New York Fair Fishing Act of 2003

I call attention to the Senators, as the leader's opening statement indicated, it is entirely possible a vote on the cloture motion will occur before 2 p.m. There are 4\1/2\ hours of debate equally divided prior to this second cloture vote, but those Members who want to speak should indicate to their respective floor leaders if they want to speak so we are not going to have anyone disturbed over relying on the concept that there are 4\1/2\ hours when there probably will not be 4\1/2\ hours of debate.

I yield.

Madam President, we are prepared to work with the minority in that regard and have the vote earlier if that is desired. I just want to call attention to the fact that Senators ought to take that into consideration in terms of whether or not they want to come to the floor and make a statement. If there is no indication anyone wants to speak, obviously we will go to a vote earlier.

At this time, I yield to the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, the right to designate the time allocated under the time agreement on this side.

I am happy to yield for a unanimous consent request.

Reluctantly, I must object to that request.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that the last 10 minutes before the 12 o'clock vote is reserved for the leaders.

Mr. President, I have not been on the Appropriations Committee as long as Senator Byrd but I have been there for many years and I can state to the Senate that it is not the first time the Senate has been faced with the prospect of voting for a conference report which had deleted items that had been passed by both the House and the Senate.

I say, frankly, I have voted for the items that had been deleted. One of them was the overtime provision. One was modified and that is the one concerning ownership limitations under the jurisdiction of the FCC of over-the-air media.

In each instance, the reason for our yielding was the other provisions of the bill. We had provisions the House is violently opposed to which many Members on both sides of the aisle thought were absolutely necessary for their constituencies or for the Nation.

I bluntly state I believe the best thing we can do is get a bill that will not be vetoed. We were looking at this in December, hopefully trying to get it passed. We are looking at it today, and I fervently pray it will pass because I know the harm being done to a lot of people all over the country by these bills not having become law when they should have before October 1 of last year.

I will speak about one particular area that has been criticized substantially, and that is the Bering Sea Aleutian Islands crab rationalization plan.

This plan, which was recommended to us by the regional council, was created under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and accomplishes two primary objectives of immediate concern: First, conservation and management of the crab resource; and, second, ending the deadly and inefficient race for this fish.

All of the press attention and misinformation on processor quota share has effectively twisted a fishery management plan for one fishery in the Bering Sea into a national debate on the regional council process and the U.S. fishery policy.

I remind my colleagues that the rationale behind the Magnuson-Stevens Act was to allow the various regions to craft their own unique fishery management plans to answer the conservation and management goals of their localities. The crab rationalization plan is no different in this regard. The North Pacific Council recognized all components of the crab fishery as a balanced, connected system, rather than competing parts. The only difference with the crab plan is a procedural one. Congress specifically directed the North Pacific Council to develop a plan that balanced harvesters, processors, and communities. Now Congress must implement the council's proposal.

The North Pacific Council voted unanimously--11 to 0--to recommend this voluntary, what we call, three-pie cooperative that recognizes investments made by harvesters, processors, and communities. It is a product of extensive analysis with numerous opportunities for public comment, hundreds of hours of public testimony, and an open and transparent public debate by the council.

The Alaska communities that are dependent on the crab resource being processed in their plants all support the plan. The vast majority of opposition has come from a vocal minority that want to receive a better deal and environmental groups that do not want any form of rationalization and would like to lock up marine resources. The state of the Bering Sea crab fisheries is poor, and the crab plan developed through this regional council process needs to be implemented now.

Opponents of the crab rationalization plan raise concerns about anticompetitive effects and potential antitrust violations. The crab plan is not exempt from antitrust laws. It is not exempt from antitrust laws. In fact, the provision specifically states the Secretary may revoke any processor quota share held by a person found to have violated antitrust laws. The plan contemplates no private, anticompetitive action, and will be ``actively supervised'' by the council and the State of Alaska.

Despite the fact that the crab plan is not exempt from antitrust laws and will be reviewed by the council, which can make changes as needed, and there will be a mandatory information collection and review process developed by the Secretary of Commerce and the Department of Justice to determine whether any illegal or anticompetitive acts have occurred, opponents still point to an opinion letter by the Department of Justice that theorizes about ``potential'' anticompetitive abuses. Nowhere does the Department of Justice opinion letter state that individual processor quota shares violate antitrust laws.

The Department of Justice letter--it is an opinion letter--recommends that, what we call, IPQs not be used because they are economically inefficient. However, the Department of Justice admits it ``did not consider factors outside the purview of antitrust laws such as the social goal of protecting jobs in historic fishing villages or balancing the regulatory effects evenly among harvesters and processors.''

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

Pursuant to national standard 8 under the Magnuson-Stevens Act:

Conservation and management measures shall take into

account the importance of fishery resources to fishing

communities in order to (A) provide for the sustained

participation of such communities, and (B) to the extent

practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on such

communities.

That is section 301(A)(8) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

The North Pacific Council's crab plan is completely consistent with the goals of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to provide for the sustained participation of remote coastal communities in the Bering Sea in the crab fishery and minimize adverse economic impacts on these communities.

I remind the Senate that half the coastline of the United States is off my State of Alaska. This council had an enormous problem to deal with, and it dealt with it unanimously.

Next, the opponents argue that the crab plan is precedent setting and will spread to other regional councils. This is a fishery management plan for only one fishery in the Bering Sea. In fact, the provision of the bill specifically provides that ``a council or the Secretary may not consider or establish any program to allocate or issue an individual processing quota or processor share in any fishery of the United States other than the crab fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands.'' It would take another act of Congress to approve a similar plan.

This crab plan is not precedent setting. It is an extension of the efficiencies and successes achieved under the American Fisheries Act, which we call the AFA. However, where the AFA has a closed class of processors that can participate in the Bering Sea pollock fishery, the crab plan provides for an open class of processors and allows for new entrants in the processing sector.

Opponents of the crab plan have argued that processor quota share is not needed to make the fishery safer or to provide for protections for the communities. My suggestion is these individuals who make those comments should visit the Pribilof Islands 800 miles west of my home near Anchorage. The Pribilof Islands are located in the middle of the Bering Sea. Or they should visit Dutch Harbor in the middle of January when the crab fisheries are in full swing. They can come by my office and see a picture of a crab fishing boat in mid-January, with ice 5 or 6 inches on the deck and on the rigging.

The middle of January is a terrible time, but that is the time when this great crab resource must be harvested. These communities are dependent on this crab resource and have made substantial investments to process rapidly the product during the mad race for fish in the current derby-style fishery. That means there was a very short period of time in which the crab could be harvested, and all the boats rushed in from everywhere trying to see if they could catch a portion of that resource. These communities have become dependent upon the crab resource crossing their docks.

Now, the crab fishery is a unique one in that there is a very high dollar value for a small amount of resource that can be processed quickly. If the crab plan only provided for harvester-only quota share, it would ultimately result in a de facto processing quota for the exclusive group of boat owners that control the harvesting rights to the resource.

Currently, in the Bering Sea crab fishery there is a surplus of catcher-processor vessels and floating crab processors that can be leased or bought cheaply. This mobile processing capacity in combination with a harvester-only share would enable fishermen to form cooperatives and vertically integrate such that none of the crab resource would ever have to come to shore-side processors.

Substantial investments made by shore-based processors would be lost and communities such as Unalaska, Adak, St. Paul, St. George, Akutan, and King Cove would lose out on processing jobs, taxes, and associated revenues. The North Pacific Council understood this and developed a plan that recognized the commitments made by all sectors of this fishery and tied the resource to the communities that have historically processed the crab.

Safety will also be achieved by this crab plan; this point is irrefutable. The reality is, if we do not pass the crab plan in its entirety now, it will be many years, possibly even 10 years, before the council could develop another rationalization plan and fully implement it.

The North Pacific Council is developing other comprehensive rationalization programs for the Gulf of Alaska groundfish fisheries and will likely turn to the Bering Sea nonpollock groundfish fisheries after that. This council cannot simply stop work on these other programs and address crab rationalization again. It would be extremely unfair to those other fisheries and would result in those programs having to be completely redone because data and factors would inevitably change causing the council recommendations and considerations to be vastly different.

If the crab plan does not move forward in its entirety the deadly race for fish will continue.

I believe some harsh realities about the Bering Sea crab fishery will illustrate why we must implement this provision immediately. The Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands crab fishery is rated the most dangerous occupation in the United States. From 1990 to 2001, there were 61 fatalities and 25 vessels were lost; and in the recent October 2003 red king crab fishery, boats were lost and a person killed. This past October crab fishery was one of the worst weather-wise ever, with nearly constant gale force winds and huge ocean swells. Under the crab plan fishermen could have chosen to wait until the weather cleared to harvest the crab.

That is the main point. Instead of regulating the time within which a crab must be caught, they regulate the catching of the crab and let the fishermen decide when it is safe to fish. Lives will be saved if we approve this plan.

Conditions are even more extreme during the winter crab fishery in the Bering Sea when it is almost always dark, extremely cold, and the seas send freezing ocean spray that ice down the crab vessels. I have a picture of that in my office. The derby-style fishery requires deckhands to work all day and all night, outside on icy decks, in rolling 10- to 20-foot seas, retrieving 700-pound steel pots, sorting crab and then dropping the pots in new places.

