Floor Statements

Madam President, reserving the right to object, would that preclude me from offering the request for the yeas and nays on the Gregg amendment?

I object.

Madam President, I withdraw my--reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I will just tell the managers of the bill that I intend to ask for the yeas and nays on the Gregg amendment when we return to the bill tomorrow.

Madam President, I join my friend from Wisconsin on the floor to discuss the entire issue of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act and also at a time when the Federal Election Commission is about to make some decisions regarding implementation of this legislation.

I think it is very important that as the Federal Election Commission is considering making these rules, that it be made very clear what the intent of the authors of the legislation was. Because as I will go into in my statement, it was the Federal Election Commission that created the loopholes that caused the explosion of soft money in American politics. It was not court decisions.

It is not accidental that the Senator from Wisconsin and I have proposed legislation to fundamentally restructure the Federal Election Commission. In the meantime, the Federal Election Commission must understand and read the U.S. Supreme Court decision--I quote from the Court's ruling--stating:

The main goal of [the national party soft money ban] is

modest. In large part, it simply effects a return to the

scheme that was approved in Buckley and that was subverted--

Madam President, the words the U.S. Supreme Court used:

subverted by the federal electioneering efforts with a

combination of hard and soft money. . . . Under that

allocation regime--

That was a decision by the Federal Election Commission--

national parties were able to use vast amounts of soft money

in their efforts to elect federal candidates.

Now, I hope the Federal Election Commission gets our message. We do not, and will not, stand for the creation of new loopholes to violate this law.

Senator Feingold and I began, in 1995, with our first effort to reform this system. It took us 8 years until the final decision by the U.S. Supreme Court upholding the constitutionality, in a historically ironic decision entitled McConnell v. FEC. I hope the irony of those words is not lost on my colleagues. We will not stand for the Federal Election Commission--which they already have--subverting this law. We will not stand for it. We will use every method available to us to be sure that the law is enforced as it is written and intended and declared constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.

It is time for the Federal Election Commission, rather than being an enabler to those who want to subvert the laws, to be a true enforcer of the law, a role which they will find strange and intriguing and certainly unusual for that Commission.

I might add, too, we still have two members of the Federal Election Commission who declared their firm conviction that this law was unconstitutional. If they still hold that belief, as at least one of them has stated recently, they should recuse themselves from further involvement in a law they believe is unconstitutional. In fact, resignation would probably be in order so someone who believes in the constitutionality of this law, as affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court, would be empowered to enforce it.

In 1995, my dear friend Senator Feingold and I first introduced legislation designed to limit the influence of special interests on Federal campaigns. We began our fight because it had become clear to us that our campaign finance system was broken and this breakdown was having a detrimental effect on our democracy. Seven years, four Congresses, several rewrites, countless hours of debate, amendments, and much hard work by dedicated grassroots activists later, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act became law on March 27, 2002.

I know my friend from Wisconsin agrees with me. We could not have done it without the thousands of Americans who made our cause their cause. We could never have achieved this goal. They will have our undying gratitude.

Last month, following an illegal challenge, the Supreme Court ended the 7-year-long battle when it upheld the act, or BCRA, in the case of McConnell v. FEC. For me it was one of the Court's most needed and welcomed opinions. In light of this landmark victory, I want to congratulate those who worked so hard to secure it and to talk about the work that remains to be done to strengthen our democracy and to empower all Americans through civic participation.

We can already see some benefits from these years of hard work. No longer can a Member of Congress call the CEO of a corporation or the head of a labor union or a trial lawyer and ask them for a huge soft money donation in exchange for access to high-level Government officials. That cannot happen today. Just last week, Roll Call reported that for the first time in many years, the two parties did not hold any high-donor fundraisers at the Super Bowl. The article stated:

With soft money banned, the parties have come to the

conclusion that the yield at a Super Bowl fundraiser doesn't

justify the expense.

However, let me be clear, this in no way means reform is complete. Our work and the work of thousands of Americans engaged at the grassroots level, the efforts of numerous reform groups, is far from over. While the basis for BCRA, that large, unregulated political contributions cause both the appearance and reality of corruption by elected officials, is self-evident, mustering the evidence needed to prove this to the Court was an extraordinary feat. The mountain of evidence that was compiled, however, provided a solid foundation for the Supreme Court's decision to close loopholes through which were flowing hundreds of millions of dollars in soft money.

The evidence collected included sworn statements from elected officials acknowledging they had been forced to raise large contributions for the political parties, internal memos from political party leaders to elected officials reminding them who gave big contributions prior to key votes, and testimony from business leaders who were provided a ``menu of access'' by party officials showing how $50,000 gets you a meeting with an elected official, $100,000 gets you a 15-minute meeting with another elected official.

The strength of the evidence on the extent of corruption and the appearance of corruption as well as the creativity with which the campaign finance laws were being evaded led the Supreme Court to uphold BCRA, which sought to close the loopholes that had been opened in the Federal Election Campaign Act.

Significantly, the evidence also led the Supreme Court to find that Congress needed and possessed broad authority to enact laws to reduce the corrupting influence of unregulated money in politics. The Court also made a powerful statement about the so-called regulators of the corrupting soft money system, the Federal Election Commission. According to the Court, the soft money system was the result of a series of loopholes opened by the FEC and exploited by the party committees. I also quoted what Justices Stevens and O'Connor wrote.

While the Supreme Court in the McConnell case recognized the role the FEC had played over the years in eroding the campaign finance laws, it was not asked to consider the rules the commission adopted just last year to implement BCRA--rules that, true to the FEC's history, undermined the integrity of campaign finance law. The

Court, however, may soon be asked to do this. Shortly after the FEC took a big bite out of BCRA through its rulemaking process, Representatives Shays and Meehan filed a lawsuit challenging the regulations. This action is on a fast track in Federal District Court.

Since its inception, BCRA has been reviled by the political party establishments that decried the eminent demise of our two-party system. Yet in the midst of a hotly contested Presidential campaign, evidence suggests the opposite is true. Under BCRA, both the Democratic and Republican national parties are reporting a resurgence of grassroots support and significant increases in new hard money donors. In fact, recent figures show there have been 600,000 new hard money donors to the Democratic Party and 1 million new Republican hard money donors. That is what we intended.

The Court was right to uphold the new reform law. Implemented correctly, it will go a long way to restoring people's faith in our democratic system. That said, reform is not a one-time fight. We must continue the work to strengthen our democracy and reconnect the people to the political process. The adoption and Court sanction of BCRA enables Congress to push forward with important reforms that help improve our system of Government and reduce barriers to political participation.

It is critical that we ensure BCRA is not negated by widespread circumvention of the new law by the FEC and by outside political committees. While we are challenging FEC's implementing regulations, we must also act to restructure the commission so it will not only implement campaign finance laws effectively but actively enforce them.

The American political system needs an agency that will give effect to our campaign laws fairly and free from the partisan influence that currently dominates the commission structure. Without this key reform, no campaign finance reform law can work well.

We must fix the ailing Presidential public funding system. For many years, the system gave Americans a viable opportunity to run for our highest office and increased competition in our Presidential elections, but the system is now outdated and bankrupt. Senator Feingold and I have introduced a proposal to fix it, and we are committed to educating the public about the importance of doing this and to building the coalition needed to make it happen.

Ongoing reform efforts are needed not only at the Federal level but also at the State level. Working at the State level, we can help to restore faith in the political process by improving contribution disclosure laws, promoting clean election programs, and encouraging an independent and noncorrupt campaign finance system.

To break down the barriers to political participation, we must improve ballot access, promote open primaries, and fix the redistricting process.

This is not a partisan issue. It should not advantage one party over the other. What reform does is create transparency, equality, and participation, and inspire confidence in those we represent. The strength and real muscle in this fight lies with the American people. During the long battle in the Senate to pass campaign finance reform, we called on the American public to make their voices heard on Capitol Hill. They answered, and the impact was astounding. The phone calls, e- mails, and letters that flooded into Members' offices had a tremendous impact. Constituent communications translated into votes for reform.

Reform is an ongoing process. It didn't end with Teddy Roosevelt in 1907, and it will not end with John McCain and Russ Feingold in the Senate. I am very much a realist. From the beginning of this fight, I have said that as soon as the soft money loopholes addressed in BCRA were closed, there would be very smart people all over Washington trying to find ways around the law. I am sad to report these folks wasted no time in attempting to circumvent it again.

The recent creation of certain new organizations under section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code is the first broad-scale attempt to undermine

Madam President, I particularly thank Mr. Ted Olson, the Solicitor General, who entered into this situation as one who did not agree with campaign finance reform and became a strong advocate. He made compelling arguments to the U.S. Supreme Court. I also thank Seth Waxman and his team of lawyers, who did a marvelous job. There are so many people and so many organizations that continue to work on our behalf.

Finally, I wish to make two closing points. One, the Federal Election Commission cannot be allowed to undermine this law. The U.S. Supreme Court is very clear about the role of the Federal Election Commission. So we cannot let these 8 years of hard work--not because of Senator Feingold and me but because of the thousands and thousands of Americans who worked so hard to clean up this system that has either corruption or the appearance of corruption associated with it.

Finally, one of the great pleasures of my life in public service is to have the opportunity to know and appreciate and have the undying and everlasting friendship of my dear friend from Wisconsin, who is one of the most honest and decent Americans with whom I have ever had the privilege of knowing and serving. I would be honored to serve with him under any circumstance.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Has the Senator seen the size of this bill?

Has the Senator seen the first bill that we passed in 1956? This is the bill that was passed in 1956. This is the bill in 2004. How far we have come.

How far and disgraceful a path we have tread with this porkbarrel- laden piece of overspending at a time when we have all-time deficits.

I urge my colleagues--in fact, I urge the managers of the bill--to look at what they did in 1956 to fund the highways in the United States and what they are trying to do now which is wasteful and disgraceful. I wonder if my colleague would have a look at that.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Kennedy in introducing a resolution designating January 2004 as ``National Mentoring Month.''

We all agree that young people need a supportive environment based on structured and trusting relationships with adults. Mentors play a significant role in many young peoples' lives by sharing their experiences and providing the support and encouragement that children need in order to grow into responsible, caring adults. Mentors often are the key to helping a young person achieve the type of future they might never have thought possible.

A growing body of research has shown the tremendous benefits of mentoring. Children with mentors are shown to improve in school performance and attendance; they are more self-confident; they have good social skills; and above all else, they're motivated to reach their full potential. Mentoring works. Unfortunately, a severe shortage of volunteers has left over 15 million young people without mentors.

National Mentoring Month highlights the needs and goals of mentoring in this country. This month, non-profit organizations, schools, businesses, faith communities, and government agencies will join together to encourage adults to serve as mentors for our young people. Programs must be expanded to recruit more volunteers to help fill the mentoring gap. Mentoring has successfully helped many children in this country and we must work together to expand such valuable programs.

Mr. President, before I address the legislation at hand, I will make a brief response to the distinguished Democrat leader's statement concerning our efforts in Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. I think the Senator from South Dakota has a legitimate point in that there needs to be a thorough evaluation of the intelligence and what happened that led us to believe that perhaps some of that information was incorrect. I point out, again, that I am very pleased to note that the overwhelming majority of the American people still believe we did the right thing in Iraq. There is very little doubt in anyone's mind, including the previous administration's statements, that Saddam Hussein had acquired weapons of mass destruction, used weapons of mass destruction, and there is no doubt in this Senator's mind that if he were still in power he would be attempting to acquire weapons of mass destruction.

Certainly we need to find out all the elements that went into the estimates concerning weapons of mass destruction, but at the same time there is a clear record in statements made by the previous President, as well as this President, concerning Saddam Hussein's intentions.

Mr. President, a series of high profile events, including the Iowa caucuses, the State of the Union Address, the passage of a massive Omnibus appropriations bill, and today's primary in New Hampshire have overshadowed our consideration of this measure, and that is regrettable.

The pension bill that is almost sure to pass this Chamber is folly. The amendment offered by Senators Grassley, Baucus, Gregg, and Kennedy, while addressing the short-term interests of a handful of special interests, could further exacerbate a severe pension underfunding problem. I might say this measure is recognized as such by the administration.

As an editorial in yesterday's Washington Post noted:

Not for the first time, Congress has muscled up to an

important problem, taken a good look at it and resolved to

make it worse.

I ask unanimous consent that the editorial of Monday, January 26, entitled ``Pension Perniciousness'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the editorial goes on to say:

There is, as Congress is demonstrating, no political

constituency for fixing this problem. Weak companies with

underfunded pensions lobby lawmakers for permission to

continue their imprudence; labor leaders from those same

firms lobby lawmakers in the same direction; nobody is on the

other side. In the deal currently being cooked up, a group of

hard-pressed companies led by the steel industry and the

airlines will be given a special break for two years; if any

of these firms goes bust in the meantime, the public will end

up shouldering the deficits, which is why the congressional

measure amounts to a taxpayer loan.

Yet taxpayer support for people in defined-benefit pension

plans is a perverse notion. Fully one in two private-sector

workers has no company pension plan whatever. Why should the

less fortunate bail out the lucky ones?

Once again, Congress is poised to give another handout to certain airline, steel, and labor interests, regardless of the costs this could impose on the employees and retirees of these businesses and ultimately on American taxpayers. By allowing these entities to dig their already underfunded plans further into debt, we are creating a very real risk of defaults. When this occurs, the Federal agency that ensures private sector fixed benefit plans, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, or PBGC, will be the first to try to cover this liability. The PBGC itself is hugely in deficit and ultimately the American taxpayer is on the hook.

