Floor Statements

Mr. President, I will vote to table the motion to proceed to the consideration of S. 1162, the Child Tax Credit bill. However, I am only voting in favor of the motion to table in order to give the conference sufficient time to create a final bill so that millions of American families earning between $10,500 and about $25,000 will receive tax relief through the acceleration of the refundable child tax credit.

Accelerating the refundability is especially important for military families. The Department of Defense estimates that there are approximately 192,000 families whose income is between $10,500 and about $25,000. I believe that it is highly unconscionable that many of them will not receive child tax credit relief this year unless we pass a child tax credit bill this summer.

Therefore, I urge the conference to complete a final bill in a timely manner. Otherwise, if there is another motion to proceed to the consideration of this legislation, I will vote in favor of the motion to proceed.

Vote on Motion to table motion to proceed to S. 1162

Mr. President, the passage of the Medicare prescription drug benefits legislation is a difficult vote for me. It is unacceptable that in a country as wealthy as ours seniors across the country are struggling to afford the high cost of prescription drugs. I have supported adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare because I believe no beneficiary should have to choose between life-sustaining prescription medications and other vital necessities. Far too many American seniors face those choices every day. Many ration their supplies of medication, skip dosages, or cut pills in half.

In Arizona, busloads of seniors depart from Phoenix and Tucson every week, heading south to Mexico to purchase lower cost prescription drugs. The story is similar across the northern border, where seniors make daily trips to Canadian pharmacies. Throughout the country, an increasing number of seniors are looking to online pharmacies, selling reduced-priced prescriptions imported from other countries, oftentimes with questionable safety.

That said, I also recognize, as does every other Member of Congress, that Medicare is on a fast track toward bankruptcy. The most recent Trustee's Report adjusted down the year Medicare will reach financial insolvency by 4 years, to 2026. Clearly, it is incumbent upon us to include comprehensive reform of the system in any Medicare prescription drug package in order to ensure that Medicare is financially sound for current beneficiaries as well as future generations.

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

The bill before us represents one of the largest enhancements to Medicare since its creation, setting up an entirely new bureaucracy and establishing a sizable new entitlement program. I believe this bill addresses a real problem, the need to help struggling middle and low- income seniors. However, we must have no illusions. There are dangerous complexities and potential unintended consequences associated with this bill.

First, we must be realistic about the cost of this new entitlement program. For anyone who believes this bill will cost a maximum of $400 billion over the next 10 years, I have some oceanfront property in Gila Bend, AZ, to sell you.

Medicare and Social Security, together, represent an enormous unfunded liability for our Nation. In a few short years, millions of baby boomers will hit retirement age and the system will quickly become insolvent.

The numbers speak for themselves. Medicare currently has an unfunded liability of $13.3 trillion. Some have estimated the unfunded liability of the package before us in the $6 to $7 trillion range. A scholar at the American Enterprise Institute Scholar estimated that if passed, the Senate's prescription drug benefit legislation will result in a $12 trillion unfunded liability. Social Security and Medicare, with a prescription drug benefit, will together consume an estimated 21 percent of income taxes by the year 2020.

Long after the Members of this Congress and administration have left office, our children and our grandchildren, and a future Congress and administration, will be struck with the burden of cleaning up the mess we have created.

In the past 2 years, we have passed two large tax cuts. Government spending, however, has continued to increase well above the inflation use. Much of that spending is unnecessary, and represents a lack of fiscal discipline more common in times of federal budget surpluses. Yet our current budget deficit and national debt have risen dramatically. Security concerns in the post 9/11 era necessitate substantial increases in spending on defense and homeland security. We cannot sustain this level of fiscal profligacy indefinitely.

This extraordinary large new entitlement we are debating will impose an equally extraordinary burden on taxpayers. The money has to come from somewhere, and none of the ``somewheres'' are desirable. The reality is, this new benefit will be funded by raiding other entitlement trust funds, or by increasing our national debt, or by substantially increasing taxes.

Despite the enormous cost of this bill, this new entitlement will not provide the prescription drug coverage many seniors expect to receive. Nor does it enact significant reform measures needed to ensure the long-term solvency of the Medicare system.

Those seniors who think this bill will solve their financial problems will soon learn that there are substantial limitations to the benefit. When it does pass, the new prescription benefit will not be available immediately. In fact, it will take several years just to establish the new bureaucracy which will administer the prescription benefits.

Low-income seniors will benefit from this package, and I am pleased that they will. Many other seniors, however, will not receive a generous benefit, and might not even get out of the system what they will pay in deductible sand premiums. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 37 percent of employers currently providing coverage to Medicare eligible seniors, will drop coverage if this bill passes. Last week, the Wall Street Journal quoted one analyst who called this bill the ``automaker enrichment act,'' because companies such as the automakers who currently provide their retired employees with a prescription drug benefit are unlikely to continue doing so if the Federal Government assumes part of the burden for them.

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

Moreover, I am not confident that the Medicare Advantage portion of this new scheme, which establishes regional PPO options for seniors, will succeed. Many in the insurance industry have expressed skepticism and concern that such plans will not be profitable. In the end, the Federal Government, which acts as a fallback if no private plans are available, might end up covering the majority of the country. Not exactly the reform we all had hoped for.

The American people should be aware that this new benefit has substantial cost to seniors, and to current and future generations of taxpayers, who will bear the majority of a crushing financial burden. There will be unintended consequences of our actions. We can be sure of that. Moreover, we should be honest about the cost of this measure-- $400 billion is merely a down payment for what we are creating. Given the fiscal realities we face, realities that will become more dire with every passing year, Congress and the administration should have committed to addressing the acute need for a drug benefit to alleviate the impossible choices confronting lower income seniors. And, most importantly, begun to seek consensus among responsible Members of both parties for the reforms we all know are necessary to save Medicare.

I recently heard a good assessment of this package: it is ``an effort to do too much with too little, and thus doing nothing very well at all.''

There are several good amendments that have been adopted during this debate. I am encouraged that a bill Senator Schumer and I worked on for the last 4 years, might finally be enacted into law as part of this package. Our amendment will increase competition in the pharmaceutical industry and ensure that all Americans have access to lower cost generic drugs. That amendments, which would not have been possible without the leadership of Senator Gregg and the support of Senator Kennedy, will reduce the cost to the government of any Medicare prescription drug benefit.

I was happy to cosponsor an important amendment with Senators Feinstein, Nickles, Chafee, and Graham, which I believe will add some fiscal discipline to the bill and the Medicare program. The amendment will add means testing to Medicare Part B--increasing co-payments for wealthier seniors.

I am also pleased that several measures which I have supported and cosponsored as separate bills, have been adopted as part of this package, including the Immigrant Children's Health Improvement Act, the Blind Empowerment Act, and funds to reimburse hospitals for the uncompensated cost of caring for undocumented immigrants. Additionally, there have been several good amendments that I think will improve overall health care in our country. In particular, I believe Senator Grassley's amendment which requires agreements between brand and generic pharmaceutical companies to be reported to the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department will shine some much needed light on potential collusive agreements.

Despite these welcome improvements, and recognizing that this legislation will address the crisis faced by lower income seniors, the costs of this entitlement remain, simply put, beyond the means of this country absent real reform of Medicare. Therefore, after much thought, I regret that I cannot vote for this legislation. I have reached this conclusion, not because I believe our seniors and disabled do not need or deserve prescription drug coverage, but because I do not believe our country can sustain the cost of this benefit, which will not, despite it's staggering expense, provide the assistance many beneficiaries will expect.

As I noted, Congress and the administration should have addressed the acute need for assistance of lower income seniors. And before we consider extending that assistance to other seniors, we should save Medicare first by instituting the reforms we all know are necessary, but which we apparently prefer to defer until we have retired from public service. I know that those reforms pose a very difficult political challenge to us, and that the bipartisanship we have commended in the drafting and consideration of the legislation before us today would be put to a far more severe test should we genuinely attempt to save the Medicare system from insolvency. However, should we simply add another huge, new unfunded liability to an already fiscally unsound entitlement, imposing a breathtakingly heavy tax burden on our children and their children, with devastating consequences for their prosperity and the national economy, we will have done the one thing no public servant should want to be remembered for, we will have left the country worse off than we found it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Gregg for his leadership on this legislation. I thank him for reaching out to Senator Schumer, Senator Kennedy, and myself to resolve issues that are important. He recognized the problem existed and worked to ensure loopholes in the system are closed and consumers have access to the best and most affordable medicines. Senator Gregg's leadership enabled the expeditious introduction and successful committee markup of this legislation. Under his chairmanship, the bill was reported out by unanimous consent last Wednesday.

Senator Kennedy's support of this measure must also be recognized. His

experience and technical expertise have been invaluable throughout the process. Staffs of all three of these Senators have worked 7 days a week for the last few weeks to ensure that the language we have crafted is as technically sound as possible without unintended consequences.

I also thank my friend, Senator Schumer, with whom I have enjoyed working over the last few years. His dedication to American consumers and his commitment to restoring fairness to the drug industry must be commended time after time.

This amendment will enhance competition and restore a level of sanity in the pharmaceutical market. The amendment closes loopholes in the current food and drug laws that allow brand pharmaceutical companies to protect themselves from generic competition by unfairly extending drug patent life, maximizing company profits on the backs of American consumers.

This amendment ensures that lower cost generic drugs will get to market faster and with more competition, allowing substantial savings for both consumers and taxpayers. With this measure, we are one step closer to the larger goal of providing better access to affordable health care for all Americans.

Several years ago, my good friend, Senator Schumer, and I began this effort when we introduced the first Greater Access to Affordable Pharmaceuticals Act in the fall of 2000. I joined Senator Schumer then in order to put a stop to the anticompetitive actions in the pharmaceutical industry that artificially inflate prices and keep lower cost prescription drugs out of the hands of American consumers. I am here today because those loopholes remain.

