Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I honor an exceptional leader and true patriot. After a lifetime of service to our Nation, Jerome L. Johnson is retiring from his current position as chairman of the Military Officers Association of America, effective October 14, 2004. On this occasion, it is fitting to also recognize his 38 years of commissioned service as a naval officer and exemplary leadership as president and chief operating officer of the Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society. Admiral Johnson's career illustrates a lifelong commitment to service with honor and dedication to causes than his own self-interest.

A native Texan, he graduated from Texas A&M University, completed the Naval Aviation Cadet Program, and was commissioned as an ensign in the U.S. Navy in 1956. As a naval aviator, he served with distinction in a wide range of combat, command, and staff assignments. Admiral Johnson's distinguished naval career culminated with tours of duty as commander Second Fleet, commander of NATO's Striking Fleet Atlantic, and finally as the vice chief of Naval Operations. He retired from military service in 1994 as the senior naval aviator on active duty, receiving the prestigious honorary title of the Navy's ``Gray Eagle.''

Admiral Johnson's selfless devotion to service and quest for excellence continued long after he left active duty. For 10 years, he served as president and chief executive officer of the Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society, which provides financial, educational, and other assistance to active-duty and retired sailors, marines, and their family members. He also was elected to the board of directors of the Retired Officers Association in 1998, became the chairman of the board, and oversaw the organization's successful transformation into the Military Officers Association of America. Through his responsible stewardship, MOAA continues to support Congress by advocating legislative initiatives that improve readiness and quality of life for all current and retired members of our services, as well as their families.

We are grateful to Admiral Johnson for his outstanding leadership in uniform and in private life by supporting members of the Armed Forces, the military coalition, and all veterans. We offer Admiral Johnson a sharp salute, and wish him ``fair winds and following seas.''

Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the swift confirmation of Congressman Porter Goss as Director of Central Intelligence. I have been privileged to know Mr. Goss for a number of years, and I can attest that he is a leader, a man of personal intelligence and integrity, and a true patriot. He is also extremely well qualified for the position to which he has been nominated.

I do not believe I am divulging any state secrets when I mention that Porter Goss knows the intelligence community from the ground up-- beginning with his service as a young case officer and most recently as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. His 10-year career with the Central Intelligence Agency gave him a thorough understanding of how that large organization operates--invaluable background as the Congress and the executive branch proceed with various plans for reorganizing the intelligence community. His experience on the CIA staff, combined with his oversight responsibilities in the House, makes him perhaps uniquely qualified to understand the challenges and opportunities facing the community today. Congressman Goss has demonstrated time and again his commitment to the needs and goals of the intelligence community in its service to our Nation and the American people. He is not merely qualified. He was meant for this position.

When he takes up his duties, he will do so at a time of great change in the intelligence community. Reeling from the intelligence failures of 9/11 and

Iraq, and faced with comprehensive reorganization, the community's leadership has rarely been so important. I am confident that Mr. Goss will lead the CIA in an independent and nonpolitical manner as he has committed to do, ensuring that policymakers receive the best intelligence and analysis that our government can provide. I am also confident that he will be helpful as the Congress reorganizes itself in order to better conduct oversight over the intelligence community. We in the Congress sometimes forget that intelligence failures the Nation has experienced are not limited to the agencies alone. Congressional oversight has been, as the 9/11 Commission put it, ``dysfunctional,'' and must be changed.

As we face the national security challenges that are so evident to all of us, the Nation will be privileged to have Porter Goss at the helm of the CIA. America needs an individual who will help lead our intelligence agencies into a new era. I wholeheartedly support his confirmation.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my good friend and colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, and our good friends who lead the campaign finance reform fight in the House, Representatives Shays and Meehan, in introducing a bill to end the illegal practice of 527 groups spending soft money on ads and other activities to influence Federal elections.

As my colleagues know, a number of 527 groups have been raising and spending substantial amounts of soft money in a blatant effort to influence the outcome of this year's Presidential election. These activities are illegal under existing laws, and yet once again, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has failed to do its job and has refused to do anything to stop these illegal activities. Therefore, we must pursue all possible steps to overturn the FEC's misinterpretation of the campaign finance laws, which is improperly allowing 527 groups whose purpose is to influence Federal elections to spend soft money on these efforts.

Last week, we filed a lawsuit to overturn the FEC's failure to issue regulations to stop these illegal practices by 527 groups. President Bush and his campaign filed a similar lawsuit against the FEC last week as well, and I also appreciate President Bush's support for the legislative effort we begin today on 527s. We are introducing legislation that will accomplish the same result. We are going to follow every possible avenue to stop 527 groups from effectively breaking the law, and doing what they are already prohibited from doing by longstanding laws.

The bill we introduce today is simply. It would require that all 527s register as political committees and comply with Federal campaign finance laws, including Federal limits on the contributions they receive, unless the money they raise and spend is only in connection with non-Federal candidate elections, State or local ballot initiatives, or the nomination or confirmation of individuals to non- elected offices.

Additionally, this legislation would set new rules for Federal political committees that spend funds on voter mobilization efforts effecting both federal and local races and, therefore, use both a federal and a non-Federal account under FEC regulations. The new rules would prevent unlimited soft money from being channeled into Federal election activities by these Federal political committees.

Under the new rules, at least half of the funds spent on these voter mobilization activities by Federal political committees would have to be hard money from their Federal account. More importantly, the funds raised for their non-federal account would have to come from individuals and would be limited to no more than $25,000 per year per donor. Corporations and labor unions could not contribute to these non- federal accounts. To put it in simple terms, a George Soros could give $25,000 per year as opposed to $10 million to finance these activities.

Let me be perfectly clear on one point here. Our proposal will not shut down 527s, it will simply require them to abide by the same Federal regulations every other Federal political committee must abide by in spending money to influence Federal elections.

It is unfortunate that we even need to be here introducing this bill today. This legislation would not be necessary if it weren't for the abject failure of the FEC to enforce existing laws. As my colleagues well know, some organizations, registered under section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code, have had a major impact on this year's presidential election by raising and spending illegal soft money to run ads attacking both President Bush and Senator Kerry. The use of soft money to finance these activities is clearly illegal under current statute, and the fact that they have been allowed to continue unchecked is unconscionable.

The blame for this lack of enforcement does not lie with the Congress, nor with the Administration. The blame for this continuing illegal activity lies squarely with the FEC. This agency has a duty to issue regulations to properly implement and enforce the nation's campaign laws--and the FEC has failed, and it has failed miserably to carry out that responsibility. The Supreme Court found that to be the case in its McConnell decision and Judge Kollar-Kotelly found that to be the case in her recent decision overturning 15 regulations incorrectly adopted by the FEC to implement the new BCRA law. That is why a Los Angeles Times editorial today stated that, ``her decision would make a fitting obituary for an agency that deserves to die.''