Obviously, this is very dangerous, but it is also very inefficient and damaging to the resource. The boats are racing to harvest the crab before the guideline harvest levels are reached, which requires them to pull their pots early not allowing them to ``soak'' longer, permitting younger crabs to escape. The result is the younger crabs are unnecessarily killed causing the stocks to suffer. We require the returning to the sea of the younger crabs. This plan will assist in implementing that requirement.

If we do not implement this provision lives will continue to be lost and the resource and the environment will suffer. The opposition of a vocal few that believe they deserve a better deal and environmental groups that want to turn the waters in the North Pacific into vast marine reserves or ``no-take-zones'' are behind the opposition to crab rationalization. Their attacks are shameful, self righteous, and disingenuous. We have an obligation to protect the crab resource in the Bering Sea and prevent any further loss of life in this fishery. This is exactly what crab rationalization will achieve and to argue anything else is just not true.

Three years ago Congress directed the North Pacific Fishery Management Council to analyze the management of the Bering Sea Crab fisheries and determine whether rationalization was necessary. The North Pacific Council completed its study and recommended a rationalization program that recognized the historical participation in the fishery of remote Alaska fishing communities, harvesters, and processors. The ``Three-pie Voluntary Cooperative Program'' developed by the North Pacific Council protects the resource and ends the dangerous race for fish. Section 801 of Title VIII-Alaskan Fisheries of the FY2004 Consolidated Appropriations conference report directs the Secretary to implement the North Pacific Council's crab rationalization program in its entirety.

Section 801 amends section 313 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act by adding a new subsection 313(j). Paragraph 313 (j)(1) directs the Secretary to approve and implement the North Pacific Council's rationalization program for the Bering Sea/ Aleutian Islands crab fisheries, including all trailing amendments. It also clarifies that the Secretary may approve and implement additional trailing amendments approved by the North Pacific Council. The Secretary must implement all parts of the crab rationalization program that were reported to Congress between June 2002 and April 2003, and all trailing amendments including those reported on May 6, 2003, no later than January 1, 2005. Any further amendments approved by the Council should be corrective in nature or address unforeseen problems with the overall functionality of the crab rationalization program. Primary elements of the Voluntary Three-pie Cooperative crab program that made three separate allocations, one to the harvest sector, one to the processing sector, and one to defined regions, should not change as this was the basis of understanding of how the crab fisheries would be rationalized in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. It is imperative that the deadly and inefficient race for crab in the harsh winter months in the Bering Sea ends. Congress expects the Secretary to meet the statutory deadline of implementation of the rationalization program in time for the 2005 crab fisheries. Congress does not expect the Council to revisit particulars of the crab rationalization program that were part of the initial report to Congress in June of 2002, such as individual harvest shares, processing shares, the 90/10 split of ``Class A'' and ``Class B'' shares, regional share designations, voluntary harvester cooperatives, and community development quota allocations, to name a few.

Paragraph 313(j)(2) directs the Secretary to approve all parts of the North Pacific Council's crab program, including harvester quota, processor quota, and community protections. It also includes a non- severability clause that prevents a court from overruling only certain parts of the program. If any part of the program is found to violate the law, the entire program fails and the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands crab fisheries will operate under their current open-access management scheme. It also prevents processors from improperly seeking crab deliveries harvested under a harvester's open-delivery quota.

Paragraph 313(j)(3) authorizes the North Pacific Council to recommend to the Secretary and necessary changes after implementation of the crab program to continue to meet conservation and management goals set out in the program for the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands crab fisheries.

Paragraph 313(j)(4) specifies that the loan program defined under the crab rationalization program for captains and crew be authorized pursuant to relevant sections of Title XI of the Merchant Marine Act as amended for fisheries financing and capacity reduction and for direct loan obligations for fisheries financing and capacity reduction. The loan program for crab fishing vessel captains and crew members is to be a low interest loan program similar to

the loan program under the halibut and sablefish IFQ program.

Paragraph 313(j)(5) authorizes $1,000,000 each year from funds available in the National Marine Fisheries Service account for Alaska fisheries activities to implement the program.

Paragraph 313(j)(6) specifies that the antitrust laws of the United States apply to the crab program. It requires the Secretary of Commerce to work with Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission to develop and implement a mandatory information collection and review process to monitor the crab program and ensure no anticompetitive acts occur among persons receiving individual processing quota. If any person receiving individual processor quota is found to have violated a provision of the antitrust laws the Secretary may revoke their processor quota share.

Paragraph 313(j)(7) requires individual processor quota share under the crab program to be considered a permit and subject to sections 307 (Prohibited Acts) and 308 and 309 (penalties and criminal offenses) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. It specifies that, like individual fishing quota, issuance of individual processor quota share does not confer any compensation right if it is revoked or limited, and does not create title or other interest in or to any fish before purchase from a harvester.

Paragraph 313(j)(8) specifies that the restriction on the collection of economic data in section 303(d)(7) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act will not apply for any processor that receives individual processing quota under the crab program. In addition, the restriction on the confidentiality of information in section 402(b)(1) will not apply when the information is used to determine eligibility or verify history for individual processing quota. This is consistent with the exception to the confidentiality of information requirement under the Magnuson- Stevens Act for verifying catch under an individual fishing quota program.

Paragraph 313(j)(9) specifies that sections 308 (civil penalties and permit sanctions), 310 (civil forfeitures), and 311 (enforcement) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act will apply to the processing facilities and fish products of any person holding individual processing quota. In addition, to ensure compliance with the crab program it may be necessary for the Secretary to inspect a processor's facilities, therefore facilities owned or controlled by a person holding individual processing quota will be subject to the prohibited acts of section 307(1) subparagraphs (D), (E) and (L) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

The North Pacific Council is recognized for developing novel and innovative approaches to conservation and management of the abundant fisheries in the North Pacific. The ``Three-pie Voluntary Cooperative Program'' for rationalizing the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands crab fisheries is another example of that creativity. It is the product of three years of public meetings and discussion by industry sectors, citizens and affected communities, two years of discussion and development by the North Pacific Council and its Advisory Panel, and nearly two years of extensive and thorough analysis by Council staff, with technical assistance from the National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and independent economists and fisheries consultants.

The Council meticulously constructed the crab rationalization program to achieve bold conservation and management goals for the resource; but also considered the very unique reality of a high value, capital intensive, high risk fishery that is prosecuted entirely in the distant waters of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. The Council has done a great job crafting the Three-pie Voluntary Cooperative crab rationalization program and it is expected to implement the program in its entirety, including all trailing amendments, as reported to Congress in June of 2002. The Council should not revisit the particulars of the crab program, but should continue to work with the Commerce Department of ensure that the crab program is implemented in its entirety in time for the 2005 winter crab fisheries.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires fishery management plans and amendments to provide for the sustained participation of communities in the fisheries it had historically depended on for employment and economic opportunity. Small, isolated communities like St. Paul and St. George located on the Pribilof Islands, and Adak on the Aleutian chain have become dependent on the crab resource crossing their docks. This plan slows down the pace of the fishery, achieves efficiencies in harvesting the resource, manages and conserves the resource better, and helps decapitalize the fishery.

While there will inevitably be a degree of economic dislocation in the communities dependent on the revenues. The crab rationalization program addresses these concerns by tying the crab resource to the communities that historically processed the crab. Processor quota share is a form of community protection which maintains historical processing capacity in the communities. Processor quota share should remain in those unique, isolated committees like St. Paul, St. George, King Cove and Adak; communities completely dependent on the crab fishery, that do not benefit from multispecies processing and other economic opportunities. The North Pacific Council determined that for the crab fisheries, processor quota share was a necessary safeguard to protect the investments made by the processing sector and more importantly, to maintain the economic benefits in the communities that have historically depended on the resource.

Section 802 of Title VIII-Alaskan Fisheries directs the Secretary in consultation with the North Pacific Fishery Management Council to establish a pilot fisheries management program that recognizes the historic participation of fishing vessels and fish processors in the central Gulf of Alaska rockfish fishery. The provision delineates the years and types of rockfish that should be considered for a pilot rationalization program to allow for increased use and value in the fishery. The pilot rockfish program will expire when the North Pacific Council authorizes a comprehensive rationalization program for Gulf of Alaska Groundfish and implemented by the Secretary, or 2 years from the date of implementation, whichever is earlier. The pilot program contemplates new entrants into this fishery and provides a set-aside of up to 5 percent of the total allowable catch of such fishery for catcher vessels not eligible to participate in the program. In addition, the five percent that is available for new entrants must come into Kodiak, Alaska for processing and can be processed by processors that have not historically participated in the fishery. The North Pacific Council will establish catch limits for nonrockfish species and non-target rockfish species currently harvested along with pacific ocean perch, northern rockfish, and pelagic shelf rockfish, which should be based on historical harvesting of such bycatch species. The Gulf of Alaska rockfish pilot program should also recognize the historic fishing and processing participation of catcher-processors that have historically participated in this fishery, and should utilize the same years and species of fish considered under the provision.