I join the PBGC in opposing this proposal that relieves severely underfunded pension funds of the obligation to make deficit reduction contributions, or DRCs, to catch up on their deficits. As the PBGC's director has said:

Giving a special break to weak companies with the worst-

funded plans is a dangerous gamble.

In a letter to the majority leader last week, the directors of the PBGC, Cabinet Secretaries Chao, Snow, and Evans, wrote:

It would be irresponsible to amend the interest rate bill

with any additional provisions that would significantly

further exacerbate systemic plan underfunding. If H.R. 3108

were amended to do so, we as the PBGC board would recommend

that the President veto the legislation.

The Grassley, Baucus, Gregg, and Kennedy amendment does just that. In addition to being fiscally irresponsible, the amendment is grossly unfair, once again lavishing Federal largesse on selected industries and companies.

Explaining why the pension system is already in jeopardy, the PBGC directors wrote:

The PBGC reported a record single-employer program deficit

of $11.2 billion through the end of 2003, three times larger

than any previously recorded deficit. Last year, the General

Accounting Office added the PBGC's single-employer pension

program to its ``high risk'' Federal program list. In

addition, the PBGC remains exposed to $85 billion in pension

underfunding in single-employer plans sponsored by

financially weak employers. The PBGC also reported the first-

multiemployer deficit in two decades.

As the Secretaries explained in another letter sent last November:

The DRC rules were put into place to guard against the

continuing deterioration of funding levels in underfunded

plans. These rules were designed to protect participants'

accrued benefits and the financial integrity of the

pension insurance system. Suspension of the DRC rules

would mean a significant further reduction in the

resources available to meet the promises made to existing

and future retirees. Moreover, suspending DRC rules would

jeopardize pension funding in the future, as companies

begin to fund their plans less prudently in anticipation

of extraordinary relief from their contributions when the

plans become underfunded.

Despite these warnings and a $400 billion gap between what companies have contributed to their pension funds and what they owe under their plans, why is the Senate ready to give companies whose pensions are severely underfunded a pass on their obligations to ensure their employees' retirement pay? Because, we are told, economic forces beyond anyone's control have come together to create a ``perfect storm.''

The extraordinary coincidence of low interest rates and a poorly performing stock market, proponents claim, has led to big losses and created a unique hardship for these companies' pension funds.

A look at historical contributions suggests, however, that the anomalous ``perfect economic weather'' of the last decade is as likely an explanation for the current sorry shape of pension plans as the ``perfect economic storm.'' In the 1990s, record stock market returns allowed companies radically to reduce or simply not budget for pension contributions. Whereas single-employer pension contributions totaled $63 billion between 1980 and 1984, between 1990 and 1995 single- employer pension contributions amounted to only $26 billion.

Clearly, today's economic climate is not what it was in the late 1990s, and I do not question that many companies now face significant liabilities to their pension funds. I am not proposing that nothing be done, and the base bill, H.R. 3108, provides enormous relief to all pension funds by adjusting the way in which contributions and assets are calculated so as to reduce companies' obligations to their pension funds by $80 billion.

The Grassley, Baucus, Gregg, and Kennedy amendment, however, would give another huge break to a very select group of entities. Why, when companies' pension liabilities are so high, should we let a favored few walk away from their responsibilities to their employees and retirees? Why should the Senate permit these select entities to use money that should go to reduce their pension deficits for other purposes, and invite them to dig themselves deeper in the hole, especially when it is likely that the American taxpayers, many of whom have no pension plans, are going to have to bail them out?

We can talk about economic ``perfect storms,'' interest rates, and bull and bear markets, but I hope that people understand that we are really talking about the ability of retirees to pay their heating bills, buy needed medicine and groceries, and visit their grandchildren. Even if, as I suspect the managers and union officials who support the amendment cynically calculate, the PBGC will assume pension liabilities if plan sponsors default, the benefits that participants will get from PBGC will likely be far less than what they were counting on receiving.

There is no doubt that current pensions laws are in desperate need of reform, but I don't support DRC relief in a vacuum.

The amendment contains yet another bailout of certain airlines, steel producers, and one apparently very special labor union. DRC relief is granted to these entities with no restrictions. Any other entity that wants to receive DRC relief has to show that it is able to meet its future contributions in a timely manner. Let me repeat that. Any other entity that wants DRC relief must show that it can make its future contributions. Certain passenger airlines, steel producers, and one union, however, get a DRC break, regardless.

Let us talk about the airline industry. I was one of the first people to support giving financial assistance to this industry in the aftermath of September 11. At the onset of the Iraq War, I supported, with some reservations, additional temporary relief to the industry. But here we are again facing another cry for help and an outstretched hand. Let us review the assistance to the airlines over the past few years.

After September 11, Congress provided to the airlines $5 billion in direct payments to compensate for losses stemming from the September 11 attacks; $10 billion in loan guarantees; Federal terrorism insurance; $68 million in reimbursements for increased insurance costs; and, liability protection against claims arising in connection with the September 11 attack.

Later in 2001, Congress provided that the Federal Government assume responsibility for security from the airlines.

In the legislation that established the Department of Homeland Security, Congress extended the terrorism insurance.

In the Iraq Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, Congress provided $2.3 billion directly to the airlines in the proportional share each carrier has paid the TSA or collected in passenger security and air carrier security fees, and suspended security fees from June 1 through September 30, 2003. This has been estimated to provide a savings of $700 million to airlines.

Congress has appropriated almost $200 million to reimburse airlines for hardened cockpit door installation.

In the FAA reauthorization bill that was just signed into law Congress once again extended terrorism insurance--through March 30, 2008.

I don't begrudge the airlines the assistance Congress has provided to date, and I understand that the industries' health is inextricably bound to the well-being of our economy. That said, I won't continue to support special aid to airlines without some accountability. We can't seem to go more than 6 months without the airline industry asking Congress for another handout. I have not doubt that they will be up here again soon asking for tax relief, relief from security fee obligations, or some other form of aid.

I urge my colleagues to stand up for workers and taxpayers, and against a bailout. Disregarding the interests of their employees and members, management and labor have joined in urging Congress to support the amendment by Senators Grassley, Baucus, Gregg, and Kennedy, that is premised on the hope that companies' currently inadequate pension assets will recover, not through contributions, but through rising interest rates and a robust stock market. I know the Super Bowl is coming up, but this ``Hail Mary'' pass is not the right move. Let us spend a little time crafting a true pension reform bill rather than simply rushing through a bill that will benefit a handful of coddled industries at the risk of workers and taxpayers throughout this country.

If, as I am afraid will happen, however, the amendment providing select DRC relief is adopted, and this folly is enacted into law, I would expect that companies and unions that avail themselves of this relief will freeze the compensation of their highest paid officials at the same time. If companies and unions determine that they cannot or will not make contributions to their severely underfunded pension plans and honor their obligations to their rank and file, they should not then turn around and increase the princely sums being paid to their top executives. We will be watching.

To reiterate, the airlines were major recipients of this pending amendment, the Grassley-Baucus-Gregg-Kennedy amendment. After September 11, Congress already provided the airlines $5 billion in direct payments to compensate for losses stemming from September 11, $10 billion in loan guarantees, Federal terrorism insurance, $68 million in reimbursement for increased insurance costs, and liability protection against claims arising in connection with September 11. Later, Congress provided that the Federal Government assume responsibility for security for the airlines. The list goes on and on about what we have already done for the airlines and now another bailout for the airlines. I really strongly object to the selectivity of this amendment and I don't know how you rationalize it.

I thank my colleagues.

I thank my colleague from Iowa and welcome him back from a very interesting time.

Mr. President, here we go again, another Omnibus appropriations bill, and this one takes the cake. Obviously, the New Years Eve parties didn't end for Congress on January 1. We are on a spending bender and this bill is ample proof of it. I think we have a new phrase in the lexicon of description of the way the Congress does business: Another drunken sailor spending spree embarked on by the Congress of the United States to the detriment of our children and our children's children.

I haven't been around here as long as many others, but I have never seen, nor do I believe history will record, such a rapid transition from a period of surpluses as far as the eye could see, to now commitment on the part of the administration to cut the deficit in half at some time in the future. Multitrillion-dollar surpluses to multitrillion-dollar deficits, and you would think we were still in a period of surpluses. If you look at this legislation, it is a living, breathing argument that this system is broken, the way we do business. Spending is out of control and we are mortgaging the future of our children and our grandchildren, and there is no way that Medicare and Social Security can be viable when we are amassing these kinds of outrageous processes. I say shame on this body, shame on the appropriators, and shame on us because, on Thursday, we will, after a vote of dissatisfaction, now pass this outrageous spending bill.

Americans have heard much about the growing problem of identity theft. We have before us the most costly case of identity theft imaginable. It appears that the big spenders in this body have all but stolen the credit card numbers of every hard-working taxpayer in America and have gone on a limitless spending spree for parochial porkbarrel projects, leaving Americans to pay and pay.

As I will point out later in my statement on such programs as NASA, some of these cuts are dangerous.

Cuts in the International Space Station in the name of porkbarrel spending is endangering the very lives of our astronauts. Policy changes that have to do with fundamental changes in media ownership, in fishing, and in other areas that have been inserted in this bill are absolutely outrageously in violation of Senate rules, I might add.

Please join me as we walk through this shopping mall. On the right, we have $1.8 million for exotic pet disease research in California. On your left, you will find $50 million for an indoor rain forest in Iowa--$50 million for an indoor rain forest in Iowa? Give me a break. On your left, in front of us, you see $250,000 to build an amphitheater park in Illinois.

It is time we put an end to this theft. I am sorry we have to call it theft but that is how I see the situation.

The sum of these political indulgences is enormous and growing and amounts to the theft of our future and the theft of our economic recovery.

Nearly 1 year ago I stood here and spoke about the 2003 Omnibus appropriations bill. At that time, I said our current economic situation and our vital national security concerns illustrate that we need now more than ever

to prioritize our Federal spending. Obviously, it had no effect.

Let me remind my colleagues that we are nearly 4 months into fiscal year 2004 and still without 7 of the 13 annual appropriations bills. This has become an unacceptable practice. Less than a year after passing one monstrosity, we are poised to do it again as if it should now be our standard operating procedure. But far worse than the breadth and timing, we have before us a bill loaded with special interest porkbarrel projects and legislative riders that have no business in this or any other spending bill.

It is no accident that we are dealing with this bill in an election year. In fact, I strongly suggest we change the name of this bill to ``The Incumbent Protection Act of 2004.'' Forget about the Patriots versus the Panthers in the Super Bowl next weekend. We are right in the middle of the Super Bowl of pork. C-SPAN viewers have seats at the 50- yard line. It is Congress versus the American taxpayer, and sadly we already know the outcome of this game. The taxpayer will be the loser.

We have before us today a bill that incorporates 7 of the 13 annual spending measures totalling a whopping $820 billion chocked full of porkbarrel spending and major policy changes.

The Kansas City Star recently reported, ``Enough pork is layered into the spending bill that even the Missouri Pork Producers Association is in line for $1 million.''

There is over $11 billion unrequested, unauthorized, run-of-the-mill pork projects inserted in the 1,182 pages of this conference report.

Let us talk about some of the interesting provisions: $200,000 for the West Oahu campus of the University of Hawaii to produce the ``Primal Quest'' film documentary.

I am sure my colleagues will again be surprised at the number of projects that go to the States of the senior members of the Appropriations Committee, Alaska, West Virginia, Mississippi, and Hawaii: $225,000 to the Wheels Museum in New Mexico--a wheels museum in New Mexico; $7.3 million for Hawaiian sea turtles; $6 million for sea lions in Alaska; $450,000 for the Johnny Appleseed Heritage Center in Ohio; $100,000 to the State Historical Society of Iowa in Des Moines for the development of the World Food Prize; $200,000 to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum in Cleveland, OH, for the Rockin' the Schools education program.

As a fan of rock and roll, I can certainly see why that Rockin' the Schools education program would be worthy of $200,000; $1 million for the continued threat of the Mormon cricket infestation in the great State of Utah.

Here are interesting ones: $450,000 for an Alaska statehood celebration and $225,000 for an Hawaii statehood celebration. If I were the Senator from Hawaii, I would certainly be angered that I have been shorted $225,000 to celebrate my statehood. Hawaii became a State in the same year. You would think they would want to equalize that. I am sure they will fix it in a later appropriations bill knowing the way, in the case of Alaska and Hawaii, that one hand washes the other; $175,000 to a city in Missouri for the painting of a mural on a flood wall. That must be one heck of a mural; $90,000 for fruit fly research in Montpellier, France.

Given the closeness of our relationship with the French, I can certainly understand why we would want to send $90,000 over there to help get rid of that fruit fly in Montpellier.

But back to home, $225,000 to Traverse City, MI, for the restoration of an opera house. Opera lovers rejoice; $250,000 for the Alaska Aviation Heritage Museum. Alaska is known for a lot of things, but being the hotbed or the birthplace of aviation is not one that I knew of, although over the years I have grown to be more and more aware of the critical needs of Alaska for Federal funds for every conceivable purpose; $200,000 to the town of Guadalupe, AR, for the construction and renovation of a shopping center. I will have to go out there and see it. It is not too far from my home; $325,000 to the city of Salinas, CA, for the construction of a swimming pool.

Some of my colleagues may have read about this kind of interesting thing. It appears that a Member of the other body had some pangs of conscience because he dropped a frog into the swimming pool, or something like that. But whatever, the city of Salinas will have a new swimming pool.

