Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, October 1, 2003, at 9:30 a.m. on Climate Change.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet on Wednesday, October 1 at 9:30 to conduct a business meeting to consider legislation S. 1643, S. 1066, S. 1663, and S. 1669, and the nomination of Michael O. Leavitt, to be Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The meeting will take place in SD 406 (hearing room).

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet in open Executive Session during the session on Wednesday, October 1, 2003, at 10 a.m., to consider a substitute to S. 1637, the ``Jumpstart Our Business Strength (JOBS) Act of 2003.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 1, 2003 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on Nominations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, October 1, 2003, at 9:30 a.m. for a hearing title ``Deteriorating Buildings and Wasted Opportunities: The Need for Federal Property Reform.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, October 1, 2003, at 10 a.m. in the Dirksen Senate Office Building room 226 on ``The Nomination of Dora L. Irizarry to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York.''

Witness List

Panel I: The Honorable Charles E. Schumer, United States Senator, D-

Mr. President, today, the Senate will approve a 5-month extension of the highway programs authorized by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21, based on an agreement between the Senate and House leadership. Only reluctantly, and because of the need to complete action on the extension immediately to ensure the many TEA-21 programs do not come to a halt, do I accept the terms of the extension as approved by the House for the safety programs administered by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, FMCSA.

The House-passed short-term extension authorizes $56 million less, on an annualized basis, for motor carrier safety than the program's fiscal year 2003 appropriated level. I am very concerned that the level of funding in the extension is insufficient to make progress toward the national goal of reducing the rate of truck-related crashes by 30 percent by 2008. The extension does not provide sufficient funding for FMCSA to fully implement existing, authorized programs in the short term, including the ``new entrants'' program, hazmat permitting, additional carrier compliance reviews, and completion of long overdue rulemaking proceedings. Further, the bill provides no funds to continue construction of inspection facilities at the border. The funding level is significantly below the President's funding request for fiscal year 2004; the Senate Commerce Committee's TEA-21 reauthorization legislation; and the funding levels approved by the Senate and House Appropriations Committees. And, it is entirely inconsistent with the significant funding increases provided over the short-term for highway construction and maintenance.

FMCSA was created after TEA-21 became law to address the increasing number of truck-related accidents on our nation's roads and highways. The duties assigned to the agency through the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Act, MCSIA, and other legislation have resulted in funding levels significantly above the administrative takedown authorized by TEA-21. The extension, however, fails to recognize this and, on the grounds that the bill must comply with the budget resolution, funding for motor carrier safety is being curtailed, while highway construction and transit funding is being increased.

I want to put my colleagues on notice that either when the full Senate moves its 6-year reauthorization bill, or is faced with a further extension of TEA-21 next February, I will insist that the motor carrier safety programs are authorized at an appropriate level of funding. I believe my views are shared by Senator Hollings, who joined me in sponsoring legislation, S. 1646, that would have funded the safety programs for 5 months at a level consistent with the Commerce Committee's reauthorization proposal.

I take pride in the fact that the Senate Commerce Committee completed work last June on its 6-year reauthorization of the TEA-21 safety programs under its jurisdiction. Our bipartisan bill is designed to meet the level of commitment to safety needed to achieve aggressive goals for reducing accidents and fatalities on the nation's

roadways. Safety deserves at least the same attention and priority as highway construction and again, I will object to any future related measure that does not ensure the motor carrier safety programs are fully funded for the full 2004 fiscal year.

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

Mr. President, today I rise to address the conference report for fiscal year 2004, the Department of Defense appropriations bill. As has become a standard practice for appropriations matters, this legislation is loaded with porkbarrel spending catered to the parochial needs of the Members and special interests and not to the interests of the men and women in the military.

I feel it is important that I come to the floor of the Senate to draw attention to this legislation, especially at a time when American troops are stretched across the globe, including major commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan. I notice in this morning's paper it is very likely that more National Guardsmen and Reserve Forces will have to be called up. We should be devoting critical defense dollars to urgent defense priorities. Apparently, that philosophy is not shared by all.

In this year's version of the legislation, there is over $6.5 billion in Member add-ons. I must say I congratulate the committee because last year it was $8.1 billion. So we have experienced a $1.6 billion reduction. I want to point out that these add-ons were not in the President's budget, not on the unfunded priority list, and not on the Pentagon's long-range defense budget.

Nowhere--nowhere--was there a priority for any of these items that I will be talking about and listing. One of the remarkable things about it is our disabled veterans are now trying to receive what we call concurrent receipt--

in other words, to be treated, when they are disabled, the same way that nonmilitary members of the Federal Government are treated. As it is now, they are prohibited against receiving both retirement and disability pay, as are other men and women who work for our Federal Government. Full concurrent receipt would cost the Government $3.5 billion annually, which is approximately half the total pork that is in this bill.

So I am announcing to my colleagues today I was trying to work out some way of ameliorating the cost of this concurrent receipt. When we spend money like this--when we will spend $5.9 billion more by leasing Boeing tankers rather than buying them, it seems to me that taking care of the men and women who have served with honor and distinction in the military deserve full concurrent receipt.

Once again, we are considering the Defense appropriations conference report prior to the consideration of the Defense authorization conference report. I remind my colleagues again of the role of the Appropriations Committee. The responsibility of the authorizers and the appropriators are expected to be distinct. The role of the Senate Armed Services Committee is to establish policy and funding levels and oversee the Department of Defense and its programs. The role of the Appropriations Committee is to allocate funding based on policies provided by authorization bills. The appropriators' function and role today, however, is expanded dramatically, and they now engage in significant policy decisionmaking and micromanagement, usurping the role of the authorizing committees.

I recognize the failure of authorizing committees to pass authorizing legislation contributes to this broken system and that often, as is probably the case now, appropriators have no choice but to fund unauthorized programs and take it upon themselves to make policy determinations. That is why, as chairman of the Commerce Committee, I have tried to reauthorize every program and bureaucracy that falls under the responsibilities of the Commerce Committee. I think I have done this with some success. But we still find, for example, in the Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill--which has not been considered yet on the floor--significant policy changes, laws written-- it is rather remarkable. Entire departments of Government are dissolved without debate--by the way, with the strong objections of the executive branch.

So one of the reasons the authorization bills are held up is because Members know that authorization measures don't really have to pass, and we know that the appropriations vehicles are always available to carry legislative riders. I have testified before the Rules Committee on the need for change, and I think at some point in time we will be faced with a choice: We either do away with the Appropriations Committee or with the authorizing committees.

The authorizing committees, to some degree, have become rather engaging and sometimes interesting debating groups when the real changes and policy decisions are made by the appropriators.

I also want to point out, last week I saw one of the most remarkable things I have ever seen in all the years I have been here. The energy and water appropriations bill was voted on and passed last Tuesday night. We voted. It was a recorded vote. Everybody went home. The next morning--and I mention this because the Senator from Nevada is on the floor--the next morning the Senator from Nevada stood and asked unanimous consent that $65 million be added for water projects for the Corps of Engineers.

I understand there was some technical reason for it and there was some technical change that was made, but I have to tell you, Mr. President, I have never, in all the years I have been here, seen a bill passed and voted on and the next day, many hours after the bill was passed, a Member come to the floor and ask unanimous consent that millions of dollars be added to an appropriations bill. If that is the way we are going to do business around here, then, I say to my friends, there is no fiscal discipline.

On September 17, the Comptroller General of the United States David Walker delivered a speech at the National Press Club. According to the head of the General Accounting Office, ``We must begin to come to grips with the daunting fiscal realities that threaten our Nation's, children's and grandchildren's future.''

In his speech, Mr. Walker cited CBO estimates at that time--they have since gone up $401 billion and $480 billion for the unified budget deficits for the fiscal years 2003 and 2004 respectively. If we take out the Social Security surpluses, these numbers jump to $562 billion and $644 billion respectively. More importantly, the costs of the $87 billion war supplemental are not even factored into these numbers.

In addition to this money, there are a number of financial liabilities the Federal Government has to pay out but are not counted against the budget, such as Medicare trust funds and health care benefit costs provided to the Department of Veterans Affairs. This leads Mr. Walker to state:

We are starting off in a financial hole we don't really

have a very good picture of how deep it is.

His suggestion:

It is time to admit that we are in a fiscal hole and ``stop

digging.''

I would like us to take seriously the advice of the top Government watchdog and quit digging. It seems to me if everybody in this country is watching reality television these days, I say to my good friends watching the Senate proceedings on C-SPAN, you are not watching reality television here. What you are watching is unreal. You are watching Members who don't care about the budget deficit we are running. In the face of huge deficits, we can still find enough money to blow on some of the items I will describe today.