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

Section 803 of Title VIII--Alaskan Fisheries directs the Aleutian Islands pollock allocation to the Aleut Corporation for economic development in Adak, Alaska. If the North Pacific Council opens the Aleutian pollock fishery, the allocation of pollock for economic development in Adak will be

restricted by the prohibited acts contemplated under section 307 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and subject to the penalties and sanctions under section 308 of the Act, including the forfeiture of any fish harvested or processed. Two classes of vessels may harvest this pollock allocation: vessels that are 60 feet or less in length overall and have a valid fishery endorsement can harvest the Aleutian pollock allocation and deliver it to Adak for processing; and vessels eligible to harvest pollock under section 208 of Title II of Division C of Public Law 105-277 are permitted to form partnerships with the Aleut Corporation to harvest the Aleutian Islands pollock allocation for economic development in Adak. Section 803 does not waive the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act or any other federal laws. The North Pacific Council and NMFS should be cautious in implementing section 803(a) to ensure that any reopening of a directed Aleutian Islands pollock fishery is accomplished in full compliance with all applicable law, and without disrupting 2004 groundfish fisheries which have already commenced.

In an effort to gradually establish a small boat fleet in Adak, subsection (b) of section 803 provides that during the years 2004 through 2008, up to 25 percent of the Aleutian allocation may be harvested by vessels 60 feet or less in length overall. During the years 2009 through 2013, up to 50 percent of such allocation may be harvested by vessels 60 feet or less in length overall. After the year 2012, 50 percent of such allocation shall be harvested by vessels 60 feet or less in length overall, and 50 percent shall be harvested by vessels eligible under section 208 of Title II of Division C of Public Law 105-277. Establishing a small boat fleet will be critical for the economic diversification of Adak and the revenues generated from the use of the Aleutian Islands pollock allocation will allow for greater investment opportunities in this community. For purposes of implementing this section, section 206 of the American Fisheries Act (AFA) is redefined so that the allocations in section 206(b) of the AFA should only apply to the Bering Sea portion of the directed pollock fishery.

Subsection (c) of section 803 codifies one of the longest standing conservation and management measures of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, the 2 million metric ton cap for groundfish in the Bering Sea. The optimum yield for groundfish in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area shall not exceed 2 million metric tons. Upon the recommendation of the North Pacific Council and approval of the Secretary of Commerce, and only if consistent with the conservation and management goals and requirements of the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the allocation of Aleutian pollock for economic development in Adak, may be in addition to the 2 million metric ton optimum yield. This treatment of the Aleutian Islands pollock allocation would only be during the 2004 through the 2008 fishing years, but only if harvests in excess of the cap do not result in overfishing and then only to the extent necessary to accommodate a directed pollock fishery in the Aleutian Islands and should not adversely affect the current participants in the Bering Sea pollock fishery in the near term. Eventually this pollock allocation will come under the combined optimum yield for all groundfish in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 2 million metric ton cap by taking proportional reductions in the total allowable catches for each of the existing groundfish fisheries as necessary to accommodate the establishment of the Aleutian Island pollock fishery.

Subsection (d) of section 803 allows the North Pacific Fishery Management Council to recommend and the Secretary to approve an allocation of Aleutian Islands pollock to the Aleut Corporation for the purposes of economic development in Adak pursuant to the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The North Pacific Council should consider pollock allocations given to the various groups that participate in the Community Development Quota program to recommend a reasonable amount of the Aleutian Islands pollock to the Aleut Corporation for purposes of economic development in Adak and in no case should this amount exceed 40,000 metric tons.

Nothing in this section requires the North Pacific Council to open the Aleutian Islands pollock fishery. The Council should not take any action in regards to this fishery which would require a new consultation under the current biological opinion or Endangered Species Act covering Steller sea lions.

Section 804 of Title VIII--Alaskan Fisheries prohibits any Regional Fishery Management Council or the Secretary from approving any fishery management plan or plan amendments to allocate or issue individual processing quota or processor share in any fishery of the United States other than the crab fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands.

In closing, I don't know of any time when we have tried to be bipartisan on a greater scale than in these seven bills in the omnibus bill. I personally have reviewed requests from Senators from both sides of the aisle. We have done our utmost to meet the most urgent needs in their States. We have talked to chairmen of the various committees and tried to work with them. In some instances the chairmen disagreed, but we have taken positions that are consistent with a majority of the committees in those instances.

I believe this is a good bill. The problem we face now in this cloture vote--I hope all Senators will consider it--is we are in an election year. We must once again face 13 appropriations bills for 2005. If we do not approve this bill, this omnibus bill, we will have to turn and go back and try to do what we should have done by October 1 of last year. That will obviously impede consideration of 2005 bills and, in my judgment, would ultimately lead to a post-election session. I don't know how many other Senators have lived through post-election sessions that were contentious, but I believe one this year would be very contentious. I hope the Senate will set its goal not to be in session after the election this fall.

We have Members who are retiring. Some Members may be defeated. The object of getting done before the election is to put to rest the disputes in the Senate and go on to the Presidential election and give time after the Presidential election to get ready for the next two Congresses which will come under the term from 2005 to 2009.

I thank all members of the committee for their cooperation with me. I have enjoyed working with the minority leader, Senator Daschle, the assistant minority leader, Senator Reid, as well as our leaders, Senator Frist and Senator McConnell, and with Members of the House.

This was a most difficult bill. It has been most difficult because of the fact we are at war. We are not only at war, but we created a new department which had to be funded and people had to be taken from the existing departments in order to staff that new department. We had to figure out the allocation of funds to this new department in a fair way that did not disturb the functions of the balance of these entities that were left in the former departments.

This Congress ought to congratulate itself for having reacted to the post-September 11, 2001 tragedy. We created a department which has made the United States safer, and we have funded the needs of our men and women in the Armed Forces who have answered the call of our country and our Commander in Chief.

I pray in this year 2004 we will not have any further disasters of that type, but the war on terrorism continues. A lot of the money that is in this bill goes to try to stave off further attacks on our people and historic objects in this country. We all are conscious of how much money that is taking. All you have to do is go through any airport to realize how life has changed since September 11, 2001. The money in this bill has been efficiently allocated. To the maximum extent possible, we have tried to deal with the requests of every Senator.

I see the minority leader now. He and I have talked at length about the COOL program, the country-of-origin labeling. I opposed that provision. We deleted it here in the Senate. Again, when we got to the conference, it was not possible to have the conference

complete without that provision in it. It was a judgment that we ought to get the bill to the Senate and get it approved and avoid a veto. I am not happy about that.

There are other provisions in this bill I am not happy about. But I can state to the Senate, in all, this bill is a good consensus. It is good for the country, and it will fund the agencies that need the money now. We could not fund this Government during a period of war that is going on in Iraq and our war on terrorism under a continuing resolution. I thank the minority leader for his statements the other day. The worst dream the chairman of the Appropriations Committee can have is the problem of facing up to whether the Deficiency Act will require shutting down the Government if we don't pass the bills. I hope and pray we will pass this bill today and avoid that contingency.

Mr. President, there are several provisions in the FY04 Omnibus Appropriations bill that merit further explanation.

The Transportation measure included $8 million for runway lighting in Alaska. Of the funds made available, it is the Committee's expectation that $3 million would be made available for laser technology in Girdwood, Alaska and Merrill Field in Anchorage, Alaska upon certification of the technology. I urge the FAA to act as quickly as possible to favorably approve the certification petition.

The Transportation bill included $2.3 million for ``trail and parking improvements'' for the Seward multi-agency visitor center in Seward, AK. Those funds are also available, if necessary, for the acquisition and completion of the plaza between Washington Street and the beginning of the historic Iditarod Trail in the Park Service/Portico Group plan.

Both the VA-HUD bill and the Agriculture appropriations bill include funds for rural water and sewer improvements in rural Alaska. The VA- HUD bill directs that beginning in FY05, EPA must set aside 25 percent of the funds for hub communities and a priority list must be established that will remain in effect for three years. The Rural Development Administration should follow the same process so the funds can be administered together to reduce administrative overhead.

In the Energy-Water appropriations bill adopted earlier, questions have been raised concerning Congress' intention with respect to the Douglas Harbor. Congress provided $3 million to the Corps of Engineers to construct the causeway and breakwaters at the harbor entrance. The Committee urges the corps to commence construction of that project during this construction season if at all feasible.

Funds were included in the Commerce, Justice, State section of the bill and earlier in the Interior appropriations bill concerning mass marking of fish that should be implemented to be consistent with one another. Both bills fund mass marking of fish produced in federally funded hatcheries. Marking refers to modifying the appearance of an immature fish in a hatchery so that when it matures there is an external mark that identifies it as originating from a hatchery. Mass marking refers to marking all or a substantial proportion of the fish releases from a hatchery. By mass marking the hatchery fish, fishery management agencies can direct fishery harvests on marked hatchery production while avoiding unmarked fish that might come from a depleted or endangered stock.