And $100,000 to the city of Macon, GA, for the renovation of the Coca-Cola building. I can certainly see why the Coca-Cola people couldn't arrange for that. They are an impoverished corporation, as we all know; $100,000 to the city of Atlanta for the renovation of Paschal's restaurant and motel. I am sure there is great historical significance associated with Paschal's restaurant and motel down there in the impoverished part of Atlanta; $900,000 to an economic development association in Idaho to continue the implementation of the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial commemoration plan; $175,000 to the city of Detroit for the design and construction of a zoo. The city of Detroit certainly wouldn't want to have to pick up any of that tab; $238,000 to the National Wild Turkey Federation. I wasn't sure whether this was the animal or the beverage. But either way, $238,000 to the Wild Turkey Federation will, I am sure, be wisely spent, and perhaps that would reduce the cost per bottle; $200,000 for the city of North Pole, AK, for recreational improvements.

I know it has been a bad Christmas season for some, but you would think the elves and others might not need $200,000 for North Pole, AK. But one never knows, does one? The condition of the elves and Mrs. Claus are generally updated only around Christmastime. But it has come a little late this year. I will have to ask my staff to find out the total population of North Pole, AK, although counting nonpersons, I am sure, would enlarge the census there. There is $100,000 for restoration of the Jefferson County Courthouse clock tower in Washington State. That was under the category of economic development. I imagine everyone knowing what time it is would probably encourage efficiency there.

There is $220,000 to the Blueberry Hill Farm in Maine. They are getting their thrill on Blueberry Hill. I almost did not use that one, it is so schmaltzy.

While many of these projects may sound comical, they illustrate a badly broken system in need of serious and comprehensive reform. The HUD portion of this bill contains an account that is perhaps the best evidence that this process is completely broken and out of control. The appropriators included $278 million in this bill for so-called ``economic development initiatives.'' Every single dime of that $278 million was served up as pork. There were 40 pages of report language. The appropriators dished out 902 earmarks for everything from theater renovations in Jenkintown, PA, to quarry updates in Nome, Alaska.

Excuse me, North Pole, Alaska. The population in 2000 was 1,570, so $200,000 is a tidy Christmas present.

Back to the 902 earmarks, from everything from theater preservation to quarry updates in Nome, Alaska. Again, somehow Alaska comes back and back and back and back throughout. I wonder how the people in Alaska feel about being put on welfare.

Sadly, the EDI account in the HUD appropriations bill has become nothing more than a slush fund for the appropriators, completely eliminating any competitive or merit-based determination by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. The only word that comes to mind to describe this practice is ``shameful.''

At the same time, I will comment about some language in the statement of managers language accompanying this conference report that offers a more appropriate approach. Many of the accounts throughout the Department of Justice portion of this bill contain language that allows Federal officials, Governors, and other State and local representatives some discretion in awarding the appropriated funds. While the statement of managers names specific entities in connection with the Department of Justice grant, it also states that funding should be awarded if they are warranted after a proper review. Unfortunately, that kind of language is missing throughout the rest of this legislation. I hope the agency officials charged with reviewing these proposals will employ a modicum of fiscal restraint in some projects mentioned, such as $2 million for the First Tee Program, which teaches

young people how to play golf. I know the Presiding Officer is an avid golf fan and has been to many parts of the world in order to enjoy the game of golf, but I don't think even he would think it is justified in this period of multitrillion dollar deficits to spend $2 million for the First Tee Program.

As inappropriate as the earmarks are, I am perhaps more dismayed at the inclusion of some major policy changes in the bill. Every member of this Chamber knows it is a violation of Senate rule XVI to legislate on an appropriations bill, the most often violated rule I know of in the Senate. Moreover, every Member knows it is a violation of rule XXVIII to add new provisions in conference that have not been included in either House or Senate bill sent to conference. Sadly, every Member knows this omnibus violates those rules. The inclusion of special interest legislative riders on a must-pass spending measure is not only a corruption of the proper process, it is irresponsible and an affront to good government.

I turn first of all to Section 629, the Commerce-State-Justice division of the omnibus. The provision would undo the Federal Communications Commissions June 2 decision to incrementally raise the national television broadcast station ownership from 35 percent to 45 percent. Instead, the provision would set the ownership cap at 39 percent. I strongly object to the inclusion of this provision for both procedural and substantive reasons. Procedurally, this is a blatant attempt by the appropriators to usurp the jurisdiction of the authorizers. I have not supported the use of the appropriations process to legislate policy and I will not do so today. Substantively, this provision is objectionable because while purporting to address public concerns about excessive media consolidation, it really only addresses the concerns of special interests. It is no coincidence, my friends, that the 39 percent is the exact ownership percentage of Viacom and CBS. Why did they pick 39 percent? So that these two major conglomerates would be grandfathered in, purportedly, in order to reduce the media ownership, which was voted 55-40 in the Senate. The fact is now they are endorsing Viacom and CBS's 39 percent ownership, grandfathering them in because they should have been at 35 percent. Remarkable.

I am not sure where the line should be drawn. We have spent hours and hours and hours in the Commerce Committee in hearings on this issue. I have never seen such an uprising of American public opinion on an issue that surprised me as much as this issue of media concentration. Hundreds of thousands of people contacted the FCC on this issue. A vote was forced in the Senate which rolled back--the first time in my memory--a decision of the Federal Communications Commission. I had very mixed emotions about it. But when I saw a clear channel radio go from 140 stations to 1,240 stations and there is a toxic spill in Minot, ND, and there is not a single person in any of those stations to warn the local people, I am worried about media concentration.

So what did the appropriators do? They pandered to a special interest, Viacom and CBS, and grandfathered them in. That is what this is all about. Do you think they addressed the major concern that most have, which is cross ownership? When Gannett owns the Arizona Republic and Channel 12, it is OK. What happens when Gannett owns Channel 12 and Channel 10 and Channel 5? That is what concerns people.

So the appropriators, in a blatant bow to Viacom and CBS, insert a 39 percent rule. I again give credit where it is due, the power of the National Association of Broadcasters, which is not included in the provision, as the ultimate proof of their influence. Why is it that other concerns that have been raised and were voted on in the Senate were not included in the appropriations bill? It is because the National Association of Broadcasters did not want it in.

As I mentioned, this is not the first attempt by Congress to undo the FCC's new media ownership rules. Last September, the Senate voted 55-40 in support of Senator Dorgan's congressional disapproval resolution which sought to declare all of the FCC's new media ownership rules ``null and void.'' The omnibus spending bill is not the appropriate legislative vehicle to undo the commission's broadcast ownership cap.

If the Congress wishes to take action on the issue of media ownership, it ought to do so in the committee of jurisdiction. The issue of media ownership is far broader than the limited scope of this provision. As William Safire wrote in an op-ed piece in the New York Times, itself a large owner of several media outlets: The effect of the media's march to amalgamation on America's freedom of voice [is a] far- reaching political decision [that] should be made by Congress and the White House, after extensive hearings and fair coverage by too-shy broadcasters, no-local-news cable networks, and conflicted newspapers.

I can spend a lot of time later on this year on this whole issue of what is happening with localism, with the station owner in Baltimore where the person goes on the set with an overcoat on and says, It is really cold here in Minnesota today. These are serious issues.

What did the appropriators do? They decided to do something for the National Association of Broadcasters. We had multiple hearings in examining media ownership and several committee members introduced S. 1046, the Preservation of Localism Program Diversity and Competition in Television Broadcast Service Act of 2002, and that is what we should be debating.

As the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, has said many times, we now have many voices and one ventriloquist.

Now, if we could have a little straight talk here today, while the NAB is unhappy with only part of the FCC's new rules, there is no valid public policy reason why both of the FCC rules should not be considered together. In fact, if only one rule could be addressed, as I said before, the broadcast/newspaper cross-ownership rule is the one that should be addressed.

In an October hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee, the entire panel of academics and analysts agreed that the FCC's new newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule would have a significantly greater impact on media ownership concentration than the new 45-percent national television broadcast ownership cap.

One of the panelists, Dr. Mark Cooper, provided the example of Tallahassee, FL, where the top TV station has a 70-percent market share and the daily newspaper has 60 percent penetration. If they merge, they would employ almost two-thirds of all local journalists in that community.

A September article in Business Week recognized this and stated:

The 45% cap has become a rallying symbol, but the

regulations that would truly reorder America's media

landscape and affect local communities have flown under the

radar. These would allow companies to snap up not only two or

three local TV stations in a market but also a newspaper and

up to eight radio stations. If the courts and Congress are

worried about the dangers of media consolidation, they'll

have to resist calling it a day after dispensing with the

network cap and go after the rules with real bite.

In opposition to the National Association of Broadcasters selective advocacy, all four television networks have quit their membership in NAB. In a resignation letter submitted last year, ABC/Disney wrote:

Almost two years ago, the other major broadcast networks

resigned from the NAB. The issue was the patently

hypocritical NAB position favoring deregulation of newspaper

cross-ownership and duopoly while simultaneously advocating

continued regulation of the national station cap. The NAB and

the public policy process in Washington should not be abused

to advance the business interests of one broadcaster over

another.

The ABC/Disney suggestion is exactly what is going on here. This provision is not about public policy; it is about advancing the interests of the National Association of Broadcasters.

To summarize, stand-alone legislation like S. 1046, that was reported out of the authorizing committee, is the correct vehicle to address these difficult and complex issues involving media ownership. Attaching a rider to selectively address concerns of special nonpublic interests is not the way to make good policy.

Let me state from the outset I take a back street to no one in my support of second amendment rights. I have supported nearly every law that protects the rights of law-abiding gun owners since first coming to Washington. But there is a special interest rider included in this Omnibus appropriations bill that is absolutely appalling. The House sponsor of this provision has argued that it benefits gun

owners, but the only gun owners it seems to help are those who have broken the law.

This rider has three major provisions, all of them unnecessary for gun owners, and none of them helpful for law enforcement.

First, it requires that background check approval records be destroyed within 24 hours instead of the current policy of 90 days. Proponents argue that keeping these records for 90 days constitutes a national firearms registry. I want to be very clear, I oppose Federal registration of firearms.

I also want to be equally clear that our current policy of keeping these records for 90 days does not constitute in any way, shape, or form a national registry. It is a phony issue.

The 90-days retention allows the NICS system to correct mistakes that occur when they accidentally approve someone who should have been denied a gun in the first place. This happens about 500 times a year, according to the General Accounting Office. Nearly all these false approvals are because of missing domestic violence records. So as far as I can tell, this provision benefits no one except those who should have been denied a firearm but were not.

The second provision prevents ATF from conducting an inventory audit of licensed gun stores. This means that ATF auditors will have no way of knowing if a gun store is missing firearms, a sure sign that they are selling guns illegally without the proper background checks.

In Tacoma, WA, ATF auditors recovered 233 firearms missing from Bull's Eye Shooters Supply store. One of those weapons was used by the accused DC area snipers. Why are we putting special language in a must- pass Federal spending bill to protect a store such as Bull's Eye? Consider the potential consequences.

A third provision prohibits the public release of crime gun trace information. This information is not top secret data that jeopardizes our national security or hinders law enforcement. We cannot have a government that operates in secret and refuses to release information that shows where criminals have obtained a gun.

This provision has no support from the law enforcement community, and was even opposed by Chairman Young and Subcommittee Chairman Wolf. Yet here it is today included in this terrible bill. This language is an embarrassment to law-abiding gun owners and a slap in the face to law enforcement.

Now, it is going to get a little esoteric here for a second, but it is very important. Because what we have done in this bill has basically changed the entire fishing industry and the way they do business, again, to protect certain entities in the State of Alaska.

One of the policy riders is language that authorizes the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands crab fisheries rationalization plan, which would divide 90 percent of that crab market among just a small group of processors. Under the provision, fishermen could only sell this crab to those few processors and, in turn, only those processors would sell to consumers.

We are creating a cartel, a Government-mandated cartel. And who is going to pay for that, at the end, in the form of higher prices? Those who eat this crab all over America, including my State.

This legislative language has not been considered by the authorizing committee nor requested by the administration. This provision raises serious antitrust concerns. Again, it would require--not simply allow but require--the crab fishermen to sell 90 percent of their crab harvest to predetermined processing companies. This precedent-setting action would vitiate antitrust laws, limit competition in the seafood sector, and ultimately hurt fishermen and consumers. Fishermen around the Nation have expressed strong opposition to this provision, as have at least a dozen newspaper editorial boards.

Before I go any further, I wish to clarify the difference between ``fishing quotas'' and ``processing quotas.'' Fishing quotas are allocation tools that allow fishermen to catch a certain portion of the overall allowable harvest. Fishermen can determine when and under what conditions to fish with such quotas, and fishing quotas have been widely recognized to benefit fishermen, the environment, and consumers.

In contrast, processing quotas would allocate buying rights for the crab catch among a handful of processing companies so that each would be guaranteed to receive a certain percent of the overall harvest. Regardless of how efficient these processors are or what kind of price they are offering, they would have a guaranteed market share. I thought that kind of thing went away with the Berlin Wall. Under this plan, it would be illegal for fishermen to take their crab to other processors.

This language would have far-reaching consequences. Yet it was included in this must-pass bill without ever having been considered or debated by the committee of jurisdiction, the Commerce Committee.

Fishermen throughout the Nation object to the crab plan's individual processing quotas, IPQs, because the precedent-setting nature of this action could lead to IPQs in the processing sector of other fisheries. Indeed, crab boat owners and crew from all over the country--even from Arizona--have voiced their opposition to this proposal.

