[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 3-21]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time between 
2:15 p.m. and 2:50 p.m. shall be equally divided for debate only.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the time is equally divided between now 
and 2:50; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield, why 2:50? I have 
missed something. That is fine. That means we have about 15 minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. Seventeen minutes apiece.
  Mr. REID. On this side, if it is OK, I will yield 5 minutes to 
Senator Kennedy, 5 minutes to Senator Jack Reed, and 5 minutes to 
Senator Johnson.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I apologize for my voice. I hope I can 
keep it long enough to make this statement.
  Republicans and Democrats worked together to adopt this omnibus 
conference report that is before the Senate today. It contains seven 
appropriations bills. It was my hope that the Senate would pass this 
bill last December, and

[[Page 4]]

it was a great disappointment to me that we did not pass it then.
  Now, however, we still have the opportunity to send this report to 
the President, and I do urge all Senators to vote for cloture now.
  The Senate should pass 13 separate appropriations bills each session. 
Senator Byrd also favors that approach. An omnibus bill is an option of 
last resort. Unfortunately, once again this fiscal year, this was our 
only way to do our duty to provide funding for essential services of 
our national Government.
  Throughout his life, Ben Franklin reminded his colleagues that 
compromise was an essential part of government. He said:

       Both sides must part with some of their demands.

  That spirit is important when we must join the work product of 
several Appropriations subcommittees in an omnibus bill like the one 
before us now.
  Are there provisions in this bill to which either the majority or the 
minority object? Yes. Does the White House endorse each of the 
provisions in this bill? Absolutely not. Are there parts of this bill I 
would rather not support at this time? Yes.
  But the conference has concluded. The conference no longer exists, 
and a majority of the members on the conference agreed to this 
compromise that is before the Senate now.
  The report before the Senate funds critical programs and services. 
Countless Americans have already been affected adversely because it has 
been delayed so far.
  Already the Department of Housing and Urban Development has had to 
suspend all activities related to the FHA General Insurance and Special 
Risk Insurance Funds. Since January 14, HUD has been unable to fund 
programs related to the construction and rehabilitation of multifamily 
apartment projects, health care facilities, Hawaiian homelands 
mortgages under section 247, and home equity conversion loans that 
benefit elderly homeowners.
  Our failure to pass this bill prevented key Government programs and 
agencies from fully responding to our Nation's crises and challenges. 
The recent bovine spongiform encephalopathy, BSE--mad cow--diagnosis 
will require a significant increase in animal health surveillance and 
food safety inspections. This bill contains $29.5 million over the 
fiscal year 2003 budget for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service and an additional $36.6 million for the safety inspection 
service.
  That funding will go a long way in helping these agencies respond to 
this recent crisis.
  The impact of this delay has been felt throughout the country in a 
wide range of programs and services. This report includes a $38 million 
funding increase for the Health and Human Service Department's domestic 
AIDS drug assistance program and $2.4 billion to combat AIDS, 
tuberculosis, and malaria around the world. That money is needed right 
now to purchase medications for people suffering with AIDS, but 
instead, because this report is stalled here on the Senate floor, many 
human beings continue to go without our humanitarian aid.
  Our veterans have also suffered from the delay because new funding, 
not previously available, has been withheld. Because we are operating 
under a continuing resolution the VA was forced to curtail the hiring 
of new physicians and nurses. It has been unable to open 48 high 
priority community-based outpatient clinics. As pharmacy costs 
continued to rise, the VA was forced to strip funds from other priority 
areas because it could not meet the increasing demand for prescription 
drugs without new funds.
  Several important new education programs do not have the funds 
needed. This bill includes $1.26 billion in new funding for State 
programs to help children with learning disabilities and physical and 
mental challenges, $57 million in new funds for reading programs, $50 
million for our Nation's colleges, and $148 million in additional funds 
to expand and improve Head Start programs. Those funds did not reach 
our Nation's children because this conference report was delayed.
  There are many more programs that remain underfunded while operating 
under the continuing resolution. The continuing resolution provides 
funds we believed in fiscal year 2002 were sufficient for fiscal year 
2003, but that does not mean they are sufficient for this year--fiscal 
year 2004. Many Americans will continue to be denied benefits needed in 
2004 if we do not support this omnibus bill. I ask the Senate to come 
together to demonstrate we will respond to these needs now by voting 
for cloture and in favor of this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask to be notified when 4\1/2\ minutes 
are up. I am entitled to 5 minutes.
  This bill shows the widening gulf between this administration's words 
and its deeds.
  No doubt tonight, the President will talk about healthy families. But 
this bill weakens our clean air laws. And it postpones steps we need 
right now to protect our food supply from mad cow disease.
  The President will talk about education. But this bill fails the test 
when it comes to funding for schools. And it diverts scarce public 
education dollars to private schools.
  The President will talk about the safety of our communities. But this 
bill weakens our gun laws.
  The President will talk about fairness. But there is nothing fair 
about giving away good jobs of dedicated government workers to the 
cheapest bidder that may even send those jobs abroad.
  So it is a Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde Presidency, where what you see is not 
what you get.
  But the greatest outrage in this bill is that it denies the right to 
overtime pay to 8 million hard-working Americans.
  We may be fighting a war in Iraq, but this President and this 
administration are also waging a war on workers here at home.
  Majorities in both the Senate and the House agreed that the Bush 
administration was wrong to deny overtime protections to workers. By a 
vote in the U.S. Senate of 54 to 45 and the U.S. House of 
Representatives of 221 to 203, we said to the President, ``You are 
wrong.''
  But here it is, in this bill.
  I know who I am fighting for.
  I am fighting for the nurse who burns the midnight oil day in and day 
out caring for our sick and elderly with no extra pay.
  I am fighting for the firefighter and first responder, the heroes of 
homeland security, standing watch and working nights and weekends to 
protect our liberty. They are our generations Paul Reveres--prepared to 
act when called to arms. They deserve fair compensation.
  I am fighting for our veterans and our men and women serving so 
bravely now in Iraq and across the world, who return to civilian life 
only to find that the training they earned in the military is cruelly 
used to deny them their right to overtime pay.
  Under current regulations, workers can be denied overtime protection 
if they fall within the category of what they call professional 
employees, workers with a 4-year degree in a professional field. It is 
changed this year under the Bush administration. The plan would do away 
with the standard and allow equivalent training in the Armed Forces. 
You go and serve in Iraq and get the training to serve in Iraq, and 
come back here and you are ineligible, under these regulations, for 
overtime pay.
  I ask unanimous consent that the relevant statute be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Subpart D, Professional Employees, Sec. Sec. 541.300-.304

       The current regulations pertaining to the professional 
     exemption contain four separate categories of exempt 
     employees: learned professionals, artistic professionals, 
     teachers, and computer professionals. As with the executive 
     and administrative exemptions, the regulations contain both 
     ``short'' and ``long'' duties tests, depending upon the 
     salary level

[[Page 5]]

     of the employee. The long test contains a separate primary 
     duty requirement for each of the four categories of 
     employees. The long test for learned professionals requires 
     that the primary duty consist of work requiring knowledge of 
     an advanced type in a field of science or learning 
     customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized 
     intellectual instruction and study, as distinguished from a 
     general academic education and from an apprenticeship, and 
     from training in the performance of routine mental, manual, 
     or physical processes. For creative professionals, the 
     primary duty must consist of work that is original and 
     creative in character in a recognized field of artistic 
     endeavor (as opposed to work which can be produced by a 
     person endowed with general manual or intellectual ability 
     and training), and the result of which depends primarily on 
     the invention, imagination, or talent of the employee. For 
     teachers, the primary duty must consist of teaching, 
     tutoring, instructing, or lecturing in the activity of 
     imparting knowledge by an employee who is employed and 
     engaged in this activity as a teacher in the school system or 
     educational establishment or institution by which the person 
     is employed. The duties tests for computer employees are 
     discussed in subpart E. The long test also requires that an 
     exempt employee: Perform work requiring the consistent 
     exercise of discretion and judgment; do work that is 
     predominantly intellectual and varied in character, such that 
     the output produced or the result accomplished cannot be 
     standardized in relation to a given period of time; and 
     devote no more than 20 percent of work hours in a week to 
     activities that are not an essential part of and necessarily 
     incident to exempt work. The short test in the current 
     regulations for both learned professionals and teachers 
     contains the specific primary duty requirement discussed 
     above, and requires that the employee perform work requiring 
     the consistent exercise of discretion and judgment. For 
     artistic professionals, the work must require invention, 
     imagination or talent in a recognized field of artistic 
     endeavor.
       The proposed regulations pertaining to the professional 
     employee exemption would make changes similar to those we 
     propose for the executive and administrative exemptions. The 
     goal is to clarify and simplify the regulations defining the 
     professional employee exemption, while remaining consistent 
     with the purposes of the FLSA. For ease of reference, and 
     making no substantive changes, we propose to move the 
     provisions pertaining to computer professionals to new 
     subpart E, which will contain all information pertinent to 
     such employees. We also propose to simplify the regulations 
     by eliminating the separate short and long tests for each of 
     the remaining three categories and substituting a single 
     standard duties test for each. This restructuring and 
     simplification would eliminate the percentage limitation on 
     nonexempt work and the consistent exercise of discretion and 
     judgment requirement. As discussed above in connection with 
     similar proposed changes to the executive and administrative 
     exemptions, we are proposing to eliminate these subsections 
     because they have proven difficult standards to apply 
     uniformly.
       For learned professionals, the proposed new standard test 
     in Sec. 541.301 would provide that employees qualify for 
     exemption as a learned professional if they have a primary 
     duty of performing office or non-manual work requiring 
     advanced knowledge in a field of science or learning 
     customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized 
     intellectual instruction, but which also may be acquired by 
     an equivalent combination of intellectual instruction and 
     work experience. This proposed standard test for learned 
     professionals would focus on the knowledge of the employee 
     and how that knowledge is used in everyday work, not on the 
     educational path followed to obtain that knowledge. Although 
     some flexibility to focus on the worker's knowledge exists in 
     the current regulation, it is very limited and rarely used. 
     The clarified test reflects changes in the 21st century 
     workplace in how some ``knowledge workers'' acquire 
     specialized learning and skills: in the modern workplace, 
     some employees acquire advanced knowledge through a 
     combination of formal college-level education, training and 
     work experience, even where other employees in that field 
     customarily acquire advanced knowledge by obtaining a 
     baccalaureate or advanced degree. The proposed changes would 
     clarify that, so long as such an employee's level of advanced 
     knowledge is equivalent to the knowledge possessed by an 
     employee with the typical academic degree generally required 
     by the profession, the employee may qualify as an exempt 
     professional. Thus, for example, an employee who obtained 
     advanced knowledge by completing college courses in a field 
     such as engineering, and who worked in that field for a 
     number of years, could qualify for exemption if the knowledge 
     acquired was equivalent to that of an employee with a 
     baccalaureate degree in engineering. We have not proposed any 
     specific formula in the regulations for determining the 
     equivalencies of intellectual instruction and qualifying work 
     experience, although some examples from the current rule have 
     been included and expanded. Public comments are invited on 
     whether the regulations should specify such equivalencies.
       The view that several years of specialized training plus 
     intensive on-the-job training for a number of additional 
     years may be equated with a college degree in certain fields 
     has found support in reported judicial decisions. For 
     example, the professional exemption has been applied to 
     employees with a combination of training and academics in 
     Leslie v. Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc., 899 F. Supp. 1578 (D. 
     Miss. 1995). In Leslie, the court concluded that an employee 
     who had completed three years of engineering study at a 
     university and had many years of experience in the field of 
     engineering was properly classified as a professional 
     employee, even though the employee did not satisfy one of the 
     usual minimum qualifications for an engineering position of 
     having a bachelor's degree in an engineering discipline. The 
     court considered the employee's combination of education and 
     experience as satisfying the requirement for a prolonged 
     course of specialized intellectual instruction and study.
       For creative professionals, we propose to adopt the current 
     short test, slightly modified, as the new standard test in 
     proposed Sec. 541.302. This new standard test would apply the 
     creative professional exemption to any employee with the 
     primary duty of ``performing work requiring invention, 
     imagination, originality or talent in a recognized field of 
     artistic or creative endeavor.'' This language, although 
     simplified, is not intended to make any material changes from 
     the existing regulations. This standard was applied in the 
     case of Freeman v. National Broadcasting Company, Inc., 80 
     F.3d 78 (2nd Cir. 1996), in which employees who researched 
     facts, developed story elements, interviewed subjects, wrote 
     scripts, and supervised the editing of videotape were deemed 
     to have been correctly classified as artistic professional 
     employees. On the other hand, employees of small news 
     organizations who spent their time gathering facts about 
     routine community events such as municipal, school board, and 
     city council meetings, and gathering information from the 
     police blotter and real estate transaction reports, and then 
     reporting those facts in a standard format were deemed not to 
     be artistic professional employees in Reich v. Newspapers of 
     New England, 44 F.3d 1060 (1st Cir. 1995) and Reich v. 
     Gateway Press, Inc., 13 F.3d 685 (3d Cir. 1994).
       The standard test for teachers in proposed section 541.303 
     would be unchanged from the current short test, with the 
     exception of the deletion of the requirement that the 
     employee's work require the consistent exercise of discretion 
     and judgment, a requirement that, as discussed above, has 
     engendered significant confusion. Provisions on teachers from 
     current Sec. Sec. 541.3, 541.301(g), and 541.314 have been 
     consolidated into proposed new Sec. 541.303. The minor 
     editorial changes are not intended to cause any substantive 
     changes.
       In addition, the proposed regulations utilize objective, 
     plain language that can be easily understood by employees, 
     small business owners and human resource professionals, and 
     eliminate outdated and uninformative examples. The proposed 
     regulations also would address a number of specific 
     occupations that have been the subject of ambiguity and 
     litigation. For example, we propose to update and clarify the 
     circumstances under which employees working as newspaper 
     journalists or as radio or television commentators are 
     exempt, because the case law regarding such employees has 
     been evolving over the years, and the existing regulations 
     discussing such employees are outdated.
       Provisions of the current regulations in Sec. Sec. 541.3 
     and 541.314 that provide an exception to the salary or fee 
     requirements for physicians and lawyers have been 
     consolidated and moved to proposed Sec. 541.304. Current 
     Sec. 541.307 entitled ``Essential part of and necessarily 
     incident to'' has been combined with current Sec. 541.108 
     (``Work directly and closely related''), 541.202 
     (``Categories of work''), and Sec. 541.208 (``Directly and 
     closely related''), and moved to proposed new Sec. 541.702 
     (``Directly and closely related''), for a streamlined 
     discussion of the principles for distinguishing exempt and 
     nonexempt work. Although these sections have been 
     consolidated and simplified, we do not intend any substantive 
     changes.
       Finally, we propose to move sections that pertain to salary 
     issues (Sec. Sec. 541.311, 541.312 and 541.313) to subpart G, 
     where all such issues will be consolidated. Other sections 
     relevant to several or all of the exemption categories (such 
     as the definition of primary duty, a section regarding 
     application of the exemption to trainees, and a section 
     discussing nonexempt work generally) would move to the 
     proposed subpart H (Definitions and Miscellaneous Provisions) 
     to eliminate unnecessary repetition. Current Sec. 541.305 
     entitled ``Discretion and judgment'' and current Sec. 541.309 
     entitled ``20-percent nonexempt work limitation'' have been 
     deleted from the proposed regulations for the same reasons 
     similar changes are being proposed in the executive and 
     administrative exemptions as discussed above.