It should be clear by now why we have introduced legislation to abolish the FEC and replace it with a new enforcement agency. And we will be conducting a major effort starting at the beginning of next year to enact our bill to get a new, true enforcement agency and to pass the 527 reform act we are introducing today. We are not going to allow the destructive FEC to continue to undermine the nation's campaign finance laws as it has been consistently doing for the past two decades. In the mean time, given the unmitigated failure of this agency, I believe that its Chair, Bradley Smith and its Vice Chair, Ellen Weintraub, should resign and recognize that they have failed to carry out their responsibilities as public officials.

Opponents of campaign reform like to point out that the activities of these 527s serve as proof that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) has failed in its stated purpose to eliminate the corrupting influence of soft money in our political campaigns. Let me be perfectly clear on this. The 527 issue has nothing to do with BCRA, it has everything to do with the 194 law and the failure of the FEC to do its job and properly regulate the activities of these groups.

As further evidence of the FEC's lack of capability, let me quote from a couple of recent court decisions which highlight this agency's shortcomings. First, in its decision upholding the constitutionality of BCRA in McConnell v. FEC, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the FEC had ``subverted'' the law, issued regulations that ``permitted more than Congress had ever intended,'' and ``invited widespread circumvention'' of FECA's limited on contributions. Additionally, just this past Saturday, a federal district court judge threw out 15 of the FEC's regulations implementing BCRA. Among the reasons for her actions were that one provision ``severely undermines FECA'' and would ``foster corruption'', another ``runs completely afoul'' of current law, another would ``render the statute largely meaningless'' and, finally, that another had ``no rational basis.''

The track record of the FEC is clear, and by their continued stonewalling, the Commission has proven itself to be nothing more than a bureaucratic nightmare, and the time has come to put an end to its destructive tactics. The FEC has had ample, and well documented, opportunities to address the issue of the 527s illegal activities, and each time they have taken a pass, choosing instead to delay, postpone, and refuse to act.

Enough is enough. It is time to stop wasting taxpayer's dollars on an agency that runs roughshod over the will of the Congress, the Supreme Court, the American people, and the Constitution. We've fought too long and too hard to sit back and allow this worthless agency to undermine the law.

So, here is the bottom line: if the FEC won't do its job, and its commissioners have proven time and time again that they won't, then we'll do it for them. The bill Senator Feingold and I introduce today will put an end to the abusive, illegal practices of these 527s. And we will fight beginning next year to replace this rogue agency with a real enforcement agency.

I urge my colleagues to support swift passage of these bills and put an end to this problem once and for all.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my good friend and colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, and our good friends who lead the campaign finance reform fight in the House, Representatives Shays and Meehan, in introducing a bill to end the illegal practice of 527 groups spending soft money on ads and other activities to influence Federal elections.

As my colleagues know, a number of 527 groups have been raising and spending substantial amounts of soft money in a blatant effort to influence the outcome of this year's Presidential election. These activities are illegal under existing laws, and yet once again, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has failed to do its job and has refused to do anything to stop these illegal activities. Therefore, we must pursue all possible steps to overturn the FEC's misinterpretation of the campaign finance laws, which is improperly allowing 527 groups whose purpose is to influence Federal elections to spend soft money on these efforts.

Last week, we filed a lawsuit to overturn the FEC's failure to issue regulations to stop these illegal practices by 527 groups. President Bush and his campaign filed a similar lawsuit against the FEC last week as well, and I also appreciate President Bush's support for the legislative effort we begin today on 527s. We are introducing legislation that will accomplish the same result. We are going to follow every possible avenue to stop 527 groups from effectively breaking the law, and doing what they are already prohibited from doing by longstanding laws.

The bill we introduce today is simply. It would require that all 527s register as political committees and comply with Federal campaign finance laws, including Federal limits on the contributions they receive, unless the money they raise and spend is only in connection with non-Federal candidate elections, State or local ballot initiatives, or the nomination or confirmation of individuals to non- elected offices.

Additionally, this legislation would set new rules for Federal political committees that spend funds on voter mobilization efforts effecting both federal and local races and, therefore, use both a federal and a non-Federal account under FEC regulations. The new rules would prevent unlimited soft money from being channeled into Federal election activities by these Federal political committees.

Under the new rules, at least half of the funds spent on these voter mobilization activities by Federal political committees would have to be hard money from their Federal account. More importantly, the funds raised for their non-federal account would have to come from individuals and would be limited to no more than $25,000 per year per donor. Corporations and labor unions could not contribute to these non- federal accounts. To put it in simple terms, a George Soros could give $25,000 per year as opposed to $10 million to finance these activities.

Let me be perfectly clear on one point here. Our proposal will not shut down 527s, it will simply require them to abide by the same Federal regulations every other Federal political committee must abide by in spending money to influence Federal elections.

It is unfortunate that we even need to be here introducing this bill today. This legislation would not be necessary if it weren't for the abject failure of the FEC to enforce existing laws. As my colleagues well know, some organizations, registered under section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code, have had a major impact on this year's presidential election by raising and spending illegal soft money to run ads attacking both President Bush and Senator Kerry. The use of soft money to finance these activities is clearly illegal under current statute, and the fact that they have been allowed to continue unchecked is unconscionable.

The blame for this lack of enforcement does not lie with the Congress, nor with the Administration. The blame for this continuing illegal activity lies squarely with the FEC. This agency has a duty to issue regulations to properly implement and enforce the nation's campaign laws--and the FEC has failed, and it has failed miserably to carry out that responsibility. The Supreme Court found that to be the case in its McConnell decision and Judge Kollar-Kotelly found that to be the case in her recent decision overturning 15 regulations incorrectly adopted by the FEC to implement the new BCRA law. That is why a Los Angeles Times editorial today stated that, ``her decision would make a fitting obituary for an agency that deserves to die.''

It should be clear by now why we have introduced legislation to abolish the FEC and replace it with a new enforcement agency. And we will be conducting a major effort starting at the beginning of next year to enact our bill to get a new, true enforcement agency and to pass the 527 reform act we are introducing today. We are not going to allow the destructive FEC to continue to undermine the nation's campaign finance laws as it has been consistently doing for the past two decades. In the mean time, given the unmitigated failure of this agency, I believe that its Chair, Bradley Smith and its Vice Chair, Ellen Weintraub, should resign and recognize that they have failed to carry out their responsibilities as public officials.

Opponents of campaign reform like to point out that the activities of these 527s serve as proof that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) has failed in its stated purpose to eliminate the corrupting influence of soft money in our political campaigns. Let me be perfectly clear on this. The 527 issue has nothing to do with BCRA, it has everything to do with the 194 law and the failure of the FEC to do its job and properly regulate the activities of these groups.

As further evidence of the FEC's lack of capability, let me quote from a couple of recent court decisions which highlight this agency's shortcomings. First, in its decision upholding the constitutionality of BCRA in McConnell v. FEC, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the FEC had ``subverted'' the law, issued regulations that ``permitted more than Congress had ever intended,'' and ``invited widespread circumvention'' of FECA's limited on contributions. Additionally, just this past Saturday, a federal district court judge threw out 15 of the FEC's regulations implementing BCRA. Among the reasons for her actions were that one provision ``severely undermines FECA'' and would ``foster corruption'', another ``runs completely afoul'' of current law, another would ``render the statute largely meaningless'' and, finally, that another had ``no rational basis.''