``Crab cartels,'' the Anchorage Daily News--even the Anchorage Daily News. ``Stevens pushes plan that gives processors too much market power.''

The Los Angeles Times: ``Toss This Stinker in the Sea.''

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

The quota plan would guarantee shares not just to boat

owners, as has been done successfully with other species, but

also to fish processors on the land. That has nothing to do

with safety. As the U.S. Department of Justice recognizes, it

raises significant anti-trust concerns.

Crab Cartels are Bad News for Maine Lobster Industry.

Seattle Times:

Crab Industry Bakes a Monopoly Pie.

Seattle Times:

Feeling Crabby? No Need for a Monopoly.

It goes on and on. There is nobody who thinks this is a good idea.

In addition to affecting the price setting process, I am aware of at least one crab fisherman who owns a fishing boat and a ``catcher- processor'' boat. He objects to this policy rider because it would make it illegal for him to sell his own catch to himself, so that the catch from his fishing boat could be processed on his processing boat.

According to the National Research Council, the General Accounting Office, and the Department of Justice Antitrust Division, fishermen's concerns about IPQs are clearly justified. The 1999 NRC publication, Sharing the Fish, found no ``compelling reason to establish a separate, complementary processor quota system'' to accompany an Individual Fishing Quota program. These findings were echoed by the GAO in its December 2002 report on IFQs, which failed to find the IFQ programs resulted in harmful impacts on processors in the halibut and sablefish fisheries that would warrant creation of an IPQ program.

Furthermore, on August 27, 2003, the Assistant Attorney General of the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division wrote a letter to the General Counsel of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, in which he opposed the IPQ provisions of the crab plan, stating ``processor quotas are not justified by any such beneficial competitive purpose'' and that ``The Department urges NOAA to oppose IPQ.''

While the fisherman are up in arms, the processors are already counting their chickens, or in this case, crab harvests, and in turn, their profits. That is because the percent of the harvest that they will be able to process in the future is based on how much they have processed in the past under the free market environment. Regardless of future operational efficiency, supply and demand, or any other real- world factors, these processors will be guaranteed their allocation in perpetuity. Consider, for example, one company that recently has processed roughly 20 percent of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Island crab. This provision will assure that company continues to receive 20 percent of future harvests--worth on the order of tens of millions of dollars annually.

For centuries, fishermen have used market forces to negotiate their dockside prices, and this has had the effect of maintaining competition and benefitting consumers. Processor quotas throw an enormous wrench into the free market machinery.

In addition to affecting the price-setting process, the crab IPQ plan also would effectively prevent new processors from entering the industry. If anyone wants to enter the processing sector, they would need to buy the processing rights from the few processors who would have processing quota.

Considering all these facts, the administration has officially stated its opposition to IPQs, as reported in the Sacramento Bee, Kodiak Daily Mirror, Anchorage Daily News, and Seattle Times. The administration's proposed language for amending the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act clearly specifies that processors could own fishing quota, but does not propose a separate quota system divvying up processor quotas.

Editorial boards from at least 12 major newspapers--the Washington Post, Washington Times, Boston Globe, Oregonian, Anchorage Daily News, Los Angeles Times, Honolulu Advertiser, Daily Astorian, Seattle Times, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Portland Press Herald in Maine, and the Tampa Tribune--have come out against IPQs. Note that these newspapers include the entire west coast--even Alaska and Hawaii.

I ask unanimous consent they be printed in the Record.

Additionally, the conference report would authorize a similar processor quota program for Gulf of Alaska rockfish. Even though IPQ proponents had previously indicated that IPQs are needed for crab only, they are now proposing authorizing such a program for a different Alaskan fishery.

Further, the conference report also would authorize the North Pacific Council to open an area currently closed to fishing, but open it only to the Aleut Corporation, which would also have the exclusive right to process the fish. This new fishery could be worth more than $10 million, yet the proposal has not undergone the proper congressional authorization and oversight process that we demand for other important policy issues.

Obviously this proposal makes fundamental changes to our fisheries policies. This rockfish and pollock language was not requested by the administration nor the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, and it hasn't been reviewed by the authorizing committees. At a minimum, all of these new quota provisions merit thorough review and debate prior to their enactment.

The tacking of fisheries riders onto appropriations bills extends all the way to North Atlantic fisheries as well. Last-minute language was added that would prevent the administration from implementing a groundfish management plan required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Not surprisingly, the administration did not request this change, nor has the authorizing committee of jurisdiction held any hearings on this proposal.

In the northeast, fishery managers must comply with a court-ordered implementation date of May 1, 2004, for putting a groundfish management plan into effect, and the administration is now seeking public comment on and finalizing regulations to do this.

Even before we know what the final plan is, the language would prohibit the administration from spending any money to implement this plan. The legislative rider would authorize funding for only a certain set of management rules--which have already been determined by a court to be out of compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

So, under the language in the omnibus, it would be illegal for the administration to comply with Federal fisheries law as set out in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. If this provision is enacted, there is a real risk that the fishery could be ordered closed by a Federal court.

Again, this significant policy change was not considered by or debated in the Commerce Committee. I am more than willing to discuss ways to redesign the fisheries management council process, along with the rest of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, if indeed, it is as flawed as some seem to think it is. This rider, however, is not the appropriate way to make policy.

Section 626 of the omnibus broadly requires the Secretary of Commerce to ``negotiate or reevaluate, with the consent of the President, international agreements affecting international ocean policy.''

Under 22 U.S.C. Section 2655a, however, international ocean policy issues are currently handled by the State Department's Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, or OES. Several marine resource conservation laws, including the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, grant the Secretary of State the authority to

negotiate international agreements on these matters. Clearly, this language conflicts with the Secretary of State's statutory responsibility for carrying out a coherent foreign policy.

When appropriators first proposed such a transfer of responsibility in the FY04 CJS appropriations bill, Secretary Colin Powell explained, ``Such a provision would significantly hamper the Department's ability to address important foreign policy issues (e.g., oceans policy, marine pollution, global overfishing) to which the United States can ill afford to give short shrift.''

Considering the important role that the United States needs to maintain as a leader in the international community on ocean policy matters, I am dismayed that the appropriators would attempt to transfer these powers between government agencies without any public or expert review and debate. This is clearly a matter that needs the full attention of the Commerce and Foreign Relations Committees, and this has not happened.

A provision in the EPA portion of the VA-HUD section of this bill prohibits all States, with the exception of California, from exercising their existing authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate ``non- road'' engines to improve air quality. This language will effectively tie the hands of the State air pollution control agencies by preventing them from addressing the 120 million small engines which are a substantial and growing source of smog and soot pollution nationwide.

This provision was originally put in the VA-HUD bill at the request of a single engine manufacturer, Briggs and Stratton. The company suggested that the provision would save jobs. I find this argument very disingenuous due to the fact that, in its September 2003 filing with the SEC, the company stated, ``Briggs and Stratton does not believe that the CARB staff proposal will have a material effect on its financial condition or results of operations . . .''

Our colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, made an effective argument against the language on the Senate floor during consideration of the bill, but she was not permitted to offer an amendment to strike the language. Mr. President, what has come out of the conference may be acceptable to California and to Briggs and Stratton, but it is unacceptable to me and should be unacceptable to almost every Member of this body.

If you have not heard from your State air agency yet, you certainly will soon. In the State of Arizona, for example, the potential emissions impact of these unregulated engines is equivalent to 1.4 million additional cars on the roads. This is almost certain to worsen the smog problem in the city of Phoenix, and I am sure it will be the same in many other cities in the Nation. I have no doubts that with worsening smog will come many more cases of asthma and a litany of other health problems. It is simply outrageous that States will be prohibited from exercising their responsibility to protect public health and the environment because one company was able to secure a special deal in a must-pass spending bill.

I also am very concerned that for the NASA funding portions, that the Joint Explanatory Statement to the conference report contains a list of 144 earmarks that total in excess of $300 million. These earmarks are unauthorized and unrequested by the President. Meanwhile, the international space station has been funded at $200 million below the President's request. This action comes despite news reports that have outlined numerous safety problems aboard the international space station.

The Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB), which was assigned to determine the causes of last February's tragic accident, described the results of congressional earmarking in its August report. According to the CAIB Report:

Pressure on NASA's budget has come not only from the White

House, but also from the Congress. In recent years there has

been an increasing tendency for the Congress to add

``earmarks''--congressional additions to the NASA budget

request that reflect targeted Members' interests. These

earmarks come out of already-appropriated funds, reducing the

amounts available for the original tasks.

I must question whether we have learned anything from the shuttle accident and the CAIB findings. During a Senate Commerce Committee hearing last year, I questioned Admiral Gehman about the effects of the $167 million that was earmarked in fiscal year 2003 appropriations bill. He responded by saying that ``$100 million will buy a lot of safety engineers.'' Maybe we should ask what he thinks should be done with over $300 million worth of earmarks.

Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to discuss the importance of fully funding the international space station. Again, the omnibus provides $200 million less than the President's request at a time when serious safety concerns have been raised about the space station. This underfunding could be corrected if we simply eliminated these wasteful earmarks and we'd even have money to spare.

William F. Readdy, the NASA Associate Administrator at the Office of Space Flight, testified before the Commerce Committee that the space station onboard environmental monitoring system which, ``provides very high accuracy information on atmospheric composition and presence of trace elements . . . is not operating at full capacity.'' He also testified that the crew health countermeasures, which include an onboard treadmill and associated resistive exercise devices, were ``operating at various degrees of reduced capacity and needed to be repaired, upgraded or replaced.''

Articles in the Washington Post paint an even more disturbing picture. An October 23, 2003, article describes:

The problems with monitoring environmental conditions

aboard the space station have festered for more than a year,

some NASA medical officials said. Space station astronauts

have shown such symptoms as headaches, dizziness and ``an

inability to think clearly,'' according to a medical officer

who asked not to be named. The onboard sensors designed to

provide real-time analysis of the air, water and radiation

levels have been broken for months, which has made it

impossible to determine at any given time whether there is a

buildup of trace amounts of dangerous chemical compounds that

could sicken astronauts, or worse.

A November 9, 2003, Washington Post article reports that:

A recent NASA study found that the risk of fire aboard the

station has grown because the crew is stowing large

quantities of supplies, equipment and waste in front of or

near 14 portals that would be crucial for detecting and

extinguishing a fire in any of the station's various

compartments. There is also concern that a portion of the

station's water stores supplied by the Russians may have high

levels of carbon tetrachloride, a toxic contaminant.

As far back as March, internal studies warned of a host of

dangers for six separate systems, including the thermal

controls that cool the station's computers and interiors,

that would likely grow out of trying to run the station with

limited supplies and a caretaker crew of two instead of the

normal complement of three.

Before the recent launch of Expedition 8, the Chief of NASA's Habitability and Environmental Factors Office and NASA's Chief of Space Medicine signed a dissent to the ``flight readiness certificate.'' The dissent declared that ``the continued degradation in the environmental monitoring system, exercise countermeasures system, and the health maintenance system, coupled with a planned increment duration of greater than 6 months and extremely limited resupply, all combine to increase the risk to the crew to the point where initiation of [the mission] is not recommended.''

In addition, a December 6, 2003, Washington Post, article states that one of the gyroscopes that control the space station's motion failed, and that another was showing vibrations and spikes in electrical current. NASA will be forced to use Russian thrusters onboard the space station to shift the station's position.

These are very serious issues that cannot be ignored, yet here we are, about to approve more than $300 million for unrequested earmarks while underfunding more pressing needs. How will these cuts to the President's budget request affect the safety of the space station? Are we really willing to take any risks? Mr. President, that this practice continues in the face of legitimate safety concerns is simply unacceptable given the tragedies experienced just last year.

The Statement of Administration Policy opposed this $200 million reduction in the Senate-passed VA-HUD bill, stating that: ``After diligently rebuilding reserves to place the Station on sound financial ground, this reduction

would deplete reserves deemed critical by independent cost estimates and limit the program's ability to address risks in FY 2004, including impacts from the Columbia accident.''

You know, I have to admit I am naive. I thought after the Columbia disaster we would see a reduction in the earmarks. It was an increase.

In addition, I have been informed that this reduction would place at risk actions that NASA is taking to address the Independent Management and Cost Evaluation (IMCE) Task Force recommendations to ensure a ``credible'' ISS Program.

I know there is a lot of excitement about last week's announcement by the President proposing a new agenda for human exploration of the Moon, and eventually Mars. However, let us also note that he reaffirmed the United States commitment to completing the ISS. The Commerce Committee will hold a series of hearings to discuss the proposal, but we will not lose sight of our responsibilities of ensuring the safety of the space shuttle and international space station.

Finally, it is unfortunate that the appropriators, while earmarking hundreds of millions of dollars in NASA, underfunded the Advanced Polarimeter Sensor of the Global Climate Change Research Initiative by $11 million below the President's request--a 47-percent decrease--yet could sure find funds for thousands of earmarks. This reduction would significantly impact the development of the sensor, which is designed to measure methane, tropospheric ozone, aerosols, and black carbon in the atmosphere. The proposed reduction would delay the purchase of ``long-lead'' item purchases, which could potentially delay the launch date of the satellite from 2007 to 2008.

As my colleagues know, the public is greatly concerned about the impacts of climate change on our environment and economy. Although the administration and I have a difference of opinion on the need to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we are in agreement on the need for research in this area. We should not cut this publicly significant research, so that we can simply fund local pork projects.