Mr. President, I am tired of fighting these bills. I don't enjoy arousing the animosity of my friends on both sides of the aisle. I don't pretend to judge these projects. Many of them are worthwhile. Many of them are worthy causes. The hundreds of millions of dollars that are spent out of the Defense appropriations bill for breast cancer research is a worthy cause. My question remains, What in the world is it doing in a Defense appropriations bill when we have men and women who are still on food stamps and living in quarters that were built in World War II?

I am dismayed by the lack of attention we focus on these bills. Aside from scouring the bills to see if their projects are included, not much time is devoted to considering the conference report.

This legislation passed the House of Representatives without a copy of the bill text or explanatory report being available to all who want to look at it. In fact, a member of my staff called the House committee while they were voting on final passage of this conference report to inquire if the committee had the report available. The House appropriations staffer said they had a copy but were only allowing one staff member at a time to look at it. Staff was not allowed to make copies or remove the bill from the appropriator's office.

It took the House of Representatives 7 minutes to pass a bill that appropriates $368 billion for projects that appear on the Defense appropriations add-on list of items requested by Senators and were not included in the President's budget request. They did not appear on the Joint Chiefs unfunded priority list and were not authorized in the Defense authorization bill.

This criteria has been useful in identifying programs of questionable merit and determining the relative priority of projects that are requested by Members, often at the expense of the readiness of our Armed Forces.

The fact remains that in the years I have created these lists, no offsets have been provided for any project. The Joint Chiefs provided a list of critical requirements above what was provided for in the President's budget request. That list totaled nearly $18 billion for the year 2004. We should provide additional funding for defense for items and programs which the Joint Chiefs need, not for programs that are important because of the State they come from or because of the seniority of the Member of Congress.

My point is, we cannot do business as usual. There is an ever-growing proportion of our Federal budget that is in these appropriations. While the cost of each program or project may not seem

like a good deal of money, collectively, earmarks, such as the ones in this legislation, significantly burden American taxpayers.

Let me point out some of the more egregious examples in this legislation:

$135 million for advanced procurement of the LPD-17;

$8.1 million for the 21st century truck. Mr. President, $8.1 million for the 21st century truck, not requested by the Department of Defense, not on any list the Joint Chiefs of Staff might feel is important, but the 21st century truck finds its way into the Defense appropriations bill each year;

$4.3 million for the Army's smart truck. One would think after all these years on the pork list if this truck was so smart, it would find a way to fund itself by now;

$1.0 million for the Young Patriots Program. It is a wonderful name. It is a program by the National Flag Foundation to expand the Young Patriots Program to include a video which promotes the significance of national patriotic holidays. I love our patriotic holidays, but $1 million to watch a video on national patriotic holidays?

One of my favorites that has come up--it is interesting, once they are in, they continue year after year--$1.0 million for Shakespeare in American Military Communities. Shakespeare in American Military Communities has found its way in again. I guess it all is a matter of priorities.

$1.8 million for the canola fuel cell initiative. I think canola is cooking oil. I am not sure. But $1.8 million for the canola fuel cell initiative not requested by the President or the Department of Defense;

$1 million for Lewis and Clark bicentennial activities. If this was in the Interior appropriations bill, I would support celebrating the Lewis and Clark bicentennial activities. I think it was a monumental series of events in American history, but we are taking it out of defense.

$7.5 million for the Joint Advertising Market Research and Studies Programs. I can hardly wait to see the commercials that come from this money.

$3 million for U.S.-made bayonets. Nobody else has made bayonets. Once again, Buy America provisions have found their way into the bill.

$6.5 million for the procurement of lightweight armor for CH-46. The conferees mention use of Kevlar, a DuPont product, making this another Buy America provision.

I congratulate again the Senator from Alaska for a large number of appropriations that are earmarked for the State of Alaska ranging from $8 million and up to $26 million for railroad track alignment at Air Force-managed ranges to $8.9 million for hybrid electric vehicle testing only at the cold region testing facility. $9 million for the Fort Wainwright Utilidor. I apologize I keep displaying my ignorance on some of these items. I do not know what a utilidor is. Kentucky, they did OK. Then there is $1.2 million for the Fort Knox University of Mounted Warfare Campus Area Network Infrastructure. One of my favorites that was in the bill last year, a half million dollars for a hangar at Griffis Air Force Base in New York. The only problem with that is that Griffis Air Force Base has been closed for many years. It no longer belongs to the military or the Federal Government.

Of course, language preventing that has been in for several years, language which clearly falls under the purview of the authorizing committee, preventing the disestablishment of the 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron of the Air Force Reserve stationed in Mississippi. That is clearly a policy decision and has nothing to do with appropriations.

Then there is $45.7 million for the Maui Space Surveillance System; $23 million for the Hawaii Federal health care network, $2.5 for the Alaska Federal health care network. If I were from Alaska, I would be a little upset at that disparity: $23 million for the Hawaii Federal health care network, and only $2.5 million for the Alaska Federal health care network.

Our old friend, the brown tree snake, is back, another $1 million for the brown tree snake, the best funded snakes in the United States and certainly in the world; $1.4 million for the minimally invasive surgery program for Ohio; $4.5 million, Pacific Island health care network; $3 million for complementary and alternative medicine.

Again, I want to point out there are a number of excellent programs. The legislation provides a pay raise to our soldiers, sailors, and airmen, as well as a targeted raise for midcareer officers and selected noncommissioned officers. The legislation also provides $128 million for the continuation of increased rates for imminent danger pay and family separation allowances. Of course, my question is: Why is that not permanent?

I have a serious concern that extended deployments will lead to retention problems if we do not work to ensure that we take care of our soldiers and sailors. By providing our servicemembers with adequate benefits, we help ensure that our military will not face retention problems.

In this morning's Washington Post there is a quote from an unnamed National Guardsman who said that with these recent strains, the Guard in particular, and Reserves, are going to have significant difficulties. National Guard and Reserve servicemembers are performing many vital tasks. Direct involvement in military operations to liberate Iraq in the air, on the ground, and on the sea, guarding nuclear powerplants, our borders and airports in the United States; providing support to the war on terrorism through guarding, interrogating and extending medical services to al-Qaida detainees; rebuilding schools in hurricane-stricken Honduras; fighting fires in our Western States; overseeing civil affairs in Bosnia; and augmenting aircraft carriers short on Active Duty sailors with critical-skilled enlisted ratings during at-sea exercises, as well as during periods of deployment.

I look forward to the day when I do not have to criticize the unrequested spending in appropriations bills. Yesterday, the House and Senate passed the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act. I was encouraged to see that there was not a great deal of unnecessary spending in that legislation. We still have a number of appropriations bills and conference reports left to consider in this session. I can only hope that the members of the Appropriations Committee will follow the lead of the Homeland Security appropriators in the future. I think we are entering a very serious fiscal crisis in the United States, including the fact that the Social Security situation is going to be compounded by the retirement of the baby boomers, the Medicare trust fund is going to be in a very serious situation, and we are rapidly approaching the kind of deficits that were only equaled in the early Reagan years and may even exceed them.

I know of no economist who does not believe that sooner or later the deficit will increase interest rates and cause inflation. There are a broad range of economists who have many different views on many different aspects of economics. I know of none who believe that over time burgeoning deficits are bad for America and the people who reside in our country.

Not too long ago, someone said the difference between California and Washington is that in California they cannot print their own money. I think there is a certain truth to that. What bothers me is that we are not making strong efforts to reduce unnecessary spending at this very difficult time.

I thank the Senator from Alaska, our distinguished chairman, as we enter a very difficult time, for trying to get approval of the request of the President of the United States. I commend him for his heroic effort on behalf of the much needed and very critical amounts of money, both in terms of defense and in reconstruction funding.

I just came from a hearing in the Armed Services Committee where Ambassador Bremer stated unequivocally, as did General Abizaid, that this money, both for the military and reconstruction, is not only vital but very time sensitive. Both Ambassador Bremer and General Abizaid said the war is on for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. We need to restore the infrastructure. We need to provide for their security. Otherwise, we will face, in the words of Ambassador Bremer, ``the most severe crisis.''