Last summer, when the Senate was mired in partisan gridlock debating a Medicare prescription drug benefit, the later version of the bill was used as a vehicle for Medicare debate. Although the Senate failed to pass a Medicare prescription drug benefit package last summer, the GAAP Act passed by an overwhelming margin of 78 to 21. That bill set consumers on course to save an estimated $60 billion over 10 years, while providing seniors and all Americans with access to more affordable prescription drugs. Unfortunately, after our astounding victory for consumers, the bill was not subsequently passed or even considered by the other body.

Today, we are once again debating Medicare prescription drug benefits. We have before us a plan that is estimated to cost a minimum of $400 billion over the next 10 years but will surely cost substantially more upon implementation. Unlike the majority of the amendments that have been and will be considered during this debate, the amendment we are offering will not cost the taxpayers a dime. In fact, it will save money for both the Federal Government and American consumers.

The amendment is the result of a carefully crafted bipartisan compromise, which Senators Schumer, Gregg, Kennedy, and I reached several weeks ago. This amendment achieves the same goals Senator Schumer and I have been striving to achieve over the last few years. It closes loopholes in the law, encouraging competition, without sacrificing incentives for innovation, while discouraging anticompetitive behavior on the part of brand or generic drug companies.

Of the many elements contributing to the rapid growth in our Nation's health care costs, the rising costs of prescription drugs is one of the most significant. This year alone, prescription drug costs are expected to rise by 19 percent.

I ask my friend from New Hampshire if he would yield me an additional 4 minutes?

I thank my friend from New Hampshire.

I want to repeat that comment. This year alone, prescription drug costs are expected to rise by 19 percent. Today, this morning, in New York, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Arizona, seniors are getting on a bus--in the case of Arizona, to drive to Mexico; in the case of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and New York, to go to Canada--to buy their prescription drugs. Most times these prescription drugs are fine. Most times they are exactly what they are advertised to be. But sometimes they are not. That is because these seniors who are having to get on the bus to go to Canada or Mexico simply cannot afford to go to their local druggist and get the prescription drugs that they very badly need--many cases in lifesaving situations.

Skyrocketing health care costs have left many businesses struggling to provide coverage for their employees and an increasing number of Americans without any health insurance. Consequently, access to affordable prescription drugs represents one of the most serious problems facing our Nation's health care system today. Not isolated to one segment of society, this issue affects individuals, families, companies, and the like.

The financial burdens associated with rising prescription drug costs have left many companies struggling to provide employees with health care coverage. This January, workers at General Electric staged a 2-day strike over increased copayments for prescription drugs covered under the company's insurance plan. General Motors, one of the largest providers of private sector health care coverage, spends billions of dollars a year on workers, retirees, and their dependents, over $1 billion of which is on prescription drugs alone. Even with aggressive cost-saving mechanisms in place, General Motors' prescription drug costs continue to rise between 15 percent and 20 percent per year.

Given the crises in both corporate America and our Nation's health care system, anticompetitive behavior in the marketplace is particularly onerous. Such abuse simply has no place in our health care system. My intention in supporting this amendment is not to weaken patent laws to the detriment of the pharmaceutical industry, nor is it to impede the tremendous investments they make in the research and development of new life-sustaining drugs. The purpose of the underlying legislation is to close loopholes in the Hatch-Waxman Act, which established the generic drug industry we know today, and to ensure more timely access to generic medications. This is an important distinction which must be made clear.

Nonetheless, to believe that patent laws are not being abused, is to ignore the mountain of testimony from consumers, industry analysts, and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Over the past three years several Senate and House committees have heard testimony regarding the extent by which pharmaceutical companies, including generic manufacturers, engage in anti-competitive activities and impede access to affordable medications. During a hearing at the Senate Commerce Committee, Chairman Muris of the FTC testified that:

[in] spite of this remarkable record of success, the Hatch-

Waxman Amendments have also been subject to abuse. Although

many drug manufacturers, including both branded companies and

generics, have acted in good faith, some have attempted to

``game'' the system, securing greater profits for themselves

without providing a corresponding benefit to consumers.

The intent of the Hatch-Waxman Act was to address the escalating costs of prescription drugs by encouraging generic competition, while at the same time providing incentives for brand name drug companies to continue research and development into new and more advanced drugs. To a large extent, Hatch-Waxman has succeeded in striking that difficult balance between bringing new lower-cost alternatives to consumers, while encouraging more investment in U.S. pharmaceutical research and development in the pharmaceutical industry has increased exponentially. Unfortunately, however, some bad actors have manipulated the law in a manner that delays and, at times, prohibits generics from entering the marketplace.

I believe that this amendment will improve the current system while preserving the intent of Hatch-Waxman. This legislation is not an attempt to jeopardize the patent rights of innovative companies, nor does it seek to provide an unfair advantage to generic manufacturers. Rather, the intent of this amendment is to strike a balance between these two interests so that we can close the loopholes that allow some companies to engage in anti-competitive actions by unfairly prolonging patents or eliminating fair competition.

In doing so, we offer consumers more choice in the marketplace.

It is imperative that Congress build upon the strengths of our current health care system while addressing its weaknesses. This should not be done by imposing price controls or creating a universal, government-run health care system. Rather, a balance must be found that protects consumers with market-based, competitive solutions without allowing those protections to be manipulated at the consumers' expense--particularly senior citizens and working families without health care insurance.

I want to thank my friend, Senator Schumer, with whom I have enjoyed working over the last few years. His dedication to American consumers and his commitment to restoring fairness to the drug industry must be commended.

I also want to thank Senator Gregg for reaching out to Senator Schumer, Senator Kennedy and myself, to find middle ground. He recognized that this problem existed and joined us to ensure that loopholes in the system are closed and consumers have access to the best and most affordable medicines. Senator Gregg's leadership enabled the expeditious introduction and successful Committee markup of this legislation, where under his chairmanship the bill was reported out by unanimous consent last Wednesday.

Senator Kennedy's support of this measure must also be recognized. His experience and technical expertise have been invaluable throughout the process. The staffs of all three of these senators have worked seven days a week for the last few weeks, to ensure that the language we have crafted is as technically sound as possible--without any unintended consequences.

It is my strong belief that this measure represents a significant and immediate step that Congress can take to help to improve the lives of many Americans. I look forward to debating this issue and working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to protect the health care needs of older Americans while also eliminating the anti-competitive abuses of both pioneer and generic drug companies.

This place in some ways has become more partisan than a lot of us would like. I think this legislation is an example of how people on both sides of the aisle can work together. In this case, the chairman and ranking member of the appropriate committee, Senator Gregg and Senator Kennedy, have worked together, as have Senator Schumer and I, and all others on his committee who have made this legislation come to the floor. I imagine it will pass with relative ease, to the benefit of many millions of Americans.

I again thank all who have been involved in it.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I am honored today to pay tribute to a truly remarkable American, Dr. Ralph Nurnberger. As some of my colleagues may already know, Dr. Nurnberger was recently presented with the 2003 Excellence in Teaching Faculty Award from Georgetown University. I can think of no one more deserving of this award than Ralph Nurnberger. I have known Ralph for many years and I have long admired his dedication to Georgetown's students and his fellow faculty members. Anyone who has the privilege of knowing this fine man will agree that Georgetown University continues to be held in such high esteem because of professors like Ralph Nurnberger. He is a good friend and I extend my most sincere congratulations.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the citation honoring Dr. Nurnberger be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in morning business.

Mr. President, I note the presence of the Senator from Kentucky. I ask unanimous consent to engage him in a 2- or 3-minute dialog.

Mr. President, I am pleased to note that, thanks to the efforts of millions of people all over the world, ASEAN, in a radical departure from their previous practice, has called for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi. I thank the Senator for his sponsorship of the legislation that I think may have had some beneficial effect. We obviously don't know all the factors that went into it, except to note also that people all over the world have been aroused on behalf of this great and truly good person. I thank the Senator from Kentucky for his efforts on her behalf.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I am grateful to join my colleagues, Senators Evan Bayh, Ted Kennedy, and Barbara Mikulski in reintroducing the Call to Service Act of 2003. This important legislation significantly expands opportunities for citizens to serve their country as community volunteers and in homeland security functions.

This legislation expands legislation that I introduced with senator Bayh in 2001. A key component of the original McCain/Bayh proposal became law last year. To meet the changing personnel needs of today's military, the Defense Department will now have a new, shorter-term enlistment option. Individuals who volunteer to serve under this new program serve on active duty for 15 months after their initial military training and can complete the remainder of their obligation by choosing service on active duty, in the Selected Reserve or in the Individual Ready Reserve, which can be fulfilled by in a civilian national service program such as the Peace Corps or AmeriCorps). In return for service, the legislation provides loan up to $18,000, an educational allowance under the Montgomery GI Bill. I am encouraged by the excitement expressed by the Pentagon in meetings about the implementation of the program.

Two months after our legislation was introduced, President Bush made service programs a centerpiece of his 2002 State of the Union address. Unfortunately, since the speech, there has not been much followthrough on the part of this Administration.

From the time President Bush was the Governor of Texas, through his experience as President, he has proudly pointed out the successes of this program. Yet the Fiscal Year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations bill he sent to the Congress forced cuts in the program. Combined with a 50,000 cap placed on the number of AmeriCorps volunteers, AmeriCorps now faces a crisis.

My office has been inundated by phone calls from nervous AmeriCorps volunteers in recent days. They are all expressing the same fear that they will not have the opportunity to continue their service to our communities. Idealistic young men and women in this country got excited when they heard the President promise increased opportunities to serve. It is now time for the Congress and the President to expand opportunities to serve.

There is no shortage of causes that volunteers are eager to fix. We have failing schools, desperate for good teachers. Children in our poorest communities are growing up in need of mentors. Millions of elderly Americans desperately want to stay in their homes and out of nursing facilities, but cannot do so without help with the small tasks of daily life. More and more of our communities are being devastated by natural disasters. Many of the AmeriCorps volunteers work for chronically understaffed organizations such as Boys and Girls Clubs, Habitat for Humanity and the Red Cross. I have to ask why would anyone think we should do anything except increase AmeriCorps to provide opportunities for as many people as possible to serve?

