Floor Statements

Mr. President, recognizing that the communities along our Nation's border are literally our front line of defense, it is in the interest of our national security to ensure that these areas are well equipped to respond to health emergencies and potential bioterror attacks. To address the critical needs of this vulnerable region, I am pleased to once again join my good friends from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, along with Senator Feinstein and Senator Cornyn, in introducing the Border Health Security Act of 2003.

Ten years ago, Senator Bingaman and I introduced a bill which we believed represented a first step toward addressing the many health challenges confronting the U.S.-Mexico border region as it faced growing population and an expanding industrial base. The United States- Mexico Border Health Commission Act authorized the President to enter into a bilateral agreement with Mexico and establish a binational commission on border health, and was signed into law in the fall of 1994.

Six years later the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Health of Mexico signed an agreement creating the United States-Mexico Border Health Commission. Although still in its infancy, the Commission serves to draw attention to the unique needs of the border region, while improving and protecting the health and well- being of the residents on both sides of the border.

The bill we are introducing today builds upon the effort we began 10 years ago. This legislation authorizes two new grant programs targeting health care and bioterror preparedness in the border area in addition to funding for the Commission.

The first grant program we establish, the Border Health Grants, will be competitively awarded to programs that improve health care infrastructure or address the unique health care needs of the border region. Eligible programs could address health disparities, public health, maternal and child health, and conditions with a high prevalence in the border area. Acknowledging our national vulnerability in the wake of September 11 attacks and the need to ensure that bioterror efforts are specifically focused on the border region, our bill establishes bioterror preparedness grants for activities including coordination of bioterror and emergency preparedness, improvements in infrastructure, and education and training.

The communities along our Nation's southern border typically have high rates of uninsured and underinsured individuals, unemployment, and poverty. This region also has higher rates of infections and chronic diseases, often exacerbated by migrant populations. Compounding these problems is the lack of health care facilities and qualified health care professionals. According to the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission, if the border area were a state, it would rank last in access in health care, second in death rates due to hepatitis, third in deaths related to diabetes, first in number of TB cases and last in per capita income.

I have long supported legislative initiatives aimed at improving the security and quality of life in our border area. This bill is a part of that ongoing effort. As our Nation enters a new era of heightened national alert, it is incumbent upon us to ensure our border area--our front line of defense--is strenghtened and protected.

Mr. President, in relation to the amendment offered by the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, related to compensation for American prisoners of war in Japan, I do not object but must of necessity vote ``present'' because, as a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, I cannot in good conscience vote in favor of a measure that sets a precedent for compensation of American prisoners of war that could in some fashion be viewed as benefiting me personally.

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

Mr. President, first, I thank Senator McConnell for his leadership on this issue, not only now as we are in an incredibly critical moment in time in the history of the struggle of the Burmese people for freedom, but for his longstanding advocacy in this noble cause and his commitment to the security and safety of one of the heroic figures of the 20th and 21st centuries, Aung San Suu Kyi.

Again, I thank him for not only motivating this body to rapid passage of this legislation but to his work with the other body which has resulted in us being able to pass it overwhelmingly today. I thank Senator McConnell again, and I regret to say we are a long way from seeing a resolution of this terrible unfolding, unending tragedy taking place in Burma. I guess as a personal pique, I refuse to call it Muanmar, which the junta have changed the name to, and we have a lot more to do. But I believe what we are doing today, because of his sponsorship, will send a message throughout Burma that we have not abandoned this heroic woman, nor have we abandoned the cause of democracy and freedom in this country of gentle people who deserve a great deal better than the group of thugs who have been oppressing them and repressing them for a long period of time.

It has been almost 7 weeks since Burma's military junta orchestrated a savage attack on Burma's democrats and their leader Aung San Suu Kyi. In response Congress acted with extraordinary speed and consensus to send to the President's desk the bill before us banning imports from Burma. It is imperative that he sign it immediately, as I am confident he will.

Aung San Suu Kyi and the Burmese people can't wait, nor should Burma's rulers and neighbors wait a day longer to hear the United States speak with one voice in support of freedom in Burma. Congressional action on this bill is nearing completion, but as the Senator from Kentucky has said, our commitment to Burma's people will not end until they are free. Our resolve will not weaken as long as the junta denies the Burmese people a right to live in a nation ruled by law, not fear, led by the elected leader whose appeal no amount of violence can diminish and whose courage no amount of suffering can dim.

It is now time for Burma's leaders, especially the frontline states, to join the United States and Europe in rejecting half measures and implementing a fundamentally new approach that looks forward to Burma's liberation rather than a mere moderation of an illegitimate regime's rule. Southeast Asia will not be stable or secure as long as the generals rule in Rangoon. Placing hope in a policy of reconciliation that relies more on the junta's goodwill than on international pressure for democratic change will do nothing to alter a status quo that upholds tyranny.

China, India, and Thailand directly suffer the effects of regional insecurity caused by AIDS, drugs, and refugees that flow across Burma's borders. They also suffer the economic consequences of living next to a bankrupt nation whose economy is controlled largely by drug lords and a corrupt military elite. While China may not be troubled by dictatorship in Burma, it would clearly benefit economically from having another Asian tiger on its borders which good government and Burma's natural wealth would make it.

Democratic India would benefit strategically and economically from a fellow democracy in Rangoon that could expand Indian influence in Southeast Asia and serve as a significant trading partner.

We expect more in particular from our ally Thailand which has done little of substance to support change in Burma since the May 30 attacks. As far as I am concerned, business as usual won't cut it. We frankly expect a democratic ally such as Thailand to do more to oppose dictatorship in Burma, both out of principle and because of the insecurity its misrule brings to Thailand. We will be watching for signs of a new policy approach in Bangkok. This will be an issue in our bilateral relationship.

We welcome Japan's announcement of suspending new assistance to Burma as a result of the junta's crackdown. But Tokyo's existing aid programs send a mixed signal to the democrats who were so heartened by popular protests on their behalf in the streets of Tokyo. We would welcome the Government of Japan's reassessment of its entire policy toward Burma.

All of us appreciated ASEAN's joint statement calling for Aung San Suu Kyi's early release at the Phnom Penh summit, breaking with the group's history of noninterference in each other's affairs. But friends of ASEAN want to see it take concrete steps to prove its relevance to security and stability in Southeast Asia.

I remind my colleagues that when ASEAN admitted Burma into ASEAN, it was with the promise and commitment that things would improve in Burma. No one can argue that there has been anything but retrogression and an increase in brutality and, of course, the latest outrage in the capture and mistreatment of their freely elected leader.

Events in Burma are testing ASEAN as never before. Burma's crisis impacts every nation in the region, from AIDS, drugs, and refugees to political and economic instability. Those of us who want ASEAN to succeed expect it to play a leadership role in its own backyard and to deliver on its promises in 1997 that membership would change Burma. Some of us weren't convinced then and we are not convinced today. Burma will soon be preparing to assume ASEAN's presidency in 2006. What kind of an image does ASEAN have with Burma as its president? ASEAN's credibility can't withstand the presidency of a rogue regime that is unreconstructed and brutal, which has the blood of its people on its hands and imprisons their elected leader. As long as Burma festers, ASEAN looks either incapacitated, weak, or irrelevant.

As long as Aung San Suu Kyi remains in prison and the Burmese people live in fear, convinced Burma's neighbors are complicit in their suffering, the problem of Burma will be an issue in America's bilateral relations with nations across Asia. It is time for Burma to command the attention of the U.N. Security Council. Burma's misrule is clearly of international importance. The council has not even formally been briefed by Ambassador Razali Ismail since his visit over a

month ago to Rangoon as the Secretary General's personal representative. The United States should demand that the Security Council take up this issue.

As the United States, the EU, and even ASEAN have acknowledged, Burma is an international problem. The council would be remiss to ignore it, and even a council debate would command the attention of the generals. It might also command some attention in Beijing, Bangkok, Tokyo, and other capitals with the power to make a difference. It is past time for the United States and our allies to press this issue.

I am proud that Congress, with passage of this legislation, is speaking with one voice in support of Aung San Suu Kyi and the Burmese people. The generals must know we won't let up the pressure until Burma is free. The United States stands with the Burmese people in their struggle for the freedom that is their birthright and which the generals have stolen from them. We will do everything in our power to help them take back their country.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that four editorials be printed in the Record. Two are from the Washington Post, one from the Wall Street Journal, and the final one a comment by Jack Straw, the foreign minister of Great Britain.

Mr. President, the Washington Post editorial of July 14 says:

It's been a month since Secretary of State Colin L. Powell

promised prompt action to penalize the generals he referred

to as ``the thugs who run the Burmese government.'' The time

had come, he said in an op-ed article in the Wall Street

Journal, to freeze their financial assets and ban remittances

into Burma. But the administration has taken no such steps.

It's been six weeks since the junta sent 3,000 vigilantes

armed with wooden bats and sharpened iron rods, to beat and

stab Aung San Suu Kyi's supporters as they traveled with her

in the hinterland. [She] apparently escaped injury but was

taken into custody and, except for one brief interview with a

U.N. envoy, has not been heard from since.

