[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3991-4001]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, usually I begin my diatribes on the 
appropriations bill by lifting up the appropriations bill for all to 
see; one, it hasn't been delivered and, two, I note by the size of the 
existing copy down by the desk of the manager that it would be quite a 
task to pick up this year's appropriations bill. At my advanced age, I 
might be in danger of sustaining a hernia. But I still think that this 
probably is--if I may borrow a phrase from one of our longtime 
adversaries--the

[[Page 3992]]

mother of all appropriations bills. It is some 5,000 pages.
  I can safely say that I have not read it. My staff has been 
feverishly going through certain parts of it, each being parceled out. 
Clearly, we have a mammoth conference report on this omnibus 
appropriations legislation, which nobody has been able to review, 
examine, and debate. I say that not without sympathy for the Senator 
from Alaska, who is faced with a situation where negotiations--in fact, 
they are going on almost as we speak, or are being completed as we 
speak. Certainly, the reasons for the delay--some 4 months of delay--
was not under his control. But I want to discuss this very briefly in 
context.
  The context that we are looking at with this legislation is a huge 
looming deficit that is in front of us and growing in size almost as 
far as the eye can see. The eye used to be able to see for 10 years. 
Now we have changed the procedures where the eye can only see for 5 
years. But only a short time ago, we were awash in huge surpluses. I 
will never forget when Alan Greenspan testified before Congress in 
favor of the 2001 tax cuts because we wanted to make sure we didn't 
spend down the debt too fast. We didn't want to spend down that debt 
too quickly because that would have some bad effects on our economy.
  Well, we don't have to worry about spending the debt down too quickly 
now. In 2001, we had a $127 billion surplus. We are living in a 
different time now. The Congressional Budget Office recently forecast a 
larger than expected deficit of $199 billion for this year; and last 
week, with the result of the President's budget for 2004, the OMB 
projected record deficits of $304 billion this year and $307 billion 
next year.
  I have, as chairman of the Commerce Committee, seen enough of our 
needs for security and safety at our airports, railway stations, ports, 
all over America, to tell you that we have very large expenditures 
ahead of us. Those expenditures are justified when we are talking about 
the security of this Nation. The funding for the Transportation 
Security Administration was justified. I am proud that we not only 
passed the legislation, but we funded that enormous effort to ensure 
the security of our airports, which is still not complete. But the fact 
is, we will soon run out of borrowing authority and might have to look 
to other sources of funding, such as the Social Security trust fund, in 
the absence of a legislated increase in the debt ceiling.
  There are a lot of words that are not used anymore around here, but 
the one that has completely and totally disappeared is the good old 
``lockbox.'' I wonder what happened to the good old lockbox. That was 
the one we were going to put Americans' payments into Social Security 
into and we were never going to touch it again.
  Not only is our economy in distress, we are also one step closer to 
war. There are threats to national security that must be disposed of. 
Yet this appropriations bill, in my view, has not changed since last 
year. In fact, it is predictably about 11 times worse. The amounts 
associated with each earmark may not seem extravagant, but taken 
together they represent an incredible diversion away from Federal 
programs that have undergone the appropriate merit-based process.
  I have two problems with this process. One, of course, is the 
appropriating of moneys that are really unnecessary and unauthorized 
and wasteful, very wasteful, but also in this legislation are many 
fundamental policy changes and, of course, I object, as chairman of the 
Commerce Committee, that it didn't go through my committee. But I 
object to it even more when we have not had the open debate and votes 
taken on matters that have national implications that are fundamental 
policy decisions.
  Let's go back to some of the necessary earmarks: First, $280,000 for 
asparagus technology and production in Washington; $220,000 to research 
future foods in Illinois--only in Illinois, of course.
  My colleagues may note, as usual, the need for these earmarks are 
nearly always geographically based.
  Next is $700,000 for the Midwest poultry consortium in Iowa; $250,000 
for research on the interaction of grapefruit juice and drugs. I always 
wondered what kind of experiments these are. One of our all-time 
favorites, made famous a number of years ago, is money that was spent 
to study the effect on the ozone layer of flatulence in cows. One 
always wondered about the testing procedures used to determine those 
effects on the ozone layer. This is another one that intrigues the 
observer. Regarding the interaction of grapefruit juice and drugs, of 
course, one's imagination can be stimulated by the prospect of the 
interaction of grapefruit juice and drugs.
  Then we have $600,000 for tristate joint peanut research in Alabama; 
$500,000 for Missouri, Iowa, and Illinois Corn Growers Association for 
a pilot program to develop ``production protocols.''
  Again, I have to sometimes display my ignorance. I didn't know that 
in order to grow corn, there was a particular requirement for a 
protocol regarding production.
  I see that the Senator from Iowa just came on the floor. He may be 
able to illuminate me on the production protocols associated with corn 
growing. But whether he can or not, there will be $500,000 being split 
up between his State, Missouri, and Illinois to their corn growers 
associations. But this won't be an overall production protocol; this is 
only a pilot program. So I am sure there will be a great deal of 
additional money coming once we develop the pilot program for 
production protocols of growing corn.
  Next is $50,000 to combat ``feral hogs'' in Missouri. You know, 
somewhere I had a little depiction of feral hogs. I did not know that 
they were a threat to civilization as we know it, or at least enough to 
require $50,000 to combat feral hogs. Sometimes one would get the 
impression that perhaps the people in Illinois could fund their own 
combat scenario with feral hogs. Nonetheless, we will be coming in with 
50 grand to combat those feral hogs, which I am sure are a serious 
scourge.
  There is $500,000 to continue hybrid poplar research in Wisconsin. I 
am sure next year we will have a continued program to develop 
production protocols for growing corn; $2 million for the biomass 
gasification research facility in Birmingham, AL. Again, I look forward 
to seeing what that is all about.
  And then, staying right on this important mission of gasification, we 
have another $500,000 for the gasification of switchgrass in Iowa. 
Perhaps switchgrass can be part of the production protocol of corn. But 
one doesn't know; $1 million for the National Agricultural Based 
Industrial Lubricant Center; $10 million to develop a high-speed data 
transmission between the Library of Congress and education facilities, 
libraries, and networks serving western North Carolina. I did not know 
there was a special need in the western part of North Carolina, as 
there might have been for other parts of the country. But we will spend 
$10 million to do that; $500,000 to be split between the Alexandria 
Museum of Art and the New Orleans Museum of Art for activities relating 
to the celebration of the Louisiana Purchase bicentennial celebration; 
$200,000 for the replacement of Minton tile in the Capitol complex; $1 
million for a company called Culpepper Glass in Warrenton, VA, that 
produces glass display cases for the Library of Congress. I assume, of 
course, there is no other company that could produce glass display 
cases for the Library of Congress. That is why the Culpepper Glass 
Company in Warrenton, VA, had to be designated in this legislation; $3 
million for an award to the National Technology Transfer Center for a 
coal slurry impoundment pilot project in southern West Virginia; $1 
million for an automated nursery project in Mississippi; $500,000 for 
Vermillion Community College in Ely, MN, for the development of a 
professional forest harvester program.
  Mr. President, if my colleagues will indulge me, I have to go back to 
my favorite from last time for just a moment. I know the hour is late, 
but this is too much. We were able to keep, through very serious 
contemplation

[[Page 3993]]

