SMART Act

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the United States-Mexico Transboundary Aquifer Assessment Act.

This bill is the result of a field hearing I conducted in Las Cruces, NM two years ago during my tenure as the Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The focus of the hearing was water resource issues that were developing along the U.S.-Mexico border-- particularly the area encompassing Las Cruces, El Paso, Texas, and Juarez, Mexico.

There had long existed an ongoing effort to address water quality issues and waste-water infrastructure needs in the border region, but I was concerned that issues regarding the availability of future water supplies were growing. The testimony at that hearing made clear that there exists little consensus on how growing communities in the border region will address their future water needs. In particular, I was struck by the lack of agreement on the long-term viability of future groundwater sources, many of which involve aquifers underlying communities in both the United States and Mexico. Given the rapid population growth along the U.S.-Mexico border and the increasing demand for water, there is a strong need to gain a common understanding of the limits of our shared groundwater resources. A thorough understanding of the resource is the first step to avoiding conflicts similar to those that have arisen between the United States and Mexico over shared surface waters--e.g. the Rio Grande.

The United States-Mexico Transboundary Assessment Act is intended to address the lack of binational consensus regarding the source and availability of future water supplies along the border. It will do this by establishing a scientific program, involving entities on both sides of the border, to comprehensively assess priority transboundary aquifers. The information and scientific tools developed by this program will be extremely valuable to State and local water resource managers in the border region. This effort is to be led by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) working closely with the border states and local entities. Over the last several years the USGS has been working with key stakeholders in the border region to design this technical program.

I understand that establishing this scientific program and accurately assessing our shared water resources is just a step towards developing the long-term plans and solutions that will help avoid future international disputes concerning scarce water supplies. This small step, however, is an important one, and is recognized by a number of organizations familiar with the need for cooperative efforts between the United States and Mexico on shared water resources. In its 6th Report on the U.S.-Mexico Border Environment, the Good Neighbor Environmental Board, an independent federal advisory committee managed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, recommended the initiation of a ``border-wide groundwater assessment program to systematically analyze priority trans-boundary aquifers.'' Also, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, in a January 2003 report of its U.S.-Mexico Binational Council, included as one of its recommendations that Mexico and the United States ``improve data collection, information gathering, and transparency as the first step to developing a long-term strategy for water management.''

Ultimately, the necessary long-term strategy will have to be developed by the communities and other water users who reside along the border. Working with each other and their state water resource agencies, I believe successful strategies can be developed so long as the information that is the basis for the plans is the most accurate possible. In that respect, the USGS has a strong and important role to play. This bill will ensure that the USGS will be able to fulfill this role which, in turn, will enhance the prospects for our border communities to plan for their future and manage their growth in a manner that ensures their long-term viability and prosperity.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I want to speak for just a few minutes today on an issue on which I have introduced a bill. The bill is S. 1966. It is a bill to require a report on the detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The purpose of this legislation is to shed some light on the process that is being used by this administration to determine the status of so-called enemy combatants who are held by our Government at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. It has now been nearly 2 years since the first detainees arrived at Guantanamo as prisoners of the United States. Yet these individuals are still being held in what most would refer to as legal limbo.

My colleagues will recall that on July 16, I urged the Senate to adopt an amendment to the Defense appropriations bill. That amendment was tabled 52 to 42. It is essentially the same provision--it contained the same provisions I have now put into S. 1966, this freestanding legislation I have introduced.

The day after that amendment was defeated I sent a letter to Secretary Rumsfeld expressing my concern over the apparent lack of any kind of legal process being extended to the detainees being held at Guantanamo. Only recently I received a reply from the Department of Defense. In that letter, the Department of Defense maintains that it:

. . . reviews on a regular basis the continued detention of

each enemy combatant and assesses the appropriate disposition

of each individual case.

According to the Defense Department, at the time they wrote back to me, they said that the review had resulted in the release of 64 detainees who were determined to no longer pose a threat to the United States, and more releases were expected.

However, the letter fails to address the more important question, which is whether the Department's review of these detainees is being done in accordance with any recognized civilian or military legal process.

I ask unanimous consent to have the letter printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

What prompted me to come to the floor of the Senate today was an article I saw in the morning paper. This appeared in various papers around the country, but the one I have here in front of me is from the Boston Globe. It says:

The U.S. military sent home 20 ``enemy combatants'' last

weekend who were being held without trial at Guantanamo Bay

Naval Base in Cuba, only to replace them with the same number

of new prisoners.

It has a quotation from a spokesperson for the military saying:

We cannot talk about any of the individuals that may have

departed the island due to security concerns.

According to this article, all those transferred last week have been returned, many of them to Pakistan, and all of those transferred last weekend, according to representatives from the countries they are citizens of, said they will be released once they have arrived in those countries.

The figure now, as I understand it, is there are 88 suspects who have been transferred out of Guantanamo Bay. Four were released, 4 were handed over to Saudi Arabia, and the remaining 650 or 700 are still there. As this article indicated, we continue to add additional people to this prison we are operating there at Guantanamo.

There are various complaints described in the article by foreign diplomats about the process we are following. There is a statement by the attorney for one of the human rights organizations that has complained bitterly about the improvisational policy decisions and the arbitrary power over prisoners at the base.

My motives for offering this legislation are very simple. While I obviously have concerns about judicial treatment and the failure of any kind of legal process being followed in the treatment of these detainees in Guantanamo, I am even more concerned about the implications of this treatment we are affording these individuals for our own fighting forces as well as our international reputation.

The bill I filed here in the Senate today requires the Secretary of Defense to report on the status of these detainees, including the process that was utilized to determine that status for those who have already been released from Guantanamo. The bill requires the Secretary to provide information related to this release, how long they were detained, the conditions of their release, if any, the explanations of why the Department of Defense has now determined these individuals could be released after what has in many cases been a very long detention.

For the remaining detainees--those who are still at Guantanamo--the administration has still refused to provide ``access to an impartial tribunal to review whether any basis exists for [detainees] continued detention.'' The detainees have not been allowed to speak with their families or their counsel, nor have they been informed of any charges against them, as far as I am informed.

The bill I filed requires that within 90 days of its enactment the Secretary of Defense provide the Senate with information related to the process used to categorize and hold these detainees. It does not call for release of the detainees. It does not in any way, shape, or form require the release of any classified information other than to the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate and House committees. The amendment merely seeks to clarify for the Senate and for the Congress the process by which the detainees' status is determined.

Like most Americans, I have always thought that what distinguished our country in the history of the world was our commitment to individual freedom and to the rule of law; that the bedrock of a free society is the obligation taken by the Government to afford individuals with certain legal protections, and as a Nation committed to these principles we have been instrumental in the formulation and enforcement of international law, particularly when it came to the treatment of prisoners of war. For over 75 years, the United States has adhered to the Geneva Convention. Even during conflicts with insurgents and irregular forces, we have adhered to the Geneva Convention. Whenever our Nation has gone to war, we have taken pride in going above and beyond the requirements of international law as set out in the third Geneva Convention of 1929. In fact, the Department of Defense has adopted its own detailed regulations and doctrine and field manuals built on the provisions of the Geneva Convention which have guided our military through many conflicts regardless of size and scope and duration.

These regulations we have in our own military, like international law, do not contemplate the legal limbo we are holding these detainees in at Guantanamo. Neither the Geneva Convention nor the established military regulations define or use the term the President is using here. This term, unlawful combatant, is a new term which has come up in order to sidestep the requirements both of the Geneva Convention and of our own military regulations. Army Regulation 190-8 provides an effective and efficient process to

categorize the detainees on the battlefield. According to that provision, detainees must be classified either as an enemy prisoner of war, a recommended retained person entitled to enemy prisoner-of-war protections, an innocent civilian who should be immediately returned to his or her home or released, or a civilian internee who, for reasons of operational security, or probable cause incident to criminal investigation, should be retained. Such internees have the right to appeal the order directing their internment by challenging the existence of imperative security reasons that led to their detention.

The President's unilateral determination of the detainee's status at Guantanamo Bay signals a significant departure from the spirit of the Geneva Convention and a significant departure from the letter of established military regulations. In stark contrast to our Government's previous commitment to adherence to the rule of law and human rights, this administration has adopted a position that once the President designates that a person is a so-called enemy combatant or unlawful combatant, a term created by the administration, that person can be locked up and held incommunicado as long as the President desires, with absolutely no legal rights; no right to review of that decision. This means even if the administration makes a mistake or is given faulty information, it is virtually impossible for the person involved to prove his or her innocence because not only can they not talk to a lawyer or to family members, but they do not have the right even to know what they are being charged with.

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to consider the narrow question of whether the Federal courts have the power to hear challenges to the detainees' imprisonment. This is a significant move towards restoring the system of checks and balances, which needs to be restored--the system of checks and balances our Founders felt was essential to preserving liberty in the country. Similarly, the bill I have filed begins to fulfill Congress's constitutional responsibility to oversee what the executive branch does. It calls on the administration to tell us whether its actions are in accordance with military regulations and doctrine.

Our goal is to bring transparency to the issue and to fulfill Congress's constitutional role of oversight of the executive. We should know what process the administration is using to determine the status of these detainees.

