Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that is particularly important to me, in that it culminates nearly 30 years of efforts to preserve the wilderness of South Carolina for future generations of Americans. This legislation proposes to raise the designation of the Congaree Swamp National Monument to the Congaree National Park, and to increase its size by 20 percent.

I still remember when my friend, Harry Hampton, enlisted my help to protect the big trees that were being destroyed 500 acres a year in the central part of my State. In 1976, Congress set aside 15,000 acres to establish the Congaree Swamp National Monument. In the late 1980s, we expanded it by another 7,000 acres. More recently, we've invested in a visitor center and this investment has far exceeded this Senator's expectations.

The attendance has ballooned to 120,000 visitors every year, including some 12,000 students, who use the forest as their classroom to nature. It has awakened an interest in the environment for these children. They cruise the Congaree, learning how to identify trees, birds, animals, and everything like that. All kinds of groups take hikes, nature walks and canoe trips to see the almost 1,000 different types of trees, plants, animals, and birds in the forest.

This is home to some of the tallest and rarest trees in the Eastern United States--some are 400 years old. It is home to the largest example of old growth southern hardwood forest in North America. All eight species of woodpeckers can be found here, including the endangered red-cockaded variety.

Yet had Congress not acted back in 1976, none of this may be around today. We were able to save at least a few thousand acres of what once covered vast portions of the east coast, so future generations of Americans can enjoy it. There is a lesson here. The Government can do good for the environment. It is in the interest of our nation to protect our nation's treasures.

My legislation, the Congaree National Park Act of 2003 continues the progress we have seen the last 25 years. It would add another 4,576 acres of ecologically rich land; and it would redesignate the Monument into a fullfledged National Park, which would be the first in South Carolina. The Congaree Swamp is widely recognized as one of the most unique and rare ecological habitats in the country. This designation not only recognizes the significance of this area but the wonderful job the National Park Service is doing to make this a growing attraction for local, State, national, and international visitors.

The project has received support from a number of organizations, and I ask unanimous consent that these letters of endorsement be printed in the Record. I hope to work on a bipartisan basis with my colleagues to pass the legislation this session.

Mr. President, my hometown of Charleston, SC, maintains a special relationship with history. Rather than keeping history in books and museums for occasional viewing, the Charleston community

celebrates its cultural heritage everyday, be it through our downtown district, our vibrant Market, or the skyline full of church steeples.

This month, Charleston marks the 91st birthday of a man famous for his dedication to preserving our historic personality. Master blacksmith and legendary craftsman Philip Simmons practiced the art form of traditional ironwork throughout the 20th century. As he has been known to say, ``If you see ironwork curve like that, it's either two hundred years old, or I did it.''

Though he retired in 1990, Mr. Simmons now spends most of his time ensuring the tradition of classical ironwork lives on in South Carolina. John Paul Huguley, president of the Charleston School of the Building Arts, says what separates a craft worker from Mr. Simmons is that Mr. Simmons has a ``love for the trade and the desire to educate the next generation of artisans.''

Indeed, that is the case. Mr. Simmons was at the forefront of creating the School of the Building Arts. He now teaches classes there, and within 2 years the school will be open full time. Mr. Simmons also instructs at his blacksmith shop, and travels to lecture at southern art and building conferences.

He has received numerous accolades over the years, including a ``lifetime achievement award'' from the South Carolina Legislature. He received a National Heritage Fellowship from the National Endowment for the Arts. His work has been displayed in the Natural Museum of American History, here in Washington.

I hope members of this Chamber join me in recognizing and celebrating the birthday of a great man. No question, his role in the Charleston community, and beyond, is a standard for artistic excellence and public service that can be an example for us all.

Mr. President, it is said that editorialists can editorialize but can't take criticism. Not true. Chairman Donald Graham and editorial page editor Fred Hiatt readily accepted the following Washington Post editorial this morning for which I profoundly thank them. Otherwise, since I referred to Pete Peterson, in fairness let me also include his column in the Record.

I ask unanimous consent the articles be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today that would improve the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by allowing an additional advanced refunding of tax exempt bonds issued for the purchase or maintenance of electric generation, transmission, or distribution assets. This bill will give municipal utilities additional flexibility in refinancing their debts, so they can respond to favorable market conditions. I ask that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

There being no objections, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today that would improve the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by allowing an additional advanced refunding of tax exempt bonds issued for the purchase or maintenance of electric generation, transmission, or distribution assets. This bill will give municipal utilities additional flexibility in refinancing their debts, so they can respond to favorable market conditions. I ask that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

There being no objections, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Madam President, we are in trouble. The Federal Communications Commission, by a three to two vote, is prepared to bring about monopolistic control of the news, monopolistic control of the media, monopolistic control of entertainment. Public interest rules for cross ownership and market control are being abolished and no one points this out more cogently than Mortimer B. Zuckerman, Editor in Chief, in the June 23, 2003 edition of the U.S. News and World Report. The Congress will be compelled to act if we are to save freedom of speech in this country. To understand the issues I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record. I also commend to my colleagues the Columbia Journalism Review--www.cjr.org_of who owns what, listing the holdings of the five behemoths Viacom, News Corporation, AOL-Time Warner, Walt Disney Company and General Electric too much under the present rulings.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of legislation that will reauthorize the programs of the Federal Aviation Administration for the next 3 years, S. 824, the Aviation Investment and Revitalization Vision Act, AIR-V. I would like to thank Chairman McCain, Senator Lott and Senator Rockefeller for their hard

work in helping to craft this bipartisan bill that seeks to address the needs of the Nation's air transportation system.

The troubled state of the aviation industry has made FAA reauthorization a high priority of the 108th Congress. From the start, the Senate Commerce Committee pursued an ambitious schedule, and held several hearings on this matter in the first few months of the year. Our focus on this matter permitted all involved parties to express their concerns about the aviation system in the United States, and helped us develop a constructive approach to improve the work of the FAA as we move into an unclear future. We have crafted a strong bill that focuses properly on safety, security, efficiency and environmental friendliness in the realm of aviation.

AIR-V is a good starting point, but we have a long way to go make certain that the FAA's budget adequately supports the agency's ability to oversee an increasingly complex system to ensure safe flying. Recent reports have pointed to the FAA's laxity on plane maintenance as airlines have increasingly farmed out repair work to trim more expensive in-house operations over the past decade. The Department of Transportation Inspector General found that major air carriers paid contractors $2.9 billion for maintenance in 2001, which was 80 percent more than in 1996. While maintenance responsibility has shifted, the FAA's policies have not, and the DOT IG is currently conducting an audit of repair stations and the FAA's oversight of them. We must take steps to provide FAA needed funding to improve outdated oversight, monitor gaps in overseas repair service, and update training methods which have not changed significantly in almost 50 years. It is vital that we adequately fund to FAA's budget to ensure the safest aviation system possible.

The impact of the aviation industry on our Nation is clear. Prior to September 11, 2001, the total impact of civil aviation on the national economy exceeded $900 billion and 11 million jobs, representing 9 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product. Since that time, the airline industry has faced consecutive years of record multibillion dollar losses while our national economy continues to struggle. This has made reauthorization of the FAA that much more critical, and I believe AIR-V strikes the proper balance among key FAA programs to advance our Nation's air transportation system.

