Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senators Leahy, Lieberman, and Harkin in submitting a resolution to make Congressional Research Service, CRS, reports, and other Senate documents, accessible over the Internet to the American people.

CRS is well-known for producing high quality reports and issue briefs that are concise, factual, and unbiased--a rarity in Washington. Many of us rely on the work of CRS to make decisions on a wide variety of diverse legislative proposals, such as formulating policies on homeland security, determining the implications of war with Iraq, contemplating the future of the Internet, developing health care reform, and analyzing tax policy. Also, we routinely send CRS reports to our constituents in order to help them understand the important issues of our time.

The sponsors of this resolution believe that it is important for the public

to have access to these CRS reports. The American public paid over $81 million to fund CRS's operations in fiscal year 2002 alone. The informational reports covered by this resolution are not confidential or classified, and the public deserves to have access to them.

By making these reports publicly available, the Senate will better serve an important function in helping to inform their constituents. Members of the public will be able to read these CRS products and receive a concise summary of issues that concern them. These reports also will help voters make decisions and petition their legislators on how to best represent them.

Currently, corporations, universities, and other well-heeled entities often hire former Members of Congress as lobbyists to get access to these reports. However, the general public does not have access to these reports. Instead, the public has to obtain these reports through independent companies, such as Penny Hill Press, which charges almost $30 for each report. Otherwise, they must search through a variety of government and non-government web sites for outdated reports or get them from their Members of Congress through the mail. It is not fair for the American people to have to pay a third party or search all over the web for products for which they have already footed the bill.

This resolution is drafted to set up a system for distributing CRS Reports that is similar to a pilot program ongoing in the House of Representatives. Under our resolution, the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms would establish and maintain a system for distribution of CRS documents. The public would only be able to access these documents through Senators' or Senate Committees' web pages. This system would allow Senators and Committee Chairmen to be able to choose which documents are made available to the public through their web page.

This resolution also includes other safeguards to ensure that CRS is able to carry out its mission. Confidential information and reports done for confidential research requests would not be made available to the public. The resolution provides authorization for the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms to remove the names of CRS employees from these products to prevent the public from distracting CRS employees. In addition, the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms would be authorized to remove copyrighted information from the publicly-available reports. This resolution would ensure that the CRS' mission is not altered in any way, and that it cannot be open to liability suits.

Finally, we recognize that cost concerns had been raised about prior versions of this legislation introduced in past Congresses. Yet, our understanding is that the House system of distribution has been achieved at a relatively low cost. We have designed this resolution to eliminate the cost burden to CRS by shifting the operation and maintenance of the system over to the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms. In addition, the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms is directed to ask the General Accounting Office, GAO, to evaluate the program after one year to explore how to make the operations more cost-effective.

The resolution also would require the Senate Office of Public Records to put other selected documents related to Members' receipt of honoraria and travel reimbursement on the Internet. We have already voted to make this information available to the public. Unfortunately, the public can only get access to this information by personally visiting an office in the Hart building. This resolution would allow our constituents throughout the country to access this information more readily.

This resolution has been endorsed by many groups, including the Project on Government Oversight, the Congressional Accountability Project, Intel, Computer & Communications Industry Association, the Center for Democracy and Technology, the American Library Association, SeeBeyond Technology Corporation, and others. I ask unanimous consent that these letters of support be printed in the Record.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. The Internet offers a unique opportunity to allow the American people to have everyday access to important information about their government.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Rockefeller, Chafee and a bipartisan group of my colleagues in introducing a bill to restore funding which was previously allocated to the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP.

Established in 1997 as part of the Balanced Budget Act, SCHIP was developed as a means for states to provide basic health coverage for uninsured children of low income families, who are not eligible for coverage under Medicaid. Through the Fedeal-State matching program, SCHIP has provided coverage for millions of uninsured children. In fiscal year 2001, 4.4 million children were enrolled in SCHIP. Today every State in the country, five territories, and the District of Columbia are using SCHIP to develop innovative programs to expand health coverage to even more children.

In my home State of Arizona, our SCHIP program, KidsCare, was developed to provide low income children with medical, dental, and vision coverage. KidsCare has successfully enrolled almost 50,000 uninsured children and is anticipating reaching 60,000 by fiscal year 2004. When Arizona found that children are more likely to received health care if their parents also have access, and the flexibility of SCHIP enabled Arizona to expand its program. Last October Arizona began covering not just children, but also their parents. Arizona now provides health coverage to almost 8,000 uninsured parents. Although a substantial number of eligible children and parents still need coverage, I believe this relatively young program is nothing short of a success.