I thank the Senator from Alaska, our distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, for the heroic effort he is making to get that urgent request from the President of the United

States to take care of our men and women in the military and pursue to success the very vital mission and challenges we face in Iraq.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of H.R. 3161, the FTC's ratification of authority for the Do Not Call Registry, under the following conditions: 45 minutes under the control of the chairman of the Commerce Committee or his designee, and 45 minutes under the control of the ranking member or his designee; of the time under the control of the ranking member, the following Senators be recognized to speak for up to 5 minutes each: Senators Hollings, Dorgan, Conrad, Kohl, Pryor, Schumer, and Feinstein, with the remaining time under the control of the Democratic leader or his designee; further, that no amendments be in order to the bill; and that upon the use or yielding back of time, the bill be read a third time and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the bill, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I will be glad for the time to be 10 minutes for Senator Hollings, but I remind my friend from Nevada, Senator Hollings will be controlling the time. So he will be granting himself as much time as he may use because the unanimous consent request is that the time will be under the control of the ranking member or his designee.

Good. But I have always proceeded under the assumption that Senator Hollings can speak whenever he wants to, for however long he wants to. I have found that it has improved our relationship.

Mr. President, does the Senator from South Carolina care to speak at this time?

Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First of all, I thank Senator Hollings for all his efforts on this legislation. I think he was not a Member of the Senate when the Federal Trade Commission was created, but very close to it, and he has been heavily involved with all the issues surrounding the FTC and the good works they do.

I will speak very briefly. I would like to thank Senator Ensign and Senator Feinstein, Senator Dorgan, Senator DeWine, and many other Senators, but particularly those including the distinguished ranking member, Senator Hollings, for all their efforts regarding this legislation and, more importantly, this issue.

Two days ago, a Federal district court in Oklahoma issued an opinion that could stall the FTC's implementation of a National Do Not Call Registry scheduled to go into effect next Wednesday. The court opined that the FTC was not authorized to create a Do Not Call Registry. I must say that opinion came as an amazing surprise to those of us who have been involved in this issue, and served as a rallying cry for tens of millions of Americans households that have signed up for the registry.

I understand the judge received so many calls from irate Americans that the FTC could not get through to the court regarding the Commission's appeal. Clearly, the court's decision was misguided.

The measure before us makes crystal clear that the Commission can and should proceed as planned with the Do Not Call list. Earlier this year, in two separate measures, Congress ratified the FTC's Do Not Call Registry by explicitly providing for the Commission to collect fees to pay for it. Today Congress is once again saying, dispositively and unambiguously, that the FTC has the authority it needs to create a National Do Not Call list.

When the FTC proposed to create this registry, I don't think they or even Members of this body had any idea how strongly it would be embraced by a public tired of having their precious leisure time filled with a seemingly incessant string of telephone solicitations.

I understand the FTC's Web site for registering on the Do Not Call list became the fastest growing Web site in history.

One of my favorite programs is ``Seinfeld.'' In one of the episodes that has become famous in reruns, Jerry Seinfeld answers the phone and it is a telemarketer. He says: I am busy right now. Can I call you back at home?

And of course the telemarketer says: No, you are not allowed to do that. You wouldn't like that. Well, neither do I. And he hung up the phone.

Obviously, the issue of telemarketing involves the free enterprise system. Nothing in this legislation would inhibit their ability from practicing that, but it also balances the right of private citizens not to be disturbed if they choose not to be.

During a peak period, the FTC's Web site received approximately 1,000 hits per second. On the first day alone, 3.4 million consumers visited the Web site. In the first 10 days, 10 million phone numbers had been registered. Within the first month, the number had risen to 28 million--quite a remarkable evolution. To date, over 50 million phone numbers have been registered, including nearly 1.2 million in my State of Arizona.

Congress is often accused of being slow to respond. Thankfully, that charge can't be leveled here. Just a few hours ago the House passed this legislation by a vote of 412 to 8. Whenever you see a number like that, you are always curious who the eight are, but the curious decision of one court should not be allowed to frustrate the clear will of Congress and the even clearer will of tens of millions of Americans.

Obviously, we urge our colleagues to support the measure, give consumers what they want by empowering them to say no to what they clearly do not want.

I thank all of my colleagues who have responded to the predictable but certainly overwhelming response to the

court's decision in the State of Oklahoma. That judge in the district court will become well known to many Americans as well.

I thank all my colleagues for coming and speaking on this issue. I thank them for their support. Although there is not a need for the yeas and nays, some of our colleagues may want to be on record. So we may want to do so depending on the desires of my friend from North Dakota, a man who understands the will of the populace especially where telecommunications issues are concerned.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, the primary purposes of the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, are to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States; to reduce America's vulnerability to terrorism; and, to minimize the damage and recover from attacks that may occur. The fledgling agency has begun to address many of the challenges presented it, including the monumental restructuring of 22 domestic Federal agencies. The Appropriation Committee's role is to provide the DHS the funds necessary to continue to carry out its important missions. I am pleased that, in this first homeland security appropriations bill, the agency's priorities were, for the most part, placed above the special interests'.

The conference report and the accompanying Statement of Managers is relatively free of objectionable provisions. There are, however, a couple of provisions that merit the attention of my colleagues.

One such provision would prohibit any funds from being used to implement section 44922(h) of title 49. Interestingly, there is no such section under existing law.

So why have the appropriators taken action to prohibit the implementation of a provision of law that doesn't exist? Well, the FAA reauthorization conference report, which has yet to be voted on by the full Senate, includes such a section that we expect will become law as soon as we can take final action on the bill and send it to the President for his signature.

The FAA reauthorization conference report provision would provide $250 million per year to airports for capital costs associated with security at our Nation's airports. We received testimony during our many oversight hearings on aviation security that such costs could total almost $5 billion. Therefore, the FAA conference report appropriately provides funding for such costs.

Do the appropriators disagree that such funding is needed? Apparently not, since the DHS conference report actually contains on appropriation of $250 million--exactly the same amount as the FAA bill--for such costs. So what is behind the appropriators' actions?

Given that the DHS conference report doesn't provide an explanation, one can only conclude they want to ensure complete and total control, as usual, even if it means taking action to nullify a provision not in their jurisdiction and that has not even been enacted.

The funding under the FAA conference report is taken from the revenue collected by the $2.50 security fee imposed on all airline passengers. That fee was first established by legislation originating in the Commerce Committee after the September 11 attacks. The legislation also specified that the revenue could be used by the appropriators to help pay for the costs of aviation security.

The FAA conference report simply expands the uses of the fee revenue to include capital security costs at airports. The report also makes the money available directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security without further appropriation.

Our Nation's security, including the very important issue of aviation security, which the Congress has spent considerable time and attention addressing, should not be jeopardized due to needless jurisdictional fights. It is unfortunate that such a provision was included in such an important funding bill without any consultation with the authorizing committee of jurisdiction. I would hope we could do better for the sake of our Nation's security interests.

In addition, I am concerned about a provision in the conference report that would transfer funding for the Assistance to Firefighters Grant program from the Department of Homeland Security's Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate to the Office for Domestic Preparedness.

The Assistance to Firefighters Grant program is a highly successful Federal program created to meet the basic day-to-day needs of our Nation's firefighters. The program uses a competitive, merit-based review process to distribute funds directly to fire departments demonstrating the greatest need. Grants under this program are used for improving local response to ``all-hazards,'' including wildfires, hazardous materials accidents, tornadoes, floods, and structural fires, and are not solely for antiterrorism efforts.

I am greatly concerned about the effects of this transfer on the program. ODP has little experience at running merit-based programs, such as the Assistance to Firefighters Grant program. ODP is focused on counterterrorism, and may not have the experience necessary to understand the basic requirements of today's firefighter to deal with non-terrorism related disasters.

I understand that the administration's fiscal year 2004 budget submission seeks to transfer this grant program to ODP. However, changes to the Assistance to Firefighters Grant program should be made after a thorough review and subsequent legislative changes by the appropriate authorizing committees, not as a provision in an appropriations bill.

Compared to other appropriations measures, the conference report and Statement of Managers contain fewer objectionable provisions and earmarks. I would hope future appropriations measures follow suit.

Mr. President, I was recently informed of the passing of MSG Al Bland, USAF Ret. This distinguished veteran of the United States Air Force served his country admirably for 20 years. His military career included service during World War II, where Master Sergeant Bland was ordered to beach defense on the Bataan perimeter. Captured at Bataan in April of 1942, Master Sergeant Bland survived the Bataan Death March, carrying another soldier for most of the journey. As a POW, Bland was imprisoned at Camp O'Donnell in the Philippines, later on a Japanese Hell Ship and finally in Manchuria. He was finally released from prison camp in 1945, after three torturous years. As a result of his combat, he was 100 percent service related disabled.