After September 11, 2001, Congress created the Transportation Security Administration, which has taken charge of a massive restructuring of transportation security, which has led to a greater confidence in the traveling public. Even with the vast downturn in aviation traffic over the past couple of years, the FAA's Aerospace Forecast anticipates that enplanements in the U.S. are expected to increase over the next 10 years by roughly 50 percent, with as many as 1 billion passenger boardings expected annually by 2013.

Knowing of the expected growth in airline traffic, we must press our efforts to make system-wide improvements that will allow the U.S. aviation industry to flourish in the coming years and beyond. Air-V promotes airport development with increased funding for the Airport Improvement Program, and additional support for vital components of the National Airspace System through the designation of certain essential undertakings as ``national capacity'' projects. When the Bush Administration's FAA reauthorization proposal was unveiled it was criticized by Aviation Week for not providing enough long-term support for AIP at a time when the FAA is in a tight budget situation and the Nation's airports are looking for increased funding to pursue needed projects to improve their facilities. AIR-V also takes steps to resolve the bleeding of hundred of millions of dollars from AIP for security purposes and seeks to expedite the installation of EDS machines at airports across the country while diverting none of the AIP funds away from important infrastructure projects through the creation of an Aviation Security Capital Fund to be financed with $500 million annually in security service fees to allow TSA to make grants to airports to assist with capital security costs.

I have had increasing concerns that the European Community will continue its bold efforts to surpass the American aerospace industry in the coming years. We must recognized the importance of the FAA's Research, Engineering and Development program in maintaining our position as the worldwide leader in the aviation and aerospace industries. AIR-V will significantly increase funding for the R,E&D program with the understanding that long term planning will be needed to keep up with the rapidly changing dynamic of this industry. The EC has already introduced a ``2020 plan'' aimed at surpassing America-- FAA, NASA and our aerospace industry--as the world's aerospace leaders within the next two decades. We must respond to this challenge with an emphasis on technology, and public-private cooperation that will ensure our advantage over the EC by strengthening our R,E&D programs and U.S. education and interest in aerospace.

I am pleased that key components of S. 788, the Second Century of Flight Act, legislation I introduced along with Senators Brownback, Rockefeller, Inouye, Cantwell, and Kerry have been included in this reauthorization effort. Among the most important steps that the bill take to promote FAA, R,E&D is the creation of a national office to coordinate aviation and aerospace research activities within the U.S. Government tasked with coordinating programs and developing goals to facilitate the nation's R,E&D technologies, and a national office to focus on a next generation air traffic management system. Of equal importance is the establishment of a new educational program to train the next generation of aeronautics engineers and mechanics. According to the Commission Report on Aerospace, more than a quarter of the U.S. science, engineering and manufacturing workforce will be eligible to retire in the next 5 years. This workforce initiative is aimed at increasing participation of U.S. students in fields related to aerospace and aviation safety through the use of grants and scholarships for service to ensure the growth of interest in the United States and increase the talent pool of American students.

To ensure that the U.S. continues to have the safest aviation system possible we must also make improvements to the FAA's Facilities and Equipment program which contains financing for the purchase, installation and construction of equipment and facilities required to maintain the NAS. Through this bill we should boost the F&E program so that it will be a better complement to the improved AIP program in preparation for increased passenger levels. However, we must consider ways to make further advances to this program to ensure our ability to provide crucial enhancements to the safety of our aviation system.

AIR-V will have an enormous impact on the future of our entire air transportation system, and makes a strong statement about the direction that we want our air transportation system to go. Please support this effort and work with us to help the FAA take real steps forward and maintain our strength in aviation for the future.

I yield to our distinguished leader who really held the hearings and led for this particular measure.

Mr. President, these particular modifications have been checked through by both the chairman and ranking member of our Aviation Subcommittee. Let the Record show that the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, our ranking member, is at an important Finance Committee markup at the moment with respect to prescription drugs and Medicare. I have checked it through with him, and it has been checked through on this side. We ask for support of the amendment.

Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada is correct. The money is for security, and a security check is what we are trying to fund, finance. It just hasn't been vetted at FAA. It is very logical to this particular Senator that the Senator from Nevada is correct, and I will make every effort in the conference to change the particular formula or rather embellish the word emplanement, so as to get destinations and takeoffs considered as going just through the security and the money be allocated thereof.

So I assure the Senator from Nevada that I will support it in every way I can.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison for this initiative. It is well deserved. Whether or not it can be worked out--as the Senator indicates, we hope it can be. It has been cleared on our side, and I urge its adoption.

It has been cleared on this side.

Mr. President, I yield as much time as the Senator from Mississippi wants from the time remaining.

Are they prepared to yield back their time?

We yield back our time on this side.

Mr. President, the distinguished chairman, Senator McCain, and myself have four amendments that we will send to the desk in due time. One is a Wyden amendment which is a privacy study of the CAPP Program, Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening.

I send it to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Yes, we are going to go ahead and vote on it.

Mr. President, I also have another amendment by the distinguished Senator from Florida, Mr. Nelson, which deals with the background checks of new pilots on the smaller planes.

Yes, it has been approved.

I send the amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. President, on behalf of the distinguished Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords, this amendment takes care of the EAS eligibility up in Vermont.

This has been checked through.

I send the amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, let me check with my distinguished colleague from Mississippi. This is a Jeffords amendment.

That is correct.

Eligibility; that is right.

Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Indiana, Mr. Bayh, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, does the Senator from Arizona approve of the amendment?

Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, I send an amendment to the desk on the study of the shuttle services at Reagan National Airport. It merely requires a study with respect to housing of gates used by the shuttle services, and as to whether or not that is feasible.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, if there is no further debate----

Right.

Particularly becoming a recent father, he is wearing down.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, the Department of the Interior and the Park Service approved the amendment. We also support its adoption.

I thank the Senator from South Carolina for supporting the amendment.

I ask unanimous consent.

You already got that. This is on the Specter amendment, the yeas and nays on the Specter amendment.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk that has been cleared which I ask the clerk to report.

It is a cap on the staffing level of the Transportation Security Administration.

On behalf of the distinguished Senator, Senator Feinstein, I send an amendment to the desk and ask it be reported. This has to do with air quality on new aircraft.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

This has to do with air quality of new equipment that has been cleared.

I urge its adoption.

On behalf of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, I send an amendment to the desk and ask the clerk to report. It has to do with the small carrier sharing and the war supplemental.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Hawaii, Senator Inouye, and the Senator from Ohio, Senator Voinovich, I send an amendment to the desk and ask it be reported. It has to do with credit cards, when one of the carriers is in default and the other carrier has to pick up or honor the tickets. Since there is a peculiar situation, this is taking care of that situation. It has been cleared on both sides.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, on behalf of the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, I send the amendment to the desk and ask it be reported.

I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this has to do with the notice, the 60- day notice of the closing of an airport. It has been cleared on both sides. I think.

Will the Senator yield?

I thank the Senator. As you know, I voted against this amendment when it came before the Senate Commerce Committee. I agree with the Senator from Virginia that we should not change the slot rules at National whatsoever. It is foolhardy and is bad aviation policy. We should not change the rules just because of politics. They have served the local community well, enabling the expansion of Dulles while protecting those that live near the airport. Short hauls leave from National, and long hauls from Dulles. We may not like to drive all the way out to Dulles, but we built, with Federal airport grant moneys, that highway dedicated to access to Dulles. We used the law to plan for growth. We should not change it now at the behest of some. I yield back to the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. President, let me also thank the distinguished chairman of our committee who has led the fight on the floor today. He did a most efficient job.