My concern is much broader than what happens to these particular detainees. I am concerned about the impact of our treatment of these detainees on the treatment of our own military personnel who are captured in future conflicts. Former U.S. diplomats and judge advocate generals and even former U.S. prisoners of war filed ``friend of the court'' briefs in the Supreme Court questioning the legality and wisdom of the administration's policy of open-ended detentions at Guantanamo. Some of those briefs were extremely thoughtful, in my view. One former diplomat wrote:

It has been the experience of each of us that our most

important diplomatic asset has been this Nation's values. . .

. The hint that America is not all that it claims, that it .

. . can accept that the Executive Branch may imprison whom it

will and do so beyond the reach of due process of law demeans

and weakens this Nation's voice abroad.

In their brief, former judge advocate generals, the military's legal prosecutors and those most familiar with the law as it applies to enemy prisoners of war, strongly argue:

To be sure, this is a perilous time, as the President has

stated. But that does not justify indefinite confinement

without any type of hearing or judicial review. The United

States played a major role in the development and adoption of

the Geneva Conventions. The requirements of those

Conventions. The requirements of those Conventions are

incorporated directly into American Military Regulations.

American failure to provide foreign prisoners with the

protections of the Geneva Conventions may well provide

foreign authorities, in current or future conflicts, with an

excuse not to comply with the Geneva Conventions with respect

to captured American military forces.

Just as compelling are the stories told in the ``friends of the court'' brief filed by former prisoners of war. They argue that as a result of their own experience as prisoners of war, the United States has an interest ``in fostering the development, acceptance and enforcement of international norms pursuant to which prisoners of war and others captured during armed conflicts will be treated humanely and in accordance with the rule of law.'' They emphasize, that in particular, they ``wish to ensure that the treatment by the Untied States of foreign detainees . . . is such that the United States and former American POWs retain the moral authority to demand fair and humane treatment for any future Americans detained by foreign governments.''

However, nothing more clearly demonstrates this point than the actual stories themselves. Leslie H. Jackson, Edward Jackfert, and Neal Harrington are former prisoners of war. Mr. Jackson was captured by the Germans, who adhered to the Geneva Conventions. Mr. Jackfert and Mr. Harrington were held by Japan, which had not ratified and did not purport to follow international law.

If you will allow me to read them their brief:

Mr. Jackson was captured by the German Army on April 24,

1944, when his B-17 bomber crashed. Jailed and interrogated

for approximately one week, he was then transported to Stalag

17, a converted concentration camp. In his 13 months of

captivity, Mr. Jackson was granted the bare necessities:

shelter, minimal food, and the ability to socialize with

other American POWs. While the experience was harsh and

unpleasant, Mr. Jackson was never tortured or otherwise hurt

by the German guards. To follow the terms of the Geneva

Conventions of 1929, to which Germany was a party, Mr.

Jackson's German captors placed the appropriate Geneva

Convention signage in the barracks, permitted the

international Red Cross to ship basic necessities to POWs,

and allowed a Geneva inspector to survey the premises. Mr.

Jackson believes that his survival and relatively good health

while in captivity are the result of the German Army's

adherence to the 1929 Geneva Conventions.

The experiences of Mr. Jackfert and Mr. Harrington in the

custody of Japan, which had not ratified and did not purport

to follow the 1929 Geneva Conventions, offer a sharp

contrast. Both men were serving with the U.S. Army in the

Philippines when it surrendered to the Japanese in 1942, and

both subsequently served several years of hard captivity

beyond the reach of any Geneva Convention protections. Both

were part of the Bataan Death March and its well-documented

horrors. Mr. Harrington was forced into slave labor in a

Japanese coalmine, and saw his compatriots starved, beaten

and killed. Mr. Jackfert was also forced into slave labor

and suffered the extreme effects of heavy labor, cruelty

and inadequate nourishment, going from 125 pounds to 90

pounds in a matter of months. There was no Geneva signage,

no recognition of prisoner rights, and virtually no Red

Cross access.

Nor were the experiences of Mr. Harrington and Mr. Jackfert

atypical. Studies have determined that the death rate of U.S.

Military personnel interned by Japan was as high as 40

percent while the death rate of personnel captured and

interned by Germany was little more than 1 percent. . . .

Moreover, while it was rare for American POWs detained in

Germany to be tortured, the opposite was true for American

POWs in Japan. No one can adequately impart the suffering

most allied prisoners endured [in Japan]. . . . They were

beaten, kicked, robbed . . . and were buried alive. . . .

[T]he overwhelming majority endured ``hell on earth.''

Again, let me say, I am in no way suggesting that the detainees are not being treated humanely. In fact, from all information I have received, they are being treated humanely. But what I and these briefs that were filed in the Supreme Court are suggesting is that our failure to adhere to some recognized legal process in determining the status of these detainees opens the door for other countries to refuse to adhere to any legal process as well. It may very well result in arbitrary confinement and harsh treatment or other inhumane practices applied to our own citizens.

This bill will help Congress fulfill its duties and obligations as outlined in the Constitution and in U.S. law and regulation.

I hope we can quickly pass this legislation when we return for the second session of the Congress in January.

I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

[From the Boston Globe, Nov. 25, 2003]

US Releases 20 Detainees, Transfers 20 More to Cuba

(By Charlie Savage)

Washington.--The U.S. military sent home 20 ``enemy

combatants'' last weekend who were being held without trial

at Guantanamo Bay naval base in Cuba--only to replace them

with the same number of new prisoners.

The prisoner transfer, the first such movement since mid-

July, followed a determination by senior military and

intelligence officials that the outgoing group ``either no

longer posed a threat to U.S. security or no longer required

detention by the United States,'' according to a statement

the Department of Defense released yesterday.

``We can't talk about any of the individuals that may have

departed the island due to security concerns,'' said

Lieutenant Colonel Pamela Hart, a spokeswoman for the

isolated facility at which the United States detains and

interrogates suspected terrorists.

But a high-ranking Pakistani official, who said yesterday

that at least five of the outgoing transferees were Pakistani

citizens, offered a chilly reaction to the Pentagon's news.

``The government is happy, but this is too damn late,''

said Imran Ali, second secretary of the Pakistan Embassy,

adding that 21 Pakistanis have been released from Guantanamo,

but another 37 are still there.

``Their lives have been destroyed. Their families have gone

through psychological trauma, since they were not terrorists;

they were just low-level Taliban fighters.''

The Pakistani official's reaction illustrated the pressure

on the United States to resolve the situation--especially

from allies in the war on terrorism who have expressed

concern for their citizens who are among the 660 prisoners

from 42 countries being held at the base.

Although the State Department has been negotiating with a

number of countries to continue the detention of some, all

those transferred last weekend will be released by their

countries, U.S. officials said.

The Pentagon statement said that ``at the time of their

detention, these enemy combatants posed a threat to U.S.

security.'' It offered little information about the new

arrivals, except that they were transferred from U.S. Central

Command in the Middle East.

Navy Lieutenant Commander Barbara Burfeind, a Pentagon

spokeswoman, said none of the new detainees were captured in

Iraq.

The weekend transfers of the detainees bring to 88 the

number of Al Qaeda or Taliban suspects who have been

transferred out. Of those, 84 were released and four were

handed over to Saudi Arabia.

Ruth Wedgwood, an international law professor at Johns

Hopkins University, said the arrival of the 20 new detainees

follows a flare-up of fighting by Taliban insurgents in

Afghanistan.

Wedgwood has defended the Bush administration's position

that the rules of the Geneva Conventions do not apply to the

detainees because they were not soldiers of a regular Afghan

army.

``Dismayingly, the Taliban have become very active again in

the southern area, so really . . . the war isn't over in that

area,'' she said.

Not among those who were transferred for release, according

to a senior Pentagon official, were the three ``juvenile

enemy combatants''--Afghans ages 13 to 15 who were captured

fighting alongside the Taliban and whose detention at the

prison has attracted particularly intense international

criticism. The commander of Guantanamo operations, Major

General Geoffrey Miller, had recommended that they be sent

home in August.

U.S. officials say they have been coordinating with UNICEF

in the event that the young fighters are released. UNICEF, a

United Nations agency that has offered to handle the juvenile

combatants, runs a program to ease the reintegration of

former child soldiers back into their home societies.

``The State Department and UNICEF will make sure that if

they're returned to Afghanistan, they won't just be plopped

down,'' a Pentagon official told The Boston Globe last week.

Ken Hurwitz of the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, a

New York-based organization, said that the surprise release

reflected the military's ``improvisational'' policy decisions

and its arbitrary power over the prisoners at the base.

``It's the rule of law that's the point,'' he said.

``They're saying, `Trust us, and we'll do the right thing.'

But there is no right thing unless it's pursuant to some kind

of ordered, lawful proceeding.''

Challenges to the detentions that have been filed in

federal court have so far been dismissed because the base is

located on Cuban soil--it has been leased and controlled by

the United States for a century--and outside the jurisdiction

of U.S. sovereignty. Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court said it

would review the question of whether federal court

jurisdiction may extend there.

In a related development, the lawyer for Army Captain James

``Yousef'' Yee, the former Muslim chaplain at Guantanamo who

was arrested in September in the alleged mishandling of

classified material, sent a letter to President Bush

yesterday asking that his client be released from pretrial

detention for Thanksgiving and his daughter's birthday.

``These charges do not warrant pretrial confinement of any

kind,'' Eugene Fidell wrote in the letter. ``While military

sources initially reported a wild laundry list of suspected

offenses, such as spying or aiding the enemy, these have now

been reduced to two relatively minor [charges]. . . .

