Floor Statements

Mr. President, if my friend will yield for a question.

I know my colleagues are here. I have one point I want to make, and then I am leaving the floor. I think it is an important point. I wonder if my friend can let me know if he agrees. I think America is now learning who benefits from this Bush plan. It is very clear. It is not rhetoric; it is fact. It is a boon to the millionaires and the billionaires, plain and simple. I know people in this very Chamber who have come up and said: This is absurd. We would much rather see a country that invests in its children, invests in its homeland security, and that gives tax breaks to those in the middle. They are fighting to stop this ill-advised plan. You have made the case that it makes no sense. We are talking about deficits as high as the eye can see and people being rewarded who don't need to be helped. It is not going to stimulate this economy. In the long term, it will lead to outrageous deficits.

I ask my friend this question: Isn't it bad enough that this is a plan that won't do what we need; namely, have stimulus and long-term prosperity? Isn't it worse that at the same time the President is saying let's cut all these taxes for the millionaires, he is shorting homeland security and education? Our colleague, Paul Sarbanes, said it best when he said we ought to call this plan ``leave no millionaire behind.''

We have President Bush sign a bill called Leave No Child Behind. We are going to get a bill pretty soon here that breaks the promise he made to the children of this country. He stood with Senator Kennedy, he stood with Congressman Miller, the champions of education and children, and now he will not fund it because he wants to give the money back. He is not funding homeland security, and our States are suffering as a result.

So the juxtaposition of these two things--a plan that does not do the job, plus shorting our people in terms of education and homeland defense--isn't this a time that we have not seen ever before, a dangerous time for our people?

Every year?

Mr. President, today, Senator Allen and I are introducing the Jumpstart Broadband Act. The Act directs the FCC to set aside an additional 255 megahertz of spectrum in the 5 gigahertz band for unlicensed devices to use to deploy broadband connections. It also directs the FCC to establish rules to minimize interference in that spectrum among devices and to ensure that Department of Defense systems operating in that spectrum are not compromised.

We need this legislation to unleash the potential of new, exciting technologies that promise to deliver high-speed broadband connections wirelessly. Currently, congestion and interference from numerous devices such as cordless phones, ham radios, microwave ovens, ham radios and garage door openers is limiting the potential of these new networks. If we can tap the potential of high-speed broadband, then we can provide numerous benefits to the American people as well as create jobs in high tech industries.

I know that talking about megahertz and spectrum seems somewhat esoteric. But we strongly believe our bill will have real world implications for families, workers, and communities. Making additional spectrum available for new wireless broadband technologies will help make broadband connections more attractive to consumers by extending the reach of those connections. That means more people will sign up for wired connections, creating jobs in the turbulent telecommunications and high-tech industries. Also, as technologies thrive in this area, manufacturers will also create jobs producing and selling more devices to make the connections work.

One such technology is called wireless fidelity, or Wi-Fi for short. In the home, wireless networking can link all the digital products in your house, computers, printers, handheld organizers, DVD players, to each other and to the Internet without cables. Imagine a PC in the bedroom transfering songs to a music system in a car parked in the garage. Imagine an oven being turned on via the Internet by a worker stuck at the office, allowing him to get home to a meal that cooked while he or she commuted.

In rural areas, wireless technologies have the potential to allow communities to use signal repeaters to bring Internet connections to places where wires do not reach, or where the signal over the wire is too weak. Another possibility is that current or new technologies can be manipulated to extend the reach of the initial connection longer distances without repeaters. Our legislation will make all of those kinds connections more likely and reliable.

The benefits greater use of wireless broadband connections are numerous. For rural health clinics, for example, these new wireless connections would connect them quickly to resources at hospitals in cities hundreds of miles away. For schools anywhere, an efficient wireless connection would save

them the cost of knocking down walls to wire the entire school.