Due to Congressional inaction, approximately $2.7 billion of unspent SCHIP funding reverted to the Treasury at the end of last year. The bill we are introducing today would return that money to SCHIP, ensuring that funds are allocated to States that need more funding to continue existing programs, while allowing other States to develop new and innovative programs to help our Nation's children get access to health care.

The number of uninsured Americans reached 41 million in 2001 and continues to rise. However SCHIP is successfully reducing those numbers for one of the most vulnerable populations in our Nation, our children. I hope the Senate will act expeditiously on this important legislation to return the funds that belong in SCHIP and to ensure that we are expanding, not reducing, the number of children covered through this innovative program.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Hollings, Biden, DeWine, and Cantwell in introducing the Firefighting Research and Coordination Act. This legislation would provide for the establishment of a scientific basis for new firefighting technology standards; improved coordination between Federal, State, and local fire officials in training and response to a terrorist attack or a national emergency; and authorize the National Fire Academy to offer training to improve the ability of firefighters to respond to events such as the tragedy of September 11, 2001. Representatives Camp, Deutsch, Israel, Etheridge, and Weldon are introducing companion legislation. Similar legislation was approved by the Senate Commerce Committee last September.

The purpose of this legislation is to act upon some of the lessons learned from the tragic terrorist attacks, and also address other problems faced by the fire services. On September 11, the New York City firefighters and emergency service personnel acted with great heroism in selflessly rushing to the World Trade Center and saving the lives of many Americans. Tragically, 343 firefighters and EMS technicians paid the ultimate price in the service of their country.

While we strive to prevent any future attack in the United States, it is our duty to ensure that we are adequately prepared to respond to any future catastrophic act of terrorism. In addition,

we must recognize that many of the preparations we make to improve the response to national emergencies also will aid our firefighters for their everyday role in protecting our families and homes.

Today's firefighters use a variety of technologies including thermal imaging equipment, devices for locating firefighters and victims, and state-of-the-art protective suits to fight fires, clean up chemical or hazardous waste spills, and contend with potential terrorist devices. The Federal Government's Firefighter Investment and Response Enhancement, FIRE, program is authorized for $900 million for Fiscal Year 2004 to assist local fire departments in purchasing this high-tech equipment. It is important that the American taxpayers' money is used to buy equipment that will effectively protect our local communities and the responders.

Unfortunately, there are no uniform technical standards for new equipment used in combating fires. Without such standards, local fire companies may purchase equipment that does not satisfy their needs, or even purchase faulty equipment. A January 2003 Consumer Reports article states that much of the emergency equipment sold today is not tested or certified by the government or independent labs. The article states that ``the confusion will get worse, emergency departments say, as new equipment floods the market in response to increased government funding.'' The lives of professional and volunteer emergency personnel, and the citizens they protect, are at risk from untested equipment.

This bill seeks to address the need for new equipment standards by establishing a scientific basis for voluntary consensus standards. It would authorize the U.S. Fire Administrator to work with the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Inter-Agency Board for Equipment Standardization and Inter-Operability, other federal, state, and local agencies, national voluntary consensus standards development organizations, and other interested parties to establish measurement techniques and testing methodologies for new firefighting equipment. These new techniques and methodologies will act as a scientific basis for the development of voluntary consensus standards. This bill would allow the federal government to work with the private sector in developing the basic uniform performance criteria and technical standards to ensure the effectiveness and compatibility of these new technologies. The bill would authorize $2.2 million in Fiscal Year 2004 for these efforts.

As my colleagues know, many issues regarding coordination surfaced on September 11. Titan Systems Corporation recently issued an after-action report, on behalf of the fire department of Arlington County, VA, which highlighted problems between the coordination of Washington D.C., and Arlington County fire departments. The report cited the confusion caused by a large influx of self-dispatched volunteers, and increased risk faced by the ``bonafide responders.'' These conclusions are consistent with an article by the current U.S. Fire Administrator, R. David Paulison, in the June 1993 issue of Fire Chief magazine, where he described being overwhelmed by the number of uncoordinated volunteer efforts that poured into Florida after Hurricane Andrew. Additionally, many fire officials and the General Accounting Office, GAO, have highlighted the duplicative nature of many Federal programs and the need for better coordination between Federal, State, and local officials.