and discussion among conferees, $1 million for a DNA bear sampling 
study in Montana; $1 million will be spent to sample the DNA of bears 
in Montana.
  Because these appropriations are never discussed with nonmembers of 
the Appropriations Committee, one can only imagine and conjure up an 
idea as to how this might be used. Approach a bear: That bear cub over 
there claims you are his father, and we need to take your DNA.
  Approach another bear: Two hikers had their food stolen by a bear, 
and we think it is you. We have to get the DNA. The DNA doesn't fit, 
you got to acquit, if I might.
  I think it is important to appreciate that this $1 million for a DNA 
bear sampling study could solve a lot of crime in Montana. It is a 
pretty high-crime area. It seems to me that is, indeed, a very 
worthwhile expenditure of the taxpayers' dollars.
  While we are at it, I want to jump out of line here a second: 
$202,500 to the National Peanut Festival Fairgrounds for the 
construction of the National Peanut Festival Agriculture Arena in 
Dothan, AL. I was interested in the National Peanut Festival. I did not 
see it much on television or hear much about it. So I went to the Web 
site, and I think you will be comforted to know we are spending this 
$202,500 for the 9-day celebration of the peanut harvest, which 
includes a variety of competitions, including recipe contests, beauty 
pageants, and tennis tournaments. Included for your viewing pleasure on 
this Web site is a very interesting picture. I am sorry my colleagues 
cannot see it, but I would be willing to provide them with copies, but 
there are three individuals standing by a contraption that I have not 
seen before, and it says farmers demonstrate antique peanut harvesting 
equipment at Pioneer Peanut Days. Again, it seems to me that is a 
worthwhile investment of $202,500.
  I have also one more that is kind of interesting: $900,000 for the 
Show-me Aquatic Center for Development; $900,000 for the Show-me 
Aquatic Center in Missouri. We found a picture of it. It says: ``Please 
Touch Me Museum, 210 North 21st Street, Philadelphia''--this is the 
270,000 Please Touch Me Museum, I apologize. That is for kids and 
grownups. Of course, I had that confused with the very important 
facility that is in Missouri. I certainly would not want to confuse the 
different States.
  One of the more remarkable aspects of this bill is in the HUD 
section, under EDI. There are 885 individual earmarks. Some of them are 
very interesting. Of course, there is $202,500 to continue the 
rehabilitation of the former Alaska Pulp Company mill site in Sitka, 
AK. I am reluctant to ask the Senator from Alaska how much that 
continuing rehabilitation is going to cost us overall.
  We have a lot of important construction: $45,000 for the city of 
Tuscumbia, AL, for construction of facilities associated with the Helen 
Keller Festival; $90,000 for the city of Prattville, AL, for the Boys 
and Girls Club of Prattville.
  I mentioned the peanut festival. Here are a couple new ones: $810,000 
for the city of St. Louis, MO, for lighting sidewalks, curb, and street 
furniture along Kings Highway Boulevard and Chippewa Street. It must be 
a fairly serious situation there that we need to spend $810,000 down 
there on Kings Highway Boulevard and Chippewa Street in St. Louis.
  I mentioned the Show-Me Aquatic Center in Missouri; $105,000 for the 
Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute in Columbia, MO, to 
analyze commercial shipping alternatives; $90,000 to the city of 
Natchez, MS, for a feasibility study to develop a slack water port. 
That is just for a feasibility study; $135,000 to the Culinary and 
Hospitality Academy Center of Las Vegas, NV, for construction related 
to the expansion of an education training center. For those of you who 
have not visited Las Vegas lately, I can tell you it is a very 
depressed and deprived area, and I can certainly understand why the 
Culinary and Hospitality Academy Center would need $135,000. I thought 
they could use some of mine.
  For the arts, we have $162,000 for facilities renovations and 
improvements for the Woolworth Theater in Glens Falls, NY; $162,000 for 
the Catskill Mountain Foundation in Hunter, NY, for reconstruction of 
the Tannersville Theater; $180,000 to the Bethel Performing Arts Center 
in Bethel, NY, for construction of a performing arts facility; $225,000 
to the village of East Syracuse, NY for the renovation of the Hanlan 
pool; $270,000 to Garth Fagan Dance Studio in Rochester, NY, for 
construction of a new theater for the Garth Fagan Dance Studio; 
$121,500 to the Bedford County Agricultural Society in Pennsylvania for 
facilities improvements at the Bedford County Fairground; $202,000 to 
the New York Agricultural Society for facilities improvements to the 
New York Expo Center Arena and Livestock Expedition Hall, and I 
mentioned the Please Touch Museum in Philadelphia, PA.; $810,000 to the 
City of Fort Worth, TX--another impoverished area--for waterfront 
facilities construction for the Trinity River Basin Project; $180,000 
to the Shenandoah Valley Discovery Museum for facilities expansion; 
$216,000 to the Virginia Living Museum in Newport News, and the list 
goes on.
  There is a certain common thread one will find throughout these 885 
projects. I am sorry I did not have time to total it up, but it would 
have to be in the tens of millions of dollars. There is one common 
thread. About 95 percent of these projects that are earmarked belong to 
the States that are represented by members of the Appropriations 
Committee.
  I joke a lot about this, and I will continue to do so, but that is 
not right. That is not the right thing to do.
  I regret the conferees choose to adopt a special interest provision 
for one foreign cruise ship company at the expense of all other 
companies. The last time Congress meddled in this area with hollow 
promises of spurring the American shipbuilding industry, it ended up 
costing the American taxpayers $185 million in loan guarantees. It was 
one of the most egregious I have seen of egregious things to take the 
money from a billionaire that--excuse me. We took no money from the 
billionaire who runs river boat casinos and who tried to build two 
ships in Pascagoula, MS, which every expert knows is not possible. The 
project failed and the American taxpayer was on the hook for $185 
million.
  Not satisfied with costing the American taxpayer $185 million, a 
Senator from Hawaii put into this bill a requirement that grants a 
subsidiary of the Malaysian-owned Norwegian Cruise Lines the exclusive 
right to operate three large foreign-built cruise vessels in the 
domestic cruise trade. This will be permitted notwithstanding the 
Passenger Vessel Services Act, which requires vessels transporting 
passengers between ports in the U.S. to be U.S.-owned, U.S.-built, 
U.S.-flagged and U.S.-crewed.
  I am not a fan of those requirements. But why in the world do we make 
exception for a law in an appropriations bill when you know what the 
result is going to be? By granting exclusive rights to one cruise line, 
there will be no competition and the people who want to cruise Hawaii 
will pay much higher prices than for a commensurate cruise that people 
would take out of the East Coast.
  I do not know if the Presiding Officer has ever been to Miami, but 
there are all kinds of ships cruising out of Miami, going all different 
places, for all different purposes, at very low cost. That is because 
they are all competing against each other.
  The Senator from Hawaii puts in a violation of law, and an 
exclusivity which is going to cost people who want to cruise the 
Hawaiian Islands an enormously greater amount of money. Why? That is 
crazy. I would have thought the Senator from Hawaii, after costing the 
taxpayers $185 million because of a provision he put in an 
appropriations bill--it never went through my committee which has 
oversight of it. It was never mentioned in my committee--after costing 
the taxpayers $185 million, the Senator from Hawaii then pulls this 
one. I am angry about it, and I will continue to be angry about it 
because the citizens of my State of Arizona would like to cruise

[[Page 3994]]