Senator Allen and I circulated a draft of this legislation in November 2002 and the response we received from the technology and consumer electronics communities was very positive. We made some modifications to address the concerns that some in the cellular community expressed and worked hard to ensure that the new spectrum would allow a variety of new technologies to thrive with minimum rules of operation in the spectrum . Our first modification was to specify that the spectrum would be allocated in the 5 gigahertz band rather than below 6 gigahertz. The previous language was of concern to cellular companies that operate below 3 gigahertz. The second modification was to limit any new FCC rules only to rules that ensure robust and efficient use of the spectrum for broadband delivery devices.

It is our hope that this bill will provide the sparkplug necessary to help jumpstart the broadband market. I look forward to working on this bill with Senator Allen and the rest of our colleagues in the 108th Congress.

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

Mr. President, today, Senator Allen and I are introducing the Jumpstart Broadband Act. The Act directs the FCC to set aside an additional 255 megahertz of spectrum in the 5 gigahertz band for unlicensed devices to use to deploy broadband connections. It also directs the FCC to establish rules to minimize interference in that spectrum among devices and to ensure that Department of Defense systems operating in that spectrum are not compromised.

We need this legislation to unleash the potential of new, exciting technologies that promise to deliver high-speed broadband connections wirelessly. Currently, congestion and interference from numerous devices such as cordless phones, ham radios, microwave ovens, ham radios and garage door openers is limiting the potential of these new networks. If we can tap the potential of high-speed broadband, then we can provide numerous benefits to the American people as well as create jobs in high tech industries.

I know that talking about megahertz and spectrum seems somewhat esoteric. But we strongly believe our bill will have real world implications for families, workers, and communities. Making additional spectrum available for new wireless broadband technologies will help make broadband connections more attractive to consumers by extending the reach of those connections. That means more people will sign up for wired connections, creating jobs in the turbulent telecommunications and high-tech industries. Also, as technologies thrive in this area, manufacturers will also create jobs producing and selling more devices to make the connections work.

One such technology is called wireless fidelity, or Wi-Fi for short. In the home, wireless networking can link all the digital products in your house, computers, printers, handheld organizers, DVD players, to each other and to the Internet without cables. Imagine a PC in the bedroom transfering songs to a music system in a car parked in the garage. Imagine an oven being turned on via the Internet by a worker stuck at the office, allowing him to get home to a meal that cooked while he or she commuted.

In rural areas, wireless technologies have the potential to allow communities to use signal repeaters to bring Internet connections to places where wires do not reach, or where the signal over the wire is too weak. Another possibility is that current or new technologies can be manipulated to extend the reach of the initial connection longer distances without repeaters. Our legislation will make all of those kinds connections more likely and reliable.

The benefits greater use of wireless broadband connections are numerous. For rural health clinics, for example, these new wireless connections would connect them quickly to resources at hospitals in cities hundreds of miles away. For schools anywhere, an efficient wireless connection would save

them the cost of knocking down walls to wire the entire school.

Senator Allen and I circulated a draft of this legislation in November 2002 and the response we received from the technology and consumer electronics communities was very positive. We made some modifications to address the concerns that some in the cellular community expressed and worked hard to ensure that the new spectrum would allow a variety of new technologies to thrive with minimum rules of operation in the spectrum . Our first modification was to specify that the spectrum would be allocated in the 5 gigahertz band rather than below 6 gigahertz. The previous language was of concern to cellular companies that operate below 3 gigahertz. The second modification was to limit any new FCC rules only to rules that ensure robust and efficient use of the spectrum for broadband delivery devices.

It is our hope that this bill will provide the sparkplug necessary to help jumpstart the broadband market. I look forward to working on this bill with Senator Allen and the rest of our colleagues in the 108th Congress.

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

Mr. President, I rise in tribute to the late Joe Remcho, who died in a helicopter crash in California last Saturday. Joe was a great American an accomplished attorney, a strong advocate for civil liberties, a leading legal scholar, and a trusted advisor to many public officials.

Joe's curriculum vitae is varied and impressive. After graduating from Yale University and Harvard Law School, he taught second grade for a year at an inner-city public school. In the early 1970s, with the Vietnam war at its height, the young attorney went to Saigon to serve on the Lawyers Military Defense Committee. After returning to the United States, he moved to California to become the staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California. Four years later, he established a successful private practice specializing in first amendment, education, and election law. His clients included California's Governor and the State assembly. In 1988, he was honored by his colleagues as California's Trial Lawyer of the Year.