The track record of the FEC is clear, and by their continued stonewalling, the Commission has proven itself to be nothing more than a bureaucratic nightmare, and the time has come to put an end to its destructive tactics. The FEC has had ample, and well documented, opportunities to address the issue of the 527s illegal activities, and each time they have taken a pass, choosing instead to delay, postpone, and refuse to act.

Enough is enough. It is time to stop wasting taxpayer's dollars on an agency that runs roughshod over the will of the Congress, the Supreme Court, the American people, and the Constitution. We've fought too long and too hard to sit back and allow this worthless agency to undermine the law.

So, here is the bottom line: if the FEC won't do its job, and its commissioners have proven time and time again that they won't, then we'll do it for them. The bill Senator Feingold and I introduce today will put an end to the abusive, illegal practices of these 527s. And we will fight beginning next year to replace this rogue agency with a real enforcement agency.

I urge my colleagues to support swift passage of these bills and put an end to this problem once and for all.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate for not more than 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, I support passage of the fiscal year 2005 Military Construction Appropriations Act. This bill provides $10 billion in funding for important military construction activities including base housing and the construction and maintenance of base infrastructure. Amazingly, this report contains only 35 earmarks totaling $44.7 million, which is significantly less than the approximately $80 million in unauthorized earmarks contained in last year's appropriations bill.

Although 70 percent of these earmarks are directed to the States of appropriators, I applaud the Military Construction Subcommittee for their generally clean bill. I am particularly pleased by the language in the report that specifically states that the committee has provided construction funds only for projects that were included in the Senate- passed version of the fiscal year 2005 Defense Authorization Act, currently pending in conference. This appropriations bill is a good example of how the legislative process is expected to work, wherein the work of the authorizers is fully taken into account by the appropriators. I hope this can be emulated by all appropriations subcommittees and authorizing committees.

As we progress towards the scheduled base closure and realignment round in 2005, I am encouraged to see that my colleagues have resisted the temptation to add pork to bases in their States in what would be a misguided effort to save their bases base closure. Such efforts would be a waste of taxpayer money and would not prevent their base from being closed.

In an effort to contain the wasteful spending inherent in Member- requested construction projects. I sponsored, and the Senate adopted, merit-based criteria for evaluating member add-ons as a part of the fiscal year 1995 Defense Authorization Act. The criteria are: No. 1, the project is in the service's future years defense plan; No. 2, the project is mission essential; No. 3, the project does not conflict with base realignment proposals; No. 5, the service can offset the proposed expenditure within that year's budget request.

These criteria have been useful in ferreting out programs or projects of questionable merit, and in determining the relative priority of projects that have been requested by Members for strictly parochial reasons, often at the expense of the readiness of our Armed Forces. Unfortunately, in the years that these criteria have been in place, no offsets have been provided for any project.

All of the 35 earmarks, totaling $44.7 million, are under the minor construction account. Normally, this account is intended to be used for urgent and unforeseen requirements and, therefore, neither the President's budget nor the authorizing committees identify specific projects to be funded. Once the services decide to spend the money, the authorizing and appropriations committees must approve or disapprove of the minor construction project to which the services plan to fund. By earmarking the funds in the minor construction account, the appropriators have usurped the authority of the authorizing committee to approve or reject these projects.

I commend the chairman of the Military Construction Subcommittee, Senator Hutchison, and the ranking member, Senator Feinstein, for their work on this bill and their continued support for our military. Their attention and commitment to only supporting high-priority projects for the Navy, Marine Corps, Army and Air Force is once again exemplary and provide for a sound measure to fund military construction in the coming fiscal year.

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has agreed by unanimous consent to pass a substitute amendment to the Federal Trade Commission Reauthorization Act, S. 1234. The bill would reauthorize the Federal Trade Commission in furtherance of its mission to enhance the efficient operation of the marketplace by both eliminating acts or practices that are unfair or deceptive and preventing anti-competitive conduct. Further, the legislation would authorize funding for the FTC through 2008, and enhance the Commission's ability to combat international--or cross-border--fraud.

In addition to reauthorizing this vital consumer protection agency for the period 2005 through 2008, the bill, as amended, is also designed to mitigate the challenges that the FTC increasingly faces in combating cross-border fraud. The FTC's consumer protection responsibilities are essential, particularly in today's global climate of high-speed information and marketing, which know no international borders.

This legislation is crucial to the FTC's ability to protect American consumers by authorizing the Commission to: Share information involving cross-border fraud with foreign consumer protection agencies; secure confidential information from those foreign agencies; work in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Justice to seek redress for American consumers in foreign courts; make criminal referrals to the DOJ for cross-border criminal activity; and generally strengthen its relationship with foreign consumer protection agencies.

Under the FTC's current authority the agency is not able to exchange information with its foreign counterparts to shut down consumer scams originating outside the United States, but perpetrated against American consumers. As a consequence, the FTC is left without the ability to seek redress on behalf of defrauded consumers. In addition, the FTC is not currently considered a ``market regulator,'' and thus, banking agencies may not share suspicious consumer information with the FTC. As a result, the FTC is not able to trade funds derived from illegal Internet schemes sent through U.S. banks and placed in offshore bank accounts. Thus, those who devise and carry out such schemes are too often allowed to escape the grasp of the FTC. But even if the FTC were able to share information with its foreign counterparts and market regulators, the FTC would be unable to litigate consumer protection cases in foreign courts.

While these are descriptions of merely a few gaps in the FTC's current international consumer protection authority, they underscore how vulnerable American consumers are to cross-border fraud. This legislation would fill these and other gaps in the FTC's current international consumer protection authority, and allow the FTC to function more effectively in carrying out its Congressional mandate to protect American consumers.

This bill, as amended, would also grant authority to the FTC to provide investigative and other services to a requesting domestic law enforcement agency and receive from that agency, if offered, reimbursement for the FTC's involvement. Finally, the amendment would provide to the Commission the authority it has requested to receive gifts or items that would be useful to the Commission as long as a conflict of interest is not created by such receipt.

The underlying bill was considered and reported unanimously last year by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Since being placed on the Senate Calendar, its provisions have been thoroughly vetted on a bipartisan basis with the multiple federal agencies that have a vested interest in its enactment. We have worked with and received sign off from each affected agency on this substitute amendment.

Mr. President, has all time expired?

Mr. President, as we debate the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill for fiscal year 2005, threats against our country and our way of life continue to mount. The reality of the world in which we live today is that terrorists are plotting ways to destroy our way of life

and seek to destroy the freedoms and liberties we cherish.

The recently released 9/11 Commission report outlines the failures that lead to the September 11 terrorist attacks and poses 41 recommendations on how to address identified failures and deter future terrorist attacks. Senators Lieberman, Specter, Bayh and others have joined with me introducing legislation that encompasses all of the Commission recommendations. A number of the Commission's recommendations relate directly to the Department of Homeland Security and merit discussion today.