And the United Nations? You might think the Security

Council would have swung into action to demand freedom for

one of the world's most courageous leaders and for her

colleagues and to address the threat to regional stability

posed by the increasingly erratic junta. After all, there is

no dispute as to her legitimacy; the party she leads

overwhelmingly won an election in 1990 but has never been

permitted to take its rightful place in government. So far,

however, the chief U.S. response has been the election of

Burma--or Myanmar, as the generals call it--to the presidency

of the General Assembly for the session that begins in

September.

The Washington Post June 22, last year:

But actions of real consequences? So far, none. Southeast

Asian foreign ministers, meeting last week in Cambodia with

Mr. Powell, agreed to send a delegation to Burma no later

than October. October? While one of the world's most

courageous political leaders languishes in one of its most

infamous jails? Where are Kofi Annan and the U.N. Security

Council? Where are the executive orders that President Bush

could issue today?

I appreciate very much, and I referred to, Secretary Colin Powell's article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on June 12 and, on June 25, Jack Straw's article--the Foreign Secretary, as we all know, of our close friend and ally, England. He wrote:

Last week was Aung San Suu Kyi's 58th birthday. What should

have been a day of

quiet celebration with family and friends for the Nobel Peace

Prize winner was instead spent in detention in a jail outside

Rangoon. . . .

Far from Ms. Suu Kyi's being in ``protective custody,'' the

only people being ``protected'' by her detention are those in

the military regime itself. They hope that by keeping her--

and the democratic movement--incarcerated they can cling on

to power. The military government, which attempts to run

Burma through fear and intimidation, is not only brutal, but

also corrupt and incompetent. A once prosperous country is

being run into the ground. Poverty is rife and diseases such

as malaria, tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS are spreading.

In stark contrast in the Burmese military junta, and to

their enduring fury Ms. Suu Kyi commands the support and

respect of the Burmese people. Ever since her party won an

election in 1990, the regime has harassed and intimidated Ms.

Suu Kyi and her supporters. She has already suffered

long spells of house arrest and imprisonment.

Hundreds of her supporters are also in prison, many without

trial. Others have been blackmailed or intimidated into

giving up politics. But whenever and wherever she travels,

ordinary people still turn out in the thousands to see and

hear her. For them, she is a marker of hope for a better

future.

He concludes by saying:

The hopes and aspirations of the Burmese people cannot be

frustrated. The spirit and justness of the democracy movement

cannot be contained by violence or prison cells. We call on

the friends of Burma, in Asia and around the world, to

redouble their efforts to help Ms. Suu Kyi and the people of

Burma move toward national reconciliation, respect for human

rights, and democracy they so richly deserve.

Mr. President, we need the Security Council to debate this issue. Our Ambassador and our Secretary of State should call for that debate. Our administration, following the passage of this legislation, should immediately implement Executive orders that can further put restrictions on our relations with this gang of thugs in Burma.

Finally, there are probably people who may be viewing this action by Congress today and the comments the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, and I are making and saying: You know, Burma is a small country, far away. It is rise or fall. Its type of government has very little impact on the United States economically, culturally, politically, or militarily.

But I argue that that is not the case, particularly when we look at the flow of drugs and many other things that are happening in this country.

Why is it that these Senators are not talking about Iraq? Americans are dying--one a day--there. There is an unfolding scandal, or mini- scandal, about who knew what and when and why, and there is a great politicization of that. North Korea has threatened to develop nuclear weapons. Iraq apparently is doing that. Why isn't the Senate devoting their attention to larger issues that far more vastly affect the U.S. national security?

The answer is simple: This democracy movement in Burma is what America is all about. Over 200 years ago, in a very small country, a very small movement for independence--which was given very little chance--took place in this country. If it had not been for the help of other countries--particularly France--the United States may have achieved its independence over time, but certainly not in the way that we did.

I ask unanimous consent for an additional minute.

Mr. President, at the risk of redundancy, what is happening in Burma is what the United States is all about--our defense of freedom and democracy, even if it doesn't affect our national interest. That is what makes America different.

I argue that this administration, this Congress, and the American people will reconfirm their commitment to their freedom, democracy, and to one of the great heroic figures in history, and that is Madam Aung San Suu Kyi, who has the profound respect, appreciation, affection, and admiration of all who have encountered her and many who have not.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, yes, I think if it is China's view that the Security Council should not take up an issue of basic fundamental human rights and democracy and wish to veto it, that is their right as members of the U.N. Security Council. But the fact is, that does not relieve the United States of our obligation to bring it up.

One other aspect. Since we have met with Mr. Razali on a number of occasions, up until our last meeting with the special envoy of the U.N., Mr. Razali, he was generally upbeat that things would get better in Burma, that some of the restrictions on Aung San Suu Kyi would be relaxed, and that we should take this moderate approach. In fact, there was even little criticism of the inclusion of Burma in ASEAN because that would bring them into the fold. Now they are facing the embarrassing prospect of, 2 years from now, Burma taking over the chairmanship of ASEAN itself. That is remarkable.

So it was very interesting to me that Mr. Razali, for all intents and purposes--from my impression of our conversation--has basically given up on the policy of sort of appeasement, bringing along the junta so they would become more democratic, et cetera. In fact, I think his statements, authenticated by events, indicate that that policy has been an abject failure.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, this amendment strikes funds for the canola oil fuel cell initiative, Shakespeare in American military communities project, control of brown tree snakes, hangar renovation at the former Griffiss Air Force Base, and the Academy for Closing and Avoiding Achievement Gaps.

First, I would like to address the Senate concerning the 2004 Defense Appropriations Act. With each and every appropriations act, I come down to the floor of the Senate to point out many of the special interests and pet projects Members add to the legislation each year. Today I have the opportunity to speak on H.R. 2658, the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2004.

I remind my colleagues, the responsibilities of authorizers and appropriators are supposed to be distinct. The

role of the Senate Armed Services Committee is to establish policy and funding levels and to 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 today, as we all know, has expanded dramatically and the Appropriations Committee now engages in significant policy decisionmaking and micromanaging, clearly usurping the role of the authorizing committees.

The chairman of the Rules Committee was kind enough, a week or so ago, to have a hearing on a proposal I have to change the rules so that a point of order can be more easily lodged against an unauthorized appropriation. I will not bore my colleagues with further details because I have already introduced the rule and explained it.

But during that hearing, chaired by my friend from Mississippi, Senator Lott, there was discussion of the process. This situation, this imbroglio in which we find ourselves, is not entirely the fault of the appropriators. I know it sounds strange for me to make that statement, but the fact is that there are holds on bills which are authorizing, which are done anonymously in many cases, and prevent the authorizing aspect of the process to be carried out, thereby forcing the appropriators to act in a policy fashion. Many times these holds are permanent and, really, there are some occasions where the Senators themselves do not know that those holds have been imposed.

Additionally, there is the process that, unfortunately, results that many programs and important agencies of Government even are not reauthorized. The Federal Communications Commission, which falls under the responsibility of the committee I chair, has not been reauthorized since 1993. So then it is understandable why the appropriators would act in such fashion.

I preface my remarks with the full acknowledgment that the system itself has broken down to a great degree.

As I came to this floor before and pointed out, the process of earmarking and outrageous appropriating has increased in a dramatic but reasonable fashion when you consider that any evil unchecked is going to rise.

According to information compiled by the Congressional Research Service, which examined earmarks for fiscal years 1994-2002, the total number of earmarks has grown from 4,126 in fiscal year 1994 to 10,540 in 2002--an increase of over 150 percent. The level of funding has risen from $26.8 billion in 1994 to $44.6 billion in fiscal year 2002, an increase of over 66 percent.

We are talking about real money.

We now see on the front page of the Washington Post this morning that the budget deficit may surpass $450 billion.

I might remind my colleagues that there is a little chart on the other side.

In 2000, we had a surplus of $236 billion; $127 billion in 2001; a deficit of $157 billion in 2002; and, in 2003 it is estimated to be $450 billion.

My dear friends, if you believe it is only going to be $450 billion, I have some land in the Arizona desert I would like to sell you.

This does not take into account, as recently admitted by the Secretary of Defense, $4 billion a month just for our operations in Iraq, which I support.

My point is we can't afford to do this anymore. We can't afford to continue to spend money like drunken sailors. I never knew a sailor, drunk or sober, who had the imagination to spend hard-earned taxpayer dollars on the Shakespeare in American Military Communities Project--$1 million. Shakespeare in America Communities Project? Come on. Out of the Defense appropriations bill?

The hangar renovation at the former Griffiss Air Force Base--the Griffiss Air Force Base in Rome, NY, was closed in 1995. It has been reopened to civilian flight operations. In 1999, the airbase hosted Woodstock. Yet we are going to spend money to renovate the hangar there. We are going to spend $2 million. On a closed Air Force base we are going to spend $2 million. Meanwhile, we still have men and women, wives and husbands and family members who are fighting in Iraq on food stamps.

I don't know what the Canola Oil Fuel Cell Initiative is. Canola is grown in the Western United States and Canada. Forty percent of each seed can be produced into canola oil. Prices for canola oil have dropped, I am sorry to say. But we are spending money for a Canola Oil Fuel Cell Initiative.