However, fishery management agencies all along the Pacific coast, in both Canada and the United States rely on one type of marking as a basis for identifying different stocks of salmon and obtaining information on those stocks that is vital to conservation and management programs. To assure that the mass marking program does not interfere with this crucial scientific program, it is the committee's intent that mass marking programs supported by Federal funding will ensure that hatchery Chinook salmon that are marked by removing all or part of the adipose fin are also tagged with a microwire tag or alternatively mark the fish with some other mark. This will help preserve the validity of the existing stock identification data base while also realizing the objectives of the mass marking programs by enabling increased harvests of threatened or depleted stocks.

The Justice Department budget within the Commerce, Justice, State bill included $12.5 million for internet safety for children. The committee urges the department to work with I-SAFE consistent with the Senate Report.

Mr. President, the significant number of Alaskans that are descendants of our original indigenous Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut inhabitants are a great source of pride and a unique part of our heritage. A majority of those Native Alaskans reside in one of more than 200 small rural villages.

Alaska is also unique in that, since the purchase of Alaska in 1867, Congress has adopted and implemented an Alaska Native policy that is different in a most important respect from the Native American policies that Congress has adopted and implemented in the ``lower 48.''

Congress created Native corporations and since statehood has required Alaska Natives to comply with the same criminal, civil, and regulatory enactments of the Alaska State Legislature to which all other Alaska residents are subject.

Like all citizens of my State, Alaska Natives participate in the development of those enactments by electing residents of the communities in which they live to serve in the Alaska State Legislature. In that regard, I am immensely proud that Alaska has a tradition of Native American involvement in the State political system that is unrivaled by that of any other State. The first Alaska Native was elected to our territorial legislature in 1924. In 1959 ten Alaska Natives served in the first Alaska State Legislature. And today, 10 of the 60 members of the 23rd Alaska State Legislature are Alaska Natives.

During the Clinton administration, the Secretary of the Interior, his solicitor and Ada Deer, the Under Secretary of Indian Affairs, argued that there are more than two hundred sovereign tribal governments in Alaska. Many believe that policy was wrong, as a matter of law, while others assert that tribes have always existed. The provision in this bill creating a rural justice commission does not take sides in that dispute. Rather it seeks a practical solution to the issue of rural justice and law enforcement.

One of the more pressing problems we now face is the issue of Department of Justice grants that have been issued to Alaska Native tribes. These grants have been used to create tribal courts that in some instances may exceed their lawful jurisdiction and to hire tribal police who are not currently authorized to enforce State laws.

Since the Appropriations Committee reported S. 1585 to the Senate in September, I was contacted by a number of Alaska Native leaders who have expressed legitimate concern that the State of Alaska's and the Federal Government's criminal justice systems need to be configured in new and innovative ways in order to better meet the unique law enforcement challenges that we face throughout rural Alaska. In order to facilitate an analysis of, and a constructive dialogue regarding, that very important subject, at my request the conference committee that I co-chaired included section 112(a)(2) in title I of division B of the H.R. 2673 conference report. This provision establishes an Alaska Rural Justice and Law Enforcement Commission that will study the criminal justice system in rural Alaska and then submit recommendations to Congress and the Alaska State Legislature regarding ways in which those systems can be improved.

Also at my request, the conference committee include a new section 112(a)(1) which prohibits the Department of Justice from making grants to Alaska Native organizations that are located in communities that have fewer than twenty-five permanent Alaska Native residents, as well as communities that are located within the municipality of Anchorage or one of six designated boroughs. The purpose of section 112(a)(1) is to allow rural communities grants to continue during the fiscal year during which the Alaska Rural Justice and Law Enforcement Commission will be developing its recommendations.

I want to emphasize that the conference committee does not intend the enactment of section 112(a)(1) to express a view as to whether the 108th

Congress believes that either a prior Congress or the Secretary of the Interior, acting lawfully pursuant to authority he has been delegated by Congress, has created ``federally recognized tribes'' in Alaska. Nor does the conference committee intend the enactment of section 112(a)(1) to create ``federally recognized tribes'' in Alaska by implication. The amendment takes no position on the issues which are now pending before the courts.

I also note that when this provision was originally drafted, we hoped the bill would become law back in September. The deadlines established in the amendment reflected that hope. But now, in January 2004 those deadlines are unrealistic and unachievable. Therefore the Commission should have through this year to complete its work and issue recommendations.

Madam President, I listened to the debate with respect to the fiscal year 2004 Omnibus appropriations bill that is before us. I agree with many of the points my friend from Texas was making about the important appropriations in this bill and the necessity for providing the funds needed to run the significant, critical programs of our Government. It is regrettable, therefore, that we are confronted with this particular choice. It was an unnecessary choice. It is a false choice.

The appropriators worked very hard. I have the highest respect for members of the Appropriations Committee. In their hard work, they produced recommendations about what funding was needed for the critical functions of our Government. If that is what we were voting on today, I do not know that there would be a debate. I am confident there would be overwhelming support for that part of the bill. But we all know what happened was not the bill that came out of the Appropriations Committee or the bills that came out of the Senate. Instead, in a conference committee, legislation was inserted into this appropriations bill that has far-reaching consequences.

So here we are being asked to support the ongoing funding of the functions of our Government, which all of us agree is important, at the cost of supporting some very serious changes in our laws that will have far-reaching consequences for the people who live in our States and our country.

As Members of the legislative body, the legislative branch of Government--because we have three branches, three coequal branches under our Constitution--we have two primary responsibilities. First, we are the voices of the people who elect us. That doesn't mean we always agree with every constituent. That would be impossible. I have 19 million constituents. But it does mean that we listen and we pay attention and we try to make the very best judgments we can about what is in the interests of the people we represent.

Then, second, we are part of the system of checks and balances among the branches of Government our Founders so brilliantly invented.

I believe this omnibus bill and the process through which it was constructed violates both of those primary duties. This bill is laden with provisions that were rejected by a vote in this body, and some by votes in the other body. We took a vote. We said, representing the people of New York or Nevada or Utah or America, we are for it or against it but here is where we stand. Apparently the majority vote is no longer the rule in Congress, much to my amazement and distress. That is because this bill has many provisions which were rejected, which were turned away, yet here they are in the bill. We are asked that we either vote for everything or risk the loss of funding for critical Government functions. To me, it just defies our constitutional system.

There is a phrase, ``under cover of darkness.'' I think this bill represents, ``under cover of conference.'' This is one of those processes that may sound a little arcane and even boring to people watching at home or sitting in the gallery, but this is the way our Government in this body, the Congress, works. The Senate passes something. The House passes something. Then, in order to work out any differences between the two Houses, they go to what is called a conference committee where they say: Here is what you passed, and here is what you passed. How do we compromise? Compromise is the very essence of a legislative body.

But that is not what happened this time. What happened is that the conference committee became a separate, equal, powerful, independent legislative body run by the administration. It was under cover of conference that the White House unilaterally added provisions to this bill which reflect their political ideology and agenda, whether or not the duly elected Members of the House and the Senate agreed.

Nowhere is the antidemocratic nature of this process more apparent than in the denial of overtime pay protections for 8 million Americans, including 450,000 New Yorkers. This is a significant overhaul of our Nation's worker protection laws. It was proposed under a cloak of secrecy without a single congressional hearing, without a single public hearing.

As many of my colleagues remember, when the previous administration, the Clinton administration, issued regulations governing how we work today with computer terminals and repetitive kinds of procedures which cause carpal tunnel syndrome and other sorts of problems, regulations were issued to help redesign the workplace and protect the modern worker, particularly office workers but also people on assembly lines who do repetitive work hour after hour. The Clinton administration Labor Department issued ergonomics regulations. That is the phrase that describes how we try to improve the workplace to deal with these kinds of stresses.

The Republicans in Congress attacked the Labor Department for issuing these regulations, claiming they had rushed to judgment because the Clinton administration held only 27 days of public hearings--27 days. Here we are being asked to vote to radically change the overtime compensation rules of our country, and we have never had a public hearing from this administration. Nevertheless, the changes, when they were announced, got a huge outpouring of reaction and a lot of scrutiny from workers and unions and people who know what it means to have to work hard and be told you are going to work hard and you are not going to be paid any more money for it. Many tough questions were asked.

As Members of the House and Senate learned more about these proposals, we became concerned and we said wait a minute, we don't think that is fair. On September 10 of last year, with bipartisan support, we addressed this proposed rule and we saw, in the House, a motion passed to instruct the conference committee to adopt the Senate language, which was on a bipartisan basis, to reject changes under these kinds of circumstances in the overtime compensation laws.

Now what has happened? You would have thought that ended it. But, no, the administration has refused to comply with the wishes of the majority of both Houses of Congress, and I believe the majority of Americans. So we are faced with an Omnibus appropriations bill that radically changes laws that have been in place since the 1930s. I just think everybody needs to understand this. This is not a partisan statement. This is not a political claim. This will take away overtime protection from American workers, whether you are Democrat or Republican, an Independent or pay no attention to politics.

I don't think most experts believe that workers will work less. In fact, the productivity gains that have been occurring are largely because workers in America are actually working longer hours, not fewer hours. In fact, the General Accounting Office found that workers who already are not covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act protections are more than twice as likely to work overtime; three times as likely to work 50 to 60 hours per week.