  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senate should reject this bill and demand that the 
right to overtime pay be restored; we should demand that our schools be

[[Page 6]]

properly funded and that private school vouchers be rejected; we should 
demand that illegal guns be removed from our streets; and we should 
demand a food supply safe from mad cow disease.
  Finally, Americans work more than workers in any other industrial 
society in the world. This chart shows that. We are working about 500 
hours more than any other society in the world. American workers are 
working harder, and now this administration is trying to deny them at 
least the fairness of being compensated for it.
  This chart shows what happens if you have overtime protection or if 
you don't have overtime protection. For all the overtime that is used 
in this country today, only 19 percent of it is applicable to those who 
get paid for the overtime while 44 percent for those who don't get the 
overtime. That is 3 to 1 with regard to individuals who work 50 hours a 
week. We know what this is all about because the administration has 
given a guide to employers about how they can avoid paying overtime. I 
ask that those regulations be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    Methodology for Estimating Costs

       The principal database used in the PRIA is the 2001 Current 
     Population Survey (CPS). A complete description of the 
     methodology used for determining the employees who are 
     potentially exempt and nonexempt from the overtime 
     requirements of the current and proposed rule is contained in 
     the PRIA available by contacting the Wage and Hour Division 
     at the address and telephone number provided above.
       The economic impact of the proposed rule includes two 
     components: One-time implementation costs; and recurring 
     incremental payroll costs incurred by employers for those 
     employees presently treated as exempt from overtime under the 
     current rule, who become nonexempt.
       The implementation costs contain two parts. The first part 
     includes the amount of time employers would take to: (1) Read 
     and understand the proposed rule; (2) update and formulate 
     their overtime policies; (3) notify employees of any changes; 
     and (4) all other time taken to implement the proposed rule. 
     The second part of the implementation costs is the amount of 
     time employers would take to review their job categories to 
     determine (1) whether or not a particular job category is 
     exempt or nonexempt under the proposed rule, and (2) how to 
     adjust to the new salary levels and duties tests. To estimate 
     the implementation costs of the proposed rule, the department 
     contacted six human resource specialists from around the 
     country to obtain information on the amount of time small and 
     large businesses would take for each of these activities. 
     High and low estimates of the implementation costs were 
     estimated by varying the amount of time taken to review job 
     categories and other time taken to implement the proposed 
     rule.
       The second component of the economic impact of the proposed 
     rule is the recurring incremental payroll costs incurred by 
     employers for those employees presently treated as exempt 
     from overtime under the current rule, who become nonexempt as 
     a result of raising the salary levels and revising the duties 
     tests.
       Affected employers would have four choices concerning 
     potential payroll costs: (1) Adhering to a 40-hour work week; 
     (2) paying statutory overtime premiums for affected workers' 
     hours worked beyond 40 per week; (3) raising employees' 
     salaries to levels required for exempt status by the proposed 
     rule; or (4) converting salaried employees' basis of pay to 
     an hourly rate (no less than the federal minimum wage) that 
     results in virtually no (or only a minimal) changes to the 
     total compensation paid to those workers. Employers could 
     also change the duties of currently exempt and nonexempt 
     workers to comply with the proposed rule.
       For the second choice above, paying overtime premium pay, 
     employers typically have two options, with differing cost 
     implications, for meeting their statutory overtime 
     obligations. For example, assume an employer paid an employee 
     a fixed salary of $400 per week with no overtime premium pay, 
     for which the employee worked 45 hours per week, and the 
     employer must now begin to pay this employee overtime pay. As 
     one option, the employer could assume that the former weekly 
     salary of $400 represents compensation for a standard 40-hour 
     workweek, and pay this employee in the future time-and-one-
     half the $10 hourly rate for any overtime hours worked beyond 
     40 per week. For a 45-hour workweek, total compensation due, 
     including overtime, would equal $475 ((40 hours x $10/hour) + 
     (5 hours x $15/hour) = $475), compared to $400 formerly. As a 
     second option, the employer could pay the fixed salary of 
     $400 per week as total straight time pay for all hours worked 
     in the week (provided it equals or exceeds the federal 
     minimum wage), and pay additional ``half-time'' for each hour 
     worked beyond 40 in the week. This method of payment is known 
     as a ``fixed salary for fluctuating hours'' (see 29 CFR 
     778.114). For a 45-hour workweek, total compensation due 
     under this method, including overtime, would equal $422.22 
     ($400 + (($400  45) x \1/2\ x 5) = $422.22).
       The third choice above is straightforward--an employer 
     could simply raise the salary level for currently exempt 
     salaried workers earning less than $22,100 to at least the 
     new proposed salary level or more and have them remain exempt 
     salaried workers.
       Nothing in the FLSA would prohibit an employer affected by 
     the proposed rule, or under the current rule, from 
     implementing the fourth choice above that results in 
     virtually no (or only a minimal) increase in labor costs. For 
     example, to pay an hourly rate and time and one-half that 
     rate for 5 hours of overtime in a 45-hour workweek and incur 
     approximately the same total costs as the former $400 weekly 
     salary, the regular hourly rate would compute to $8.421 ((40 
     hours x $8.421) + (5 hours x (1.5 x $8.421)) = $399.99).
       Most employers affected by the proposed rule would be 
     expected to choose the most cost-effective compensation 
     adjustment method that maintains the stability of their work 
     force, pay structure, and output levels. Given the range of 
     options available to an employer confronted with paying 
     overtime to employees previously treated as exempt, the 
     actual payroll cost impact for individual employers could 
     range from near zero to up to the maximum cost impacts 
     estimated in the Department's PRIA. However, for the PRIA it 
     is was assumed that, for any nonexempt employee who satisfies 
     the pertinent duties test, the employer will choose to pay 
     the smaller of either the additional weekly salary required 
     to qualify the employee exemption or the usual weekly 
     overtime payment for the employee.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 4\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Finally, this is the list of the individuals who will be 
affected. Who are those individuals? Police officers, nurses, 
firefighters; those are the home guard personnel. You talk about safety 
and security in our communities and in our neighborhoods; these are the 
individuals who stand watch for all Americans. Why is this 
administration fighting decent fair pay for these hard-working 
Americans who represent the best of our country and are involved in 
homeland security? This legislation should be defeated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, the Omnibus appropriations bill contains 
elements that contradict the express votes of this body and the other 
body, bipartisan votes that in fact protected workers against losing 
their overtime, that insisted upon country-of-origin labeling, that 
dealt with media ownership. And at the last moment, at the direction of 
the administration, these provisions were overridden and contradicted. 
There are other provisions that have been included in this measure that 
should not stand a fair vote on the Senate floor.
  There is a provision, inserted in this bill by the House Republican 
leadership over the objection of the Republican subcommittee chairman 
of the Commerce-State-Justice and Judiciary Committee, that would 
require the FBI to destroy records of gun sales within 24 hours. They 
have now, under the law, the Brady bill, the authority to keep these 
records for 90 days to conduct audits of the system of instant checks.
  A study analyzing just 6 months' activity conducted by the General 
Accounting Office showed that the FBI was able to retrieve 235 firearms 
that had been sold to illegal purchasers, prohibited purchasers, wife 
beaters, murderers, the whole parade of perpetrators. If this 
legislation passes and the 24-hour rule stands, then instead of 
recovering 235 of these weapons, 7,228 firearms will be in the hands of 
murderers, wife beaters, robbers, those people who endanger the 
American public.
  This provision should not be allowed, without a vote, to become the 
law of the land. In the words of Los Angeles Police Chief William J. 
Bratton:

       I'm very opposed to this effort to make the Brady law 
     toothless, and I just don't understand how Members of 
     Congress can even consider it. Obviously, they haven't shown 
     up at the scene of enough officer shootings.

  What we hear from the NRA and their allies is ``just enforce the 
laws.'' How can you enforce the law if you don't have the information 
on the sale?

[[Page 7]]

  This provision should be stricken. In addition to that, there are 
provisions about vouchers for public schools in the District of 
Columbia. We don't have enough resources to fix the public schools of 
this country, and diverting them to private schools is a mistake. It is 
passing out parachutes; it is not fixing the airplane. We can do 
better.
  Indeed, these vouchers go to schools that don't have to stand up to 
the rigors of the No Child Left Behind Act. Those people who go about 
this country saying that critics of the No Child Left Behind Act--those 
people who will not embrace these provisions--are somehow undermining 
education reform but they say, let's give money to schools that don't 
even have to follow the No Child Left Behind Act. That is also wrong.
  As my colleague Senator Kennedy pointed out, this bill strips away 
overtime protections for Americans who work very hard. These workers 
depend on overtime to support their families. Costs go up, hours of 
work are going up, and still families find themselves stretched 
terribly thin. We are in a position now not only to override both the 
sense of the House and Senate but the common sense of the American 
people. They understand that without adequate overtime people cannot 
support their families.
  In addition to this provision that would strip away overtime pay for 
firefighters, nurses, and police officers, the Department of Labor had 
the audacity to suggest ways in which overtime can be prevented from 
applying to everyone. That is not a Department of Labor that is working 
in the best interest of the American workers.
  We understand something else, too, which is that the great economic 
crisis of this country at this moment is the fact that we cannot 
produce jobs. Employers are not willing to hire, so they require more 
overtime. Well, if they have less incentives, less requirements to pay 
overtime pay, they will make the current workers work even harder, and 
there will not be the opportunity to hire more Americans for these 
jobs. This provision goes right to the heart of what we all should be 
about: getting more work for Americans, not penalizing workers by 
taking away their overtime pay.
  These are just a handful of provisions that are not only 
contradictory to what we did on a bipartisan basis--Republicans and 
Democrats in both the House and Senate--but they are fundamentally 
against the interests of safe streets, opportunities to work, and 
opportunities to educate the children of this country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mrs. BOXER. I yield myself 1 minute, Mr. President.
  President Bush is supporting this bill that will be before us. He is 
going to sign it. I want to speak to my colleagues and any and all who 
are watching this debate. Understand with that signature 8 million 
Americans will lose their guarantee to overtime pay. Eight million 
Americans--those earning roughly over $24,000 a year in my State--just 
like that, with President Bush's signature, people will lose their 
overtime pay.
  What does that mean? It means that an employer can work you harder 
and you don't get any more money; you are pulled away from your family 
and not getting fair pay. You could be spending more time with them, at 
a minimum.
  This is a harmful bill. Not only does it do this, but it turns the 
clock back in many other areas.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise to voice my concern over secret 
riders that were jammed into the Omnibus appropriations bill behind 
closed doors, in the dark of night, that are contrary to the bipartisan 
wishes of the Senate and, in some instances, both the House and Senate. 
It is an abomination of a process that has taken place. It has very 
real negative consequences.
  The bill, as a whole, does some good things. I commend Chairman 
Stevens for his hard work in that regard. But there are these riders 
that were stuck in the bill that make no sense. Some have been alluded 
to already, such as the allowance of greater media concentration than 
this Senate wanted; the privatization of FAA air traffic control 
personnel; the question of vouchers, at a time when we are $9 billion 
short of funding No Child Left Behind as it is, and that funding is 
further undermined by subsidization of private schooling.
  The question of overtime pay is perhaps the most outrageous of all. 
Eight million American workers are going to be denied overtime pay 
under this rider that was stuck into the bill. There was no conference 
in a meaningful sense. They were simply done behind closed doors. The 
deliberations were, frankly, the Republican leadership working with the 
White House, and they stuck the provisions in and came back to this 
body and said: Take it or leave it.
  I believe we can have the merits of the larger portion of the Omnibus 
bill and simply have these provisions struck. It would be simple to do.
  One of the provisions that is most troubling in my State of South 
Dakota, and in rural areas, is a provision that would delay country-of-
origin meat labeling for 2 years--probably beyond that--at a time when 
we are struggling with BSE, mad cow disease.
  Our consumers should understand that our Nation has the safest, 
highest quality meat in the world, bar none. Canada has struggled with 
the BSE issue. One of their cows showed up in the U.S. We need to see 
to it that we respond aggressively to make sure Americans have 
confidence in our meat supply, and that the world community also 
understands the quality product that comes from the United States.
  Right now Japan, Korea, and the rest of the buyers of American beef 
abroad have told the United States: We like your beef, the meat 
products you produce, but we don't want to buy it if you cannot certify 
to us that it is, indeed, an American product.
  We are one of the few industrialized democracies in the world not to 
have country-of-origin labeling. We don't have it. It is long overdue 
that we join the rest of the industrialized world in allowing our 
consumers to know the origin of the meat products they buy so they can 
buy an American product if they choose, and when it comes time to 
exporting our product, that the Japanese, Koreans, and the rest of the 
world will know it is an American product they are buying, as opposed 
to being a mingling of U.S., Canadian, and Heaven knows what else that 
goes through the U.S. into the export market.
  So for the sake of our domestic confidence and of our export markets, 
the time is overdue that we join the rest of the world--the EU and the 
Canadians--in identifying the origins of these meat products.
  What has happened is that this 2-year delay, which would lead to 
still further delay, ironically at a time when the USDA is telling us 
they want to implement an electronic tracking system for every animal 
in the U.S., which is a far more expensive, far-reaching proposal than 
country-of-origin labeling ever was; every country has been able to do 
it without expense, without bureaucracy, or any problem for the 
producers. There is no reason the U.S. cannot do it as well.
  So what we have is a convergence of those who are profiting by not 
allowing American consumers to know the difference in what they are 
buying, along with those in the White House who have a philosophy of a 
global agricultural market with no borders whatever, which leads, of 
course, to that race to the bottom, where whoever can sell the product 
for the cheapest price wins. American producers deserve better. This 
Congress deserves a better bill than what we have before us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority's time has expired.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the President pro tempore of the Senate has 
agreed to allow Senator Harkin 3 minutes of his time. I ask unanimous 
consent that that be the case.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes.