With respect to, of course, Senator Lott and Senator Rockefeller of the Subcommittee on Aviation of the Commerce Committee, they are the ones who did the lion's share of the work with the hearings and preparing us so that we could handle this with expedition today.

I thank staff on both sides.

Let me add this for my good friend, the Senator from Mississippi. I happen to favor the Specter amendment for the simple reason that I cannot understand the Federal Aviation Administration requiring rules of safety for repair facilities in the United States but not requiring those same rules of safety for repair facilities by the U.S. contractors for U.S. aircraft. I just can't get that separation in my mind. I have listened closely. I hate to not come down on the side of the Senator from Mississippi because he has been our chairman and has led the way all day here.

I say that publicly because, on the Democratic side of the aisle, there could be those who would favor language and the admonition of the Senator from Mississippi in the perfecting amendment.

Senator Boxer has spoken in behalf of Senator Specter's amendment. I happen to favor it. Usually we note at the desk the disposition on this side. I don't want to mislead.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I ask for the yeas and nays on final passage.

Mr. President, tomorrow I will be attending the funeral of a former colleague from the South Carolina congressional delegation, Tom Gettys, and I rise to recognize this legend from Rock Hill.

I have known Congressman Gettys for many years. He came to Washington 2 years before I did, having already been an officer in the Navy, a school principal, a postmaster, and so he came in with a reputation of a person's person. It did not matter who you were in the world, he was your buddy; and since he was in a position to help people as a Member of Congress, he would and he did.

He stayed just 10 years, but he made an impression for the next 30. I never heard a single bad thing said about him, and I don't know very many politicians I can say that about. He has been out of office since 1974, but everybody in my State still always refers to him as Congressman because he was just one great guy who cared about people. This Senator will miss this gentleman, always the statesman, always the one with a good story.

Tomorrow, I will extend the Senate's sympathy to his wife Mary, and his daughters Julia and Sara. And to share just how much Tom meant to his community, I ask unanimous consent that this article from the Herald in Rock Hill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to spur the advent of an exciting new field of research, one that explores the role of the oceans in human health. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by the distinguished Senator from Alaska, Ted Stevens, who is cosponsoring this bill. The Oceans and Human Health Act proposes to establish a national interagency program that will coordinate research efforts and ensure the availability of an adequate Federal investment in this critical area. It also would establish a program at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to strengthen and coordinate its work in this very important arena.

In recent years, we have gained a renewed appreciation for the importance of the ocean to our future and well-being. We now recognize that human health is one are in which the oceans exert major influences that are both positive and negative. However, studying this relationship is challenging. To be successful, a research program must integrate disciplines, bringing together oceanographers and biomedical researchers to better understand marine processes, reduce public health risks and enhance our biomedical capabilities. Pioneering scientists are needed to tackle marine environmental issues that affect human and marine life alike, such as ocean pollution, marine pathogens and potential drug discoveries. A number of Federal agencies would share responsibility and expertise for such a program, requiring that capabilities be harnessed across such diverse entities as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Science Foundation and the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences.

The rich biodiversity of marine organisms represent an important biomedical resource, a promising source of novel compounds with therapeutic potential, and a potentially significant contribution to the national economy. A 1999 National Research Council report, From Monsoons to Microbes, noted that nature has been the traditional source of new pharmaceuticals and found that over 50 percent of the marketed drugs are extracted from natural sources or produced using natural products. Virtually every type of life that exists on this planet is found in the sea and many types of plants and animals are exclusively marine. While the oceans are a repository for much of our biodiversity, little of it has been catalogued or studied. One important aspect that we have yet to explore is the potential of marine life to produce chemicals for treating diseases. There are only three marine compounds now in clinical use--and these were developed in the 1950s. While there are some new compounds in the pipeline, we need to speed this effort up to ensure we get more approved sooner.

But our relationship to the sea also has a darker side. The oceans drive climate and weather factors causing severe weather events and shifts in temperature and rainfall patterns. These changes in turn affect the density and distribution of disease-causing organisms and the ability of public health systems to address them. In addition, the oceans act as a route of exposure for human disease and illnesses through ingestion of contaminated seafood and direct contact with seawater containing toxins and disease-causing organisms. We need to know more about how our health is affected by the

marine environment. We must ensure that the sea maintains its capacity to sustain itself without becoming a ``Dead Zone.'' We must find ways to monitor and reduce the occurrence of ocean toxins that kill marine mammals and taint seafood. As with cancer, our goal must be understanding and prevention, rather than relying exclusively on treatment.

Research on the health of marine organisms, including marine mammals and other sentinel species, can assist scientists in their efforts to investigate and understand human physiology and biochemical processes, as well as providing a means for monitoring the health of marine ecosystems. Unfortunately such research often does not fall clearly within a single federal agency's mission. The dolphins of Florida's Indian River Lagoon provide an example of a marine population that is the victim of contaminated habitat and food. The result is unusually high mortality rates and harmful health effects. Not only is the population at risk, but it provides a clear indicator of environmental pollution concerns for its human neighbors. We must harness the sciences of genomics, forensics and ecology and put them to work in the marine world, creating an ocean Center for Disease Control--a ``CDC for the Oceans''.

An exciting example of this new interdisciplinary and medically- oriented approach to ocean research can be found at NOAA's two marine laboratories in Charleston, including a unique research partnership among NOAA, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST), the State of South Carolina, the Medical University of South Carolina, and the College of Charleston, formerly known as the Marine Environmental Health Research Laboratory, and now referred to as the Hollings Marine Laboratory (HML). HML works with a variety of Federal, State, and academic partners around the Nation and is on the front lines of discovery and prevention, particularly in the emerging field of marine genomics. They are hard at work on today's important public and marine environmental health issues. Their exciting dolphin health research will for the first time utilize a traditional medical approach to diagnosing and documenting dolphin health, which will help us learn more about dolphins in the wild than we have ever known. In addition, HML scientists, important partners in the Coral Disease and Health Consortium, are already analyzing samples from the two Florida coral reefs ``quarantined'' by NOAA today because of a fast-spreading coral disease.

The HML epitomizes the variety of important disciplines that must work side-by-side if we are to make progress in this area. It is home to cutting-edge research involving algal toxins, natural products with potential pharmaceutical applications, and viral and bacterial pathogens that cause disease in marine animals, with potential links to human illness and disease processes and natural product chemistry. Scientists at HML and its partner NOAA facility use unique medical tools such as nuclear magnetic resonators to help ``map'' cellular and genetic structure of marine organisms and have developed methods for detecting pesticides in water, sediments, fish and marine mammals that may potentially affect both the health of the marine environment and human health. They also are developing exposure, toxicology and disease models to assess their effects on a variety of marine organisms. Their work will better define ocean health and bridge the gap with existing human health models.

A number of Federal agencies are now recognizing the importance of understanding health-related ocean research and to make needed investments. Last year, initiatives began both through our ocean agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as well as two of our Federal research institutions, the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences, NIEHS, and the National Science Foundation, NSF.

This past year, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, received appropriations of $8 million to develop an oceans and human health initiative. Within NOAA, many programs and laboratories perform research and related activities that could contribute significantly to a national research effort, but such efforts have not realized their potential. Establishment of this coordinated, interdisciplinary program consisting of nationally-recognized research centers and an external interdisciplinary research grant program will enhance the NOAA program. In addition, last November, the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences, NIEHS, National Science Foundation, NSF, invited applications for research programs to explore the relationship between marine processes and public health. The joint initiative commits $6 million annually to establish centers of excellence focusing on harmful algal blooms, water and vector-borne diseases, and marine pharmaceuticals and probes.