This is going to have a particularly disadvantageous impact on Americans who live in high-cost areas such as New York City. When you look at what the new rules are and the way the administration has rubbed salt into these wounds by not only changing the rules but sending out circulars to employers to tell them how they can avoid even getting into a position where they might have to pay overtime, it is not a far reach to conclude, as have many experts who have looked at this, that we are seeing with this bill a direct cut in the take-home pay and the yearly income of people who work really hard and who will continue to work hard for less money.

Three of the groups that will be most impacted are police officers, nurses, and veterans. The International Union of Police Associations and its general counsel, who is widely recognized as one of the Nation's leading experts on the Fair Labor Standards Act, estimates that 50 percent of our police officers will lose their overtime provision if this regulation is implemented.

I don't look forward to the next orange alert in any community in our country where police officers are put on 12-hour shifts, maybe 16-hour shifts, where they are asked to work double- and triple-time shifts to protect us, and all of a sudden, no more overtime.

The same with nurses. I have an extraordinary admiration for nursing.

I know from many of the nurses with whom I work and speak on a regular

basis that they are already being forced to do a lot of overtime because of cost pressures on hospitals. They are being asked to do an extra shift. They come to the end of the week, and they are being asked to work weekends. Many nurses are concerned about the quality of their work, being under pressure when they have already put in a 40-hour, 50- hour, or 60-hour workweek. But now we are going to ask them to keep working and not pay them. I am sorry, I don't understand what reality our friends on the other side and on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue live in. We are losing nurses at a rapid rate because the working conditions with mandatory overtime are already so difficult. The average age of the American nurse is 45. These are mostly women. But they are women and men with lots of responsibility, training, commitment, and devotion. They don't mind working hard, but they have families. They have their own health to worry about. All of a sudden they are going to be told their job depends on them putting in that extra time. But we are sorry, we changed the overtime rule.

Right now, nurses who do not have a 4-year degree could be denied overtime under these proposed rules if they have ``experience in nursing.'' How absurd is that? Of course, they have experience in nursing. They are nurses.

It used to be if you had a professional degree above a certain level you were considered a professional, you worked for a salary, and you weren't going to get overtime. But a lot of LPNs and others, after they have worked a year or 2 years, all of a sudden have experience even though they don't have a 4-year degree. So now this administration is telling their employers to work them because they are now experienced. That is their equivalent.

The cynicism of this is breathtaking. It bothers me greatly to see this great body be part of such a fraud.

Look at the estimates. Two hundred and thirty-four thousand LPNs will lose overtime. You know that a lot of nurses are going to continue to walk away from nursing. It is hard enough if you are paid for these long, difficult hours. But not to be paid for them? I just think we are going to be exacerbating the nurse shortage and undermine the quality of care available to patients.

The final category I will mention is our veterans. We have heard a lot of rhetoric about veterans in the last couple of days, haven't we? I am very proud to represent hundreds of thousands of veterans. I am very proud of the men and women serving us in uniform today. Yet this bill takes away the overtime protections to which many veterans in the workforce are now entitled.

Right now, under the law as it is written before this regulation can go into effect, only workers with a 4-year degree in a professional field can be labeled professional, and, therefore, denied overtime. The Bush administration, under this regulation, would do away with this requirement. They would allow training in the Armed Forces to substitute for a 4-year degree. I know we have an all-volunteer military. I am very proud of the young men and women who sign up to serve our country. I know when they are recruited they are told: Here is the training you can get and the additional education you can obtain in the Armed Forces. This is not only an opportunity to serve your country but to put you in a good position for the future when you get out of the military service if you do not make it a career. You will have tremendous opportunities because of these skills.

Now we are turning around and breaking faith with our veterans, too. We are basically saying: You know that training we gave you, that education you acquired in the military? Now it is going to count against you. You take a job where otherwise you would be entitled to overtime--say you become a police officer and an MP in the Army; you don't have a college degree, but you served as an MP. All of a sudden, guess what. You are not eligible for overtime anymore.

It is very hard to justify in a jobless recovery like the one we are allegedly in that we would make life harder for working Americans; that we would tell the police and firefighters and nurses and veterans and others, guess what. We are going to take money out of your pocket in order to satisfy employers who do not want to be fair to you.

We wouldn't have needed these laws if everybody lived by the golden rule, would we? If everybody got up every morning and said I am going to treat people the way I want to be treated, I am going to treat my employees the way I want to be treated, we would not have to have this law, or probably any other law. But we know, with human nature being what it is, that we have to have some protections for those people who are in less powerful positions. We are just tearing up that social contract right now.

There are many other provisions in this omnibus bill that either were voted against by this body and stuck in anyway or never considered. I am finding this an amazing experience being in the Senate. Everything that I read in civic books and that I thought was what happened in our legislative body is just being upended and thrown out the window.

Another provision slipped into the omnibus which was earlier rejected by this body on a bipartisan basis will delay the implementation of mandatory labeling of the country from which meat and vegetables are imported. I want to know where my food comes from. I would be happy if I could buy only food from New York because I would like to support my New York farmers. I would like to know whether that is a New York apple or a Chinese apple. Somebody else can go ahead and buy the Chinese apple. I want to buy the New York apple. I sure want to know where the meat I eat comes from. That is what this body voted for.

But in response to pressure from a small group of the meat and food industry executives, the administration did the bidding of the special interests instead of the vast majority of Americans. Once again, why are we surprised? And they stuck language into this Omnibus appropriations that will prevent consumers like us from knowing where the food we purchase is grown, and they will overturn a law that is very important to the farmers I represent and to American farmers and producers around our country. It is stunning that this would be done at a time when we were really focused on our flood supply, when we know we need to do whatever we can to protect our food from disease and possible terrorism.

The mad cow issue that arose a few weeks ago is something that has gotten everybody's attention focused on the quality of our food and the safety of our food.

The idea of a country-of-origin requirement was passed as part of the farm bill in 2002. Here it is 2004, and this administration wants to undo the will of the democratically elected majority of the Houses of Congress.

There are many more examples of what is wrong in this omnibus, whether it is reimposing the national television ownership cap that was already rejected in both Houses, making our media less diverse, more concentrated, and less responsive to local issues.

Senators McCain and Hollings held extensive hearings on this issue. They produced a Senate resolution to restore meaningful, cross- ownership limits on television stations and newspapers. It passed by a vote of 55 to 40. That was a bipartisan majority vote. The legislative branch did its job. We held the hearings, we got the evidence, we did the argument and debate, and we had the vote. It doesn't seem to matter to the folks on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. If it crosses one of their special interests, by George, we don't care about democracy. We don't care about majority votes. We don't care about bipartisanship. We are going to deliver to the people whom we think are on our side when it comes to special interests.

It is distressing and it is something about which I think every American should be concerned. We are undermining the checks and balances of our Constitution. We are undermining accountability. We are undermining the coequal branches of Government.

If all we wanted was a king, we would have put a king into the Constitution to do whatever the king wanted to do. What do we need a democracy for? Why do we need to elect people to come to the Senate to express their opinion, hold hearings, and have votes? Let us just cede all authority to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. They want

control of the executive branch. They want control of the congressional branch. They want control of the pork. Why don't we just all give up and go home? It doesn't seem to matter what we vote on. It doesn't seem to matter what the majority says. The administration calls the shots, and people in this body let them do it. It is astonishing to me.

Another example: We are diverting limited educational resources to an untested, unproven, private school voucher plan which was not included in the Senate-passed bill. I think, once again, we are doing something that has no support in this body and we are letting it happen because the administration wants it to happen.

We also have an across-the-board cut in this bill, not debated by the Senate, stuck into the bill at conference, taking away money from agencies of the Government, appropriations already signed into law, including the Department of Homeland Security.

I could go on and on. It is astonishing what happened under cover of conference. It is hard to justify a process that is so flawed, so antidemocratic--with a small ``D''--so beholden to and in the pocket of special interests, so willing to buckle under and do the bidding of the administration, whether or not it is in the best interests or the long- term benefit of our Nation.

It is our responsibility to do the business of those people who sent us here. By ignoring the will of the majority, by turning our backs on the Senate and the House, we are making a mockery of our system.

I know very well that during the previous administration the other side of the aisle would be up in arms. And they should have been if something such as this had gone on, no doubt about it.

I hope we will continue to stand against this mockery of the democratic process and the undermining of our legislative responsibility.

Parliamentary inquiry to the distinguished minority

whip: Is it premature to ask for unanimous consent to change the time of the vote?

Madam President, it would be in everyone's interest, once our Senators are notified, if we could set that time so our time could be roughly equally divided before then.

With that, Madam President, I will speak on our time and talk about the importance of passing the omnibus bill. This is a bill that encompasses many departments in our processes in the Senate. Normally, we try to pass each department separately so we can deal with those issues separately. Because of various circumstances, we now have a bill that takes in several major departments. Therefore, there are things that have not been debated separately. I know there are concerns that have been raised. However, we must pass this bill if we are going to have the will of today's Congress take effect for the appropriations between now and October 1 of this year.

If we do not pass this bill--the alternative is a continuing resolution--it means that last year's priorities would prevail, and there would be some major losses in funding for the next 9 months of this year.