Not only does the community as a whole suffer when AmeriCorps is cut, but those who are eager to serve are affected as well. Currently, over 490 individuals serve in Arizona. Many of Arizona's AmeriCorps volunteers take advantage of the educational opportunities that go along with their service. To date, over 2,100 Arizona residents have taken advantage of the $4,725 to help pay for college or pay back student loans. The fewer the number of slots available for AmeriCorps volunteers, the fewer the number of men and women who will be able to take advantage of this important opportunity.

I am grateful Senators Bond and Mikulski are working to ensure that the OMB ruling on the use of the education trust fund is used. This will ensure that the cut in the number of volunteers is less than originally feared. However make no mistake, there will be far fewer volunteers in 2003.

Our legislation seeks to increase the opportunity to serve in AmeriCorps. The Call to Service Act increases the number of people who volunteer for AmeriCorps by 25,000 per year until 175,000 people are serving in AmeriCorps each year for a five year period. This is a 125,000 increase in volunteers over the current 50,000 volunteers. Many of these new positions will be dedicated to homeland security. This legislation links AmeriCorps to Homeland Defense by directing the Corporation for National Service to work with the Department of Homeland Security to determine ways of promoting national security through service programs.

This legislation also expands eligibility for willing and able seniors to volunteer in a variety of capacities through Senior Corps, including senior companion programs, tutoring, providing long-term care, and serving as foster grandparents.

During my failed Presidential campaign in 2000, I had the opportunity to meet with students all across the country. I was deeply moved by the strong desire these young men and women expressed to serve their country. While I encourage military service to those I meet, I recognize this type of service is not for all. Our legislation increases the opportunities for these citizens.

The response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 brought out the best in the citizens of the United States. Americans reached out to their friends, neighbors and those in their communities. Many examples of serving causes greater than their self interest abound. This dedication to volunteer service is still alive today. We cannot continue to wait to provide expanded opportunities for national service. Congress should no longer delay in taking action on legislation to provide opportunities for Americans to serve.

Mr. President, I am grateful to join my colleagues, Senators Evan Bayh, Ted Kennedy, and Barbara Mikulski in reintroducing the Call to Service Act of 2003. This important legislation significantly expands opportunities for citizens to serve their country as community volunteers and in homeland security functions.

This legislation expands legislation that I introduced with senator Bayh in 2001. A key component of the original McCain/Bayh proposal became law last year. To meet the changing personnel needs of today's military, the Defense Department will now have a new, shorter-term enlistment option. Individuals who volunteer to serve under this new program serve on active duty for 15 months after their initial military training and can complete the remainder of their obligation by choosing service on active duty, in the Selected Reserve or in the Individual Ready Reserve, which can be fulfilled by in a civilian national service program such as the Peace Corps or AmeriCorps). In return for service, the legislation provides loan up to $18,000, an educational allowance under the Montgomery GI Bill. I am encouraged by the excitement expressed by the Pentagon in meetings about the implementation of the program.

Two months after our legislation was introduced, President Bush made service programs a centerpiece of his 2002 State of the Union address. Unfortunately, since the speech, there has not been much followthrough on the part of this Administration.

From the time President Bush was the Governor of Texas, through his experience as President, he has proudly pointed out the successes of this program. Yet the Fiscal Year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations bill he sent to the Congress forced cuts in the program. Combined with a 50,000 cap placed on the number of AmeriCorps volunteers, AmeriCorps now faces a crisis.

My office has been inundated by phone calls from nervous AmeriCorps volunteers in recent days. They are all expressing the same fear that they will not have the opportunity to continue their service to our communities. Idealistic young men and women in this country got excited when they heard the President promise increased opportunities to serve. It is now time for the Congress and the President to expand opportunities to serve.

There is no shortage of causes that volunteers are eager to fix. We have failing schools, desperate for good teachers. Children in our poorest communities are growing up in need of mentors. Millions of elderly Americans desperately want to stay in their homes and out of nursing facilities, but cannot do so without help with the small tasks of daily life. More and more of our communities are being devastated by natural disasters. Many of the AmeriCorps volunteers work for chronically understaffed organizations such as Boys and Girls Clubs, Habitat for Humanity and the Red Cross. I have to ask why would anyone think we should do anything except increase AmeriCorps to provide opportunities for as many people as possible to serve?

Not only does the community as a whole suffer when AmeriCorps is cut, but those who are eager to serve are affected as well. Currently, over 490 individuals serve in Arizona. Many of Arizona's AmeriCorps volunteers take advantage of the educational opportunities that go along with their service. To date, over 2,100 Arizona residents have taken advantage of the $4,725 to help pay for college or pay back student loans. The fewer the number of slots available for AmeriCorps volunteers, the fewer the number of men and women who will be able to take advantage of this important opportunity.

I am grateful Senators Bond and Mikulski are working to ensure that the OMB ruling on the use of the education trust fund is used. This will ensure that the cut in the number of volunteers is less than originally feared. However make no mistake, there will be far fewer volunteers in 2003.

Our legislation seeks to increase the opportunity to serve in AmeriCorps. The Call to Service Act increases the number of people who volunteer for AmeriCorps by 25,000 per year until 175,000 people are serving in AmeriCorps each year for a five year period. This is a 125,000 increase in volunteers over the current 50,000 volunteers. Many of these new positions will be dedicated to homeland security. This legislation links AmeriCorps to Homeland Defense by directing the Corporation for National Service to work with the Department of Homeland Security to determine ways of promoting national security through service programs.

This legislation also expands eligibility for willing and able seniors to volunteer in a variety of capacities through Senior Corps, including senior companion programs, tutoring, providing long-term care, and serving as foster grandparents.

During my failed Presidential campaign in 2000, I had the opportunity to meet with students all across the country. I was deeply moved by the strong desire these young men and women expressed to serve their country. While I encourage military service to those I meet, I recognize this type of service is not for all. Our legislation increases the opportunities for these citizens.

The response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 brought out the best in the citizens of the United States. Americans reached out to their friends, neighbors and those in their communities. Many examples of serving causes greater than their self interest abound. This dedication to volunteer service is still alive today. We cannot continue to wait to provide expanded opportunities for national service. Congress should no longer delay in taking action on legislation to provide opportunities for Americans to serve.

Mr. President, the resolution I am submitting today is a resolution to amend the Standing Rules of the Senate to give every Member the ability to raise points of order in objection to unauthorized appropriations or locality-specific earmarks that would circumvent the authorizing or competitive award process. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my colleagues, Senators Kyl, Sessions, and Feingold.

Specifically, the resolution would establish a new procedure, modeled in part after the Byrd Rule, which would allow a point of order to be raised against any new or general legislation or unauthorized appropriations, including earmarks, in any general appropriations bills or amendments to general appropriations bills. It also would allow a point of order to be raised against any new or general legislation or unauthorized appropriations, new matter, or nongermane matter in any appropriations conference reports, and against unauthorized appropriations in amendments between the Houses.

Unless a point of order is waived by the affirmative vote of 60 votes, the unauthorized provision would be extracted from the measure, and the overall cost of the bill would be reduced by the corresponding amount. Furthermore, if a point of order is sustained against a provision in a conference report, that provision also would be stricken. The legislative process would continue, however, and the legislation would revert to a nonamendable Senate amendment, which would be the conference agreement without the objectionable material, and the measure could then be sent back to the House.

The proposed rules change also includes two exemptions to points of order that currently apply to amendments to appropriations bills under rule XVI: appropriations that had been included in the President's budget request or would be authorized by a bill already passed by the Senate during that session of Congress. Such appropriations would not be subject to points of order under the proposed rules change.

Finally, as my colleagues know, the reports accompanying appropriations bills and the statements of managers that accompany conference reports are chock full of unauthorized appropriations and site-specific earmarks, typically far exceeding those in the bill language. There has been a growing tendency over the years for these reports to be viewed by Federal agencies as statutory directives. The fact is, of course, the Appropriations Committee reports and statements of managers are advisory only. Unless a device for curtailing such earmarking in report language is also implemented, the new rule could be rendered almost meaningless. Therefore, under our proposal, it would not be in order to consider an appropriations bill or conference report if the accompanying documents include unauthorized or earmarked items.

The proposal would not be self-enforcing but, rather, it would allow any Member to raise a point of order in an effort to extract objectionable unauthorized provisions. Our goal is to reform the current system by empowering all Members with a tool to rid appropriations bills of unauthorized funds, porkbarrel projects, and legislative policy riders.

For many years, I have worked to call attention to the wasteful practice of congressional earmarking whereby parochial interests are placed above national interests. Unfortunately, congressional earmarks have continued to rise year after year. In fact, according to information compiled from the CRS, the Congressional Research Service, the total number of earmarks has grown from 4,126 in fiscal year 1994, to 10,540 in fiscal year 2002. That is an increase of over 150 percent. And for the year 2003, the increase in number, from our preliminary estimates, is somewhere around 1,300 earmarks.

Our current economic situation and our vital national security concerns require that now, more than ever, we prioritize our Federal spending.

By the way, the earmarked funds have gone up a commensurate amount from $26.8 billion in fiscal year 1994, to $44.6 billion earmarked in 2002. I think

what this chart shows is as important as the earmarks, given the fact that we are now up close to $50 billion in earmarked funds in our appropriations bills.

And this chart does not include the number of fundamental policy changes that are made in the appropriations process because they cannot get through the authorizing process, which is the proper process. And they, many times--as in a case that I will mention in a few minutes-- often cost hundreds of millions of dollars to the taxpayers. Language included in the Department of Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998 is a classic example. There were no funds earmarked in that bill that would show up here. It did show up as one policy change.