Despite his very full docket, Joe found time to serve as an adjunct professor of law at the University of San Francisco, a commissioner on the California Fair Political Practices Commission, and a member of California's bipartisan State committees on internet political practices and the Political Reform Act.

Above all, Joe Remcho was a warm and wonderful human being a devoted family man, a loving husband and father, and a friend to those who were fortunate enough to know him.

I last saw Joe just 2 days before he died. Our families were together, and his strength and warmth were ever present.

Whether he was spending a quiet vacation with family and friends or fighting in court to defend the Constitution, Joe Remcho lived his life to the fullest. His death leaves a tremendous void in the lives of all those who knew him, but his memory fills that space with love and admiration.

Mr. President, I rise to remember and pay tribute to a most beloved and accomplished constituent, Maryjane Dunstan, who died on December 20, 2002.

Although most of us knew her as a California resident for over 50 years, Maryjane was born in Bethlehem, PA, on January 12, 1925, and went on to serve in the Waves during WWII. Her pursuit of education brought her to San Francisco where she earned both a BA and an MA at San Francisco State University. For her excellence as a teacher, she was awarded a Fulbright scholarship to Burma where for 4 years she taught teachers on methods of teaching English, until the political climate in Burma forced her departure in 1962.

Upon her return, she embarked on a 20 year career at the College of Marin in Kentfield, CA, including 12 years as the founder and chairwoman of the Communications Department where she developed one of the most innovative classes anyone had ever seen: The Future. Her coauthored textbooks, ``Worlds In The Making'' and ``Star Sight,'' were designed to help students project themselves into a possible and desirable future, and to motivate them to create a human and humane future for all.

Those of us who didn't know her through the college, crossed her path as the owner of the Artists Proof Bookstore in Larkspur, Marin County, or through the Literary Luncheons which brought accomplished writers to the community to share their talent.

In truth, Maryjane's greatest joy came as she continually provided a rich milieu for people interested in the large and small issues facing the community, intent on her belief that each of us is responsible for improving the quality of life around us. She never tired of working to help community groups analyze and explore problems and to inspire individuals to seek solutions. She understood how to create positive change by fostering thoughtful, informed action.

She was always gracious, willingly taking on the small tasks as well as the immense, seemingly impossible projects, always an inspiring role model with her passionate interest in the politics, economy and welfare of her community.

For all of this, she has been recognized by her town, her county, and her State. In 1989, she received the Larkspur Citizen of the Year Award from the Larkspur Chamber of Commerce. In April of 1999 the Marin County Commission on Women bestowed upon her the Women of Wisdom, Passion and Vision Award. The Marin County Board of Supervisors proclaimed June 13, 1999, Maryjane Dunstan Day. Also, in 1999 the California State Legislature gave her a Certificate of Recognition for her contributions to improve the lives of women. And the California State Senate gave her a Certificate of Recognition for distinguished service in education. Thanks in large part to Maryjane's work on behalf of low cost and senior housing, the Larkspur City Council approved a 24-unit workforce housing project in December 2002. The developer, the Ecumenical Association for Housing will dedicate the building to her in honor of her work for affordable housing.

Maryjane Dunstan leaves a legacy of hope and optimism for any community that is willing to work collaboratively to enhance the quality of life and create viable, peaceful solutions to all kinds of challenges.

Maryjane will be greatly missed.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the late Bob Holstein, an attorney in Riverside, CA. He is survived by his wife, Loretta, and five children. I know they will all miss him very much.

A former priest, Bob Holstein cared passionately about people. He did not just speak about peace and social justice, but worked for it every day of his life. He and Loretta regularly provided both the inspiration and the financial means to make projects come to fruition. Riverside's landscape and the lives of countless Californians were changed by their generosity.

Bob Holstein counted my late friend and colleague, Congressman George Brown, among his good friends, along with many other government officials. He was also the friend of the University of California, Riverside, where he and Loretta endowed a chair in religious studies. It was also under his careful guidance that the campus built St. Andrew's Newman Center.