The bill would appropriate funding for the Advanced Technology Program, ATP, at approximately $152.2 million above the President's request. The language would ignore the President's attempt to rein in a corporate welfare program in a time of skyrocketing Federal deficits and critical national security needs. For example, the most recent ATP awards included a grant to Aqua Bounty Farms, Inc., to ``produce sterile transgenic fish that can be made fertile as needed for reproduction.'' I can assure you that the ATP program was never envisioned to fund the production of sterile transgenic fish.

I also am concerned about funding for the Scientific and Technical Research and Services account of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. This account supports NIST's scientific research, including Nobel Prize winning research on the Bose-Einstein condensates. This account is funded at approximately $43 million beneath the President's request, while the appropriators have continued to earmark activities within this account. I would ask my colleagues to ask themselves if it is more important to fund a spreadsheet engineering initiative at Dartmouth University, or research to help our beleaguered manufacturing sector. Should we fund a wind demonstration project in Texas or research to improve the equipment for our Nation's first responders? In the long run, it will be considered a great tragedy that we have wasted our Nation's scientific potential of meaningless parochial projects.

This reduction is even more disturbing given the reality that NIST will have to lay off many of its scientists and engineers due to lack of funding. Let me remind my colleagues that these are the scientists and engineers that have won two Nobel Prizes for research in the past few years. These layoffs will occur even as we continue to send funding to industry through the ATP program for research that is inconsistent with the program requirements of being ``high risk.'' That does not send the right message to our award winning scientist and engineers of how we value their work.

There is also language that redirects $40 million to the Port of Philadelphia for construction of a cargo terminal that is designed to support ``high-speed military sealift and other military purposes.'' Today, these type of vessels do not even exist, nor are they being championed by the military. They are supported, however, by the private investors and their lobbyists who obviously think it makes sense to place the risk of their venture on the backs of the taxpayers. Let me also mention that the design of these vessels is based on unproven technology. And, in reviews of the proposed vessel technology by the Department of Transportation, it was determined that the project did not qualify for government backed financing. It is ridiculous that despite these facts, this legislative rider will risk wasting $40 million of the taxpayers on a terminal to support a certain type of vessel that may never exist. This is a costly example of putting the cart before the horse.

By the way, we have ample precedent. The Senator from Hawaii, the Senator from Alaska, and the Senator from Mississippi put in loan guarantees for cruise ships to be built in Pascagoula, MS, which cost the taxpayers $273 million in loan guarantees, which I fought against and predicted would fail. Only $273 million. By the way, for those of you who keep up with it, the hulls of these cruise ships in Mississippi have been towed to Europe.

Mr. President, it's time to get serious about what we are doing here. We have a deficit of $500 billion--that's half of a trillion dollars-- the largest ever. Our fiscal future can only be described as bleak. Government watchdog organizations and think tanks, both liberal and conservative, have expressed enormous concern about the level of spending in this bill.

A recent report by the Heritage Foundation states:

Following increases of 13 percent and 12 percent during the

previous two years, 2004 would mark the third consecutive

year of massive discretionary spending growth.

It further notes that:

Altogether, total Federal spending in 2003 topped $20,000

per household [I am glad we don't divide that up by States]

for the first time since World War II and is set to grow

another $1,000 per household in 2004.

According to a joint statement issued by the Committee for Economic Development of the Concord Coalition Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:

Without a change in current fiscal policies, the Federal

Government can expect to run a cumulative deficit of $5

trillion over the next 10 years.

These numbers are shameful and frightening.

Another astonishing part of this report states:

After the baby boom generation starts to retire in 2008,

the combination of demographic pressures and rising health

care costs will result in the cost of Medicare and Medicaid

and Social Security growing faster than the economy. We

project that by the time today's newborn reaches 40 years of

age, the cost of these three programs, as a percentage of the

economy, will more than double from 8.5 percent of the GDP to

over 17 percent.

I urge my colleagues to read this joint statement.

The Congressional Budget Office has issued warnings about the dangers that lie ahead if we continue to spend in this manner. In a report issued last month, CBO stated:

Because of rising health care costs in an aging population,

spending on entitlement programs, especially Medicaid,

Medicare, and Social Security, will claim a sharply

increasing share of the Nation's economic output over the

coming decades. Unless taxation reaches levels that are

unprecedented in the United States, current spending policies

will probably be financially unsustainable over the next 50

years. An ever-growing burden of Federal debt held by the

public would have a corrosive effect on the economy.

That is from the Congressional Budget Office, not from any liberal or conservative think tank, as much as I value those.

Additionally, CBO projected a 10-year deficit of $4.4 trillion.

The Wall Street Journal recently reported, according to an International Monetary Fund report:

If cumulative budget deficits rise by 15 percent of gross

domestic product, as the Congressional Budget Office expects,

world interest rates would be pushed up by one-half to 1

percentage point over 10 years.

We are paying a price overseas for our reckless spending. The U.S. dollar is tumbling, and it is a result of our fiscal indiscipline and our enormous deficit. Foreign countries are losing confidence in the dollar. To underscore the

point, today the dollar stands at a 7-year low, worth 80 cents against the Euro, a 40-percent drop in under 4 years.

In his State of the Union Address last night, the President called on us to act as good stewards of taxpayers' dollars. My response to the President: Mr. President of the United States, you also must be a steward of taxpayers' dollars. Veto this bill. Veto this bill, Mr. President of the United States, and demand this pork be removed--this $11 billion in pork be removed--and send a message that it is not business as usual anymore in the Senate. We cannot do this to our children and our grandchildren. We cannot do this to them.

Sooner or later, we are going to have to make some choices around here. We are going to have to make some choices between our children's and our grandchildren's futures and having some kind of fiscal sanity and plan for the future. We cannot continue the practices of the Senate. We need to have a point of order that any unauthorized appropriation and any policy change is subject to a specific point of order, not one that brings down the whole bill, but one that brings down that provision.

I could bring a point of order against this bill, and it would lose by 99 to 1 because it brings the whole bill down. We should have the right to object, and object vociferously, to North Pole, AK, getting $200,000. We should be able to object to the brown tree snake in Alaska in which we have invested I have no idea how many tens of millions of dollars. I think Alaska and Hawaii should pay for their own statehood celebrations. We in Arizona do.

If I sound like I am angry and upset, it is because the people I represent are angry and upset. The people I talked with in my State, who I have been privileged to represent for a long period of time, are deeply disturbed. They know what is going on. They know their kids are not going to ever receive Social Security benefits as present retirees are today. They know we just laid a multitrillion-dollar debt on them in the form of a Medicare prescription drug bill, and they figured it out. By the way, the overwhelming majority, the last poll I saw, 58 to 42, don't like this prescription drug bill which no senior I know can understand, and I don't blame them because I don't understand it either.

If I sound as if I am not happy and perhaps given to flights of rhetoric, which I am from time to time, it is because my constituents are demanding that we change this system. The appropriators have become all power in this body. That is not appropriate. We need to change the rules, and we need to change the way we do business.

Last year, we stood here with an Omnibus appropriations bill. This year we stand here with an Omnibus appropriations bill. I was pleased we did not cut off debate until I heard: We are just doing this for labor, but it will pass. We are just going to do this for labor once.

How stupid is labor? If I were a labor leader, I would say: Either vote it down or vote it up, but don't throw me some kind of 4-day delay.

I understand labor just took some significant setbacks. They are about to take another one.

Mr. President, I will continue to fight. I will continue to see if we can't stop funding the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and get our thrills on Blueberry Hill, the wild turkey, and all of the other turkeys that have become part and parcel of this thousand-page piece of pork.

I thank my colleagues for their indulgence. We will be hearing about this issue for a long time to come because the American people demand we address it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Will the Senator please explain for me and our colleagues the purpose of the provision in Title XI that amends Title 35 to say that courts must hear declaratory judgment actions brought by generic applicants?

Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield?

Mr. President, I'd like to ask the Senator if it is the intent of this legislation that the declaratory judgment provisions in this bill, in particular, the change to Title 35, will be available immediately to help generic drug applicants who are now in federal court seeking declaratory judgments that listed drug patents are invalid or are not infringed by their product?

I thank the Senator for his answer and for his leadership on these issues. His experience and technical expertise have been invaluable. I would also like to thank my friend, the senior Senator from New York, who has worked with me these many years on this legislation. His dedication to American consumers and his commitment to restoring fairness to the drug industry must be commended. The senior Senator from New Hampshire must also be recognized for leadership on this issue in his committee, in the Senate, and in the conference on this bill. I would also like to thank the staffs of all three of these Senators, who have worked tirelessly on behalf of this issue. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Chairman Muris of the Federal Trade Commission about the value of the declaratory judgment provision in Title 35 be printed in the Record.

Less than 5 months ago, I stood before the Senate and spoke at length of my concerns that such a package would be detrimental to the future solvency of our Nation, and leave future generations with a reckless and unjust financial burden. Since that time, members engaged in conference committee negotiations produced a voluminous package which represents the single largest expansion of Medicare since its creation, offering enormous profits and protections for a few of the country's most powerful interest groups, paid for with the borrowed money of American taxpayers for generations and generations to come.

Everyone here is well aware that Medicare faces enormous long-term fiscal challenges. In recent years, the program's financial state has worsened. The most recent Trustee's Report hastened the year Medicare will reach financial insolvency by four years to 2026. Adding a prescription drug benefit to an already failing Medicare, is like putting a band-aid on a patient that needs surgery.

Earlier today I mentioned several statistics which I believe are worth repeating. Today, our Nation has an accumulated deficit of $7 trillion--which

translates into $24,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States. Making our bad financial condition worse, the Federal Government is estimated to run a deficit of $480 billion in fiscal year 2004.

Passing this bill continues our reckless spending. Although this package is estimated to cost just under $400 billion over 10 years, I guarantee you, $400 billion is merely a down payment. I don't believe there is one person here who honestly believes that $400 billion is the maximum we will pay in the next 10 years.

Additionally, this new package will substantially increase existing unfunded liabilities. The Office of Management and Budget estimates the current unfunded liabilities of Medicare and Social Security at $18 trillion. This new benefit will add an estimated $7 trillion in additional unfunded liabilities.

By 2020, Social Security and Medicare, with a prescription drug benefit, will consume an estimated 21 percent of income taxes for every working American. Adding a new unfunded entitlement to a system that is already financially insolvent, is so grossly irresponsible that it ought to outrage every fiscal conservative.

The American people deserve some straight talk. Passing this package, without implementing the necessary reforms to ensure that the Medicare system is solvent over the long-term, will simply expedite its failure. Clearly, it should be incumbent upon us to include comprehensive, free market reforms, into any Medicare prescription drug package in order to ensure that Medicare is financially sound for current beneficiaries as well as future generations. Unfortunately, this conference report represents a missed opportunity.

Medicine has changed substantially since the creation of the Medicare system in 1965. Advances in medical technology and pharmaceuticals have lead to more prescription-based treatments, and Americans now consume more prescriptions than ever before. In 1968, soon after the enactment of Medicare, American seniors spent about $65 a year on a handful of prescription medications. Today seniors fill an average of 22 prescriptions a year, spending an estimated $999.

The conference report before us represents one of the largest enhancements to Medicare since its creation--setting up an entirely new bureaucracy and establishing a sizable new entitlement program. I believe this bill attempts to addresses a real problem, but falls perilously short. We must have no illusions. There are dangers, complexities, and potential unintended consequences associated with this bill.

This legislation is without a doubt an enormous fiscal and social train wreck. Long after this Congress and this administration have left office our children and our grandchildren, and a future Congress and administration, will be left here to clean up the mess we have created with this bill.

I believe we have an obligation to future generations to start exorcizing some fiscal restraint. While our national debt rapidly mounts, we continue to increase the financial burden our grandchildren will have to bare, without reigning in costs. Unfortunately, this problem is exacerbated by our inability to put a stop to our excessive and wasteful spending, particularly egregious porkbarrel projects which Congress has become addicted to.

We are on a shopping spree with borrowed money. The extraordinarily large new entitlement package before us substantially increases the already enormous burden of current and future taxpayers. We have to stop living in denial, eventually the money has to come from somewhere and none of the options are desirable. The reality is, this new benefit will be funded by raiding other entitlement trust funds, through increasing our national debt, reducing benefits or through increased taxes. An expansion such as this is simply not sustainable.

For the enormous cost of this bill, the most alarming fact is that it won't even provide adequate prescription drug coverage or enact many of the significant measures needed to reform the Medicare system and ensure its long-term financial solvency. To save this system, we must enact true free market reforms and bring Medicare into the 21st century. Some provisions in this bill, including means testing Part B and expansion of health savings accounts, are a good start toward long- term reform. Unfortunately, these minor reforms do not outweigh the burden of the new unfunded drug benefit.

With future generations of American taxpayers funding the purchase of prescription drugs under Medicare, we have an obligation to ensure some amount of cost containment against the skyrocketing cost of prescription drugs. Unfortunately, however, this package explicitly prohibits Medicare from using its new purchasing power to negotiate lower prices with manufacturers. The Veterans' Administration, VA, and State Medicaid Programs use market share to negotiate substantial discounts. Taxpayers should be able to expect Medicare, as a large purchaser of prescription drugs, to be able to derive some discount from its new market share. Instead, taxpayers will provide an estimated $9 billion a year in increased profits to the pharmaceutical industry.

Prescription drug importation is another lost opportunity for cost containment. American consumers pay some of the highest prices in the developed world for prescription drugs, and as a result, millions of our citizens travel across our borders each year to purchase their prescriptions. In Arizona, bus loads of seniors depart from Phoenix and Tucson every week, heading south to Mexico to purchase lower cost prescription drugs. The story is similar across the northern border where seniors make daily trips to Canadian pharmacies.