Obviously, one of the best ways to prevent terrorists from attacking our country is to prevent them from entering in the first place. The Commission urges the Government to integrate watch lists, speed up the full implementation of USVISIT, which is an automated biometric exit and entry program, and work with our allies to better coordinate terrorist travel intelligence. Actions must be taken to close current gaps in our security that allow people to travel into the United States without passports or other identification. Though challenging, it will be possible to tighten security and implement needed changes as recommended by the Commission without unnecessarily impeding the flow of people in and out of our country.

The Commission also was clear that ``[h]omeland security assistance should be based strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities'' and that ``Congress should not use this money as a pork barrel.'' As the Commission reported, ``[p]opulation density, vulnerability and critical infrastructure should be the criteria by which homeland security assistance is based. I whole-heartedly agree. We must continue to resist any urge to earmark homeland security funds and I am pleased by the restraint the Appropriations Committee has once again shown while considering this homeland security funding legislation.

Just 2 years ago, we created the third largest Government agency, the Department of Homeland Security, bringing 21 distinct Federal agencies under the direction of one Department. Since that time, considerable progress has been made in protecting our country. However, as succinctly stated in the Commission's report, we are still not safe. We have yet to adequately develop strong measures to protect our air, land, and sea ports of entry. Our borders remain porous. We need to develop more efficient ways for states and localities to receive much needed funding to increase their preparedness for a terrorist attack. I also remain very concerned at the continuing problems surrounding interoperability.

I commend the chairman of the DHS Subcommittee, Senator Cochran, for developing an appropriations bill with minimal earmarks or unrequested spending. Although this is only the second Homeland Security Appropriations bill, I remain encouraged that the Appropriations Committee has resisted the urge to load its DHS appropriations legislation with unrequested spending. I urge my colleagues to hold strong as the bill continues through the legislative process.

I would be remiss if I did not point out that the few earmarks contained in this bill are targeted, as usual, to the home States of appropriators. Examples of earmarks and directive language include:

The bill provides $15.4 million for the Coast Guard's bridge alteration program, despite the fact that the President requested no funds for this program. The report then earmarks the funds as follows: $4.4 million for the Florida Avenue Bridge, New Orleans, LA; $3 million for the EJ&E Railroad Bridge, Morris, IL; $5 million for the Fourteen Mile CSX Railroad Bridge, Mobile, AL; $3 million for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Bridge, Burlington, IA.

The bill provides $5 million above the President's request for identified perimeter security and firearms range needs, and the report specifies that the extra funds are to be spent at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Artesia, NM;

Agricultural pests: citing Hawaii's ``globally significant natural environment,'' the Committee report states that DHS should work with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Hawaii Department of Agriculture in sharing information and expertise to ensure protection against agricultural pests. In this time of heightened security and exploding federal budgets, one should question the need for such a provision. I, for one, had not been unaware of an impending scourge of agricultural pests--pests that obviously have the good sense to live in a state that is popular travel destiny--pose a threat to the security of the homeland.

Out of the acquisition, construction, improvements and related expenses account provided for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, the committee report specifically identifies alterations and maintenance funding for buildings at four locations three of which happen to be represented by appropriators. The locations are Artesia, NM; Cheltenham, MD; Charleston, SC; and Glynco, GA.

Mr. President, the role of our Department of Homeland Security is perhaps most vital when it comes to protecting our Nation's borders. I am pleased that the committee has continued to fund improvements in the technology available for the Department of Homeland Security to protect our borders. However, money alone will not solve this problem. We must reform our immigration laws while we work to improve border security.

Historians will judge the 108th Congress by the way we address international terrorism and respond to the attacks of September 11. While much work remains to be done to secure our homeland, including action on 9/11 Commission recommendations, we can take another important step by passing this legislation.

Mr. President, once again, I thank the appropriators for their efforts to move a relatively clean homeland security appropriations bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has agreed by unanimous consent to pass H.R. 361, the Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust Act, SPARTA. The bill would help to protect amateur athletes from exploitation by sports agents. I commend Congressman Tom Osborne for his tireless work on this legislation and his ongoing commitment to ensuring that amateur athletes are treated with fairness and dignity.

This legislation is needed because State and Federal penalties for agents who engage in dishonest practices to lure athletes to sign contracts are seen by many groups as weak. For example, misconduct such as secret payments to amateur athletes, undisclosed payments to family or friends of athletes, unrealistic promises, pressure placed on the athletes, and even blackmail often go unpunished despite the severe damage that their practices cause to our country's amateur athletes.

Under SPARTA, sports agents would be prohibited from providing false or misleading information, making false promises, or providing anything of value to amateur athletes or their families. Each violation of SPARTA would be deemed an unfair or deceptive act or practice under the Federal Trade Commission Act, FTCA. SPARTA would authorize civil actions by the Federal Trade Commission, State attorneys general, and educational institutions against violators.

In addition, SPARTA would serve as a Federal backstop for an ongoing effort by the National Collegiate Athletic Association, NCAA, college coaches, university presidents, and athletic directors to promote at the State-level legislation developed by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws to regulate the business practices of sports agents. The legislation, titled the Uniform Athlete's Agent Act, UAAA, would require that sports agents be registered with the States in which they operate, and provide uniform State laws addressing their conduct and practices. To date, the legislatures of 29 States and two territories have passed the UAAA, but no similar Federal standard exists.

We must protect our youth from the predatory practices of those who do not share their best interests. This bill represents a positive step toward protecting amateur athletes and I thank my colleagues for their support in its passage.

Mr. President, thank you.

(The remarks of Mr. McCain, Mr. Specter, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Bayh pertaining to the introduction of S. 2774 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, this week marks the third anniversary of that terrible day in 2001 when terrorists attacked America's commercial and governmental capitals. On that occasion, in the largest attack ever on American soil, 2,973 innocent individuals lost their lives. The victimization of America went beyond this astounding number, with physical injuries to many, damage to our Nation's economy, and psychological trauma among millions who witnessed these shocking events.

While nothing we do can erase this pain, we can honor and pay tribute to those who have suffered by ensuring that terrorists never again attack our land. We have come a long way since 2001 in enhancing this country's ability to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks, but, as the 9/11 Commission said in its final report, we are not yet safe. Increasing our safety against terrorist attack requires new strategies, new ways of thinking, and new ways of organizing our government.

Today I am pleased to be joined by Senators Lieberman, Specter, Bayh, Graham of South Carolina, Daschle, and Clinton in introducing legislation designed to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations, which were issued just prior to the August recess. Governor Tom Kean and Representative Lee Hamilton have endorsed this bill, and assured us that it accurately reflects the Commission's intent.