[[Page 8]]


  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, 5 months ago the Senate voted in support 
of my amendment to block the administration's effort to kill overtime 
pay for millions of American workers. The bipartisan vote of the Senate 
was 54 to 45. The House followed suit with a 221-to-203 vote.
  The Congress spoke up clear as a bell and said: No, the 
administration must not strip overtime rights from 8 million American 
workers. But as we all know, the administration refused to accept the 
clear will of Congress. The administration ordered the conferees to 
strip this provision from the omnibus bill.
  Senator Specter and I fought to keep it in, but the administration 
refused any cooperation or compromise. In the end, with a snap of its 
fingers, the administration nullified the clear will of both Houses of 
Congress and the American people.
  This is just another example of the brazen abuse of power by the 
administration. The administration seems to believe in Government by 
one branch: the executive branch. Time and again, we see this 
administration running roughshod over the will of Congress.
  The administration's new overtime rule is a stealth attack on the 40-
hour workweek, pushed by the White House without a single public 
hearing.
  There was one positive part of the proposal that would raise the 
basic income that guarantees overtime pay for low-income workers from 
$8,000 to $22,100. My amendment did not touch that part of the 
proposal. But now we find that the Labor Department is advising 
employers on how to get around it.
  The Labor Department example suggests cutting workers' hourly wages 
and making them work longer. That means there will be no net gain by 
the worker. This is disgraceful.
  Here is what they have done: ``How to Avoid Paying Your Employees 
Overtime,'' courtesy of the Department of Labor. Lower existing wages 
so when workers accrue overtime, their net pay will not grow. In other 
words, pay them less; work them longer.
  Change workers' duties so they are exempt from the overtime rules.
  Raise workers' wages to levels required to be exempt, $22,100.
  Don't let them work more than 40 hours a week.
  This is what is in the Bush proposal. This is like the IRS giving 
advice to tax cheats on how to avoid paying their taxes. This is a 
direct violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 that 
established the 40-hour workweek for American workers.
  Right now, Americans work longer hours than workers in other 
industrialized nations. This is a slap in the face to workers who give 
up their premium time with their families to work overtime, and we are 
not talking about spare change here. We are talking about taking away 
some 25 percent of the income of many American workers.
  Congress did the right thing in voting to block this new rule.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used his 3 minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. But Congress voice and vote were nullified.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a New York Times article 
dated January 20, 2004, and a letter to the President signed by several 
Senators dated January 16, 2004, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Jan. 20, 2004]

                            Gaming Overtime

       Some ominous fine print has turned up in the Bush 
     administration's promise to help long-suffering low-wage 
     workers get the overtime pay they have long been denied. As 
     initially presented, the White House estimated that its new 
     rules governing nonunion workers would mean $895 million in 
     guaranteed time-and-a-half pay for 1.3 million of the 
     nation's poorest-paid workers. That inviting proposal was 
     coupled with a far more controversial plan to allow employers 
     greater leeway to close out overtime pay for a midrange of 
     white-collar professionals by designating them as managers.
       That part was questionable enough--critics warned that it 
     could cut earnings and force unpaid overtime on millions of 
     workers, and even the Republican-led Congress became leery. 
     But now, in delving into the sweetener half of the plan 
     covering the lowest-paid, The Associated Press has discovered 
     that the Labor Department's advisory includes suggestions to 
     employers about ways they can keep their costs from actually 
     going up.
       One tip from those helpful bureaucrats theoretically 
     protecting struggling breadwinners is that an employer could 
     consider ``the most cost-effective compensation adjustment 
     method.'' This translates into cutting a worker's hourly wage 
     so the new overtime requirement will produce the old net 
     salary, not an actual boon.
       To be fair, the Labor Department also suggests that 
     employers are free to raise workers' salaries to the new 
     higher threshold of $22,100 a year, the level at which 
     eligibility for time and a half ends. Still, those helpful 
     hints to anxious employers only compound suspicions about the 
     plan.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                 Washington, DC, January 16, 2004.
     The President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: As you know, bipartisan majorities in 
     both the House and Senate voted to oppose the Department of 
     Labor's proposal to deny overtime protections to more than 8 
     million hard-working men and women--regulations that actually 
     provided instructions on ways for employers to avoid paying 
     overtime to their workers. This is shocking, given that the 
     Department of Labor's mission is to promote ``the welfare of 
     the job seekers, wage earners, and retirees of the United 
     States.''
       Instead of accepting the clear will of bipartisan 
     majorities in the Congress and the American people on this 
     issue, your Administration used its leverage to threaten 
     vital funding for cancer research, fighting AIDS, job 
     training for millions of out-of-work Americans, and financial 
     aid for children to attend college unless the provision 
     protecting workers was removed. We believe that protecting 
     workers' pay should not come at the expense of funding these 
     vital programs.
       We call on you to rescind the overtime regulation and 
     instruct your Labor Department to require all employers to 
     meet their obligations to pay workers for the overtime they 
     have earned. At a minimum, we ask you to call on the 
     Republican leadership to reinstate the Senate-passed and 
     House-endorsed provision to protect overtime.
           Sincerely,
     Edward M. Kennedy,
     Tom Harkin,
     Tom Daschle.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a provision that 
was added to the omnibus appropriations bill at my request. The 
provision is designed to halt temporarily the implementation of 
amendment 13 to the Northeast groundfish fishery management plan. With 
this 5-month delay, which will be in effect for the remainder of the 
fiscal year, a more equitable form of amendment 13 can be developed. 
Without this delay, amendment 13 would devastate the fishing industry 
of my home State. Amendment 13 would deny at least a quarter of Maine's 
fishermen their traditional access to fish stocks, and would jeopardize 
the ability of many related small businesses to survive financially.
  Amendment 13 would impose a series of regulatory changes to New 
England's groundfish management system. These new regulations would 
reduce the number of fishing days allocated to most Maine fishermen. 
The average Maine fishing vessel that received any fishing days would 
be allocated roughly 52 fishing days each year that they could use off 
Maine's shores. These, of course, are the most fortunate of Maine's 
fishermen, as many would receive smaller allocations of fishing days 
under amendment 13. Imagine trying to make ends meet practicing your 
profession only 1 day per week.
  There are further problems with amendment 13 in its current form. The 
plan relies on targeting healthy fish stocks in order to mitigate 
economic impacts while less abundant fish stocks rebuild. This has led 
to the creation of two classes of fishing days: A and B days. On ``A'' 
days, a fisherman may target any fish stock. On ``B'' days, fishing is 
restricted to a handful of healthy species in designated areas.
  Unfortunately, Maine's small boats will have difficulty using any of 
their B days due to safety concerns. These B fisheries are restricted 
to areas far out to sea that small boats cannot fish safely. There is 
simply no B fishery that Maine's smaller fishing boats can access.
  Further, Maine's large boats will penalized under amendment 13 
because they are forced to lose valuable fishing

[[Page 9]]

time in transit to fish stocks located far to the south of Maine. 
Groundfish regulations would count transit time, ``steaming time,'' as 
fishing time, putting Maine's fishermen at a severe disadvantage to 
fishermen located in southern New England. Fishermen based in southern 
New England could operate at a considerable competitive advantage, as 
they are able to spend more time fishing and less time steaming to and 
from fertile grounds, such as the Georges Bank. The result could well 
be the migration of Maine's fishing industry south to Massachusetts. In 
fact, we have already seen some large boats relocate from Portland to 
Gloucester.
  Under amendment 13, Maine's larger fishing boats will continue to 
experience problems with steaming time. Fishermen from Portland, ME, 
who chose to take part in the cod exemption program and fish on stocks 
located on Georges Bank must travel 18 hours before they can put their 
nets in the water. In contrast, fishermen leaving from Gloucester, MA, 
can begin fishing after traveling for only 3 hours. Therefore, it makes 
perfect economic sense for vessels to relocate to southern ports, and 
some already have and more will do so. Maine suffers as these landings 
of fish and the revenues generated from these fish move south.
  Furthermore, Maine's small-boat fishermen took drastic cuts in days-
at-sea allocations. In fact, amendment 13 would allocate zero days-at-
sea to 57 Maine groundfish fishermen; this is over 30 percent of 
Maine's groundfishing fleet that would be denied access to this 
resource. Maine's share of the groundfish resource has only diminished 
in recent years, and denying 30 percent of our fleet access to 
groundfish will only accelerate this trend. A larger portion of Maine's 
fleet will be denied access to groundfish than in any other New England 
State.
  Amendment 13 would also harm Maine's fishing-related businesses such 
as gear manufacturers, ice suppliers, and small boat repair shops. 
Maine's fishing infrastructure, which already is at a critical minimum, 
would lose revenue due to restricted access to the resource and due to 
the southward migration of Maine's groundfish fleet. If the current 
form of amendment 13 were implemented, Maine's working waterfront could 
vanish, to be replaced by coastal development. These regulations may 
well mean that Maine would have neither the fishermen nor the fishing 
infrastructure needed for a healthy groundfish fishery.
  In response to concerns regarding loss of fishing infrastructure, 
inequities in steaming time, and the immense social and economic costs 
of amendment 13, the Portland City Council unanimously passed a 
resolution addressing amendment 13 on September 15, 2003. This 
resolution called on Maine's congressional delegation to ``root out all 
provisions of regional groundfish management which discriminate against 
vessels fishing from the State of Maine in general and, in particular, 
from the Port of Portland.'' Amendment 13, in its current form, 
discriminates against Maine's fishermen. The delay in implementation 
will provide the time needed to ``root out'' the unfair aspects of 
amendment 13.
  Anyone who has followed the amendment 13 process has been confronted 
with a litany of bad news; bad for New England, and especially bad for 
my home State of Maine. Newspapers throughout the State of Maine have 
detailed how amendment 13 would devastate Maine's fishermen and related 
businesses.
  Maine's groundfishing industry has already suffered in recent years. 
Since 1995, Maine's groundfishing fleet has shrunk by roughly 40 
percent. In the past two decades, Maine has lost nearly 50 processing 
companies. Amendment 13 would only accelerate this trend. In fact, 
analysis by the National Marine Fisheries Service shows that amendment 
13 would allocate so few days-at-sea to Maine's fishermen, that few, if 
any, of Maine's boats would be able to break even.
  I want the New England groundfish fishery to be sustainable. But that 
goes for fish and fishermen alike. If fishermen cannot make a living at 
sea, they will have no choice but to turn to other businesses.
  As part of the National Marine Fisheries Service's economic analysis 
of amendment 13, a break-even analysis is performed. This analysis 
makes a number of assumptions. First, this break-even analysis assumes 
a boat owner makes no profit, a grim prospect for any business. Second, 
this analysis assumes standard overhead and crew costs that must be 
overcome for a vessel to break even. By paying crew members the bare 
minimum pay of $25,000, most boats will need well over 60 days-at-sea 
to break even. Unfortunately, the average Maine fishermen will be 
allocated only 52 days-at-sea that they can actually use. Only a very 
small portion of Maine's fleet will be able to break even under 
amendment 13.
  Amendment 13 is fundamentally unfair to Maine's fishing community. 
Yet, it was scheduled to be implemented by May 1, 2004, which marks the 
start of the next fishing season. Surely, we need a better, fairer 
approach. The amendment I included in the omnibus spending bill is 
meant to halt implementation of amendment 13 in the current fiscal year 
in order to provide an opportunity for the council to reconvene to find 
a management plan that is fair to all New England States; not a plan 
that ties the laboring oar of rebuilding the fisheries to the hands of 
just one State, Maine.
  I have also sought this delay because we need time to make sure we do 
develop an equitable management plan before one is put into place. The 
groundfish fishery is recovering. Fish stocks have tripled in recent 
years; more important, they continue to rebuild under current 
regulations. This delay is not irresponsible; fish stocks are not 
declining. The condition of the fishery will continue to improve while 
a fair set of regulations are developed. The strict regulations that 
are currently in place, and that will stay in place because of my 
funding restriction, are undeniably working.
  Because this matter is so important to so many people in Maine and 
throughout New England, I want to take a moment to make my intent in 
drafting this amendment perfectly clear.
  My amendment prohibits funds in the omnibus from being used to 
implement a fisheries management plan for New England other than the 
final emergency rule published by the Department of Commerce in the 
Federal Register on June 27, 2003, at page 38234. According to the 
Department of Commerce, the final emergency rule was promulgated ``to 
ensure that there exist measures to reduce overfishing until 
implementation of amendment 13.'' This is still the goal under my 
amendment--the timeframe has just been extended.
  I intend, through my amendment, to keep the final emergency rule in 
place through the end of the fiscal year. This is the case in spite of 
any provisions of law--including, but not limited to, 16 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1855(c)--that might otherwise limit the duration of the provisions 
of the final emergency rule. Indeed, my amendment is intended to 
suspend the application of provisions such as 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1855(c) to 
the final emergency rule. And, in any event, my amendment would not 
prohibit the terms of the final emergency rule from being implemented, 
again, were they found by the court to have expired.
  My amendment restricts the use of funds appropriated in the omnibus. 
Hence, the restrictions apply only through fiscal year 2004. 
Practically speaking, this means that no new management plan for New 
England can be implemented by the Department of Commerce before October 
1, 2004. My amendment imposes this delay in order to provide time for 
the council to develop a plan that, unlike amendment 13, is fair to 
each of the New England States. The court, of course, is free to set a 
new implementation date that falls later than October 1, 2004, and 
might consider setting the new date at May 1, 2005, to coincide with 
the start of the fishing season.
  In addition, my amendment in no way prevents the National Marine 
Fisheries Service from implementing regulations to allow the east coast