The list of awards Master Sergeant Bland received for his valiant service include the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart. Upon completing his service, Master Sergeant Bland became a leader on POW related issues for many years. He was instrumental in establishing the Andersonville National Park and was awarded the POW Medal by President Reagan in 1988. I was fortunate enough to work with Master Sergeant Bland and more importantly call him a friend. Master Sergeant Bland was a true patriot and he will be sorely missed and by a grateful nation.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk, as I do quite frequently, about the number of unrequested, unauthorized, and locality-specific earmarks contained in this bill. Fortunately, this year's Interior appropriations bill does not contain as many pork projects as the bill the Senate passed last year. This year's bill has over $403 million in porkbarrel projects. Last year's had $429 million, so I guess there is a $26 million improvement. I guess I should be grateful for this apparent savings, but I do not see this as evidence of tremendous fiscal restraint.

Citizens Against Government Waste, a nationally recognized, well- respected, nonpartisan government watchdog organization found that in fiscal year 2003, the Appropriations Committee stuck 9,362 projects into the 13 annual appropriations bills, an increase of over 12 percent from the previous year's total of 8,341. A further note: in the last 2 years the total number of projects has increased by some 48 percent.

I have compiled a 21-page list of 332 objectionable provisions contained within this bill, totaling $423 million. I will post the full list on my official Senate Web site.

Let me just highlight some of the more egregious projects in this bill: An earmark for $4 million for the construction, renovation, and furnishing and demolition or removal of buildings at National Energy Technology Laboratory facilities in Morgantown, WV, and Pittsburg, PA; $15 million for alcohol control enforcement, prevention, treatment, sobriety and wellness, and education in Alaska, distributed in lump sum payments to various entities; one of our old favorites, $1 million above the request to continue work at the National Center for Ecologically-Based Noxious Weed Management at Montana State University--they got an extra $1 million; $500,000 for continued funding of the Idaho Sage Grouse Management Plan through the Idaho Office of Species Conservation; $2 million above the budget request of the President for Atlantic salmon recovery activities; $900,000 above the budget request for Eider Duck recovery work by the Alaska SeaLife Center; $1.2 million above the budget request for the Wolf Recovery Program in the State of

Idaho; $1.4 million for the Washington State Regional Salmon Enhancement; $200,000 for bald eagle restoration work performed in cooperation with the Vermont National Heritage Partners Program; $500,000 for the Native Roadside Vegetation Center at the University of Northern Idaho; $700,000 for invasive species control in Hawaii; $500,000 for the Delaware Bay Oyster Revitalization Project in the States of Delaware and New Jersey; $500,000 for salmon restoration work in Puget Sound in cooperation with the Seattle Art Museum--the Seattle Art Museum is going to work in cooperation with Puget Sound for salmon restoration--$750,000 for ferret reintroduction in the Rosebud Sioux tribal lands; $1.5 million for the Bitter Lake, NM, Visitors Center-- that is sweet--$1 million for Kenai, AK, for cabins, trails, and campgrounds; $3 million for the Kodiak, AK, Visitors Center--I can tell you that Alaska is doing very well by doing good--$2.1 million for the Ohio River Islands, WV, Visitors Center and miscellaneous improvements; $525,000 for the Okefenokee Concession Facility in Georgia; $300,000 for the Garrison Dam, ND, fishpond improvements; $850,000 for the Savannah, GA, Visitors Center--we are big on visitors centers in this particular bill--$2 million for the World Birding Center in Texas; $3 million for the Abraham Lincoln Library in Illinois; $500,000 to design a visitors center on Assateague Island in Maryland; $1.1 million to rehabilitate off-road vehicle trails in Big Cypress National Park in Florida; $1.7 million to rehabilitate General Grant's tomb in New York--I wonder if we should ascertain whether General Grant is actually there before we rehabilitate his tomb--$3 million for a visitors center in the Grand Teton National Park; $7.4 million for rehabilitation of the Horace Albright Training Center in Arizona. I am told that the Horace Albright Training Center in Arizona is a place near the bottom of the Grand Canyon where park personnel are trained.

The committee report directs 26 separate unrequested land acquisitions under the Fish and Wildlife Service totaling nearly $35 million.

It is the process that I have a problem with. The committee effectively usurps the power of the authorizing committee and acts as one all-powerful funding machine. Projects are often funded with little or no background study and are approved simply after being requested by a fellow Member.

As all my colleagues know, the Congressional Budget Office recently projected a potentially debilitating $480 billion deficit for 2004 and the President has asked for additional appropriations of $87 billion for the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and everybody is asking: Where is the money coming from? After years of unchecked and questionable spending, we are in the unfortunate position of facing critical budget constraints that will hamper our ability to fully fund necessary programs. Instead, we are cutting deep into the taxpayers' pockets once again by expecting them to shell out more than $403 million in porkbarrel spending included in this bill.

I think at some point the President of the United States is going to have to veto one of these bills and demand that this unnecessary, unwarranted, unauthorized, and unrequested spending be removed because we really are talking about real money.

I understand we are going to have a voice vote on final passage of this bill. I would be recorded as voting no if there were a recorded vote.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 1739

Mr. President, today, I am joined by Senator Hollings in introducing legislation to provide a short-term extension of the safety programs administered by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and the boating safety program administered by the Coast Guard. It is our expectation that this measure will be joined with broader legislation to extend the highway and transit programs for five months.

I take pride in the fact that the Senate Commerce Committee completed work last June on a 6-year reauthorization of the safety programs under its jurisdiction. The bipartisan bill is designed to meet the level of commitment to safety needed to achieve aggressive goals for reducing accidents and fatalities on the nation's roadways. This short-term extension is consistent with our Committee's longer-term reauthorization proposal. It is also consistent with the President's budget request for fiscal year 2004 and with the appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004 that has been reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee.

We look forward to working with our colleagues to approve the extension to ensure the continuity of these important safety programs.

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

Mr. President, today, I am joined by Senator Hollings in introducing legislation to provide a short-term extension of the safety programs administered by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and the boating safety program administered by the Coast Guard. It is our expectation that this measure will be joined with broader legislation to extend the highway and transit programs for five months.

I take pride in the fact that the Senate Commerce Committee completed work last June on a 6-year reauthorization of the safety programs under its jurisdiction. The bipartisan bill is designed to meet the level of commitment to safety needed to achieve aggressive goals for reducing accidents and fatalities on the nation's roadways. This short-term extension is consistent with our Committee's longer-term reauthorization proposal. It is also consistent with the President's budget request for fiscal year 2004 and with the appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004 that has been reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee.

We look forward to working with our colleagues to approve the extension to ensure the continuity of these important safety programs.

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

The amendment to the United States Olympic Committee Reform Act of 2003, S. 1404, being offered by Senator Campbell permits the new USOC board, together with the new USOC assembly, to determine the location of the organization's headquarters. This amendment is consistent with what is already in the USOC's Federal charter, which currently allows the USOC to determine where in the United States the organization's headquarters should be maintained.

To move the headquarters, the newly constituted board would first determine whether it is in the best interest of the USOC to relocate the headquarters. A unanimous vote by the board would be required to refer the matter to the assembly for consideration, and then, only by a three-fifths majority of the assembly could the USOC headquarters be relocated.

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has passed S. 1404, the United States Olympic Committee Reform Act of 2003. I thank the cosponsors of this important legislation, Senators Stevens and Campbell, for their passion for the Olympic movement and their contribution to the reform of the United States Olympic Committee, USOC. S. 1404 is intended to make significant improvements to the governance structure of the USOC by vastly reducing the size of the current board of directors and by creating an assembly of USOC stakeholders. The bill is intended to allow the USOC to operate more effectively within a more streamlined and transparent structure.

S. 1404 is the product of three Commerce Committee hearings held this year in response to a series of embarrassing leadership and ethics scandals that have plagued the USOC and distracted the organization from its mission. The new board of directors, which would be the primary governing body of the organization, would appoint a chief executive officer to carry out the board's policies and run the organization's day-to-day business operations. The board would defer to the judgment of the assembly on matters relating specifically to the Olympic Games.

While maintaining the representation and voting authority of athletes and national governing bodies, this legislation also would provide increased financial transparency to the USOC and establish whistle- blower protection for its employees. The bill is designed to streamline the USOC to allow a larger percentage of the revenue generated by the organization to be allocated to support amateur athletes.