Let's take, for instance, the veterans. Today we would lose, by not passing this bill, the ability to fully serve our veterans in their health care. Continued operations under a continuing resolution would force the Veterans' Administration to curtail the hiring of new physicians and nurses, pharmacy costs would continue to rise, and we would not have the money to pay for the added expenses that we are seeing in the medicine benefits to veterans. The waiting list for veterans medical care would start to rise, and it would mean the VA would not be able to expand its long-term care services under the old priorities.

Part of our bill this year that is before us today expands veterans medical benefits. If we pass a continuing resolution, we would not be able to increase that medical service. We have new veterans with medical needs coming home now from Iraq and Afghanistan. The idea that we would not fully fund the needs of veterans today is unthinkable. That is what would go by the wayside if we do not pass the omnibus bill.

Let's talk about education. In the bill, Pell grants maintain their historically high maximum award of $4,050 to help disadvantaged students achieve the dream of a college education. Afterschool centers are increased in funding to $1 billion.

Impact Aid--now, Impact Aid is for school districts that have a high number of bases, military personnel in that school district. Impact Aid helps the school district overcome the fact that you cannot tax Federal property. If a base is a major part of a school district, that is nontaxable property. Yet military personnel send their children to these schools. So the Federal Government has always made up the amount that would be lost in property taxes by giving Impact Aid. It is increased $49 million over last year. That will be lost for the next 9 months if we do not pass this bill, thereby further strapping the school districts in the places that have a high volume of military personnel.

Wouldn't that be an incredible thing to say to our active duty military: Oh, we are putting more responsibility on you. We are putting more burden on you. Many of you are overseas, but you have to worry about the school districts not having the money to fully educate your children while you are serving our country. Is that really a message we want to send today to our military personnel?

Head Start funding, to help prepare our disadvantaged young children to learn and succeed in school, it is boosted by $148 million in the omnibus. That would be lost for the next 9 months if we do not pass this bill, so we would not be able to get those programs geared up with the reforms that we are trying to put in place that make Head Start more of an educational experience rather than just a play experience that is day care. We are trying to give these young children the opportunity to proceed, before they get to kindergarten, with the very best early childhood education possible.

When I was home over the holidays, I visited one of these target Head Start centers, where children in the 3-year-old class and the 4-year- old class were learning their ABCs. They were learning their numbers. They were learning the computer. There were 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds working on the computer. This is the kind of Head Start Program we want to fund. That would be possible if we pass the omnibus bill. That would certainly be curtailed if we do not pass the bill.

The National Cancer Institute would have $148 million more over the next year if we pass the omnibus bill. But if we stick with last year's priorities, the National Cancer Institute will have to stop its funding increases. Many people know, with the increase in health care research in the National Cancer Institute, we have been able to make great headway in fighting cancer, in finding the cause of cancer, and then finding something that will fight that particular cause of cancer.

The Geraldine Ferraro Cancer Education Program would be funded in fiscal year 2004 $5 million. It would help educate the public on issues surrounding blood cancers. None of this funding would be provided under a continuing resolution. So that is $5 million that would go to the education of cancers such as lymphoma, leukemia, multiple myeloma, which is very important because these are the cancers that have historically been underfunded. Many people now are getting these cancers when they are not really aware that they need to have their blood checked but because they are losing energy. It is a terrible disease. The Geraldine Ferraro Cancer Education Program funding would lapse if we do not pass this bill.

Election reform. We made major steps in the right direction on election reform this year. The Help America Vote Act would be providing funding to States to make sure they follow through on Congress's commitment to strengthen the electoral process. None of this funding would be available under the continuing resolution.

In a very important Presidential election year, when we are going to elect every Member of the House and when we are going to elect one- third of the Senate, do we really not want to fully fund the reforms to assure our electoral process is fair, that it is a system where people can count on their vote counting? I hope not. That is $1.5 billion in the omnibus bill that would not be funded for the next 9 months, until October 1, if we do not pass the bill.

So we obviously would not have any of these reforms in place if we do not fully fund and pass the omnibus bill that is before us today.

The Millennium Challenge. This is a program that would be both authorized and funded at $1 billion this year to help developing countries achieve economic growth, to lay out alternatives to poverty, violence, and terrorism. This is very important in our war on terrorism. If we keep terrorists from being able to lock into a country that is very poor, we will give the people of that country hope, hope that there is something else besides just violence and continued poverty. Economic possibilities, economic opportunities are what will make a difference in many of these countries.

The FBI is a very important part of homeland security. We now have put the FBI into the same grid that works in homeland security, with intelligence sources to try to pick up the signals that maybe there would be another terrorist attack.

Under the omnibus bill, the FBI will be able to hire 229 new agents, receiving $138 million in program improvements to help in the fight against terrorism. If we do not pass this omnibus bill, we will go 9 months without allowing the FBI to gear up for what we are asking them to do; and that is, to hire the agents to be a part of our homeland security.

The International Trade Administration is funded at $28 million more this year. What would we lose if that funding goes by the wayside? This is what is focusing on many countries' compliance with trade standards, China's compliance with trade standards. We

have heard many concerns raised in our country about China complying with fair trade standards. We need to make sure China and every country meets the standards they have signed on that they would meet, standards that require intellectual property to be protected.

We don't want to allow people to copy the videotapes or the movies or the books that are being written by other people and not pay the intellectual property requirement to do so. But we need the enforcement capability. That will be lost.

We are targeting countries for cultural exchanges and education programs. One of the long-term goals in the war on terrorism is to try to bring people from countries that do not have democracy, that do not know freedom, to our country for cultural exchanges, for education, to show public education, giving our children the opportunity to learn, to read and write and learn math, to be able to function in a world that will create an economic base for a country. Many of the countries that are the home bed of terrorism do not have these freedoms.

Cultural exchanges are one of the long-term goals that we have in the war on terrorism to have people come from these countries to see what happens when you have a strong system of public education, to see what happens when you have freedom, to see how people can live when there is the right to free speech, when there is the right to a free public education that would give our young people the economic opportunities that education will give them.

A long-term continuing resolution that would not give any of these priorities that we have put in place in the bills that have come out of these committees would cause a $5.5 million budget shortfall for the Small Business Administration. That would be almost a 20-percent reduction in their budget. Programs that help small businesses compete, such as the 7A program, would eventually be shut down if we have a continuing resolution rather than this omnibus bill.

As I have gone through my State during the past 2 months, I have found many small business people complaining that the Small Business Administration offices are being shut down, the services are not there, the opportunity to have Small Business Administration loans and counseling is not as it used to be. If we pass a continuing resolution instead of this omnibus bill, we will lose almost 20 percent of the Small Business Administration budget.

It is very important we pass this bill, if we are going to fully fund our veterans health care, if we are going to fully fund the schools in our home district military bases so that people on active duty serving our country will not have to worry that their children in school are not getting their full educational opportunities this year.

The National Cancer Institute, with a $148 million cut over the next 9 months will have to stop the progress they are making in many arenas for finding the cure and the cause of cancer.

We are in a major election year. We would not fund the reforms that Congress has passed to assure every vote is counted, that we have good voting machines so that we won't have an issue such as what happened in Florida in the last Presidential election. We are helping States to have the integrity of the ballot in this very important election year for our Congress and for the President.

The International Trade Administration must be able to make sure that our intellectual property rights are met by countries such as China and other places that copy movies, copy books that don't pay the intellectual property requirements; the long-term exchange programs that will help us fight terrorism by giving the young people from a country that does not know freedom the opportunity to see what freedom and public education can bring; cutting back on the FBI--all of these are the things that would happen if we don't pass this omnibus bill.

It is my hope that we will have the opportunity to pass this bill today so we can put the imprimatur of Congress today on the next 9 months of funding in this fiscal year rather than rely on a bill that passed 2 years ago which doesn't take into account some of the reforms that have been made in Congress. It is my hope that Members will see that our veterans' needs and the needs of our active-duty military children in education and in cancer research will prevail. We will pass this bill and give our children a chance, and our country a chance, to have the increases we need for our homeland security, and the education of our children, and the research into cancer to find the cause and the cure. We must pass the omnibus bill to go forward in all of these aspects.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

I will contact the leader's office.

I look forward to working with the distinguished Democratic whip to see if that can be put forward and locked in. I hope we would then start from a point to have equally divided time up until the vote at noon.

Parliamentary inquiry: The time would be equally divided from now or from the beginning of the session?

That is fine. I didn't know how it would come up. I wanted to make sure, if we have some people before 12, that there is some way to accommodate them.

Mr. President, the Senator from New York is on the floor and Senator Bennett is on his way, but I want to take a moment and say I understand some of the concerns that have been raised, but this is a bill that puts Congress's imprimatur on spending for the next 9 months. It does not take last year's priorities. It takes this year's priorities.

We have had a chance to talk about it. We have had a chance to debate. We have had amendments earlier in the process. There has been a full vetting of the differences on this bill. My bottom line is, are we going to let this bill fail and have a continuing resolution that will go from January to October 1 and fail to enact the reforms in election law that will ensure the integrity of the ballot in our country during a Presidential election year? Are we going to keep $148 million from going into the National Cancer Institute when we are doing great research on the causes of cancer and the potential cures? Are we going to fail to meet the needs of our veterans by not allowing the hiring of physicians and nurses, not fully funding the pharmacy costs which are going through the roof, which we must fund for the veterans who are needing drugs as so many people in our country do? Are we not going to fully fund the impact aid schools where our military children go to school while their parents are in Iraq and Afghanistan? Are we going to let those schools' budgets be cut back? I ask, what is the alternative to passing this bill? The alternative is using last year's budget, last year's priorities, and not putting the stamp of this Congress on these priorities in place.