[[Page 10]]

scallop fleet and tuna purse seine fleet to access special management 
areas. I encourage the National Marine Fisheries Service to move 
forward and address these issues separate from the overfishing and 
rebuilding requirements in amendment 13.
  It is my expectation that the New England Fishery Management Council 
will use the additional time my amendment will provide to develop a 
plan that all States can support. It is particularly encouraging that, 
after I announced that I would be pursuing this amendment, the New 
England Fishery Management Council's Groundfish Committee agreed to 
convene an emergency meeting in January to examine the concerns that I 
have raised. The Groundfish Committee did, indeed, address some of the 
issues that are important to Maine's fishermen, and I encourage the 
full council to follow the committee's lead and take positive steps 
toward resolving these critical issues.
  The delay afforded by my amendment is so important because it 
provides time for the council to correct the inequities of amendment 
13. The council was under severe, and in many ways artificial, time 
pressure to develop a new management plan. Moreover, much of what has 
been included in amendment 13 was brought to the council at a very late 
hour.
  My amendment will provide time for the council to consider necessary 
changes that must be made to amendment 13. I do not expect the council 
to go back to the drawing board entirely. I believe that amendment 13 
can be altered so that it is fair to all New England States. Problems 
with steaming time must be addressed by the council. Also, the council 
must deal with minimum days-at-sea allocations in a fair manner. There 
is room to improve the conservation tax on days-at-sea transfer to make 
this program viable, and the Groundfish Committee has forwarded a 
recommendation to the council that provides welcome relief. Finally, I 
believe that the leasing program should be extended to provide a 
measure of certainty to New England fishermen.
  I am very pleased that, just last week, the Groundfish Committee 
forwarded several positive recommendations to the council for its 
consideration. The recommendations address many of the issues I have 
raised on behalf of Maine fishermen; issues that caused me to seek a 
delay in the implementation of amendment 13 in the first place. The 
council is scheduled to consider these recommendations next week. If 
the council makes similar, positive progress, I will happily reconsider 
the need for my amendment, and act accordingly.
  In the end, I believe that the council can come up with a consensus 
product. That is not to say it will be a product that fishermen 
applaud. No one appreciates the Government taking away the livelihood 
families have relied upon for generations. But, until the inadequacies 
of our fisheries laws are addressed head on, we owe it to our fishermen 
to administer them, such as they are, with an even hand. That is 
precisely the goal of my amendment.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the omnibus. 
This bill contains several objectionable items that deeply concern me, 
as chair of the Ocean, Fisheries and Coast Guard Subcommittee, because 
the language drastically and fundamentally changes U.S. fisheries 
policy, including authorization language for Individual Processor 
Quotas, a prohibition on implementing a groundfish management plan, and 
other new fishing quota authorizations. These provisions have serious 
consequences for our National fisheries policy and the natural 
resources upon which America's fishermen depend.
  Allow me to explain my concerns in detail. I have many concerns about 
the language in this bill that would authorize what is being called the 
``Crab Plan'' for the Bering Sea/Aleutian Island crab fishery. This 
plan contains provisions for establishing a system of Individual 
Processor Quotas, or IPQs, which would allocate the right to process 
crab among a group of predetermined processors. IPQs are not allowed 
under current law--without express authorization IPQs would violate our 
antitrust laws--and that is why this plan has come before Congress in 
an appropriations bill.
  I must make it perfectly clear, up front, that I have worked 
consistently and forcefully, to reach an agreement with the advocates 
for IPQs. Twice I scheduled a markup in June for a comprehensive bill 
which would have created uniform national standards for fishing quotas. 
The bill was withdrawn from the first markup the evening before it was 
scheduled to occur because, regrettably the prior existing agreement on 
the bill fell through. I withdrew the bill from the second markup after 
I was not able to reach consensus to preserve the original intent of 
uniform national standards for fishing quota plans in the hopes of 
finding a future agreement.
  As chair of the Subcommittee on Oceans, Fisheries and Coast Guard, I 
have worked hard to address fisheries policy in a consistent basis that 
is national in scope but flexible enough to allow for regional 
differences, which is the underlying tenet of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 
Therefore I am adamantly opposed to another circumvention of the 
authorization and fishery management process.
  This provision circumvents the Magnuson-Stevens Act and provides 
North Pacific processors and fishermen special treatment under the law. 
If we allow this provision to proceed, we will set a national precedent 
that has the potential to further undermine the regional fishery 
management system established under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This 
provision will send us further down the road of having Congress 
directly managing fisheries--something Congress expressly decided not 
to do under the landmark 1976 law. Why should we have an established 
fishery management system if we only follow it in part of the country?
  Under existing law, if a Fisheries Management Council wants to create 
a safer fishery with fishing quotas, they already have the option of 
doing so. However, it appears this legislation will only allow fishing 
quotas if processors get a separate quota system. Because of my great 
interest in encouraging fishermen's safety, I find it deeply disturbing 
to make a fishing quota plan approval contingent on a processor quota 
plan. Essentially, these fishermen are being told that they must 
continue to fish in the current, unsafe, derby-style manner unless 
Congress approves this processor quota plan.
  The processor quota system proposed in the omnibus would work by 
requiring that crab fishermen deliver 90 percent of all future catch, 
indefinitely, to predetermined processors. This effectively divides 
market share so that processors are guaranteed a certain amount of 
crabs to process, thereby removing competition from the dock-side price 
setting process. Would we tell any other business that they had to sell 
9 out of every 10 products to only one buyer, regardless of what price 
is offered? Not in this country.
  Another effect of the processor quota program is that it would 
constrain new businesses from entering and competing in the processing 
sector. Technically, under this plan a new processor could try to start 
a business by buying another company's share of processing quota, but 
at what price? What processor would want to sell their guaranteed 
market share?
  The greatest concern I have, however, is that processor quotas do not 
improve fishermen's safety or conservation. Fishing quotas can help 
achieve these goals, but the only purpose of processor quotas is to 
channel market share and bargaining power into processing companies. We 
must not forget that the whole point of fishery management is to 
promote a safe and orderly fishery, and processor quotas do nothing to 
make a fishery safer or better conserve their fishing stocks. It just 
lets the big processing companies get richer.
  Nevertheless, those who want IPQs often claim that my attempts to 
simply question this plan is preventing a safer plan from ever 
happening. This could not be further from the truth. To suggest that 
IPQ opponents are putting

[[Page 11]]

fishermen at risk is completely unacceptable and inaccurate. As long as 
IPQs remain part of the crab plan, however, Congress must properly 
address the very serious economic and public policy questions they 
present.
  So let's get to the heart of the matter. The Congress is being asked 
to grant individual companies a guaranteed share of the crab market, in 
perpetuity. Should Congress also put similar limits on to whom 
processors can sell their product? Shall we legislate to which fish 
markets and restaurants this seafood can then go?
  Those who want IPQs claim that processors need these quotas to 
protect their investment if a fishing quota system is allowed. They 
think that their processing plants would sit unused if a fishing quota 
system brings fish in at different times, and that they would lose 
money. The problem is, all these claims are based on speculation. How 
do we know what economic harm would occur? Even if processors were to 
lose money, how do we know that IPQs are the best or only answer?
  The fact is, the in-depth studies needed to answer these questions 
have not been done. The sensitive economic data necessary for these 
studies have not even been released by processors. What has been 
offered as the ``analysis'' for this plan is incomplete and its 
accuracy cannot be verified through independent reviewers. In short, 
processor quotas are a very broad and costly response to a speculated 
problem.
  Clearly, I have a lot of questions about this plan, as do fishermen 
around the country, several branches of the Federal Government, and the 
editorial boards of at least 11 major newspapers. I have been seeking 
answers for more than a year, and I have yet to receive satisfactory 
responses. As chair of the Subcommittee on Oceans, Fisheries, and Coast 
Guard, I take my fisheries oversight and authorization responsibility 
very seriously. Proper oversight demands answers to these very basic 
questions.
  Make no mistake--the proposed IPQ plan is indeed precedent setting. 
Because of this, processors and fishermen around the country are 
watching our actions in the Senate very carefully. Already processors 
are pursuing an IPQ system for other west coast fisheries, and some are 
even advocating processor quotas for the entire country.
  Fishermen's concerns about IPQs are justified, according to the 
Department of Justice. As chart I shows, on August 27, 2003, the 
Assistant Attorney General's Antitrust Division wrote a letter to the 
Department of Commerce General Counsel, stating that the IPQ plan 
would, and I quote, ``likely reduce beneficial competition among 
processors with no countervailing efficiency benefit.'' They also said 
that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which manages 
our fisheries, should oppose IPQs. This is a very strong condemnation 
of the proposed IPQ plan and validates many of the fishermen's 
concerns.
  In addition, as two other charts illustrate, the National Research 
Council and the General Accounting Office studied the impacts of 
fishing quota systems on the processing sector in other fisheries, and 
they found that impacts of other fishing quota plans on processors was 
inconclusive; some processors were adversely impacted while other 
processors clearly benefited. As such, these studies determined that 
there is no compelling reason to authorize a processor quota system. 
They recommend that if a fishing quota system does result in economic 
damage for processors, then more directed remedial action should be 
pursued based on what harms actually occur.
  Most notably, however, the administration has gone on record as 
saying that they do not support IPQs as proposed for the crab plan. Dr. 
Bill Hogarth, NOAA's Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, testified 
at the October 22 fisheries management hearing which I chaired, and he 
stated that the administration only supports the idea that processors 
could buy fishing quota--not processing quota--if a fishery management 
council deemed it appropriate. It is clear that the administration does 
not support the IPQ system.
  Beyond my grave concerns with this language, I also have many 
concerns about the language added only days before the House voted on 
this package, that threatens to send New England groundfish management 
into a tailspin. This is a fishery that has existed for more than 400 
years, and has struggled to survive through years of significant 
reductions in fishing.
  In 2001, several environmental groups sued the administration for not 
following the rebuilding requirements of the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries 
Act. They won this suit, and ever since this ruling the U.S. District 
Court for the District of Columbia has been overseeing the creation of 
a new groundfish management plan that adheres to the law and will help 
this fishery--which has already made substantial recovery in the last 
several years--be further restored. On November 6, 2003, the New 
England Fishery Management Council proposed a new plan, known as 
``amendment 13,'' for this fishery. The Secretary of Commerce is now in 
the final phases of improving this plan before it is approved and 
implemented this coming May.
  This plan, as proposed, incorporates a great deal of input from 
fishermen and fishing communities throughout New England, and many 
members of the industry support the key elements of this plan. It is 
true that, as originally proposed, the plan would have shifted much of 
the effort toward Massachusetts and have drastic economic impacts on 
Maine, and that is why I have secured commitments from the Secretary of 
Commerce to ameliorate these impacts in the final version of the plan.
  For these reasons, New England groundfish managers have made progress 
in moving fisheries management out of the courtroom. This whole 
process, however, would likely be derailed by the language in this 
bill. Instead of allowing the Secretary to complete work on a plan that 
follows the law and helps fish and fishermen, this language would 
prevent the administration from spending any money on implementing the 
new plan.
  In fact, this language would outlaw any plan from being implemented, 
other than a specific set of interim regulations that were put in place 
while the new plan was being developed. The problem is, these interim 
regulations do not follow the conservation requirements of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act, they unfairly keep the small-boat groundfishing 
fleet throughout New England at an economic disadvantage, and they 
expire in a few short months.
  If this language passes, it will be illegal for the Secretary of 
Commerce to follow the very requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 
This language does not lift the requirements that this Federal 
fisheries law be followed, but it simply makes it impossible for the 
law to be followed and makes it impossible for the Secretary to assist 
in its implementation even if it is to ensure the law is being 
followed. If this passes, Secretary Evans could be held in contempt of 
court, and the future of the New England groundfishery may revert to 
court order, indefinitely.
  Moreover, according to this language, the only regulations that could 
be implemented maintain crippling cuts on the small boat, inshore 
groundfishing fleet. This sector of the groundfishery forms the 
economic backbone of small coastal communities throughout New England, 
and many of these fishermen have worked diligently to contribute to the 
new management plan that the Secretary is now refining. The small-boat 
sector employs thousands of independent fishermen and fishing-related 
businesses throughout New England, and most of them do not support this 
language--and for good reason.
  Proponents of the rider try to make a compelling case that the 
Secretary's proposed rebuilding plan is flawed because it relies on 
unreasonably high fish population rebuilding goals and that the 
groundfish stocks are already rebuilding, so a new plan is not needed. 
Both of these statements are true, and that is why I have been working 
with the administration to refine the council's plan in ways that 
better take these facts into account and asked it to

[[Page 12]]

conduct an independent socioeconomic analysis of the potential impacts 
of the new regulations. Also, as chair of the subcommittee with 
oversight of fisheries I am actively working to address the problems 
with the underlying law and change fisheries management so our nation 
truly benefits. I will be pushing a reauthorization of the act during 
this session of Congress that will address the existing problems in 
fisheries management.
  The bill language in question does nothing to change these facts, and 
it does nothing to factor them into a more reasonable rebuilding plan 
or change the underlying law. The fishing rules that this language 
would in fact allow simply try to ignore the reality that rebuilding 
targets do exist. This language will not lead to any management system 
that complies with the law, and it will not change the reality facing 
our small-boat groundfishermen. Let me be clear: this language risks 
putting the management of the New England groundfish industry back 
before the court, allowing the judge to make any and all subsequent 
management decisions.
  In short, this language undercuts years of hard work, sacrifice, and 
compromise that have gotten the New England groundfishery back on 
track. It forces the Secretary of Commerce to break the law, and it 
risks further damaging the hardworking men and women who want to 
continue to move forward on groundfish sustainability. This language 
risks harming Maine, New England, and our entire Nation's fisheries 
policy. If this provision becomes law it has the potential to lead to 
the downfall of the council-based fishery management process, and risks 
ending a way of life that has sustained New England fishermen for 
centuries.
  The omnibus contains other undesirable fisheries policy changes, such 
as authorization language for Alaskan rockfish processor quotas and 
Aleut corporation quotas. These other two quota programs have never 
been presented to the authorizing committee in any form--nor have they 
gone through the Fisheries Management Council process--so I must object 
to fisheries policy authorization language that has circumvented all 
proper review channels.
  Because of these highly objectionable authorizations, I see no other 
choice than to oppose any bill that contains these provisions. I urge 
those of my colleagues who have an interest in proper fisheries 
management and sound economic policy to oppose this as well. We, in 
Congress, are entrusted with the great responsibility to thoughtfully 
review such policy matters; we owe no less to our fisheries 
constituents. Those that support this bill would be responsible for 
creating a cartel that would effectively control an entire market, and 
for undermining the basis of council-based fisheries management in the 
United States as well as the very foundation of our Nation's free 
market system.
  I ask unanimous consent to print the above-referenced charts in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                           Executive Summary

       The Department supports implementation of a new fishery 
     management plan that would end the ``race to fish'' inherent 
     in the current derby-style management plan. Under the current 
     derby-style program, the season ends as soon as the total 
     allowable catch has been fished, producing an undesirable 
     ``race to fish'' among harvesters. The race to fish is 
     economically inefficient for both harvesting and processing 
     and likely dangerous to the participants. The Department 
     therefore recommends that NOAA support individual fishing 
     quotas (``IFQ'') for harvesters, a reform that will end the 
     race to fish. Provided that IFQ are easily transferable, the 
     gains in efficiency from ending the race to fish--reducing 
     overcapitalization and improving safety--are likely to 
     outweigh the harm of any loss of competition among 
     harvesters. The Department recommends that the plan allow 
     easy transferability of IFQ shares; otherwise the incentive 
     for market participants to make efficient investment 
     decisions will be reduced.
       The Department further recommends that NOAA oppose 
     individual processor quotas (``IPQ''), because IPQ will 
     likely reduce beneficial competition among processors with no 
     countervailing efficiency benefit. This lost competition 
     could deter the development of new processed crab products, 
     reduce the incentives for processors to make efficient 
     investment decisions and reduce welfare for consumers of 
     processed crab products. While harvester quotas should 
     eliminate the harmful race to fish, processor quotas are not 
     justified by any such beneficial competitive purpose.
       If the goal of using IPQ is to compensate processors for 
     overcapitalization, we urge NOAA to consider advocating more 
     direct solutions, such as a program to buy excess processor 
     equipment. We also understand that there are concerns with 
     social goals such as preserving jobs in historic fishing 
     villages. To the extent NOAA agrees with these goals, we 
     recommend it consider advocating more direct solutions.
       The Department also urges NOAA to oppose any form of 
     sanctioned price arbitration. Allowing an arbitrator, rather 
     than the market, to set price may distort the incentive of 
     processors and harvesters to make efficient investments. 
     Further, processors and harvesters must be cautious not to 
     use the arbitration program as a way to agree on price with 
     their competitors, which could violate the antitrust laws.

   Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will oppose the omnibus 
appropriations bill that the Senate is voting on today. It is the 
latest example of the annual breakdown in the congressional 
appropriations process. Once again, instead of considering 
appropriations bills individually, the Senate today is voting on a 
massive spending bill that includes many--in this case, seven--of the 
annual appropriations bills.
   This process just invites the kind of problems--unauthorized 
spending, special interest provisions and legislative riders that go 
against the will of a majority in Congress--that we see in this Omnibus 
bill. Take, for example, the Bush administration's proposed sweeping 
changes to regulations governing overtime pay for white-collar workers. 
These proposed changes would weaken overtime protections for these 
workers by changing the way that eligibility for overtime is 
determined. Both the House and the Senate are on record in favor of a 
provision that would block these changes from going into effect. 
Nonetheless, that provision was dropped in conference after the 
administration exerted tremendous pressure on those negotiating the 
final bill.
   Similarly, language that would have prevented the Federal 
Communications Commission from moving forward with its plan to loosen 
the national cap on television ownership was badly weakened. And, of 
course, there are numerous bad provisions in the bill, including one 
that would create a voucher program in Washington, DC, public schools 
and another that would prevent country of origin labeling on many 
agricultural products.
   I wish I could support this bill as there are a few worthy things in 
it, such as funding for global AIDS programs and for the rural AED Act, 
a program I created with Senator Susan Collins to increase access to 
defibrillators in rural areas. I am pleased that the bill contains 
language I fought for that would require Federal agencies to report on 
their purchases of foreign-made goods. As manufacturing jobs continue 
to disappear across the country, particularly in my home State of 
Wisconsin, the Federal Government should be doing everything it can to 
support American manufacturers. I am also pleased that the bill 
includes a provision I fought for to prohibit the Department of 
Veterans Affairs from enforcing its policy of prohibiting VA employees 
from taking proactive steps to let veterans know about the health care 
benefits for which they may be eligible.
   Those provisions do not outweigh the many bad ones in this bill, 
however. This is simply no way to fund the Federal Government. I regret 
that this ``must-pass'' bill is being used as a platform for bad 
funding decisions and for bad policy decisions, many of which override 
the will of a bipartisan majority of Congress. We need to go back to 
taking up and passing appropriations bills one by one, rather than 
throwing everything but the kitchen sink into a single, bloated piece 
of legislation.
  I am deeply disturbed that the Omnibus appropriations bill that is 
before the Senate today does not include a provision previously 
approved by the Senate that would have prevented the Bush 
administration from rewriting Federal labor law to roll back 
regulations that guarantee millions of workers overtime pay.

[[Page 13]]

  I am dismayed that a small number of Members of Congress and the 
administration were able to run roughshod over the will of a bipartisan 
majority of the Senate and the House to resuscitate the 
administration's ill-conceived overtime proposal. And I regret that the 
administration resorted to veto threats and backroom negotiations to 
save a proposal that will rob millions of workers of badly needed 
overtime pay.
  This is the latest in a series of assaults on working Americans that 
have been perpetrated by this administration. Right out of the gate, 
the President made it his first legislative priority to overturn a 
Federal ergonomics standard that was more than 10 years in the making. 
In addition, this administration has launched a campaign to 
aggressively contract out Federal jobs, systematically dismantle the 
Federal civil service system, gut worker protections, and undermine 
collective bargaining rights.
  In March of last year, the Bush administration proposed a regulation 
that builds upon these efforts to tear down worker protections by 
denying millions of Americans vital overtime pay.
  This proposed rule would change the process by which a worker can be 
declared to be exempt from the wage and hour protections of the Fair 
Labor Standards Act--FLSA, thus opening the door to denial of overtime 
benefits to more than 8 million workers who currently are entitled to 
this extra pay for working more than 40 hours per week.
  In essence, this rule, that apparently will move forward despite 
broad opposition from the Senate and the House, will create a larger 
force of employees who can be required to work longer hours for less 
pay. This could also mean fewer opportunities for paid overtime for the 
workers who would remain eligible for it, and fewer new jobs for those 
looking for employment.
  I am deeply disturbed that, in its attempts to sell its new rule, the 
administration actually provided tips to employers who wanted to get 
around paying overtime to 1.3 million employees who would become 
eligible for benefits under the new rule. The administration advised 
employers to require employees to strictly adhere to a 40-hour work 
week, to raise employees' salaries to the $22,100 annual threshold to 
make them ineligible for overtime pay, or to decrease hourly wages so 
that those plus overtime wages equal the employee's original salary.
  Time and again, the administration has said that this rule is about 
modernizing overtime regulations and not about taking overtime away 
from workers. But the administration's actions run counter to their 
words. The administration has fought tooth and nail to block the Harkin 
language, which simply states that any new overtime rule cannot take 
overtime away from workers who are currently eligible for it. And the 
Administration is offering advice to employers on how to avoid paying 
overtime. From these actions, it is pretty clear to me, and to millions 
of workers, that the goal of this proposed rule is to make fewer 
workers eligible for overtime benefits and to require more employees to 
work longer hours for less pay.
  Who are the 8 million workers who will be affected by this rule 
change? According to the Economic Policy Institute--EPI, 257 ``white 
collar'' occupational groups could be impacted. EPI did a detailed 
analysis of the effect of this rule on 78 of those occupational groups, 
and found that 2.5 million salaried employees and 5.5 million hourly 
workers would lose their overtime protections under the proposed rule. 
That is less than half of the occupational groups that will be covered 
by this rule change.
  By broadening the FLSA wage and hour exemptions, the administration 
is seeking to deny overtime benefits to a wide range of workers, 
including police officers, fire fighters, and other first responders, 
nurses and other health care workers, postmasters, preschool teachers, 
and social workers, just to name a few.
  I am deeply troubled that the administration would propose a rule 
that would deny overtime benefits to the people who put their lives on 
the line each and every day to protect our communities and to those who 
work in health care professions, which already face severe staffing 
shortages.
  I am also troubled that the administration has pulled out all of the 
stops to make this rule a reality, despite broad opposition from 
members of both parties. I regret that the Omnibus appropriations 
bill--and the process in which it was drafted--has been used as a 
vehicle to move this rule forward. With so many long-term unemployed 
workers and with others working more than one job and depending on 
overtime just to make ends meet, it is unfortunate that the 
administration dug in its heels on a proposal to deny overtime to many 
of those who need it most.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the conference report to 
the Omnibus appropriations bill that the Senate has been considering. 
Without question, we have a duty to ensure the continuing operations of 
our Government, and the package before us would enable this for a 
majority of the agencies and programs of the U.S. Government. I thank 
the appropriators on both sides of the aisle, including the senior 
Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, for their efforts in crafting this 
massive funding package, and particularly for their agreement on 
several provisions significant to the people of Hawaii that will meet 
urgent needs in transportation, education, agriculture, and juvenile 
justice. For example, funds included for the Juvenile Justice 
Information System will significantly enhance efforts by law 
enforcement officials and child-serving agencies in Hawaii to address 
the root causes of juvenile criminal behavior. This promises to have a 
tremendous impact on Hawaii's efforts to address juvenile crime.
  I am also pleased that this package includes $1.5 million to initiate 
programs under the Excellence in Economic Education Act, to increase 
financial and economic literacy in our country. I also am a strong 
proponent of the $100 million in funding for the Mentoring and 
Mentoring Children of Prisoners programs, to ensure that young people 
in Hawaii and the Nation have access to the support, guidance, and 
assistance they need to help them through life's difficult and varied 
situations. These are a couple of the many initiatives that I feel very 
strongly about and worked on with my colleagues during the fiscal year 
2004 appropriations process.
  However, on balance, the flaws in this Omnibus package overshadow its 
favorable provisions. It is important to remember that we are here to 
serve in the best interest of our Nation. While differences in 
philosophy will always exist, as Members of Congress, we still have an 
obligation to work together, to look beyond those differences and find 
solutions. I do not believe that the Omnibus contains solutions that 
best serve all who live in our great Nation.
  For example, as the ranking member of the Senate Governmental Affairs 
Financial Management Subcommittee, and the Armed Services Readiness and 
Management Support Subcommittee, I object to the elimination of two key 
measures from the Senate-passed Transportation-Treasury-General 
Government appropriations bill that would have improved fairness and 
cost-efficiency in Federal contracting. The Omnibus deletes a provision 
which would promote equity by granting Federal workers the same rights 
as private contractors to appeal decisions to contract out Government 
jobs. The Omnibus also strikes a requirement for minimal cost savings 
before decisions are made to contract out Federal work. To ensure 
accountability and transparency, Government contracting policies must 
achieve the best return on the dollar and be fair to Federal workers. 
These two goals are complementary.
  The measure before us today fails to ensure diversity of our airwaves 
and deprives millions of workers of their right to overtime pay. In 
both cases, the other body and the Senate were in agreement on how to 
rectify these matters. However, the conferees, in working with the 
administration, determined that there should be a limit on

[[Page 14]]

the Federal Communications Commission's ability to grant licenses to 
only those stations that reach more than 39 percent instead of 35 
percent of a market. In addition, the package before us will allow the 
U.S. Department of Labor to continue working on and finalizing its 
proposed rule to modernize and redefine exemptions from the Fair Labor 
Standards Act, which many employees have said will take away their 
right to be fairly compensated for work performed above their normal 
work schedule. The majority in Congress rejected the DOL proposal and 
urged the leadership to maintain the Senate approved provision that 
would have prohibited the DOL from using funds to promulgate or 
implement its proposed rule.
  The conference report fails not only in the case of worker's rights 
and consumer rights, but also in consumer safety. During consideration 
of the Agriculture appropriations bill, I offered an amendment that 
would have prohibited the U.S. Department of Agriculture from using any 
funds to approve for human consumption any meat products from downed 
animals. This amendment was agreed to in the Senate. While the other 
body defeated a similar amendment offered by Representative Gary 
Ackerman of New York, many of his colleagues later indicated that they 
were unable to vote that day and would have supported his amendment. 
The support would have been enough to accept the amendment. It is 
unfortunate that Congress, in earlier legislative vehicles, and the 
conferees in this package, chose not to be proactive in protecting our 
food supply. For more than 12 years, I have been working to address 
this matter, and my amendment was the most recent example of that. 
While the USDA is making some strides to now address mad cow disease in 
cattle, we need to codify their efforts and expand the ban to all 
downer livestock that may pose a risk to human health, the importance 
of which was highlighted recently with the discovery of a diseased 
downer cow in the Pacific northwest.
  Related to the Commerce Department, the provisions funding ocean 
exploration activities, marine aquaculture development, and coral reef 
research are disappointing. At the proposed levels, our country will 
not be able to promote an economically viable and environmentally 
feasible aquaculture industry to address the $7 billion seafood trade 
deficit. Activities exploring the deep ocean, one of the last 
scientific frontiers on Earth, need to be a greater priority in order 
for us to properly manage and protect these fragile marine communities. 
I am also concerned that an estimated 25 percent of the world's coral 
reefs have been lost and at least 30 percent are threatened by human 
activities. Funding levels in this conference report are insufficient 
to support research and monitoring activities for coral reefs, one of 
the most biologically diverse ecosystems on Earth that is worth 
hundreds of billions of dollars in marine services for our country and 
is certainly very important for Hawaii.
  Although important education priorities are provided for, this 
conference report continues to fall short on major programs, 
particularly those that help disadvantaged and special education 
students. Public schools in every State are struggling to comply with 
the No Child Left Behind Act. However, budget shortfalls at the State 
level resulting from a fragile economy have restricted the resources 
available to our classrooms. Our failure to fully fund the Federal 
commitment Congress made when it enacted the No Child Left Behind Act 
further strains the situation and sets even more schools up for 
``failure'' and more teachers unable to become ``highly qualified.'' 
The same goes for the commitment that we made even earlier in our 
history to fund the Federal portion of the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act. It may have been many years since I led a 
classroom as a teacher or a school as its principal, but I remember the 
support that we needed to ensure that all of our children receive a 
top-notch education.
  Everything that I have recounted here--sentiments echoed by several 
of my colleagues--leads me to conclude that I am unable to support the 
package before us, in its current form. I urge the appropriators in 
both bodies of Congress to improve this package so that it can be 
something that all of us can support.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, Americans believe in fair play: the right 
for everyone to have his say, the opportunity to get a job and make 
your own way in the world, a fair wage for a day's work.
  This is not just idealism--we figure we are all better off if the 
system we live in is open and fair.
  That belief in fair play is the foundation of this Senate and indeed 
of our constitutional system itself.
  My father worked hard and he taught me that fairness is our most 
fundamental value. He taught me that we always have to stand up against 
the abuse of power at every level. Whenever someone uses their 
advantage, be it wealth, education, size, strength, whatever it may be, 
against someone else, it is wrong, and it goes against everything we 
stand for, everything we are as a nation and a people.
  Not just the process is flawed. The product of that process, the 
Omnibus appropriations bill before us today, is flawed, too. It is 
unfair.
  That back-room, unrepresentative process has produced legislation 
that deserves to be defeated, not just because of the way it was 
cobbled together, but because of what will happen if it becomes law.
  Here is one result of that process: millions of men and women who 
will lose their right to time and a half overtime pay, a cornerstone of 
our workers' rights for over half a century.
  Both the House and the Senate, with bipartisan majorities, voted last 
year to block new Labor Department rules that weaken overtime 
protections. But this bill cancels out that decision, allowing those 
rules to go forward.
  The latest news from the jobs front--that hundreds of thousands of 
Americans have given up looking for work after we have gone through 3 
years of job losses--sent a shock through financial markets. It should 
worry us all.
  Now is not the time to be cutting the pay of those Americans who have 
jobs. But that is just what weakening overtime pay will do.
  While recent economic news has been positive, there is little hope 
for sustained, healthy economic growth without solid, good-paying jobs. 
Consumer confidence and consumer spending--the keys to our economy--
ultimately depend on Americans' confidence that they have a secure job, 
a job that pays a fair wage for a fair day's work.
  For over half a century, American workers have known what that 
meant--a 40-hour workweek, and time and a half if you worked overtime. 
You could count on that extra pay in exchange for the extra burden of 
working more than 40 hours a week.
  Many workers often have no choice about working overtime--it is up to 
their boss. But if they have to work those extra hours, their employer 
is required to pay them time and a half. This has been a cornerstone of 
the social contract between labor and management, between workers and 
employers.
  But despite the key role of the 40-hour workweek, despite the wide-
spread reliance on time and a half pay for work past those 40 hours, 
this administration has proposed radical changes in the regulations 
governing overtime pay.
  When I spoke here as a cosponsor of Senator Harkin's amendment here 
on the floor of the Senate back in September, we heard from some 
supporters of the rule changes that they would not decrease the number 
of workers eligible for overtime pay.
  But if there was any doubt about the real motivation behind these 
regulations, just look at the regulations themselves. They provide 
explicit instructions to employers on methods they could use to avoid 
increasing the pay of employees who, we are told, will become eligible 
for overtime pay.
  So all of those workers we were told would benefit, who would 
``automatically'' qualify for time-and-a-half overtime pay, if their 
pay is under $425 a week, could easily see not one dime of new pay.