Taken together, the NIEHS-NSF and NOAA research initiatives offer an excellent basis for building a comprehensive national program. In addition, a number of other Federal agencies are poised to make significant contributions.

The Oceans and Human Health Act provides the legislative framework for a coordinated national investment to improve understanding of marine ecosystems, address marine public health problems and tap into the ocean's potential contribution to new biomedical treatments and advances. The legislation would amend the 1976 Science and Technology Act to clarify the role of the National Science and Technology Council in coordinating interagency research efforts. It would also establish an interagency committee on oceans and human health to develop a research plan and coordinate participation by NOAA, NSF, NIEHS and other agencies. Governing NOAA's contribution to the interagency effort, the bill would establish a new NOAA program on oceans and human health. At the heart of this legislation and key to its success is our commitment to building new partnerships--among Federal health, science and ocean agencies, among diverse scientific disciplines, and among academic researchers and government experts.

A more detailed summary of the legislation follows:

Section-by-Section Analysis Oceans and Human Health Act

The Oceans and Human Health Act would authorize the

establishment of a coordinated federal research program to

aid in understanding and responding to the role of oceans in

human health. The bill would establish a Federal interagency

Oceans and Human Health initiative coordinated through the

National Science and Technology Council, NSTC, as well as

create an Oceans and Human Health program at the Department

of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA). The bill also directs the Secretary of Commerce to

establish a coordinated public information and outreach

program with the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, the

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, the Centers for

Disease Control CDC, and the States to provide information

on potential ocean-related human health risks.

Section 1. Short Title

Section 1 provides the short title of the Act is the

``Oceans and Human Health Act.''

Section 2. Findings

Section 2 sets forth findings and purposes for the Act.

Section 3. National Science and Technology Council

Section 3 would amend the National Science and Technology

Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C.

6616, to codify the responsibilities of the National Science

and Technology Council NSTC, which was established by

executive Order in 1993, and whose functions have superceded

the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering,

and Technology, FCCSET, the functions of which were

transferred to the President under a 1977 executive order.

The Act is also amended to clarify the director of the Office

of Science and Technology Policy, OSTP, serves as chair of

the NSTC.

Subsection b replaces existing section 401 of the Act (42

U.S.C. 6651) with new text specifying NSTC functions, which

focus on prompting domestic and international coordination

among government, industry and university scientists.

Subsection b sets forth the following as NSTC functions: 1.

promote interagency efforts and communication with respect to

the planning and administration of Federal scientific,

engineering, and technology program. 2. identify research

needs; achieve more effective use of Federal facilities and

resources; 3. further international cooperation in science,

engineering and technology; and 4. develop long-range and

coordinated research plans. The NSTC is directed to carry out

these and other related duties with the assistance of the

Federal agencies represented on the Council. This subsection

also authorizes the NSTC Chairman to establish standing

committees and working

groups to assist in developing interagency plans, conduct

studies and make reports for the Chairman.

Section 4. Interagency Oceans and Human Health Research Program

Interagency Program. Section 4 provides for the

establishment of an Interagency Oceans and Human Health

Research Program, Interagency OHH Program, to be coordinated

and supported by the NSTC. Subsection (a) directs the NSTC to

establish a Committee on Oceans and Human Health comprised of

at least one representative from NOAA, the National Science

Foundation, NSF, the National Institutes of Health, NIH, CDC,

EPA, FDA, Department of Homeland Security, DHS, and other

agencies and department deemed appropriate by the NSTC. This

section also provides for the biennial selection of a

Chairman of the Committee, who shall represent an agency that

contributes substantially to the Interagency OHH Program.

10-Year Implementation Plan. Subsection b directs the NSTC,

through the Committee on the Oceans and Human Health, to

submit to Congress within one year of enactment a 10-year

implementation plan for coordinated federal activities under

the Interagency OHH Program. In developing the plan, the

Committee is required to consult with the Inter-Agency Task

Force on Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia. The implementation

plan will complement the ongoing activities of NOAA, NSF, the

NIH National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences,

NIEHS, and other departments and agencies, and: 1. establish

the goals and priorities for Federal research related to

oceans and human health; 2. describe specific activities

required to achieve such goals; 3. identify relevant Federal

programs and activities that would contribute to the

Interagency OHH Program; 4. consider and use reports and

studies conducted by Federal agencies and departments, the

National Research Council, the Ocean Research Advisory Panel,

the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and other entities; 5.

make recommendations for the coordination of national and

international programs; and 6. estimate Federal funding for

research activities to be conducted under the Interagency OHH

Program.

Scope of Interagency Program. Subsection c outlines the

scope of the Interagency OHH Program, as follows:

1. Interdisciplinary and coordinated research and

activities to improve our understanding of how ocean

processes and marine organisms can relate to human health and

contribute to medicine and research;

2. Coordination with the National Ocean Leadership Council

(established under 10 U.S.C. 7902(a)) to ensure any ocean and

coastal observing system provides information necessary to

monitor, predict and reduce marine public health problems;

3. Development of new technologies and approaches for

detecting and reducing hazards to human health from ocean

sources and to strengthen understanding of the value of

marine biodiversity to biomedicine; and

4. Support for scholars, trainees and education

opportunities that encourage a multidisciplinary approach to

exploring the diversity of life in the oceans.

section 5. NOAA Oceans and human health program

Establishment of NOAA Program. Section 5 would establish a

NOAA program on Oceans and Human Health that would coordinate

NOAA activities with the Interagency OHH Program. Subsection

(a) directs the Secretary of Commerce to develop an Oceans

and Human Health Program, consistent with the interagency

program developed under Section 4, that will coordinate and

implement research and activities within NOAA related to the

role of the oceans in human health. In establishing the

program, the Secretary is required to consult with other

Federal agencies conducting integrated ocean health research

or research in related areas, including the CDC, NSF, and

HIEHS. The NOAA Oceans and Human Health Program will provide

support for the following components: 1. a Program and

Research Coordination Office; 2. an Advisory Panel; 3.

National Center(s) of Excellence; 4. Research grants and

5. Distinguished scholars and traineeships.

Program Office. Subsection (b) directs the Secretary to

establish a program to coordinate oceans and human health-

related research and activities within NOAA and to carry out

the elements of the program. In cooperation with the Oceans

and Human Health Advisory Panel established under subsection

(c), the program office will serve as liaison with academic

institutions and other agencies participating in the

Interagency OHH Program established under Section 3.

Advisory Panel. Under subsection (c), the Secretary will

establish an Oceans and Human Health Advisory Panel to assist

in the development and implementation of the NOAA Oceans and

Human Health Program. Membership of the Advisory Group will

include a balanced representation of individuals with multi-

disciplinary expertise in the marine and biomedical sciences.

The subsection provides that Federal Advisory Committee Act,

5 U.S.C. App. 1, shall not apply to the Panel.

Centers of Excellence. Subsection (d) provides that the

Secretary shall, through a competitive process, establish and

support Centers of Excellence that strengthen NOAA's

capabilities to carry out programs and activities related to

the ocean's role in human health. These NOAA Centers of

Excellence shall complement and be in addition to any centers

of excellence for oceans and human health established through

NSF or NIEHS. Centers selected for funding and support under

Section 4 would focus on areas related to NOAA missions,

including: 1. use of marine organisms as indicators for

marine environmental health; 2. ocean pollutants; 3. marine

toxins and pathogens, harmful algal blooms, seafood testing,

drug discovery, biology and pathobiology of marine mammals;

and 4. such disciplines as marine genomics, marine

environmental microbiology, ecological chemistry and

conservation medicine. The Secretary will consider the need

for geographic representation and will encourage proposals

that have strong scientific and interdisciplinary merit.