Upon hearing of his friend's death, Bishop Gerald Barnes of the Diocese of San Bernardino said: ``In a world long on style, Bob Holstein was long on substance. He was genuine. Bob lived what he believed. And what he believed was justice and fairness for all peoples. Particularly the poor and disenfranchised.''

I ask my colleagues to join me today in honoring Bob Holstein, who dedicated his life to the betterment of his fellow men and women. He will be sorely missed by his friends, colleagues, and by the countless people who live better lives because of his actions.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the child Support Enforcement Act. This bill will bring much-needed relief to the millions of families who are not receiving the child support they desperately need.

The importance of this bill is clear. Each year, nearly 60 percent of the 20 million children who are owed child support receive less than the amount they are due. And more than 30 percent receive no payment at all. California is no exception; preliminary findings from the 2000 Census Report found that of more than 2.3 million Californians who were owed child support, only 39 percent received those payments.

Clearly, millions of individuals, largely women and children, are in crisis when it comes to child support. It is time to treat delinquent child support the same way all other bad debt is treated in the tax law.

The Child Support Enforcement Act would allow custodial parents to deduct the amount of child support they are owed from their adjusted gross income on their income taxes. This is true for all taxpayers, regardless of whether they itemize.

This bill will also penalize the non-custodial parent who is not paying his or her legally obligated child support. It will force the deadbeat parent to add the owed amount to his adjusted gross income.

This is not creating new tax law. It is extending current tax law on bad debts to delinquent child support payments. It's that simple.

The relief provided in this bill is extremely important for single parents. Child support payments can literally mean the difference between paying rent or being homeless; the difference between putting food on the table or being forced to let children go hungry; the difference between making ends meet or going on welfare.

I am pleased to be joined in the effort by Senator Snowe. And Representative Cox has introduced the House version of the bill this week as well. As you can see, this is not a partisan issue. This is a family issue. It will help families and children nationwide. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Truth in Tuna Labeling Act.'' This important legislation

will ensure that the fishing of tuna labeled ``dolphin safe'' does not kill, harm or attack dolphins, and that consumers are given accurate information on how the tuna they purchase is caught. My bill will guarantee that tuna products labeled ``dolphin safe'' will be truly safe for dolphins.

In 1990, the Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act, introduced by myself in the House and Senator Biden in the Senate, created a ``dolphin safe'' label for consumers. This legislation was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, and it allowed American consumers to buy tuna bearing the ``dolphin safe'' label with confidence, knowing that their purchase did not trade dolphin mortalities for tuna fishing profit.

Dolphin and yellowfin tuna tend to run together in some waters. Dolphin swim closer to the surface to breathe. Under the destructive ``chase and encirclement'' practice, helicopters spot the schools of dolphin. Speedboats deliberately encircle the dolphins and cast a mile- wide net, knowing that the tuna will be below. While the tunas are to be harvested, the hope is that the dolphins will escape the edges of the net and suffocation or capture. This practice is termed ``purse seine netting.''

According to the annual reports of the Marine Mammal Commission and the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, dolphin mortality in the eastern tropical Pacific alone has decreased from more than 100,000 dolphin kills each year to fewer than 2,000 kills each year since the passage of the ``dolphin safe'' label in 1990.

Unfortunately, on New Year's Eve, the Commerce Department announced its plans to make the labeling standard largely meaningless by changing the definition of ``dolphin safe'' tuna to allow the label to be put on tuna harvested through deadly purse seine netting.

This flies in the face of all available scientific information.

According to the Marine Mammal Commission, ``. . . the results of the [National Marine Fisheries] Service's research program . . . provide evidence that the practice of chasing and encircling dolphins is having adverse effects on the recover of depleted dolphin stocks and that the magnitude of those effects, at both the individual and population levels, may be significant.''

The report prepared by the Commerce Department reached a similar conclusion. It said, ``. . . despite considerable effort by fishery scientists, there is little evidence of recovery, and concerns remain that the practice of chasing and circling dolphins somehow is adversely affecting the ability of those depleted stocks to recover.''