What it did do, in the Defense appropriations bill, is it granted a legal monopoly for American Classic Voyages to operate as the only U.S.-flagged operator among the Hawaiian Islands. After receiving the monopoly, American Classic Voyages secured a $1.1 billion loan guarantee from the U.S. Maritime Administration's title XI loan guarantee program for the construction of two passenger vessels known as Project America.

Project America's subsequent failure 4 years later resulted in the U.S. Maritime Administration paying out $187.3 million of the taxpayers' money to cover the project's loan default and recovering only $2 million from the sale.

I am not alone in the opinion that the earmarking process has reached the breaking point. Consider the administration's recently submitted proposal to reauthorize the multiyear highway transit and safety programs which will expire in September 30, 2003. Interestingly, that proposal, entitled the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003, SAFETEA, proposes to largely eliminate discretionary programs that currently exist under the Department's authority.

Why is that? One would think the Secretary of Transportation would be advocating the growth of discretionary programs so that he can award Federal grants for projects based on a meritorious selection process.

But over the years, such discretion has been assumed by the appropriators during the annual transportation appropriations process and all but nullified any role on the part of the Secretary and his ability to award discretionary grants.

Transportation Secretary Mineta, in testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee, stated:

SAFETEA eliminates most discretionary highway grant

programs and makes these funds available under the core

formula highway grants programs. States and localities have

tremendous flexibility and certainty of funding under the

core programs. Unfortunately, Congressional earmarking has

frustrated the intent of most of these discretionary

programs, making it harder for States and localities to think

strategically about their own transportation problems.

To further illustrate the enormity of the earmarking situation, my colleagues need only consider the transportation earmarking that has occurred during the past 5 years. According to the Department of Transportation inspector general, Congress appropriated $18 billion in discretionary funding for highway transit and aviation discretionary programs during fiscal years 1998 through 2002. Of that amount, $11 billion or 60 percent was earmarked by Congress.

Let me just offer a few specific examples of recent earmarks: From the war supplemental appropriations conference report, $110 million for modernization of the Agriculture Research Service, and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Facilities near Ames, IA. That was from a war supplemental appropriations conference report, specifically for the war in Iraq and homeland security. From the 2003 omnibus appropriations conference report, $1 million for a bear DNA sampling study in Montana; $280,000 for asparagus technology and production in Washington; $220,000 to research future foods in Illinois; $10 million for a seafood marketing program in Alaska; $250,000 for research on the interaction of grapefruit juice and drugs; $50,000 to combat feral hogs in Missouri; $2 million for the Biomass Gasification Research Facility in Birmingham, AL; $500,000 for the gasification of switchgrass in Iowa; $1 million for the National Agriculture-Based Industrial Lubricants Center in Iowa; and $202,500 to continue rehabilitation of the former Alaska Pulp Company mill site in Sitka, AK.

I usually make a lot of fun and jokes about these things, but it is getting out of hand. It is really getting out of hand. When we are looking at a $400 billion deficit this year, can we afford $1 million for a bear DNA sampling study in Montana?

The conference report also included an agricultural policy change to make catfish producers eligible for payments under the livestock compensation program even though hog, poultry, or horse producers are not eligible.

Further, the conference agreement contained provisions which allow a subsidiary of the Malaysian-owned Norwegian Cruise Lines the exclusive right to operate several large foreign-built cruise vessels in the domestic cruise trade. This provides an unfair competitive advantage to a foreign company at the expense of all other cruise ship operators and creates a de facto monopoly for NCL in the Hawaiian cruise trade.

From the fiscal year 2002 transportation appropriations conference report, nearly $1 billion in highway program funding authorized to be distributed to the States by formula at the discretion of the Secretary was instead, for the first time, redirected and earmarked for projects such as $1.5 million for the Big South Fork Scenic Railroad enhancement project in Kentucky; $2 million for a public exhibition on ``America's Transportation Stories'' in Michigan; and $3 million for the Odyssey Maritime Project, a museum, in Washington. That was out of highway funds.

The National Corridor Planning & Development & Corridor Border Infrastructure Program was authorized at $140 million. But the appropriators provided an additional $333.6 million over the authorized level for a total of $492.2 million in funding. The conferees then earmarked 100 percent of the funding for 123 projects in 38 States. Earmarks included, surprisingly, $54 million for three projects in West Virginia; $43 million for 18 projects in Kentucky; $34.5 million for seven projects in Mississippi; $34 million for five projects in Washington; and $27 million for six projects in Alabama. Twelve States received zero funding under any program: Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming.

I could go on citing examples of arbitrary earmarks. I will refrain for now. But something has to be done to put a halt to the alarming increase in earmarking.

I went over the rules changes and what they meant, but I would just like to give a most recent example. An issue that has arisen which is of great concern to many Americans is the issue of media concentration. We have had several hearings in the Commerce Committee. We had the FCC Commissioners up before the committee after they made a ruling. It has probably aroused more interest than any other issue ever before the Federal Communications Commission, certainly in recent memory.

Seven hundred fifty thousand Americans contacted the FCC on this issue of media concentration. The issue is difficult. It is complex. We have had many hearings on it. Over time, I have become convinced that this issue is a serious one. I believe there are serious problems with radio concentration. I am not sure what the answer is and exactly how we go about addressing the issue of both vertical and horizontal concentration, cross-ownership of newspapers, and television stations and cable stations and radio stations. But the committee will continue to explore it.

Last week, three of my colleagues from the Senate held a press conference: My dear friend Senator Hollings, ranking member of the Commerce Committee, former chairman; Senator Stevens of Alaska, second ranking member of the committee; and Senator Lott, a very distinguished member of the committee. At the time, they said they were introducing legislation to freeze the ownership at 35 percent which would then counteract and repeal the rule raising media concentration levels to 45 percent by FCC.

The only reason I mention this is immediately in answer to the first question, they said: If we don't get it

through the committee, we can always put it on an appropriations bill. That was the comment made.

Mr. President, that is not the right way to do business on a major fundamental policy change, to tack it on as one line, as was described by Senator Hollings, that we can always just zero out the funding. That is not the way we should be doing business.

This issue should be decided by all 100 Senators on the floor of the Senate. I am not saying the sponsors of the legislation are wrong. But this has to do with billions of dollars in acquisitions, or nonacquisitions, with fundamental changes within the media. The answer was, well, we will put it on an appropriations bill if we cannot get it through committee. The committee will be marking it up on Thursday. I don't know if it will get to the floor. That is up to the majority leader but, more importantly up to my colleagues who may put holds on it.

These are serious issues that impact greatly the United States of America, and they are being decided on appropriations bills, stuck in without even so much as a hearing many times. I will be on the floor many times on this issue because it is a long way from us being able to remove this power from the Appropriations Committee and put it back into the authorizing committees where it belongs.

Finally, some of the proudest and most intense and enjoyable moments of my political career have been as chairman of the Commerce Committee. I believe the Commerce Committee is well suited to address these issues. I believe the Commerce Committee is well suited to authorize major programs and address major policy challenges that confront the Nation, whether it is commerce, science, transportation, information technology, telecommunications, aviation, or all of the other issues. I don't think they should be decided by the Appropriations Committee, as far as policy is concerned. As far as the amounts of money are concerned, that is their job. I pretend to have no ambitions on that issue.

We have to get this out-of-control--and I mean totally out-of- control--situation under control. The situation has been dramatically exacerbated by the fact that we are now looking, in sheer whole numbers, at the highest deficits in the history of this country. As far as a percent of GNP, they are not the highest, but we are talking about at least $400 billion this year.

We are about to--I am happy to say--pass a Medicare prescription drug program that will cost about $400 billion or more over a 10-year period. We are looking at Social Security and Medicare. We cannot afford this high cost anymore. I believe the chairman of the Rules Committee will be holding a hearing on this issue. I don't believe it would get through the Rules Committee, but I am very grateful to Senator Lott that he would allow a hearing on this issue. But I do not intend to give up on it. We will be discussing it and debating it for a long time.

My constituents--and every American--do not expect us to act in this fashion, which in many cases is totally irresponsible.

I yield the floor.

I thank the distinguished Senators from Pennsylvania for filing this amendment. I am aware of interest in proposals to allow increased flexibility in the use of Passenger Facility Charges as well as other Federal revenues. The Commerce Committee does plan to continue its examination of appropriate Federal policy measures that might address the concerns raised by my colleagues. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this issue.

Mr. President, today I am joined by the Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee's Consumer Affairs and Product Safety Subcommittee, Senator Fitzgerald, in introducing the Consumer Product Safety Commission Reauthorization Act of 2003. This legislation is designed to reauthorize the Consumer Product Safety Commission, CPSC or Commission, in furtherance of its mission to protect consumers by reducing the risk of injuries and deaths associated with consumer products. This vital consumer protection agency has not been reauthorized since 1990.

This bill would authorize funding for the Commission for fiscal years 2004 through 2007. The bill also would clarify CPSC employee position titles that have evolved informally over time.

The CPSC is essential to ensuring the safety of the approximately 15,000 consumer and household products marketed and sold to American consumers. However, because the agency has not been reauthorized for more than a decade, the Commission has fallen behind in its ability to upgrade its technology, meet its overhead expenses, and retain needed staff. Funding for the Commission has not kept pace with the cost of regulating the ever-increasing number of products covered by its jurisdiction.

I look forward to working on this important consumer protection legislation and I hope that my colleagues will join us in expeditiously moving this reauthorization through the legislative process. Reauthorizing the CPSC is crucial to the Commission's successful efforts to protect American consumers.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to reauthorize the Maritime Administration, MARAD, for fiscal years 2004, 2005, and 2006. The bill was developed in consultation with Administration officials and would provide for needed reforms in a number of maritime programs.

The bill would authorize appropriations for MARAD operations and training, administrative costs associated with the shipbuilding loan guarantee program authorized by Title XI of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, and the disposal of vessels in the National Defense Reserve Fleet that have been identified by the Secretary of Transportation as obsolete.