Nonetheless, he is being treated as if the original laundry

list of charges was the legal basis for his confinement. This

is totally wrong and unfair.''

Sean McCormack, a spokesman for the National Security

Council, said he would look into the letter, but had no

comment on the president's behalf.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with Senators Domenici, Murray, Jeffords, Cantwell, Akaka, Reed, Chafee, and Inouye entitled the ``Children's Health Equity Technical Amendments Act of 2003.''

Since the passage of the Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, in 1997, a group of States that expanded coverage to children in Medicaid prior to the enactment of CHIP have been unfairly penalized for that expansion. States are not allowed to use the enhanced matching rate available to other States for children at similar levels of poverty under the act. As a result, a child in the States of New York, Florida, and Pennsylvania, because they were grandfathered in the original act or in Iowa, Montana, or a number of other States at 134 percent of poverty is eligible for an enhanced matching rate in CHIP but that has not been the case for States such as New Mexico, Vermont, Washington, Rhode Island, Hawaii, and a number of others, including Connecticut, Tennessee, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Maryland.

As the health policy statement by the National Governors' Association reads, ``The Governors believe that it is critical that innovative states not be penalized for having expanded coverage to children before the enactment of S-CHIP, which provides enhanced funding to meet these goals. To this end, the Governors support providing additional funding flexibility to states that had already significantly expanded coverage of the majority of uninsured children in their states.

For six years, our group of States have sought to have this inequity addressed. Early this year, I introduced the ``Children's Health Equity of 2003'' with Senators Jeffords, Murray, Leahy, and Ms. Cantwell and we worked successfully to get a compromise worked out for inclusion in S. 312 by Senators Rockefeller, and Chafee. This compromise extended expiring CHIP allotments only for fiscal years 1998 through 2001 in order to meet budgetary caps.

The compromise allowed States to be able to use up to 20 percent of our State's CHIP allotments to pay for Medicaid eligible children about 150 percent of poverty that were part of our State's expansions prior to the enactment of CHIP. That language was maintained in conference and included in H.R. 2854 that was signed by the President as Public Law 108-74. Unfortunately, a slight change was made in the conference language that excluded New Mexico and Hawaii, Maryland, and Rhode Island needed specific changes so an additional bill was passed, H.R. 3288, and signed into law as Public Law 108-107, on November 17, 2003. This second bill included language from legislation that I introduced with Senator Domenici, S. 1547, to address the problem caused to New Mexico by the conference committee's change.

Unfortunately, one major problem with the compromise was that it would allow the 10 States flexibility with its CHIP funds for allotments between 1998 and 2001 and not in the future. Therefore, the inequity continues with CHIP allotments last year, this year, and into the future. This legislation would address that problem and ensure that all future allotments give these 11 States the flexibility to use up to 20 percent of our CHIP allotments to pay for health care services of children above 150 percent of poverty in our respective state Medicaid programs.

This rather technical issue has real and negative consequences in States such as New Mexico. In fact, due to the CHIP inequity, New Mexico has been allocated $266 million from CHIP between fiscal years 1998 and 2002, and yet, has only been able to spend slightly over $26 million as of the end of last fiscal year. In other words, New Mexico has been allowed to spend less than 10 percent of its federal CHIP allocations.

With the passage of H.R. 2854 and H.R. 3288, that situations will improve somewhat. Unfortunately, the change was not made permanent and does not apply to future CHIP allotments. This legislation would correct this problem.

It is important to note that this initiative includes strong maintenance of effort language as well as incentives for our State to conduct outreach and

enrollment efforts and program simplification to find and enroll uninsured kids because we feel strongly that they must receive the health coverage for which they are eligible.

The bill does not take money from other States's CHIP allotments. It simple allows our States to spend our States' specific CHIP allotments from the Federal government on our uninsured children--just as other States across the country are doing.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his comments. He has been my good friend for a long time. He and I have worked together now through my 36 years in the Senate, and as he states, we have not always agreed, but we have always been able to work together in the spirit of friendship and real understanding. I really have great admiration for the Senator from West Virginia.

This is my swan song. I had expected to stand before the Senate and be proud of the product we have before us. I consider what happened in terms of the staff mistake a stain upon my service as the chairman.

Mr. President, H.R. 4818, the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill was the legislative vehicle for the fiscal year 2005 Omnibus appropriations bill.

The conference report includes $388.4 billion in discretionary funding for the following nine appropriations bills: Agriculture, Commerce-Justice-State, Foreign Operations, Interior, Energy and Water, Labor-HHS, Legislative Branch, Transportation-Treasury, and VA-HUD.

Our fiscal year 2005 spending will be within the $821.9 billion discretionary cap.

The conference report includes an across-the-board cut of 0.8 percent for each appropriations bills.

This bill will provide the needed funds to keep this Government going for this fiscal year.

As my chairmanship of our Appropriations Committee draws to a close, I want to take a few minutes to acknowledge and commend some close friends and some of the hardest-working and most dedicated staff I have had the privilege to work with.

Let me begin with my good friend from West Virginia, our committee's ranking member, Senator Byrd, who has been a member of the committee since 1958. He and I have worked together throughout my 36 years in the Senate and it has been an honor to lead this committee with him since 1997. We have not always agreed, but we have always been able to put our differences aside and work toward the common good. I especially want to thank him for his efforts over the past year. We both had hoped and worked toward getting our appropriations bills across the floor on an individual basis. But, this was not possible. And, I want my good friend to know how much I personally appreciate his and his staff's cooperation in recent days as we've brought this process to a close. I will miss the partnership we have shared on this committee.

Chairman Bill Young of Florida has been my partner across the Rotunda since 1999. He has become a good friend and ally in our steadfast efforts to complete our work. He, too, is stepping down from his chairmanship and I want to take this opportunity to thank him and his staff for their assistance and perseverance in getting our work completed. Bill has great respect for the institution that we serve and for his beloved House Appropriations Committee. His heart continues to be with the men and women of our Armed Forces. After the House recesses, he and his wife Beverly regularly visit wounded soldiers up at Walter Reed Medical Center. I hope Bill Young will be returning as chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. We will continue to work as a team dealing with modernization of our weapons systems, our military personnel programs, and the national security of this great country.

Over the years, I have had opportunity to work with Dave Obey as both chairman and ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee. Congressman Obey and I have been on opposite sides of a number of issues, but I know of few Members who have his great intellect and passion. Dave Obey is a truly dedicated Member of Congress who cares about the institution, and the legislative process. He is a realist who gives his all in debate, but understands compromise and the need to move the business of Government forward.

I ask unanimous consent to have a chart printed in the Record.

Now, I would like to turn to the clerks of our subcommittees.

Pat Raymond has worked for me for more than three decades in the Senate and will be retiring at the end of the year. Pat began as my scheduler on my personal staff. She has supported me on the Governmental Affairs, Rules, and Appropriations Committees.

From flextime, to postal reform, to the Federal retirement system, and as staff director on this Agriculture Subcommittee, and earlier on the Treasury Subcommittee, Pat has never lagged in her dedication to hard work. Always thorough and precise, always a stickler for details, Pat's also well-known as a quick study.

Even more important than the attributes I have mentioned, has been Pat's loyalty to me personally, to this institution, and to our Nation. As an Alaskan, she understands the true ``can do'' pioneer spirit that has made it possible for her to accomplish even the toughest of challenges.

The Energy and Water Appropriations bill, in particular, was put together in record time. The product represents a truly remarkable accomplishment. It is comprehensive, yet elegant in its simplicity. It sets out an ambitious course for the Corps of Engineers, Department of Energy, and Related Agencies. With few words, it cuts through years of red tape. After reading the bill, the phrase ``the Secretary shall'' has become one of my favorite phrases in the English language.

Tammy Cameron, our majority staff director, Drew Willison, our minority staff director, and their able staff worked on a bipartisan basis and negotiate a bill with the House in 48 hours. They pulled a rabbit out of a hat I thought was long dead. Tammy just took on this new assignment 2 years ago having worked with Senator Campbell on the Treasury Subcommittee. She has learned a complex subject matter in a very short time, and has earned the respect of the highest ranking generals in the Army. On behalf of Senator Byrd and the entire full committee, I want to congratulate Tammy and the entire staff and extend my heartfelt thanks. And, I hope when these proceedings are concluded, they will all go home to bed and sleep for a week.

Scott Gudes is one of those staffers who has become a member of my family. He keeps moving back into the

house. Scott began with me on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee working with Sean O'Keefe, where he learned with a real master. And he has used what he learned with Sean ever since.

He served for almost 5 years as deputy under secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere at NOAA, and worked as the acting NOA administrator under secretary in 2001. 1 worked closely with him to resolve the Stellar sea lion crisis which threatened to close down Alaska's fisheries, and almost closed down the Senate. As many of my colleagues will recall, while others were drinking eggnog, Congress remained in session until days before Christmas while we resolved that crisis. Scott was instrumental in that effort, and helped administer the resolution we adopted.

He formerly worked for Fritz Hollings on the Commerce-Justice-State Subcommittee as well as on the House Foreign Operations Subcommittee. He has a reputation as a fair, even-minded problem solver, and has a heart for the world's oceans. As NOAA administrator, he had a reputation for rolling up his sleeves and working as crew on research vessels, and he has rolled up his sleeves for us.