[[Page 15]]

  Employers are coached on ways to avoid any new costs and still comply 
with the regulations. So don't tell me this is going to add to workers 
wages--that claim is refuted in the regulations themselves.
  And for other workers, with pay over that threshold, the regulations 
clearly threaten to take away overtime protections. They want to make 
it easier for employers to reclassify as many as eight million hourly 
workers who now get overtime pay, to make them ineligible for overtime 
pay.
  Right now, if you are not ``white collar''--working in management, 
essentially--your boss has to pay you time and a half for all the work 
you do over 40 hours a week. The idea is that more highly educated 
workers, who participate in management, who have significant authority 
over the workplace, are more properly classified as salaried, not 
hourly workers. They get a fixed amount of pay, no matter how many 
hours they may put in a week.
  Hourly workers, on the other hand, who do not manage the conditions 
under which they work, who have less to say about how the workweek is 
organized, must be compensated if they work more than the basic 40 
hours. That has been the definition of a fair day's work for a fair 
day's pay for more than half a century, and its basic fairness still 
makes sense today.
  But the administration's new regulations would make it easier--would 
actually create an incentive--for employers to classify workers who 
have little advanced education and little or no authority, to classify 
those workers as white collar workers.
  Overnight, under these new regulations, millions of workers could 
lose the right to overtime pay. These rules are designed not only to 
make it easier to reclassify workers, but to make it pay for employers 
who do so. They will save money, since they will no longer be required 
to pay workers the time and a half rate that they are now guaranteed.
  No change in the number of hours they could be required to do, no 
change in their education, no change in their responsibilities--just a 
change in the regulations in Washington, and they are out overtime pay.
  That is one of the many reasons this legislation should be defeated, 
but it is not the only one.
  Right now we have a law on the books that makes sure everyone who 
buys a gun is checked to see if they have a criminal record--or if they 
are on our terrorist watch list.
  Those records are kept for 90 days--long enough to find out if a gun 
was sold to a criminal or terrorist, someone who initially may have 
appeared to have no criminal record or other ``red flag'' that would 
signal he is a bad guy.
  Ninety-seven percent of the times that the reporting system 
discovered that a bad guy--a terrorist, a wife-beater, whatever--had 
mistakenly been sold--a weapon, it took more than 24 hours to figure it 
out. Destroying those records in 24 hours will destroy our chances of 
catching bad guys.
  The change in this legislation will mean that 97 percent of the 
criminals or others who are mistakenly sold a weapon will go undetected 
by a system that was supposed to make us safer. Does the public know 
about this? I don't think so. That is because of the closed-door, 
backroom deal making that cobbled this massive bill together. This 
provision has never previously been considered by the House or the 
Senate.
  Bad process, bad product.
  And that is true for what the leadership did with the issue of media 
ownership.
  Last year, the FCC decided to abandon its long-standing limitation 
that said no company or person could own television stations reaching 
more than 35 percent of the Nation's viewing audience. The FCC raised 
that limit to 45 percent, threatening harmful consolidation among media 
outlets that could undermine competition and diversity among broadcast 
voices.
  The FCC's actions were met with consternation from all sides of the 
political spectrum, and both the House and Senate voted with bipartisan 
majorities to forestall this change. But the will of the Congress was 
cast aside.
  The leadership of the Congress--mind you, not the Members of the 
House and Senate--under pressure from an administration eager to take 
care of large corporate interests, removed the 1-year restriction on 
the FCC's changes and replaced it with a new permanent 39 percent cap.
  The list of bad provisions goes on. When we wrote the farm bill in 
the last Congress, with the support of both parties, we included a 
requirement that when we shop at the grocery store, we know what 
country our produce and meats come from.
  That rule--requiring labeling that indicates the country of origin--
was to go into effect this year. But this legislation delays that rule 
for 2 years.
  It rewrites the farm bill to delay that rule--something neither the 
House nor the Senate voted to do.
  Since that change was put into this bill, we have now found out that 
mad cow disease made its way into our country from Canada. Not a major 
cause for alarm, but certainly a lot of folks would now want to know 
where their beef comes from. But it will be 2 years before they get 
that information, if this bill passes.
  There is one other thing that has to be mentioned here today. We have 
come through the last 3 years, including several months of strong 
economic growth, but we are still not creating new jobs.
  For the first time since the Great Depression, we have gone 3 
straight years without creating a single new job. Not one. The 
unemployment rate has come down recently, but that is because the job 
picture is so bleak that over 300,000 people just stopped looking.
  Long-term unemployment is a much bigger problem these days, 
especially in our hard-hit manufacturing sector.
  The kinds of changes we have gone through in recent years means that 
many of those jobs just won't be coming back. Those that will come back 
will return slowly. That leaves hundreds of thousands of Americans 
running out of their long-term unemployment benefits.
  But we went out of session last fall and let the extended 
unemployment compensation program just expire, at the worst possible 
time. And we come back today with this appropriations bill, leaving 
that program expired and those Americans without benefits.
  There are now 2.4 million fewer jobs overall than there were when the 
last recession began. Every month, about 100,000 more workers exhaust 
their existing benefits. The most recent report of people dropping out 
of the job hunt altogether is all the proof we need that long-term 
unemployment is a key feature of this economy right now.
  This is not the time to let the program expire, but this bill, which 
covers so many programs and so many policies in so many parts of our 
Government, fails to address this problem.
  That is unacceptable.
  For the bad policies that are in it, and for the good policies that 
have been dropped from it or simply ignored, I urge my colleagues to 
join me in voting against cloture on this bill.
  This conference report continues the administration's attempt to undo 
the equation we put in place when I wrote the 1994 Crime Bill: more 
police equals less crime. The conference report cuts COPS by 24 
percent, and cuts the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program almost 
in half. These are proven programs that help local police departments 
beef up their staffs and modernize their equipment, and the cuts 
couldn't be coming at a worse time.
  There is only $756 million for COPS in the conference report, a 
drastic cut from the fiscal year 2003 level of $978 million. COPS' core 
program--the initiative that helps local police departments hire new 
community police officers--is funded at just $120 million, a 30-percent 
cut from last year and a far cry from the late nineties when the hiring 
program regularly received over a billion dollars per year.
  These cuts are shortsighted, ill-conceived, and I fear they will 
significantly hurt local law enforcement's ability to fight crime. In a 
time of color-coded alerts, a rising murder rate, and an FBI 
increasingly focused on counterterrorism and away from

[[Page 16]]

violent crime, we are inexplicably asking the men and women of law 
enforcement to do much more with much less.
  When asked to justify this approach, the administration responds that 
Federal resources for ``first responders'' are way up. Respectfully, 
that simply is not an adequate answer, and it reflects a fundamental 
misunderstanding of the needs of local law enforcement. Defending the 
homeland against a terrorist attack and preventing a woman from being 
raped are simply two different problems that require different 
solutions and different sets of contributions from the Federal 
Government.
  I think Massachusetts Public Safety Secretary Edward Flynn is on the 
right track when he says, ``terrorism is the monster that ate criminal 
justice''.
  We need to dedicate sufficient resources to fight international 
terrorism and local crime at the same time, but this conference report 
falls far short in this regard.
  I recently received a letter from the International Association of 
Chiefs of Police where they express ``grave concern'' over the funding 
levels for COPS and the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant contained in 
this conference report. In their letter, the IACP states their ``belief 
that at this crucial time in our history, we cannot afford to reduce 
the effectiveness of our nation's state and local law enforcement 
agencies by cutting vital federal assistance programs.''
  The Nation's police chiefs are not alone in their concern. According 
to the U.S. Conference of Mayors:

     too many families are still being ravaged by illegal drugs, 
     too many citizens and law enforcement officers are put in 
     danger due to drug and gun related crimes, and property and 
     violent crimes are still a major issue in too many 
     communities.

  They also strongly oppose the cuts in this conference report.
  The National Association of Police Organizations wrote me to say that 
this conference report ``does not sufficiently address the needs of 
America's police officers in their dual fight against terrorist threats 
and domestic crime.'' I cannot support the cuts this conference report 
proposes, and I encourage my colleagues to listen to their mayors and 
police officers before casting their vote.
  Mr. McCain. Mr. President, because of time constraints, my comments 
will be brief. I will, however, make extensive remarks about the 
omnibus bill at a later time.
  We are nearly 4 full months into fiscal year 2004 and we are still 
without 7 of the 13 annual appropriations bills. For the second time in 
less than a year, we are considering a massive omnibus appropriations 
bill, with this one totaling a whopping $820 billion. Sadly, this 
conference report is loaded with over $11 billion in special interest 
pork-barrel projects and legislative riders that have no business in 
this or any other spending bill.
  This omnibus appropriations bill has received considerable and 
justifiable criticism in the press and it should serve as an alarming 
wake up call. We are facing a $500 billion deficit. That's half of a 
trillion dollars--the largest ever. And what do we do when faced with 
such a problem? We spend even more. An article in Sunday's Washington 
Post pointed out what really drives the agenda here on Capitol Hill. 
The article states:

       Today, the country still faces serious problems--oil 
     dependence, child poverty, new gaps in health care coverage, 
     deteriorating rural communities and failing public schools. 
     One doesn't have to be an advocate of big government to 
     believe Congress has a role in crafting pragmatic solutions 
     to these problems. Yet as Congress returns this week, none of 
     these issues is on the agenda. What is on the agenda? Why, 
     things Congress has always excelled in: dispensing pork 
     barrel projects and using taxpayer's money to reward 
     supportive lobbies.

  Additionally, an editorial in today's Wall Street Journal states:

       The bottom line is truly shocking. Passage of the omnibus 
     would raise total discretionary spending to more than $900 
     billion in 2004. The editorial goes on to note that this 
     increase should not be blamed on the war. It states that, At 
     18.6 percent, the increase in non-defense discretionary 
     spending under the 107th Congress, 2002-2003, is far and away 
     the biggest in decades. In 2003, total Federal spending 
     topped an inflation-adjusted $20,000 per household for the 
     first time since World War II. Let me point out just a few of 
     the things that are included in this bill: $450,000 for the 
     Johnny Appleseed Heritage Center in Ohio; $200,000 to the 
     Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum in Cleveland, OH for 
     the Rockin' the Schools education program; $175,000 to paint 
     a mural on a flood wall in a city in Missouri; $325,000 for 
     construction of a swimming pool in Salinas, CA.