With the introduction of this bill, the Senate now has before it legislation that addresses each of the Commission's 41 recommendations, which together are designed to build unity of effort across the U.S. Government--all in an effort to prevent future terrorist attacks. The provisions of this bill outline the shape and objectives of a global counterterrorism strategy, and suggest a reconfiguration of our national security and homeland security apparatus within the U.S. Government. As anyone who reads the legislation will quickly see, it also cuts across jurisdictional lines with respect to the Senate committee prerogatives. There are portions of this bill that deal with intelligence, foreign affairs, defense, border security and commerce, transportation security, and more. In normal times, naysayers would caution that this fact alone could paralyze this body. But these are not normal times. International terrorism poses a real and present danger to the United States, and it is our responsibility as elected officials to take action on the Commission's recommendations.

I would like to highlight some of the major aspects of the bill, and I know that the other sponsors also will provide details on the bill's structure.

The largest section of this bill concerns the reorganization of our intelligence community. This legislation establishes a National Intelligence Authority to unify the efforts of the community, and this new entity would be headed by a National Intelligence Director, NID. The NID also would act as the principal intelligence advisor to the President, taking over this function from the Director of Central Intelligence. The NID would have direct budgetary authority and significant personnel authority over all of the intelligence agencies, except those that generate intelligence that falls under the purview of one department alone, such as tactical military intelligence. The NID would have influence over the budgets for these other entities that do provide this very specific intelligence. Assisting the NID would be four deputies, including a principal deputy, another that serves currently as the CIA Director and would handle foreign intelligence, a deputy that also serves as the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, and a fourth that handles domestic intelligence.

Also established in this bill is a National Counterterrorism Center to oversee all of the U.S. Government counterterrorism operations, including analysis, net assessments, and guidance for joint counterterrorism operations. The center would be headed by a deputy- level official who can adjudicate policy disagreements among the agencies and, if need be, bump them up to the National Security Council for a decision. In addition to the National Counterterrorism Center, the bill authorizes the NID to establish ``National Intelligence Centers'' that will address particular geographic or functional areas. These centers will, like the NCTC, bring together the full range of reporting and analysis on particular topics so that no one with a need to know is cut out of the loop. There are also provisions designed to ensure that increased centralization of the intelligence community does not lead to a reduction in the range of analytical views available to policymakers.

Finally in the intelligence title, the bill codifies the critical reforms that Director Mueller has begun at the FBI, including his efforts to improve the FBI's intelligence capabilities and develop a personnel cadre that specializes in national security issues.

In its report, the 9/11 Commission found that the biggest impediment to ``connecting the dots'' among diverse sources of homeland security information is the widespread resistance to sharing. To address this problem, the Commission recommended that the President create a new ``trusted information network'' modeled on a framework developed by a Markle Foundation task force. This bill directs the President to create an information network among all Federal departments and agencies with responsibilities for homeland security, among State and local authorities, and among relevant private sector entities. The legislation describes key attributes that should be incorporated into the network and sets forth an ambitious schedule for development and implementation.

The Commission report stated that, ``Of all our recommendations, strengthening congressional oversight may be among the most difficult and important. So long as oversight is governed by current congressional rules and resolutions, we believe the American people will not get the security they want and need. The United States needs a strong, stable, and capable congressional committee structure to give America's national intelligence agencies oversight, support, and leadership.''

The Commission offered several options for how Congress should be restructured to best provide for strong oversight over both intelligence and homeland security. With respect to intelligence, it recommended that Congress create either a joint committee modeled after the Joint Atomic Energy Committee or House and Senate Committees with combined authorizing and appropriating powers. With respect to homeland security, it recommended that Congress create a single, principal point of oversight and review, noting that DHS officials now appear before 88 different committees and subcommittees.

Late last month, the Senate leadership tasked a bipartisan working group with examining how best to implement these recommendations and asked it to report back to the leadership as soon as possible. In recognition of this ongoing review, our bill does not propose the committee structures we believe should be adopted, but instead includes a Sense of the Congress that both houses of the 108th Congress adopt all necessary rule changes so that the committee structures for the 109th Congress are revised in accordance with one of the options recommended by the Commission.

It is incumbent on each member to put aside jurisdictional power struggles and take action that is in the interest of securing our homeland. We should strive to never again read a report that calls Congressional oversight ``dysfunctional.'' We simply must heed the Commissions call to action and fundamentally overhaul Congressional oversight for intelligence and homeland security. As the Commission stated, ``tinkering with the existing structure is not sufficient.''

As recommended by the Commission, we have included provisions to help ensure that an incoming President-elect can start putting together his national security team during a transition between administrations. Our legislation would establish procedures for expediting security clearances and Senate consideration of top national security appointees, as well as any necessary clearances for presidential transition team members. In addition, it directs the President to consolidate security clearance responsibilities in a single Federal agency, and to work with the new NID to set uniform standards for granting security clearances so that they are accepted by all Federal agencies.

One lesson from the Commissions report is that no one set of strategies is sufficient to prevent future terrorist attacks. The United States must use all of the instruments at our disposal to counter the short and long-term threats posed by international terrorism. For this reason, we have devoted an entire title of the bill to the role of diplomacy, foreign aid, and the military. The legislation would renew the U.S. commitment to Pakistan's future, in light of the critical role that country plays in the war on terror, and authorizes a substantial increase in aid to Afghanistan. It addresses our relations with Saudi Arabia and suggests establishing an international contact group to develop a multilateral counterterrorism strategy. Other provisions in our bill will enhance America's ability to fight the war of ideas by promoting universal values of democracy, tolerance, and openness. It authorizes increased funding for U.S. broadcasts to Muslim countries and would ramp up the scale of education and exchange programs.

This bill notes that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is a grave and gathering threat to this country, and suggests ways to strengthen our nonproliferation programs. And, since portrayals of mistreatment of captured terrorists hinders our ability to engage in the wider struggle against them, this legislation both reiterates standards for their humane treatment once captured, and calls on the U.S. Government to develop a common approach to detainee treatment, along with its coalition partners.

One significant way to prevent future terrorist attacks on American soil is to stop terrorists from entering the country in the first place. This bill contains a number of provisions that would enhance the security of our borders, transportation systems and critical infrastructure. For example, our legislation requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to work with multiple government agencies to develop a unified strategy to intercept terrorists, find terrorist facilitators, and constrain terrorist mobility both domestically and internationally. In addition, to efficiently screen persons entering the United States, we must integrate the multiple terrorist screening systems already in place. This bill would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop a comprehensive screening system that brings together an integrated network of screening points, and to work to fully implement the entry and exit functions of the U.S. VISIT system at all ports of entry as quickly as possible.

The Commission also pointed out what appears to be a gaping hole in our border security. I am referring to the ability of people who claim to be United States citizens to orally attest to their citizenship when passing from Canada or Mexico into the United States. Numerous reports, including a recent GAO study, point to our porous borders as potential terrorist entryways into this country. Our legislation would require everyone entering the U.S. to present a passport, at a minimum.

Of course, travel documents only work insofar as they are authentic and can be authenticated by our officials. Our bill requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish uniform Federal standards for driver's licenses and birth certificates. It is long past time that we take action to protect these documents from being used to commit identity theft, terrorism, and other criminal acts.