the Hawaiian Islands and they would like to do it at the cheapest 
possible cost. When there is no competition, there is not low cost.
  There has been no analysis of granting this exclusive exemption from 
the Passenger Vessel Services Act to the ``Norwegian Cruise Lines'' 
owned by a Malaysian company. Nor have the committees of jurisdiction 
had an opportunity to consider the proposal.
  I tell the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Hawaii, we are 
going to have a hearing on this issue, we are going to have a GAO 
investigation, and we are going to find out why they lost $185 million 
because of a provision put into this bill. We are also going to get an 
estimate of how much this exclusivity is going to cost my citizens who 
want to go on a cruise at the least possible cost. I will not quit on 
this issue. It is wrong, and it is the wrong way to treat this process. 
We will have hearings in the Commerce Committee, and we will expose 
this for what it is--disgraceful.
  There are numerous other provisions in this conference report that 
circumvent the clear jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee. It 
incorporates almost wholesale a bill passed last year by the House of 
Representatives regarding air traffic control towers. The provision 
expands on the class of air traffic control towers that is eligible for 
Federal money. I am all for aviation safety and it may be a good 
provision. I am troubled by several aspects of it.
  First, the provision does not make new towers eligible for 
reimbursement. It makes eligible towers that were built beginning in 
1996, over 7 years ago. At least the provision passed last year by the 
House provided that an airport tower would be eligible for a grant 
under this program only if the Secretary certified that the selection 
of the tower for eligibility was based on objective criteria giving no 
weight to any congressional committee report, joint explanatory 
statement of a conference report, or statutory designation.
  I wish to congratulate my House colleagues because they were 
concerned about the pork barrel projects practice and tried to insulate 
this particular program from such behavior. Guess what. That provision 
that eliminated no objective criteria giving no weight to any 
congressional committee report, joint explanatory statement of a 
conference committee, or statutory designation was eliminated. Why 
would that be eliminated, I wonder?
  The conference report also includes a provision and implements a 
whole new funding scheme for airport security projects. I am very 
concerned about funding for airport security. This is a reauthorization 
year for aviation programs and the Senate Commerce Committee, the 
committee of jurisdiction, has already begun hearings of FAA issues. 
Yet the appropriators have taken it upon themselves to establish a 
brand new funding scheme that has never been vetted, discussed, or 
voted on by the authorizing committee. Some might start to wonder just 
what the Commerce Committee's role is in policy decisions regarding the 
programs under its jurisdiction.
  This provision authorizes a new $2.5 billion program over 5 years for 
airport security projects without any discussion that I am aware of. 
The TSA was not consulted about this provision. It seems the special 
interest groups who were shopping this provision were the only ones 
that mattered. If this had gone through the regular legislative 
process, at least all parties could have been heard.
  There are many different ways to fund security projects. This 
provision may be a good one. It mirrors a similar program set up at the 
FAA. However, the Department of Transportation Inspector General 
proposed several other ideas to our committee.
  Another provision would allow airports to give airport improvement 
program money back to the FAA so the agency can hire staff to speed up 
environmental reviews of airport projects. This is an area in which the 
Commerce Committee took action last year and will continue to pursue 
this year. It should not be addressed in an appropriations bill.
  I commend the conferees for their attempts to help protect the 
investment the American taxpayers continue to provide to Amtrak. The 
conference report, which provides Amtrak $1.05 billion for fiscal year 
2003, includes conditions that require the funding to be appropriated 
on a quarterly basis through formal grant agreements with DOT. The 
conferees worked to ensure that Amtrak reserved sufficient funds to 
meet its contractual obligations with State and local subdivisions for 
commuter and intercity corridor services. Amtrak should not be in a 
position to shut down commuter operations as it threatened last summer 
because it does not have sufficient funds to operate its entire 
network.
  The conference committee has slightly reduced Amtrak's appropriation 
from that provided in the Senate-passed measure, but it has also 
postponed repayment of Amtrak's $100 million loan from DOT.
  The conferees authorized the Secretary of Commerce to award grants 
and make direct lump sum payments of up to $50 million to support 
travel to the United States. To carry out this new authority, the 
appropriators established the United States Travel and Tourism 
Promotion Advisory Board and provided $50 million. This tourism board 
has never been considered by the authorizing committee of jurisdiction. 
Nor did the Department of Commerce have any input on the creation of 
this new board. Who came up with $50 million--and establish a new 
bureaucracy? The U.S. Travel and Tourism Promotion Advisory Board, and 
gives them $50 million.
  I am pleased to see the conferees appropriated money for election 
reform. The conference report on NOAA provides more than $490 million 
in earmarks, and just for aquatic, not atmospheric programs of the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, to go toward 150 
earmarks. The administration did not request funding for these programs 
in the budget, and many programs they did request funding for are 
underfunded or zero funded.
  The conference report appropriated an astounding $100 million for 
fisheries disasters assistance. Of this amount, $35 million is for 
direct assistance to the State of Alaska for any person, business, or 
town that has experienced an economic hardship even remotely related to 
fishing. This is in addition to the $20 million they are also getting 
for developing an Alaskan seafood marketing program. Of the remainder, 
$35 million is for the shrimp industries in the Gulf of Mexico and 
South Atlantic to provide far-reaching assistance for many aspects of 
these fisheries; $20 million is provided for voluntary capacity 
reduction programs in the Northeast and west coast fisheries; $5 
million is for Hawaiian fishermen affected by fishing area closures and 
other management rules; and $5 million is for blue crab fisheries 
affected by low harvests.
  The conference report requires the Department of Commerce and Coast 
Guard to provide coordinated, routine support for fisheries monitoring 
and enforcement through use of remote-sensing aircraft and 
communications assets, with particular emphasis on Federal waters 
seaward to South Carolina and Georgia. Without review by the 
authorizing committee, we have no basis for knowing why this is a good 
use of Federal dollars and resources.
  The conference report earmarks $10 million to promote and develop 
fishery products and research pertaining to American fisheries funds to 
develop an Alaskan seafood marketing program. Ten million is a lot of 
money to be spending on a marketing program.
  As far as the Coast Guard is concerned, managers earmark a total of 
$83 million of the Coast Guard budget. That earmark is an increase of 
$10 million over last year, and many of them have obviously never been 
proposed.
  In HUD, as I mentioned, 885 targeted grants.
  I also will talk for a minute about the lowly catfish, one of my 
favorite subjects. We know the lowly catfish has been the subject of a 
great deal of debate and discussion on the floor of the Senate due to 
the fact that in another appropriations bill, we changed

[[Page 3995]]

the name of the catfish that comes from Vietnam to basa. But now the 
lowly catfish, those that are still named catfish because they are 
raised in the United States, we are now qualifying catfish for 
livestock compensation programs. Catfish are cows.
  As my colleagues know, the livestock compensation program is a 
Federal farm program that compensates eligible livestock producers, 
such as owners of beef and dairy cattle, sheep, goats, or certain 
breeds of buffalo that have suffered losses or damages as a result of a 
severe drought. Now it is the catfish.
  I often take issue with various farm policies that disproportionately 
benefit large agribusinesss or farms at the expense of farmers and 
taxpayers, and those that compromise American agricultural trade 
commitments. This effort to compensate catfish farmers from a farm 
program that is intended for livestock stands out. I am certain that 
catfish proponents will offer a dozen different explanations to justify 
this provision. In fact, the last time we discussed this, one of my 
colleagues from Tennessee talked about in his State there are catfish 
that leave the water and travel in herds, so perhaps that is why we are 
now calling a catfish a cow. But not even hog, poultry, or horse 
producers are eligible under the livestock compensation program. Why 
should catfish then get livestock payments?
  We know labeling continues to be a nationally significant 
agricultural issue. Again, the issue was addressed in the 
appropriations bill.
  The Army Corps of Engineers is, of course, one of the favorite 
places. Not only are there a lot of earmarks, but there are significant 
changes in policy or law under the rubric of this appropriations bill. 
In this legislation, the administration is prevented from proposing or 
even studying changes to the Army Corps of Engineers civil works 
program, such as reorganizing aspects of the agency's management 
structure, without specific direction in an act of Congress. It seems 
to me that is remarkable micromanaging.
  I guess I have taken enough of my colleagues' time at this late hour, 
and I know we should be voting on this bill and leaving. I point out 
again, this bill which the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee described as the largest appropriations bill in the history--
and I certainly take his word for it--in my now 17 years of monitoring 
these things, has the largest number of earmarks by far. I find that 
wrong for a variety of reasons, but one of them being that we are 
supposed to be in a war. We are about to ask young men and women to 
make sacrifices. In fact, some of them in the next few weeks may make 
the ultimate sacrifice. And here we are, business as usual, business as 
usual, larding on porkbarrel projects, running up the deficits to 
historic proportions in some respects. I imagine it is historic as far 
as the turnaround is concerned, from a $127 billion surplus to a $300 
billion deficit. I mind that very much. I think it is wrong. I think it 
is the wrong signal to send to the American people about our 
seriousness of addressing the challenges of the war on terror.
  But I am also disturbed about the policy changes that are made in 
appropriations bills which render authorizing committees nearly 
irrelevant. It is not the right thing to do. There are provisions in 
this bill--and I will be providing them for the record--of many policy 
changes that should have required hearings, debate, votes on specific 
issues. Instead, they are decided by a small group of Senators and 
House Members rather than all of us being able to exercise not only our 
privileges but our responsibilities as we determine the policies that 
affect the future of our citizens in our respective States.
  I ask unanimous consent that a document entitled ``Commerce Committee 
Provisions'' be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     Commerce Committee Provisions


                             ncl provision

       Mr. President, I regret that the conferees chose to adopt a 
     special interest provision for one foreign cruise ship 
     company at the expense of all other competitors. The last 
     time Congress meddled in this area with hollow promises of 
     spurring the American ship building industry, it ended up 
     costing the American taxpayers a whopping $185 million. I 
     shudder to think that we are meddling again.
       The conference report grants a subsidiary of the Malaysian-
     owned ``Norwegian Cruise Lines'' (NCL) the exclusive right to 
     operate three large foreign-built cruise vessels in the 
     domestic cruise trade. This will be permitted notwithstanding 
     the Passenger Vessel Services Act, which requires vessels 
     transporting passengers between ports in the U.S. to be U.S.-
     owned, U.S.-built, U.S.-flagged, and U.S.-crewed. While I am 
     not a fan of those requirements, I cannot support granting a 
     waiver for one company.
       This provision provides an unfair competitive advantage to 
     NCL at the expense of all other cruise ship operators. No 
     other company will be allowed to operate foreign-built U.S.-
     flag cruise vessels in the domestic market other than NCL. It 
     effectively creates a de facto monopoly for this one foreign 
     company to operate in the Hawaiian Islands, and West and East 
     Coast cruise trades.
       Again, I remind my colleagues, the last time we provided 
     special treatment for one shipping company, it came at a 
     price tag of $185 million. American Classic Voyages' failed 
     ``Project America'' venture was aided by special exemption 
     language included in the 1998 Department of Defense 
     Appropriation Bill. When American Classic Voyages filed for 
     bankruptcy in October 2001, the American taxpayers paid the 
     price. At what point are we going to say enough is enough, 
     and put a halt to gambling away the hardworking Americans' 
     tax dollars?
       Mr. President, there has been no analysis of the value of 
     granting this exclusive exemption from the Passenger Vessel 
     Services Act to NCL, nor, more importantly, have the 
     Committees of jurisdiction had an opportunity to consider the 
     proposal and analyze its overall impact on the maritime 
     industry.
       The special interest provision represents yet another 
     piecemeal approach to U.S. maritime policy. But instead of 
     promoting a sound and reasoned U.S.-flag cruise vessel 
     promotion proposal, the conference report rewrites maritime 
     policy and grants one foreign-owned company a waiver from 
     U.S. laws.
       We should be working to promote competition in the domestic 
     cruise market, and for that to take place, there needs to be 
     a level playing field for all operators. But the special NCL 
     provision may well severely hamper any effort to jump-start 
     the U.S.-flag cruise market, leaving most coastal states with 
     no regular U.S.-flag cruise ship service.
       We learned the hard way from the failed ``Project America'' 
     venture that domestic-built ships require far more capital 
     investment than vessels built abroad. By giving NCL, and NCL 
     alone, a free pass on U.S. laws, as provided under this 
     conference report, will only keep all other competitors at 
     bay because they have no incentive to even attempt to secure 
     the significant financing required to comply with the U.S.-
     build requirement for U.S.-owned cruise vessels.
       This special provision for NCL will very likely lead to 
     further economic difficulties for the domestic cruise 
     industry, and places its future growth at risk.