In addition, we have worked to make this bill comply with the charter of the International Olympic Committee, IOC, and will continue to do this. It is important to note that corporate governance in the United States has changed dramatically over the past year, and these changes are leading this country's private and public sectors to adopt higher standards of responsibility and accountability. These same standards should be applied to the USOC to ensure that the narrow agendas of individual USOC constituencies are no longer paramount to the common objectives of the organization. To accomplish this objective, we propose that the USOC adhere to best corporate governance practices, such as requiring that the newly constituted USOC board have at least a majority of independent directors. In the end, the

newly reformed board would govern the day-to-day operations of the USOC, and would be able to work with the IOC to address any concerns that it might have regarding the USOC's operations.

The fast-approaching Olympic Games in Athens next summer, as well as the ongoing bid by New York City to host the games in 2012, lend urgency to this legislation, and I look forward quickly to resolving any differences between the Senate and House measures. I urge my colleagues to support this very important legislation.

Mr. President, last week the Senate passed the annual energy and water appropriations bill. As my colleagues well know, the energy and water development appropriations bill is perhaps one of the most important measures this body considers each year. This bill provides funding for our Nation's energy resources, finances much- needed improvements to our water infrastructure and provides funding for critical aspects of our national security needs.

Let me begin, by commending the managers of this bill, Senator Domenici, the chairman of the subcommittee on energy and water development, and Senator Reid, the subcommittee's ranking member, for their hard work on this legislation. The task before them was great, and they successfully completed this bill in a timely fashion, allowing the appropriations process to move forward.

As my colleagues know, this legislation funds critical cleanup activities at various sites across the country and continues ongoing water infrastructure projects managed by the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation. Furthermore, the bill increases funding for the energy supply, designed to develop new energy technologies and improve existing energy programs. These are significant aspects of this legislation and seek to ensure a diverse energy supply for our nation.

Given the energy problems facing our country, these aspects of the bill are worthy pursuits. Again, I have tremendous respect for the hard work done by the managers in putting this bill together. I am, however, disappointed that once again my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee have succumbed to temptation and loaded this bill with numerous locality-specific earmarks, special deals and unnecessary, wasteful porkbarrel spending projects.

This bill contains nearly $1.2 billion more than what was appropriated for fiscal year 2003 and is over $700 million more than the administration's budget request. In this bill, I have identified over 700 items of unrequested, locality specific earmarks, unauthorized spending and special deals for certain states totaling nearly $1.5 billion. I will post a list of these items on my official Senate website.

Let me highlight just some of the egregious aspects of this bill. There is $6.9 million for the New Mexico Education Enrichment Foundation. Aren't any of the other 49 States in this country entitled to ``Education Enrichment?''. There is $1 million for water management in Hawaii. There is $1.5 million above the budget request for oyster recovery in Maryland and Virginia. There is $500,000 for exhibits at the Atomic Testing History Institute in Nevada. History Institute--a pretty fancy name for a museum. There is language directing the Corps of Engineers to repair a Fish Viewing Building in Washington State. There is $13 million above the budget request for the Kanawha River in West Virginia.

There is $1.5 million for the University of Nevada-Las Vegas to conduct safety and risk analysis. There is $20 million for the Lewis and Clark Water Project in South Dakota. There is $3 million above the budget request for the Tropicana and Flamingo Washes in Nevada. There is $105 million to build a ``microsystem and engineering'' facility in New Mexico. There is $690 million to build a waste treatment plant in Richland, WA. There is $14 million to build an ``immobilized'' interim waste storage facility in Richland, WA. Just how many wastes facilities does Richland, WA need? Thankfully this one is ``immobilized''--there is nothing more disturbing than ``mobilized'' waste.

There is $20.2 million to build a glass waste storage building in Savannah River, SC. There is $38 million above the request for the Appalachian Regional Commission. There is $5 million above the budget request for the Delta Regional Authority. There is $39 million above the budget request for the Denali Commission.

The Corps of Engineers general construction account itself contains 128 unrequested, locality-specific projects which total over $382 million. Let me read a few of those for the Record. I ask unanimous consent that the list of these 128 projects be printed in the Record.

I am confident that many of my colleagues will maintain the importance of the need to fully fund these and many of the other projects in their respective States. That is fine. I do not fault them for it. In fact, let me state clearly, that I do not question the merits of these projects. Most of them, I am sure, are very important and worthy of Federal funds.

It is the process, with which I have a serious problem. The Appropriations Committee has effectively usurped the power of the authorizing committees and acts as one, all-powerful funding machine. Projects are often funded with little or no background study, and are approved after simply being requested by a fellow Senator. These same projects are directed to certain states and localities, completely circumventing the proper, competitive-based awards process. Additionally, as is the case throughout this bill, members of the Appropriations Committee use directive language to force cabinet secretaries and agency heads to use scarce taxpayer dollars to fund members' pet projects, while not allotting them a single dime with which to fulfill the requirements imposed upon them by the appropriators.

Additionally, this bill deauthorizes 20 inactive corps projects, some dating as far back as 1946. While I appreciate the committee recognizing the need for inactive projects to be deauthorized, I

must point out that an appropriations bill is simply not the place for this type of language. A project should be deauthorized in the same way it is supposed to be authorized--by the appropriate authorizing committee, not by the Appropriations Committee.

As I often do during consideration of the appropriations bills, I had planned to offer an amendment to this bill to strip a provision that is designed to benefit one specific water project in the State of New Mexico. I chose not to offer my amendment in this case for various reasons. But I am putting the Senate on notice--I will continue to offer amendments to the remaining appropriations bills if these bills continue to come before this body loaded with unrequested earmarks or other unnecessary or wasteful spending.

As all of my colleagues know, CBO recently projected a potentially debilitating $480 billion deficit for 2004. More importantly, we are at war. President Bush is poised to request a supplemental appropriation of $87 billion for the ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Every one of us has asked ourselves the same question: Where is that money going to come from? I have an idea. Let's start with this bill. Let's eliminate all of the unrequested earmarks, all of the special deals, all of the pork and all of the waste. Let's prove to the American taxpayer that we in Washington do not see them as simply a cash cow for our every financial whim.

Both the President and the Vice President have recently called on Congress to control spending at this crucial time. Is it too much to ask Congress to tighten their own belts in order to benefit the men and women of the armed forces who continue to fight--and die--so that others may live free of tyranny and oppression? I don't think it is a lot to ask, I think it is our responsibility. We simply cannot continue to spend hardworking American's tax dollars in such an irresponsible manner any longer.

Mr. President, is the Senator from North Dakota granting himself time?

Is the Senator speaking for or against?

How much time does the Senator from Louisiana wish?

I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Alaska such time as he may consume.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time is remaining on both sides, and at what time will the vote take place?

Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise to speak in opposition to S.J. Res. 17. I had the opportunity to make a full statement last week. In my time as chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, no issue has erupted so rapidly and evoked such passion from the public as media consolidation. These are critically important decisions.

If we could have a little straight talk this morning, if the Senate passes this resolution, there is no objective observer that believes the House will act accordingly. Now, the Senator from North Dakota may think it is important to have this Senate on record, and I don't disagree with that at all. Any prospects of it becoming a reality is minimal, at best. We should all recognize that.

Second, all kinds of allegations have crept in about various motivations on both sides of this issue. Some have been accused of wanting to return to the fairness doctrine. Some are saying it is because of ideological bias, dislike of talk radio, or dislike of the New

York Times acquiring more cable companies and media. I don't accept any of those arguments from both the right and left. There is legitimate basis for concern about continued consolidation of the media. This is not the appropriate vehicle for addressing that in 4 hours of debate and a blanket repudiation of regulations, some of which have been good, in my view, because they have reined in, at least to some degree, the continued consolidation in the most egregious and most incredible media consolidation, and that is radio in America today.

We have legislation passed through the Commerce Committee, S. 1046, which after being composed, marked up, amended, and debated in the Commerce Committee is on the calendar and ready for floor consideration. If we are serious about addressing this issue, we should do it by calling up from the calendar for debate and amendment S. 1046 and we can explore the myriad and complex aspects of this issue.

For example, the Appropriations Committee has now added, I am told, to their bill the 45-percent cap being rolled back to 35 percent. According to BusinessWeek magazine, the 45-percent 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 allow companies to snap up not only two to 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 will have to resist calling it a day after dispensing with the network cap and go after the rules with real bite. As it now stands, TV's big networks will be losers among media outlets, thanks mostly to vociferous lobbying by independent TV affiliates. With strong ties to lawmakers who depend on them for campaign coverage, the affiliates have succeeded in getting a House vote against the 45 percent and will likely see a rerun of that episode when the Senate votes by October.