Throughout the country an increasing number of seniors are looking to online pharmacies selling reduced-priced prescriptions imported from other countries, oftentimes with questionable safety. In all, Americans spend hundreds of millions of dollars on imported pharmaceuticals not because they don't want to buy American, but because they simply can't afford to. Although the conference report does contain language on drug importation, it has been successfully weakened to the point of guaranteeing that implementation will never take place.

The only provision contained in this package that has any potential to help rein in the cost of prescription drugs is a negotiated version of a bill Senator Schumer and I have championed for the last several Congresses. Regrettably, it is weakened from its original form. But, this language still represents a partial victory for consumers. It closes loopholes in current law that have allowed brand name drug companies to unfairly delay generic market entry, empowering generic firms to challenge patents and obtain certainty before risking market entry.

Given the difficult budgetary realities in which we live, this package should have been targeted to the most needy. Today, approximately 75 percent of seniors have some form of prescription drug coverage, but the package before us is a universal benefit, not one that targets those poor seniors who we all know make difficult decisions between life sustaining medicines and other basic needs. One of the ludicrous facts is that this new plan will spend an estimated $100 billion to cover the people who already have coverage. Goldman Sachs analysts estimate that this bill shifts a total of $30 billion a year in U.S. health care spending to the Federal Government.

Despite our differences of opinion over this legislation, virtually everyone involved agrees that in this country, there exists a serious crisis for lower and middle income seniors and the disabled. I believe it is an outrage that in a country as wealthy as ours, seniors across the country are struggling to afford the high cost of prescription drugs.

Here is some straight talk to America's seniors: For those of you who think this bill will solve your financial problems I am here to tell you, there are substantial limitations to the proposed legislation. This new prescription benefit will not be available immediately. In fact, it will take several years just to establish the new bureaucracy which will administer the prescription benefits.

Once this program is in place, an estimated 20 percent of seniors who are currently covered by former employers--2.7 million individuals-- will lose

that coverage. Over the summer, the Wall Street Journal quoted one analyst who called this bill the ``automaker enrichment act,'' because companies will see huge reductions in unfunded liabilities and annual drug spending. It is unconscionable that our grandchildren will be shouldering the burden of legacy costs of big business.

Despite the enormous sums of money we are spending on this package, far too many seniors will find themselves with a benefit that is mediocre, at best. And far too many others will find themselves worse off than they are today. Many other seniors, might not even get out of the system what they will pay in deductibles and premiums.

I am concerned that we are about to repeat an enormous mistake. I have been around long enough to remember another large Medicare prescription drug entitlement program we enacted in 1988, Medicare catastrophic. The image of seniors angered by the high cost and ineffectiveness of that package attacking Rostenkowski's car, should be a cautionary tale to all of us.

The American people must be aware that this new package has substantial cost to seniors, to taxpayers and to the future generations who will bare the majority of the financial burden. We must be realistic, there will be unintended consequences of our actions. Moreover, we must be honest about the cost of this measure--$400 billion is merely a down payment for what we are creating. If we as a body decide to support this bill, we must also commit to fiscal responsibility.

Despite my concern for the overall package, several provisions will provide good fixes to the existing program and a better quality of life to many Americans. Several provisions benefitting our Nation's hospitals, will provide much needed assistance to hospitals in my State, particularly teaching hospitals, those in rural areas and those which suffer from the crippling burden of uncompensated care of undocumented immigrants.

I am, however, disappointed that the Immigrant Children's Health Improvement Act was dropped from the conference report. This bill would have reversed a 1996 law that prohibited States from extending State Medicaid and SCHIP Programs to legal immigrants.

The Wall Street Journal has called this bill ``an awfully high price to pay for expanded Health savings Accounts,'' but I would call it legislative malpractice.

After much thought and careful deliberation, I regret that I cannot vote for this conference report. I have reached this conclusion, not because I believe our seniors and disabled do not need or deserve prescription drug coverage, but because I do not believe our country can sustain the cost of this package and because I fear that our actions will not provide adequate assistance to most beneficiaries.

Mr. President, we have before us a conference report that represents one of the biggest expansions of the Medicare entitlement program and offers enormous profits and protections for a few of the country's most powerful interest groups, paid for with the borrowed money of American taxpayers for generations and generations to come.

This legislation reminds me of the ancient medieval practice of leeching. Every special interest in Washington is attaching itself to this legislation and sucking Medicare dry.

We do not need leeching. What we need is reform. On top of the existing $7 trillion accumulated deficit, which translates into $24,000 for every man, woman, and child in the United States, this year's current deficit is quickly approaching a half trillion dollars. Adding a new unfunded entitlement to a system that is already financially insolvent is so grossly irresponsible that it ought to outrage every fiscal conservative.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, this package is estimated to cost just over $400 billion over 10 years. If one believes that is the maximum we will spend over 10 years, I have some beach front property in Gila Bend to sell you. Four hundred billion dollars is merely a down payment.

One important number not frequently mentioned is the estimated increase this new package will add to existing liabilities. The Office of Management and Budget estimated that current unfunded liabilities of Medicare and Social Security are $18 trillion. That is the current unfunded liabilities. What is absolutely astounding is that this new benefit will add an estimated $7 trillion in additional unfunded liabilities. By the year 2020 Social Security and Medicare, with a prescription drug benefit, will consume an estimated 21 percent of income taxes for every working American.

I think we ought to be honest with the American people. Passing this package without implementing the necessary reforms to ensure that the Medicare system is solvent over the long term is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. There is no one in America who is reliable who will not say that the Medicare system is going to go broke. The question is not if. The question is when, not what.

To save this system we should enact true free market reforms and bring Medicare into the 21st century. Unfortunately, the minor reforms in this bill do not even begin to offset the burden added by the new drug benefit. With future generations of American taxpayers funding the purchase of prescription drugs under Medicare, we have an obligation to ensure some amount of cost containment against the skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs. Unfortunately, however, this package explicitly prohibits Medicare from using purchasing power to negotiate lower prices with manufacturers.

How is that possible? The Veterans' Administration, the VA, and State Medicaid Programs use market share to negotiate substantial discounts. It is prohibited in this bill. The taxpayers should be able to expect Medicare, as a large purchaser of prescription drugs, to be able to derive some discount from its new market share. Instead, taxpayers will provide an estimated $9 billion a year in increased profits to the pharmaceutical industry.

Prescription drug importation is another lost opportunity for cost containment. American consumers pay some of the highest prices in the developed world for prescription drugs and, as a result, millions of our citizens travel across our borders each year to purchase these prescriptions. In all, Americans spend hundreds of millions of dollars on imported pharmaceuticals, not because they do not want to buy American but because they cannot afford to.

This conference report contains language on drug importation. However, it has been successfully weakened to the point of guaranteeing that implementation will never take place.

There is a good provision as far as generic drugs are concerned, but this package is not only a bad deal for American taxpayers, I believe seniors will also find it not worth the price.

Although this conference report allocates close to $80 billion in subsidies to corporations to encourage them not to drop or reduce benefits, the CBO estimates that approximately 20 percent of seniors will lose their current employer-sponsored coverage.

I am concerned we are about to repeat an enormous mistake. I was here when we enacted Medicare catastrophic in 1988, and I was here 1 year later fighting to repeal it. We cannot let political shortsightedness blind us from the long-term fiscal implications of this package.

Mr. President, I appreciate the concerns of the Senator from New Jersey and have been working with him to address this issue. It is a complex matter, and one that certainly merits further examination. As such, the ranking member of the committee, Senator Hollings, and I are writing to the Inspector General of the United States Department of Transportation seeking an assessment of the additional duties performed by rail police officers that are not related to law enforcement. We are interested to learn whether such duties are appropriate, and how potential abuses can be avoided. I am confident that the Inspector General's assessment and recommendations will be useful in helping us craft a bipartisan legislative solution should one be necessary.

Regular order, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I had an opportunity earlier this week to speak about this bill, but I think so much is objectionable in this legislation that I am compelled to expend a little more energy on it.

I have listened to my colleagues' statements, and I have yet to hear any plausible, substantiated argument in support of ethanol. Even my colleagues from corn-producing States who have indicated they support this bill have not been able to identify one benefit ethanol provides the American taxpayers, who pay dearly for it--including the taxpayers in those corn-producing States.

Ethanol is a product that would not exist if Congress did not create an artificial market for it. No one would be willing to buy it. Yet thanks to agricultural subsidies and ethanol producer subsidies, it is now a very big business--tens of billions of dollars that have enriched a handful of corporate interests, primarily one big corporation, Archer Daniels Midland.

Ethanol does nothing to reduce fuel consumption, nothing to increase our energy independence, nothing to improve air quality. Let me repeat: Ethanol does nothing to reduce fuel consumption, nothing to increase our energy independence, nothing to improve air quality.

As far as reducing fuel consumption is concerned, it requires 70 percent more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than it provides when combusted. There is actually a net energy loss from the use of ethanol. There is nothing about ethanol that will increase our energy independence. More energy is used in the production of ethanol, and it has reduced the amount of gasoline consumed in the United States by 1 percent.

Ethanol does not improve air quality. In fact, doubling the amount of ethanol, as required by this bill, will most certainly degrade air quality. A National Academy of Sciences report in 2000 found that oxygenates, meaning ethanol and MTBE, can lead to higher nitrous oxide emissions, which contribute to higher ozone levels in some areas.

That means in large cities, such as Phoenix, AZ, air quality degradation could be increased under this legislation. The residents of my State already suffer due to the impact of a lingering brown cloud. I dread the effects of this bill--doubling our national use of ethanol-- on my town and communities across this Nation.

The American public has to pay a lot of money not only in taxes but at the pump for all these negative impacts on the national economy, the country's energy supply, the environment, and public health. The total cost of ethanol to the consumer is about $3 per gallon, and the highway trust fund is deprived of over $1 billion per year to the ethanol producers.

Plain and simple, the ethanol program is highway robbery perpetrated on the American public by Congress. I maintain you cannot claim to be a fiscal conservative and support the profligate spending and corporate welfare in this bill.

Mr. President, I will talk just for a minute about another problem I had with this bill, the way it was developed. A secretive, exclusive process has led to a 1,200-page monstrosity that is chock full of special interest giveaways and exemptions from environmental and other laws that, frankly, cannot withstand the light of scrutiny.

I mentioned one such provision earlier. It is a glaring example of corporate favors. Section 637 carves out a very special deal for a consortium of energy companies, predominantly foreign owned, called Louisiana Energy Services, which would allow it to construct a uranium enrichment plant in a small town in New Mexico at taxpayers' expense-- to the tune of $500 million to $1 billion. This is not your ordinary pork project; it is in a class almost by itself.

Louisiana Energy Services has had some serious difficulties getting a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and for good reason. One major British partner of this group was fired by the Department of Energy from a $7 billion cleanup contract due to safety and financial failures. Even more disturbing, the major French partner, Urenco, has been associated with leaks of uranium enrichment technology to Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and Pakistan. One high-level U.S. nuclear security administrator stated:

[T]o have this company operate in the U.S. after it was the

source of sensitive technology reaching foreign powers does

raise serious concerns.

There is significant reason to believe the NRC would not issue a license to this group of companies. And communities in other States did not want the LES facility in their backyard.

This bill gives LES a helping hand in New Mexico. The criteria for NRC licensing and the time period for review have been modified to make it easier and quicker for LES to get a license. Opportunities for challenges on environmental or other grounds would be severely restricted. And if you are wondering how sweet it could possibly get for this company, the uranium waste from the plant would be reclassified as low-level radioactive waste and the cost of disposal would be borne by the Department of Energy--the taxpayers of America.

Furthermore, there isn't any disposal method or site currently available. This provision, which was inserted in conference at the eleventh hour, is the epitome of corporate welfare. Allowing foreign companies with questionable reputations to circumvent longstanding environmental and nuclear regulations is simply wrong.

Let me quote from a few of the many editorials opposing this bill. I have never seen anything quite like this level of agreement in newspapers representing all regions of the country. In fact, I have yet to see a single editorial in favor of this, although I am sure there is one.

The Philadelphia Inquirer:

. . . what most Americans were looking for was an energy

bill that protected their interests. . . . Instead they got

this unbalanced, shameful mess.

From the Chicago Tribune:

Neither the contents nor the process for cobbling it

together suggest this is the type of energy legislation this

country needs.

The Denver Post:

. . . the most pernicious pork got added in conference

committee. Congress should start over next year.

Mr. President, let's put this up against the backdrop of a $500 billion deficit we are facing this year, with 12 percent growth of the Government. Don't call yourself a fiscal conservative and vote for this bill.

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is about to vote on the Conference Report to H.R. 2115, the FAA reauthorization bill. This legislation is critical to our Nation's air transportation system, providing necessary funding for aviation safety and security for fiscal years 2004 to 2007.

CIvil aviation generates more than $900 billion in GDP every year, and we all know that it has faced very difficult economic times. Since September 11, 2001, Congress has passed a number of bipartisan aviation bills to aid the industry and, more importantly, to assure that the air traveling public could continue to rely on this vital transportation mode. Among the many bills enacted, we established the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to oversee aviation security; we provided grants and loans to help the airline industry through their difficult economic times; and we extended terrorism insurance to the aviation industry. Without these important measures, the aviation industry would be in far worse condition.

The Conference Report pending before us is as important to the health of our aviation system as any of the other bills I just mentioned. This multi-year FAA authorization legislation is needed by airports, so that airport construction projects don't come to a halt and cause layoffs in the construction sector. It is needed by aviation manufacturers and by the airline industry. Above all, it is needed by our air travelers, who rely on a safe and security air transportation system.