What does that have to do with defense?

Let me just add an additional comment. The very highly respected, I believe, Concord Coalition came up with a study in the last couple of days which is excoriating in its comments. I think it is right on the mark.

The Concord Coalition Report on Fiscal Responsibility:

Deficits, Deception and Denial Rate a Failing Grade

The first six months of the 108th Congress were the most

fiscally irresponsible in recent memory. The crux of the

program was the schizophrenic pursuit of small government tax

policies and big government spending initiatives. Following

the lead of the Bush administration, Congress made no attempt

to reconcile the cost of new tax cuts on spending initiatives

within the framework of a realistic long-term balanced budget

plan. Instead, policymakers took a deteriorating budget

outlook and made it worse. To add insult to injury, Congress

used deceptive accounting gimmicks that would land a

corporate CEO in jail. It is hard to say which is worse, the

sunset gimmick used to hide the cost of an unaffordable tax

cut, the doughnut hole gimmick used to hide the cost of an

unaffordable, new Medicare entitlement, the shell games used

to hide the appropriations of the disingenuous budget

resolution that led to such in the first place. Then there

was denial. Policymakers simply closed their eyes to the

inevitable cost of reforming the alternative minimum tax and

the growing cost of the war against terrorism at home and

abroad.

I commend the Concord Coalition report to my colleagues which gives a grade of a D and an F.

You know what we are doing. We are heading for a train wreck. Everybody knows it. I don't know whatever happened to the old lockbox. Do you remember the old lockbox where we were going to take everybody's money for Social Security and put it in a lockbox so it couldn't be touched? You know what we are doing with the lockbox. It is simply because we are paying the retirement benefits of people who are retired. Those who are working have no money in accounts bearing their names. It is unfortunate.

The summer blockbuster is not showing on your local movie screen but rather on the floor of the Senate. I am alarmed about a large green monster, and it is not the ``Incredible Hulk.'' I am talking about the exploding national deficit, and it should make the blood boil. We are now learning that the irresponsible tax cut and spending binge in Washington is resulting in this huge deficit. Even ``The Terminator'' can't stop the river of red ink that is endangering our fiscal future. It is like the ``Pirates of the Caribbean'' stealing our children's and our grandchildren's financial future.

I thought that was pretty well written.

I recognize the failure. I want to tell my colleagues that I recognize that the failure of the authorizing committees to pass authorizing legislation contributes to the broken system.

I want to work together with the appropriators to try to solve this issue because often the appropriators have no choice but to fund unauthorized programs and take it upon themselves to make policy determinations.

The fiscal year 2002 Defense Appropriations Act not only contained $3.7 billion in pork but also the dubious Boeing tanker lease. The conference report for the fiscal year 2002 Defense appropriations bill contained $8.1 billion in pork. The Senate version included $5.2 billion. This year's bill contains well over $4 billion. This number is less than last year's Senate version of the legislation.

This is real money.

The projects that appear in the Defense appropriations Member-add-ons are items requested by Senators and not included in the President's budget request. They do not appear on the Joint Chiefs unfunded priority list. They are not authorized in the Defense authorization bill.

This criteria is used by many organizations. And it has been useful in ferreting out programs of questionable merit and determining the relative priority of projects requested by Members for parochial reasons.

The fact remains that in the years I have created these lists no offsets have been provided for any project.

At a time when some of our soldiers and sailors still receive food stamps and live in inadequate housing, we find a way to provide over $4 billion in unnecessary spending through the Defense appropriations bill.

For example, the Joint Chiefs provided a list of critical requirements above what was provided for in the President's budget request. That list totaled nearly $18 billion for fiscal year 2004. We should provide additional funding for defense for items and programs which the Joint Chiefs need, and we need to set that as a priority.

I point out once again that the bases in Alaska stand to benefit a great deal in this legislation. Alaskan bases alone will receive $214 million in unrequested spending for improvements, renovations, and upgrades.

Looking back at my career in the Navy, I wish I had been so fortunate as to be stationed in Alaska.

Some of the more egregious examples of pork in this year's legislation include, as I mentioned, $1 million for Shakespeare in American Military Communities.

What is wrong with Ernest Hemingway? I wonder why Shakespeare was the greatest writer in the English language. But there may be a difference of opinion as to who the greatest writers in the English language were. Why not Chekhov or Ibsen?

Forty-nine million dollars for the Maui Space Surveillance System. Arizona is home to an observatory. But we are going to earmark $49 million to Maui while there are many observatories in the United States that offer many of these same benefits.

Two million dollars for miniature autonomous vehicles.

There is $5 million for the bug-to-drug program. It is not often I bother the distinguished chairman but perhaps he can tell me what the bug-to-drug program is. There is an appropriation of $5 million for the bug-to-drug program. While he is looking it up, I will continue.

There is $1.5 million to educate the 21st Century Information Operations Workforce, $2.5 million for the Hawaii Undersea Vehicle Test and Training Environment.

I mentioned there is $2.5 million for the canola oil fuel cell initiative. I would think the only canola oil the Department of Defense should be investing in should be used for salad dressing for our troops, not inventing batteries.

I would be interested in the bug-to-drug program.

I thank the chairman for that explanation. It makes it much more clear. I appreciate that.

There are a number of them. One of them that is interesting is $9 million for SensorNet. SensorNet is developed by a company in Modesto, CA. They obviously make hardware and software because that is in their advertisement. In researching this earmark on the Web site, I found this 10- to 15-percent-off coupon on the Internet.

Now, I would ask my colleagues, if they are going to give average Americans 10 to 15 percent off, and we are going to give them $9 million, could they give us 10 to 15 percent off? Maybe we could save over $1 million. They are giving everybody else 10 to 15 percent off. Maybe they could give us 10 to 15 percent off as well.

This is the advertisement:

10-15% 0ff--Order Now and Save

At AccuLab Products Group, we understand the difficulties

of integrating science applications into the classroom.

That's why we developed the SensorNet Science Program--the

friendliest system on the market! Its ease of operation and

flexibility offers the user wide ranges of applications

without requiring a degree in computer technology. Our

precalibrated, precision engineered probes offer the accuracy

and reliability needed to perform in the toughest of

situations and are backed by a 1 year guarantee.

So they are going to give 10 to 15 percent off. I would hope we could negotiate 10 to 15 percent off on our appropriation to them.

The hangar renovation at the former Griffiss Air Force Base, New York, the site of Woodstock 1999. Perhaps unintentional damage was done during Woodstock that requires that hangar to be renovated.

Of course, we are back to the old smart truck for the auto industry, and $12 million for the 21st century truck. It would be fun to drive one, I am sure.

Here is an interesting one: $4 million for the Ernest Gallo Clinic & Research Center. I love a fine wine as much as the next guy, I think, but do we need to fund Ernest Gallo or his research center with defense dollars?

Here is another: $8 million for the New England manufacturing supply chain. This is above and beyond the $6 million earmarked for them in last year's legislation. There is $9 million for the medical free electron laser, $1 billion for the brown tree snakes.

The Senator from Hawaii and I had a discussion about this item and the following items. The brown tree snake may be a serious threat to the Island of Hawaii. The question remains--and the Senator from Hawaii has never satisfactorily answered, at least not to my satisfaction--why this money has to come out of defense, why the brown tree snake should not be addressed by the Department of the Interior or the appropriate branch of Government. Why do we have to take it out of the hides of the men and women in the military to fight the brown tree snake? Shouldn't it come out of the appropriate agency of Government?

We have $150 million for breast cancer research, $85 million for prostate cancer research, $50 million for the Peer-Reviewed Medical Research Program, $24 million for the Hawaii Federal Health Care Network, $3 million for tribal colleges-science lab and computer equipment, $3 million for Pacific Island health care referral, $1.5 million for neurogenetic research and computational genomics--this is on top of $650,000 included in this year's omnibus appropriations.

These are all worthy causes. The cause of breast cancer research is worthy. The $85 million for prostate cancer research, it has no place in the Defense bill. When we are spending $3.9 billion a day just to take care of our operations in Iraq, we cannot take much needed defense dollars and put it for other programs that are not related to defense.

So I want to talk about one other area that is of concern, and that is the potential impact on readiness because of our restrictive trade policies with our allies.

From a philosophical point of view, I oppose these types of protectionist policies. I believe free trade is an important element in improving relations among all nations and is certainly essential to economic growth. From a practical standpoint, ``buy America'' restrictions could seriously impair our ability to compete freely in international markets.

I would like to point out something else to my colleagues. We impose these ``buy America'' provisions while we buy from our allies and friends overseas a much smaller amount than they buy from us. If we keep restricting the ability of our Government to buy products that are made in other countries, sooner or later those countries will stop buying equipment, military equipment and others, that are built in the United States unless there is a compelling national security interest.

``Buy America'' provisions include these items: anchor chains, carbon, alloy, or armor steel plate, ball and roller bearings, computers, diesel engines, and propellers.