The bill is designed to reform how MARAD manages the Title XI maritime loan guarantee program. Both the Department of Transportation Inspector General and the General Accounting Office have found that MARAD has failed to provide effective oversight in receiving and approving loan guarantees; has failed to closely monitor the financial condition of borrowers during the term of the loan; and has failed to adequately monitor the condition of projects subject to guarantees. They also found that MARAD was flagrant in its use of authority in granting waivers to its own regulations governing the program without taking steps to better secure the taxpayer against defaults. The bill includes reform provisions to address these findings.

Furthermore, the bill would amend the Merchant Marine Act to give the Secretary of Transportation the authority to convey obsolete National Defense Reserve Fleet vessels to nonprofit organizations, a State, Commonwealth, or possession of the United States or any municipal corporation or political subdivision thereof or the District of Columbia for their use and to U.S. territories and foreign governments for use as artificial reefs. The bill also would amend the Merchant Marine Act to allow, under certain circumstances, otherwise unqualified U.S.-flag vessels to carry reference cargo reserved for qualified U.S. vessels.

Finally, the bill would amend requirements for enforcement of the commitment agreements for students at the United States Merchant Marine Academy, USMMA, and students at the state maritime academies who receive student incentive payments, SIP; allow MARAD to use funds received from a settlement for legally authorized purposes, including completion of repairs to the Merchant Marine Academy, Fitch Building; provide the Secretary with the authority to also exclude vessels from the carriage of Government

impelled cargoes that have been detained for violations of security standards contained within international agreements to which the United States is a party; allow MARAD to retain funds received as a result of final judgments and settlements in the Vessel Operations Revolving Fund; and clarify the decades-old authority of the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, SLSDC, to carry out the provisions of the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, PWSA, in the case of the Saint Lawrence Seaway.

I look forward to working on this important legislation and hope my colleagues will join me in expeditiously moving this authorization through the legislative process.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Federal Communications Commission Reauthorization Act of 2003. This legislation is designed to reauthorize the Federal Communications Commission, FCC or Commission, so that it may continue to carry forth its charge to ensure interference-free communication on interstate and international radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable communications. This independent agency has not been reauthorized since 1991.

The FCC is responsible for a wide range of duties, including establishing regulatory policies that promote competition, innovation, and investment in broadband services; ensuring that a comprehensive and sound national competitive framework for communications services exists; encouraging the best use of spectrum domestically and internationally; and providing leadership for the rapid restoration of the Nation's communications infrastructure in the event of disruption.

This bill would reauthorize the Commission through fiscal year 2007. It would require that all application and regulatory fees paid to the Commission be deposited with the Commission subject to Appropriations.

The legislation also would authorize the Commission to allocate sufficient funds to be used for an audit of the e-rate program to determine the specific fraud or abuse that has occurred during the operation of the program. Serious allegations of fraud in the operation of the e-rate fund have been raised in recent months, and we should provide the Commission adequate resources to ensure that e-rate funds are being used for the purposes intended. The Commission would be required to transmit a report of its findings and conclusions to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce on the anniversary of the Act's enactment for each year between 2004 and 2007.

Further, this bill would clarify the Commission's review of its media ownership rules. Specifically, the bill sets forth the timing and the standard the FCC will use for reviewing its broadcast ownership rules. Currently, the FCC is required to review its broadcast ownership rules every 2 years. The bill lengthens the duration between reviews from 2 years to 5 years. At a recent hearing, all five FCC Commissioners recommended this change.

The legislation also would clarify the actions the FCC may take during its media ownership reviews. Courts have found the current review standard to carry ``with it a presumption in favor of repealing or modifying ownership rules'' as part of ``a process of deregulation.'' This bill modifies the review standard to specifically allow the FCC to repeal, strengthen, limit, or retain media ownership rules if it determines such changes are in the public interest. At a recent hearing, several of the FCC Commissioners endorsed this change.

The bill would increase the Commission's ability to enforce the Communications Act of 1934, the 1934 Act, by raising the statutory cap on Commission fines and forfeitures by a factor of ten. The Commission has sought this increased enforcement ability to ensure communications providers do not accept Commission fines as a ``cost of doing business.'' The bill also increases the statute of limitations for violations of FCC rules or regulations from one year to two years. The legislation also allows the Commission to assess fines against direct broadcast satellite (DBS) operators for violations of the Communications Act in the same manner that the Commission may assess fines against broadcasters and cable operators.

The bill would further clarify that a party injured by a common carrier's violation of FCC rules or orders may recover damages for such injury in an action before the FCC or before a United States District Court. The need for this clarification is underscored by the recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals or the Second Circuit in Conboy v. AT&T Corp. Moreover, the new section would allow for the recovery of attorneys' fees in complaints filed either in district court or at the FCC.

The bill also would allow the Commission to seize broadcasting equipment where one engages in malicious interference to radio communications. This type of behavior is particularly egregious when parties attempt to maliciously interfere with public safety frequencies.

Furthermore, the bill would ensure that valuable spectrum does not lie fallow unnecessarily. It precludes a successful bidder in a spectrum auction from using bankruptcy to avoid its obligation to pay for its spectrum license. The bill also establishes an office within the Commission for the recording and perfecting of security interests related to licenses.

It also would ban any payment or reimbursement to the FCC of travel costs for FCC officials or staff from a nongovernmental sponsor of a convention, conference, or meeting. Recent reports indicate that during the last eight years, FCC officials and staff have taken more than 2,500 trips paid for by the industries they regulate. Although this is perfectly legal and it is often appropriate for FCC officials and staff to attend such conventions, conferences, or meetings, it should be without the appearance of impropriety. Therefore, the bill authorizes the Commission sufficient funds to pay for their own travel costs in the future.

The bill would impose a one year lobbying ban on high-level FCC staffers who leave the FCC's employment.

Finally, the bill contains language in response to a recent court case before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to promulgate regulations necessary to require video descriptions of television programming to assist those who are visually impaired. This section would provide the FCC such authority.

Reauthorizing the FCC is important so the agency may continue to successfully carry out its many responsibilities. I look forward to working on this important legislation and I hope that my colleagues will agree to join me in expeditiously moving this reauthorization through the legislative process.

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

Mr. President, today I am joined by the Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee's Consumer Affairs and Product Safety Subcommittee, Senator Fitzgerald, in introducing the Consumer Product Safety Commission Reauthorization Act of 2003. This legislation is designed to reauthorize the Consumer Product Safety Commission, CPSC or Commission, in furtherance of its mission to protect consumers by reducing the risk of injuries and deaths associated with consumer products. This vital consumer protection agency has not been reauthorized since 1990.

This bill would authorize funding for the Commission for fiscal years 2004 through 2007. The bill also would clarify CPSC employee position titles that have evolved informally over time.

The CPSC is essential to ensuring the safety of the approximately 15,000 consumer and household products marketed and sold to American consumers. However, because the agency has not been reauthorized for more than a decade, the Commission has fallen behind in its ability to upgrade its technology, meet its overhead expenses, and retain needed staff. Funding for the Commission has not kept pace with the cost of regulating the ever-increasing number of products covered by its jurisdiction.

I look forward to working on this important consumer protection legislation and I hope that my colleagues will join us in expeditiously moving this reauthorization through the legislative process. Reauthorizing the CPSC is crucial to the Commission's successful efforts to protect American consumers.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to reauthorize the Maritime Administration, MARAD, for fiscal years 2004, 2005, and 2006. The bill was developed in consultation with Administration officials and would provide for needed reforms in a number of maritime programs.

The bill would authorize appropriations for MARAD operations and training, administrative costs associated with the shipbuilding loan guarantee program authorized by Title XI of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, and the disposal of vessels in the National Defense Reserve Fleet that have been identified by the Secretary of Transportation as obsolete.

The bill is designed to reform how MARAD manages the Title XI maritime loan guarantee program. Both the Department of Transportation Inspector General and the General Accounting Office have found that MARAD has failed to provide effective oversight in receiving and approving loan guarantees; has failed to closely monitor the financial condition of borrowers during the term of the loan; and has failed to adequately monitor the condition of projects subject to guarantees. They also found that MARAD was flagrant in its use of authority in granting waivers to its own regulations governing the program without taking steps to better secure the taxpayer against defaults. The bill includes reform provisions to address these findings.

Furthermore, the bill would amend the Merchant Marine Act to give the Secretary of Transportation the authority to convey obsolete National Defense Reserve Fleet vessels to nonprofit organizations, a State, Commonwealth, or possession of the United States or any municipal corporation or political subdivision thereof or the District of Columbia for their use and to U.S. territories and foreign governments for use as artificial reefs. The bill also would amend the Merchant Marine Act to allow, under certain circumstances, otherwise unqualified U.S.-flag vessels to carry reference cargo reserved for qualified U.S. vessels.

Finally, the bill would amend requirements for enforcement of the commitment agreements for students at the United States Merchant Marine Academy, USMMA, and students at the state maritime academies who receive student incentive payments, SIP; allow MARAD to use funds received from a settlement for legally authorized purposes, including completion of repairs to the Merchant Marine Academy, Fitch Building; provide the Secretary with the authority to also exclude vessels from the carriage of Government

impelled cargoes that have been detained for violations of security standards contained within international agreements to which the United States is a party; allow MARAD to retain funds received as a result of final judgments and settlements in the Vessel Operations Revolving Fund; and clarify the decades-old authority of the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, SLSDC, to carry out the provisions of the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, PWSA, in the case of the Saint Lawrence Seaway.

I look forward to working on this important legislation and hope my colleagues will join me in expeditiously moving this authorization through the legislative process.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Federal Communications Commission Reauthorization Act of 2003. This legislation is designed to reauthorize the Federal Communications Commission, FCC or Commission, so that it may continue to carry forth its charge to ensure interference-free communication on interstate and international radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable communications. This independent agency has not been reauthorized since 1991.