                                aviATIoN

       Mr. President, there are numerous other provisions in this 
     conference report that circumvent the clear jurisdiction of 
     the Commerce Committee. For example, it incorporates almost 
     wholesale a bill passed last year by the House of 
     Representatives regarding air traffic control towers. The 
     provision expands on the class of air traffic control towers 
     that is eligible for federal money. While I'm all for 
     aviation safety and this may be a good provision, I'm 
     troubled by several aspects of it.
       First, the provision doesn't just make new towers eligible 
     for reimbursement, it also makes eligible towers that were 
     built beginning in 1996--over seven years ago.
       Things were very different seven years ago. Bill Clinton 
     was President and I had more hair. I know President Clinton's 
     theme song was ``Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow,'' by 
     Fleetwood Mac, but I find it very difficult to believe that 
     airports that built towers in 1996 had any expectation they 
     should get reimbursed by the federal government seven years 
     later. It's awfully nice that we're willing to do that. I 
     didn't know this omnibus bill was also the first economic 
     stimulus package of the year. Had I known, I might have 
     sought inclusion of a payroll tax holiday!
       Secondly, at least the provision passed last year by the 
     House provided that an airport tower would be eligible for a 
     grant under this program only if the Secretary certified that 
     the selection of the tower for eligibility was based on 
     objective criteria, giving ``no weight to any congressional 
     committee report, joint explanatory statement of a conference 
     report, or statutory designation.'' I wish to congratulate my 
     House colleagues. Clearly, they were concerned about the pork 
     barrel politics practiced by the appropriators and tried to 
     insulate this particular program from such antics. However, 
     the appropriations committee decided that this took away too 
     much of their power and deleted the provision. I don't mean 
     they rewrote the provision. They literally crossed it out in 
     the conference report.

[[Page 3996]]

       Mr. President, the conference report also includes a 
     provision that implements a whole new funding scheme for 
     airport security projects. I am very concerned about finding 
     for airport security. This is a reauthorization year for 
     aviation programs, and the Senate Commerce Committee, the 
     committee of jurisdiction, has already begun hearings on FAA 
     issues.
       Yet the appropriators have taken it upon themselves to 
     establish a brand new funding scheme that has never been 
     vetted, discussed, or voted on by the authorizers. Some might 
     start to wonder just what the Commerce Committee's role is in 
     policy decisions regarding the programs under its 
     jurisdiction.
       This provision authorizes a new $2.5 billion program over 5 
     years for airport security projects without any discussion 
     that I am aware of. The TSA was not consulted about this 
     provision. It seems that the special interest groups who were 
     shopping this provision were the only ones that mattered. If 
     this had gone through the regular legislative process, at 
     least all parties could have been heard. There are many 
     different ways to fund security projects. This provision may 
     be a good one, it mirrors a similar program set up at the 
     FAA. However, the DOT Inspector General proposed several 
     other ideas to our committee.
       Another provision would allow airports to giver Airport 
     Improvement Program (AIP) money back to the FAA so the agency 
     can hire staff to speed up environmental reviews airports 
     projects. This is an area in which the Commerce Committee 
     took action on last year and will continue to pursue this 
     year. It should not be addressed in an appropriations bill.
       While the earmarking in this legislation is as egregious as 
     ever, the raiding of existing accounts for unrelated purposes 
     is equally appalling. The AIP program is supposed to be 
     devoted to the infrastructure needs of our nation's airports. 
     Yet the conference report takes tens of millions of dollars 
     out of AIP to pay for the FAA's costs of administering the 
     EAS program, and the Small Community Air Service Development 
     Pilot Program. These are worthy activities and programs, but 
     it violates the long-established purpose of AIP to use monies 
     for these things. This continual raiding of AIP which is also 
     being encroached upon by the appropriation of security costs 
     from it will slow the necessary development of the nation's 
     infrastructure. We may be in an aviation funding crisis this 
     year if this wholesale taking of money from accounts that are 
     for capacity, infrastructure and modernization does not stop.


                                 Amtrak

       I want to commend the conferees for their attempts to help 
     protect the investment that the American taxpayers continue 
     to provide to Amtrak, which since 1971, has received federal 
     subsidies totaling $26 billion--an enormous sum for a system 
     that serves less than one percent of the traveling public.
       The conference report, which provides Amtrak $1.05 billion 
     for FY 2003, includes conditions that require the funding to 
     be appropriated on a quarterly basis through formal grant 
     agreements with the Department of Treasury (DOT). Amtrak also 
     will be required to spend its appropriated funds only on 
     items identified in its business plan and approved by DOT. 
     And, such funds may only be spent on existing plant and 
     services, not on grandiose or far-fetched expansion plans. 
     These controls are a step in the right direction.
       The conferees also worked to ensure that Amtrak reserves 
     sufficient funds to meet its contractual obligations with 
     state and local subdivisions for commuter and intercity 
     corridor services. Amtrak should not be in a position to shut 
     down commuter operations, as it threatened last summer, 
     because it does not have sufficient funds to operate its 
     entire network. Commuter operations, such as those on the 
     Northeast Corridor, are funded by state and local governments 
     and clearly should continue to operate even if other Amtrak 
     operations should cease. Further, Corridor trains that the 
     states are helping subsidize also should also receive 
     priority. Continuing to operate Northeast Corridor services, 
     off-Corridor commuter service, and those trains financed in 
     part by the states would preserve service for 93 percent of 
     Amtrak's combined intercity and commuter ridership.
       While the conference committee has slightly reduced 
     Amtrak's appropriation from that provided in the Senate-
     passed measure, from $1.2 billion to $1.05 billion, it also 
     has postponed repayment of Amtrak's $100 million dollar loan 
     from DOT, effectively providing Amtrak's $1.15 billion, or 
     only $50 million less than the $1.2 billion Amtrak requested. 
     Although Amtrak may end the year with less than its targeted 
     $75 million in working capital, it should be able to continue 
     operating while Congress considers the long-term future for 
     intercity passenger rail service. I look forward to a full 
     and open debate on this issue.


                             Tourism Board

       Mr. President, the conferees authorize the Secretary of 
     Commerce to award grants and make direct lump sum payments of 
     up to $50,000,000 to support ravel to the United States. To 
     carry out this new authority, the appropriators establish the 
     United States Travel and Tourism Promotion Advisory Board and 
     provide $50,000,000. This Tourism Board has never been 
     considered by the authorizing committee of jurisdiction, nor 
     did the Department of Commerce have any input on the creation 
     of this new Board. This is another example of authorizing 
     language in an appropriations bill and $50,000,000 is an 
     enormous amount of money for an initiative that has not yet 
     been fully vetted.