The senior Senator from Pennsylvania often refers to Bettilou Taylor as the 101st, and for good reason. She has helped me craft new initiatives in Alaska to address health care, labor, and education. Just yesterday, I got a report on the Denali Commission clinic effort, a program Bettilou created. To give an example of the difference just one person can make, since she instituted this program, there are now 41 new health care clinics in remote villages in Alaska that had none, and another 67 in the planning stage and another 26 under construction. Because of Bettilou and her staff, thousands of rural Alaskans now have health care where they had none before.

She is hard driving, but fair; creative but down to earth; demanding yet caring. She knows health policy and education probably better than any single person in the Senate including her subcommittee chairman, and she can run circles around her adversaries. The word ``can't'' is not in her vocabulary. I once described one of her bills as a ``work of art.'' She is truly one of the Mona Lisa's of the Senate.

Mary Dietrich began with me on the Labor/HHS Subcommittee. She has worked now for several years as the clerk on the DC Subcommittee, and I think it is no small coincidence that the District's finances turned around about the same time Mary showed up. She has worked closely with the City government in helping them shepherd the city toward financial solvency, and has taken a particular interest in programs for children and the arts. At the staff level, she almost single handedly pushed through the DC voucher program that no one else thought had a chance of succeeding. But she persevered, and today hundreds of poor children are attending some of the cities best private schools. They will never know who Mary Dietrich is and will never be able to thank her, but today I say thank you on their behalf and on behalf of the Senate.

While Bono has led the public effort to address the worldwide crisis of AIDS/HIV, there is another rock star behind the scenes who has shaped our Nation's response to that crisis. Paul Grove has drafted dozens of provisions to improve the lives of people around the world-- from people living with AIDS and TB to children without limbs who receive wheelchairs. Together we have created a new program to bring fresh water to dozens of African villages which has changed thousands of lives each day.

Paul is a child of the Foreign Service and has lived across the globe, including 2 years with the International Republican Institute in Cambodia. Paul is quietly competent, but his actions speak loudly about the kind of person Paul is and the difference he has made in the world.

Rebecca Davies is a woman who has found her moment in history. Tough and uniquely qualified, Rebecca Davies has undertaken the task of helping create a whole new department of the government with the most important role of our time, protecting our Nation from terrorism. She formerly served as Deputy of the Appropriations Committee with service on the Budget Committee. I can probably count on one finger the number of people who have the knowledge of the Federal budget process that Rebecca Davies carries in her head.

She has worked on the Treasury Subcommittee, Agriculture Subcommittee and each time left her mark. Together we created a series of programs for rural America while she was at Agriculture from rural water and sewer programs to funding to reduce the high cost of energy to funds to address public facilities in poor rural communities. As a result of her efforts, the honey bucket, what used to be the primary sewer system in Alaska, will soon be the subject of a museum exhibit.

I rest better each night knowing that Rebecca Davies is looking out for our Nation's homeland.

Bruce Evans began his career on the Alaska scene with my former colleague, Slade Gorton. A product of the Senate, Bruce is known by all as a practical problem solver with a great wit and a ``can do'' attitude. Of all the subcommittees I have worked with, I have probably thrown as much at Bruce Evans as any staffer on my committee. From timber harvest to oil and gas development, if I am working on a controversial issue, you can bet Bruce Evans is finding the solution.

With Bruce's insight and quiet competence, together we have improved the lives of Alaska Natives from health clinics to alcohol treatment to fire fighting to save villages from destruction. And while I don't have a public reputation as an environmentalist, Bruce has worked quietly on my behalf to protect Alaska's wildlife. He created the State wildlife grant program funded this year at about $70 million, provided resources for research on wildlife from walrus to polar bears, provided the funds to take the Aleutian Canada goose off the endangered list, and restored Alaska's fisheries. Denali National Park is often called the crown jewel of the national park system. Bruce Evans is one of the crown jewels of the Appropriations Committee.

Carrie Apostolou began her career with me on the VA-HUD Subcommittee. Intensely organized and detail oriented, ``slipping through the cracks'' is something you never have to worry about with Carrie. She has shepherded the Capitol Visitor Center through the process, and is responsible for the unprecedented security improvements we all see everyday. When the Capitol Visitor Center opens in 2006, it will be a testament to Carrie's persistence.

Dennis Ward, came to our committee 2 years ago with a strong and wide ranging military background. He served in the Air Force as an officer for 18 years, taught political science at the U.S. Air Force Academy, and was a political affairs officer at the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. He is diligent and tenacious and his abilities were evident to all of us when he worked fervently to complete action on the Military Construction Appropriations bill earlier this year. I look forward to a continued close working relationship with Dennis, as I continue my work on defense issues.

Jon Kamarck is one of the leading public housing experts in the Congress. He is known as a tough adversary, but kind and compassionate. He has exercised the committee's oversight responsibilities with vigor, and many an agency has trembled in its boots when Jon finds indifference or incompetence. He has a reputation for demanding compliance with the laws he helps write, because he is as passionate about good Government as he is about helping people. There is a kinder, gentler side of Jon Kamarck agencies don't always see but I have seen as he meets with Eskimo people with no running water or works with low income people living in squalor. If ever there was a staffer who embodied my personal motto it is Jon Kamarck: ``to hell with the politics, just do what's right.''

And last of all, but first among equals is Sid Ashworth. Sid knows more about the Department of Defense than just about any one I know. She is responsible for the largest annual budget of any department, and has overseen revolutionary changes in our national defense from smart bombs to stealth bombers. She has the daily burden of reading intelligence reports, living every day with the knowledge of the threats that plague us. A former Defense civilian from Hawaii, Sid has

forged a close working relationship with Charlie Houy that mirrors my own relationship with Dan Inouye. Sid is a woman who operates in what is sometimes viewed by some as a man's world. She has broken through stereotyped, and is universally revered by secretaries and generals alike. She is innately fair, intensely dedicated, and fiercely loyal. I am glad I have her by my side every day.

I also want to acknowledge a few of the hardworking staff from the other side of the aisle. Terry Sauvain, Senator Byrd's staff director on our committee, has worked tirelessly along side of my staff to get our work done for the year. Terry has long been known as someone who is able to effectively work on both sides of the aisle. He is known as the master of West Virginia and my staff has learned a great deal from him since I became chairman in 1997.

Chuck Keiffer, Senator Byrd's minority staff director, also deserves my thanks. He came to the Appropriations Committee 4 years ago from the Office of Management and Budget and has vast experience on the fiscal issues. I want to acknowledge him and thank him for his assistance and service during my tenure as chairman.

And finally, I want to thank Charlie Houy, the minority clerk for the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. Charlie has been with the Appropriations Committee for nearly 20 years, working for both the minority and majority. He is a consummate expert on defense issues and is well respected by those at the Department of Defense and his colleagues on the Hill. As chairman of the Defense Subcommittee, I look forward to continuing to work with Charlie and thank him for all of the hard work he has put in over the past year. I am proud to say he is my friend.

Mr. President, we deal with a lot of important and controversial issues in this body. Maybe nowhere is that more the case than on this Senate Appropriations Committee.

I have been fortunate to have had the opportunity to chair this committee with so much history and tradition. Senator Byrd has often reminded us of the historical context of this committee and our role which was specified by our Founding Fathers in the Constitution. And, I would be remiss if I did not note that I and all our members have been fortunate to have been supported by such outstanding professional staff.

I remember when Senator John C. Stennis was preparing to leave the Senate in 1988. And he attributed his long and distinguished career to just a few things. The first, was good staff.

So, I want to take a minute to recognize one such individual, our committee staff director, Jim Morhard. Jim is a consummate professional. He has truly done it all here on appropriations. He joined the committee after a career in the Navy Comptroller's office, and then in the Senate under Senators Wilson and Kasten. Jim staffed the military construction bill as both the minority and majority staff director. Jim worked on Defense Subcommittee and with some reluctance, answered my request for him to take over the Commerce-Justice-State Subcommittee. This is considered by many the most difficult of our 13 subcommittees to handle.

At Commerce-Justice-State, Jim Morhard distinguished himself working as ``clerk'' or staff director under Senator Judd Gregg. Jim dealt with a variety of issues from Securities and Exchange Commission fees to NOAA fisheries programs to small business technical assistance. Long before September 11, 2001, Senator Gregg and Jim sought to wake up the Justice Department and FBI and enhance our counterterrorism programs. On September 11, many of those first responders had taken part in training in counterterrorism exercises that were put forward by our Commerce-Justice-State Subcommittee.

In early 2003, I asked Jim to move up and become staff director for the entire committee. There was no staff that I considered more capable or prepared. Jim has always carried out his tasks with tact, fairness and bipartisan spirit. He has great expertise at the technical aspects of the appropriations job. He can make ``the numbers work'' and draft the bill and report language. And, he has the creativity to critically analyze programs and policies and come up with compromises that move the institution forward.

I think about the same day Jim came on board, we began work on the first of two Iraq/Afghanistan supplementals. I think he has been working tirelessly ever since, shepherding through these bills and helping me get the 2004 and this 2005 omnibus appropriations bills through the Senate, through conference and to the President for signature.