The new rule completely undermines the integrity of the ``dolphin safe'' label, allowing ``dolphin safe'' labels to be placed on dolphin deadly tuna, and misleading the public. These changes fly in the face of the bipartisan legislation that was enacted in response to public outcry and consumer demand.

As one who fought in the past to protect dolphins and inform consumers, I believe that the effectiveness of the label will be severely undermined by the change and will allow the continued deterioration of dolphin populations. This administration has once again continued its attack on the environment by weakening protections for marine mammals, ignoring science, and providing yet another favor to industry.

Therefore, I am introducing the ``Truth in Tuna Labeling Act'' to reinstate the original ``dolphin safe'' label.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the child Support Enforcement Act. This bill will bring much-needed relief to the millions of families who are not receiving the child support they desperately need.

The importance of this bill is clear. Each year, nearly 60 percent of the 20 million children who are owed child support receive less than the amount they are due. And more than 30 percent receive no payment at all. California is no exception; preliminary findings from the 2000 Census Report found that of more than 2.3 million Californians who were owed child support, only 39 percent received those payments.

Clearly, millions of individuals, largely women and children, are in crisis when it comes to child support. It is time to treat delinquent child support the same way all other bad debt is treated in the tax law.

The Child Support Enforcement Act would allow custodial parents to deduct the amount of child support they are owed from their adjusted gross income on their income taxes. This is true for all taxpayers, regardless of whether they itemize.

This bill will also penalize the non-custodial parent who is not paying his or her legally obligated child support. It will force the deadbeat parent to add the owed amount to his adjusted gross income.

This is not creating new tax law. It is extending current tax law on bad debts to delinquent child support payments. It's that simple.

The relief provided in this bill is extremely important for single parents. Child support payments can literally mean the difference between paying rent or being homeless; the difference between putting food on the table or being forced to let children go hungry; the difference between making ends meet or going on welfare.

I am pleased to be joined in the effort by Senator Snowe. And Representative Cox has introduced the House version of the bill this week as well. As you can see, this is not a partisan issue. This is a family issue. It will help families and children nationwide. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Truth in Tuna Labeling Act.'' This important legislation

will ensure that the fishing of tuna labeled ``dolphin safe'' does not kill, harm or attack dolphins, and that consumers are given accurate information on how the tuna they purchase is caught. My bill will guarantee that tuna products labeled ``dolphin safe'' will be truly safe for dolphins.

In 1990, the Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act, introduced by myself in the House and Senator Biden in the Senate, created a ``dolphin safe'' label for consumers. This legislation was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, and it allowed American consumers to buy tuna bearing the ``dolphin safe'' label with confidence, knowing that their purchase did not trade dolphin mortalities for tuna fishing profit.

Dolphin and yellowfin tuna tend to run together in some waters. Dolphin swim closer to the surface to breathe. Under the destructive ``chase and encirclement'' practice, helicopters spot the schools of dolphin. Speedboats deliberately encircle the dolphins and cast a mile- wide net, knowing that the tuna will be below. While the tunas are to be harvested, the hope is that the dolphins will escape the edges of the net and suffocation or capture. This practice is termed ``purse seine netting.''

According to the annual reports of the Marine Mammal Commission and the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, dolphin mortality in the eastern tropical Pacific alone has decreased from more than 100,000 dolphin kills each year to fewer than 2,000 kills each year since the passage of the ``dolphin safe'' label in 1990.

Unfortunately, on New Year's Eve, the Commerce Department announced its plans to make the labeling standard largely meaningless by changing the definition of ``dolphin safe'' tuna to allow the label to be put on tuna harvested through deadly purse seine netting.

This flies in the face of all available scientific information.

According to the Marine Mammal Commission, ``. . . the results of the [National Marine Fisheries] Service's research program . . . provide evidence that the practice of chasing and encircling dolphins is having adverse effects on the recover of depleted dolphin stocks and that the magnitude of those effects, at both the individual and population levels, may be significant.''