Although there has been considerable progress in tightening transportation security since September 11, the Commission made several recommendations to further improve the system. For example, the computer systems and protocols used to vet passengers before they board a plane are not substantially different than the systems that failed to prevent the 9/11 hijackers from boarding their flights. Therefore in this legislation we require the Transportation Security Administration to take over and improve the no-fly list process, and to improve the screening of air passengers for explosives and the screening of air cargo. In addition, we require DHS to set risk-based priorities for defending various transportation assets, and then figure out a plan and budget to get the job done.

Mr. President, I am in full agreement with the Commission that we need to broadly address transportation security vulnerabilities. In fact, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation has already reported several legislative measures designed to improve the security of other transportation modes. A maritime security bill was signed into law in 2002, and we reported a subsequent maritime security measure earlier this year. We also reported, and the Senate has passed, a bus security bill, and our rail security legislation is pending on the Senate Calendar. These measures must be enacted before we adjourn.

The Commission made a number of recommendations to further our national preparedness and emergency response efforts. Its report states that ``homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities,'' and implores that ``Congress should not use this money as a pork barrel.'' I heartily agree. In following this recommendation, the legislation directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to allocate assistance based on the threats, risks, and vulnerabilities facing a community, along with its population and other specific criteria. It also establishes an expert advisory panel to develop benchmarks for assessing the homeland security needs and capabilities of various communities, and rescinds the current formula for homeland security grants.

The bill would also require certain broadcasters to vacate their television channels in a crisis so that their airwaves are available to first responders, and ensure that public safety organizations have access to this spectrum no later than January 1, 2007. In addition, it directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to work with other officials in developing effective communications capabilities, including back-up support. These steps are vital for closing the existing gaps in interoperability of emergency communications systems.

The Commissioners pointed out that the private sector controls 85 percent of the critical infrastructure in the Nation. Our bill directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish a program to promote private sector preparedness for terrorism and other emergencies. It also directs the Secretary to report to Congress regularly on the adequacy of the government's plans to protect our Nation's critical infrastructure.

All of us who are concerned with threats to this Nation's security also wish to ensure that our efforts to protect Americans do not infringe on our civil liberties. After all, giving up the way of life we have fought so hard to defend is not an acceptable price for greater security. We must find a way to balance the two, and that is what this bill proposes to do. It creates a Privacy and Civil Liberties Board, as well as designated privacy and civil liberties officers within relevant Federal agencies, to analyze actions the enhanced security measures taken by our government and to ensure that civil liberties are appropriately considered as these policies are developed. The Board, which would reside within the Executive Office of the President, would advise the President and Federal agencies on the privacy and civil liberties implications of proposed and extant laws, as well as authority to oversee Federal agencies to ensure that civil liberties are being protected.

In addition, the legislation requires certain agency heads to designate senior officers to serve as privacy and civil liberties resources and watchdogs. Among these officers' responsibilities is ensuring that their agency has a process in place to receive, investigate, and respond to complaints from people who report privacy or civil liberties violations.

Having described the bill we are introducing today, I'd like to reiterate that it addresses each of the Commission's recommendations-- not more, not less. The sponsors all recognize that other legislative proposals will be offered that address the security of our Nation in the face of terrorist threats. In particular, I want to acknowledge the efforts by Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Government Affairs Committee. That Committee has a key leadership role in this area, and it is one that I greatly respect. I know that they are working to report a bipartisan reform proposal to reform the Intelligence community in the days ahead and look forward to Senate debate on their proposal.

The sponsors of today's legislation remain open to all proposals, and in fact, will have additional suggestions of our own. But the introduction of our legislation today ensures that the commendable work of the 9/11 Commission has a real opportunity to be debated, amended, and adopted. Despite the short and crowded legislative calendar, we urge the leadership to allow for debate on this and other proposals to address the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. Even in an election year, there is no higher priority than defending the American people against threats to their security.

Mr. President, there has been much talk over recent months about the importance of firm resolve in the face of threats to America's security and its integrity. This legislation presents the Congress with an opportunity this year to exhibit some resolve of our own. While we will act in the shadow of the dark hours of September 11, we can show the American people--and the world--that this government is committed to facing down the worst threats that face us today. We can move forward-- yes, in an election year, yes, by actually finding agreement regardless of party or committee assignment--to better protect and preserve the security of this Nation. With the Senate's serious and thorough consideration of the Commission's recommendations, we will honor those who have been patient enough to afford us this opportunity to change.

I will make two additional comments. One, we need to reform the institutions of government. This blueprint which outlines in legislative form the recommendations of the September 11 Commission are exactly that, a blueprint. I am confident that the Committee on Governmental Affairs, under the outstanding leadership of the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, working with Senator Lieberman, Senator Specter, and other members of the committee, will produce a legislative product of which everyone can be very proud. They have already begun a series of hearings, and I have complete confidence in their deliberations and their results.

Let me also say that one of the most difficult aspects of reform will be reform of the institutions here and in the other body. There is no doubt that either one of the two committee recommendations--that there be a joint committee along the lines of the now defunct Joint Committee on Atomic Energy or two separate permanent committees. Those committees have to have budgetary authority. They must be able to appropriate. If not, those committees will be debating societies and they will not have the influence or power necessary or authority necessary to supervise America's intelligence operations.

There are many other areas and many other ideas, including those of the White House and the executive branch that need to be taken into consideration. But I think this is a good start because if there is one thing all of us can agree on it is that the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission have been embraced by virtually one and all, clearly, with some reservations because it is not a perfect document. But overall, the overwhelming majority of Americans expect that we should act on this blueprint as a blueprint, but, second of all, that we should act-- that we should act.

There is no disagreement that our intelligence agencies and our ability to obtain the vital information that is necessary to maintain our national security and prevent another terrorist attack require us to act in an expeditious fashion.

I understand the majority leader, in consultations with Senator Daschle, has laid out a schedule for the Governmental Affairs Committee to report out the last week in September. I think that is a very worthwhile cause.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 7, 2004 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. President, today we are considering the conference report for the fiscal year 2005 Defense appropriations act. While I recognize the importance of passing this legislation prior to the upcoming recess, I am once again disappointed that we are acting on the appropriations measure prior to enactment of the Defense Authorization Act.

The responsibilities of authorizers and appropriators are expected to be distinct. The Defense Authorization Act lays out the blueprint for the policies and funding levels for the Department of Defense and its programs. The role of the Appropriations Committee is to allocate funding based on policies provided by authorizations bills. In reality, the appropriators' function, however, has expanded dramatically, and the Appropriations Committee now engages in significant policy decision making and micromanagement, largely usurping the role of the authorizing committees. I remain hopeful that we will complete action on the Defense authorization act when we return in September in order to provide further clarification of congressional intent to the Department of Defense.

In the meantime, enactment of the Defense appropriations legislation is very important, and it will enable us to continue to meet our obligations to support service members in the fight against terror. The conference report includes many critical funding provisions to which I lend strong support, such as the funding to increase Army end strength by 20,000 soldiers. Unfortunately, although not surprisingly, the conference report also includes a large number of unauthorized and unrequested provisions.