There is a seafood waiver as a provision in this legislation in which we dictate we can buy only American seafood. I wonder if there is a 3- mile limit or a 10-mile limit or a 100-mile limit. Or does it have to be just caught by Americans, the same fish but caught by Americans, not by somebody else?

Why does the Department of Defense need to protect the American seafood industry? Why is the entire industry singled out for protection? Why not protect the American dairy product industry? Why aren't they covered?

Believe it or not, I do not enjoy coming to the floor on this issue. But I

would argue--I would argue strenuously--that with a budget deficit--and it is in the headlines of every major newspaper in America: $455 billion--we cannot afford to spend additional billions on unneeded and unwanted projects.

There are many projects on this list that I will submit for the Record which are very badly needed and are legitimate but it is hard to know the difference when all we know is it appears in an appropriations bill. All of a sudden it just appears.

Was there a hearing on the issue of allowing the Department of Defense to only buy American seafood? That is a pretty significant measure that only American seafood can be purchased by the Department of Defense. Was there ever a hearing on it? Was there ever any discussion or debate on it? No. It shows up in this appropriations bill.

Do we really have to not allow other countries to sell us things as simple as anchor chains? What are we protecting? Could we save money by buying somebody else's anchor chain and spend that money, perhaps, on upgrading the lives of the men and women in the military?

In case you haven't heard, my friends, we have a problem in the military today, and it is keeping people in the Reserves and the Guard, and it is keeping people on active duty. I think if you watch television tonight you will see interviews with a number of men and women serving in the military who have just been told they will be extended for another 6 months on duty in Iraq because there are not sufficient troops to replace them.

So instead of perhaps expanding the size of the military to meet these new requirements, we are going to spend $1 million on the canola oil fuel cell initiative, brown tree snakes, the Shakespeare in American Military Communities project, and an Academy for Closing and Avoiding Achievement Gaps. The Academy for Closing and Avoiding Achievement Gaps is a grant to the Timbuktu Academy located in Baton Rouge, LA to conduct research on academic achievement gaps between students of varying socioeconomic backgrounds. It sounds like a very worthy cause to me. But why again should this come out of defense dollars?

I appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues. The amendment I proposed will eliminate the canola oil fuel cell initiative, the Shakespeare in American Military Communities project, the brown tree snake funding program, hangar renovation at the former Griffiss Air Force Base, and the Academy For Closing and Avoiding Achievement Gaps.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will ask my colleague from Alaska a question. I will preface it by saying I do appreciate the cooperation that has been displayed while addressing this bill. I tell my friend from Alaska also that it has been very helpful for us to have the information and to be able to look at these amendments as they have come up. I hope next year we will see Hemingway, Faulkner, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and others of my favorite authors included in this program.

I also ask the Senator, concerning the Corzine amendment, isn't it true that the Senate Armed Services Committee is holding, and will be holding, hearings concerning the entire conflict, including friendly fire casualties, including the enormous success, including the issue of weapons of mass destruction; and those will be held openly and in a systematic manner, which Senator Warner and Senator Levin have been working on in a bipartisan manner? Didn't the chairman of the Intelligence Committee hold a closed hearing today, and will he not hold a public hearing next week? Aren't we going through an orderly process of hearings concerning the conduct of the war?

The American people, of course, want to know about the friendly fire tragedy, and they also want to know how we did so well, how our equipment performed in such a magnificent fashion. It was one of the most rapid military victories in history.

Isn't it true that we are going through an orderly process of hearings concerning this conflict, in a very appropriate manner? If at such time those hearings are not satisfactory to the American people, or they don't cover enough information, or something like that, wouldn't sometime later be more appropriate to say a commission should be appointed rather than at the time when the appropriate committees, as far as I can tell, are carrying out their responsibilities and reviewing the conduct of the war and the oversight policies dictating our military? Does the Senator agree with that?

Mr. President, today, I am joined by Senator Stevens in

introducing the United States Olympic Committee Reform Act of 2003.

This legislation is designed to reform the governance structure of the

United States Olympic Committee, USOC, in response to a series of

embarrassing events that has beset the USOC and threatened the

organization's credibility in the eyes of our athletes, the American

people, and the international sports community.

While the current mission of the USOC is to ``preserve and promote

the Olympic ideal as an effective, positive role model that inspires

all Americans,'' turmoil within the organization over the past decade

has seriously compromised that mission and has amplified significant

problems that exist within its governance structure and culture. By

failing to place the organization ahead betrayed the Olympic ideals

that they pledged to preserve.

The bill that we are introducing today is the product of three

hearings held this year by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science,

and Transportation in response to several USOC scandals and in an

effort to help begin reforming the organization. It also is informed by

the report of an independent commission requested by the Commerce

Committee to review the USOC, and a review by an internal USOC task

force, both of which were released last month.

The bill would make significant improvements to the governance

structure of the USOC by reducing the size of the current board of

directors from

124 to nine members and by creating an assembly of USOC stakeholders.

Unlike the current duopolistic leadership structure of the USOC, the

board would be the primary governing body of the USOC, and it would

appoint a chief executive officer to carry out its policies and run its

day-to-day operations. As such, the USOC will become a more efficient

and effective organization, as well as one with a more logical and

transparent structure.

In addition, the bill would maintain the authority of athletes and

national governing bodies in the operation of the USOC, require

increased financial transparency, and provide whistle-blower protection

for USOC employees. Most importantly, however, this bill would

streamline the organization to allow a larger percentage of USOC

revenues to be dedicated to support amateur athletes. Instead of

supporting a large and wasteful corporate structure, the reformed USOC

will be able to dedicate fewer resources to a small and more effective

governing body.

We must be mindful that the Olympic movement is not about people who

attach themselves to the USOC for their own benefit. It is a movement

that is driven by athletes who dedicate their bodies and souls to

improving their God-given talent with the hope of someday realizing

their Olympic dreams. The USOC is an entity entrusted by the American

people with the privilege of being the custodian of these dreams. We

must act quickly to ensure that the self-serving agendas of individual

USOC constituencies are no longer paramount to the common objectives of

the organization.

The problems that plague the USOC compromise the organization's

ability to operate effectively and efficiently and undermine the

credibility of the organization. I believe this bill would provide

realistic remedial measures to these problems, and I urge my colleagues

to support its expeditious enactment.

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

Record.

Mr. President, today, I am joined by Senator Stevens in

introducing the United States Olympic Committee Reform Act of 2003.

This legislation is designed to reform the governance structure of the

United States Olympic Committee, USOC, in response to a series of

embarrassing events that has beset the USOC and threatened the

organization's credibility in the eyes of our athletes, the American

people, and the international sports community.

While the current mission of the USOC is to ``preserve and promote

the Olympic ideal as an effective, positive role model that inspires

all Americans,'' turmoil within the organization over the past decade

has seriously compromised that mission and has amplified significant

problems that exist within its governance structure and culture. By

failing to place the organization ahead betrayed the Olympic ideals

that they pledged to preserve.

The bill that we are introducing today is the product of three

hearings held this year by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science,

and Transportation in response to several USOC scandals and in an

effort to help begin reforming the organization. It also is informed by

the report of an independent commission requested by the Commerce

Committee to review the USOC, and a review by an internal USOC task

force, both of which were released last month.

The bill would make significant improvements to the governance

structure of the USOC by reducing the size of the current board of

directors from

124 to nine members and by creating an assembly of USOC stakeholders.

Unlike the current duopolistic leadership structure of the USOC, the

board would be the primary governing body of the USOC, and it would

appoint a chief executive officer to carry out its policies and run its

day-to-day operations. As such, the USOC will become a more efficient

and effective organization, as well as one with a more logical and

transparent structure.

In addition, the bill would maintain the authority of athletes and

national governing bodies in the operation of the USOC, require

increased financial transparency, and provide whistle-blower protection

for USOC employees. Most importantly, however, this bill would

streamline the organization to allow a larger percentage of USOC

revenues to be dedicated to support amateur athletes. Instead of

supporting a large and wasteful corporate structure, the reformed USOC

will be able to dedicate fewer resources to a small and more effective

governing body.

We must be mindful that the Olympic movement is not about people who

attach themselves to the USOC for their own benefit. It is a movement

that is driven by athletes who dedicate their bodies and souls to

improving their God-given talent with the hope of someday realizing

their Olympic dreams. The USOC is an entity entrusted by the American

people with the privilege of being the custodian of these dreams. We

must act quickly to ensure that the self-serving agendas of individual

USOC constituencies are no longer paramount to the common objectives of

the organization.

The problems that plague the USOC compromise the organization's

ability to operate effectively and efficiently and undermine the

credibility of the organization. I believe this bill would provide

realistic remedial measures to these problems, and I urge my colleagues

to support its expeditious enactment.

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

Record.

Today, I am joined by Senator Hollings in introducing the Federal Railroad Safety Improvement Act. This legislation would reauthorize the Federal rail safety program, which expired at the end of fiscal year 1998.