                                  NASA

       Mr. President, I commend the conferees for their efforts to 
     address the funding needs of the Space Shuttle Columbia 
     accident investigation. Just yesterday, the Commerce 
     Committee held a hearing on the investigation, and I agree 
     that the Congress should be supportive of the Columbia 
     Accident Investigation Board. We must find the cause of this 
     horrible tragedy, and ensure that such an accident never 
     happens again.
       Unfortunately, other NASA provisions are included in the 
     conference report that should be handled by the authorizing 
     committee of jurisdiction. For example, the conference report 
     establishes a NASA working capital fund for capital repairs, 
     renovations, rehabilitation, sustainment, demolition, or 
     replacement of NASA real property. As Chairman of the Senate 
     Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over NASA, I am 
     fully aware of NASA's declining infrastructure and the need 
     to ensure safety of NASA missions. In light of the Space 
     Shuttle Columbia accident, I think it would be a prudent 
     course of action if we fully consider this provision in the 
     context of an overall review of NASA, which is currently 
     underway. No hearings have yet been held on this proposed 
     working capital fund, nor has it been considered by the full 
     Senate. I do not question the conferees' strong interest in 
     addressing NASA funding needs, but I note this is yet another 
     case of authorizing on an appropriations bill.
       I am particularly concerned by provisions in the conference 
     report that would establish a NASA demonstration project 
     regarding an enhanced-use lease of real property. The 
     Commerce Committee has not had a change to review this 
     language, and no hearings have been held on this enhanced 
     lease scheme. The leasing of public property deserves a 
     public discussion.


                            election reform

       I am pleased to see that the conferees appropriated almost 
     $1.5 billion to implement the election reform bill. This 
     funding is a good start for a process to improve our system 
     of election administration and renew the public's confidence 
     in our election system. I am especially pleased that this 
     conference report includes payments to help states to promote 
     disabled voter access.


                                  noaa

       The conference report provides more than $490 million in 
     earmarks and programs just for the aquatic--not atmospheric--
     programs of the National Oceanic and Atmosphere 
     Administration. This funding will go toward more than 150 
     line items. The Administration did not request funding for 
     these programs in their budget, in fact, many programs that 
     they did request funding for are underfunded or zero-funded.
       The conference report appropriates an astounding 
     $100,000,000 for fisheries disaster assistance. Of this 
     amount, $35,000,000 is for direct assistance to the state of 
     Alaska, for any person, business, or town that has 
     experienced an economic hardship even remotely related to 
     fishing. This money is in addition to the $20,000,000 they 
     are also getting for developing an Alaskan seafood marketing 
     program.
       Of the remainder:
       $35,000,000 is for the shrimp industries of the Gulf of 
     Mexico and South Atlantic, to provide far-reaching assistance 
     for many aspects of these fisheries;
       $20,000,000 is provided for voluntary capacity reduction 
     programs in the Northeast and West Coast groundfish 
     fisheries;
       $5,000,000 is for Hawaiian fishermen affected by fishing 
     area closures and other management rules; and
       $5,000,000 is for blue crab fisheries affected by low 
     harvests.
       The report also provides these hand-outs without requiring 
     any accountability for how the money is actually spent. These 
     appropriations were made without offering any form of 
     justification or rationale. How much federal money do these 
     regions really need, if any? If these needs are legitimate, 
     how do they compare to the needs of other regions? We'll 
     never know, because these appropriations circumvented every 
     stage of committee review, consultation, analysis, and 
     authorization. We have no basis for determining how necessary 
     this is or whether or not this is sound policy.
       Furthermore, the conference report requires the Department 
     of Commerce and Coast Guard to provide coordinated, routine 
     support for fisheries monitoring and enforcement through use 
     of remote sensing, aircraft, and communications assets, with 
     particular emphasis on federal waters seaward of the costs of 
     South Carolina and Georgia. Again, without any review by the 
     authorizing committee, we have no basis or knowing why this 
     is regional program is a good use of federal dollars and 
     resources is this really the best use of limited Coast Guard 
     resources, at a time when our country is under a heightened 
     terror alert?

[[Page 3997]]

       The conference report also earmarks $10 million from the 
     ``Promote and Develop Fishery Products and Research 
     Pertaining to American Fisheries'' fund, to develop an 
     Alaskan seafood marketing program. $10 million is whole lot 
     of money to be spending on a marketing program, yet we are 
     given no details on exactly what this federal funding will be 
     used.


                              coast guard

       The conference report and statement of managers earmarks a 
     total of $83.962 million of the Coast Guard budget. The level 
     of Coast Guard earmarks increased over $10 million compared 
     to the enacted FY02 Coast Guard budget.
       In this critical time when the Coast Guard is so hard 
     pressed to carry out it Homeland Security missions, in 
     addition to its many traditional missions, it is indefensible 
     to be earmarking the Coast Guard's budget for pet products. 
     Adding insult to injury, the Committee report takes the Coast 
     Guard to task for devoting its scarce resources to homeland 
     security at the expense of its other traditional missions, 
     yet in the same report, they earmark critically needed 
     resources for other projects. This type of micro-management 
     serves only to tie the Coast Guard's hands and deny it the 
     flexibility it needs to respond to very real threats.
       We all know the Coast Guard is underfunded and definitely 
     in need of additional personnel and resources. Our first step 
     should be to give it is full budget without these unrequested 
     and restrictive earmarks.
       Here are just a few examples.
       The statement of managers earmarks $1,600,000 for enhanced 
     oil spill prevention activities in the waters of Washington 
     State. This earmark was not requested by the Administration 
     and I think it should probably receive an award for the most 
     creative language. It states, and I quote, ``the Committee 
     expects the Captain of the Port to use his professional 
     judgment in allocating these funds to measures that he 
     believes will best protect these waters. Such measures could 
     include a cost sharing arrangement with the State of 
     Washington for the hiring of a rescue tug at Neah Bay. 
     However, these funds could be allocated to alternative 
     measures if, in the view of the Captain of the Port, such 
     alternative measures will provide a superior level of 
     protection.'' Does anyone wonder what decision the 
     Appropriations Committee expects this Coast Guard captain to 
     make?
       $4 million is for LTS-101 helicopter engines.
       The statement of managers earmarks $10,000,000 of the Coast 
     Guard's Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements budget 
     for a new line item entitled ``Security Surveillance and 
     Protection.'' What does this mean? The Senate report vaguely 
     stated that this provision is to develop and acquire 
     equipment that will improve security surveillance and 
     perimeter protection capabilities in the Nation's ports, 
     waterways, and coastal zones. In other words, it could mean 
     almost anything.
       The statement of managers earmarks $16,000,000 for costs 
     associated with repairing and rebuilding the Coast Guard's 
     Integrated Support Center at Pier 36 in Seattle. These funds 
     are in addition to the $10,000,000 earmarked for this project 
     in the FY 2002 Transportation Appropriations bill. None of 
     these are funds were requested by the Administration and this 
     project is not one of the Coast Guard's highest priorities 
     for shoreside construction. My question is, how much will be 
     earmarked for this project in next year's budget?
       Of particular note, the Conference report earmarks over 27 
     percent of the Coast Guard's research and development budget 
     for specific projects. These earmarks will hinder the Coast 
     Guard's efforts to better surveil our ports, create new 
     technologies to detect explosives and weapons of mass 
     destruction, and develop non-lethal technologies.
       The statement of managers earmarks $1,000,000 to support 
     the continued development, demonstration, and evaluation of 
     engineered wood composites at Coast Guard facilities. The 
     statement of managers also earmarks $1,000,000 for a pilot 
     project to test automatic search and rescue spectral imaging 
     technology for Coast Guard C-130 aircraft solely located at 
     Kalaeloa, Hawaii.
       Once again we are seeing an Appropriations Bill attempting 
     to circumvent the authorization process. This bill would 
     limit the funding for Coast Guard flag officers to 37. The 
     Coast Guard is authorized under Title 14 to have 48 flag 
     officers and currently has 37 flag officers on active duty. 
     As the Coast Guard grows in size to meet its new homeland 
     security missions it will not have any of its authorized 
     flexibility to promote additional flag officers. If there is 
     a concern that the Coast Guard has too many flag officers, 
     then that concern should be raised through the Commerce 
     Committee.
       The bill authorizes the Coast Guard Yard at Curtis Bay, 
     Maryland and other Coast Guard specialty facilities 
     designated by the Commandant to enter into joint public-
     private partnerships and in doing so may enter into 
     agreements, receive, and retain funds from and pay funds to 
     such public and private entities, and may accept 
     contributions of funds, materials, services, and the use of 
     facilities from such entities. This provision would enable 
     the federally subsidized Yard to indirectly compete with 
     private industry for shipbuilding contracts. This is 
     authorization language pertaining to the Coast Guard Yard 
     that is clearly within the jurisdiction of the Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation Committee. Nonetheless prior to 
     the consideration of this legislation by the Appropriations 
     Committee, it did not consult with or notify either the 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee concerning 
     the changes in law.

  Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada had an inquiry. I 
yield to the Senator from Nevada.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Just so the two leaders know, does the Senator from 
Illinois know for how long he wishes to speak?
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator from Nevada what the plans are for this 
evening?
  Mr. REID. What we are working toward is having final passage on the 
bill this evening, if all things work out right.
  Mr. DURBIN. I certainly don't want to delay final passage.
  Mr. REID. Why doesn't the Senator proceed.
  The Senator from Georgia also wishes to speak for 3 minutes?
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes.
  Mr. REID. Why don't we have the Senator from Georgia speak first for 
3 minutes, and then the Senator from Illinois speak. If the managers 
want to speak then, they can do so. I so ask unanimous consent.
  Mr. STEVENS. It is 5 minutes and 3 minutes, is that correct?
  Mr. REID. He's going to stop whenever you want him to.
  Mr. STEVENS. All right.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I don't think I will take my full 3 
minutes. I just want to rise and say that while, Mr. Chairman, I am 
going to vote for the omnibus bill, I am really disappointed with the 
agriculture disaster portion in this omnibus bill. On the Senate side, 
we debated and discussed this issue at length. The chairman of the 
Senate Agriculture Committee, who is also chairman of the Senate 
Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee, I thought did an excellent job 
of putting together a package that accomplishes the goal of getting 
funds immediately in the hands of farmers all across America. My 
farmers have had 5 rough years back to back, and they need money now.
  Under the provisions that came out of the conference committee, which 
was basically the House provision, farmers across America are not going 
to be getting funds until probably August, September, or October. 
Farmers are going to be out of business if they don't get relief now. 
To pass this provision in this bill I think is the wrong approach. I 
don't like that provision in the bill. I do support it. I know the 
chairman had a very difficult time with this particular issue as well 
as other issues, but I think that is wrong and I wanted to register my 
objection. I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Appropriations 
Committee, I know the amount of labor and work that goes into the 
preparation of a bill of this magnitude. I also know when you postpone 
the orderly process of passing spending bills and wait an extra 4 or 5 
months, there is an opportunity for mischief. I think only in time will 
we be able to sift through 1,600, 1,800, 2,000 pages of this bill to 
find out in painful detail what is included.
  There are several things that have come to my attention. I would like 
to draw them to the attention of my colleagues here in the Senate.
  Let me start by saying there is one issue most people don't like to 
talk about and I am going to raise this evening because I think it is 
critically important. The District of Columbia is a city which is 
governed by a mayor, a city council, and 535 wannabe mayors in the 
Congress.
  It seems that every Member of the House or Senate who wanted to be a 
mayor at some time in their lives decided at some point to make a 
decision for the District of Columbia. I think

[[Page 3998]]

that is unfortunate. The people of this city, like every city, have a 
right to govern themselves. Occasionally that intrusion of 
congressional mischief can reach a perilous state. Let me give an 
example.
  The AIDS rate for the AIDS disease in our Nation's Capital is the 
highest in the country. It is 10 times the national average. More and 
more women are being diagnosed with AIDS in Washington, DC. DC health 
officials reported last October 616 new AIDS cases in 2001 alone, 33 
percent among women. In 1981 women only accounted for 7 percent of AIDS 
cases.
  City health officials in Washington estimate 40 percent of AIDS cases 
are associated with injected drugs.
  The question is, how can we stop this AIDS epidemic in the Nation's 
Capital, which is not only infecting more and more women and children, 
but appears to be out of control. Frankly, there are programs that 
work. One of the programs is not popular to talk about. Most of my 
colleagues run away from it, but you cannot run away from reality. It 
is a needle exchange program. It is a program that invites addicts in, 
in an effort to try to first give them a needle that is clean, and then 
bring them into rehabilitation so they can stop their addiction.
  There are those who say don't give them clean needles because they 
will just keep using them. But you know what they will use, they will 
use dirty needles and pass the AIDS epidemic on and on and on.
  I am not expert in this area. I get squeamish talking about needles 
and injections. But the fact is, the people who are experts, the 
American Medical Association and medical officials, have said it works. 
Put these programs on the street corners and in the storefronts of 
Washington, DC, and we can start reducing the AIDS infection rate in 
our Nation's Capital.
  There is no reason in my mind why the people of the District of 
Columbia should not be able to use their own money to try this approach 
to reduce drug addiction and reduce the AIDS epidemic in their 
hometown.
  Across the United States, there are programs in many States. But 
sadly enough, the Members of the House of Representatives have put in a 
provision that prohibits the District of Columbia from even using its 
own tax dollars to in any way support this kind of project.
  Some of the very congressmen who beat on the desk and beat on their 
chest and talk about how they are going to fight these needle exchange 
programs represent districts and States where these programs take place 
today. This is a sad outcome in this bill. I hope those who reflect on 
it will realize they are taking some high and mighty moral position and 
people will die because of it.
  Stand by the doctors, stand by the professionals. Stop playing mayor 
and city council for the District of Columbia. Sadly, this 
appropriation continues to do so.
  Exhaustive scientific review has found that needle exchange programs 
are an effective way to slow the spread of HIV and AIDS. In a speech 
last September. Dr. Joseph O'Neill, Director of the Office of National 
AIDS policy indicated that the administration did not oppose the use of 
state and local funds to support needle exchange programs.
  The American Medical Association, the American Nurses Association, 
the American Association of Pediatrics, and the American Public Health 
Association endorse these programs. The Institute of Medicine 
identified access to sterile syringes as one of four ``unrealized 
opportunities'' in HIV prevention in a publication issued last year. 
The IOM committee recommends that the Administration ``rescind the 
existing prohibition against the use of Federal funds for needle 
exchange to allow communities that desire such programs to institute 
them using federal resources.''
  Former Surgeon General David Satcher, MD stated that:

       There is conclusive scientific evidence that syringe 
     exchange programs, as part of a comprehensive HIV prevention 
     strategy, are an effective public health intervention that 
     reduces transmission of HIV and does not encourage the 
     illegal use of drugs.

  Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, MD concluded that needle 
exchange programs are an ``effective means of preventing the spread of 
the disease [HIV/AIDS] without increasing the use of illicit drugs.'' 
He called limiting the use of state and local funds for these programs 
``counterproductive.''
  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that there 
were 156 needle exchange programs operating in the United States in 81 
cities and 31 States last year, many of which receive state and local 
financial support for their activities. None of these programs receive 
Federal support at this time.
  The CDC publication also indicated that 95 percent of needle exchange 
programs in operation referred clients to substance use treatment and 
counseling programs, and over half provide on site voluntary HIV 
testing and more than a quarter also screen for hepatitis B and C.
  In 2000, four needle exchange programs were functioning in my home 
state of Illinois.
  In spite of the overwhelming support from public health and medical 
professionals, we here in Congress have once again prevented the 
District of Columbia from using its own local funds to finance these 
lifesaving programs. I was pleased that the Omnibus Appropriations bill 
passed by the Senate allowed the District of Columbia to use LOCAL 
funds to finance a needle exchange program. Washington, DC has one 
needle exchange program, Prevention Works, that is supported with 
private funding. Both the Mayor and Police Chief support the program.
  However, I am deeply disappointed to learn that the conference report 
we are considering today maintains the irresponsible status quo, which 
prevents the District from using its own locally generated revenue to 
finance needle exchange programs.
  This conference report disregards the expert opinions of former 
Surgeon Generals David Satcher and C. Everett Koop, leading medical and 
public health organizations, the Director of the Office of National 
AIDS policy and the Institute of Medicine.
  It is my sincere hope that next year we will stop politicizing this 
issue and recognize that the District of Columbia, just like all of our 
home states and districts, deserves to have all possible resources at 
its disposal to combat this devastating public health crisis.
  The same is true when it comes to attorneys' fees for special 
education. Think about this. In every school district in America, if 
you have a disabled child and want that child to have an education, you 
have a right to say to the school district: Here is my child who needs 
the education. If the school district contests it and says this child 
doesn't have a disability and we are not going to pay for a special ed 
teacher, you have a right to appeal that decision. That's the case 
across America.
  Sometimes, because it is complicated and expensive, attorneys are 
involved to represent the parents and the school district and to 
resolve their differences. It happens every day across America.
  In the District of Columbia it has gotten out of hand. Some law 
firms--only a few--have exploited the parents of disabled children and 
turned in attorneys' fees requests to the District of Columbia public 
school system that are way out of line. Some of these firms have become 
shady operations that offer not only attorney counseling, but special 
education services, a package that raises many suspicions.
  Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and I have debated this over and over 
again as to whether to cap the fees that can be paid to attorneys and 
what to do about it. In the Senate we raised the cap on attorneys' fees 
for DC special education to $4,000 maximum per case. I hope that is 
enough to take care of these cases. But I will tell you I do not 
believe we should be imposing a cap on attorneys' fees. The parents of 
these poor children who are disabled should not be denied legal 
representation.
  I am happy Senator Hutchison and I could agree on limiting the 
attorneys' activities so those questionable activities, those criminal 
activities will stop.