With Fox and CBS already each owning stations that cover about 40 percent of the Nation's audience, going up another 5 percent is not going to make a dramatic difference. In contrast, opening the floodgates to allow local behemoths to combine newspapers, TV, and radio stations under one roof would change media ownership in towns and cities, concentrating it in the hands of a few. Even in midsized cities such as San Antonio, for instance, one company might own the leading newspaper, two TV stations, eight radio stations, and several cable channels.

What we are doing is interesting but if we are going to address this issue in a serious fashion, and there is reason for concern, we ought to do it in a fashion far different from this.

I point out that the CRA precludes an agency adopting similar rules without substantive congressional legislation. In other words, the FCC would be prevented, if this is passed, from acting on any rules regarding media consolidation. Almost all Members of this body have some degree of concern at least about some aspect of it.

I hope all of our colleagues had the opportunity to see the Wall Street Journal article on September 15 entitled: Show of Strength: How Media Giants Are Reassembling The Old Oligopoly; Mix of Broadcast and Cable Proves Lucrative in Making Deals.

Viacom and its big media peers have been snapping up cable channels because they are one of the few entertainment outlets generating strong revenue growth these days. More broadly, the media giants have discovered that owning both broadcast and cable outlets provides powerful new leverage over advertisers and cable- and satellite-TV operators. The golaiths are using this advantage to wring better fees out of the operators that carry their channels and are pressuring those operators into carrying new and untried channels. They're also finding ways to coordinate promotions across their different holdings.

Entertainment giants such as Viacom, NBC parent General Electric Co. and Walt Disney Co., which owns ABC, now reach more than 50 percent of the prime-time TV audience through their combined broadcast and cable outlets. The total rises to 80 percent if you include the parents of newer networks--such as New Corp.'s Fox and AOL Time Warner Inc.'s WB-- and NBC's pending acquisition of Vivendi Universal SA's cable assets, estimates Tom Wolzein, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co.

The big media companies are quietly re-creating the ``old programming oligopoly'' of the pre-cable era, notes Mr. Wolzein, a former executive at NBC. Of the top 25 cable channels, 20 are now owned by one of the big five media companies.

The idea of owning broadcast networks as well as cable channels is ``comfortable for people like ourselves,'' says Bob Wright, chairman of NBC, which two weeks ago signed a preliminary agreement to acquire Vivendi Universal's USA and Sci-Fi cable channels, along with the Universal film studio, bolstering a stable of cable channels that includes Bravo, MSNBC and CNBC. ``There has been so much consolidation'' among the distributors that ``unless you are equally big . . . you risk a situation where you can be marginalized,'' says Viacom President Karmazin.

Viacom president Karmazin is a man, who, by the way, I happen to admire enormously.

I am not blaming any of these people, executives or organizations, for seeking to gain as much market share as they can. But the reason I refer to this Wall Street Journal article is this is a complex set of issues. When we are talking about cable consolidation, cable rates, all of the other.

Since 1990, almost half of the top 50 cable channels have changed hands. Among the big deals: Disney's $19 billion acquisition of ESPN's parent, Capital Cites/ABC, and Time Warner's $6.7 billion purchase of CNN parent Turner Broadcasting, both negotiated in the summer of 1995. In 2001, Disney bought the Family Channel from News Corp. for $5.2 billion.

Last year, NBC bought Bravo for $1.3 billion. CBS, owner of The Nashville Network--now Spike TV--and Country Music Television, itself was gobbled up in 2000 by MTV's longtime parent, Viacom. Viacom has since added channels such as BET and Comedy Central.

Mr. Karmazin recently boasted to investors that the company's broadcast and cable outlets reach 26 percent of the Nation's viewers in prime time, a significantly bigger share than any other company. Having such a big market share is ``real important for lots of reasons, in terms of dealing with advertisers and our cable partners,'' he told investors.

There is something going on here that deserves investigation, not just a simple CRA vote and then move on. At the hearing before the Commerce Committee, all five FCC Commissioners agreed--all five, for one of the first times I have ever heard the FCC Commissioners agree to anything--the consolidation of radio that occurred in local markets has been excessive. While it received little credit amid the outcry against the regulations, the FCC attempted to address this problem by describing new market definitions designed to tighten the limits on logical radio ownership.

The resolution would have the perverse consequences of eliminating these efforts and prohibiting the FCC from adopting similar measures in the future, a move that surely will be applauded in the corporate offices of large radio station groups that hope to perpetuate their ability to benefit from existing loopholes.

Likewise, this resolution could have grave unintended consequences for other media ownership rules the Commission decided to leave unchanged.

For example, the FCC retained its limit on the number of local radio stations one entity may own and retained its rule prohibiting one entity from owning two of the four largest television networks. The decision to retain these rules will also be rejected if the resolution is enacted. If the FCC were to read this statute, as many have, as limiting its permissible actions in biennial review proceeding to exclusively deregulatory changes to its rules, the FCC may have no choice but to raise the number of stations that one entity is permitted to own in a local market or eliminate the dual rhetoric network rule. This cannot be the outcome intended by the sponsors of this resolution, though it is one that could conceivably result.

Finally, the use of the CRA in the present case will create a regulatory

void likely to be filled only by uncertainty about the status of the FCC's media ownership rules. As a result, all of the rules, even those that the proponents of the resolution favor, may be vulnerable to court action. The absence of an affirmative congressional directive will cast considerable doubt on the FCC's ability to enforce its previous rules given that one of the FCC's previous attempts to retain the rules was found by the DC Circuit to be arbitrary and capricious. Another was found not to have justified that the rules are necessary in the public interest. In both cases, the DC Circuit remanded the rules to the FCC and directed the agency to either articulate a justification for retaining the rules or modify them. The lack of an enforceable FCC order will leave these court orders unanswered, risking additional court action that relaxes the rules even further or even invalidates them entirely.

My point is that we have a very complex set of issues to address. I believe there is reason for concern about media consolidation, as the Senator from North Dakota has fairly overused the comment that there are many voices and one ventriloquist. At the same time this action would invalidate both good and bad, this action would make many believe that we have resolved the issue and moved on.

On the calendar is S. 1046, a bill that was properly considered and reported out by the Commerce Committee. That is the way we should be addressing this issue so that this issue can be fully ventilated and fully understood.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I control the time.

We have been going back and forth, and I will yield to the other side and then yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. President, I will take 1 more minute.

Mr. President, again, I do not view this issue as one that is driven by ideological bias, but it is one which I think deserves a great deal more consideration.

Again, I urge my colleagues, as busy and as crowded as our calendar is, to bring up S. 1046 which has been reported out and is on the calendar. That would give us time to fully debate and amend these very complex and difficult issues. Therefore, I oppose the passage of CRA.

I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, at the request of the leadership, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota for, as always, informing, and sometimes with very startling information. I still find it very difficult to understand the situation that happened in his State. When there was a toxic spill, and the radio stations were attempted to be contacted to alert the population, the citizenry, there was not a single soul in any of the six radio stations. All the broadcasting was done from somewhere else. That, obviously, was not the intent of the law, the intent of Congress, nor, indeed, the intent of the Federal Communications Commission. But these examples happen today.

I rise to speak in opposition to S.J. Res. 17, which has already been described by my colleague from North Dakota. As a result, pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, these rules would have no force or effect, and the FCC would not be able to adopt any similar regulations until Congress authorized the Commission to do so.

I share many of the concerns expressed by my friends from North Dakota and Mississippi. I oppose the resolution because I believe that rejecting the rules without providing further guidance is not an appropriate congressional response. In addition, the nullification of all of the FCC's new media ownership regulations is, in my opinion, too sweeping.

Whether we agree with them or not, the FCC's actions are a direct result of the direction given to it by Congress in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which should have been called ``Leave No Lobbyist Behind Act of 1996.''

And might I add, as we are all responsible for our votes, my colleague from North Dakota voted for that bill, as did my colleague from Mississippi. I voted against it. I voted against it because I thought it was an outrageous exercise of lobbying power and special interest power and would have enormous unintended as well as intended consequences; and the unintended consequences we are dealing with today.

So let's be clear, all of my colleagues, what is the genesis of this problem. That is the 1996 Telecommunications Act. I say so because the DC Court of Appeals vacated the 35-percent cap and remanded it back to the FCC. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals found that:

Congress set in motion a process to deregulate the

structure of the broadcast and cable television industries

[in the act].