While I appreciate the hard work and the laudable intentions of the members of the Appropriations Committee, the number of earmarks contained in this conference report is alarming. This conference report and accompanying statement of the managers contains close to 2,000 earmarks totaling $8.9 billion in Member adds.

With Americans deployed across the globe fighting terror, and with looming budget deficits at home, the Congress faces some tough choices. We must find a way to uphold our fiscal responsibility while fully providing for our military needs. The costs that go along with the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq demand now, more than ever, a new fiscal sanity in approaching our appropriations bills. A half-a- trillion dollar budget deficit means we simply cannot afford business as usual. We simply cannot continue the binge of pork barrel spending that consumes an ever growing proportion of our Federal budget. While the cost of an individual project may get lost in the fine print of lengthy bills, together, they all do real damage. Collectively, these earmarks significantly burden American taxpayers.

Not surprisingly, along with the growth in deficit spending over the past few years, there has also been a significant growth in earmarks and pork barrel spending. In fact, according to information compiled by the Congressional Research Service, CRS, the total number of earmarks has grown from 4,126 in fiscal year 1994 to 14,040 in fiscal year 2004. That is an increase of 240 percent in 10 years. In dollar terms, the earmarking has risen from $26.6 billion to $47.9 billion over the same period.

Based on the calculations of my office, the fiscal year 2002 Defense appropriations act contained $3.7 billion in pork. The conference report on the fiscal year 2003 Defense appropriations act contained $8.1 billion in pork. The fiscal year 2004 Senate-passed Defense appropriations act contained well over $4 billion in pork. This year $8.9 billion was added in the conference report and the statement of the managers, which is more than twice the number in last year's Senate-passed version of the legislation. This is real money. Every year, countless important military and domestic programs go unfunded or underfunded. I find it hard to understand why we can find the money to pay for member add-ons, but then have to battle to fund concurrent receipt or the survivor benefit plan.

The Joint Chiefs provided a list of critical requirements above what was

provided for in the President's budget request. That list totaled nearly $18 billion for fiscal year 2005. I believe that if we have the resources, we should do all we can to provide additional defense funding for items and programs which the Joint Chiefs need. But instead, we routinely fund programs just because they are important to a particular state or district represented by a powerful Member of Congress. I find this practice to be a disservice to our military men and women, as well as to all American taxpayers.

Once again, the appropriators' addiction to tanker recapitalization is too great for any amount of medication. The whole tanker love affair reads like a bad novel. It is very suspect that the Appropriations Committee added $100 million in this conference report under the heading ``Tanker Replacement Transfer Fund.'' Fortunately, the Senate provision prevailed and Chairman Stevens, as he publicly stated he would do, did not allow the House earmark for Boeing 767 tankers to carry through conference. On that point, the Tanker Replacement Fund is muted. Only the report language makes reference to the ``current tanker replacement program of record''--that program, undisput edly, is the KC-X program which is in the Air Force's Future Years Defense Program.

Over the past 3 years, I have spoken at length on the Senate floor on the Boeing 767 tanker lease--it is difficult to understand why we are still debating a tanker program when no money has been included in the President's defense budget submitted to Congress. Further, the Senate Armed Services Committee did not authorize any funding for tanker recapitalization for fiscal year 2005. The Chief of Staff of the Air Force, General John P. Jumper, USAF, did not request advance procurement for tanker replacement in his ``Fiscal Year 2005 Unfunded Priority List,'' totaling nearly $4 billion, which he submitted to Congress in March 2005. The reason is simple--tanker replacement money is not needed now. However, the appetite for this scandal-riddled program is too great, despite the unethical acts of serious misconduct by Air Force officials and the firing of several senior Boeing officers, including the very top of the corporation. It is hard to comprehend why the appropriators continue to put tanker recapitalization ahead of greater priorities for our servicemen and women.

Having said this, I congratulate the appropriators for considering the recent Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Aerial Refueling Requirements. Critically, the Defense Science Board task force found there is no compelling material or financial reason to initiate a replacement program prior to the completion of the Analysis of Alternatives, AoA, and the Mobility Capabilities Study, MCS.' Moreover the task force observed that the Air Force greatly overstated both the amount of corrosion throughout the KC-135 fleet and the KC- 135's operation and support cost growth. It also found that the KC-135E can fly to 2040. In other words, the `dominating rationale' cited by the Air Force to Congress for having taxpayers pay billions of dollars more for leasing Boeing's KC-767A tankers than they would for buying them outright, has been conclusively shown to be without merit. The Air Force's representations on this issue remains a matter of continuing investigative concern. The likelihood that the analysis of alternatives, AOA, and mobility capabilities study, MCS, if done properly, will recommend an acquisition method for these tankers now known to be wholly unsuitable here, is probably minimal. So the Secretary's decision appears fatal to at least the lease component of the proposal.

I look forward to seeing the language in the fiscal year 2005 Defense appropriations act reconciled with the fiscal year 2005 National Defense Authorization Act, which remains in conference. The language in the Senate version of the Defense authorization bill is valuable in that for the first time, it will inject much needed sunlight on a program whose development has been largely insulated from public scrutiny. The tanker provision in the authorization bill ensures that any effort by the Air Force to replace its fleet of tankers is done responsibly, as is the case with most defense programs, however, that has not been the case so far. We should expect no less from the Air Force.

Let me briefly highlight just some of the egregious examples of pork contained either in the conference report or the statement of managers for FY 2005:

$3.5 million sleep deprivation research. Last night, my

staff was here late into the night, conducting tests in sleep

deprivation, as they compiled the seventy-plus pages of pork

found in the joint explanatory statement. The results: they

are tired.

$3.4 million for USMC Hitchhiker. Back in my day, you could

give a Marine a ride for free.

$1 million for the Deep Digger.

$1 million for repair to the Biathlon Trail at Fort

Richardson, Alaska.

$ million to restore the Woody Island and its historic

structures.

$110 million for the Advanced Procurement of F-15s. The air

Force has decided to procure the F-22 to replace the F-15.

Yet this earmark keeps the F-15 production line open, so I

question the necessity of the F-22 procurement in the numbers

of aircraft and at the funding levels requested by the Air

Force. Apparently we just decided to pay for both.

$1.9 million, for the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial

celebration. You don't need to have the exploration skills of

Lewis and Clark to see that this is a path to higher

deficits.

$1 million for the Center for Optical Logic Devices. I am

the first one who would pay for logic if we could insert some

into our political process, but this earmark won't do it.

$7.7 million for the Chameleon Miniaturized Wireless

System. Chameleons change colors; but one thing does not

change is the unrequested provisions in appropriations bills.

$2 million for the Air Battle Captain program at the

University of North Dakota. This provision sends students

from West Point to North Dakota for their flight

lessons. Instead of letting flight schools compete for the

ability to train these cadets, we have earmarked their

training to North Dakota. We are putting parochial

interests over the necessity to provide the best training

possible for the best price to our Army cadets.