The Conference Report on H.R. 2115 authorizes over $60 billion in aviation spending over the next four years to improve our Nation's aviation system. It includes: $14.2 billion for security, safety and capacity projects for the Airport Improvement Program (AIP)--over 50 percent of this funding is likely to be spent on safety projects. In fiscal year 2004 alone, this funding will create approximately 162,000 direct and indirect jobs. However, the AIP funding ONLY becomes available if this Conference Report is signed into law--the passage of the transportation appropriations bill is NOT sufficient to make the funds available; $13.3 billion to modernize the air traffic control system; $31 billion to operate the FAA's air traffic control system and to support the FAA's safety programs; $1.6 billion for aviation research and development; $2 billion for airport security projects, and, $500 million for the Essential Air Service program. The majority of this funding will come from the Aviation Trust Fund, which is supported by taxes paid by the users of the system.

Although this Conference Report provides a great boost for the modernization of the aviation system and for increasing capacity and efficiency, there are also numerous provisions in the Conference Report that will improve aviation safety and security.

In support of improving safety, the Conference Report strengthens FAA enforcement against the users of fraudulent aircraft parts; increases penalties that the FAA may impose for safety violations--fines have not been adjusted since 1947, and as such, are sometimes simply treated as the cost of doing business by the entity being fined; and requires the FAA to update and improve its airline safety oversight program.

In support of improved aviation security, the Conference Report includes $500 million per year to finance security capital improvements at airports--including the installation of explosive detection systems. After September 11, almost $500 million per year in AIP funds were diverted to security projects from safety and capacity projects. Although this may have been justifiable immediately after September 11, in the long run, a continuation of such diversion could be detrimental to the aviation system; extends the Secretary of Transportation's authority to provide War Risk insurance to airlines against terrorism; expands the armed pilot program to include cargo pilots; requires the TSA to improve the security at foreign repair stations that conduct work on U.S. aircraft; authorizes compensation to general aviation entities for losses resulting from security mandates; and provides for certification and better security training for flight attendants.

In order to improve air transportation service, especially to smaller and rural communities, the Conference Report contains a number of provisions. The report reauthorizes the Essential Air Service (EAS) at current funding levels; establishes a number of EAS pilot programs to give communities flexibility in how they receive EAS service; makes permanent the Small Community Air Development program; establishes a National Commission on Small Community Air Service to make recommendations on how to improve air service to such communities; and includes a Sense of Congress that airlines should provide the lowest possible fare for all active duty members of the Armed Forces.

Further, for large airports in Western States and smaller airports in the East, it frees up more takeoff and landing slots at Reagan National Airport.

The Conference Report addresses numerous environmental issues. It streamlines environmental review of projects to increase airport capacity and improve aviation safety and security; authorizes grants to airports to permit them to purchase or retrofit low emission vehicles at airports; and authorizes projects that improve air quality and give airports emission credits for undertaking such projects.

I want to recognize all the hard work that Senator Lott, as Chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, has put into the bill this year. Last winter, many in the aviation community predicted that Congress would not enact an aviation reauthorization bill this year. Senator Lott would not even consider such a scenario and kept us on a schedule where the Conference Report was actually completed before the August recess. This was only possible, as always, due to the work and cooperation on this bill from the ranking Democratic members of the Commerce Committee and its Aviation Subcommittee, Senators Hollings and Rockefeller.

I also wish to thank Senator Dorgan for his work in brokering the compromise that allowed us to move forward with this Conference Report today. And I want to thank the administration, especially Secretary Mineta and FAA Administrator Blakey, in working long and hard with us to get a final compromise on the issue of privatization.

I urge my colleagues to support final passage of the Conference Report and send it to the President.

The Senator from Wyoming is correct. The conferees intended ``plan'' to refer to the range of requirements and standards contained in a Federal lease, which together constitute its plan to limit airport-generated noise. Section 523 of the Senate bill, introduced by the Senator from Wyoming, would have given similar authority to the Jackson Hole Airport Board. The conference substitute will permit the Jackson Hole Airport, and others if subject to similar Federal lease requirements, to adopt these measures.

Mr. President, along with Senator Russ Feingold, I am proud today to introduce the Presidential Funding Act of 2003. This legislation will improve and reform the presidential public financing system. With major presidential candidates opting out of public financing for their 2004 primary campaigns, reform of the system of financing presidential nominations is needed more than ever.

The presidential public financing system has been in place for three decades and has achieved broad public acceptance. From 1976 to 2000, every major party presidential nominee has accepted public financing for the general election and, nearly all of the nominees have also accepted it for their primary elections. A total of 46 Democrats and 29 Republicans have accepted public financing for the presidential primaries during this period.

Since its creation, the presidential financing system has worked non- ideologically, with victories for three Republicans and two Democrats. It has also provided for competitive elections. In the five races that have been run under the system involving an incumbent president, challengers have won in three of those elections. This system of voluntary spending limits in exchange for public funding has been a nonpartisan success.

Last year's enactment of a ban on soft money addressed what had become a basic problem for the effectiveness and credibility of the presidential system. For the system to continue serving the nation effectively, its remaining problems now must be solved. This legislation will repair and revitalize the presidential campaign finance system in the following ways.

First, our legislation increases the overall spending limit for the presidential primaries and provide more public matching funds for presidential primary candidates.

The overall spending limit in the primaries for publicly financed candidates has failed to keep pace with reality. This was demonstrated when in 2000, public financing and spending limits for the primaries were rejected and a record $100 million in private contributions was spent to gain the Republican party's nomination--more than twice the amount that the publicly financed candidates were allowed to spend. During the 2004 presidential primary period, it is expected that Republicans will raise and spend as much as $200 million.

Our legislation increases the individual contribution limit from $1,000 to $2,000. Therefore, it will be easier over time for other candidates to reject public financing and raise private money in excess of the overall primary spending limit, thereby worsening the competitive disadvantage of publicly-financed candidates.

In addition, the ``front-loading'' of presidential primaries has created a much shorter nominating period--now likely to end by early March--and a longer actual general election period than existed when the presidential financing system was created in 1974. As a result, a potential ``gap'' exists in funds available for a publicly financed nominee to spend between gaining the party nomination in March and the party's summer nominating convention, when the nominee receives public funds for the general election. This creates a further competitive disadvantage.

To address these problems, our legislation increases the overall spending limit for the presidential primaries to $75 million from the $45 million limit in effect for the 2004 presidential election. This would equal the $75 million spending limit in effect for the general election, which applies to a much shorter period than the primaries.

The amount of public matching funds for individual contributions in the primaries is also increased from the current one-to-one match to a four-to-one match for up to $250 of each individual contribution. This would greatly increase the value of smaller contributions in the presidential nominating process, as was intended by the presidential financing system. It would decrease the reliance on larger contributions, provide more public funds to meet the higher spending limit, and improve the ability of publicly financed candidates to run competitive elections.

When the $1000 individual contribution limit was doubled last year, increasing the potential role of private contributions in the presidential financing system, no similar adjustment was made to increase the role of public matching funds. A new four-to-one multiple match for up to $250 of each individual contribution would accomplish that goal.

In addition, the threshold for qualifying for matching public funds in the primary has not changed since the system was established. Our legislation increases the qualifying threshold should be increased by more than doubling the threshold to require candidates to raise $15,000 in each of 20 states in amounts of no more than $250 per individual donor. Although the existing threshold has worked well during the history of the current system, a higher qualifying amount is appropriate for the future, especially since candidates would now be eligible to receive greater amounts of matching funds.

Second, our legislation requires a candidate to opt in or out of the public financing system for the entire presidential election, including both the primary and general election.

The purpose of the presidential public financing system is to allow candidates to run competitive races for the presidency without becoming dependent on or obligated to campaign donors. That purpose is undermined when a candidate opts out of the system to raise and spend large amounts of private money for a primary or general election race. Such candidates should not be able to reject public financing and then get the system's benefits when it suits their tactical advantage. A candidate should have to opt in or out of the system for the whole election.

Third, our legislation repeals the state-by-state primary spending limits and allows publicly financed primary candidates to receive their public matching funds before January 1st of the presidential election year.

The State-by-State primary spending limits have not worked. The limits have proven to be ineffective and have served to unjustifiably micromanage presidential campaigns.

Under current law, primary candidates can begin to raise private contributions eligible to be matched beginning on January 1 of the year before a presidential election year. They are not eligible, however, to receive any of the matching public funds until January 1 of the presidential election year. With the current ``front-loaded'' primary system, and with the nomination likely to be decided in the early months of a presidential election year, primary candidates need to be able to spend more funds at an earlier period than before. As a result, under our legislation, presidential primary candidates will be eligible to start receiving matching public funds on July 1 of the year before a presidential election year.

Fourth, our legislation provides additional public funds in the presidential general election for a publicly financed candidate facing a privately financed candidate who has substantially outspent the combined primary and general election spending limits.

As more wealthy individuals decide to spend their personal wealth to run for public office, the potential grows for an individual to spend an enormous amount of personal wealth to seek the presidency. There already have been candidates for the U.S. Senate and in mayoral races, for example, who have spent as much in personal wealth on their races as each major party presidential nominee received in public funds in 2000 to run their general election campaign.

In addition, with the increased individual contribution limit, a presidential candidate could decide to forgo public funding and raise and spend private contributions far in excess of the spending limits for publicly financed candidates.

To address this potential problem, our legislation makes a publicly financed major party nominee eligible to receive an additional $75 million for the general election race, when a privately financed general election candidate has spent more than 50 percent above the total primary and general election spending limit for the publicly financed candidate.

In other words, once a presidential general election candidate has spent more than a total of $225 million to seek the presidency, a publicly financed major party nominee, subject to a spending limit of $75 million for the primaries and $75 million for the general election, would receive an additional $75 million for the general election race.

Fifth, our legislation increases the funds available to finance the presidential public financing system.

Currently, the public financing system is funded by a voluntary $3 check-off available to taxpayers on their tax forms on an annual basis. This mechanism will not raise sufficient resources in the long term to finance the costs of a revised presidential system.

The $3 tax check-off is increased to $6 and indexed for inflation to help ensure there are sufficient funds available for future presidential elections. In addition, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) is authorized to conduct a public education campaign to explain to citizens why the check-off exists and how it works, including the fact that it does not increase the tax liability of taxpayers.

The current presidential public financing law creates a priority system that allocates available public funds from the check-off to the nomination conventions, the presidential general election and the presidential primaries in that order. This order of priority does not make sense.

Our legislation revises the order of priority for use of public funds to make funding of the general election candidates the first priority, funding of the primary election candidates the second priority, and funding of the nomination conventions the third priority.

Furthermore, a U.S. Department of the Treasury ruling prohibits taking into account the tax check-off revenues that will be received in April of the presidential election year in determining at the start of each presidential election year the total amount of funds available to be given to eligible candidates from the fund. This has had the effect of artificially lowering the amount of funds available and creating temporary shortfalls for primary candidates during the opening months of the presidential election year at the time when they need the funds the most.

Our legislation revises the law to require the U.S. Department of the Treasury (as it used to do) to estimate at the end of the year prior to a presidential election year the amount of check-off funds that will be received in the presidential election year and to take these funds into account in determining the total amount of funds available under the presidential system.

Finally, our legislation implements the soft money ban to ensure that the parties and federal officeholders and candidates do not raise or spend soft money in connection with the presidential nominating conventions.

Despite the passage of the new campaign finance law and its ban on soft money, federal officeholders and national party officials have continued to raise soft money to finance the national nomination conventions on the fictional premise that such funds are not in connection with a ``federal election'' but rather are for municipal or civic purposes.

The reality is that a presidential nominating convention is defined as a ``federal election'' election under the campaign finance law. Furthermore, federal officeholders and candidates and national party officials who raise soft money for the conventions are subject to precisely the same kind of problems of corruption and the appearance of corruption that the new law prevents by banning soft money.

To reaffirm that the soft money ban applies to the presidential nominating conventions, our legislation explicitly prohibits the national parties and federal officeholders and candidates from raising and spending soft money to pay for the presidential nominating conventions, including for a host committee, civic committee or municipality.

The highly expensive, front-loaded, nationalized, primary system requires that we more than ever fix the presidential public funding system. We must continue to promote competition in order to give voters choices. Our legislation not only saves the existing system but improves it as well. It not only shores up the financial foundations of the system but it would also bring more donors into the system, making financial participation more democratic. It would give our citizens a stake in their government. It is our hope that with the enactment of this legislation, candidates will no longer take small donors for granted and finally hear their voices. In return, all of our citizens will feel reconnected to the presidential financing process that at times, has left them behind.

Mr. President, along with Senator Russ Feingold, I am proud today to introduce the Presidential Funding Act of 2003. This legislation will improve and reform the presidential public financing system. With major presidential candidates opting out of public financing for their 2004 primary campaigns, reform of the system of financing presidential nominations is needed more than ever.

The presidential public financing system has been in place for three decades and has achieved broad public acceptance. From 1976 to 2000, every major party presidential nominee has accepted public financing for the general election and, nearly all of the nominees have also accepted it for their primary elections. A total of 46 Democrats and 29 Republicans have accepted public financing for the presidential primaries during this period.

Since its creation, the presidential financing system has worked non- ideologically, with victories for three Republicans and two Democrats. It has also provided for competitive elections. In the five races that have been run under the system involving an incumbent president, challengers have won in three of those elections. This system of voluntary spending limits in exchange for public funding has been a nonpartisan success.