In fact, the court--I think very appropriately--characterized the 1996 act's deregulatory tone as not subtle but quite explicit, likening it to ``Farragut's order at the battle of Mobile Bay--`Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead.' '' That is how the court described the 1996 deregulatory act that my colleagues are on the floor now examining and wanting to reverse.

Let's at least take responsibility for our action that set this train in motion. I agree with my colleagues, particularly on the issue of radio. When there is an example such as what happened in Minot, ND, and testimony before our committee that there is an organization, Clear Channel--let's say who they are--that owns, as the Senator from North Dakota mentioned, 1,300 radio stations, the ticket sales, the promotions, and the concerts--artists have come to us and stated unequivocally that they have been basically blackmailed and told to do concerts at a certain place or their works would not be played on the radio stations.

Now, I can't prove that. I am only telling you what information was given us. So we have a tough situation.

The resolution offers neither congressional direction for the FCC's next review of these rules nor a remedy for the infirmities of the existing statute that pushed the FCC to its recent decision. Moreover, the resolution would throw out the entirety of the FCC's action, including some rules that would actually tighten radio ownership limitations. Finally, the resolution could result in significant uncertainty about the status of the FCC's media ownership rules.

Let me mention one other thing before I go into a little bit more about this process.

As usual, unfortunately, tragically, the Appropriations Committee has now gotten into the act. The Appropriations Committee, I understand, on the Commerce, State, and Justice appropriations bill is now going to remove the provision of 35 to 45 percent media ownership, but they are not--they are not--going to touch the cross-ownership aspect of the rules that the FCC issued. Why? Why would that be?

Well, my dear friends and colleagues, I only know one reason: The National Association of Broadcasters supports the 35 to 45 percent and opposes the cross ownership. Which is worse, that a conglomerate owns now 45 percent of the television stations in a market, or a conglomerate owns three televisions stations, the newspaper--the Los Angeles Times--the Internet, the cable company, and 8 radio stations? That is okay according to the Appropriations Committee. But they are going to take care of the 35 to 45 percent aspect of it and jam it into an appropriations bill, by the way, without a hearing before the Appropriations Committee, as usual.

The Commerce Committee acted with a piece of legislation that is on the calendar. S. 1046, which passed through the committee, addresses the entire issue. Do you think we will get S. 1046 before this body before this year ends, my friends? No. But we will have to fight like blazes a one single shot provision that has been placed in an appropriations bill, in clearly a gross excess of their responsibilities, which are to fund authorized programs.

So I guess if there is any lack of cynicism amongst my colleagues about this whole process we are undergoing right now, any lack of cynicism should be dispelled by the actions of the Appropriations Committee.

Whether we agree with them or not, as I mentioned, those actions are a direct result of the 1996 act.

In short, if the Congress is unsatisfied with the result of the FCC review, it should step in to provide new direction. Simply saying, ``You got it wrong, try again,'' in my view, is not an appropriate response.

Although they are not provided in the resolution before us, new directions to the FCC have been provided and reported out of the Commerce Committee. The bill is on the Senate calendar awaiting action. The bill would establish explicit, sustainable media ownership limits while preserving new radio ownership rules tightened by the FCC in its June 2 order.

While I don't support the resolution, I do support S. 1046. I have not always supported retaining strict limits on media consolidation, and in the past I have spoken frequently about the merits of deregulation of media markets. Over the years, I have written letters to the FCC insisting that they deregulate in this area of media markets. Moreover, even a few years ago, I offered legislation to raise the national television station ownership cap to 50 percent and to eliminate limits on newspaper and broadcast cross-ownership. I continue to believe in the principle of allowing markets, and not government, to regulate the way businesses operate.

After chairing seven hearings on media ownership and observing unprecedented public outcry, it is apparent to me that the business of media ownership, which can so affect the nature and quality of our democracy, is too important to be dealt with so categorically. As a result, I have come to believe that stringent, but reasonable, limits on media ownership may very well be appropriate.

It is a testament to the vitality and health of our democracy that the public mobilized to defend what they perceived as a challenge to this democracy. If Congress is displeased with the Commission's new rules, however, we must accept some responsibility for them. Congress and the courts gave the Commission little choice but to deregulate the media industry. When the D.C. circuit court of Appeals vacated the 35 percent cap and remanded it back to the FCC for further consideration, it found that ``Congress set in motion a process to deregulate the structure of the broadcast and cable television industries'' in the Act. In fact, the court characterized the 1996 Act's deregulatory tone as not subtle, but quite explicit, likening it to ``Farragut's order at the battle of Mobile Bay--`Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead.'''

Led by the able chairman, Michael Powell, the Commission followed the direction of Congress and the courts.

The commission incrementally increased the network ownership cap to 4.5 percent finding that a ``modest relaxation of the cap will help networks compete more effectively with cable and DBS operators and will promote free, over-the-air television by deterring migration of expensive programming to cable networks.''

I ask unanimous consent that an article by Michael K. Powell that appeared in the Wall Street Journal this morning be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, two networks, Viacom/CBS and News Corp. have been operating at almost 40 percent for almost 2 years now due to stay from courts and waivers from the FCC. The Commission also relaxed its cross-ownership rules by permitting combinations of multiple television, radio, and newspaper outlets in more American media markets.

The Commission had limited discretion in its decision-making process. We, however, do not. If Congress is displeased with the results of the Commission's review, it should legislate a solution, not just disapprove of the Commission's actions. Unlike the Commission, Congress consists of elected officials who must consider the views of the American public, not court mandates and statutory directives, when tackling difficult questions like the ones posed here.

The public has strongly voiced its dissatisfaction with the new rules. The Commission received more public comments about its media ownership proceeding than any other proceeding. My office continues to receive numerous letters, phone calls, and e-mails from the public addressing the new rules. As representatives of the public, Congress should take a lead role in examining these rules, and if necessary, crafting new limits.

As William Safire wrote recently 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 Americans' freedom of voice is too worrisome to be left to three unelected commissioners. This far- reaching political decision 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.''

In discussing this resolution, we must also be mindful that its passage would roll back all of the FCC's rules, even those that tightened radio ownership limits. The Telecommunications Act eliminated the national radio ownership cap thereby allowing one company to grow at an unprecedented pace from 40 to more than 1,200 radio stations, including ownership of 6 of the 7 commercial radio stations in Minot, ND. At a hearing before the Commerce Committee, all five FCC Commissioners agreed that the consolidation of radio that has occurred in local markets has been excessive.

This brings me to the issue we must continue to discuss and to which I don't know the answer: How much is too much? In my home State of Arizona, Gannett owns a newspaper and a television station. Is that bad? I have seen no ill effects of it. I have seen no consolidation problems, no collusion between the two, no problem with the citizens of my State receiving correct and accurate and unbiased information. What if Gannett owned two television stations, or three stations or four stations? What is the point, I ask my colleagues--and that requires an incredible amount of knowledge, which I admit I don't possess, as to what the proper degree of media concentration is allowable.

Then you have a difference in markets. Minot, ND--with all due respect to the large population of North Dakota--I think has 27,000 or 37,000 people--higher than that. The valley which I was just describing has over 3 million people. So it is not only a problem of the criterion itself for ownership, it also has a lot to do with large or small populations.

I don't think a small town is going to have five television stations or eight television stations. So should the owner of the television station in Greenwood, MS, be allowed to own the newspaper? Is that control there? That may be excessive. But in Phoenix, AZ, ownership of one television station and a newspaper clearly is not of significant impact.

So this is why it is important that we continue to examine these issues carefully and try to get the best knowledge and information we have.

But I think there is one area of agreement, whether we succeed or whether the proponents of the CRA succeed: There is too much concentration in radio. I know of no credible person who disagrees with that. While it received little credit amid the outcry against the regulations, the FCC attempted to address this problem by prescribing new market definitions designed to tighten the limits on local radio ownership.

This resolution would therefore have the perverse consequence of eliminating efforts taken by the Commission to strengthen its radio ownership rules--a move that surely would be applauded in the corporate offices of large radio station groups that hope to perpetuate their ability to benefit from existing loopholes. Moreover, the resolution would limit the FCC's ability to reinstate its more stringent radio market definition, because the CRA precludes the FCC from adopting rules ``in substantially the same form'' as those that have been disapproved without further direction from Congress.