The bill seeks to address these problems by directing the U.S. Fire Administrator to provide technical assistance and training for state and local fire service officials to establish nationwide and state mutual aid systems for responding to national emergencies. These mutual aid plans would include collection of accurate asset and resource information to ensure that local fire services could work together to deploy equipment and personnel effectively during an emergency. The bill also would direct the U.S. Fire Administrator to report on the need for a strategy for deploying volunteers, including the use of a national credentialing system. This legislation also would authorize the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to update the Federal Response Plan to incorporate plans for responding to terrorist attacks, especially events in urban areas. This update would include fire detection, suppression, and related emergency services.

The bill would improve the training of State and local firefighters. It would authorize the National Fire Academy to offer courses in building collapse rescue; the use of technology in response to fires caused by terrorist attacks and other national emergencies; leadership and strategic skills including integrated management systems operations; deployment of new technology for fighting forest and wild fires; fighting fires at ports; and other courses related to tactics and strategies for responding to terrorist incidents and other fire services' needs.

Finally, this bill would also direct the U.S. Fire Administrator to coordinate the National Fire Academy's training programs with the Attorney General, Secretary of Health and Human Services and other federal agencies to prevent and eliminate the duplication in training programs that has been identified by the GAO.

In 2001, we were caught unprepared and paid a terrible price as a result. While we will never be able to prevent firefighter deaths because of the risks involved, it is our obligation to help ensure that future firefighters are adequately equipped and trained, and are working in coordination to respond to any future national emergencies.

I am pleased to announce that this legislation is supported by the National Volunteer Fire Council; the Congressional Fire Services Institute; the National Fire Protection Association; the International Association of Fire Chiefs; the International Association of Fire Fighters; the International Association of Arson Investigators; International Society of Fire Service Instructors; North American Fire Training Directors and the International Fire Service Training Association. I ask unanimous consent that the letter of endorsement be printed in the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill also be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Rockefeller, Chafee and a bipartisan group of my colleagues in introducing a bill to restore funding which was previously allocated to the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP.

Established in 1997 as part of the Balanced Budget Act, SCHIP was developed as a means for states to provide basic health coverage for uninsured children of low income families, who are not eligible for coverage under Medicaid. Through the Fedeal-State matching program, SCHIP has provided coverage for millions of uninsured children. In fiscal year 2001, 4.4 million children were enrolled in SCHIP. Today every State in the country, five territories, and the District of Columbia are using SCHIP to develop innovative programs to expand health coverage to even more children.

In my home State of Arizona, our SCHIP program, KidsCare, was developed to provide low income children with medical, dental, and vision coverage. KidsCare has successfully enrolled almost 50,000 uninsured children and is anticipating reaching 60,000 by fiscal year 2004. When Arizona found that children are more likely to received health care if their parents also have access, and the flexibility of SCHIP enabled Arizona to expand its program. Last October Arizona began covering not just children, but also their parents. Arizona now provides health coverage to almost 8,000 uninsured parents. Although a substantial number of eligible children and parents still need coverage, I believe this relatively young program is nothing short of a success.

Due to Congressional inaction, approximately $2.7 billion of unspent SCHIP funding reverted to the Treasury at the end of last year. The bill we are introducing today would return that money to SCHIP, ensuring that funds are allocated to States that need more funding to continue existing programs, while allowing other States to develop new and innovative programs to help our Nation's children get access to health care.

The number of uninsured Americans reached 41 million in 2001 and continues to rise. However SCHIP is successfully reducing those numbers for one of the most vulnerable populations in our Nation, our children. I hope the Senate will act expeditiously on this important legislation to return the funds that belong in SCHIP and to ensure that we are expanding, not reducing, the number of children covered through this innovative program.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Hollings, Biden, DeWine, and Cantwell in introducing the Firefighting Research and Coordination Act. This legislation would provide for the establishment of a scientific basis for new firefighting technology standards; improved coordination between Federal, State, and local fire officials in training and response to a terrorist attack or a national emergency; and authorize the National Fire Academy to offer training to improve the ability of firefighters to respond to events such as the tragedy of September 11, 2001. Representatives Camp, Deutsch, Israel, Etheridge, and Weldon are introducing companion legislation. Similar legislation was approved by the Senate Commerce Committee last September.

The purpose of this legislation is to act upon some of the lessons learned from the tragic terrorist attacks, and also address other problems faced by the fire services. On September 11, the New York City firefighters and emergency service personnel acted with great heroism in selflessly rushing to the World Trade Center and saving the lives of many Americans. Tragically, 343 firefighters and EMS technicians paid the ultimate price in the service of their country.