The rail safety program, which is administered by the Federal Railroad Administration, FRA, encompasses a range of inspection, research, education, and oversight initiatives aimed at protecting the safety of railroad employees; ensuring track and equipment are properly maintained; enhancing grade crossing safety; safeguarding the transportation of hazardous materials by rail; and overseeing the industry's safety practices and procedures. FRA also monitors Amtrak and, in the past two years, has assumed a more active role in protecting the investment of the taxpayers in that troubled enterprise.

There have been remarkable improvements in rail safety over the past 20 years, attributable to both the safety program and the Staggers Act, the landmark legislation enacted in 1980 to partially deregulate the freight railroads. According to FRA statistics, the rail industry's train accident rate has declined 68 percent since the Staggers Act was passed and the rate of employee injuries and fatalities has fallen 74 percent. The number of grade crossing collisions declined 72 percent from

1980 through 2002, while fatalities declined 57 percent.

The Federal Railroad Safety Improvement Act would renew our commitment to a strong rail safety program. The legislation would authorize $166 million for rail safety in fiscal year 2004, the amount requested by the Administration, rising to $200 million in fiscal year 2008. Included in these authorizations would be additional funds to continue initiatives to test and install positive train control, PTC, systems on passenger and freight railroad rights-of-way. Some federal support of PTC technology is warranted; PTC has been on the National Transportation Safety Board's ``most wanted'' list since 1990, but is cost-prohibitive for the railroads to install on a widespread basis.

Our proposed legislation also would make improvements to grade crossing safety by formally establishing a national crossing inventory, reauthorizing Operation Lifesaver, and requiring the development of model state legislation with penalties for drivers who violate crossing signs, signals, and gates. The legislation also would direct FRA to develop a plan for a joint initiative with states and municipalities to close 1 percent of all public and private grade crossings each year for a 10-year period. This is an ambitious goal but one that would clearly save lives.

The legislation we propose today also would address long-standing concerns about employee fatigue in the rail industry. The bill would require that a working group be convened within FRA's Railroad Safety Advisory Committee to consider what legislative or other changes may be appropriate to address fatigue management and report back to the Senate Commerce Committee and the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure within 18 months following enactment. While the railroads and rail labor organizations have initiated a number of discrete pilot projects to address fatigue, it is unclear whether real progress is being made. If a consensus cannot be reached by the working group, the Department of Transportation would be required to submit its own recommendations within 2 years following enactment.

I look forward to working with my colleagues in moving this bill through the legislative process in the weeks ahead. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Today, I am joined by Senator Hollings in introducing the Federal Railroad Safety Improvement Act. This legislation would reauthorize the Federal rail safety program, which expired at the end of fiscal year 1998.

The rail safety program, which is administered by the Federal Railroad Administration, FRA, encompasses a range of inspection, research, education, and oversight initiatives aimed at protecting the safety of railroad employees; ensuring track and equipment are properly maintained; enhancing grade crossing safety; safeguarding the transportation of hazardous materials by rail; and overseeing the industry's safety practices and procedures. FRA also monitors Amtrak and, in the past two years, has assumed a more active role in protecting the investment of the taxpayers in that troubled enterprise.

There have been remarkable improvements in rail safety over the past 20 years, attributable to both the safety program and the Staggers Act, the landmark legislation enacted in 1980 to partially deregulate the freight railroads. According to FRA statistics, the rail industry's train accident rate has declined 68 percent since the Staggers Act was passed and the rate of employee injuries and fatalities has fallen 74 percent. The number of grade crossing collisions declined 72 percent from

1980 through 2002, while fatalities declined 57 percent.

The Federal Railroad Safety Improvement Act would renew our commitment to a strong rail safety program. The legislation would authorize $166 million for rail safety in fiscal year 2004, the amount requested by the Administration, rising to $200 million in fiscal year 2008. Included in these authorizations would be additional funds to continue initiatives to test and install positive train control, PTC, systems on passenger and freight railroad rights-of-way. Some federal support of PTC technology is warranted; PTC has been on the National Transportation Safety Board's ``most wanted'' list since 1990, but is cost-prohibitive for the railroads to install on a widespread basis.

Our proposed legislation also would make improvements to grade crossing safety by formally establishing a national crossing inventory, reauthorizing Operation Lifesaver, and requiring the development of model state legislation with penalties for drivers who violate crossing signs, signals, and gates. The legislation also would direct FRA to develop a plan for a joint initiative with states and municipalities to close 1 percent of all public and private grade crossings each year for a 10-year period. This is an ambitious goal but one that would clearly save lives.

The legislation we propose today also would address long-standing concerns about employee fatigue in the rail industry. The bill would require that a working group be convened within FRA's Railroad Safety Advisory Committee to consider what legislative or other changes may be appropriate to address fatigue management and report back to the Senate Commerce Committee and the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure within 18 months following enactment. While the railroads and rail labor organizations have initiated a number of discrete pilot projects to address fatigue, it is unclear whether real progress is being made. If a consensus cannot be reached by the working group, the Department of Transportation would be required to submit its own recommendations within 2 years following enactment.

I look forward to working with my colleagues in moving this bill through the legislative process in the weeks ahead. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator Brownback in introducing the Technology Administration Authorization Act of 2003. This legislation would authorize funding for the Department of Commerce's Technology Administration, which includes the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the Office of Technology Policy, and the Office of Space Commercialization.

As we begin the 21st Century, we must recognize that technology is a vital key to our world leadership. In addition, technology is the engine that drives our economy. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there will be 2.5 million new jobs between 2000 and 2010, just in the field of information technology alone. According to the Department of Commerce, the contribution of the high-tech industry to the U.S. economy has doubled over the past 10 years, from 4.2 percent to 8.3 percent of the gross domestic product. Information technology has contributed more than one-third of the real U.S. economic growth, or approximately $170 billion.

The Technology Administration has broad responsibilities including supporting the development of standards for first responders, promotion of space commercialization, publication of technical documents, and development of policies regarding technology transfer. The quality of work conducted at NIST labs in Gaithersburg, MD, and Boulder, CO, is evident by the awarding of two Nobel Prizes to NIST researchers, Dr. Bill Phillips and Dr. Eric Cornell, within the past seven years.

NIST plays an important role in developing measurement methods, standards, and technologies that improve U.S. competitiveness in fields as diverse as chemical engineering, manufacturing, electronics, metallurgy, and physics. In addition, NIST is charged with the mission in our Constitution of setting, ``the Standard of Weights and Measures'' that are the foundation of our economy. NIST also runs the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award Program that recognizes performance excellence and quality. Recently, NIST has been charged with a number of new missions, including cyber security research and development, election reform, investigating the collapse of the World Trade Center, and developing metrology for the promising new field of nanotechnology. However, these new initiatives have diverted resources from NIST's traditional missions, and forced scientists to be laid off due to reduced funding. Given NIST's recognized leadership as a ``world class'' science institution, it is important that we ensure that it is adequately funded.

This legislation would authorize the Technology Administration from Fiscal Years 2004 through 2008 to ensure a steady funding stream for this agency's activities. The bill is based on the President's budget request for NIST's laboratory activities, and includes funding increases of six percent per year to offset the deteriorating funding situation.

The legislation also would authorize funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, (MEP), Program. As Secretary Evans recently stated, ``[m]anufacturing is a key pillar of our economy and we are committed to enhancing growth opportunities for our American manufacturing companies.'' I commend the Secretary for his recognition of the need to energize the manufacturing sector to restore robust growth to our economy. With this recognition in mind, I urge the Administration to be aware of the role that MEP can play in restoring the health of this sector. MEP centers aid small and medium-sized manufacturers by offering expertise, needs evaluation, training and information dissemination to help these companies deal with the challenges of globalization and weak economic growth.

I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation. It is important that we reauthorize these programs to ensure that they continue to carry out their critical role in our Nation's economy.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator Brownback in introducing the Technology Administration Authorization Act of 2003. This legislation would authorize funding for the Department of Commerce's Technology Administration, which includes the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the Office of Technology Policy, and the Office of Space Commercialization.

As we begin the 21st Century, we must recognize that technology is a vital key to our world leadership. In addition, technology is the engine that drives our economy. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there will be 2.5 million new jobs between 2000 and 2010, just in the field of information technology alone. According to the Department of Commerce, the contribution of the high-tech industry to the U.S. economy has doubled over the past 10 years, from 4.2 percent to 8.3 percent of the gross domestic product. Information technology has contributed more than one-third of the real U.S. economic growth, or approximately $170 billion.

The Technology Administration has broad responsibilities including supporting the development of standards for first responders, promotion of space commercialization, publication of technical documents, and development of policies regarding technology transfer. The quality of work conducted at NIST labs in Gaithersburg, MD, and Boulder, CO, is evident by the awarding of two Nobel Prizes to NIST researchers, Dr. Bill Phillips and Dr. Eric Cornell, within the past seven years.

NIST plays an important role in developing measurement methods, standards, and technologies that improve U.S. competitiveness in fields as diverse as chemical engineering, manufacturing, electronics, metallurgy, and physics. In addition, NIST is charged with the mission in our Constitution of setting, ``the Standard of Weights and Measures'' that are the foundation of our economy. NIST also runs the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award Program that recognizes performance excellence and quality. Recently, NIST has been charged with a number of new missions, including cyber security research and development, election reform, investigating the collapse of the World Trade Center, and developing metrology for the promising new field of nanotechnology. However, these new initiatives have diverted resources from NIST's traditional missions, and forced scientists to be laid off due to reduced funding. Given NIST's recognized leadership as a ``world class'' science institution, it is important that we ensure that it is adequately funded.