The executive branch has countless programs to recognize employees and excellence. Unfortunately, we here in the legislative banch do not. But, one should not assume that we do not recognize personal and professional excellence when we see it. And, I want to express my appreciation to Jim on behalf of the committee and the entire Senate for a job well done.

the bering sea nonpollock groundfish fisheries buyback program

Mr. President, as part of the fiscal year 2005 Consolidated Appropriations conference report there is a section that provides for a vessel buyback program for the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands nonpollock groundfish fisheries. Senator Murray, is it your intention that section 219 of Title II of the 2005 Consolidated Appropriations conference report is only to provide for a non-pollock groundfish fishery capacity reduction program for catcher processor vessels engaged in these fisheries in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands?

It is my understanding that the North Pacific Fishery Management Council will develop the fishery management plans for the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands non-pollock groundfish fisheries and nothing in this section should be construed to impede or change the council's development of these plans. Is this your understanding?

Senator Murray, there is language in this section that states that future amendments to the fishery management plans in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands should not ``penalize'' members of any catcher processor subsector for achieving capacity reduction under this act or any other provision of law. Could you explain in greater detail what this means? In particular, I want to make sure that nothing in this act would preclude the North Pacific Fishery Management Council from accommodating CDQ interests in future Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands non-pollock fishery management plans.

That is correct. Section 219 is intended to provide a vessel buyback program to be financed through a capacity reduction loan for this fishery.

Yes. This section should not be interpreted as requiring the North Pacific Fishery Management Council to rationalize these fisheries. In fact, nothing in this section should interfere with the council process with respect to development of fishery management plans for this fishery or any ongoing work of the council on fishery management plans or ``rationalization'' of other fisheries.

Yes. This language does not prevent the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, National Marine Fisheries Service, or any other agency from enforcing any Federal law with respect to any member of this sector, including the conservation and management provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The act shall not prevent the council from raising the CDQ share of the harvest for this fishery consistent with past Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands rationalization efforts or as part of any eventual rationalization process. And finally, this reference to penalties should never be construed to prevent the council from implementing initiatives to reduce bycatch in this sector, which has historically had the highest bycatch rates in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands.

Mr. President, over the last several hours, much debate has taken place regarding section 222 of division H of this omnibus appropriations bill. I wish to associate myself with the remarks of many of my colleagues that have insisted that this egregious provision be removed. And, I wish to thank the majority leader and minority leader for establishing a path forward that will ensure that this provision will never become law.

Under the agreement announced earlier by the majority leader, the entire

conference report on the omnibus appropriations bill, once passed by the Senate, will be held at the desk and will not be forwarded to the President for his signature until the House has passed a correcting resolution that will nullify section 222. That correcting resolution will also be passed by the Senate today.

With that guarantee in place, and with the knowledge that section 222 of division H of the omnibus bill will never become law, I am pleased to vote in favor of the bill so that the people of my State and all other States can reap the benefits of the important programs funded in this bill.

Mr. President, I am pleased to see that Section 219 of Title 2 of this Act includes the statutory language necessary to authorize and implement a Non-Pollock Groundfish Fishing Capacity Reduction Program for the catcher processor sector of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands SAI This program represents a positive step forward for the Puget Sound-based commercial fishing industry. Passage of this Act concludes more than a year-long effort to craft an appropriate capacity reduction program for the catcher processor sector of the BSAI non-pollock groundfish fisheries.

Reducing capacity in these fisheries will improve the ability of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council to manage the groundfish stock and contribute to the long term economic viability of the many businesses and people involved in the harvesting, processing and delivery of the highest quality seafood products to consumers. This is important not just to the fishermen who take such great risks up in the frigid waters of the North Pacific, but to the myriad of small businesses throughout the Puget Sound region that support this industry: ship repair yards, equipment suppliers, insurance brokers, transportation companies, and marketers.

My predecessor, Warren Magnuson, set out 24 years ago to put in place a system to Americanize and manage our nation fishery resources. His hard work and vision, championed also by a young Senator from Alaska, Ted Stevens, led to the innovative regional council structure we know today. I am proud that the North Pacific Council has managed the fisheries in its jurisdiction so successfully that it is singled out in this country as a model for maintaining sustainable fisheries.

Despite the success of the North Pacific Council in maintaining healthy fish stocks, there have been problems in the region as a result of overcapacity in the fishing fleets. The North Pacific Council has addressed many issues to help prevent overcapitalization, including license programs and limited entry requirements, but once there are too many fishing vessels it becomes a very challenging problem. These are situations where development of fisheries has outpaced the ability of the resource to support, either biologically or economically, the fleets of fishing vessels built to harvest this national resource. There is a Federal nexus here, when overcapitalization is the result of Federal programs or Federal management decisions. Congress has a record of stepping in when needed to assist in resolving these problems, and this Act follows the American Fisheries Act, the West Coast Groundfish Buyback, and the Crab Buyback in the North Pacific.

I disagree with those who say that this is a problem caused by the fishermen alone, and that they should bear the brunt of any economic consequences of an overcapitalized fishery. Yes, they do have responsibilities, and this bill makes them part of the solution. It is the remaining fishermen who will be responsible for repaying the loans used to reduce capacity in the fleets. That is an investment from them to preserve their future in these fisheries, and it will contribute to the broader economic stability of the Puget Sound region.

I must add that fisheries legislation is never easy to draft. It is a very technical subject overlaid with the very lively history of participants in the fisheries. As Maggie noted on the eve of passage of the original fisheries management act:

We cannot satisfy everybody. I know fishermen pretty well.

They are pretty hard to get to agree on a lot of things. They

are independent people.

This sentiment remains very much true today. We have worked hard to accommodate a variety of perspectives in this bill, and I am satisfied that the results are positive.

The Non-Pollock Groundfish Fishing Capacity Reduction Program for the catcher processor sector of the BSAI authorized in this Act is a legitimate use of Federal resources to restore balance in these fisheries and to promote their long term viability. I look forward to working with the people in the fishery and representatives from the National Marine Fisheries Service and the North Pacific Council to implement this program consistent with the intent of Congress.

The purpose of this program is to reduce excess harvesting capacity in the catcher processor sector of the BSAI non-pollock groundfish fisheries. Reducing excess harvesting capacity will contribute to the future rationalization and long term stability of these fisheries. This statement is intended to clarify certain provisions contained in the Act and to facilitate its prompt implementation.

Subsection (a) provides definitions relevant to this Act and defines the four subsectors participating in the capacity reduction program: AFA trawl catcher processors, longline catcher processors, non-AFA trawl catcher processors, and pot catcher processors.

Subsection (b) authorizes a $75 million capacity reduction program for the BSAI non-pollock groundfish fisheries.

Subsection (c) allocates the $75 million in loan authority among the four catcher processor subsectors to reflect their relative participation in the non-pollock groundfish fisheries: $36 million to the longline catcher processor subsector; $31 million to the non-AFA trawl catcher processor subsector; $6 million to the AFA trawl catcher processor subsector; and $2 million to the pot catcher processor subsector. In the event any of the subsectors does not use the funds allocated to them by January 1, 2009, then any remaining funds roll over to a fund available to all four subsectors.

Subsection (d) establishes the basic contractual relationship between members of a subsector who choose to participate in a capacity reduction plan by agreeing to sell their license, their vessel, or both, to the Federal Government. Before the Secretary may disburse funds, a seller must enter into a binding reduction contract with the Federal Government, subject only to approval of a capacity reduction plan pursuant to a referendum described in subsection (e). The binding reduction contract must include provisions governing revocation of all Federal fishing licenses, fishing permits, and area endorsements issued for a vessel, and if relevant, the scrapping of a vessel, that is purchased through a capacity reduction plan authorized by this Act. It is intended that licenses currently attached to a vessel and all associated vessel catch history will be retired.

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

Department of Commerce report on addressing overcapitalized fisheries, U.S. Action National Plan of Action for the Management of Fishing Capacity, identifies latent capacity as a serious problem to be addressed in capacity reduction programs. The report cautions that simply targeting active vessels with large catch histories may result in ctivating the latent boats and licenses, and frustrating the intent of the buyback effort. Unless latent capacity is addressed, the goal of the Non-Pollock Groundfish Fishing Capacity Reduction Program will be undermined.

When dealing with active capacity, a participant will sell both a vessel and its qualified licenses. However, when eliminating latent capacity, there may be circumstances where only a license is purchased through the capacity reduction program. This could occur when a vessel has sunk or was otherwise destroyed by fire or accident, and is not presently active in the BSAI non-pollock groundfish fisheries. There also will be circumstances where vessels have little or no catch history, but have qualified for a license. In this situation such vessels and licenses represent another form of latent capacity and should be targeted in specific capacity reduction plans. In some cases there may be no current vessel named on a qualified license. The price paid to purchase such licenses associated with a sunk or destroyed vessel is expected to be less than the price paid for an active vessel and its licenses.

Subsection (e)(1) establishes a framework within which individual subsectors may develop capacity reduction plans. This includes a fee system that will repay the full amount of a capacity reduction loan amount in a timely fashion. The subsectors may use negotiations, bidding systems, a reverse auction, or other methods appropriate for identifying excess capacity to be reduced. This flexible approach is intended to utilize the knowledge and incentives of the participants in a subsector to develop capacity reduction programs that maximize the elimination of excess fishing capacity at the least cost and in the shortest time.