While we strive to prevent any future attack in the United States, it is our duty to ensure that we are adequately prepared to respond to any future catastrophic act of terrorism. In addition,

we must recognize that many of the preparations we make to improve the response to national emergencies also will aid our firefighters for their everyday role in protecting our families and homes.

Today's firefighters use a variety of technologies including thermal imaging equipment, devices for locating firefighters and victims, and state-of-the-art protective suits to fight fires, clean up chemical or hazardous waste spills, and contend with potential terrorist devices. The Federal Government's Firefighter Investment and Response Enhancement, FIRE, program is authorized for $900 million for Fiscal Year 2004 to assist local fire departments in purchasing this high-tech equipment. It is important that the American taxpayers' money is used to buy equipment that will effectively protect our local communities and the responders.

Unfortunately, there are no uniform technical standards for new equipment used in combating fires. Without such standards, local fire companies may purchase equipment that does not satisfy their needs, or even purchase faulty equipment. A January 2003 Consumer Reports article states that much of the emergency equipment sold today is not tested or certified by the government or independent labs. The article states that ``the confusion will get worse, emergency departments say, as new equipment floods the market in response to increased government funding.'' The lives of professional and volunteer emergency personnel, and the citizens they protect, are at risk from untested equipment.

This bill seeks to address the need for new equipment standards by establishing a scientific basis for voluntary consensus standards. It would authorize the U.S. Fire Administrator to work with the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Inter-Agency Board for Equipment Standardization and Inter-Operability, other federal, state, and local agencies, national voluntary consensus standards development organizations, and other interested parties to establish measurement techniques and testing methodologies for new firefighting equipment. These new techniques and methodologies will act as a scientific basis for the development of voluntary consensus standards. This bill would allow the federal government to work with the private sector in developing the basic uniform performance criteria and technical standards to ensure the effectiveness and compatibility of these new technologies. The bill would authorize $2.2 million in Fiscal Year 2004 for these efforts.

As my colleagues know, many issues regarding coordination surfaced on September 11. Titan Systems Corporation recently issued an after-action report, on behalf of the fire department of Arlington County, VA, which highlighted problems between the coordination of Washington D.C., and Arlington County fire departments. The report cited the confusion caused by a large influx of self-dispatched volunteers, and increased risk faced by the ``bonafide responders.'' These conclusions are consistent with an article by the current U.S. Fire Administrator, R. David Paulison, in the June 1993 issue of Fire Chief magazine, where he described being overwhelmed by the number of uncoordinated volunteer efforts that poured into Florida after Hurricane Andrew. Additionally, many fire officials and the General Accounting Office, GAO, have highlighted the duplicative nature of many Federal programs and the need for better coordination between Federal, State, and local officials.

The bill seeks to address these problems by directing the U.S. Fire Administrator to provide technical assistance and training for state and local fire service officials to establish nationwide and state mutual aid systems for responding to national emergencies. These mutual aid plans would include collection of accurate asset and resource information to ensure that local fire services could work together to deploy equipment and personnel effectively during an emergency. The bill also would direct the U.S. Fire Administrator to report on the need for a strategy for deploying volunteers, including the use of a national credentialing system. This legislation also would authorize the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to update the Federal Response Plan to incorporate plans for responding to terrorist attacks, especially events in urban areas. This update would include fire detection, suppression, and related emergency services.

The bill would improve the training of State and local firefighters. It would authorize the National Fire Academy to offer courses in building collapse rescue; the use of technology in response to fires caused by terrorist attacks and other national emergencies; leadership and strategic skills including integrated management systems operations; deployment of new technology for fighting forest and wild fires; fighting fires at ports; and other courses related to tactics and strategies for responding to terrorist incidents and other fire services' needs.

Finally, this bill would also direct the U.S. Fire Administrator to coordinate the National Fire Academy's training programs with the Attorney General, Secretary of Health and Human Services and other federal agencies to prevent and eliminate the duplication in training programs that has been identified by the GAO.

In 2001, we were caught unprepared and paid a terrible price as a result. While we will never be able to prevent firefighter deaths because of the risks involved, it is our obligation to help ensure that future firefighters are adequately equipped and trained, and are working in coordination to respond to any future national emergencies.