[[Page 3999]]

But I think we should put an end to this cap on attorneys' fees and say 
to the DC public school system once and for all, for goodness sakes, 
offer kids with disabilities the kind of special education 
opportunities that are available across America. This provision capping 
attorneys' fees in this appropriation bill I think is a mistake.
  Not only are such caps an intrusion on home rule and local spending 
prerogatives, I do not believe that imposing a cap on payment of 
attorneys' fees is the way to address significant and long-standing 
problems with the delivery of special education services to children in 
the District of Columbia. These fees arise because parents are forced 
to bring due process actions against the city school system--and the 
parents win their cases.
  It is unacceptable for Congress to impose a dollar cap on how much 
the City may pay attorneys who win these cases, particularly after a 
judge has awarded a fee based on a reasonableness standard. However, I 
do support language in this bill which addresses concerns about 
particular attorneys who have shamelessly taken advantage of the 
system.
  I support a complete bar on paying attorneys' cases in which the 
District's Chief Financial Officer, CFO, determines that an attorney, 
officer, or employee of the firm has a pecuniary interest in any 
special education diagnostic services, schools, or other special 
education service providers.
  Furthermore, I believe the provisions in the Senate bill which 
mandate stronger ethical standards are appropriate.
  I support the provisions in the bill dictating that the District's 
CFO require disclosure by attorneys in IDEA cases of any financial, 
corporate, legal, board membership, or other relationships with special 
education diagnostic services, schools, or other special education 
service providers before paying any attorneys' fees; that the CFO may 
require certification by counsel that all services billed in special 
education were rendered; that the CFO report to Congress quarterly on 
the certifications and the amount paid by the government of the 
District of Columbia, including the District of Columbia Public 
Schools, to attorneys in cases brought under IDEA; and that the 
District's Inspector General may audit the certifications to ensure 
attorney compliance.
  It is my hope that these provisions will produce needed 
accountability. I am glad they were retained in the final product.
  I am disappointed, but not surprised, that the cap remains in this 
final version of the bill. I share the sentiment that abuses of this 
program need to stop. I want to work to address that problem and to 
figure out why the District has had such perennial problems with its 
ability to meet the needs of its children in special education.
  But it is wrong for this Republican Congress to deprive children of 
legal recourse when they are denied services to which they are 
entitled. It is wrong for the Republican Congress to preclude the 
District of Columbia from using its own funds to make all legitimate 
payments in this critical special education program.
  There is another provision that was slipped in this bill as it 
relates to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and the Freedom 
of Information Act. This provision is an enormous setback to the 
efforts of State and local governments to combat illegal firearms 
trafficking. It undermines the very purpose of the Freedom of 
Information Act.
  This act entitles citizens to open access to Government records, 
prevents the Government from shielding its activities from public 
scrutiny. The City of Chicago, which I represent, filed a Freedom of 
Information Act request to obtain information about the ATF trace 
database. The purpose, of course, is to determine which gun sellers and 
manufacturers were responsible for selling guns to criminals.
  In response to these rulings, the gun industry went to the House 
Appropriations Committee and asked for a rider in this bill to prevent 
the ATF from complying with the FOIA request and telling the City of 
Chicago and the public what they were doing.
  This provision sets a dangerous precedent because it essentially 
directs a Federal agency not to comply with the Federal court ruling, 
thus undermining the very purpose of FOIA. If litigants can be denied 
information under FOIA through legislative action--even when a Federal 
court has upheld this request--FOIA itself is in jeopardy.
  There is no cost justification for this. This doesn't have anything 
to do with appropriations. This is an effort by the gun industry to 
stop cities that are ravaged by gun crime from going after the 
irresponsible gun dealers who are selling guns to criminals. And the 
NRA and the gun industry are shielding them with this rider in the 
appropriations bill.
  I was joined by Senators Jack Reed and Ted Kennedy in urging that 
this provision not be included. Unfortunately, it was.
  Let me acknowledge also, as has been said by some of my colleagues, 
that I am very concerned about the language of funding for homeland 
security in this bill. The Senate, in its version of this bill, added 
almost $4 billion in homeland security funds to be sent back to the 
State and local governments to protect America. As I stand and speak on 
the floor of the Senate, we are warning families across America that we 
are in orange alert and that they have to take special precautions to 
protect themselves and their children from the possibility of 
biological and chemical warfare and dirty radioactive bombs.
  Sadly enough, we are not providing the resources for the State and 
local governments to meet this challenge. Make no mistake, America is 
prepared to attack in the Middle East, but America is not prepared to 
defend itself at home. That is a sad reality. This bill cuts out almost 
$4 billion that would have gone for some very important purposes: 
Additional money for the Transportation Security Administration for 
monitoring airports; additional money for the INS and border security 
to stop those from coming in this country who are bent on bad behavior; 
community policing grants to try to help communities have someone on 
the other end of the line when you dial 9-1-1, cut $130 million; FEMA 
disaster recovery assistance, cut by $1 billion; the Department of 
Justice Office of Domestic Preparedness, cut by $1 billion; firefighter 
grants, cut by $150 million; interoperable communications equipment 
grants, cut by $235 million--the No. 1 priority in my State so that the 
police and firefighters and medical first responders can communicate, 
cut in this appropriations bill from the Senate level.
  These cuts, frankly, came at the request and with the approval of the 
White House and the Office of Management and Budget.
  Emergency Operation Center, cut nationwide by $155 million; port 
container security, cut by $45 million; port technology demonstration 
projects so that we can see dangerous cargo coming in these ships, cut 
by $1 million; explosives training initiative, cut by $7 million; and 
$42 million from embassy security.
  I pray to God that nothing happens to this country as a result of 
terrorism. But I think we have been derelict in our duty to provide the 
resources to State and local governments to protect families and to 
protect communities and businesses across America. This bill, with its 
$4 billion in cuts off the Senate level, leaves us in a precarious 
situation and one that I hope does not come back to haunt us in years 
to come.
  Let me conclude on a positive note. I thank the Senator from Alaska. 
Despite these words of critique, I personally appreciate, as does 
Senator DeWine, the personal interest and initiative he took in the 
global AIDS epidemic. His decision on the floor to approve an amendment 
which we offered is going to mean that thousands and maybe more will 
have their lives saved. I thank the Senator from Alaska. He has been a 
leader on this issue all the way. We have reached a 42-percent increase 
in funding to fight the global AIDS epidemic through his cooperation 
and leadership. I thank him very much.

[[Page 4000]]

  I yield the floor.
  I ask unanimous consent that a statement entitled ``Underfunding 
Homeland Security'' be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     Underfunding Homeland Security

       At a time when the Administration is ramping up for war 
     overseas, one would think we would be doing everything 
     possible to fortify our security at home as well.
       That's certainly what the Administration has led us to 
     believe, but oddly enough, we're poised to pass this 1100 
     plus page omnibus bill that slashes funding for the pillars 
     of homeland security.
       And after cutting funds for first responders, for airport 
     security improvements, for community police officers and 
     more, what do they propose? That Americans fortify their own 
     homes with duct tape and plastic sheets. This Administration 
     can and must do better to protect the safety of the American 
     people.
       This bill leaves significant gaps in funding for homeland 
     security priorities.
       The Republican-controlled conference committee rejected 
     increases in homeland security funding that were approved 
     unanimously last year by a Democratic-led Appropriations 
     Committee. Instead, the Republican-controlled conference 
     imposed an additional 0.65 percent across-the-board cut to 
     all federal programs, leaving already cash-strapped 
     initiatives in even greater need. The results of the 
     cumulative cuts, which total more than $4.4 billion, include:
       First Responders: This bill cuts $2.98 billion from 
     activities designed to aid first responders. Cuts include a 
     $1.59 billion reduction for the Federal Emergency Management 
     Agency (FEMA)--including a $150 million cut to firefighter 
     grants--as well as a $235 million cut to funds for police and 
     firefighters to purchase communications equipment and a $155 
     million cut to fund emergency operations centers.
       Police/Law Enforcement: The bill reduces funding for 
     Community Oriented Policing (COPS) public safety and 
     community policing grants by more than 40 percent--from $330 
     million to $200 million. This cut would completely eliminate 
     funding needed to hire 1,360 community-based police officers.
       Aviation/Port Security: The bill cuts $170 million from 
     Transportation Security Administration (TSA), impeding 
     efforts to improve airport security, and cuts $46 million 
     from port security funds. The bill also makes cuts to the 
     U.S. Customs Service, resulting in the loss of more than 200 
     employees and compromising the implementation of the 
     Container Security Initiative and other homeland security 
     efforts. The INS/border security budget is also reduced by 
     approximately $182 million.
       Other Cuts: The bill also cuts programs to train state and 
     federal law enforcement and security personnel by nearly $50 
     million, including a $7 million cut to the Explosives 
     Training Initiative and $42 million to embassy security.
       A supplemental appropriations bill would be necessary to 
     provide funding adequate to meet the homeland security needs 
     of localities across the country in advance of any military 
     action in Iraq.