  In addition to literally thousands of earmarks, this conference 
report contains major policy changes. Some of these provisions include 
legislative language authorizing the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 
crab fisheries rationalization plan, which would divide 90 percent of 
that crab market among just a small group of processors. Fishermen 
could only sell to those processors and only those processors would 
sell to consumers. This proposal has not been considered by the 
authorizing committees of jurisdiction, nor requested by the 
Administration.
  Another legislative item included in this bill include media 
ownership provisions to undo a June 2 FCC regulation. Further, language 
is included mandating that the background check approval records issued 
after the purchase of a firearm be destroyed within 24 hours instead of 
the current policy of 90 days. This omnibus legislation also contains 
an environmental rider meant to benefit Briggs and Stratton, a major 
manufacturer of small engines. There is also language that redirects 
$40 million for construction of a cargo terminal at the Port of 
Philadelphia that is designed to support high speed cargo vessels for a 
private venture. Today, not only do the vessels not exit, but their 
design is based on unproven technology.
  We have to change the way we do business around here. Through our 
wasteful spending practices, we have succeeded in tying a millstone of 
debt around the necks of future generations of Americans. Today, we 
have on opportunity to make serious and substantial change in the way 
we treat the American taxpayer. Let's rise to the challenge. Let's not 
squander this opportunity. I urge my colleagues to vote against cloture 
on this horrendous piece of legislation.


      construction of a port of philadelphia marine cargo terminal

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I rise today to engage in a brief 
colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee regarding the designation and use of funds from the National 
Defense Sealift Fund for the construction of a marine cargo terminal in 
the Port of Philadelphia. These funds were previously made available 
through prior appropriations bills. Specifically, these funds are to be 
used to complement funds being made available by State and local 
authorities in Pennsylvania and New Jersey for the construction of a 
new, dedicated, state-of-the-art marine cargo terminal for use by 
FastShip, Inc., in Philadelphia.
  These funds were originally designed to provide for vessel loan 
guarantees for the construction of high-speed vessels capable of 
providing additional sealift capacity consistent with the existing 
vessel Title XI loan guarantee program of the Maritime Administration. 
As part of this program, certain equipment and infrastructure items can 
also be included in the scope of the loan guarantee that would enhance 
and facilitate the use of the vessels to be constructed. Some of the 
funds were to be used for equipment needed to load and unload the 
vessels and for state-of-the-art information technology and container 
and terminal security at FastShip's marine cargo terminal.
  Specifically, these funds were intended to be used to support 
guarantees for the construction in a U.S. shipyard of vessels for 
FastShip to establish a high-speed cargo service operating out of a 
new, state-of-the-art terminal in the Port of Philadelphia. These 
vessels will now be constructed without the benefit of this loan 
guarantee program, leaving a funding shortfall for infrastructure 
improvements. Since the amounts to be made available through the vessel 
loan guarantee program for infrastructure improvements needed to 
complement

[[Page 17]]

state and local funding for the terminal are now not forthcoming, the 
reallocation of these previously appropriated funds specifically for 
infrastructure at the FastShip marine cargo terminal is consistent 
with, and is a replacement for, the source of funding that is no longer 
available. The Department of Defense should direct these funds through 
the Philadelphia Regional Port Authority to ensure that these funds are 
made available for this purpose.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to join the senior Senator from 
Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, to reinforce the importance of this program. 
The development of high-speed sealift capacity is critical to national 
security and efforts like the one you have described are key to 
attaining this important objective.
  I would inquire of the Senator if my understanding of the use of 
these funds is correct and that the reallocation of these previously 
appropriated funds specifically for infrastructure at the FastShip 
marine cargo terminal is to be directed through the Philadelphia 
Regional Port Authority to ensure that these funds are made available 
for this purpose.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleague for his inquiry and would respond 
that his understanding is correct. Further, I thank my distinguished 
colleague for his support of this important project for the Port of 
Philadelphia and indeed for the development of enhanced sealift 
capability that will provide the necessary support for our service 
personnel who serve our country overseas.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, thank you for the clarification 
regarding the purpose and use of these funds for a state-of-the-art 
marine cargo terminal in Philadelphia. I reiterate, this is an 
important project not only for the economic activity that will be 
generated for the Port of Philadelphia but also for the advancements in 
fast sealift in support of our national security interests.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I am voting to help Washington 
State restart our economy, create new jobs, and invest in our future by 
voting to move this Omnibus appropriations bill forward.
  I am deeply angry that the White House and the Congressional Majority 
are trying to use this must-pass bill to sneak through some atrocious 
policies that the Senate has already rejected, but I know that this 
bill is not the last word.
  Since the first days of this administration, I have fought attempts 
to threaten workers, undermine our environment and weaken consumer 
protections, and I'm not going to stop now.
  While I continue my fight against the bad things that are in this 
bill, I will not let my State lose out on the many good things I worked 
to include. In fact, my experiences over the past few weeks have shown 
me just how big a difference these investments will make throughout my 
State.
  I have spent the past month meeting with people in every corner of 
Washington--from teachers and students in Pasco, to farmers in the 
Skagit Valley, veterans in North Central Washington, and seniors in 
Aberdeen and Ballard. I sat down with the people who grow our produce, 
run our ports and operate our public utility districts. Together we 
celebrated our victory in landing the Boeing 7E7 and in opening new 
centers for research and tourism.
  No matter where I went or with whom I met, one thing was clear. In 
every corner of Washington, neighbors are coming together to create 
jobs, rebuild our economy and create a better future. They are working 
to help our children, assist our seniors, and support our veterans and 
military families. They are working hard to turn things around, and 
they need the investments this bill will make in our schools, our 
infrastructure, our economy, and our people.
  Washington State is talking about moving forward. We have been hit 
hard by the recession and lost 75,000 jobs over the last 3 years, but 
we are making progress. We had some great news in December when Boeing 
decided that Washington workers would build the 7E7, the next 
generation airliner. We are moving forward on transportation 
investments that will create jobs and improve our productivity, economy 
and quality of life. And we're moving forward with new growth 
industries from biotechnology to wine.
  All across my State, I heard the message loud and clear. 
Washingtonians want to get our economy moving again and create new 
jobs. They're concerned about our men and women serving in the Armed 
Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and throughout the world, and want to 
make sure we provide for our veterans and military families. So, as we 
begin the second session of the 108th Congress, I'm working here in the 
Senate to help us move forward, and it starts with our economy.
  I am not satisfied with the economy and particularly job creation in 
my State. I am disappointed that this administration's economic policy 
created just 1,000 jobs in the month of December while hundreds of 
thousands of unemployed workers abandoned job searches altogether.
  I am outraged that the majority in Congress and the administration 
allowed 85,000 unemployed workers, including 7,500 in Washington State, 
to lose unemployment compensation just before the holidays. Over the 
next few weeks, an additional 37,000 unemployed workers in Washington 
State will lose their extended unemployment benefits.
  I am not satisfied with the Omnibus Appropriations measure now before 
the Senate. The fiscal year started more than 3 months ago, and we 
still haven't finished the important business of passing appropriations 
bills to fund some of the most important functions of our Government.
  We are unanimous in support of our troops fighting the war on 
terrorism, yet we haven't passed the VA-HUD bill with its critical 
increase in funding for veterans' health care.
  The President travels the country celebrating the second anniversary 
of the No Child Left Behind legislation, but the funding we fought so 
hard to secure is still not at work on behalf of our kids. The money 
contained in this bill is not nearly enough to allow schools to make 
the reforms needed for our students to succeed.
  Important transportation projects are stuck in neutral--jeopardizing 
their ability to move forward and create construction jobs now and to 
support long-term economic recovery. We should be talking about 
reauthorizing the 6-year highway bill rather than finally approving the 
long overdue funding measure for one fiscal year.
  As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I am outraged that the 
hard work of the committee has been delayed and compromised by the 
Majority and the administration who are jamming Senators to force 
through bad policies.
  I want to commend Chairman Stevens and Senator Byrd for their hard 
work to pass the appropriations bill. We are here to debate an omnibus 
appropriations bill that the Appropriations Committee worked so hard to 
avoid.
  I understand why many of my Democratic colleagues have chosen to 
oppose this bill. I share their anger at the administration's role in 
this process and our Republican colleagues' willingness to abandon 
issues like overtime protections that they voted for right here on the 
Senate floor. I seriously considered voting against this measure.
  But I am a realist, and I am passionate about the needs of Washington 
State. People need jobs, transportation improvements need to move 
forward, veterans need health care, our students need support, and that 
is what I am voting for today.
  As awful as some of the administration-backed provisions in this bill 
are, defeating the Omnibus appropriations bill will put our economy, 
our schools and our health care system at even greater risk.
  It is a horrible choice the majority is forcing us to make. But 
today, I am voting for the jobs, security and growth that this bill 
will bring to the people of Washington State. I will vote for cloture 
and final passage of the Omnibus because I know my State needs the 
investments in this bill, and I do not want to deny or delay important 
Federal assistance to my State.

[[Page 18]]

  Before I close, I want to talk about some of the harmful and hurtful 
provisions that Republicans have inserted into this bill--particularly 
those targeting workers and consumers.
  The only reason they attached them to this must-pass bill is because 
they know these horrible policies cannot stand on their own. In fact, 
with my support the Senate has defeated the administration's plans to 
erode overtime pay for workers and to increase media concentration. And 
we led the fight in the last Farm Bill to give consumers important 
country of origin information about our food supply. Despite the 
Republicans' maneuvers, this bill is not the last word on these 
policies. The fight is not over.
  I am particularly outraged that the administration and the Republican 
leadership ignored the will of the majority of Members in both Chambers 
by removing the Harkin overtime amendment from the Labor/HHS 
Appropriations bill.
  The Harkin amendment would have protected hard-working Americans who 
rely on overtime pay, like our first responders--our police, 
firefighters and nurses. One international police association estimates 
that 200,000 midlevel police officers will lose about $150 million in 
overtime pay if the new draft overtime regulations are implemented. The 
Bush administration will also prevent more than 230,000 licensed 
practical nurses from getting overtime pay.
  According to the Economic Policy Institute, the Bush overtime rule 
will mean a pay cut for up to 10 million working Americans.
  Even more astounding, the Bush administration had the gall to 
actually give employers detailed suggestions on how they could cut 
workers' pay. To me it is unbelievable that our Government would 
proactively look for ways to hurt American workers.
  These families are working hard, they are playing by the rules, they 
are trying to make ends meet, but the Bush administration and the 
Republican majority in this Congress are squeezing them once again.
  Apparently, it wasn't enough for this administration to preside over 
a dramatic loss of manufacturing jobs. It wasn't enough for this 
administration to let out-of-work Americans lose their unemployment 
benefits before the holidays. Now this White House is attacking the 
take-home pay of those Americans who are lucky enough to even have 
jobs. It's appalling, it's wrong, and I'm going to keep fighting this 
administration's attacks on working families.
  I am deeply disappointed that this bill diverts taxpayer dollars away 
from struggling public schools and spends them on a vouchers scheme in 
the District of Columbia. I will continue my fight against vouchers and 
my efforts to give our public schools the resources our students need.
  In the end, I am confident that we will win because these awful 
Republican policies cannot stand up to public scrutiny. We will have 
more votes on the overtime issue. We will have more votes on the 
country of origin labeling and important food safety issues, and we 
will have more votes on vouchers and media concentration.
  I vote for this bill today because of the many programs funded in 
this Omnibus bill.
  Throughout my State, people are working hard to get our economy 
moving, and I am voting for this bill to give them the Federal support 
they deserve.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to cloture 
on the Omnibus appropriations bill. I cannot fathom why the Senate 
would agree today to cut off debate on a measure that is fundamentally 
flawed precisely because it was put together without the input of the 
full House and Senate. We have before us a bill that allocates billions 
of dollars through a plan clabbered together behind closed doors by the 
White House a very few Republican Members. It was a partisan, 
undemocratic process and the result is a bill that both thwarts the 
will of our constituents and makes a mockery of Congress's obligation 
to control this Nation's purse strings.
  A vote for cloture today is a vote to rubberstamp the 
administration's wish list of policies and spending they couldn't get 
passed through the regular legislative process. And when you take a 
good look at what is in this bill--or what was forced out by the White 
House--you can understand why they had to put it together in a back 
room and why they want to push it through the Senate with little 
opportunity for debate.
  The issues of concern in this massive bill are numerous--let me just 
highlight a few of the worst.
  This Omnibus bill drops a provision to block a change in the rules 
that determine which workers are eligible for overtime pay. Both the 
House and the Senate voted in favor of maintaining the current rules. 
Both Houses agreed on a policy that would protect overtime for millions 
of working families-- but White House insisted on going ahead with 
their changes regardless of the bipartisan will of Congress.
  Overtime is crucial to helping families make ends meet. In an economy 
that has lost 3 million jobs, those that have managed to hold onto 
their livelihood need the extra money that overtime provides more than 
ever. On average, workers who receive overtime receive almost 25 
percent of their pay that way. And the President pushed for, and won, a 
policy of cutting that vital income for 8 million workers. Lowering 
wages for working people is not the way to stimulate this economy. 
Sending as many as 8 million people home with less money in their 
pocket is not going to spur investment and boost productivity.
  And while the backroom negotiators chose to ignore the needs and 
concerns of workers with their overtime policy, they turned their backs 
on countless more consumers when they scuttled the country-of-origin 
labeling provisions passed by the Senate. If one thing comes through 
loud and clear from the BSE/mad cow experience, it's that consumers 
want basic information about the food they eat. To deny them such 
information takes from them a fundamental right to make decisions about 
their purchases, and their families' health.
  I had hoped that we might discuss country-of-origin labeling--along 
with several other issues--during the conference on the Agriculture 
appropriations bill. Unfortunately, the conference didn't work that 
way. Rather than bridge the difference between the House and the Senate 
on labeling, the conference went behind closed doors and chose another 
direction entirely. It dismissed the Senate resolution in support of 
labeling, then went on to embrace and even expand on the House's ill-
advised rider. The result, a public kept in the dark by the Government 
about where and how the food they eat is made.
  The Omnibus also inappropriately compromises what Congress enacted 
regarding broadcast ownership rules. Both the House and Senate passed 
measures that would have reimposed the 35 percent national TV ownership 
cap, undoing a misguided FCC regulation that raised the cap to 45 
percent. However, a deal with White House negotiators flouts 
Congressional intent and instead establishes a 39 percent limit--which 
seems less like a compromise and more like a favor to certain networks 
that currently own close to 39 percent of the Nation's broadcast 
stations.
  Overtime pay, FCC rules, country-of-origin labeling--all policies 
inserted into this bill by the administration and against the will of 
Congress and numerous constituencies we were sent here to represent. 
Beyond these glaring flaws, there are many--too many--funding and 
policy decisions that are just plain wrong--and need further debate, 
further votes, further negotiation.
  One obvious example is the administration's decision to slash funding 
for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership to a fraction of its past 
level. The Manufacturing Extension Partnership is one of the most 
successful Federal/State partnerships in Government. This program 
targets small and medium sized manufacturing firms, boosting 
productivity and increasing competitiveness as these firms face 
increasing pressure from global markets. The manufacturing sector has 
suffered