The FCC is responsible for a wide range of duties, including establishing regulatory policies that promote competition, innovation, and investment in broadband services; ensuring that a comprehensive and sound national competitive framework for communications services exists; encouraging the best use of spectrum domestically and internationally; and providing leadership for the rapid restoration of the Nation's communications infrastructure in the event of disruption.

This bill would reauthorize the Commission through fiscal year 2007. It would require that all application and regulatory fees paid to the Commission be deposited with the Commission subject to Appropriations.

The legislation also would authorize the Commission to allocate sufficient funds to be used for an audit of the e-rate program to determine the specific fraud or abuse that has occurred during the operation of the program. Serious allegations of fraud in the operation of the e-rate fund have been raised in recent months, and we should provide the Commission adequate resources to ensure that e-rate funds are being used for the purposes intended. The Commission would be required to transmit a report of its findings and conclusions to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce on the anniversary of the Act's enactment for each year between 2004 and 2007.

Further, this bill would clarify the Commission's review of its media ownership rules. Specifically, the bill sets forth the timing and the standard the FCC will use for reviewing its broadcast ownership rules. Currently, the FCC is required to review its broadcast ownership rules every 2 years. The bill lengthens the duration between reviews from 2 years to 5 years. At a recent hearing, all five FCC Commissioners recommended this change.

The legislation also would clarify the actions the FCC may take during its media ownership reviews. Courts have found the current review standard to carry ``with it a presumption in favor of repealing or modifying ownership rules'' as part of ``a process of deregulation.'' This bill modifies the review standard to specifically allow the FCC to repeal, strengthen, limit, or retain media ownership rules if it determines such changes are in the public interest. At a recent hearing, several of the FCC Commissioners endorsed this change.

The bill would increase the Commission's ability to enforce the Communications Act of 1934, the 1934 Act, by raising the statutory cap on Commission fines and forfeitures by a factor of ten. The Commission has sought this increased enforcement ability to ensure communications providers do not accept Commission fines as a ``cost of doing business.'' The bill also increases the statute of limitations for violations of FCC rules or regulations from one year to two years. The legislation also allows the Commission to assess fines against direct broadcast satellite (DBS) operators for violations of the Communications Act in the same manner that the Commission may assess fines against broadcasters and cable operators.

The bill would further clarify that a party injured by a common carrier's violation of FCC rules or orders may recover damages for such injury in an action before the FCC or before a United States District Court. The need for this clarification is underscored by the recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals or the Second Circuit in Conboy v. AT&T Corp. Moreover, the new section would allow for the recovery of attorneys' fees in complaints filed either in district court or at the FCC.

The bill also would allow the Commission to seize broadcasting equipment where one engages in malicious interference to radio communications. This type of behavior is particularly egregious when parties attempt to maliciously interfere with public safety frequencies.

Furthermore, the bill would ensure that valuable spectrum does not lie fallow unnecessarily. It precludes a successful bidder in a spectrum auction from using bankruptcy to avoid its obligation to pay for its spectrum license. The bill also establishes an office within the Commission for the recording and perfecting of security interests related to licenses.

It also would ban any payment or reimbursement to the FCC of travel costs for FCC officials or staff from a nongovernmental sponsor of a convention, conference, or meeting. Recent reports indicate that during the last eight years, FCC officials and staff have taken more than 2,500 trips paid for by the industries they regulate. Although this is perfectly legal and it is often appropriate for FCC officials and staff to attend such conventions, conferences, or meetings, it should be without the appearance of impropriety. Therefore, the bill authorizes the Commission sufficient funds to pay for their own travel costs in the future.

The bill would impose a one year lobbying ban on high-level FCC staffers who leave the FCC's employment.

Finally, the bill contains language in response to a recent court case before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to promulgate regulations necessary to require video descriptions of television programming to assist those who are visually impaired. This section would provide the FCC such authority.

Reauthorizing the FCC is important so the agency may continue to successfully carry out its many responsibilities. I look forward to working on this important legislation and I hope that my colleagues will agree to join me in expeditiously moving this reauthorization through the legislative process.

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

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

May I ask what the pending Senate business is?

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, Senator Hollings, Senator Lott, and Senator Rockefeller, for their hard work on this very important legislation. Senator Lott and Senator Rockefeller held extensive hearings in the Aviation Subcommittee. They have come up with a product that has addressed many of the concerns and very important issues associated with aviation. I believe what they have done is a very agreeable product.

I note that our friends on the other side of the Capitol have completed their work on this bill, so if we could complete this legislation and go quickly to conference, I think we could have this done pretty quickly.

I am pleased the Senate is now considering S. 824, the Aviation Investment and Revitalization Vision Act, AIR-V. This legislation was introduced by Senators Lott Hollings, Rockefeller, and myself on April 8, 2003, and approved by the Senate Commerce Committee on May 1, 2003.

I don't think that anyone could have predicted 100 years ago, when the Wright Brothers first flew their Wright Flyer over Kitty Hawk, NC, that air travel would become such a significant part of our Nation's economy. Aviation has evolved from the first controlled flight that traveled about 120 feet, to a system that has reached more than 550 million enplanements annually. Air travel has revolutionized the world. We are becoming a global culture for which air travel has contributed significantly. The United States has played a critical role in the explosion in air travel, with nearly two-thirds of world aviation travelers taking off or landing on U.S. soil.

Mr. President, 4 years ago, the Congress approved the Aviation Investment Reform Act for the 21st Century, known as AIR-21. That reauthorization measure provided for far reaching changes to our Federal aviation policies, coupled with significant investment in aviation. We increased airport spending by significant amounts and greatly improved our aviation system. At the same time, a great deal has happened in aviation during the past few years. The airlines have gone through several cycles of good and bad times.

The tragic events of September 11, 2001, forced a major restructuring of aviation transportation security. As a result of September 11 and other economic factors, Congress has twice voted to provide the airline industry aid totaling $8 billion in cash and the potential for $11 billion in other benefits. We have taken unprecedented actions to help ensure the continued viability of the airlines. I recognize that intervening events have been the cause of many of the industry's problems, which is why I was a strong supporter of these initiatives. However, I do believe that the industry must being to

solve its own problems and not come back to Congress when confronted with new challenges.

It is time for Congress to now focus its efforts on the Federal Aviation Administration. We must continue to ensure the safety and efficiency of our aviation system. We must address the continued modernization of our air traffic control system. We must continue our oversight of the FAA so that it continues to move towards more efficient operation. We must continue the expansion of our infrastructure. And, we must continue to strive to promote the security of our traveling public.

I believe the legislation before us, S. 824, the Aviation Investment and Revitalization Vision Act, AIR-Vision, meets these objectives. This bill would reauthorize FAA programs for 3 years and continue the investments in the aviation system that began under AIR 21. Specifically, it would authorize funding for FAA Operations at $7.6 billion for fiscal year 2004; $7.7 billion for fiscal year 2005; and $7.9 billion for fiscal year 2006, and it would authorize funding for the Airport Improvement Program at $3.4 billion in fiscal year 2004; $3.5 billion in fiscal year 2005; and $3.6 billion in fiscal year 2006. The bill also authorizes $2.9 billion in fiscal year 2004; $2.97 billion in fiscal year 2005; and $3 billion in fiscal year 2006 for the Airway Facilities Improvement Program and requires a report on major FAA modernization programs.

The funding levels in this bill do not require any new or increased taxes or user fees. The taxes currently paid by air travelers and others into the Aviation Trust Fund are in place through fiscal year 2007 and are sufficient to pay for this bill.

We also must ensure that the FAA manages its resources wisely. The bill includes provisions, first proposed by former FAA Administrator Garvey and endorsed by the current Administrator, to improve FAA management. The FAA's management of its programs, especially its modernization efforts, continue to be of particular interest to Congress. I note that the FAA has finally hired its first Chief Operating Officer, Russ Chew, three and one-half years after the office was authorized. This bill would provide additional clarification of the FAA's Chief Operating Officers' responsibilities for managing the FAA's air traffic control system.

The bill would create a process to enhance airport capacity at certain large hub airports that significantly add to delays in the national aviation system by ensuring that these airports' needs are continually reviewed. It also attempts to streamline the environmental review process by coordinating the reviews by different agencies. This is important as this process is sometimes used to unnecessarily delay airport expansion.

The bill makes several improvements and reforms to services to small communities and the essential air service program by continuing programs created in AIR-21 to incentivize communities to take a greater ownership role in their service. It also allows the communities flexibility to opt out of the program in return for payment or to look at alternate services for the community.

The bill extends the small community air service development pilot program, established in AIR-21, until 2006, and provides funding of $27.5 million per year during the 3 year extension. It also clarifies that 40 communities per year may participate in the program and that no community may participate twice. This program has been well-received for the innovative ideas that have sprung from it regarding the provision of and payment for air service to small communities, and we believe it is important for the program to continue in the near term.

Regarding competition, the bill instructs the Secretary of Transportation to study competition and airline access problems at hub airports. Specially, the Department of Transportation is to look at gate usage and availability, and the effects of pricing of gates and other facilities on competition and access. Within 6 months, the Secretary's findings, conclusions, and recommendations are to be submitted to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

In addition, the bill requires that airports which deny applications by an air carrier for access to gates or other facilities submit to the Secretary notification of the denial and a report explaining the reasons for the denial and a time line, if any, for when the request will be accommodated.

For security, the bill establishes the Aviation Security Capital Fund which is financed with $500 million annually in security service fees which are already collected by the Transportation Security Administration. The fund will be administered by the TSA and the TSA will make grants to airports to assist with capital security costs. The fund will allocate 40 percent to hub airports; 20 percent to medium hub airports; 15 percent to small hub airports; and 25 percent is to be distributed at the Secretary's discretion to address security risks. At the same time, the bill protects the AIP funding from continued raids on what was created for capital improvement funding, but which in recent years has been used for security funding.