                                illinois

       States and localities are still waiting for the funds 
     promised to them. The States have legitimate concerns. 
     There's a lot of brave talk about fighting terrorism, but 
     when it comes to paying for it, this administration has not 
     delivered.
       In my home State of Illinois, we have an Illinois Terrorism 
     Task Force (TTF). This is a collective body representing 50 
     agencies addressing emergency needs throughout the state of 
     Illinois. They have told me that a minimum of $100 million is 
     required to cover security expenses in Illinois for FY03.
       The Terrorism Task Force originally asked for $320 million 
     in federal funding and then scaled back its request to the 
     current level ($100 million) in anticipation of federal 
     budget cuts.
       According to the TTF director Mike Chamness, these funds 
     are crucial to Illinois' ability to properly address the 
     threat of terror.
       Without these dollars, programs designed to secure Illinois 
     will cease to exist.
       First responders will be ill-equipped and prepared to 
     address emergency situations.
       Major items in the TFF's $100 million request include:
       $25 million for first responders' respiration equipment 
     upgrade (nuclear, biological, and chemical).
       $14.4 million for communication systems (interoperable 
     communications equipment for police, firefighters, and state/
     local emergency operations centers).
       Elite Terror Response Team: under current funding Federal 
     monies have not been available to send teams for the ``Elite 
     Response'' training.
       It is imperative that my home state of Illinois--like every 
     other State in this nation--provides their front-line first 
     responders the best equipment, the essential tools, and the 
     finest training available. We rely on their readiness and 
     should expect nothing less. These funds are needed sooner, 
     not later.


                            city of chicago

       Now let me tell you about the funding needs for Homeland 
     Security in the City of Chicago.
       The City of Chicago had made an assessment of total budget 
     needs for homeland security at around $175 million
       The top ticket item in Chicago is the Chicago public safety 
     radio migration plan which is estimated to cost $80 million.
       The migration allows for all agencies to communicate in an 
     interoperable manner on a daily basis without major equipment 
     modification or complicated system changes.
       Among other important needs are:
       Emergency Responder Training and Equipment--$7.9 million. 
     CPD is requesting first responder training, first responder 
     equipment and secondary responders unit training.
       Emergency Operations Center Expansion--$10 million. This 
     expansion will provide incident manager with real-time live 
     video, satellite imagery, building X, Y, and Z coordinates 
     and other state of the art technologies.
       Hazardous Materials Equipment--$7 million. The Chicago 
     Department of Environment is requesting hazardous materials 
     response equipment for any large, widespread or egregious 
     hazardous incident.


             need to do much more than duct tape & plastic

       We can't stand up and say we're truly doing everything we 
     can to ensure that our cities and counties, bridges and 
     roads, airplanes and trains are as secure as possible and 
     that our fellow Americans are safe on our soil if this bill 
     is what represents the level of our commitment to fund 
     programs to ensure homeland security.
       I fully expect the President to come back to Congress and 
     ask for additional funds to support our military needs 
     overseas. Without question, we must address these needs. But 
     it would be unconscionable to increase funding for military 
     activities in Iraq and neglect our security needs at home. If 
     war comes with Iraq, the battle lines will be expanded to 
     include our country. We simply cannot afford to leave 
     American citizens unprotected.
                                  ____


 ATF/Freedom of Information Act Provision (Re: City of Chicago Lawsuit 
                           vs. Gun Industry)

       Another provision slipped in to the appropriations bill at 
     the last minute involves the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and 
     Firearms and the Freedom of Information Act.
       This provision would be an enormous setback to the efforts 
     of state and local governments to combat illegal firearms 
     trafficking and would undermine the very purpose of the 
     Freedom of Information Act.
       The Freedom of Information Act entitles citizens to open 
     access to government records and prevents the government from 
     shielding its activities from public scrutiny.
       The City of Chicago filed a FOIA request to obtain 
     information from an ATF trace database. A U.S. District Court 
     and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ordered 
     the ATF to release these records.
       In response to these rulings, the gun industry went to the 
     House Appropriations Committee and asked for a rider to 
     prevent the ATF from complying with this FOIA request.
       This provision sets a dangerous precedent because it 
     essentially directs a federal agency not to comply with a 
     federal court ruling, thus undermining the very purpose of 
     FOIA. If litigants can be denied information under FOIA 
     through legislative action--even when a federal court has 
     upheld the request--FOIA itself is in jeopardy.
       There is no cost justification for this provision. The City 
     of Chicago demonstrated in its litigation that it would take 
     the ATF less than 10 minutes to assemble and release the data 
     is has requested.
       I was joined by Senators Reed and Kennedy in urging that 
     this provision not be included, and I am disappointed that it 
     was.
       In the past, I have challenged the Senate and the President 
     to back up the high priority we have placed on the global 
     AIDS pandemic with adequate resources.
       [Senator DeWine has even called me a ``bull dog'' on this 
     issue. I took that as a great compliment.]
       This 2003 appropriations process demonstrated that the 
     Senate does indeed recognize the need for increased resources 
     to fight global AIDS.
       In December, I, and 15 other Senators, sent a letter to 
     appropriators asking them to increase overall AIDS spending 
     by 50 percent over 2002 levels. At the time we were looking 
     for an increase of $236 million.
       While facing $9-$10 billion in cuts throughout the FY 2003 
     appropriations bill, the Foreign Operations Subcommittee 
     responded to this request, and managed to find an additional 
     $41 million for global AIDS.
       The Senate Labor, Health and Human Services Subcommittee 
     agreed to match House approved levels, increasing the funds 
     going to the CDC's Global AIDS Program by about $15 million.
       While this increase of $56 million was welcome, 
     unfortunately, it was not enough.
       Senator Mike DeWine and I set out to achieve that 50 
     percent increase, and through a floor amendment to the 
     omnibus bill, sought another $180 million to bring

[[Page 4001]]

     overall spending on Global AIDS to $1.525 billion.
       This amendment was accepted--its success demonstrates the 
     Senate's sincere commitment to fighting global AIDS.
       $100 million of these funds were slated for the U.S. 
     contribution to the Global Fund--the world's primary 
     organization to monitor and support worldwide AIDS 
     prevention, treatment and care programming.
       And the remaining $80 million would go to USAID global AIDS 
     programs.
       Well, during conference, we lost $80 million of the $180 
     million total. But, nevertheless, I count this as a victory 
     for the global AIDS pandemic.
       In the end, an additional $50 million was secured for the 
     Global Fund, bringing the U.S. contribution up to $350 
     million for 2003, and an additional $50 million went to 
     bilateral programs.
       This omnibus bill designates $1.2 billion for global AIDS. 
     That is a 46 percent increase over what Congress appropriated 
     in 2002.
       The President's 2003 budget request suggested an increase 
     in funding of global AIDS funding of 29 percent. I would say 
     we have come a long way.
       We will need this type of increase--at least a 50 percent 
     increase--each year until we can close the gap between 
     expenditures and resources necessary to fight this pandemic.
       The President's FY04 budget request amounts to an increase 
     of only 32 percent over the $1.4 billion the U.S. will spend 
     overall on global AIDS in 2003.
       [This bull dog] I will be back, asking that at a minimum we 
     achieve a 50 percent increase in global AIDS funding each 
     year for the next few years.
       We must continue to do more for the 42 million people 
     worldwide who are living with HIV/AIDS and prevent a good 
     portion of those that will become newly infected in 2003.
       During the last ten minutes I have been speaking, 
     approximately 58 people have died from AIDS, 11 of those were 
     children.
       A 15-year-old boy in Botswana faces an 80 percent chance of 
     dying of AIDS.
       By 2010, it is estimated that sub-Saharan Africa alone will 
     be home to 20 million AIDS orphans; that's 20 million 
     children who have lost one or both parents due to AIDS.
       We must act now to help those who today suffer from the 
     impact of HIV/AIDS as well as to change the future of today's 
     children.
       We know the situation is dire. We have data to support what 
     program work. Now its time to fund the programs that work.
       The 2003 appropriations bill helps us to take yet another 
     tiny step forward in fighting global AIDS.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________