Research Grants. Subsection (e) authorizes the Secretary of

Commerce to provide grants for research and projects that

explore the relationship between the oceans and human health,

and that complement or strengthen NOAA-related programs and

activities. In implementing this subsection, the Secretary is

directed to consult with the Oceans and Human Health Advisory

Panel and the National Sea Grant College Program, and may

work cooperatively with other agencies in the Intergency OHH

Program to establish joint criteria for such research

projects. This subsection specifies that the grants shall be

awarded through a peer-review or other competitive process

and that such a process may be conducted jointly with other

agencies participating in the Interagency OHH Program or

under the National Oceanographic Partnership Program, 10

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to spur the advent of an exciting new field of research, one that explores the role of the oceans in human health. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by the distinguished Senator from Alaska, Ted Stevens, who is cosponsoring this bill. The Oceans and Human Health Act proposes to establish a national interagency program that will coordinate research efforts and ensure the availability of an adequate Federal investment in this critical area. It also would establish a program at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to strengthen and coordinate its work in this very important arena.

In recent years, we have gained a renewed appreciation for the importance of the ocean to our future and well-being. We now recognize that human health is one are in which the oceans exert major influences that are both positive and negative. However, studying this relationship is challenging. To be successful, a research program must integrate disciplines, bringing together oceanographers and biomedical researchers to better understand marine processes, reduce public health risks and enhance our biomedical capabilities. Pioneering scientists are needed to tackle marine environmental issues that affect human and marine life alike, such as ocean pollution, marine pathogens and potential drug discoveries. A number of Federal agencies would share responsibility and expertise for such a program, requiring that capabilities be harnessed across such diverse entities as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Science Foundation and the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences.

The rich biodiversity of marine organisms represent an important biomedical resource, a promising source of novel compounds with therapeutic potential, and a potentially significant contribution to the national economy. A 1999 National Research Council report, From Monsoons to Microbes, noted that nature has been the traditional source of new pharmaceuticals and found that over 50 percent of the marketed drugs are extracted from natural sources or produced using natural products. Virtually every type of life that exists on this planet is found in the sea and many types of plants and animals are exclusively marine. While the oceans are a repository for much of our biodiversity, little of it has been catalogued or studied. One important aspect that we have yet to explore is the potential of marine life to produce chemicals for treating diseases. There are only three marine compounds now in clinical use--and these were developed in the 1950s. While there are some new compounds in the pipeline, we need to speed this effort up to ensure we get more approved sooner.

But our relationship to the sea also has a darker side. The oceans drive climate and weather factors causing severe weather events and shifts in temperature and rainfall patterns. These changes in turn affect the density and distribution of disease-causing organisms and the ability of public health systems to address them. In addition, the oceans act as a route of exposure for human disease and illnesses through ingestion of contaminated seafood and direct contact with seawater containing toxins and disease-causing organisms. We need to know more about how our health is affected by the

marine environment. We must ensure that the sea maintains its capacity to sustain itself without becoming a ``Dead Zone.'' We must find ways to monitor and reduce the occurrence of ocean toxins that kill marine mammals and taint seafood. As with cancer, our goal must be understanding and prevention, rather than relying exclusively on treatment.

Research on the health of marine organisms, including marine mammals and other sentinel species, can assist scientists in their efforts to investigate and understand human physiology and biochemical processes, as well as providing a means for monitoring the health of marine ecosystems. Unfortunately such research often does not fall clearly within a single federal agency's mission. The dolphins of Florida's Indian River Lagoon provide an example of a marine population that is the victim of contaminated habitat and food. The result is unusually high mortality rates and harmful health effects. Not only is the population at risk, but it provides a clear indicator of environmental pollution concerns for its human neighbors. We must harness the sciences of genomics, forensics and ecology and put them to work in the marine world, creating an ocean Center for Disease Control--a ``CDC for the Oceans''.

An exciting example of this new interdisciplinary and medically- oriented approach to ocean research can be found at NOAA's two marine laboratories in Charleston, including a unique research partnership among NOAA, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST), the State of South Carolina, the Medical University of South Carolina, and the College of Charleston, formerly known as the Marine Environmental Health Research Laboratory, and now referred to as the Hollings Marine Laboratory (HML). HML works with a variety of Federal, State, and academic partners around the Nation and is on the front lines of discovery and prevention, particularly in the emerging field of marine genomics. They are hard at work on today's important public and marine environmental health issues. Their exciting dolphin health research will for the first time utilize a traditional medical approach to diagnosing and documenting dolphin health, which will help us learn more about dolphins in the wild than we have ever known. In addition, HML scientists, important partners in the Coral Disease and Health Consortium, are already analyzing samples from the two Florida coral reefs ``quarantined'' by NOAA today because of a fast-spreading coral disease.

The HML epitomizes the variety of important disciplines that must work side-by-side if we are to make progress in this area. It is home to cutting-edge research involving algal toxins, natural products with potential pharmaceutical applications, and viral and bacterial pathogens that cause disease in marine animals, with potential links to human illness and disease processes and natural product chemistry. Scientists at HML and its partner NOAA facility use unique medical tools such as nuclear magnetic resonators to help ``map'' cellular and genetic structure of marine organisms and have developed methods for detecting pesticides in water, sediments, fish and marine mammals that may potentially affect both the health of the marine environment and human health. They also are developing exposure, toxicology and disease models to assess their effects on a variety of marine organisms. Their work will better define ocean health and bridge the gap with existing human health models.

A number of Federal agencies are now recognizing the importance of understanding health-related ocean research and to make needed investments. Last year, initiatives began both through our ocean agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as well as two of our Federal research institutions, the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences, NIEHS, and the National Science Foundation, NSF.

This past year, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, received appropriations of $8 million to develop an oceans and human health initiative. Within NOAA, many programs and laboratories perform research and related activities that could contribute significantly to a national research effort, but such efforts have not realized their potential. Establishment of this coordinated, interdisciplinary program consisting of nationally-recognized research centers and an external interdisciplinary research grant program will enhance the NOAA program. In addition, last November, the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences, NIEHS, National Science Foundation, NSF, invited applications for research programs to explore the relationship between marine processes and public health. The joint initiative commits $6 million annually to establish centers of excellence focusing on harmful algal blooms, water and vector-borne diseases, and marine pharmaceuticals and probes.

Taken together, the NIEHS-NSF and NOAA research initiatives offer an excellent basis for building a comprehensive national program. In addition, a number of other Federal agencies are poised to make significant contributions.

The Oceans and Human Health Act provides the legislative framework for a coordinated national investment to improve understanding of marine ecosystems, address marine public health problems and tap into the ocean's potential contribution to new biomedical treatments and advances. The legislation would amend the 1976 Science and Technology Act to clarify the role of the National Science and Technology Council in coordinating interagency research efforts. It would also establish an interagency committee on oceans and human health to develop a research plan and coordinate participation by NOAA, NSF, NIEHS and other agencies. Governing NOAA's contribution to the interagency effort, the bill would establish a new NOAA program on oceans and human health. At the heart of this legislation and key to its success is our commitment to building new partnerships--among Federal health, science and ocean agencies, among diverse scientific disciplines, and among academic researchers and government experts.