I am pleased to announce that this legislation is supported by the National Volunteer Fire Council; the Congressional Fire Services Institute; the National Fire Protection Association; the International Association of Fire Chiefs; the International Association of Fire Fighters; the International Association of Arson Investigators; International Society of Fire Service Instructors; North American Fire Training Directors and the International Fire Service Training Association. I ask unanimous consent that the letter of endorsement be printed in the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill also be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, I am joined by my colleague, Senator Dorgan, in introducing the Professional Boxing Amendments Act of 2003. This legislation is designed to strengthen existing Federal boxing laws by making uniform certain health and safety standards, establish a centralized medical registry to be used by local commissions to protect boxers, reduce arbitrary practices of sanctioning organizations, and provide uniformity in ranking criteria and contractual guidelines. This legislation also would establish a Federal regulatory entity to oversee professional boxing and set uniform standards for certain aspects of the sport.

Since 1996, Congress has acted to improve the sport of boxing by passing two laws, the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996, and the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act of 2000. These laws were intended to establish uniform standards to improve the health and safety of boxers, and to better protect them from the sometimes coercive, exploitative, and unethical business practices of promoters, managers, and sanctioning organizations.

While the Professional Boxing Safety Act, as amended by the Muhammad Ali Act, has had some positive effects on the sport, I am concerned by the repeated failure of some State and tribal boxing commissions to comply with the law, and the lack of enforcement of the law by both Federal and State law enforcement officials. Corruption remains endemic in professional boxing, and the sport continues to be beset with a variety of problems, some beyond the scope of the current system of local regulation.

Therefore, the bill we are introducing today would further strengthen Federal boxing laws, and also create a Federal regulatory entity, the ``United States Boxing Administration'', USBA, to oversee the sport. The USBA would be headed by an Administrator, appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate.

The primary functions of the USBA would be to protect the health, safety, and general interests of boxers. More specifically, the USBA would, among other things: administer Federal boxing laws and coordinate with other federal regulatory agencies to ensure that these laws are enforced; oversee all professional boxing matches in the United States; and work with the boxing industry and local commissions to improve the status and standards of the sport. The USBA would license boxers, promoters, managers, and sanctioning organizations, and revoke or suspend such licenses if the USBA believes that such action is in the public interest. No longer would a boxer be able to forum- shop for a state with a weak commission if he or she is undeserving of a license.

Under this legislative proposal, the fines collected and licensing fees imposed by the USBA would be used to fund a percentage of its activities. The USBA also would maintain a centralized database of medical and statistical information pertaining to boxers in the United States that would be used confidentially by local commissions in making licensing decisions.

Let me be clear. The USBA would not be intended to micro-manage boxing by interfering with the daily operations of local boxing commissions. Instead, the USBA would work in consultation with local commissions, and the USBA Administrator would only exercise his/her

authority should reasonable grounds exist for intervention.

The problems that plague the sport of professional boxing compromise the safety of boxers and undermine the credibility of the sport in the eyes of the public. I believe this bill provides a realistic approach to curbing these problems, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. President, I am proud to sponsor the Military Home Owners Equity Act of 2003, S. 284. This is important legislation which I have been privileged to introduce in the Senate during previous Congresses. This legislation would allow members of the Uniformed Services, who are away on extended active duty, to qualify for the same tax relief on the profit generated when they sell their main residence as other Americans. I am pleased to announce that Secretary of State Colin Powell fully supports this legislation and this legislation enjoys overwhelming support by the senior uniformed leadership, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as the Office of Management and Budget Director Mitch Daniels, the 31-member associations of the Military Coalition, the American Foreign Service Association, and the American Bar Association.

The average American participates in our Nation's growth through home ownership. Appreciation in the value of a home allows everyday Americans to participate in our country's prosperity. Fortunately, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 recognized this and provided this break to lessen the amount of tax most Americans will pay on the profit they make when they sell their homes. Unfortunately, the 1997 home sale provision unintentionally discourages home ownership among members of the Uniformed and Foreign Services.

This bill will not create a new tax benefit; it merely modifies current law to include the time members of the Uniformed Services are away from home on active duty when calculating the number of years the homeowners has lived in their primary residence. In short, this bill is narrowly tailored to remedy a specific dilemma.

The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 delivered sweeping tax relief to millions of Americans through a wide variety of important tax changes that affect individuals, families, investors and businesses. It was also one of the most complex tax laws enacted in recent history.

As with any complex legislation, there are winners and losers. But in this instance, there are unintended losers: members of the Uniformed and Foreign Services.