$4.2 million for the LISA inspector. This sounds very

interesting.

$3.4 million dollars for Project Albert. Hey Hey Hey! Seems

like Albert could get pretty fat off all the pork in this

bill.

$2.8 million for the C-135 Improved Waste Removal System.

We need to improve the way we remove waste from this bill.

Maybe combined with the Deep Digger, we can find a way.

I use humor in describing some of these earmarks, but the damage they do is deadly serious. They pull money away from legitimate funding priorities and they waste taxpayer dollars. Each year, many of the same earmarks appear in appropriations legislation, and each year I come to the floor and point them out to my colleagues. Some of the appropriators' perennial favorite projects include:

$4.3 million for the Smart Truck. This provision, which

directly lines the pockets of the auto industry in Detroit,

is not exactly smart.

$7.5 million for the 21st Century Truck. This program has

been around for years and not once has the Department of

Defense requested funding for it. While I'm sure we all would

love to jump into a truck that could be in a James Bond

movie, I'm not sure it is appropriate for the Department of

Defense to pay for it.

$5.6 million for the New England Manufacturing Supply

Chain. This is above and beyond the $14 million for this

project already earmarked over the last two years.

$33.9 million for the Maui Space Surveillance System. Why

should we provide $44 million for this system, when there are

many observatories in the United States, such as the Lowell

Observatory in Arizona, that already offers many of the same

benefits as the Maui site?

$1 million for the Brown Tree Snakes. Once again, the brown

tree snake has slithered its way into our defense

appropriation bill. I'm sure the snakes are a serious

problem, but a defense appropriations act is not the

appropriate vehicle to address this issue.

There are many earmarks that funnel dollars to worthy programs--such as breast cancer research, but there is no compelling national defense reason for these items to be on this piece of legislation. This type of critical research should be funded through the Labor/HHS appropriations bill. Our soldiers and sailors need to be provided with the best equipment, housing, and support possible. Scarce defense dollars should be used for these defense purposes, not others.

Once again, the appropriations earmarks in this defense conference report are funneled primarily in to the home States of those Members who sit on the Appropriations Committee. If you look at the plus-ups in the Counter-Drug Activities the earmarking becomes clear. Plus-ups are included for the following States: Florida, Indiana, Tennessee, Alaska, Hawaii, West Virginia,

Kentucky, Nevada, New Mexico. All of these states, I repeat, all of these States have Members on the Appropriations Committee in either the House or Senate. I find it hard to believe that only States represented by appropriators have drug problems.

I could go on and on listing examples of pork in this legislation. We would fulfill our objectives better if we reassessed our spending priorities.

This year's conference report also includes a number of ``Buy America'' provisions. For example, it prevents the foreign purchase of welded shipboard anchor and mooring chain four inches in diameter and under. Another provision ensures, that all carbon, alloy or steel plates are produced in the United States. Whew. I know we will sleep better at night knowing that all of our carbon plates are manufactured in the U.S. Yet another section prohibits the Department of Defense from purchasing supercomputers from a foreign source.

I continue to be very concerned about the potential impact on readiness of our restrictive trade policies with our allies. Every year, Buy America restrictions cost the Department of Defense and the American taxpayers over $5.5 billion. From a philosophical point of view, I oppose these types of protectionist policies, and from an economic point of view they are ludicrous. Free trade is both an important element in improving relations among nations and essential to economic growth. From a practical standpoint, Buy America restrictions could seriously impair our ability to compete freely in international markets and also could result in the loss of existing business from long-standing trade partners. Not to mention that procurement policy determined in the Defense authorization bill, not in the appropriations bill.

I also want to comment briefly about a provision contained in this Defense appropriations conference report that is entirely unrelated to funding our national defense needs.

A so-called ``technical amendment'' was added to the Senate measure at the surprise of a number of us who have been on record for opposing such a provision when efforts were made to add it to other legislative measures. Despite the fact that a member of my staff was on the floor during the debate on the Defense appropriations bill and we had been assured the opportunity to review all amendments prior to their adoption, one amendment was suddenly accepted without the review or concurrence of myself or my staff. That amendment rewrites the Fiscal Year 2004 Omnibus Appropriations bill to allow for 23--States plus the District of Columbia, to receive over $300 million in additional funding for highway project earmarks. Of course, this project funding is on top of the funding they already receive under what many of us consider to be an unfair formula whereby the gas taxes of donor states are transferred to pay for the roads in donee states.

With the adoption of this new provision that has been retained in the pending conference report, 23 States plus the District of Columbia, the majority of which are already donee States and receiving more funding than they contribute, will now receive even more money to pay for earmarked projects included in the Omnibus. Again, this funding is in addition to the funding distributed by formula. While the appropriators are taking action to ensure their earmarks are funded outside the formula, 27 States, the majority of which are donor States and already subsidizing other States' highways, will get no benefit, thereby exasperating highway funding inequity.

While it doesn't surprise me that the appropriators found a vehicle for their provision; it does surprise me that they would act in such an orchestrated manner when they knew fully their efforts faced opposition if done so in what most of us consider to be regular order, whereby objectionable amendments are not added just because they are supported by the bill managers. One of the many Senatorial courtesies we all hold dear is that we usually can take Members at their word and that their rights will not be ignored simply for political expediency. Sadly, that was not the case with the adoption of this provision.

The ongoing conference on the highway reauthorization bill is on life-support. If the House, Senate, and administration can reach an agreement on an overall funding level, I will certainly do all that I can as a conferee to ensure that earmarks are counted towards each State's formula distribution. It is only fair that we ensure that once a formula is determined; a formula that I am confident will still include donors and donees, that earmarks are not permitted to further shortchange donor States' highway funding.

I also want to point out that buried at the end of the bill text is a legislative rider that changes our immigration laws. This provision carves out workers in the fish roe processing industry from numerical limitations under the H-2B visa program. While I will be the first to testify to the need to reform our immigration system, and have done so repeatedly, we should not begin to do it on the Defense Appropriations bill by giving a benefit to one small segment of the fishing industry.

This is not the way to legislate. There are severe problems with our H-2B visas. We reached the numerical cap on visas early this year and dependent industries are now struggling to hire the labor they need to operate. The H-2B is just one example of our flawed immigration system; yet carving out a fix for parochial interests; without addressing the overall problem is shortsighted. While owners of fish roe processing facilities benefit from the help powerful members of the Appropriations Committee, every other industry- facing a labor shortage because of this cap will continue to suffer.

I wish it were not necessary for me to come to the Senate floor with every appropriations bill to criticize the amount of unrequested spending in the legislation. I do so because I believe it is critical for American taxpayers to understand where the money from their pockets is really going. I urge my colleagues to stop ``porking up'' our appropriations bills. In a time of huge spending deficits and scarce dollars, it is long past time to stop feeding at the rough. We can do better.

Mr. President, I rise today as the chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and I am pleased to announce today the successful completion of the conference report for