This legislation would authorize the Technology Administration from Fiscal Years 2004 through 2008 to ensure a steady funding stream for this agency's activities. The bill is based on the President's budget request for NIST's laboratory activities, and includes funding increases of six percent per year to offset the deteriorating funding situation.

The legislation also would authorize funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, (MEP), Program. As Secretary Evans recently stated, ``[m]anufacturing is a key pillar of our economy and we are committed to enhancing growth opportunities for our American manufacturing companies.'' I commend the Secretary for his recognition of the need to energize the manufacturing sector to restore robust growth to our economy. With this recognition in mind, I urge the Administration to be aware of the role that MEP can play in restoring the health of this sector. MEP centers aid small and medium-sized manufacturers by offering expertise, needs evaluation, training and information dissemination to help these companies deal with the challenges of globalization and weak economic growth.

I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation. It is important that we reauthorize these programs to ensure that they continue to carry out their critical role in our Nation's economy.

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

Madam President, I rise briefly to make a few remarks about the military construction appropriations bill, and, uncharacteristically, I commend the Appropriations Committee-- especially Chairman Stevens and Chairperson Hutchison, as well as the other members of the committee--for reporting out a bill with the lowest number of earmarks I have seen in a long time.

The military construction appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004 has $80 million of unrequested and unauthorized military construction projects. Obviously, that is a lot of money. But I point out, to the great credit of the sponsors of this legislation on both sides of the aisle, it is far less than what was added last year, which was $900 billion.

What is egregious and objectionable in this year's military construction appropriations bill that I have not seen to this degree in previous years is the extent to which the appropriators earmarked projects in the unspecified minor construction accounts--totaling $80 million. The authorization committee, once again, was circumvented and the President's budget was not requested. But the fact is that this is a much smaller number than before.

In an effort to contain the wasteful spending inherent in member- requested construction projects, I sponsored, and the Senate adopted, merit-based criteria for evaluating member adds as a part of the fiscal year 1995 Defense Authorization Act. The criteria are:

One, the project is in service's future years defense plan.

Two, the project is mission essential.

Three, the project can be put under contract in the current fiscal year.

Four, the project doesn't conflict with base realignment proposals.

Five, the service can offset the proposed expenditure within that year's budget request.

These criteria have been useful in our efforts to determine programs of merit or nonmerit.

Regarding the reduction in the amount of member adds in this legislation, there are, of course, a couple we have found that I found at least somewhat entertaining. While some of our soldiers and sailors have been on food stamps, we have found a way to provide $1.4 million to replace a working dog kennel. It is good to see that Fido has not been left out of this year's military construction appropriations.

Having said that, I am grateful to my friends on both sides of the aisle, including the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the chairperson of the Military Construction Subcommittee, for their arduous work on the bill and their continued unequaled support for our men and women in the military. Their attention and commitment to supporting only necessary projects that are high priorities of the services is exemplary this year, in my view.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of the projects that were add-ons--not leaving out the replacement of the working dog kennel.

Might I ask where that is located?

Madam President, last year, Congress took the important step of restoring the health and integrity of our campaign finance system when it enacted the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, BCRA. However, the Federal Election Commission, FEC, has continually acted as a bureaucratic barrier to reform of the system. Time and time again, these unelected officials of the FEC have thwarted the enforcement of the Nation's campaign finance laws in deference to the partisan wishes of those who have appointed them.

Along with Senator Feingold, I rise today to introduce legislation entitled the Federal Election Administration Act of 2003. This legislation creates a new independent agency, the Federal Election Administration, FEA, which replaces the Federal Election Commission in order to create a new system that finally enforces Federal campaign finance laws.

Although it was set up to administer and enforce the Federal campaign finance laws, the FEC has not been doing its job. The FEC is a weak and failing agency, structured by Congress to be slow and ineffective, composed of commissioners whose appointments are tightly controlled by the Members of Congress and political parties they regulate, and has been impeded by a continual lack of resources. This legislation replaces the current system with a more effective campaign finance enforcement system.

In its current form, the FEC has been faced with three major problems. The first problem has been that the FEC was structured by Congress to be ineffective.

Prior to the creation of the FEC, Members of Congress feared that this proposed enforcement agency ran the risk of becoming too powerful. To ease these fears, Congress structured an agency designed to fail from the start. The FEC has six members, no more than three of whom can be members of the same political party. In practice, this has meant that there have been three Republicans and three Democrats as commissioners. Only stalemate and inaction on key issues have resulted. On important issues the votes have often been cast on a partisan basis, resulting in 3-3 deadlocks. Furthermore, the affirmative votes of four members are necessary for the FEC to act. Therefore, 3-3 ties have led to inaction.

Partisanship has encroached upon nearly every major decision the FEC's six commissioners make. These partisan standoffs have stopped the FEC from enforcing actions against politicians and special interest groups, even when the FEC's general counsel has recommended that such enforcement proceed. FEC votes have been politicized to the point where commissioners of both parties have banded together to reject their staff's enforcement recommendations to serve the special interests of both parties.

The FEC has lacked important powers. The FEC cannot make its own findings that a violation occurred, cannot seek court injunctions to stop illegal activity, and cannot conduct random audits of campaigns. The FEC cannot directly impose penalties, except in very minor matters. In short, the FEC can do little to enforce the law. Compounding this problem is that the FEC has sole jurisdiction over all enforcement of campaign finance laws. No matter how slow the FEC's proceedings are, no one can seek civil enforcement of the law through the courts. All complaints must be filed

with the FEC and only the FEC has the authority to act on them.

This legislation addresses this first problem. First, the new Federal Election Administration will consist of only three members to remove the possibility of deadlocked votes. There is a Chairman and two additional members, all of whom are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Chairman will serve a term of ten years and will have broad powers to manage and administer the agency, including the power to hire the staff director and general counsel, and to set the budget for the agency. The two other members will each serve six year terms and cannot come from the same political party.

In the FEA, enforcement proceedings for violations of campaign finance laws will be conducted before impartial administrative law judges, similar to those in agencies such as the SEC and the EPA. An administrative law judge, ALJ, will conduct an enforcement proceeding after the three-member FEA, by majority vote, makes an initial determination to pursue an enforcement action. The FEA general counsel will represent the FEA in enforcement proceedings. The ALJ will have the authority to make findings of fact and reach conclusions of law. The general counsel and any respondent will have the right to appeal an ALJ decision to the FEA. The decision of the FEA regarding such an appeal will constitute final agency action and be subject to judicial review. By using ALJs, a system would be established for real enforcement not subject to partisan pressure.

An ALJ will have the authority to find that violations of law have occurred, and to impose civil penalties and issue cease and desist orders, subject to an appeal to the FEA. The decision by the FEA regarding such an appeal will be final agency action and be subject to judicial review. The FEA will have the authority to apply to a federal district court for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction to prevent violations of law that would result in substantial harm to the public interest. The FEA will also have the authority to conduct a limited number of random audits of campaign committees.

Unlike the FEC, the FEA will have real authority to act in a timely and effective way to function as a real enforcement agency.

The second problem with the FEC is that the commissioners appointed to the FEC have been chosen based on their political allegiances rather than their qualifications and commitment to administer and enforce the law. As a result of this process, the FEC is a highly politicized agency beholden to the interests of federal officeholders and party leaders who name the commissioners and the campaign finance community the agency is supposed to regulate.

FEC commissioner nominations are supposed to originate with the President and be confirmed by the Senate, but Congress really has the control over who is nominated. Nominees to the FEC are selected by party leaders in Congress and made official by the White House. Where the President has objected to a choice promoted by Congress, the congressional leaders have insisted on their nominees, and have usually won. Another issue is that few FEC commissioners have a background in enforcing laws. Most have come from the community that the FEC oversees--Congress, the political parties, and those in the campaign finance system.

An example of the disproportionate control Congress has over FEC appointments was shown by the appointment of Bradley A. Smith in 2000 as a commissioner. The Smith case showed that an avowed opponent of the campaign finance laws--someone who had called the laws unconstitutional and urged their repeal--could be forced onto the FEC by his Senate sponsors over the objection of the President, who nevertheless nominated him. Despite resistance, President Clinton named Smith to the FEC after Senate Republican leaders insisted on the nomination. The further inappropriateness of Smith serving on the FEC was shown when in February 2002 he actively participated in the efforts in the House of Representative by reform opponents to kill campaign finance reform legislation. Smith joined with another FEC member who also opposed campaign finance laws. The two commissioners inserted themselves into the fight during House consideration of the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill by helping House Republican leaders work to defeat the bill.

Clearly, the fact that FEC commissioners have become so publicly partisan in the policy debates on the election laws places in doubt the FEC's ability to credible enforce the law when its own commissioners openly denigrate the validity of those laws.