The 1997 act gives taxpayers who sell their principal residence a much-needed tax break. Prior to the 1997 act, taxpayers received a one- time exclusion on the profit they made when they sold their principal residence, but the taxpayer had to be at least 55 years old and live in the residence for 2 of the 5 years preceding the sale. This provision primarily benefitted elderly taxpayers, while not providing any relief to younger taxpayers and their families.

Fortunately, the 1997 act addressed this issue. Under this law, taxpayers who sell their principal residence on or after May 7, 1997, are not taxed on the first $250,000 of profit from the sale, joint filers are not taxed on the first $500,000 of profit they make from selling their principal residence. The taxpayers must meet two requirements to qualify for this tax relief. The taxpayer must one, own the home for at least 2 of the 5 years preceding the sale, and two, live in the home as their main home for at least 2 years of the last 5 years.

I applaud the bipartisan cooperation that resulted in this much- needed form of tax relief. The home sales provision sounds great, and it is. Unfortunately,the second part of this eligibility test unintentionally and unfairly prohibits many of the women and men who serve this country overseas from qualifying for this beneficial tax relief.

Constant travel across the United States and abroad is inherent in the Uniformed and Foreign Services. Nonetheless, some members of these Services choose to purchase a home in a certain locale, even though they will not live there much of the time. Under the new law, if they do not have a spouse who resides in the house during their absence, they will not qualify for the full benefit of the new home sales provision, because no one ``lives'' in the home for the required period of time. The law is prejudiced against families that serve our Nation abroad. They would not qualify for the home sales exclusion because neither spouse ``live'' in the house for enough time to qualify for the exclusion.

This bill simply remedies an inequality in the 1997 law. The bill amends the Internal Revenue Code so that members of the Uniformed and Foreign Services will be considered to be using their house as their main residence for any period that they are assigned overseas in the execution of their duties. In short, they will be deemed to be using their house as their main home, even if they are stationed in Bosnia, the Persian Gulf, in the ``no man's land,'' commonly called the DMZ between North and South Korea, or anywhere else they are assigned.

In the wake of September 11, our Armed Forces are now deployed to an unprecedented number of locations. They are away from their primary homes, protecting and furthering the freedoms we Americans hold so dear. We cannot afford to discourage military service by penalizing military personnel with higher taxes merely because they are doing their job. Military service entails sacrifice, such as long periods of time away from friends and family and the constant threat of mobilization into hostile territory. We must not use the tax code to heap additional burdens upon our women and men in uniform.

In my view, the way to decrease the likelihood of further inequalities in the tax code, intentional or otherwise, is to adopt a fairer, flatter tax system that is far less complicated than our current system. But, in the meantime, we must insure the Tax Code is as fair and equitable as possible.

The Taxpayers' Relief Act of 1997 was designed to provide sweeping tax relief to all Americans, including those who serve this country abroad. Yes, it is true that there are winners and losers in any tax code, but, this inequity was unintended. Enacting this narrowly tailored remedy to grant equal tax relief to the members of our Uniformed and Foreign Services restores fairness and consistency to our increasingly complex Tax Code.

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

Mr. President, today, I am joined by my colleague, Senator Dorgan, in introducing the Professional Boxing Amendments Act of 2003. This legislation is designed to strengthen existing Federal boxing laws by making uniform certain health and safety standards, establish a centralized medical registry to be used by local commissions to protect boxers, reduce arbitrary practices of sanctioning organizations, and provide uniformity in ranking criteria and contractual guidelines. This legislation also would establish a Federal regulatory entity to oversee professional boxing and set uniform standards for certain aspects of the sport.

Since 1996, Congress has acted to improve the sport of boxing by passing two laws, the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996, and the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act of 2000. These laws were intended to establish uniform standards to improve the health and safety of boxers, and to better protect them from the sometimes coercive, exploitative, and unethical business practices of promoters, managers, and sanctioning organizations.

While the Professional Boxing Safety Act, as amended by the Muhammad Ali Act, has had some positive effects on the sport, I am concerned by the repeated failure of some State and tribal boxing commissions to comply with the law, and the lack of enforcement of the law by both Federal and State law enforcement officials. Corruption remains endemic in professional boxing, and the sport continues to be beset with a variety of problems, some beyond the scope of the current system of local regulation.

Therefore, the bill we are introducing today would further strengthen Federal boxing laws, and also create a Federal regulatory entity, the ``United States Boxing Administration'', USBA, to oversee the sport. The USBA would be headed by an Administrator, appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate.