Subsection (e)(2) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to review and approve capacity reduction plans devised by each subsector. Once a subsector completes its capacity reduction plan, it is submitted to the Secretary for review to determine consistency with this Act. Subsection (e)(2)(A-E) sets forth the requirements for Secretarial approval. To approve a subsector capacity reduction plan, the Secretary must determine that plan is consistent with the requirements of subsection (b) of section 312 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, with certain exceptions spelled out in this Act. Each subsector plan must include a fee system for full and timely repayment of the loan, and must achieve the maximum sustained reduction in fishing capacity for the least cost in the minimum amount of time. Maximum sustained reduction may be demonstrated through a showing that the vessels and licenses to be purchased will achieve the greatest reduction in harvest capacity through use of the loan authority available to a subsector. Data related to vessel catch history and performance capabilities may be used to satisfy this provision.

Subsection (e)(2)(E) expressly allows subsectors covered by this Act to upgrade their vessels to achieve efficiencies in fishing operations. This provision does not alter the existing statutory or regulatory restrictions on vessel length, tonnage or horsepower. The North Pacific Council retains authority to tailor vessel upgrades to meet the goals of fisheries management plans within its jurisdiction.

Subsection (e)(3) authorizes the Secretary to oversee referenda by each subsector to approve capacity reduction plans and requires the Secretary to notify subsector participants of an upcoming referendum. Following secretarial review and approval of a subsector capacity reduction plan, the Secretary is required to notify, to the extent practicable, all members of the subsector affected by such plan. The Secretary notice will include information on the proposed fee system, the schedule, procedures, and eligibility requirements for participation in a subsector referendum, and an estimate of the capacity to be reduced. This is purely a notice requirement--not a rulemaking--and it is not required to be published in the Federal Register.

Subsection (e)(4)(A) authorizes the Secretary to implement the individual subsectors capacity reduction plans. Within 90 days after a successful referendum, the Secretary is required to publish in the Federal Register a notice that includes the specific terms and conditions governing the purchase of licenses and vessels and a description of the fee system established for repayment of the loan. This is not a rulemaking. The purpose of this notice is to provide a public record of what has been purchased and how the loan is to be repaid.

Subsection (e)(4)(B) expresses the intent of Congress that Section 312(e) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act not apply to the capacity reduction plans governed by this Act.

Section (e)(5) establishes the authority of the Secretary to collect fees from the remaining members of a subsector necessary to repay the debt obligations incurred as a result of an approved capacity reduction plan. It is intended that the Secretary exercise this authority through regulations that will govern the fee collection system and ensure that the Federal Government can collect such fees. These regulations will bind the remaining members of a subsector and obligate them to repay the capacity reduction loan. Revenues to cover the loan repayment fees will be derived from the sale of fish harvested in the BSAI non-pollock groundfish fisheries.

Subsection (f) establishes the required actions by entities other than the Secretary to impose restrictions on vessels, revoke licenses and associated fishing rights, and scrap vessels. Subsection (f)(1)(A) requires the National Vessel Documentation Center, at the request of the Secretary, to revoke any fishery endorsements issued to a vessel under section 12108 of Title 46, U.S.C. It is expected that the National Vessel Documentation Center will annotate each buyback vessel documentation with language provided by the Secretary to notify future purchasers that they will not be able to receive any fishery endorsements. Subsections (f)(1)(B and C) require the Maritime Administration to restrict a vessel to U.S. flag status and refuse to grant approval for foreign registration or operation under foreign authority by such vessel. Subsection (f)(2) requires that vessels purchased under this Act designated for scrapping conform to the procedures established for a reduction vessel under section 600.1011(c) of Title 50, CFR. Scrapping of vessels pursuant to this provision shall be overseen by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-- NOAA--and performed consistent with NOAA requirements. The cost to scrap a vessel will be paid by the buyback participant.

Subsection (g)(1) specifies the eligibility criteria for participation in the BSAI Non-Pollock Groundfish Fishing Capacity Reduction Program. It also limits participation in the BSAI non-pollock groundfish fishery to ensure the goal of capacity reduction is achieved.

Subsection (g)(2) expresses the sense of Congress that the North Pacific Council continue with its efforts to rationalize the BSAI non- pollock groundfish fisheries. This statement is intended to reinforce the Council commitment to adopt such management measures necessary to promote stability in these fisheries. This includes final action in a timely fashion on Amendments 80a and 80b, and the development and approval of sector allocations for the BSAI Pacific cod fishery. It is the understanding of Congress that the North Pacific Council will take final action on Amendments 80a and 80b by the fall of 2005, and adopt BSAI Pacific cod sector allocations by the end of 2005. Amendments 80a and 80b are particularly important to the non-AFA trawl catcher processor subsector as this fleet seeks to comply with the North Pacific Council pending Improved Retention/Improved Utilization--IR/ IU--requirements. It is essential that the North Pacific Council take final action on Amendments 80a and 80b prior to implementing new IR/IU requirements.

Subsection (g)(2)(B) makes clear that subsectors who eliminate excess capacity through a capacity reduction plan authorized by this Act not be penalized by the North Pacific Council. This provision is intended to discourage the Council from reducing a subsector

BSAI non-pollock groundfish allocations as a result of that subsector reduction of fishing effort through programs authorized under this Act. This does not preclude the North Pacific Council from exercising its authority to manage these fisheries, including taking actions to address bycatch concerns or changes in stock levels. In addition, this Subsection would not prevent the North Pacific Council from raising the CDQ share of the harvest for this fishery consistent with past Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands rationalization efforts or as part of any eventual rationalization process.

Subsection (h) requires the Secretary to report annually to the relevant Congressional oversight committees on the implementation of this Act. Reports shall include details on the individual capacity reduction plans, an assessment of their cost-effectiveness, and the achievement of the goals set forth in section 312(b) of the Magnuson- Stevens Act.

Mr. President, I comment on the portion of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 that reauthorizes the Small Business Administration. Of particular importance to me is the inclusion of many aspects of my prior bills, the Small Business Administration 50th Anniversary Reauthorization Act of 2003, S.1375, which was approved by the Senate on September 26, 2003 by unanimous consent, and of my more recent SBA bill, the Small Business Reauthorization and Manufacturing Assistance Act of 2004, S.2821. These provisions reauthorize for 2 years the programs administered by the Small Business Administration under the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and contain significant improvements to the SBA's lending and technical assistance programs.

For over a year, I have worked with the House Small Business Committee and the administration, making numerous attempts to accommodate my colleagues and to resolve outstanding issues that blocked the passage of a comprehensive bill. Various forms of my original bill have been introduced over this period in order to help move the other body's stalled legislation, while in the meantime our Nation's small businesses have waited to receive the benefits of improved SBA services that are contained in this bill.

The vast majority of businesses in each State in this country are small businesses. In Maine, 98 percent of businesses are small businesses. By enacting these provisions Congress is fulfilling its obligation in helping our entrepreneurs reach their American dream.

The SBA is a vital resource not only for our Nation's 25 million small businesses, but also for the millions of Americans relying upon small business ownership as an alternative to the ``traditional workplace'' where corporate America once offered life-long futures for workers.

The SBA's fundamental purpose is to ``aid, counsel, assist, and protect the interests of small-business concerns.'' The methods for carrying out Congress mandates include a wide array of financial, procurement, management, and technical assistance programs tailored to encourage small business growth and expansion. As the economy continues to recover and grow, it is essential that Congress send a message that affirms long-term stability in the programs the SBA provides to the small business community.

In the 50-year period since the establishment of the SBA, there have been many revisions and additions to the methods and organizational structure used by the SBA to respond to the evolving needs of small business. This bill builds upon those changes creating a stronger foundation for the SBA to deliver its programs.

Since 1953, nearly 20 million small business owners have received direct or indirect help from one of the SBA's lending or technical assistance programs, making the agency one of the government's most cost-effective instruments for economic development.

The SBA current loan portfolio of more than 200,000 loans, worth more than $45 billion, makes it the largest single supporter of small businesses in the country. Last year alone, lenders have made 83,912 loans to small businesses in the SBA's two major loan programs, with a total value of $16.5 billion.

Moreover, the SBA Small Business Investment Company program's current portfolio of more than 16,900 financings with an initial investment amount of $17.2 billion makes it the largest single equity-type backer of U.S. businesses in the Nation. Since 1958 the venture capital program has put more than $42.3 billion into the hands of small business owners, and this year it has produced investments of more than $2.6 billion in small businesses.

The SBA estimates that in the last fiscal year its loan and venture capital programs have provided small businesses with $19.7 billion in various forms of financing, enabling small businesses to create or retain 716,144 jobs.

In my home state of Maine alone, almost 2,500 SBA loans have been provided since 1999, for a total of over $288 million, to small businesses that might not have qualified for loans through alternative channels. These loans are critical to providing capital to small businesses in every state and now more will be available to them for supplying this country with additional production, jobs, and income.

Through a great deal of hard work, many aspects of S.1375 that improved the SBA's largest loan program--the 7(a) program--were included in the omnibus package. To give you some examples, a National Preferred Lenders Pilot Program will be created, in which lenders already operating as Preferred Lenders in the 7(a) program in many districts can be granted Preferred Lender status on a nation-wide rather than district-by-district basis, thereby greatly increasing the program's efficiency. The maximum size of 7(a) Express loans have been increased from $250,000 to $350,000 and the maximum 7(a) guarantee is increased from $1 million to $1.5 million.