A more detailed summary of the legislation follows:

Section-by-Section Analysis Oceans and Human Health Act

The Oceans and Human Health Act would authorize the

establishment of a coordinated federal research program to

aid in understanding and responding to the role of oceans in

human health. The bill would establish a Federal interagency

Oceans and Human Health initiative coordinated through the

National Science and Technology Council, NSTC, as well as

create an Oceans and Human Health program at the Department

of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA). The bill also directs the Secretary of Commerce to

establish a coordinated public information and outreach

program with the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, the

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, the Centers for

Disease Control CDC, and the States to provide information

on potential ocean-related human health risks.

Section 1. Short Title

Section 1 provides the short title of the Act is the

``Oceans and Human Health Act.''

Section 2. Findings

Section 2 sets forth findings and purposes for the Act.

Section 3. National Science and Technology Council

Section 3 would amend the National Science and Technology

Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C.

6616, to codify the responsibilities of the National Science

and Technology Council NSTC, which was established by

executive Order in 1993, and whose functions have superceded

the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering,

and Technology, FCCSET, the functions of which were

transferred to the President under a 1977 executive order.

The Act is also amended to clarify the director of the Office

of Science and Technology Policy, OSTP, serves as chair of

the NSTC.

Subsection b replaces existing section 401 of the Act (42

U.S.C. 6651) with new text specifying NSTC functions, which

focus on prompting domestic and international coordination

among government, industry and university scientists.

Subsection b sets forth the following as NSTC functions: 1.

promote interagency efforts and communication with respect to

the planning and administration of Federal scientific,

engineering, and technology program. 2. identify research

needs; achieve more effective use of Federal facilities and

resources; 3. further international cooperation in science,

engineering and technology; and 4. develop long-range and

coordinated research plans. The NSTC is directed to carry out

these and other related duties with the assistance of the

Federal agencies represented on the Council. This subsection

also authorizes the NSTC Chairman to establish standing

committees and working

groups to assist in developing interagency plans, conduct

studies and make reports for the Chairman.

Section 4. Interagency Oceans and Human Health Research Program

Interagency Program. Section 4 provides for the

establishment of an Interagency Oceans and Human Health

Research Program, Interagency OHH Program, to be coordinated

and supported by the NSTC. Subsection (a) directs the NSTC to

establish a Committee on Oceans and Human Health comprised of

at least one representative from NOAA, the National Science

Foundation, NSF, the National Institutes of Health, NIH, CDC,

EPA, FDA, Department of Homeland Security, DHS, and other

agencies and department deemed appropriate by the NSTC. This

section also provides for the biennial selection of a

Chairman of the Committee, who shall represent an agency that

contributes substantially to the Interagency OHH Program.

10-Year Implementation Plan. Subsection b directs the NSTC,

through the Committee on the Oceans and Human Health, to

submit to Congress within one year of enactment a 10-year

implementation plan for coordinated federal activities under

the Interagency OHH Program. In developing the plan, the

Committee is required to consult with the Inter-Agency Task

Force on Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia. The implementation

plan will complement the ongoing activities of NOAA, NSF, the

NIH National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences,

NIEHS, and other departments and agencies, and: 1. establish

the goals and priorities for Federal research related to

oceans and human health; 2. describe specific activities

required to achieve such goals; 3. identify relevant Federal

programs and activities that would contribute to the

Interagency OHH Program; 4. consider and use reports and

studies conducted by Federal agencies and departments, the

National Research Council, the Ocean Research Advisory Panel,

the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and other entities; 5.

make recommendations for the coordination of national and

international programs; and 6. estimate Federal funding for

research activities to be conducted under the Interagency OHH

Program.

Scope of Interagency Program. Subsection c outlines the

scope of the Interagency OHH Program, as follows:

1. Interdisciplinary and coordinated research and

activities to improve our understanding of how ocean

processes and marine organisms can relate to human health and

contribute to medicine and research;

2. Coordination with the National Ocean Leadership Council

(established under 10 U.S.C. 7902(a)) to ensure any ocean and

coastal observing system provides information necessary to

monitor, predict and reduce marine public health problems;

3. Development of new technologies and approaches for

detecting and reducing hazards to human health from ocean

sources and to strengthen understanding of the value of

marine biodiversity to biomedicine; and

4. Support for scholars, trainees and education

opportunities that encourage a multidisciplinary approach to

exploring the diversity of life in the oceans.

section 5. NOAA Oceans and human health program

Establishment of NOAA Program. Section 5 would establish a

NOAA program on Oceans and Human Health that would coordinate

NOAA activities with the Interagency OHH Program. Subsection

(a) directs the Secretary of Commerce to develop an Oceans

and Human Health Program, consistent with the interagency

program developed under Section 4, that will coordinate and

implement research and activities within NOAA related to the

role of the oceans in human health. In establishing the

program, the Secretary is required to consult with other

Federal agencies conducting integrated ocean health research

or research in related areas, including the CDC, NSF, and

HIEHS. The NOAA Oceans and Human Health Program will provide

support for the following components: 1. a Program and

Research Coordination Office; 2. an Advisory Panel; 3.

National Center(s) of Excellence; 4. Research grants and

5. Distinguished scholars and traineeships.

Program Office. Subsection (b) directs the Secretary to

establish a program to coordinate oceans and human health-

related research and activities within NOAA and to carry out

the elements of the program. In cooperation with the Oceans

and Human Health Advisory Panel established under subsection

(c), the program office will serve as liaison with academic

institutions and other agencies participating in the

Interagency OHH Program established under Section 3.

Advisory Panel. Under subsection (c), the Secretary will

establish an Oceans and Human Health Advisory Panel to assist

in the development and implementation of the NOAA Oceans and

Human Health Program. Membership of the Advisory Group will

include a balanced representation of individuals with multi-

disciplinary expertise in the marine and biomedical sciences.

The subsection provides that Federal Advisory Committee Act,

5 U.S.C. App. 1, shall not apply to the Panel.

Centers of Excellence. Subsection (d) provides that the

Secretary shall, through a competitive process, establish and

support Centers of Excellence that strengthen NOAA's

capabilities to carry out programs and activities related to

the ocean's role in human health. These NOAA Centers of

Excellence shall complement and be in addition to any centers

of excellence for oceans and human health established through

NSF or NIEHS. Centers selected for funding and support under

Section 4 would focus on areas related to NOAA missions,

including: 1. use of marine organisms as indicators for

marine environmental health; 2. ocean pollutants; 3. marine

toxins and pathogens, harmful algal blooms, seafood testing,

drug discovery, biology and pathobiology of marine mammals;

and 4. such disciplines as marine genomics, marine

environmental microbiology, ecological chemistry and

conservation medicine. The Secretary will consider the need

for geographic representation and will encourage proposals

that have strong scientific and interdisciplinary merit.