The primary functions of the USBA would be to protect the health, safety, and general interests of boxers. More specifically, the USBA would, among other things: administer Federal boxing laws and coordinate with other federal regulatory agencies to ensure that these laws are enforced; oversee all professional boxing matches in the United States; and work with the boxing industry and local commissions to improve the status and standards of the sport. The USBA would license boxers, promoters, managers, and sanctioning organizations, and revoke or suspend such licenses if the USBA believes that such action is in the public interest. No longer would a boxer be able to forum- shop for a state with a weak commission if he or she is undeserving of a license.

Under this legislative proposal, the fines collected and licensing fees imposed by the USBA would be used to fund a percentage of its activities. The USBA also would maintain a centralized database of medical and statistical information pertaining to boxers in the United States that would be used confidentially by local commissions in making licensing decisions.

Let me be clear. The USBA would not be intended to micro-manage boxing by interfering with the daily operations of local boxing commissions. Instead, the USBA would work in consultation with local commissions, and the USBA Administrator would only exercise his/her

authority should reasonable grounds exist for intervention.

The problems that plague the sport of professional boxing compromise the safety of boxers and undermine the credibility of the sport in the eyes of the public. I believe this bill provides a realistic approach to curbing these problems, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. President, I am proud to sponsor the Military Home Owners Equity Act of 2003, S. 284. This is important legislation which I have been privileged to introduce in the Senate during previous Congresses. This legislation would allow members of the Uniformed Services, who are away on extended active duty, to qualify for the same tax relief on the profit generated when they sell their main residence as other Americans. I am pleased to announce that Secretary of State Colin Powell fully supports this legislation and this legislation enjoys overwhelming support by the senior uniformed leadership, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as the Office of Management and Budget Director Mitch Daniels, the 31-member associations of the Military Coalition, the American Foreign Service Association, and the American Bar Association.

The average American participates in our Nation's growth through home ownership. Appreciation in the value of a home allows everyday Americans to participate in our country's prosperity. Fortunately, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 recognized this and provided this break to lessen the amount of tax most Americans will pay on the profit they make when they sell their homes. Unfortunately, the 1997 home sale provision unintentionally discourages home ownership among members of the Uniformed and Foreign Services.

This bill will not create a new tax benefit; it merely modifies current law to include the time members of the Uniformed Services are away from home on active duty when calculating the number of years the homeowners has lived in their primary residence. In short, this bill is narrowly tailored to remedy a specific dilemma.

The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 delivered sweeping tax relief to millions of Americans through a wide variety of important tax changes that affect individuals, families, investors and businesses. It was also one of the most complex tax laws enacted in recent history.

As with any complex legislation, there are winners and losers. But in this instance, there are unintended losers: members of the Uniformed and Foreign Services.

The 1997 act gives taxpayers who sell their principal residence a much-needed tax break. Prior to the 1997 act, taxpayers received a one- time exclusion on the profit they made when they sold their principal residence, but the taxpayer had to be at least 55 years old and live in the residence for 2 of the 5 years preceding the sale. This provision primarily benefitted elderly taxpayers, while not providing any relief to younger taxpayers and their families.

Fortunately, the 1997 act addressed this issue. Under this law, taxpayers who sell their principal residence on or after May 7, 1997, are not taxed on the first $250,000 of profit from the sale, joint filers are not taxed on the first $500,000 of profit they make from selling their principal residence. The taxpayers must meet two requirements to qualify for this tax relief. The taxpayer must one, own the home for at least 2 of the 5 years preceding the sale, and two, live in the home as their main home for at least 2 years of the last 5 years.

I applaud the bipartisan cooperation that resulted in this much- needed form of tax relief. The home sales provision sounds great, and it is. Unfortunately,the second part of this eligibility test unintentionally and unfairly prohibits many of the women and men who serve this country overseas from qualifying for this beneficial tax relief.

Constant travel across the United States and abroad is inherent in the Uniformed and Foreign Services. Nonetheless, some members of these Services choose to purchase a home in a certain locale, even though they will not live there much of the time. Under the new law, if they do not have a spouse who resides in the house during their absence, they will not qualify for the full benefit of the new home sales provision, because no one ``lives'' in the home for the required period of time. The law is prejudiced against families that serve our Nation abroad. They would not qualify for the home sales exclusion because neither spouse ``live'' in the house for enough time to qualify for the exclusion.