The report prepared by the Commerce Department reached a similar conclusion. It said, ``. . . despite considerable effort by fishery scientists, there is little evidence of recovery, and concerns remain that the practice of chasing and circling dolphins somehow is adversely affecting the ability of those depleted stocks to recover.''

The new rule completely undermines the integrity of the ``dolphin safe'' label, allowing ``dolphin safe'' labels to be placed on dolphin deadly tuna, and misleading the public. These changes fly in the face of the bipartisan legislation that was enacted in response to public outcry and consumer demand.

As one who fought in the past to protect dolphins and inform consumers, I believe that the effectiveness of the label will be severely undermined by the change and will allow the continued deterioration of dolphin populations. This administration has once again continued its attack on the environment by weakening protections for marine mammals, ignoring science, and providing yet another favor to industry.

Therefore, I am introducing the ``Truth in Tuna Labeling Act'' to reinstate the original ``dolphin safe'' label.

Mr. President, I thank my assistant Democratic leader for the time.

During the brief debate we had before we voted to extend these unemployment benefits, the Senator from Pennsylvania asked, What is wrong with you people? What has changed, that you really want to protect now these 1 million people, when several months ago you did not speak as loudly for their inclusion?

I state for the record what has happened in this period of time. As we go out and about our States, as I think we all did during this break, we find high anxiety among the people--high anxiety because of this economy. We are seeing more foreclosures than ever. Two million jobs have been lost in the private sector. On top of that we are seeing budget deficits that we have not seen in many years.

My friend who is now presiding, my esteemed colleague, understands this anxiety. We have teamed up to work on giving a jump-start to the high-tech sector with a bill on wireless fidelity, which I believe is going to really help this economy. He understands that.

We have a sense of urgency about that bill because we know we can turn things around. In my State we have a horrible situation in the northern areas because of what I would call a depression, really, in the high-tech sector. Some of it was to be expected; we went through this huge period of growth. We have some settling down there. But nonetheless, it is a problem. We have thousands of people in northern California who are suffering through no fault of their own. These people, who are intelligent, educated, and excellent workers, are out on the street. They are running out of benefits, and some of them have run out already. That is why we on this side of the aisle believe those million people should not be left out of the equation.

I have a State of 35 million people. In terms of its economy, it would be the sixth largest economy in the world. The fact is, the good people in that State need help. Why we on this side of the aisle were so upset and why we kept objecting or reserving the right to object is we wanted to make sure the people's voices were heard. That is what the Senate ought to be, a place where the voice of the people is heard.

We have a situation where our States are worse off. They cannot come in and help because they are financially strapped because of the recession. So people are turning to us. Today we took care of some people. I am very proud we did that, but we have left out in the cold a million people. I will not be satisfied, speaking as one Senator, until we have taken care of all those who are in need.

The Senator from Pennsylvania also made a comment that just some of the States have problems. This is not true. These million people reside in all of the States. In my own State, the pockets of real trouble are in the north of the State right now; the south of the State is doing better. But individuals all over this country need help.

In summary, I say the Democrats are back. We are ready to go to work. We will stay. We will stay late into the night. But we are going to offer, all through this day and all through the coming days, a unanimous consent request saying we need to take care of those million people, those long-term unemployed people whose checks have already run out, who do not know where they are going to get the money to pay the rent, who don't know if they will get evicted, who don't know if they can take care of their children.

There is a new term of art that has come about. It is called ``food insecurity.'' Food insecurity--that is a delicate way of saying people are hungry.

We are seeing food insecurity. We are seeing housing insecurity. We are seeing joblessness. Can we turn it around? Of course we could turn it around.

I have seen the President's plan. In my personal opinion, having looked at where the benefits go, it is a bonanza to the wealthiest in the country, and it is a bust for the middle class. It is a budget deficit disaster. But he has a plan out there. It is a huge plan, and we are going to work to make it better, to get the benefits to those who need them. But if you want to talk about stimulus, talk about the million people who have no money to put bread on the table.

In closing, let's help those million people. I intend to stay here all this week and next and into future weeks to make sure we do.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, may I make a further unanimous consent request?

Reserving the right to object, I ask to speak for a minute following the Senator----