This legislation addresses this second problem by the following means. An individual may not be appointed to the new Federal Election Administration if he or she is serving or has served as a member of the FEC subject to a term limit or during the four previous years, was a candidate or elected officeholder, an officer, employee or attorney of a candidate, officeholder or political party, or employed in certain executive branch positions. Such strict criteria on who may be appointed to the FEA would provide the best opportunity for obtaining highly qualified and publicly credible and unbiased individuals to effectively and impartially enforce the campaign finance laws.

The last major problem with the FEC is that Congress has constantly abused its budget and oversight authority over the FEC. Time and time again, Congress has cut its budget. This legislation addresses this problem by having the budget of the new Federal Election Administration established by Congress based on a budget request prepared by its chairman and submitted directly to Congress. The General Accounting Office, GAO, will conduct periodic studies of the funding for the new FEA and submit recommendations to Congress on the level of funding necessary to provide adequate resources for the FEA to fulfill its duties. Unlike the FEC, the new agency will have the means to ensure that it will receive the adequate resources to effectively enforce the campaign finance laws.

In conclusion, the fact that FEC commissioners were never able to find significant campaign finance violations by federal candidates and their political parties in the Democratic and Republican campaign finance abuses that occurred in the 1996 elections--especially in the abuses of President Bill Clinton, his campaign officials and his political party--is the classic example of the problems with the FEC. Furthermore, when Congress enacted the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, BCRA, the FEC undermined this new law by issuing regulations to implement BCRA that seriously weakened the law's main provisions. Both examples highlight the FEC's history of failure as an oversight and enforcement agency and the need for its overhaul. Effective enforcement is essential for laws such as BCRA to work in the long run, and achieving that requires the establishment of a new system to enforce campaign finance laws.

With the establishment of this new Federal Election Administration to replace the FEC as a more effective enforcement agency, the campaign finance laws will now finally be taken seriously by candidates, parties, donors, and the public. Once this new agency is set up, the regulated community will comply with campaign finance laws because those laws can no longer be violated without punishment.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senator Hollings in introducing a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Surface Transportation Board, STB, for five years.

The STB is an independent agency established January 1, 1996, as the successor to the Interstate Commerce Commission. It is responsible for the economic regulation of interstate surface transportation, primarily railroads. The STB's mission is to ensure that competitive, efficient, and safe transportation services are provided to meet the needs of shippers, receivers, and consumers. The agency has remained unauthorized since the end of fiscal year 1998, despite efforts by the Senate Commerce Committee to pass reauthorization legislation.

The Surface Transportation Board Reauthorization Act of 2003 would reauthorize the STB for fiscal years 2004 through 2008 and provide sufficient resources to ensure the Board is able to continue to carry out its responsibilities. Specifically, the legislation would authorize $20.5 million for fiscal year 2004, rising to $23.5 million in fiscal year 2008. In fiscal year 2006, the legislation would authorize a higher appropriation, totaling $23.8 million, to cover the estimated costs that will be incurred to physically relocate the STB's offices. The legislation also proposes that the Board's Chairmanship position be subject to Senate confirmation, similar to other Boards and Commissions throughout the federal government, including the National Transportation Safety Board, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Export-Import Bank, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

I know that some of my colleagues, including several members of the Senate Commerce Committee, are interested in considering more sweeping legislation to amend the Staggers Rail Act, the landmark 1980 legislation that partially deregulated the freight railroads. As I have stated on numerous occasions, rail service and rail shipper issues warrant serious consideration. These matters have been the subject of many hearings before the Senate Commerce Committee, and Senator Hutchison will chair a Subcommittee hearing on captive shipper issues in the coming weeks. If a consensus is reached on other reforms needed to protect shippers and the public, additional legislation may be forthcoming from the Commerce Committee.

I look forward to working with my colleagues in moving this bill through the legislative process in the weeks ahead. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, last year, Congress took the important step of restoring the health and integrity of our campaign finance system when it enacted the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, BCRA. However, the Federal Election Commission, FEC, has continually acted as a bureaucratic barrier to reform of the system. Time and time again, these unelected officials of the FEC have thwarted the enforcement of the Nation's campaign finance laws in deference to the partisan wishes of those who have appointed them.

Along with Senator Feingold, I rise today to introduce legislation entitled the Federal Election Administration Act of 2003. This legislation creates a new independent agency, the Federal Election Administration, FEA, which replaces the Federal Election Commission in order to create a new system that finally enforces Federal campaign finance laws.

Although it was set up to administer and enforce the Federal campaign finance laws, the FEC has not been doing its job. The FEC is a weak and failing agency, structured by Congress to be slow and ineffective, composed of commissioners whose appointments are tightly controlled by the Members of Congress and political parties they regulate, and has been impeded by a continual lack of resources. This legislation replaces the current system with a more effective campaign finance enforcement system.

In its current form, the FEC has been faced with three major problems. The first problem has been that the FEC was structured by Congress to be ineffective.

Prior to the creation of the FEC, Members of Congress feared that this proposed enforcement agency ran the risk of becoming too powerful. To ease these fears, Congress structured an agency designed to fail from the start. The FEC has six members, no more than three of whom can be members of the same political party. In practice, this has meant that there have been three Republicans and three Democrats as commissioners. Only stalemate and inaction on key issues have resulted. On important issues the votes have often been cast on a partisan basis, resulting in 3-3 deadlocks. Furthermore, the affirmative votes of four members are necessary for the FEC to act. Therefore, 3-3 ties have led to inaction.

Partisanship has encroached upon nearly every major decision the FEC's six commissioners make. These partisan standoffs have stopped the FEC from enforcing actions against politicians and special interest groups, even when the FEC's general counsel has recommended that such enforcement proceed. FEC votes have been politicized to the point where commissioners of both parties have banded together to reject their staff's enforcement recommendations to serve the special interests of both parties.

The FEC has lacked important powers. The FEC cannot make its own findings that a violation occurred, cannot seek court injunctions to stop illegal activity, and cannot conduct random audits of campaigns. The FEC cannot directly impose penalties, except in very minor matters. In short, the FEC can do little to enforce the law. Compounding this problem is that the FEC has sole jurisdiction over all enforcement of campaign finance laws. No matter how slow the FEC's proceedings are, no one can seek civil enforcement of the law through the courts. All complaints must be filed

with the FEC and only the FEC has the authority to act on them.

This legislation addresses this first problem. First, the new Federal Election Administration will consist of only three members to remove the possibility of deadlocked votes. There is a Chairman and two additional members, all of whom are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Chairman will serve a term of ten years and will have broad powers to manage and administer the agency, including the power to hire the staff director and general counsel, and to set the budget for the agency. The two other members will each serve six year terms and cannot come from the same political party.

In the FEA, enforcement proceedings for violations of campaign finance laws will be conducted before impartial administrative law judges, similar to those in agencies such as the SEC and the EPA. An administrative law judge, ALJ, will conduct an enforcement proceeding after the three-member FEA, by majority vote, makes an initial determination to pursue an enforcement action. The FEA general counsel will represent the FEA in enforcement proceedings. The ALJ will have the authority to make findings of fact and reach conclusions of law. The general counsel and any respondent will have the right to appeal an ALJ decision to the FEA. The decision of the FEA regarding such an appeal will constitute final agency action and be subject to judicial review. By using ALJs, a system would be established for real enforcement not subject to partisan pressure.

An ALJ will have the authority to find that violations of law have occurred, and to impose civil penalties and issue cease and desist orders, subject to an appeal to the FEA. The decision by the FEA regarding such an appeal will be final agency action and be subject to judicial review. The FEA will have the authority to apply to a federal district court for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction to prevent violations of law that would result in substantial harm to the public interest. The FEA will also have the authority to conduct a limited number of random audits of campaign committees.

Unlike the FEC, the FEA will have real authority to act in a timely and effective way to function as a real enforcement agency.

The second problem with the FEC is that the commissioners appointed to the FEC have been chosen based on their political allegiances rather than their qualifications and commitment to administer and enforce the law. As a result of this process, the FEC is a highly politicized agency beholden to the interests of federal officeholders and party leaders who name the commissioners and the campaign finance community the agency is supposed to regulate.

FEC commissioner nominations are supposed to originate with the President and be confirmed by the Senate, but Congress really has the control over who is nominated. Nominees to the FEC are selected by party leaders in Congress and made official by the White House. Where the President has objected to a choice promoted by Congress, the congressional leaders have insisted on their nominees, and have usually won. Another issue is that few FEC commissioners have a background in enforcing laws. Most have come from the community that the FEC oversees--Congress, the political parties, and those in the campaign finance system.

An example of the disproportionate control Congress has over FEC appointments was shown by the appointment of Bradley A. Smith in 2000 as a commissioner. The Smith case showed that an avowed opponent of the campaign finance laws--someone who had called the laws unconstitutional and urged their repeal--could be forced onto the FEC by his Senate sponsors over the objection of the President, who nevertheless nominated him. Despite resistance, President Clinton named Smith to the FEC after Senate Republican leaders insisted on the nomination. The further inappropriateness of Smith serving on the FEC was shown when in February 2002 he actively participated in the efforts in the House of Representative by reform opponents to kill campaign finance reform legislation. Smith joined with another FEC member who also opposed campaign finance laws. The two commissioners inserted themselves into the fight during House consideration of the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill by helping House Republican leaders work to defeat the bill.