Research Grants. Subsection (e) authorizes the Secretary of

Commerce to provide grants for research and projects that

explore the relationship between the oceans and human health,

and that complement or strengthen NOAA-related programs and

activities. In implementing this subsection, the Secretary is

directed to consult with the Oceans and Human Health Advisory

Panel and the National Sea Grant College Program, and may

work cooperatively with other agencies in the Intergency OHH

Program to establish joint criteria for such research

projects. This subsection specifies that the grants shall be

awarded through a peer-review or other competitive process

and that such a process may be conducted jointly with other

agencies participating in the Interagency OHH Program or

under the National Oceanographic Partnership Program, 10

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I have an amendment at the desk and ask the clerk to report.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this merely stops the Secretary of the Treasury from looting the Social Security trust fund in order to make the national debt appear smaller than it actually is. On Sixth Avenue in New York, they have a debt clock showing, day to day, the increase of the national debt.

On March 5 of this year, that debt clock stopped, courtesy of the Secretary of the Treasury, who immediately started using trust funds, particularly Social Security trust funds--Enron accounting--to make the debt appear smaller.

I ask unanimous consent that the daily history of debt results be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, my distinguished colleague, the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Nickles, raised this particular point back in 1995. He cosponsored a bill along with Senator Santorum, Senator Shelby, and Senator Thomas. I refer my colleagues to page S. 18819 of the Record of December 18, 1995, at the introduction of S. 1484, a bill to enforce the public debt limit and to protect the Social Security trust funds. It is just the darnedest thing you have ever seen. We are using Enron accounting. We are looting the Social Security funds, and the debt goes up, up, and away.

The Congressional Budget Office already reports, Senator Domenici, where we had a $428 billion deficit last year. We are running $138 billion ahead, so it is up to $566 billion this minute.

Let's understand what we are all about. This week, the Republicans are asking the Congress to casually vote to raise the limit on the national debt by $984 billion, from $6.4 trillion to $7.384 trillion. I say casually because the seriousness of this move is passed over and barely discussed. It took us 200 years of our history and the cost of all of the wars to ever get to a trillion-dollar debt. Today, by a vote, we are going to add $1 trillion to the debt.

It was not always this way. Just over 2 years ago, in his first speech to Congress, President Bush bragged he wanted to pay down $2 trillion in debt. Earlier, there was a crowd standing on the Capitol steps hailing their Contract with America to stop deficit spending. There was the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution cry-out that went so far as to forbid deficits.

Some Republicans may not realize the reason for this 180-degree turn, but Carl Rove knows. It is about getting rid of the Democratic Party. Republicans hope this increase in the debt limit is large enough so that any further increase will not be needed until after the 2004 Presidential election. In the meantime, the Government will be able to borrow money for all the tax cuts the President wants to get reelected.

Borrow, we will. This is the first installment of the Republican- passed budget that increases the debt from $6 trillion to $12 trillion over the next 10 years. That is an average of $600 billion deficit each and every year for a decade. It took 38 Presidents and 192 years to reach $1 trillion in debt. It took Ronald Reagan 4 years, and it has taken George W. Bush just halfway through his term.

The Bush policy takes Reaganomics to the extreme. If it means getting rid of the Government at the same time, so be it.

I hesitate to add that the President is not alone in his mission. The Democratic Party is in lockstep with him. When President Bush says, we need not pay for the war, the Democrats agree. This is the first time we have sent GIs to fight a war and then want them to hurry back to pay the bill. We in Congress are not going to pay for it. We need a tax cut to get elected next year.

When the President says, increase the debt, we Democrats say, yes, that is what the country needs, just not as much as the President wants.

The President calls for fast-track trade negotiating authority to export America's jobs faster and the Democratic leadership says, right on. Both parties triangulate, so, as George Wallace used to say, there is not a dime's worth of difference between the two major parties. We are bogged down in the needs of the campaign rather than the needs of the country.

The country needs fiscal discipline, and we are getting it at the State level. Fourteen Republican Governors are increasing taxes to provide for the States' needs, but the cost of the war does not move Washington. We already are spending $500 billion to $600 billion more than we are taking in. Alan Greenspan, Paul Volcker, and Robert Ruben believe this is enough stimulus.

The President's tax cut merely increases the debt which will increase the interest costs, which increases waste. Before long, all the Government will be able to afford is defense, Social Security, health care, and interest costs that must be paid.

Karl Rove knows the more we spend on interest charges, the less there is for programs. The Democrats thrive on programs and their constituencies. Less programs equals less supporters, which equals less Democratic Party.

Already the Democratic Party is in a fix. Labor, its main supporter, is being shipped overseas. And money, the main support of the Republican Party, is flourishing. The only thing to save the Democratic Party and the country is the free press.

But the free press is worse than both parties. The media is charged with telling the truth but they avoid it. The other day, when the Congressional Budget Office reported the government would hit a record in deficit spending for the year, the Washington Post buried the news on the bottom of page A5; but it gave front page billing to President Bush's tax cuts, which the President claims has no impact on those record deficits. Recently, when I offered an amendment to stop tax cuts and limit the explosion of the debt, nobody in the press wrote a story.

James Fallows in his book, Breaking the News, tells of the debate for a democracy between Walter Lippman and the educator John Dewey. Lippman allowed that the way to provide for a strong democracy is to gather around the table the experts in defense, health, highways, foreign policy, and the economy. Let them hammer out the needs of the country and give it to the congress for enactment. ``No'', said Dewey. Let the free press report the truth to the American people and the people will reflect these truths and needs through their representatives in Congress.

The press avoids the truth. They are completely bemused by politics, promoting conflict between the candidates and the parties. The increase in the debt before us reflects the true national debt, but hereafter the press will obscure the national debt by Ernon accounting, making the debt and deficit look smaller than they are.

The press will report the ``on-budget deficit'', ``unified deficit'', and ``public debt'' as separated from the ``government debt''--numbers that do not take into account what the government loots from Social Security and other trust funds, which is the true deficit and debt. The taxpayers can't follow this, they can't know. Little do they realize the deficit last year exceeded the sum total of 30 years of deficits during the Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Ford years. We are spending and cutting taxes like drunken sailors.

Europe's fiscal discipline requires a nation's debt not to exceed 60 percent of its gross national product before it can become a member of the European Union. Our national debt exceeds 60 percent, and is rising. We don't even qualify to enter the European Union.

Today interest costs are almost $1 billion a day, and with $600 billion deficits it will exceed $400 billion a year. Without this waste we could double the defense budget or give everybody in America the best health care. But with this waste, the dollar drops in value, interest costs rise, and the Nation is impoverished.

For the first time in history our generation will leave a lesser nation for the next generation. But rather than report on the state of the Union, all the free press can report is that Gary Hart is not running.

In the interest of time, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the budget realities demonstrating the state of the Union.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record another article from the Financial Times today that the U.S. administration throws prudence out the window.

[From the Financial Times, May 23, 2003]

Tax Lunacy

President George W. Bush declared victory yesterday in the

long-running congressional wrangle over his tax proposals.

``This is a Congress which is able to identify problems

facing the American people and get things done,'' he said

after House and Senate Republicans struck a deal on a $350bn

tax cut over 10 years. If only that were true.

The long-run costs of financing huge US fiscal deficits,

which stretch far into the future, will weigh heavily on

future generations. With little of the tax cut having an

immediate effect, the necessary short-run economic stimulus

will be negligible.

Democrats are prone to exaggerate the culpability of the

current administration in the deterioration of the US public

finances from a surplus of 1.4 per cent of gross domestic

product in 2000 to a projected 4.6 per cent deficit this

year. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that only a

third of this deterioration is due to legislative changes,

the rest being either due to the cyclical downturn or

excessive optimism in previous tax forecasts. The fiscal

loosening over the past few years has mitigated the economic

slowdown. But those caveats aside, on the management of

fiscal policy, the lunatics are in charge now of the asylum.