The SBA 504 loan program, which supports real estate and machinery investments, will also benefit. The maximum 504 guarantee, previously $1 million, is increased to $1.5 million for a general 504 guarantee and $4 million for a guarantee that supports a manufacturing project. For a loan that supports one of the nine ``public-policy'' goals named in the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, the maximum guarantee is increased from $1.3 million to $2 million.

Let me share some additional highlights of the provisions that are included.

As Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, co-chair of the Senate Task Force on Manufacturing, and Senator from a state with a rich manufacturing history, I am keenly aware that our nation's economy and security depends on our industrial base.

Unfortunately, manufacturing jobs in the United States have declined since their historic peak in 1979 and that loss has accelerated in recent years. Small business manufacturers constitute over 98 percent of our nation's manufacturing enterprises. It is impossible to overstate the role of small manufacturers within the overall manufacturing industry and our nation's economy.

The bill includes a section that derives from S. 1977, the Small Manufacturers Assistance, Recovery, and Trade, SMART Act, which I and original cosponsor Senator George V. Voinovich introduced on November 25, 2003. Specifically, it establishes a Small Business Manufacturing Task Force within the Small Business Administration, charged with ensuring that the administration is properly addressing the particular needs of small manufacturers.

I am also particularly pleased that the Omnibus bill contains $109 million for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, a cost-effective, public-private partnership that helps small and medium-sized American manufacturers modernize to compete in the demanding global marketplace.

The MEP's funding had been drastically reduced in 2004, dropping to $39.6 million from a previous level of $106 million. Those drastic cuts threatened to destroy the MEP program, which is relied upon by small manufacturers across our nation.

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

continue to provide well paying jobs to millions across our country.

For our veterans who give so much to our nation and who continue to take risks on the battlegrounds of the business world, the bill includes language that I originally included in S. 1375, extending the Advisory Committee on Veterans Affairs as a separate entity to continue its functions through September 30, 2006.

The Advisory Committee responsibilities include providing better assistance and support to veterans who are forming and expanding small businesses, and providing advice to Congress and the Small Business Administration on policy initiatives to promote veteran entrepreneurship.

With this legislation, Congress is also taking important steps towards fulfilling its promises to pry open the doors of public procurement for small businesses. Small entrepreneurs continue to face persistent barriers in accessing government prime contracts and subcontracts. Many of these barriers have been erected in the middle of the very programs designed to assist small entrepreneurs who are socio- economically disadvantaged or who do business in Historically Underutilized Business Zones. Therefore, it has been no surprise that the Federal Government has never come close to satisfying its statutory HUBZone prime contracting goals.

Among other items taken from my earlier SBA bill, S.2821, this bill expands the definition of HUBZone-eligible firms to promote inflow of capital to HUBZone areas, tap the potential of small agricultural cooperatives, and place tribally-owned HUBzone firms on equal footing with other participants. It also extends the HUBzone program to military base closure areas such as the former Loring Air Force Base and protects companies located in rural HUBZone areas like Aroostook County, ME, from losses of their HUBZone status due to area redesignations. Duplicative paperwork burdens imposed on 8(a) firms trying to do business with state and local governments are also being lifted.

Mr. President, I would also like to comment on the funding levels provided for the SBA in this bill. Since FY 2001, funding for the SBA has decreased by more than 32 percent, the largest decrease of any agency funded with discretionary spending. I understand the need to be particularly fiscally responsible this year, given the size of the deficit, but such a large cut to programs that focus on creating jobs is a mistake.

The funding included for the SBA Microloan program will provided entrepreneurs with a source of financing when no other options are available. With over $27 million in loan provided through this program last year, I am satisfied that the bill closely reflects my funding request.

I am pleased with the funding levels provided for the SBA technical assistance programs, especially the funding provided for the Women's Business Center program. During this Congress, I worked with the administration and the House of Representatives to pass legislation that would sustained funding for the most experienced centers.

With women-owned firms generating almost $2.5 trillion in revenues and employing more than 19 million workers, they are the fastest growing segment of today's economy. In my home state of Maine alone, more than 63,000 women-owned firms generate more than $9 billion in sales. The funding included in this bill for these centers ensures that there are resources available to continue creating success stories for America's women entrepreneurs.

I am deeply concerned that the final Omnibus bill did not reflect the Senate bill and include funding for the SBIR and STTR programs of $2 million and $250,000 respectively. These programs facilitated over $1.5 billion in government research and development grants to small businesses. Moreover, since the inception of the program in 1982, SBIR firms have produced more than 4,100 patents. Without the funding for these programs not only do our small businesses suffer but so does our nation. These programs capitalize on the small business sector's innovative potential. Technological innovation creates jobs, improves our way of life, and helps American companies maintain their competitive advantage.

I applaud America's small businesses that continue to rise to the challenge of keeping this country innovative and strong. Three to four million new business start-ups each year and 1 in 25 adult Americans accept the risks of starting a business. Today's small business owners are making plans for tomorrow, including decisions that will create approximately two-thirds of all net new jobs helping to sustain local communities, according to a recent National Federation of Independent Business survey.

Over the last 5 years the SBA's programs and services have helped create and retain over 6.2 million jobs. According to the SBA, the $65.5 billion awarded to small businesses in Federal prime and subcontracts in FY 2003 will create or retain close to 500,000 jobs. This bill should bring about similar or even greater results in the next few years.

Too much was at stake for small businesses, and the economy as a whole, to allow SBA reauthorization to languish. It was time for Congress to find essential agreement and fulfill its obligation to America's small businesses. Clearly, if we strove for anything less, we'd have failed to support the backbone of our economy, our hope for innovation and new technology, and our small firms that employ millions across the nation.

Again, I thank my colleagues who joined me in supporting this crucial legislation, thereby bolstering American small businesses and protecting Americans' dreams.

Mr. President, Division K of H.R. 4818, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2005, contains the Small Business Reauthorization and Manufacturing Assistance Act of 2004. Since the Act was incorporated directly into the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2005, no committee report accompanies the legislation.

As Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I am submitting for insertion in the Record, the attached explanation of Division K. I would expect the administrator of the Small Business Administration, in implementing the provisions of this act, to accord the enclosed explanation the same weight in divining congressional intent that the administrator would give to language in a conference report. This expectation is particularly appropriate in this circumstance because the provisions were negotiated and agreed to in cooperation with my counterpart in the United States House of Representatives.

The Small Business Administration 50th Anniversary Reauthorization Act of 2003, S.1375, is a bill to reauthorize most programs at the SBA for Fiscal Years 2004, 2005, and 2006. Additionally, the bill makes changes to various existing programs and authorizes several new pilot initiatives. S.1375 was adopted by the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship by a unanimous vote of 19-0.

S. 1375 was the product of a series of hearings and roundtable discussions that the committee held in 2003 on a wide spectrum of issues and SBA programs.

The committee completed its series of hearings and roundtables on SBA reauthorization with a hearing on June 4, 2003, that included SBA Administrator Hector Barreto. This hearing provided an additional opportunity for the agency to respond to issues raised during the previous roundtable discussions, discuss its legislative package that was submitted to the Committee for review, and comment on the President's fiscal year 2004 budget submission. The hearing also examined a number of agency management issues including the SBA's efforts to obtain a clean audit opinion on financial statements, implementation of a loan monitoring system, and workforce transformation plans.

In addition to containing sections from the Small Business Administration 50th Anniversary Reauthorization Act of 2003, the Omnibus includes sections that derive from S. 1977, the Small Manufacturers Assistance, Recovery, and Trade (``SMART'') Act, offered by Senator Snowe and original cosponsor Senator George V. Voinovich, introduced on November 25, 2003.

Examples of provisions from the SMART Act contained in the Omnibus are sections that increase manufacturers' access to capital, and a provision that creates a Small Business Manufacturing Task Force, within the SBA,

charged with ensuring that the SBA is properly addressing the particular needs of small manufacturers.

Throughout the hearings and roundtables, the Committee's objectives have been to single out the SBA programs that work well, identify the reasons for their superior performance, and apply those principles to programs that need improvement. The voluminous amount of information that the Committee collected through the hearings and roundtable discussions held this year and in the previous Congress as well as information received directly from small business stakeholders has contributed greatly to achieving that goal and the results are reflected in the bill.

While not all of the provisions of S.1375 are contained in Division K of H.R. 4818, I believe that by providing appropriate authorization levels, updating and improving SBA lending and technical assistance programs, and introducing new initiatives to assist America's 21st Century entrepreneurs, this bill will provide a sound foundation for the agency to begin its next 50 years of even greater service.

I ask unanimous consent that immediately following these remarks an explanatory statement describing the small business provisions of H.R. 4818 be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Small Manufacturers Assistance, and Trade (SMART) Act,'' which responds to the needs of America's small manufacturers. This bill offers a new emphasis on programs and services within the Federal Government that will provide small companies a better opportunity to survive in these challenging times and compete in our global economy. The SMART Act introduces new resources, improves existing programs, and expands those programs that work to serve a larger constituency. It is critical that we revitalize our country's manufacturing base and establish an environment for economic growth and job creation.

Small manufacturers constitute over 98 percent of our Nation's manufacturing enterprises, employ 12 million people, and supply more than 50 percent of the value-added U.S. production. It is a sector we cannot afford to ignore. In addition, no industry has witnessed a more profound erosion of jobs.

