 
needs of small manufacturers.
  I am also particularly pleased that the Omnibus bill contains $109 
million for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, a cost-effective, 
public-private partnership that helps small and medium-sized American 
manufacturers modernize to compete in the demanding global marketplace.
  The MEP's funding had been drastically reduced in 2004, dropping 
to $39.6 million from a previous level of $106 million. Those drastic 
cuts threatened to destroy the MEP program, which is relied upon by 
small manufacturers across our nation.

  At a time when these manufacturers are facing an unprecedented level 
of competition from across the globe, it is vital that we continue to 
provide them the tools and resources that allow them to remain 
competitive and to

[[Page S11750]]

continue to provide well paying jobs to millions across our country.
  For our veterans who give so much to our nation and who continue to 
take risks on the battlegrounds of the business world, the bill 
includes language that I originally included in S. 1375, extending the 
Advisory Committee on Veterans Affairs as a separate entity to continue 
its functions through September 30, 2006.
  The Advisory Committee responsibilities include providing better 
assistance and support to veterans who are forming and expanding small 
businesses, and providing advice to Congress and the Small Business 
Administration on policy initiatives to promote veteran 
entrepreneurship.
  With this legislation, Congress is also taking important steps 
towards fulfilling its promises to pry open the doors of public 
procurement for small businesses. Small entrepreneurs continue to face 
persistent barriers in accessing government prime contracts and 
subcontracts. Many of these barriers have been erected in the middle of 
the very programs designed to assist small entrepreneurs who are socio-
economically disadvantaged or who do business in Historically 
Underutilized Business Zones. Therefore, it has been no surprise that 
the Federal Government has never come close to satisfying its statutory 
HUBZone prime contracting goals.
  Among other items taken from my earlier SBA bill, S.2821, this bill 
expands the definition of HUBZone-eligible firms to promote inflow of 
capital to HUBZone areas, tap the potential of small agricultural 
cooperatives, and place tribally-owned HUBzone firms on equal footing 
with other participants. It also extends the HUBzone program to 
military base closure areas such as the former Loring Air Force Base 
and protects companies located in rural HUBZone areas like Aroostook 
County, ME, from losses of their HUBZone status due to area 
redesignations. Duplicative paperwork burdens imposed on 8(a) firms 
trying to do business with state and local governments are also being 
lifted.
  Mr. President, I would also like to comment on the funding levels 
provided for the SBA in this bill. Since FY 2001, funding for the SBA 
has decreased by more than 32 percent, the largest decrease of any 
agency funded with discretionary spending. I understand the need to be 
particularly fiscally responsible this year, given the size of the 
deficit, but such a large cut to programs that focus on creating jobs 
is a mistake.
  The funding included for the SBA Microloan program will provided 
entrepreneurs with a source of financing when no other options are 
available. With over $27 million in loan provided through this program 
last year, I am satisfied that the bill closely reflects my funding 
request.
  I am pleased with the funding levels provided for the SBA technical 
assistance programs, especially the funding provided for the Women's 
Business Center program. During this Congress, I worked with the 
administration and the House of Representatives to pass legislation 
that would sustained funding for the most experienced centers.
  With women-owned firms generating almost $2.5 trillion in revenues 
and employing more than 19 million workers, they are the fastest 
growing segment of today's economy. In my home state of Maine alone, 
more than 63,000 women-owned firms generate more than $9 billion in 
sales. The funding included in this bill for these centers ensures that 
there are resources available to continue creating success stories for 
America's women entrepreneurs.