[[Page 19]]

devastating job losses during this past term, and the recent upturn in 
the economy left the manufacturing sector lagging far behind the rest 
of the country. MEP is a sound investment: MEP clients reported sales 
of $2.2 billion, nearly 24,500 new or retained workers during fiscal 
year 2001.
  Manufacturing is vital to building a strong economy, creating good 
jobs that contribute to a better standard of living for American 
families and a critical rung on the ladder of opportunity for those 
working toward a better life. The MEP has a proven record of preserving 
jobs and stimulating productivity in those firms utilizing MEP 
services. This vital program will be unable to maintain its public 
mission to serve small manufacturers without adequate Federal support. 
MEP has enjoyed wide bipartisan support due to the effectiveness of its 
programs and fine record of achievement, and failure to adequately fund 
this program is a disservice to our struggling manufacturing industry.
  I am also very disappointed that this bill includes inadequate 
funding for education. When we passed the No Child Left Behind Act, we 
made a deal with our State and local partners in education. We insisted 
on real reform and accountability for results from States, school 
districts and teachers. And we authorized large increases in Federal 
funding to help them succeed. This was a bipartisan bargain that 
acknowledged that reform and resources must go hand in hand if we 
expect our Nation's public schools to improve.
  But once again the appropriations bill before us falls far short of 
Congress' commitment. It is $8 billion short of the authorized funding 
levels in No Child Left Behind. It provides only $12.4 billion for 
title I, which serves disadvantaged, low-income students and was 
authorized at $18.5 billion for fiscal year 2004. It provides only 
level funding for afterschool programs, which give students a safe and 
educational place to go during afterschool hours. The list goes on and 
on; this bill provides inadequate or reduced funding for many other 
programs under No Child Left Behind, leaving our schools--which are 
already struggling with budget shortfalls at the State and local 
level--with even greater challenges. In addition, while this bill 
provides an increase for Special Education, it is far short of meeting 
the Federal Government's promise to fund 40 percent of the costs.
  This bill also shortchanges our most vulnerable youth by inadequately 
funding juvenile justice programs for the second straight year. The 
title V At-Risk Children's Program, which provides juvenile crime 
prevention funding to local communities, will only net $25 million in 
this bill--this program should be funded about three or four times that 
amount. Overall, juvenile justice funding will receive more than $100 
million less in fiscal year 2004 than last year. This is unacceptable 
and we must do better.
  If we are serious about our youth in this country, this bill 
certainly doesn't show it. We need to make their education and their 
well-being a top priority. Instead this bill cuts corners.
  We can and should do better than this. We have done better than this 
in the bills and policies we put together on a bipartisan basis last 
year. I cannot support this bill or any motion to speed its passage. 
Not when it--against the will of Congress--steals necessary overtime 
income from over 8 million workers. Not when it--against the advice of 
the Senate--trashes a program that lets consumers make informed 
decision about the safety of the food they eat. Not when it overturns 
the clear decision of Congress to limit concentration in the media 
industry. Not when it violates common sense, common decency and the 
common good by slashing funding for programs that educate our children 
and nurture our manufacturing industries. I will vote against cloture 
today and against the bill if it comes to a vote. I urge my colleagues 
to do the same.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to speak about a specific provision 
in the Omnibus Appropriations bill. The bill before the Senate includes 
a 2-year delay in the implementation of country of origin labeling for 
all products except fish. I am highly frustrated with this delay 
because the conference committee went beyond the scope of its 
conference. The House bill only had a 1-year delay for implementation 
of country of origin labeling for meat and meat products. The Senate 
bill included an amendment indicating the strong support that country 
of origin labeling had in the Senate. The discovery of bovine 
spongiform encephalopathy, BSE, within our borders this holiday season 
was a wake-up call to the urgency of country of origin labeling 
implementation and the detriments of further delays.
  After the announcement of a ``presumptive positive'' BSE cow in the 
U.S. domestic herd, the national and international response was 
immediate. Domestic markets plunged and our international trading 
partners slammed their doors shut to our meat products. Exports account 
for almost 10 percent of total U.S. beef production. Our largest export 
markets are refusing our product and bloating the domestic market. 
We've already lost a majority of our export market, a void that other 
beef exporting countries are eager to fill. Unless we act now to 
restore the confidence of those markets, the relationships we have 
built for many years will be lost for good. In this situation, our 
trading partners need to be reassured that meat they purchase is 
``born, raised, and slaughtered'' in the U.S. American consumers 
deserve this assurance, too. Country of origin labeling does this.
  We have already paid for this lack of country of origin labeling. 
Exhaustive traceback and research by the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
has shown that the cow infected with BSE was imported from Canada. The 
rules that govern whether a country maintains ``BSE Free'' status are 
found in the Terrestrial Animal Health Code of 2003 generated by the 
Office of International Epizootics, OIE. The code says that a country 
can maintain its BSE-free status despite the discovery of a diseased 
animal if the animal was imported and all progency--calves--of the 
diseased animal are disposed of. With country or origin labeling in 
place, the United States could have begun the fight for ``BSE-free'' 
status immediately. Instead, we were forced to wait weeks until it was 
confirmed beyond doubt that the diseased cow was born in Canada.
  I understand that some people say that we don't need to have country 
of origin labeling when the USDA is already pursuing a national animal 
identification program. This is simply not the case. A national ID 
program will be useful for health safety reasons. It will help pinpoint 
and track the spread of disease, but this information will not be 
passed on to the consumer. Tracking disease is not the only concern. 
Rebuilding consumer confidence should also be a high priority, and the 
only consumer-focused program is country of origin labeling.
  Clearly, the answer to bolstering consumer confidence is country of 
origin labeling. We would do a great disservice to American consumers 
if the Senate suppressed country of origin labeling when the need for 
labeling is heightened.
  The regulations for country of origin labeling were intended to be 
completed and implemented this year. I urge my colleagues to take the 
necessary steps to make sure this is the case. Now more than ever, we 
must stabilize the confidence of our consumers and let them enjoy the 
privilege of knowing that they are eating from the safest food supply 
in the world.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The remaining time is 
controlled by the Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I say to my friends, I have no request 
for time, and there are 6 minutes remaining.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have no more requests for time. So for 5 
minutes, I suggest the Senate be in a quorum call.
  Mr. STEVENS. We will notify the two leaders. They still have reserved 
time, Mr. President.
  Mr. REID. Until 10 till.
  Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum with the time coming 
out of our time.

[[Page 20]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use my leader time to comment on 
the pending legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we are all eager to hear the President's 
agenda for the year. Before we move on, the Senate has some unfinished 
business from last year. This time last year Republicans promised a 
smooth appropriations process. In fact, it broke down to an 
unprecedented degree. It didn't have to be this way. Chairman Stevens 
and Senator Byrd steered this process in an open, bipartisan fashion. 
Working together, they produced 12 appropriations bills that passed 
with broad, bipartisan support. As the majority leader noted this 
morning, we owe both of them a debt of thanks.
  I am confident, had they been able to conclude the process they 
began, this debate would not have been needed. But because of the 
hubris of the White House and House Republican leadership, 
bipartisanship ended at the door to the conference negotiations. Hidden 
from the light of day, the White House hijacked the appropriations 
process, excluded Democrats, and wrote a bill to satisfy little more 
than special interest wish lists.
  Today we are already 4 months into the fiscal year. We cannot undo 
the entire process, nor do we seek to. Democrats are united in our 
support for the vast majority of what is contained in this bill. But we 
should fix this bill before we finish it.
  We want to give the majority a few days to work with the 
administration and the House to fix the most egregious provisions in 
this bill, provisions that have already been rejected by both Houses of 
Congress and bipartisan majorities. I have discussed our plans with 
Chairman Stevens and the majority leader, and I believe they understand 
that we have no intention to block this bill. There is no reason to 
consider a full year continuing resolution and absolutely no risk of 
any interruption to the operation of the Government. The existing CR 
does not expire until January 31.
  We could fix this bill with a simple correcting resolution and pass 
the Omnibus bill with broad, bipartisan support this very day. If we 
fail to do so today, all we ask is a few days to reconsider their 
actions. In doing so, we hope to salvage this process and begin this 
year on a note of bipartisanship, openness, and cooperation.
  Three provisions demand particular attention.
  American ranchers and farmers meet the highest safety standards in 
the world. But the discovery of mad cow disease in one imported 
Canadian cow has cast an unfair shadow of uncertainty over the American 
food industry.
  There is a simple fix--implement the country of origin labeling law 
Congress has already passed.
  This rule would put a ``100% American Beef'' sticker only on meat 
that was born, raised, and slaughtered in the United States.
  Consumers want and deserve the right to make informed choices. In a 
recent poll, 85 percent said they would be more likely to buy food if 
it's American.
  At a time when the rural community is struggling, the economic 
benefit of COOL to farmers and ranchers could be pivotal. That is why 
COOL is supported by 167 farm organizations representing 50 million 
Americans.
  The Senate passed the rule on two occasions with strong bipartisan 
support, in May 2002 as part of the farm bill, as well as in November.
  It is time to enforce the will of the Senate and respond to the 
wishes of the American people.
  The second issue is overtime. This bill would allow the White House 
to end overtime protection for American workers. This plan has already 
been rejected by the Senate by 54-45 and the House 221-203.
  There is a simple reason why: It is bad for working families, bad for 
the economy. It would deliver a pay cut to 8 million workers, including 
emergency medical personnel, criminal investigators, nurses, physician 
assistants, teachers, agriculture inspectors, and more. Overtime pay 
accounts for nearly a quarter of take-home pay. For millions of 
families, it represents college savings, down payment for a house, 
medical bills.
  At a time when manufacturing jobs continue to be shipped overseas and 
families are anxious about their finances, it would be cruel to end 
this vital protection that workers have depended upon for 70 years.
  Finally, as to media ownership, when a few companies control the vast 
majority of media outlets in our country, our national discourse 
suffers and the vitality of our democracy is undermined.
  There has been broad bipartisan support for maintaining limits. Last 
year, these limits won wide majorities in both the House and the 
Senate.
  After first agreeing to retain language passed by the House and 
Senate to limit the number of stations a network can own, conferees 
bowed to White House pressure and included language that helps media 
conglomerates consolidate control over the airwaves.
  This is special interest giveaway that directly harms the national 
interest, and it should be stopped.
  There is more in this bill that could be improved. Provisions hidden 
within this 1,200 page bill would also threaten the education of 
Washington D.C. children through an untested vouchers scheme, undermine 
gun enforcement laws and allow more dangerous criminals to get their 
hands on guns, and contract out Federal jobs in key areas of 
government, leaving both Federal workers and citizens less safe and 
secure.
  There are many more shortcomings. My colleagues could certainly point 
to other issues that deserve attention.
  The Senate should not look the other way while a small minority 
overrides the will of the majority merely in order to reward one 
special interest after another.
  We ask just a few days to improve this legislation. Let us fix this 
bill before we finish it. A few extra days of debate could prevent this 
bill from causing enduring damage to the Senate, our government, and 
our Nation.
  Last year, with the White House and House Republican leadership at 
the controls, the appropriations process jumped the tracks. We have a 
chance to set things right and establish a tone of bipartisanship and 
cooperation for the coming year. I urge the Senate to make the most of 
this opportunity.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, on leader time, I would like to make some 
closing statements on the importance of this bill, especially in light 
of the fact that although we have had 57 days for people to study the 
particular bill and what is in this bill, I want to put in a larger 
perspective why it is important to vote for cloture today and for us to 
bring to closure the unfinished business from several months ago so we 
can move ahead with the Nation's business this year.
  I think first and foremost, every Senator has a real stake in passage 
of this legislation. Indeed, not just every Senator but the country has 
a stake in passage of this legislation. If we don't invoke cloture and 
subsequently pass this legislation, we will be shortchanging our 
diligent efforts and dedicated efforts in the fight against terrorism. 
We will be weakening funding for our food security and for our food 
safety system. We will be directly impacting in this vote millions of 
veterans. Those people who suffer from HIV/AIDS all over the world--our 
vote both today and subsequently for or against this appropriations 
package will affect them, whether it is in the prevention phase or in 
the treatment phase of HIV/AIDS. If we don't vote for cloture, if we 
don't vote for passage of

[[Page 21]]

this Omnibus bill--this collection of seven bills that addresses so 
many of the needs--we will be shortchanging the needs of schools in 
terms of Pell grants and in terms of Head Start. We will be 
shortchanging the lives of millions of Americans.
  Many people have argued for a lot more spending in these bills, and 
many people have argued for a lot less spending. Whatever the merits of 
these arguments, again the whole process is a part of negotiations and, 
yes, compromise with the Senate, within the Senate, the House of 
Representatives, and the administration. But this is the product before 
us. Whatever the merits of those arguments for spending more or 
spending less, it is important that everyone understand the bill does 
abide by those spending limits that were agreed on between Congress and 
the executive branch, once you include the two emergency supplemental 
bills enacted last year, the ones enacted for the conflict in Iraq.
  The appropriations spending authority will increase slightly--barely 
over 3 percent from 2003-2004--once this bill is enacted.
  I spelled out briefly this morning the alternative to the bill. It is 
important for people to understand the alternative to passing this 
Omnibus appropriations bill. No Senator should be under any illusion, 
especially with regard to the fact that we are already one-quarter of 
the way through the fiscal year. One-quarter of it has already been 
completed. The alternative to a defeat of this appropriations package--
this Omnibus package--is a full year of continuing resolution for the 
seven remaining appropriations bills.
  I have to remind Senators because it has been a while since we have 
come back on the floor, and we haven't spent all day today going 
through all of the programs and what is in this bill in terms of 
education, title I, and special education programs, if we don't pass 
this package, will be cut by $2 billion. The National Institutes of 
Health, if we don't pass this bill, would be cut by $1 billion. 
Veterans health care--the health care for our veterans--would be 
reduced by $3.1 billion if we don't pass this bill; highway funding by 
$2.2 billion.
  I mentioned global HIV/AIDS funding--people right now who are looking 
to America for that leadership--which would be reduced by nearly $1 
billion.
  States would not receive the $1.5 billion for the Help America Vote 
Act so we can increase funding for our election system.
  The FBI's domestic terrorism fight would be curtailed by over $400 
million.
  AmeriCorps would not be fully funded at the $313 million level in 
this bill.
  Agencies within the Department of Agriculture charged with animal 
health and food security would be reduced by $80 million.
  I just close by showing this chart. I know it can't be read clearly 
by my colleagues. Here you see scores and scores of organizations that 
have let us know over the last 48 hours of their strong support for 
this Omnibus bill. Again, I will not go through the list, but in the 
list you will find everything from the Public Lands Council, to the 
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, to the Disabled American 
Veterans, who say let's pass this bill, and let's pass this bill now. 
You see the Alzheimers Foundation, the American Foundation for AIDS 
Research, and you see the National Association for Biomedical Research. 
You see the International Association of Bridge, Structural, 
Incremental and Reinforcing Iron Works--again, scores of organizations 
that say pass this bill now.
  What we all know is there is no perfect bill on this floor. All bills 
come as a product of compromise. That is a requirement of the 
legislative process.
  It is now time to invoke cloture, to pass this bill, and to move on. 
I urge Senators to vote for cloture now--to vote for this bill and give 
children, veterans, schools, States, and needy Americans what they 
deserve.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, pursuant to rule XXII, 
the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the 
clerk will state.
  The legislative clerk reads as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call is waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
conference report to accompany H.R. 2673, a bill making appropriations 
for the Department of Agriculture and related agencies for fiscal year 
2004, and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. 
Chambliss) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), the 
Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Dayton), the Senator from North Carolina 
(Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay''.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 48, nays 45, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 1 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--45

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Baucus
     Chambliss
     Dayton
     Edwards
     Inouye
     Kerry
     Lieberman
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 48, the nays are 45. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by 
which cloture was not invoked.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.

                          ____________________