The bill also directs the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to study the effectiveness of the aviation security system. Within 6 months, the Secretary's findings, conclusions, and recommendations are to be submitted to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The Secretary is directed to redeploy the department's resources based on the results of the study.

For aviation modernization, the bill establishes a new Office of Aerospace and Aviation Liaison within the DOT. This office will be charged with coordinating aviation and aeronautics research programs, activities, goals, and priorities within the Federal Government. Areas of responsibility include air traffic control, technology transfer from government programs to private sector, noise, emissions, fuel consumption, and safety. This office will work with the FAA and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to ensure that aviation and aerospace research is coordinated and funds are well spent.

This bill also establishes a National Air Traffic Management System Development Office within the FAA with the mission of developing a next generation air traffic management system plan for the United States. This plan is required to focus on transforming the national airspace system to meet air transportation mobility, efficiency, and capacity needs beyond those currently included in the FAA's Operational Evolution Plan in an effort to build on existing capabilities while improving the security, safety, quality, and affordability of the system.

Finally, we have developed a manager's amendment which has been agreed to by myself and Senator Lott, Hollings, and Rockefeller. It includes a number of technical changes and improvements recommended by the executive agencies affected by this bill. It also includes some substantive changes to the bill, including: extending whistle blower protections to the employees of contractors doing business with the FAA; requiring that the GAO periodically report to Congress on the economic state of the airline industry and on airline executives' compensation; clarifying that the war risk insurance provision only applies to U.S. air carriers; moving the new security capital fund from the FAA to the TSA; and removing the provision adding additional ``outside the perimeter'' slots at Reagan National Airport.

I yield to my colleague from South Carolina and perhaps the Senator from Mississippi.

I say to my colleagues, if they are prepared to bring forward an amendment, we would like to consider that quickly and move forward with the amending process as it would be our intention to try to finish this legislation this evening.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator from Mississippi for his kind comments.

Mr. President, we are awaiting the appearance of Senator Lautenberg, who has an amendment we will be considering shortly. Until then, I remind my colleagues we would like to move forward with amendments.

I understand that Senator Cochran may have an amendment, and several others. But I don't think there are many. We could go ahead and move forward as quickly as possible with the legislation.

Pending their arrival, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, this is a managers' amendment which we have developed working with Senators Lott, Hollings, and Rockefeller. It includes a number of technical changes

and improvements recommended by the executive agencies affected by the bill. It also includes some substantive changes, including whistleblower protections for the employees of contractors doing business with the FAA; requiring the GAO to periodically report to Congress on the economic state of the airline industry; airline executives' compensation; clarifying that the war risk insurance provision only applies to U.S. air carriers; moving the new security capital fund from FAA to TSA; and removing a provision--I emphasize ``removing''--a provision that was added in the markup concerning outside-the-perimeter slots at Reagan National Airport.

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

Mr. President, I understand the Senator from North Dakota has to leave at this time. We will be glad to discuss this amendment at his convenience, hopefully later this afternoon, and perhaps we can get something worked out on it.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

It is my understanding, from talking with you and your colleague, that at McCarran Airport--for example, on a Sunday--a 3-hour delay is a routine kind of experience. That is a normal experience rather than an exception, which is remarkably different from almost every other airport in America. Is that true?

Before the Senator from Nevada leaves the Chamber, I would like to ask him another question.

So that my colleagues will understand this problem--and it is a serious one--if I fly from here to the Atlanta Airport, or the Dallas/ Fort Worth Airport, which I will do tomorrow, and then change airplanes but stay within the terminal, not having to go through security again, and then I go on to the Phoenix, AZ, airport, that, for the purposes of the present formula, would be counted as the same as someone who enters an airport, flies and lands at another airport, leaves that airport, and then later on has to reenter the airport to leave that area.

In other words, what we are saying is, we have a formula now where someone who remains within the airport and does not have to go through security is basically counted the same as a person who does have to go through security.

So that, obviously, is an incredible burden if you have to put every passenger through security where a large majority of them, particularly at hub airports, do not have to send passengers through security. Is that basically the problem we are trying to confront here?

I say to the Senator, I think your concern is legitimate. I think the formula needs to be changed. We will work on it.

First, we will get a letter over to communications with TSA and tell them we need to look at this formula again. I have been told they are already doing that, but I want to assure the Senator from Nevada, we will try to do everything in our power to address this clear inequity that exists in the formula as we go to conference.

I thank the Senator.

I thank the Senator from Nevada. But I have done many foolish things in my life--many. One of those that ranks up in the top 10 is when I was being accused by the local newspaper for attempting to seek some

relief from the perimeter rule in hopes that I might then have the convenience of flying direct from Reagan National Airport to Phoenix. I swore I would never fly direct from Reagan National Airport. Many years have gone by, and I had hoped that people's memories had grown dim on that, but now I will probably have to go another 5 years since the Senator has raised that.

I thank my colleague.

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

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, this is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. Frankly, I would like to see it in law, but I am not sure whether it would be constitutional and in keeping with existing law.

Basically, it says that the airlines should do whatever they can to make sure that members of the Armed Forces can get the lowest fare even if they are late; that they will offer them the lowest fare available; and that when there are cancellations or other reasons they have to change their travel plans, the airlines will show the flexibility that will afford them the lowest possible cost for their airfare.

We have a lot of transience amongst the men and women in the military and their families, not just being transferred from one place to another but, generally speaking, they are not based where they grew up and where their families or friends are located.

There are a lot of men and women in the military who make use of the airlines and many times on short notice. We are simply urging the airlines to show the kind of patriotism that is necessary to provide these very low income Americans the ability to move from one place to another.

I might add, this amendment was offered by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison on the DOD authorization bill as well. I hope the airlines will react positively to this sense-of-the-Senate resolution. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I oppose this amendment and I think we ought to understand this amendment does more than tie FAA's hands with respect to air traffic control management. It would prevent a host of broader measures as well. Certain FAA responsibilities are best fulfilled by contract, using a combination of Government and private services, as is the case today.

Congress gave the FAA unique procurement authority for exactly this reason and the amendment would compromise that authority. For example, the FAA's air traffic control systems are increasingly composed of commercial components and software that build upon privately developed computer programs. If this amendment passes, the FAA's costs to maintain and install its systems would most likely increase significantly as the FAA tries to acquire needed data rights to maintain the equipment or forgoes the advantages of using commercial products.

Furthermore, the FAA would pay ever-escalating training costs to provide its workforce with the changing skills needed to maintain multiple systems.

The amendment prevents the FAA's ability to reduce its operating costs by contracting out certain operations--such as providing weather information to pilots. Congress has been very critical of the FAA's continually increasing operating costs. This amendment would take a very important tool for controlling costs away from the FAA.

The FAA is currently conducting a competition to evaluate the performance of its 61 flight service stations, which provide needed services, such as weather briefings, to general aviation pilots. The FAA expects that the competition will identify innovations and lead to greater value for America's pilots at a lower cost to the taxpayer. The bottom line is that the legislation would stop this study--a study that encourages the FAA.

Finally, this amendment prevents the FAA from expanding the existing contract tower program. This program allows smaller airports to continue to have air traffic control where an FAA tower might not be fully justified.

The Transportation Department's Inspector General has examined this program. He found that contract towers are just as safe and effective as FAA towers and on average cost $800 thousand a year less. This amendment would prohibit any other existing towers from becoming contract towers.

FAA continues to operate about 71 towers that are similar in traffic and complexity to towers currently in the contract program. For example, in Virginia, the tower at Manassas Regional Airport, which has general aviation only, is FAA-operated but the tower at Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, which has frequent commercial service, is a contract tower. Converting these towers could save the FAA about $57 million dollars per year in operating costs and free up 900 controllers that could be used in more complex facilities and help meeting the pending wave of controller retirements.

The Administration is adamantly opposed to this amendment or any other provisions that would reduce the FAA's flexibility and ability to control costs. In a letter to the House, Secretary Mineta indicated that he will recommend a veto of any bill that contained provisions similar to this amendment.

We will hear today a lot of discussion about how admirably the air traffic controllers performed on September 11, and it is true. It is absolutely true. They did a magnificent job. It is also true that the air traffic controllers in Canada worked extremely well with their partners, the counterparts in the U.S., and they are not government employees. They are privatized air control providers.

All of us appreciate the enormous contributions and terrific jobs that our air traffic controllers did, and do. The question is, Will the administration be able to have the flexibility necessary to do such things as contract towers that operate without the complexities and difficulties that are associated with major air traffic control centers?

I ask unanimous consent that a letter dated June 12 from the Office of Management and Budget, Statement of Administration Policy, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I will not bother with the entire letter except to say that the administration strongly supports passage of the bill. It talks about all the good things which will happen as a result of the bill, most of which we have already covered. I am sure we will cover it again. But it also says the administration is aware that an amendment may be offered to S. 824 that would inappropriately prohibit conversion of any FAA facilities or functions from the Federal Government to the private sector. They say that such restrictions are unnecessary and would hinder the FAA's ability to manage the air traffic control system; and, if such an amendment were included in the final legislation presented to the President, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill.

I very much dislike having all the work that has been done on this legislation for literally months be negated by one amendment. Although it may be emotionally an important issue, I would hate to see that provision destroy all the hard work and important programs that are included in this bill.

I don't know what the plans are for the other side. We would obviously like to have a vote on the Lautenberg amendment. I think there are negotiations going on and conversations concerning that. In the meantime, I note the presence of the Senator from Texas.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if my friend from Mississippi would not mind, the Senator from Wyoming has a brief statement counter to the Lautenberg amendment.

So that we can be agreeable, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the Senator from Wyoming, we set aside the Lautenberg amendment for the purpose of the Senator from Mississippi proposing an amendment.

When would the Senator like to have that vote?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that pending the discussion of the Cochran amendment, we move then to a vote.

The Senator says 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I say, we are prepared to accept the amendment by Senator Cochran.