  I am deeply concerned that the final Omnibus bill did not reflect the 
Senate bill and include funding for the SBIR and STTR programs of $2 
million and $250,000 respectively. These programs facilitated over $1.5 
billion in government research and development grants to small 
businesses. Moreover, since the inception of the program in 1982, SBIR 
firms have produced more than 4,100 patents. Without the funding for 
these programs not only do our small businesses suffer but so does our 
nation. These programs capitalize on the small business sector's 
innovative potential. Technological innovation creates jobs, improves 
our way of life, and helps American companies maintain their 
competitive advantage.
  I applaud America's small businesses that continue to rise to the 
challenge of keeping this country innovative and strong. Three to four 
million new business start-ups each year and 1 in 25 adult Americans 
accept the risks of starting a business. Today's small business owners 
are making plans for tomorrow, including decisions that will create 
approximately two-thirds of all net new jobs helping to sustain local 
communities, according to a recent National Federation of Independent 
Business survey.
  Over the last 5 years the SBA's programs and services have helped 
create and retain over 6.2 million jobs. According to the SBA, the 
$65.5 billion awarded to small businesses in Federal prime and 
subcontracts in FY 2003 will create or retain close to 500,000 jobs. 
This bill should bring about similar or even greater results in the 
next few years.
  Too much was at stake for small businesses, and the economy as a 
whole, to allow SBA reauthorization to languish. It was time for 
Congress to find essential agreement and fulfill its obligation to 
America's small businesses. Clearly, if we strove for anything less, 
we'd have failed to support the backbone of our economy, our hope for 
innovation and new technology, and our small firms that employ millions 
across the nation.
  Again, I thank my colleagues who joined me in supporting this crucial 
legislation, thereby bolstering American small businesses and 
protecting Americans' dreams.
  Mr. President, Division K of H.R. 4818, the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act for 2005, contains the Small Business 
Reauthorization and Manufacturing Assistance Act of 2004. Since the Act 
was incorporated directly into the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 
2005, no committee report accompanies the legislation.
  As Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and 
Entrepreneurship, I am submitting for insertion in the Record, the 
attached explanation of Division K. I would expect the administrator of 
the Small Business Administration, in implementing the provisions of 
this act, to accord the enclosed explanation the same weight in 
divining congressional intent that the administrator would give to 
language in a conference report. This expectation is particularly 
appropriate in this circumstance because the provisions were negotiated 
and agreed to in cooperation with my counterpart in the United States 
House of Representatives.
  The Small Business Administration 50th Anniversary Reauthorization 
Act of 2003, S.1375, is a bill to reauthorize most programs at the SBA 
for Fiscal Years 2004, 2005, and 2006. Additionally, the bill makes 
changes to various existing programs and authorizes several new pilot 
initiatives. S.1375 was adopted by the Senate Committee on Small 
Business and Entrepreneurship by a unanimous vote of 19-0.
  S. 1375 was the product of a series of hearings and roundtable 
discussions that the committee held in 2003 on a wide spectrum of 
issues and SBA programs.
  The committee completed its series of hearings and roundtables on SBA 
reauthorization with a hearing on June 4, 2003, that included SBA 
Administrator Hector Barreto. This hearing provided an additional 
opportunity for the agency to respond to issues raised during the 
previous roundtable discussions, discuss its legislative package that 
was submitted to the Committee for review, and comment on the 
President's fiscal year 2004 budget submission. The hearing also 
examined a number of agency management issues including the SBA's 
efforts to obtain a clean audit opinion on financial statements, 
implementation of a loan monitoring system, and workforce 
transformation plans.
  In addition to containing sections from the Small Business 
Administration 50th Anniversary Reauthorization Act of 2003, the 
Omnibus includes sections that derive from S. 1977, the Small 
Manufacturers Assistance, Recovery, and Trade (``SMART'') Act, offered 
by Senator Snowe and original cosponsor Senator George V. Voinovich, 
introduced on November 25, 2003.
  Examples of provisions from the SMART Act contained in the Omnibus 
are sections that increase manufacturers' access to capital, and a 
provision that creates a Small Business Manufacturing Task Force, 
within the SBA,

[[Page S11751]]

charged with ensuring that the SBA is properly addressing the 
particular needs of small manufacturers.
  Throughout the hearings and roundtables, the Committee's objectives 
have been to single out the SBA programs that work well, identify the 
reasons for their superior performance, and apply those principles to 
programs that need improvement. The voluminous amount of information 
that the Committee collected through the hearings and roundtable 
discussions held this year and in the previous Congress as well as 
information received directly from small business stakeholders has 
contributed greatly to achieving that goal and the results are 
reflected in the bill.
  While not all of the provisions of S.1375 are contained in Division K 
of H.R. 4818, I believe that by providing appropriate authorization 
levels, updating and improving SBA lending and technical assistance 
programs, and introducing new initiatives to assist America's 21st 
Century entrepreneurs, this bill will provide a sound foundation for 
the agency to begin its next 50 years of even greater service.
  I ask unanimous consent that immediately following these remarks an 
explanatory statement describing the small business provisions of H.R. 
4818 be printed in the Congressional Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                          ____________________