I think we have to look at our choices. The choices are increasing the FBI, increasing impact aid for our schools, increasing National Cancer Institute funding, increasing the ability to make sure China and other countries are complying with intellectual property laws. We will lose a lot if we do not pass this omnibus bill today and go forward with the funding programs for next year on an orderly basis.

Madam President, there are a number of provisions in this legislation, the omnibus bill, that have been talked about. But I hope my colleagues will give consideration to the fact that the appropriators and the Republican leadership stuck into this omnibus bill a number of different provisions that never passed the Senate or the light of day or the smell test. And took out provisions to help millions of Americans. One of the provisions that they took out of the omnibus bill was a provision that was supported by the Senate and supported by the House in a bipartisan fashion. That was the amendment to tell the Bush administration that they could not deny workers overtime. His proposal would affect 8 million workers. Yes, this is an enormously important omnibus bill. Yes, it is important that we deal with the problems in education and health. I yield to no one in my concern in those areas.

All we are asking is that we take the omnibus bill and put back in the protection for workers. Or we could have the Bush administration rescind its proposal to deny workers overtime protections.

We have challenges in our economy, but one of the great challenges in our economy is not that firefighters, nurses, and police officers are being overpaid. That is not the problem we are facing in our economy. But that is going to be the effect if this particular omnibus bill goes through. The administration will implement its overtime provisions. As I mentioned yesterday, it is not just those individuals I mentioned-- firefighters, nurses, and police officers--it is also the veterans.

Listen to this, America. Since the time of the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the United States has accepted the concept of a 40-hour week. Then workers who worked more than 40 hours would get time and a half. That has been an accepted part of the American workplace since the 1930s, when the Fair Labor Standards Act was passed. But now this administration has made a proposal to effectively eliminate the requirement to pay overtime to 8 million Americans, which includes firefighters, police officers, and

nurses. But they also put into this provision those who will be excluded. Listen to this. Those who will also be excluded will be those who receive the standard requirement and equivalent training in the Armed Forces. Do you hear that? Training in the Armed Forces. Over in Iraq, American service men and women have been trained. We have the best trained military in the world. The challenge of having a good military is to have the best in training, the best technology, the best leadership, and the best support for the families at home. Those are the elements of an effective military force. Now what we are saying to those who are in the military, the service men and women who have taken that training, which makes our military so superior--and being superior results in the saving of lives of service men and women--we are saying that kind of training in the Armed Forces will mean when you get back home, you fall into that category of the 8 million who will be precluded from getting overtime.

Can you imagine that? We have 200 training programs in the military. Great numbers of them fall within this particular provision of training in the Armed Forces. For the life of me, I cannot believe why this administration would write into their proposal that the training in the Armed Forces will mean you are going to be excluded from overtime pay. I just do not understand that. I just do not understand it. I wish those on the other side of the aisle who support that particular provision would come out here and explain that.

I want to mention another important provision in this overtime pay, the effect of which hits a particular group in our society, and they are the women who are working in the American workforce. Two factors have made life for middle-income and working families at least plausible and livable. One is the fact that women have entered the workforce and, secondly, many of these families have mortgaged their homes to deal with the problems of tuition escalation and other things, such as emergency health needs. The fact is there is no what they call in economics ``elasticity'' left in this. They don't have other members of the families who can work once the husband and wife are working. You don't have another husband and wife to go out there and you only have one home and if you mortgage that to educate your kids you just can't do very much more. You are depending, to a significant extent, on overtime pay. I want to remind the Senate about what has been happening in the workforce. The middle-income mothers work 55 percent more hours today than 20 years ago. Here it is: It was 895 hours in 1979, and in 2000 it was 1388 hours--almost double what they were working in 1979, over a 20-year period. Why are they working? To provide for their families. What are we saying to these mothers who are working hard and making some overtime? We are saying to the mothers and to the women in the families you are not going to be able to get that benefit either. You are not going to be able to get the benefit either. This falls particularly hard on the 8 million Americans who will be outside of the overtime definition, for the veterans who came back from Iraq in the military forces, because it will be said you are a professional now, you have had training in the Army. We have read in your record that you have had some training, so even though you are doing this job, we don't have to pay you overtime. It says that in the Armed Forces training regulation.

This provision falls unduly harsh on the women. As women have increased their time in the paid labor market, their contributions to family income have also increased. These contributions have been particularly important to lower and middle-income families. An increase in time spent at work creates childcare and other family challenges. These added hours have had a negative effect on a parent's ability to be at home after school, help with homework, or care for an ill or aging family member.

The Bush proposal would take away overtime protections for millions of American women, ensuring that they work longer hours for less pay. Women who are working today are going to work longer hours for less pay. That is the result of the overtime provision. Make no mistake about it. Our amendment protecting overtime--saying to the President that he can't take away overtime pay--was taken out of the omnibus bill after it was passed on the floor of the Senate and in the House of Representatives. But the Republican leadership knew they could not win on the Bush proposal on the floor and they took it out of this bill-- challenging this body to take it or leave it.

This is one Senator who is going to leave it because of what it is going to do to working families, for the women and veterans in this country. Women tend to dominate retail services and sales promotions that would be particularly affected by the Bush proposal. The increase in overtime, often with little advance notice, would take away from the families, disrupt the schedule of working parents, as well as impose additional childcare and other expenses. Women's groups like Nine-to- Five, the American Association of University Women, National Organization for Women, National Partnership for Women and Families, and the YWCA express their strong support for the Harkin-Kennedy amendment to preserve the overtime protections. Those are the leading women's groups--National Organization for Women, National Partnership for Women and Families, YWCA. Effectively, every group that represents women in our society strongly opposes these provisions which are written in by the Republican leadership denying overtime.

These organizations representing women--Nine to Five, the American Association of University Women, the National Organization for Women, the National Partnership for Women and Families, and the YWCA--have all indicated their strong opposition to the overtime provisions. They know the adverse impact on women.

I wish to point out that of the millions of Americans who will lose their overtime, not only do we have police officers, nurses, and firefighters, but if we look at other categories, we see cooks, clerical workers, a large percent of which are women, physical therapists, dental hygienists, bookkeepers, lab technicians, graphic artists. These are major professional groups where, in a number of those areas, women are the majority of workers, so they would be adversely affected. This provision adversely affects veterans and adversely affects women.

Today's New York Times points out what my colleague, my friend, John Kerry, mentioned as a veteran himself in Exeter, NH.

This is the New York Times story:

An omnibus spending bill has been stalled in Congress in

partisan dispute over provisions to which Democrats object.

One would allow the Bush administration to press ahead with

rules that Democrats say could strip millions of their right

to overtime pay. Hitting that theme, Mr. Kerry said the

president would treat those who trained for some skilled jobs

in the military as professionals ineligible for overtime pay,

adding this ``made my blood boil.''

``We need a president who understands that the first

definition of patriotism is keeping faith with those who wore

the uniform of the country,'' Mr. Kerry, a Vietnam veteran,

said. . . .

It could not be said any better than that.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire New York Times article be printed in the Record.

Madam President, finally, I would have thought that since Tuesday--it is now Thursday--we would have heard someone on the other side come down and defend stripping these provisions out of the omnibus bill. The silence has been deafening. One would think if they were going to take these out, at least they would have the guts to come down here and explain to the American people why. Why did they take them out? Who took them out? Who asked that they be pulled out? What was the reason, after it had been supported by the Senate and House of Representatives? But all there is is silence--silence--from the Republican side.

That says something, does it not, when we are talking about something which has already been addressed in both Houses, passed in the Senate, passed in the House, and stripped out in the dead of night and there is silence on the other side.

American workers deserve better. We deserve to understand what the process was in taking out this provision that has been passed by the Senate, and the leadership refuses to give us an opportunity to have another vote to put it back in. Why are we not having a vote to be able to restore it? It doesn't take any time. We would agree to half an hour, with time evenly divided. Let's hear them defend the Labor Department's regulation, a regulation that will affect women, a provision that works unfairly against veterans, a regulation that is unfair to firefighters, police, and nurses. Where is the justification? There is silence on the other side.

Yes, I yield.

Well, the logic of the Senator's argument is so overwhelming and the common sense of it is so compelling.

Let me complete this. As the Senator remembers, at the time we heard about the mad cow disease, there was not a family in America that was not asking what is the safety in terms of the food we are eating, the meat product our children and our families eat. All America was concerned about it. We have an opportunity to do something about it. We know what can be done about it.

As I hear the Senator from Nevada, it would not take an awful lot of time. I know the Senator's amendment. I do not think it would take more than half an hour to be able to include those provisions that would give the kind of additional health safety protections for the American people. It is not an absolute guarantee for every situation, but it would make a major difference. How long does the Senator think it would take to include those provisions that would provide the country-of- origin protection?