Last year's enactment of a ban on soft money addressed what had become a basic problem for the effectiveness and credibility of the presidential system. For the system to continue serving the nation effectively, its remaining problems now must be solved. This legislation will repair and revitalize the presidential campaign finance system in the following ways.

First, our legislation increases the overall spending limit for the presidential primaries and provide more public matching funds for presidential primary candidates.

The overall spending limit in the primaries for publicly financed candidates has failed to keep pace with reality. This was demonstrated when in 2000, public financing and spending limits for the primaries were rejected and a record $100 million in private contributions was spent to gain the Republican party's nomination--more than twice the amount that the publicly financed candidates were allowed to spend. During the 2004 presidential primary period, it is expected that Republicans will raise and spend as much as $200 million.

Our legislation increases the individual contribution limit from $1,000 to $2,000. Therefore, it will be easier over time for other candidates to reject public financing and raise private money in excess of the overall primary spending limit, thereby worsening the competitive disadvantage of publicly-financed candidates.

In addition, the ``front-loading'' of presidential primaries has created a much shorter nominating period--now likely to end by early March--and a longer actual general election period than existed when the presidential financing system was created in 1974. As a result, a potential ``gap'' exists in funds available for a publicly financed nominee to spend between gaining the party nomination in March and the party's summer nominating convention, when the nominee receives public funds for the general election. This creates a further competitive disadvantage.

To address these problems, our legislation increases the overall spending limit for the presidential primaries to $75 million from the $45 million limit in effect for the 2004 presidential election. This would equal the $75 million spending limit in effect for the general election, which applies to a much shorter period than the primaries.

The amount of public matching funds for individual contributions in the primaries is also increased from the current one-to-one match to a four-to-one match for up to $250 of each individual contribution. This would greatly increase the value of smaller contributions in the presidential nominating process, as was intended by the presidential financing system. It would decrease the reliance on larger contributions, provide more public funds to meet the higher spending limit, and improve the ability of publicly financed candidates to run competitive elections.

When the $1000 individual contribution limit was doubled last year, increasing the potential role of private contributions in the presidential financing system, no similar adjustment was made to increase the role of public matching funds. A new four-to-one multiple match for up to $250 of each individual contribution would accomplish that goal.

In addition, the threshold for qualifying for matching public funds in the primary has not changed since the system was established. Our legislation increases the qualifying threshold should be increased by more than doubling the threshold to require candidates to raise $15,000 in each of 20 states in amounts of no more than $250 per individual donor. Although the existing threshold has worked well during the history of the current system, a higher qualifying amount is appropriate for the future, especially since candidates would now be eligible to receive greater amounts of matching funds.

Second, our legislation requires a candidate to opt in or out of the public financing system for the entire presidential election, including both the primary and general election.

The purpose of the presidential public financing system is to allow candidates to run competitive races for the presidency without becoming dependent on or obligated to campaign donors. That purpose is undermined when a candidate opts out of the system to raise and spend large amounts of private money for a primary or general election race. Such candidates should not be able to reject public financing and then get the system's benefits when it suits their tactical advantage. A candidate should have to opt in or out of the system for the whole election.

Third, our legislation repeals the state-by-state primary spending limits and allows publicly financed primary candidates to receive their public matching funds before January 1st of the presidential election year.

The State-by-State primary spending limits have not worked. The limits have proven to be ineffective and have served to unjustifiably micromanage presidential campaigns.

Under current law, primary candidates can begin to raise private contributions eligible to be matched beginning on January 1 of the year before a presidential election year. They are not eligible, however, to receive any of the matching public funds until January 1 of the presidential election year. With the current ``front-loaded'' primary system, and with the nomination likely to be decided in the early months of a presidential election year, primary candidates need to be able to spend more funds at an earlier period than before. As a result, under our legislation, presidential primary candidates will be eligible to start receiving matching public funds on July 1 of the year before a presidential election year.

Fourth, our legislation provides additional public funds in the presidential general election for a publicly financed candidate facing a privately financed candidate who has substantially outspent the combined primary and general election spending limits.

As more wealthy individuals decide to spend their personal wealth to run for public office, the potential grows for an individual to spend an enormous amount of personal wealth to seek the presidency. There already have been candidates for the U.S. Senate and in mayoral races, for example, who have spent as much in personal wealth on their races as each major party presidential nominee received in public funds in 2000 to run their general election campaign.

In addition, with the increased individual contribution limit, a presidential candidate could decide to forgo public funding and raise and spend private contributions far in excess of the spending limits for publicly financed candidates.

To address this potential problem, our legislation makes a publicly financed major party nominee eligible to receive an additional $75 million for the general election race, when a privately financed general election candidate has spent more than 50 percent above the total primary and general election spending limit for the publicly financed candidate.

In other words, once a presidential general election candidate has spent more than a total of $225 million to seek the presidency, a publicly financed major party nominee, subject to a spending limit of $75 million for the primaries and $75 million for the general election, would receive an additional $75 million for the general election race.

Fifth, our legislation increases the funds available to finance the presidential public financing system.

Currently, the public financing system is funded by a voluntary $3 check-off available to taxpayers on their tax forms on an annual basis. This mechanism will not raise sufficient resources in the long term to finance the costs of a revised presidential system.

The $3 tax check-off is increased to $6 and indexed for inflation to help ensure there are sufficient funds available for future presidential elections. In addition, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) is authorized to conduct a public education campaign to explain to citizens why the check-off exists and how it works, including the fact that it does not increase the tax liability of taxpayers.

The current presidential public financing law creates a priority system that allocates available public funds from the check-off to the nomination conventions, the presidential general election and the presidential primaries in that order. This order of priority does not make sense.

Our legislation revises the order of priority for use of public funds to make funding of the general election candidates the first priority, funding of the primary election candidates the second priority, and funding of the nomination conventions the third priority.

Furthermore, a U.S. Department of the Treasury ruling prohibits taking into account the tax check-off revenues that will be received in April of the presidential election year in determining at the start of each presidential election year the total amount of funds available to be given to eligible candidates from the fund. This has had the effect of artificially lowering the amount of funds available and creating temporary shortfalls for primary candidates during the opening months of the presidential election year at the time when they need the funds the most.

Our legislation revises the law to require the U.S. Department of the Treasury (as it used to do) to estimate at the end of the year prior to a presidential election year the amount of check-off funds that will be received in the presidential election year and to take these funds into account in determining the total amount of funds available under the presidential system.

Finally, our legislation implements the soft money ban to ensure that the parties and federal officeholders and candidates do not raise or spend soft money in connection with the presidential nominating conventions.

Despite the passage of the new campaign finance law and its ban on soft money, federal officeholders and national party officials have continued to raise soft money to finance the national nomination conventions on the fictional premise that such funds are not in connection with a ``federal election'' but rather are for municipal or civic purposes.

The reality is that a presidential nominating convention is defined as a ``federal election'' election under the campaign finance law. Furthermore, federal officeholders and candidates and national party officials who raise soft money for the conventions are subject to precisely the same kind of problems of corruption and the appearance of corruption that the new law prevents by banning soft money.

To reaffirm that the soft money ban applies to the presidential nominating conventions, our legislation explicitly prohibits the national parties and federal officeholders and candidates from raising and spending soft money to pay for the presidential nominating conventions, including for a host committee, civic committee or municipality.

The highly expensive, front-loaded, nationalized, primary system requires that we more than ever fix the presidential public funding system. We must continue to promote competition in order to give voters choices. Our legislation not only saves the existing system but improves it as well. It not only shores up the financial foundations of the system but it would also bring more donors into the system, making financial participation more democratic. It would give our citizens a stake in their government. It is our hope that with the enactment of this legislation, candidates will no longer take small donors for granted and finally hear their voices. In return, all of our citizens will feel reconnected to the presidential financing process that at times, has left them behind.

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is now considering S. 579, the National Transportation Safety Board Reauthorization Act of 2003. This bill was introduced by Senators Hollings, Lott, Hutchison, Rockefeller and myself, and it was unanimously approved by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on March 22, 2003.

Each year, the National Transportation Safety Board, NTSB, investigates more than 2,000 transportation accidents and events, including all fatal aviation accidents, and hundreds of railroad, highway, maritime, and pipeline transportation accidents. The NTSB also conducts safety studies, and evaluates the effectiveness of other government agencies' programs for preventing transportation accidents. Most importantly, the NTSB makes safety recommendations, based on its investigations, to federal, state and local government agencies and to the transportation industry regarding actions that should be taken to prevent accidents.

This legislation would authorize appropriations for the NTSB for fiscal years 2003 through 2006. It also would allow the NTSB to relinquish responsibility for providing assistance to families of victims of accidents to the FBI if it takes over the investigation, and give the NTSB expedited procurement procedures to aid in accident investigations.

The bill is being proposed along with an amendment that incorporates provisions from the House-passed version of its NTSB reauthorization bill, H.R. 1527. The amendment was developed in cooperation with the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Among other things, it includes a provision that would require the Secretary of Transportation to submit annual status reports on the Department's progress in meeting the safety recommendations stemming from the NTSB's ``most wanted list.''

The NTSB's safety investigations and the resulting recommendations play a vital role in ensuring the safe and efficient operation of our nation's transportation system. It is my understanding that the NTSB supports this legislation.

I urge the Senate to pass this important legislation so the House of Representatives can consider it before they adjourn for the year.

Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate will now consider S. 1152, the United States Fire Administration Act of 2003. I am pleased to offer a substitute amendment which includes the provisions of S. 321, the Firefighting Research and Coordination Act.

I thank Senators Hollings, Brownback, Breaux, Biden, DeWine, Cantwell, Lindsey Graham, Carper, and Snowe for their support of these two bills. I also thank Representative Camp for his leadership in the House on the companion bill to S. 321. In addition, I thank Chairman Boehlert and ranking member Hall of the House Science Committee, and Chairman Nick Smith of the Research Subcommittee for their work on this legislation.

The purpose of this legislation is to address many of the pressing needs of our fire services. As we face a war against terrorism, we must remember that firefighters are among the first to respond to any domestic terrorist event. In addition, today's firefighters must be prepared to deal with a host of other hazards caused by urban and wild land fires, natural disasters, hazardous materials spills, and other accidents. This legislation is designed to ensure that our Nation's first-responders are adequately prepared and trained to take action against these myriad threats.

This legislation will reauthorize funding for the U.S. Fire Administration, USFA, for fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2008. The USFA's important mission is to reduce the loss of life and property due to fire and related emergencies. The agency utilizes a number of tools to fulfill its mission. The National Fire Academy, NFA, is the premiere training academy of the fire services, and has trained over 1.4 million firefighters and other first-responders in emergency management, fire prevention, and anti-terrorism. In addition, the USFA engages in research, testing, and evaluation activities with public and private entities to promote and improve fire and life safety.

This legislation also would reestablish the position of U.S. Fire Administrator at USFA. The U.S. Fire Administrator plays a critical role in our Nation's fire control policy and homeland security initiatives by serving as the point-of-contact for the fire services. This position was eliminated in last year's legislation that established the Department of Homeland Security. On April 30, 2003, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation heard testimony from many of the major fire service organizations regarding the importance of the U.S. Fire Administrator, and the need for the administrator to serve as a representative of the fire services within the new Department of Homeland Security.

The legislation would address a major issue that fire departments face in equipping themselves. Today's firefighters use a variety of technologies including thermal imaging equipment; devices for locating firefighters and victims; and state-of-art protective suits to fight fires, clean up chemical and hazardous waste spills, and contend with potential terrorist devices. Unfortunately, there are no uniform technical standards for new equipment used in combating fires. Without such standards, local fire companies may purchase equipment that is faulty or that does not satisfy their needs. A January 2003, Consumer Reports article reported that much of the emergency equipment sold today is not tested or certified by the government or independent labs. The article states that ``the confusion will get worse, emergency departments say, as new equipment floods the market in response to increased government funding.''

The legislation would help to resolve this problem by authorizing the U.S. Fire Administrator to work with other Federal agencies and interested parties to support the development of voluntary consensus standards for new firefighting technology. Fire departments would use these standards when buying equipment through the federal Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program. In the rare case where a standard is out of date, the U.S. Fire Administrator would be allowed to grant a waiver.

The legislation also would address many of the coordination challenges that firefighters face during national emergencies. It would direct the U.S. Fire Administrator to provide assistance to State and local fire services in developing mutual aid plans, and report on a strategy for deployment of volunteers and other emergency response personnel.

Additionally, the legislation would authorize the National Fire Academy to train firefighters on technologies and strategies to respond to future terrorist attacks. It also would authorize the U.S. Fire Administrator to work with other federal agencies to coordinate training programs to prevent duplication.

The bill also would authorize the U.S. Fire Administrator to work with the Department of Agriculture and Department of the Interior to provide assistance in fire prevention and control technologies, including methods of containing insect-infested forest fires as well as measuring, tracking, and limiting the dispersal of the resulting smoke. In addition, the legislation would expand the Board of Directors of the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation from nine members to 12. And, it would allow local fire departments to purchase equipment for fighting fires with foam in remote areas without access to water under the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program.

This legislation is supported by the National Volunteer Fire Council; the Congressional Fire Services Institute; the National Fire Protection Association; the International Association of Fire Chiefs; the International Association of Fire Fighters; the International Association of Arson Investigators; International Society of Fire Service Instructors; North American Fire Training Directors and the International Fire Service Training Association.

I urge my colleagues to support swift passage of this important legislation.

I ask unanimous consent to print the letter of endorsement in the Record.