Including ``sunsetting'' provisions to cut the 10-year cost

of the tax measures is an insult to the intelligence of US

people. Anyone who genuinely believes that in 2007 Congress

will automatically reverse these tax cuts needs therapy. Much

of Mr. Bush's 2001 tax-cutting package was also deemed

temporary, only for the measures to be made permanent later.

Long-run US fiscal forecasts are still based on unrealistic

assumptions of spending restraint that have not been met,

either by this administration or by its predecessor.

And the latest wheeze in Republican circles is to dismiss

forecasts of fiscal deficits because they rely on ``static''

forecasting techniques. ``Dynamic scoring'' which takes

account of the effect of tax cuts on economic growth would

transform the picture, they insist. But the evidence is not

so kind to these assertions. The 1990s, when taxes were

raised, was one of the more dynamic in US history; and fiscal

deficits raise the cost of capital, reducing growth.

Never mind these facts, more extreme Republicans often say,

big deficits are in our interests. Proposing to slash federal

spending, particularly on social programs, is a tricky

electoral proposition, but a fiscal crisis offers the

tantalizing prospect of forcing such cuts through the back

door.

For them, undermining the multilateral international order

is not enough, long-held views on income distribution also

require radical revision. In response to this onslaught,

there is not much the rational majority can do: reason cuts

no ice; economic theory is dismissed; and contrary evidence

is ignored. But watching the world's economic superpower

slowly destroy perhaps the world's most enviable fiscal

position is something to behold.

Mr. President, I draw the attention of my colleagues to an article in the Wall Street Journal of May 23, 2003 by J.D. McKinnon entitled ``Get Ready for Era of Budget Deficits.'' It says it better than I can.

Finally, as has been related in David Hale's column in today's Financial Times, what we have is those who were telling the truth like Lawrence Lindsey and Paul O'Neill. They have gotten rid of them. For those who avoid the truth or get tired of trying to avoid it, like Mitch Daniels and Ari Fleischer, they are on the way out.

As the Financial Times reported here yesterday, the Secretary of the Treasury is merely a salesman and the true Secretary of the Treasury is Carl Rove. Mr. Hale writes:

``Economic policy appears to be under the control of the

political advisers. The White House will not be able to

encourage a dollar rally until Carl Rove holds a press

conference on the subject.''

I ask unanimous consent to have this printed in the Record.

I yield the floor.

I object.

Let me get it straight. Do we have the yeas and nays?

I withdraw my objection.

I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

I am happy to yield back my time.

Mr. President, last month the citizens of South Carolina lost a legend with the passing of Isadore Lourie, and I wish to recognize the most progressive lawmaker our State has ever known.

Izzy served three decades in the South Carolina statehouse. He came in 1964, right after my term as Governor was up, and back then the statehouse was made up of a bunch of segregationists and right wingers. But Izzy had a conscience, and he had a heart. He came in with this passion to turn things around for African-Americans and poor white citizens, and nobody was going to stop him.

He led a group with Dick Riley and Joe Riley that became known as the Young Turks. They backed school integration and smoothed the road for bringing blacks and whites together in a calm way. Then they passed legislation in education, in health care, in economic development, in consumer protection, and the like. They may have been up against a brick wall of old-time thinking, but that didn't stop them from passing a progressive agenda that has had a profound impact on my State.

This Senator will miss this very generous gentleman, and I want to share our Nation's sympathy to his wife Susan, and their children and grandchildren. To share with my colleagues just how much Izzy meant to all of us back home, I ask that this article about Izzy from The State, in Columbia, SC, be printed in the Record.

The article follows:

[From the State, Apr. 26, 2003]

Hundreds Say Goodbye to Beloved Legislator; Lourie Remembered as S.C.

Progressive Who Fought the Good Fight

(By Valerie Bauerlein)

Only in America, Isadore Lourie would say.

Only in America would the son of immigrants become one of

the most powerful men in a state, by knowing the law and by

loving justice.

Only in America would a freshman legislator in the

segregated 1960s stand up to the General Assembly's status

quo, and say ``enough''--if we introduce white students who

come to our gallery to watch justice work, we must introduce

black students as well.

And perhaps only in America--his favorite phrase--would

almost a thousand people arrive two hours early, park in the

middle of the road, and pack Beth Shalom Synagogue to say

goodbye to Isadore Lourie, a man who never said ``no'' to

someone in need, not the elderly, the poor, strangers,

friends.

Lourie, 70, died Thursday after a trying battle with

progressive supranuclear palsy, a rare brain disorder related

to Parkinson's disease. He suffered but he endured, his

family said at his funeral, living life throughout.

Three weeks ago he was spotted at his grandson Sam's

baseball game, screaming at the ref.

He was still enjoying a history class that he helped start.

Lourie's imagination took him back with Daniel in the lion's

den, Moses in Egypt.

``Confined to a wheelchair, he still soared,'' said Rabbi

Hesh Epstein of Chabad of South Carolina, an outreach and

educational organization.

Lourie was a state House member and state senator from 1964

to 1992, lauded as a progressive who forced the state forward

on civil rights when it preferred not to move. He authored

legislation on public housing, affirmative action and aging.

He also was a loving husband to his wife, Susan, a devoted

father and grandfather, and a dedicated believer.

``He was a great gentleman from a great state, but let us

not forget, a great Jewish gentleman from a great state,''

said Rabbi Philip Silverstein of Beth Shalom.

Lourie's sons had hoped to take him on a vacation last

August for his 70th birthday. He knew his time was drawing

short.

They talked of taking him somewhere special, perhaps the

Bahamas. But his son Lance told mourners that his father

preferred to stay in Columbia and come to Beth Shalom: ``He

said he wanted to stay here, in this room, and that's what he

did, and he was happy.''

Almost a thousand people packed the synagogue, which is

shaped like a butterfly, with the rabbi and other speakers in

the center. The wings were lined with hundreds of people in

chairs and pews, and dozens more standing along the walls.

And although he was a public figure, and there were people

spilling out into the hallway, the funeral was an intimate,

almost a family, affair.

Isadore Lourie's three sons eulogized him, fighting sobs.

His oldest son, Lance, said he remembered angry phone calls

at the dinner table during the 1960s, when his father was

fighting unpopular fights.

``He said, 'I will not be intimidated, and I will not be

bullied,' and he wouldn't,'' Lance said. ``He would not let

his efforts on what he thought to be right to be thwarted.''

He told how his father loved the phrase, ``only in

America,'' and what a privilege it was to have the

opportunity to fight for causes.

His middle son, Joel, said too often, people say when they

have lost someone that they wish they had done this or said

that.

``My only wish is that he would not have gotten sick,''

said Joel, his voice cracking. ``And we could've extended the

great times we had together.''

Joel, a state representative since 1998, said his father

was one of God's special servants.

``I know that if not now, then soon, he will be organizing

and giving directions up in heaven and doing good work,''

Joel said.

The youngest son, Neal, shared his father's law practice

and said he would miss his hero, his motivation, his partner,

and most importantly, his father.

``My family used to always say that our father could hear

everything, no matter what he was doing,'' Neal said. That

was whether he was working or sleeping (and snoring), in

sight or out of sight.

``So I say this to my dad, as he rests peacefully in God's

hands today, that I know he can hear me. Thank you, God bless

you, I love you.''