Finally, the use of the CRA in the present case will create a regulatory void likely to be filled only by uncertainty about the status of the FCC's media ownership rules. The absence of an affirmative Congressional directive will cast considerable doubt on the enforceability of the FCC's previous rules, given that one of the FCC's previous attempts to retain the rules was found by the D.C. Circuit to be arbitrary and capricious, and another was found not to have justified that the rules are ``necessary in the public interest.'' In both cases, the D.C. circuit remanded the rules to the FCC and directed the agency to either articulate a justification for retaining the rules or modify them. The lack of an enforceable FCC order will leave these court orders unanswered, risking additional court action that relaxes the rules even further, or even invalidates them entirely.

Moreover, passage of this resolution would appear to set up the FCC for failure when conducting its next biennial review in 2004. In that proceeding, the FCC will likely have to justify its new rules before a court that has stated that the Telecommunications Act sets in motion a process of deregulation, while remaining mindful of Congress' disapproval of its 2002 Biennial Review. Chairman Powell has stated that the courts placed ``a high hurdle before the Commission for maintaining a given regulation, and made clear that failure to surmount that hurdle, based on a thorough record, must result in the rule's modification or elimination.'' Moreover, the Commission will also be forced to explain how it reached a different conclusion after previously having made extensive findings that undercut the network ownership cap and cross-ownership limits. Whatever action the Commission takes will be ripe for challenge by an unsatisfied party.

These rules have been mired in litigation for too long. If Congress believes that it is appropriate to retain certain ownership restrictions under today's market conditions, then it should pass legislation explicitly stating so. Again, S. 1046 is the appropriate legislative vehicle to achieve this goal.

The Commission did its job by promulgating new rules after completing an intense twenty-month review. During that time the Commission reviewed twelve studies it commissioned to gather empirical evidence on the media industry, and studied over 500,000 public comments to better understand the media marketplace. As Mr. Safire suggested, it is now time for Congress to do its job. Congress has spent the past few months studying the previous rules, digesting the new rules, and holding multiple hearings on this issue. I have come to appreciate the importance of appropriate limits on media ownership. The media has a tremendous impact on the everyday lives of all Americans. By selecting and framing issues and ideas and promoting public discourse, the media facilitate a critical function in our democracy. It is now time for Congress to offer guidance, not simply reject the FCC's rules.

My decision to oppose this resolution has been a difficult one for me, in large part, because I hold the senior senator from North Dakota in such high regard. I commend Senator Dorgan for his leadership in bringing the issue of media ownership to the attention of his colleagues. Earlier this year, he raised the now-famous issue of radio ownership in Minot, ND, in the Senate Commerce Committee. That issue was the catalyst for the Committee's subsequent review of media ownership, which included seven hearings this year. Few, if any, members of the Commerce Committee or the Senate understands the intricacies of this issue better than Senator Dorgan.

Finally, I thank colleagues for their interest and involvement in this issue--especially three colleagues on the Commerce Committee: Senators Wyden, Lott, and Dorgan. They have been incredibly involved in these issues. We have had some of the best hearings I have ever participated in on these issues. I think we have contributed not only to the knowledge of our colleagues but to that of the American people.

I want to commit, no matter how it comes out today, that we will continue to bring the Commissioners before the committee, bring the smartest people we can find before the committee, and move forward in an orderly legislative process. I hope one of the things we can do as early as possible is get consideration of the legislation that we passed through the committee, after careful deliberation and discussion and a very spirited markup.

So I thank my colleagues. I think this is an important part of the debate and, for sure, we will be discussing this issue for a long time.

I ask Members to vote against S.J. Res. 17 but support passage of S. 1046.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to thank both Senator Specter and Senator Harkin for their hard work on this important legislation which provides Federal Funding for the Departments of Labor, DOL, Health and Human Services, HHS, and Education, and related agencies. It funds programs that are among the most critical to the health and well-being of our Nation. With our military forces deployed abroad and a struggling domestic economy here at home, providing for and protecting our Nation has never been more challenging or more important.

The funding provided by this bill for domestic health programs is critical for our country, States and local governments. Given the poor state of our national economy and the rising number of unemployed and uninsured Americans, as well as the budget crises facing most State governments, resources provided by this legislation will help meet the substantial health care needs of our Nation's vulnerable populations.

I am pleased that this legislation provides increased funding for a number of programs that are particularly important in light of the many threats facing our Nation today. This bill increases funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, which plays a vital role in protecting our nation from bioterror attacks and ensuring adequate preparedness for health emergencies. With the recent threat of foreign born illnesses such as SARS and Monkey Pox, increased funding for the Infectious Disease Initiative is especially important and will ensure quick response to public health threats.

Additionally, this bill increases funding for National Institutes of Health, NIH, by $1 billion over the last fiscal year. That increase will enable the continuation and expansion of research into treatments and cures for chronic diseases such as cancer and diabetes, new infectious diseases that threaten our Nation's safety, and diseases that disproportionally affect older Americans, such as Alzheimer's. I have strongly supported doubling the amount of the NIH budget, and I am pleased that its funding continues to increase.

In addition to funding key public health programs, this bill provides funding to help States and local communities educate our children. I applaud the fact that funding for education for individuals with disabilities and programs to improve educational opportunities for economically disadvantaged students have been increased in this bill. I also am pleased that this legislation increases funding for Head Start to ensure that low-income children are physically and mentally prepared to begin school.

These and the many other important programs funded throughout this legislation will help many Americans. However, I am disappointed to find that the report accompanying this bill is laden with directives and suggestive language that predetermines which programs may receive funding. This language eliminates the ability of the agencies funded by this bill to determine, by a fair and competitive process, which programs to fund. This is yet another example of the micro-management of federal agencies at the hands of the appropriators.

I would like to note that both the bill and the report contain only a handful of earmarks, and I commend the Appropriations Committee for its restraint. I encourage the members of the Committee to resist the temptation to weigh down this important bill with locally specific parochial projects when the bill is negotiated with the House of Representatives during conference. Unfortunately, however, the list of directive and suggestive language included in the actual bill language and the accompanying report are extensive, and I will not burden the chamber by listing each one individually. Instead, I highlight a few examples:

In the report language, for the Department of Labor, the Committee ``recommends'' $7 million for the Denali Commission for job training in rural Alaska. The funding is intended to train rural Alaskans for high- paying jobs in their villages. Any doubt as to whether the appropriators wanted this funding to occur is dispelled by the fact that the bill language authorizes ``such sums as may be necessary'' to the Denali Commission to conduct this Alaskan job training. Although this specific authority and funding was unrequested by the Administration, the appropriators apparently think they know better. They not only provide the appropriation, but they also want to do the work of the authorizing committee as well. How fortunate it is that this activity in the State of Alaska has such ardent supporters in the members of the Appropriations Committee and has received special treatment at the expense of other states.

Furthermore, the report language expresses the Committee's concern about the Department of Labor's reorganization proposal, which would close the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, offices in Bangor and Portland, Maine, and would consolidate the activities of those offices in Augusta, Maine. Instead of allowing DOL to do their job and streamline the operations of OSHA, the Committee in its report, ``expects'' the Department of Labor to maintain the existing organizational structure with offices in Bangor and in Portland, including providing adequate office space for the current Bangor OSHA staff. Again, the appropriators are catering to a locality-specific interest in Maine at the expense of the national interest in having a more efficient government agency.

Furthermore, this legislation includes legislative and report language that creates a new National Cord Blood Stem Cell Bank Program, through the Health Resources and Services Administration, and appropriates $10 million for the new program. This program may further important life-saving research; however, this is a new legislative initiative, not authorized by the committee of jurisdiction, and not requested by the Administration, but created and funded entirely by the appropriators.

Similarly, the report language accompanying the bill includes directive and suggestive language for the Department of Health and Human Services to initiate a number of new programs, all of which may be worthy of consideration; however, none have been requested or authorized. These programs range from the creation of a Diamond Blackfan Anemia Clinical Care Center to $500,000 allocated for the CDC to create a registry and database of children nationwide with craniofacial malformation. Although these new programs will undoubtedly benefit many children and individuals, they are further examples of new programs created the appropriators, by circumventing the authorizing committee of jurisdiction.

Also included in the report is language directing HHS and the Department of Education to complete over 20 reports, all at the specific request of the Appropriations Committee. These reports concern important programs within the Departments, but producing them will require substantial manpower and time, diverting scarce and valuable resources to projects dictated by the Appropriations Committee.

With this sluggish economy expected to push this year's budget deficit past a whopping $450 billion and numerous threats facing our nation, funds must be expended on programs that will provide the maximum benefit for all Americans. It cannot be spent on unauthorized and unrequested projects and reports demanded by members of the Appropriations Committee. This is simply wrong and does a disservice to all Americans.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.