The damage manufacturing has sustained is nothing short of alarming. Since July 2000, almost 2.8 million U.S. manufacturing jobs have been eliminated. New England alone lost more than 214,000 jobs between June 1993 through June 2003, with 78 percent of those losses, 166,000 jobs, occurring since January of 2001.

In my home State of Maine, we've been shedding jobs at a startling rate over the past decade--and even more so in the past 2 years. Between July 2000 and June 2003 an astounding 17,300 manufacturing jobs were lost.

The bottom line is that we must bolster our manufacturing industry, especially with the current 6.0 percent unemployment rate in the United States. To ensure that the road to recovery is robust, we have a special obligation to provide the investment to allow small companies to grow. In fact, it has been reported that for every dollar of final manufacturing output, an additional $1.26 is created in other industry sectors such as suppliers of raw materials, marketing, and retail industries.

Looking even more broadly, a healthy manufacturing base is essential to the preservation of our Nation's security and its status as a world power. We must end the trend of becoming increasingly dependent upon other countries for the products we use and rely upon. Now is the crucial time for everyone--industry representatives, Congress, the President, Republicans and Democrats alike--to work together toward the common goal of revitalizing this industry.

As the Chair of the Committee on Small Business, I have been focusing considerable attention on the concerns of small business manufacturers and efforts to aid in their recovery. Last month, I held a field hearing on this critical subject in Lewiston, ME. I invited Grant Aldonas, Under Secretary for International Trade of the Commerce Department, and Pamela Olson, Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy of the Treasury Department, to participate and explored with them ways to strengthen and expand this vital industry. Their testimony and comments confirmed that we cannot delay and must act quickly to support our small manufacturing base.

Additionally, I heard from a number of small businesses in the manufacturing industry. Their testimony confirmed the damage sustained by our country's manufacturing sector, and the sense of urgency that we need to act immediately to assist them. The SMART Act is a vital first step toward helping them do what they do best--create jobs.

The bill I introduce today starts by establishing a strong and influential voice for manufacturers within the Federal Government through the creation of an Assistant Secretary for Manufacturing within the U.S. Department of Commerce. The new Assistant Secretary will be responsible for identifying and addressing the concerns of small manufacturers at the highest level of our Federal Government. Senator Voinovich has introduced S. 1326, which similarly creates an Assistant Secretary for Manufacturing. I support that bill and Senator Voinovich's efforts to assisting our country's manufacturers.

To ensure that the government acts on the needs of manufacturers, the SMART Act creates an Interagency Manufacturing Task Force (IMTF). The mission of the IMTF will be to encourage the Federal departments and agencies to coordinate their efforts by identifying and addressing manufacturing concerns collectively. The IMTF will

be chaired by the Commerce Department's new Assistant Secretary for Manufacturing and will be comprised of representatives from the Federal departments and agencies that directly affect this sector of our economy. In addition, the IMTF will be tasked with the duty of submitting an annual report on their findings and recommendations to the President and the Senate and House Small Business Committees.

In conjunction with this government-wide task force, the SMART Act also continues to improve the Federal infrastructure supporting the industry by establishing a Small Business Manufacturing Task Force (SBMTF) within the Small Business Administration (SBA). The SBA has a wide spectrum of programs and services available to small manufacturers. The mission of the new SBMTF will be to refocus the agency's programs and services to ensure that they respond to the particular needs of small manufacturers while still serving all aspects of the small business community.

Adding to the information gained from the Committee's hearing, we have reviewed the SBA's programs and services that are geared specifically toward manufacturing and international trade. I was alarmed to learn, during this hearing, that small manufacturers were unfamiliar with the SBA programs that can assist them. These findings revealed that the SBA needs to realign its efforts specifically to include manufacturers in the delivery of the agency's program and services.

In order to improve existing SBA small business development programs, the agency needs to take its services beyond the traditional small business enterprise. The SMART Act improves the SBA's entrepreneurial development programs and services so that small manufacturers can grow their business operation, expand their facilities, and purchase new equipment--all of which will result in creating jobs throughout the industry and its supply chain.

Partnerships developed between SBA related organizations and non-SBA related entities will be an additional asset for these producers. The SMART Act directs the SBA to develop partnerships with the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), community economic development organizations, and the agency's resource partners--such as Small Business Development Centers and SCORE--to create new outreach and training programs for small manufacturers and small businesses in the manufacturing supply chain.

The SMART Act requires SCORE, with its long established expertise in counseling, to extend its reach to small manufacturers and exporters through its online counseling services and its community based offices. The Act also directs SCORE to recruit more counselors with manufacturing and international trade expertise and increase its partnerships with manufacturing and exporting related organizations, which will help increase the marketing capabilities of these small producers and exporters.

I have also learned that small and medium sized companies are often hesitant to engage in the export of their product as a way to grow their small business, because they are often fearful of the many unfamiliar intricacies involved in doing business in a foreign market. Small businesses currently account for almost $300 billion of yearly export sales--nearly one-third of total U.S. exports. However, according to an Administration survey through the SBA's Export Trade Assistance Partnership, approximately 30 percent of non-exporting small businesses are interested in exporting their products and services. These businesses hold the potential to be a major source for even more economic activity and job growth.

The SBA is a pivotal resource in delivering financial and business development tools to businesses seeking to export. The SMART Act improves the SBA's international trade and exporting programs to assist small businesses and manufacturers expand into the export market and play an even greater role in the balance of U.S. trade.

The SMART Act also requires the SBA to establish annual goals that are linked to its trade promotion activities, and to develop programs that will help small businesses compete against imports. This objective will be more easily obtained by incrementally increasing the number of SBA representatives at the U.S. Export Assistance Centers (USEACs) over the next 3 years. To ensure that all States have the same services available, the SBA Office of International Trade will have at least one financial specialist dedicated to the international loan programs and providing oversight of trade financing issues.

The SBA's financing programs have helped American small businesses create and retain jobs, even as other sources of financing have become more scarce. This bill provides improvements to the SBA's 7(a), 504, and Surety Bond programs.

From Fiscal Year 1999 through Fiscal Year 2002, the 7(a) loan program helped small businesses create more than 1.3 million new jobs by making $37.7 billion in financing available to more than 182,000 small businesses. This bill increases the maximum size of 7(a) loans for small exporters from $2 million to $2.6 million by increasing the maximum amount guaranteed by the SBA from $1 million to $1.3 million.

During that same period, the 504 loan program provided more than 20,000 new loans to small businesses, allowing those businesses to create or retain almost 450,000 jobs. The SMART Act increases 504 loan sizes in two ways. First, the bill increases the maximum loan size for manufacturing projects by increasing the SBA's maximum guarantee, which is 40 percent of the total loan size, from $1 million to $4 million. Second, for loans to exporters, the bill increases the maximum loan size from $3.25 million to $5 million by increasing the SBA's maximum guarantee from $1.3 million to $2 million.

Finally, the bill clarifies that under the SBA's Surety Bond Guarantee Program, the SBA may guarantee bonds for specific contracts of $2 million or less, even if the total range of affiliated contracts may exceed $2 million.

These SBA financing programs have helped to create millions of jobs in America, and manufacturers and exporters have been an important part of that success. This bill will increase small companies' and exporters' ability to obtain vital capital that will help them compete in a very difficult international environment and enable them to create more jobs for American workers.

I am drawing these provisions from another bill I have authored, the Small Business Administration 50th Anniversary Reauthorization Act of 203 (S. 1375), which the Committee and the Senate unanimously approved earlier this year. While we are waiting for the House of Representatives to pass an SBA reauthorization bill, I believe that given the importance of these financing provisions, they must be included in this bill as well to increase their chance of being signed into law.

Because Federal assistance for small manufacturers should extend beyond the SBA, the SMART Act will also establish a new Assistant United States Trade Representatives for Small Business within the Office of the United States Trade Representatives (USTR). This office will be tasked with focusing on small businesses', including small manufacturers, concerns in trade negotiations and promoting their exports.

There are currently 21 Assistant USTRs covering issues from services to telecommunications to labor. While small businesses face many of the same issues that serve as barriers to trade as many of the largest multinational corporations, they do not have the same resources to overcome these barriers, thus blocking them from reaping the benefits of international trade. In particular, small businesses do not have the resources necessary to settle private trade disputes in a timely and cost effective fashion, meet physical presence requirements in other countries, conform to complex customs procedures, or meet off-set exclusions in government procurement. By establishing a new Assistant U.S. Trade Representative, we will ensure that the views and concerns of small businesses will have an appropriate seat at the negotiating table and help secure the competitiveness of our small exporters abroad.

The Small Manufacturers Assistance, Recovery, and Trade Act answers the call for help that I have heard too often of late from small manufacturers in this country. These improvements to existing resources within the Federal

government will give these companies a better opportunity to survive in these challenging times and compete in the global economy.

This bill is a critical starting point to revitalize our country's manufacturing base and create an environment that allows them to grow and create jobs again. We must help these businesses access the global marketplace through expanded exporting opportunities and assistance. I intend to work with all groups and interested parties that are committed to improving and passing this bill. There are still many needs that face our Nation's manufacturers--and this is just the beginning.

I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to ensure that the provisions of this bill are enacted so that these companies can continue to grow and reach their full potential.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a section-by-section analysis be printed in the Record.