Clearly, the fact that FEC commissioners have become so publicly partisan in the policy debates on the election laws places in doubt the FEC's ability to credible enforce the law when its own commissioners openly denigrate the validity of those laws.

This legislation addresses this second problem by the following means. An individual may not be appointed to the new Federal Election Administration if he or she is serving or has served as a member of the FEC subject to a term limit or during the four previous years, was a candidate or elected officeholder, an officer, employee or attorney of a candidate, officeholder or political party, or employed in certain executive branch positions. Such strict criteria on who may be appointed to the FEA would provide the best opportunity for obtaining highly qualified and publicly credible and unbiased individuals to effectively and impartially enforce the campaign finance laws.

The last major problem with the FEC is that Congress has constantly abused its budget and oversight authority over the FEC. Time and time again, Congress has cut its budget. This legislation addresses this problem by having the budget of the new Federal Election Administration established by Congress based on a budget request prepared by its chairman and submitted directly to Congress. The General Accounting Office, GAO, will conduct periodic studies of the funding for the new FEA and submit recommendations to Congress on the level of funding necessary to provide adequate resources for the FEA to fulfill its duties. Unlike the FEC, the new agency will have the means to ensure that it will receive the adequate resources to effectively enforce the campaign finance laws.

In conclusion, the fact that FEC commissioners were never able to find significant campaign finance violations by federal candidates and their political parties in the Democratic and Republican campaign finance abuses that occurred in the 1996 elections--especially in the abuses of President Bill Clinton, his campaign officials and his political party--is the classic example of the problems with the FEC. Furthermore, when Congress enacted the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, BCRA, the FEC undermined this new law by issuing regulations to implement BCRA that seriously weakened the law's main provisions. Both examples highlight the FEC's history of failure as an oversight and enforcement agency and the need for its overhaul. Effective enforcement is essential for laws such as BCRA to work in the long run, and achieving that requires the establishment of a new system to enforce campaign finance laws.

With the establishment of this new Federal Election Administration to replace the FEC as a more effective enforcement agency, the campaign finance laws will now finally be taken seriously by candidates, parties, donors, and the public. Once this new agency is set up, the regulated community will comply with campaign finance laws because those laws can no longer be violated without punishment.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senator Hollings in introducing a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Surface Transportation Board, STB, for five years.

The STB is an independent agency established January 1, 1996, as the successor to the Interstate Commerce Commission. It is responsible for the economic regulation of interstate surface transportation, primarily railroads. The STB's mission is to ensure that competitive, efficient, and safe transportation services are provided to meet the needs of shippers, receivers, and consumers. The agency has remained unauthorized since the end of fiscal year 1998, despite efforts by the Senate Commerce Committee to pass reauthorization legislation.

The Surface Transportation Board Reauthorization Act of 2003 would reauthorize the STB for fiscal years 2004 through 2008 and provide sufficient resources to ensure the Board is able to continue to carry out its responsibilities. Specifically, the legislation would authorize $20.5 million for fiscal year 2004, rising to $23.5 million in fiscal year 2008. In fiscal year 2006, the legislation would authorize a higher appropriation, totaling $23.8 million, to cover the estimated costs that will be incurred to physically relocate the STB's offices. The legislation also proposes that the Board's Chairmanship position be subject to Senate confirmation, similar to other Boards and Commissions throughout the federal government, including the National Transportation Safety Board, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Export-Import Bank, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

I know that some of my colleagues, including several members of the Senate Commerce Committee, are interested in considering more sweeping legislation to amend the Staggers Rail Act, the landmark 1980 legislation that partially deregulated the freight railroads. As I have stated on numerous occasions, rail service and rail shipper issues warrant serious consideration. These matters have been the subject of many hearings before the Senate Commerce Committee, and Senator Hutchison will chair a Subcommittee hearing on captive shipper issues in the coming weeks. If a consensus is reached on other reforms needed to protect shippers and the public, additional legislation may be forthcoming from the Commerce Committee.

I look forward to working with my colleagues in moving this bill through the legislative process in the weeks ahead. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, Americans are fortunate to enjoy some of the best medical care available in the world. If we do not reform the current system, however, our good fortune will not last. Medical malpractice reform looms as one of the most critical factors negatively impacting our Nation's health care system. In the year 2000, doctors alone spent $6.3 billion on medical malpractice insurance coverage. That does not take into consideration coverage paid for by hospitals, nursing homes, and other groups.

Originally intended to provide patients with security by improving quality and providing fair and equitable compensation for valid claims, our Nation's medical malpractice system has only succeeded in adding billions of dollars a year to the cost of health care, while reducing patient access to physicians and treatment. The current system is broken.

Qualified doctors with years of valuable experience are leaving the medical field in droves. Some are opting for early retirement, while others are changing fields. Many physicians, particularly those in high-risk specialties, are moving to States that have implemented reforms or are opting to scale back their practices. Discouraged by the current system, many of today's medical students cite medical malpractice as a major factor in their choice of fields.

Rural areas have been hit particularly hard. In Arizona, our rural hospitals are struggling to keep qualified doctors. In our border region, where hospitals already struggle with the high cost of uncompensated care due to illegal immigrant populations, the Copper Queen Hospital in Bisbee has been without an obstetrician for over a year because of the high cost of medical malpractice insurance. Because of this void, pregnant women in southeastern Arizona have had to drive extremely long distances to reach the nearest hospital with an obstetrician.

Earlier this year, the daughter of a hospital board member gave birth on the side of the highway as she and her husband drove over a mountain pass to the nearest hospital in Sierra Vista. Fortunately for Bisbee and the surrounding areas, a local community health center, which is shielded from high liability costs by Federal law, recently received a Federal grant to develop a birthing facility. Now, the community will be able to retain obstetricians and pregnant women will be assured access to vital prenatal care.

Unfortunately, patients suffer most from the failures of our current system. Not only are patients losing access to qualified doctors, they are also losing health care coverage, substantially contributing to the rising numbers of uninsured Americans, most recently estimated at over 41 million. A recent study by Pricewater- houseCoopers found that 7 percent of the rise in health care costs are due to litigation and risk management. Those skyrocketing health care costs are

passed from health insurance companies to employers, making it more difficult for American businesses to provide coverage to employees. Businesses today pass a larger share of the cost burden on to employees than ever before, and many, particularly small businesses, have made the difficult decision to drop employee coverage entirely.

This morning, the Senate voted on the motion to invoke cloture on, S. 11, the Patients First Act of 2003. I voted to invoke cloture on this bill, not because I believe it is the perfect solution to this crisis, but because I believe that our Nation's medical malpractice system is broken and we must begin debating viable solutions. I have long supported tort reform generally, and medical malpractice in particular, because the current system is unfair and inefficient.

Unfortunately, the medical malpractice debate has been polarized by two powerful special interest groups, preventing necessary compromise and real reform. On one side, the trial lawyers, fearing the loss of enormous jury awards, have fought tooth and nail against any cap on non-economic damages. Similarly, the insurance industry and other medical special interest groups have been equally unwilling to compromise on the dollar amount of these caps. As long as this body remains polarized in between these two competing interests, we will not have real reform and the American people will suffer.

Under the bill considered today, patients would be able to recover the full cost of medical expenses coupled with past and future wage losses through unlimited economic damages. To address exorbitant jury awards for non-economic damages, this bill, caps non-economic damages at $250,000, while allowing states the flexibility to maintain their own caps. A federally imposed ceiling would be a tremendous help to States like Arizona that require State constitutional amendments in order to implement medical liability reform.

The reality is, we know that caps on damages do successfully reduce the cost of medical malpractice insurance. Malpractice rates nationally, have risen three times faster than in California, where caps have been in place for twenty years. Similarly, a recent study by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality found that states that enacted limits on non-economic damages have 12 percent more doctors per capita than states without caps.

Although I support reform efforts, I am concerned that $250,000 may not be a realistic amount at which to cap non-economic damages. I recognize that although the state-imposed cap of $250,000 has functioned well in California, there are also certain medical errors which are difficult, if not impossible to put a price tag on.

Additionally, I believe any medical malpractice reform legislation must be coupled with meaningful measures to address the alarming numbers of medical errors in this country. A 1999 study by the Institute of Medicine found that upwards of 98,000 people a year die of medical errors. Congress must address this escalating problem, particularly in the context of the current debate. Bipartisan legislation establishing medical error reporting requirements passed the House and will hopefully pass the Senate later this year, however much more can and should be done on this issue.

I believe a majority of my colleagues in the Senate agree that there does exist a serious problem in our Nation, that patients and doctors are suffering as a result, and something must be done. When the Senate voted this morning to invoke cloture, this bill did not have the votes necessary to continue debate. In fact, it did not even garner a majority vote. If we are truly committed to addressing this important issue, we must put special interests and partisan politics aside and work together to craft an equitable compromise.