Mr. President, we are ready to accept the amendment on this side.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I understand it is the agreement of the Senator from Nevada that we will have a vote at 2:30 on the pending amendment.

Could I have a small modification, a technical amendment?

Mr. President, I have a modification of amendment No. 889 at the desk. It is a technical correction concerning the sale of airline tickets that was inadvertently included in the managers' package.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote in relation to the Lautenberg amendment No. 893 occur at 2:30 today, with no amendments in order to the amendment prior to the vote; further, that the remaining time until 2:30 be equally divided in the usual form.

Mr. President, I wish to mention to my colleagues that we are moving along on the amendments on this side. I know there is an amendment by the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe, which I hope we can consider rather quickly. It is a very interesting amendment on raising the age from 60 to 65. There are several amendments by Senator Burns.

I say to my friend on this side that I think we can probably agree to at least a majority of them. I know of no other amendments that would be pending on this side. If there are, we hope that during the vote that takes place at 2:30 we can get pending amendments at least brought to our attention so we can schedule them. I still believe there is a very good opportunity to finish this legislation tonight.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Equally divided.

Forty minutes equally divided.

Mr. President, before we move to the Inhofe amendment, I wish to state for the benefit of my colleagues, we have a Dorgan amendment which is being worked on. We have a Bunning amendment which is being worked on.

I believe a Burns amendment is being worked on as well. I think we are close to completion of work on the amendments. If our colleagues have additional amendments, we would certainly like to see them during this 40 minutes of debate on the Inhofe amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have been on the Commerce Committee for quite a few years, not nearly as long as my friend from South Carolina, but

long enough to know that this issue has been around for a long time.

When it was first presented to me, it was presented to my office by a group of pilots who were nearing the age of 60. And they said: Gee, we are in great shape. We fly planes that have two pilots in the cockpit. We would be willing to take three or four physicals every year if necessary. We all know people are living longer. We know that fewer and fewer people smoke. We have rigorous physicals.

I said: Gee, it makes good sense to me. And as I grow older, it makes even more sense to me, I might add to my friend from Oklahoma.

But here is the problem. The airlines do not want it because they do not want to pay senior pilots the amount of money they have to pay them, and so they want to get rid of them at age 60 and bring in lower salaried pilots. And, of course, then, incredibly, the younger members of ALPA, the Airline Pilots Association, want the old geezers gone so they can move up more rapidly. It is really kind of an incredible scenario, when you think about it.

We all know that people live longer and are healthier longer. And the Senator from Oklahoma probably knows when this rule went into effect. I am not sure.

Forty years ago. The demographics have changed, and everything else has changed. It argues for at least allowing pilots to fly longer.

By the way, I might say, also--again, maybe I have a little senior's bias here--more experienced pilots are better pilots. And if they are in good health, and there are two of them in almost every commercial airliner, why in the world are we opposed to allowing them to fly longer? Southwest Airlines supports the efforts. SWAPA and other organizations and individuals allow pilots to fly commercial jet aircraft beyond age 60. JetBlue supports it. The low-cost airlines all support it. The most expensive airlines, the more established ones-- most of them are rotating in and out of bankruptcy because of their outstanding management practices--are opposed to it.

So this is really a no-brainer, Mr. President. We should allow these pilots to serve longer and fly longer and be able to realize an income that comes from serving these airlines and the American public for a long time.

Having said that, we will probably lose because right now, ALPA, the Airline Pilots Association, and the executives and lobbyists for the major airlines are on the phone saying: Don't do this. This could be really dangerous.

It is hard for me to believe that someone 61 years old, who passed a physical, who is flying with another qualified pilot, plus, in many cases, a flight engineer, is in any way a danger. Not only that, in case there is some kind of emergency, that pilot is probably better qualified to handle that emergency by virtue of that pilot's experience than a much younger individual would be.

So I will clearly be supporting the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma. I appreciate his courage in bringing up this issue. Maybe someday we will be able to allow these young men and women to serve past age 60 if they are physically and mentally qualified to do so.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we have four Members here who have pending amendments which are going to be accepted. All four Members want to have their amendment proposed and discussed. I ask unanimous consent Senator Bingaman be recognized for his amendment, and Senator Bunning, Senator Dorgan, and Senator Inhofe, in that order. I know all will speak briefly.

Will the Senator yield for a question? Isn't it the case the Senator has added language that indicates that nonlethal weapons-- --

I support the amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Yes.

Mr. President, it is my understanding the Dodd amendment studies the situation at National Airport where there is some distance between both airlines that conduct shuttles along the east coast.

I can see why Senator Dodd might want that looked at as he grows older, shuttling himself back and forth from one end of Reagan National Airport to the other, which is a bit of a trial. And I certainly am in support, having undergone that unique experience.

That is right. Having to carry a small child with him has become a bit of a burden. So on behalf of Senator Dodd, and all of us who are aging, I ask that this amendment, which asks the airlines to take a look at the possibility of making these shuttles closer together, be adopted. I think it is appropriate and I support the amendment.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, it is my understanding we have a number of additional amendments which have been agreed to but have not been presented at this time. If the staffs of the Members who have these amendments we have discussed and have agreed to--one is a Nelson amendment. That has already been accepted. One is a Feinstein amendment. We are in agreement with it, but it has not been formally offered. One is a Specter amendment that we are considering now, a Burns amendment concerning general aviation, a Murkowski amendment concerning decision on a tower. We would like to consider those amendments as soon as possible, if the sponsors of those amendments would come here, while we are preparing to debate a Specter amendment at this time.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Thomas for his sponsorship of this amendment. One of the greatest problems we have today in America is aircraft noise over national parks. We have been fighting it in the Grand Canyon, trying to balance the needs of commercial aircraft--not only those taking off and arriving but air tours--and that of preserving the incredible park experience.

I thank Senator Thomas for his effort to try to bring about the restoration of that marvelous experience in one of our Nation's crown jewels.

I support the amendment.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania. I did have the opportunity to meet with a group of his fellow citizens from Lancaster. They made a very compelling case on the burden they bear. I think this is a fair and equitable solution. I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, in about 10 minutes, if that is OK--that will give plenty of time for people who have additional amendments--I will propose that we have a unanimous consent that no further amendments be in order.

I yield the floor.

Yes.

Amendment No. 905

Mr. President, I ask that the vote be delayed until such time--

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we withhold the vote until such time as the two leaders decide on a time, which I do not think will be very long. We have a couple of other amendments which are pending that we could dispose of, I would imagine, within the next 10 or 15 minutes.

Also, I ask unanimous consent that no further amendments be considered at this time.

The pending amendments on our side are a Stevens amendment, a Burns amendment, and a Santorum amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Hagel be added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 906.

I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment so Senator Burns can be recognized for his two amendments.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, Senator Stevens is here to offer an amendment.

First, before that, I ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of the previously mentioned amendments, which we will mention in a minute, the bill be read for the third time, and further, the Senate then proceed to the consideration of H.R. 2115, the House companion bill; provided further that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 824, as amended, be inserted in lieu thereof; further, that the bill then be read the third time and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the bill, with no intervening action or debate. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that following that vote the Senate then insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House, and that the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate with a ratio of 5 to 4. I ask unanimous consent that following the vote, S. 824 be placed back on the calendar.

It is my understanding the only amendments also remaining are an amendment by Senator Stevens, an amendment by Senator Santorum, a Finance Committee amendment, and an amendment by Senator Murkowski.

An amendment by Senator Harkin.

I ask unanimous consent that no amendments be considered other than those I just described.

I would like to highlight some changes that Senator Stevens made to this amendment in response to concerns expressed by the Department of Transportation.

Senator Stevens changed the term ``effective control'' in his amendment to ``actual control'' to more accurately represent the test that DOT uses in these types of reviews.

In addition, Senator Stevens removed the limitation of ``at all times'' regarding the actual control test it conform with current DOT practices.

DOT has represented to me that these changes accurately reflect the current state of law regarding citizenship and assures me that this amendment will not in any way affect their determination of what constitutes a citizen of the United States.

I would not have agreed to this amendment without these changes and an understanding that this is simply a reflection of current law. The terms that I have agreed to will not be altered in conference.

Mr. President, as far as I can see, we are waiting for Senator Santorum, who has a pending amendment, according to the unanimous consent agreement. Then there will be a Finance Committee amendment after the disposition of that amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Santorum

amendment be withheld at this time. That will leave us with the Harkin amendment, to my understanding.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I propose an amendment on behalf of Mr. Grassley and Mr. Baucus and others. I ask for its immediate consideration. I send the amendment to the desk.

This is an amendment on behalf of the Finance Committee to make sure all authorizations here are in line with the jurisdiction and proper authorization responsibilities of the Finance Committee. I urge its adoption.

Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. President, I understand we are waiting for the possibility of one other amendment. Other than that, we will be prepared, at the discretion of the leaders, to vote on the second- degree amendment to the Specter amendment, and then we would be prepared to go to final passage.

In anticipation of that, I would like to thank all who have been involved with this legislation, and specifically my dear friend from South Carolina. He and I have worked side by side for many years on many issues that have come before the Commerce Committee. I thank him for his usual extreme courtesy, consideration, and efficiency.

I thank the staff on both sides for their excellent work.

Also, I thank Senators Lott and Rockefeller who really did the hard labor in bringing this legislation to the floor of the Senate. Senator Rockefeller and Senator Lott worked assiduously during numerous hearings with a full appreciation and understanding of the impact this legislation has on the United States of America. I thank all of them.

Again, I thank our loyal staff for all the great work they have done.

I look forward to swift passage of this legislation.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, with the agreement of both sides, that Senator Stevens be recognized to offer one final amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that with regard to the amendment that was proposed on behalf of Senators Inouye and Voinovich, that Senator Voinovich's name be deleted from that amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the Lott second-degree amendment take place at 5:45, immediately followed by either a voice vote or recorded vote on the underlying Specter amendment, followed by final passage.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the yeas and nays on the Specter amendment.