We could do it now, am I correct, or do it if there was agreement?

Well, there you are.

The answer is special privilege, special interest. Just to add to what my good friend from Nevada pointed out, the Department of Labor then had the gall to publish suggestions to show American business how to make sure these 8 million were not going to receive the overtime. This is just special interest politics: Mad cow, overtime, power of special interests. These are the similar kinds of interests that denied this institution the opportunity to permit negotiation of drug prices under Medicare. What is in the public interest there? America is finally going to find out the Bush administration is primarily interested in protecting the special interests, not the public interest.

That is what I heard across the various small towns, communities, and farms in Iowa. The American people are beginning to get it and nothing illustrates it more clearly than the proposed overtime change in regulations which so adversely affects not only these 8 million Americans but particularly members of the Armed Forces, returning veterans, and the women in our society.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, some of my constituents are asking questions about the meaning of the small engines provision included in the fiscal year 2004 omnibus appropriations conference report. They raise the question about whether subsection (c) applies only to ``new'' and ``nonroad'' spark-ignition engines smaller than 50 horsepower. That was my understanding. I ask my colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond, one of the authors of this provision, whether that was his intent?

I thank my colleague, and ask whether he intended the language to apply only to ``nonroad'' engines?

I thank my colleague. I ask him also about his intent of the provision to apply only to nondiesel engines.

I thank my colleague again. I ask him also about his intent of the provision to apply only to engines smaller than 50 horsepower.

I thank my colleague for clarifying the intent of this provision here today.

california wildfires

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

similar tragedy in the future. Of this total made available, $25 million is provided to compensate California's farmers who suffered losses in the fires.

The package of aid that I drafted contained language that would have deemed losses suffered in those fires to be the result of a natural disaster, raised the cap on payments for those losses under the Tree Assistance Program to $200,000, and would have provided upfront payments under that program instead of reimbursements for replacement costs.

It it my understanding that a portion of the language was inadvertently left out of the final conference agreement that I had discussed with the majority leader and his staff. Is that the majority leader's understanding?

I thank the majority leader for that clarification. Those elements of the relief package are crucial to the recovery of agricultural producers in my state. Some of the disaster programs administered by the Department of Agriculture do not provide relief for losses due to arson. However, it is clear to me that the wildfires in California were a natural disaster. Those losses would not have been incurred, if not the drought conditions in high Santa Ana wind conditions. Additionally, as many of the losses were of high value specialty crops, an increased payment cap is needed for adequate recovery effort.

I would ask that the majority leader work with me to ensure that the administration address the intent of my omitted language, so that USDA can administer the relief as intended and the effected producers can recover their losses.

Mr. President, I rise in favor of the FY04 Omnibus Appropriations Conference Report, despite major concerns I have with how this bill was put together and with a number of items in the bill.

Nevertheless, we are faced with an up or down vote. On balance, I believe that the bill is a net positive and I will support it.

The best you can say about this bill is that it is a mixed bag. There are items in the bill that are good for California and the Nation, but there are a number of harmful legislative provisions attached to the bill and on a number of issues the administration was allowed by the majority to override the will of the Senate.

For example, among the harmful provisions that I hope we can reverse is language which requires next-day destruction of background check records of sales where a gun buyer successfully clears a Brady background check and is permitted to purchase a firearm. I also look forward to the Senate taking action to prevent implementation of the administration's proposed rules on overtime compensation.

Before I talk further about the bill, I want to talk about the serious and wholly avoidable problems associated with the process by which we reached a final agreement on this package.

The ranking member of the Appropriations Committee and others are

correct in highlighting those issues. If for no other reason then that we should avoid them in the future.

Senator Byrd is correct when he says that adopting this conference report or facing a year long continuing resolution at FY03 levels are not the only paths out of this impasse.

If the majority leadership in the Senate and the House had chosen, we could have worked out the serious concerns that Senators of both parties have with this legislation. We all knew that there are only a handful of major issues.

However, the majority did not show any willingness to address overtime pay, country of origin labeling for meat products, media ownership rules, or outsourcing of Federal jobs.

Senator Byrd also eloquently laid out in his letter to the majority leader the instances in which the administration, at the eleventh hour, was permitted by the majority to prevail over the will of the Congress. I would like to quote what he wrote:

Several very controversial legislative riders were added at

the last minute by the Bush White House. Disappointingly, the

Republican Congressional Leadership, at the insistence of the

White House, capitulated to changes that were not even

contemplated when the bills were before the House of

Representatives and the Senate.

Overriding the will of the Senate, the bipartisan overtime

regulation prohibition, which passed the Senate by a vote of

54-45, was dropped. The resulting Bush administration plan

would eliminate overtime pay protections for as many as 8

million American workers who currently are eligible for

overtime pay. These hard-earned overtime dollars often make

the difference between workers providing a better life for

their families or just making ends meet.

Overriding the will of the Senate and at the behest of the

cattle and food marketing industries, the Bush administration

actively and officially supported language in the omnibus

conference that would delay implementation of mandatory

country-of-origin labeling of meat and meat products. Despite

the potential danger to American consumers of any delay, the

country-of-origin labeling for meat and meat products,

enacted as part of the 2002 Farm Bill and scheduled to take

effect this fiscal year, would be delayed by two years.

Overriding the will of the House and the Senate, the one-

year limitation on the FCC media ownership rule was turned

into a permanent cap at 39 percent. The practical effect of

changes demanded by the White House is to protect Rupert

Murdoch's Fox television network and CBS-Viacom from having

to comply with the lower 35 percent ownership caps that

conferees had included in the original conference report. The

White House is boosting special corporate interests at the

expense of the people's interest for balanced news and

information.

Overriding the will of the House and Senate conferees, and

again at the Bush administration's insistence, 400,000

Federal workers will lose job protections. During

negotiations, Congressional Democrats and Republicans agreed

to provide basic protections for federal employees whose jobs

have been targeted by the Bush White House for privatization.

Because of White House intransigence, those basic protections

were dropped. What remains provides so many loopholes for the

Bush administration to privatize Federal jobs that little

protection is provided for workers. The administration's

policies encourage unfair treatment of dedicated public

servants, many of whom are being forced into early retirement

or the prospect of reduced benefits and lower pay.

At this point, the only choice we have is between this omnibus, which funds the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Justice, State, Labor, Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, Education, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, and Treasury.

Under a year long continuing resolution, these departments would be funded at last year's levels. And as a result, major programs which benefit millions would be severely underfunded, and many needed projects, including hundreds in California, would receive no funding.

Indeed, there are a number of items in the bill of particular importance to me and to California that I would like to highlight: $225 million for California wildfire relief and prevention; $85 million for COPS grants for interoperable communications; A 5-year Pilot Program for school choice in Washington, DC; Increased NIH Funding; and Funding for Election Reform.

If the Omnibus were not to pass, then none of these programs would receive necessary funding.

As we all know, California suffered devastating wildfires last fall. These fires consumed a total of 738,158 acres, killed 23 people, and destroyed approximately 3,626 residences and 1,184 other structures.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. In California, 8.5 million acres of Federal land are at the highest risk of catastrophic fire, so it is critical that we protect our forests and nearby communities and avert a similar catastrophe in the future.

That is why I am so pleased that Congressman Jerry Lewis and I were able to secure $225 million in emergency funding.

This funding will help prevent mudslides, provide relief for farmers whose crops were burned, and eliminate a million trees killed by the bark beetles.

This funding is critical to helping prevent future fires.

As we saw in November, trees killed by the bark beetle become kindling in a serious fire, and put homes and lives at risk.

Removing them is a necessary first step toward preventing fires like the ones we experienced from happening again.

The bill also includes $85 million in grants to help first responders better communicate with each other in times of crisis.

In all too many jurisdictions, police, fire and emergency medical service personnel can't communicate with each other over the radio when an emergency occurs. This means slower response times, less coordination between agencies and lives lost.

To help remedy this problem, I sponsored an amendment to the emergency spending bill passed last year, which provided $109 million to improve the compatibility of first responders' communications systems.

Half of this funding would go to police departments and half would go to fire and emergency departments.

And in the Omnibus Appropriations bill there is $85 million in additional COPS grants for interoperable communications for police.

There are about 2.5 million public safety first responders who operate in the United States today, stationed in some 18,000 law enforcement agencies, 26,000 fire departments and 6,000 rescue departments.

When I speak to representatives of these departments, they tell me that obtaining compatible communications systems is their No. 1 homeland security priority.

The need is certainly there. The recent Council on Foreign Relations Independent Task Force on Emergency Responders report on homeland security funding--entitled ``Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously Unprepared''--determined that the minimum interoperable communications need over the next five fiscal years is $6.8 billion.

As America continues to confront the threat of terrorism, it will be increasingly important to give our law enforcement, fire and emergency personnel the tools they need to respond to a possible terrorist attack effectively and safely.

This will allow fire, police and emergency medical services personnel to better communicate in times of crisis and will ultimately help save lives.

I am also pleased that the Omnibus Appropriations bill contains the $40 million DC School Choice plan to provide educational scholarships for 2,000 low-income students in troubled public schools in Washington,