This bill simply remedies an inequality in the 1997 law. The bill amends the Internal Revenue Code so that members of the Uniformed and Foreign Services will be considered to be using their house as their main residence for any period that they are assigned overseas in the execution of their duties. In short, they will be deemed to be using their house as their main home, even if they are stationed in Bosnia, the Persian Gulf, in the ``no man's land,'' commonly called the DMZ between North and South Korea, or anywhere else they are assigned.

In the wake of September 11, our Armed Forces are now deployed to an unprecedented number of locations. They are away from their primary homes, protecting and furthering the freedoms we Americans hold so dear. We cannot afford to discourage military service by penalizing military personnel with higher taxes merely because they are doing their job. Military service entails sacrifice, such as long periods of time away from friends and family and the constant threat of mobilization into hostile territory. We must not use the tax code to heap additional burdens upon our women and men in uniform.

In my view, the way to decrease the likelihood of further inequalities in the tax code, intentional or otherwise, is to adopt a fairer, flatter tax system that is far less complicated than our current system. But, in the meantime, we must insure the Tax Code is as fair and equitable as possible.

The Taxpayers' Relief Act of 1997 was designed to provide sweeping tax relief to all Americans, including those who serve this country abroad. Yes, it is true that there are winners and losers in any tax code, but, this inequity was unintended. Enacting this narrowly tailored remedy to grant equal tax relief to the members of our Uniformed and Foreign Services restores fairness and consistency to our increasingly complex Tax Code.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Telecommunications Ownership Diversity Act of 2003. This legislation is designed to ensure that more Americans have an opportunity to provide their distinct voices in today's telecommunications marketplace. In addition to providing competition by certain small businesses, this bill would encourage ownership by individuals who are currently underrepresented in the ownership of telecommunications companies, including minorities and women, by making carefully crafted changes in the tax code.

The bill would institute market-based, voluntary measures designed to achieve this goal. It would provide sellers of telecommunications assets a tax deferral when those assets are bought for cash by certain small businesses. It would also provide investors an incentive to consider certain small businesses by providing a reduction in the tax on gains from investment in these companies.

Today, transactions in the telecommunications industry are routinely valued in the billions of dollars. Even radio, which has traditionally been a comparatively easier telecom segment to enter, has been priced out of the range of most would-be entrants. Given the significant cost of participating in this industry, the limited club of media and other telecommunications owners may not always include certain small businesses.

This morning, I chaired a hearing in the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on media ownership. We heard of the difficulties small minority-owned businesses experience when trying to raise the capital necessary to enter this business. Minorities are woefully underrepresented in the ownership of commercial broadcast facilities. As of December 2000, minorities owned an estimated 3.8 percent of these facilities in the United States, despite representing an estimated 29 percent of the total United States population. The bill does not mandate ownership levels by any specific group. But it does ensure that certain small businesses are on equal footing with large companies. We should ensure that the American media landscape includes opportunities for these voices to be heard.

Too often today, new entrants and small businesses lose out on opportunities to purchase telecom assets because they don't offer sellers the same tax treatment as their larger competitors. A small purchaser's cash offer triggers tax liability, while a larger purchaser's stock offer may be accepted effectively tax-free. When an entity chooses to sell a telecom business, our tax laws should not make one bidder more attractive than another.

The goal of viewpoint diversity has been at the center of recent debate over media ownership rules. While it is important to discuss the relative merits of ownership restrictions, we must also consider market-based, voluntary methods of facilitating entry and diversity of ownership. And that's what this legislation would do.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Telecommunications Ownership Diversity Act of 2003. This legislation is designed to ensure that more Americans have an opportunity to provide their distinct voices in today's telecommunications marketplace. In addition to providing competition by certain small businesses, this bill would encourage ownership by individuals who are currently underrepresented in the ownership of telecommunications companies, including minorities and women, by making carefully crafted changes in the tax code.

The bill would institute market-based, voluntary measures designed to achieve this goal. It would provide sellers of telecommunications assets a tax deferral when those assets are bought for cash by certain small businesses. It would also provide investors an incentive to consider certain small businesses by providing a reduction in the tax on gains from investment in these companies.

Today, transactions in the telecommunications industry are routinely valued in the billions of dollars. Even radio, which has traditionally been a comparatively easier telecom segment to enter, has been priced out of the range of most would-be entrants. Given the significant cost of participating in this industry, the limited club of media and other telecommunications owners may not always include certain small businesses.

This morning, I chaired a hearing in the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on media ownership. We heard of the difficulties small minority-owned businesses experience when trying to raise the capital necessary to enter this business. Minorities are woefully underrepresented in the ownership of commercial broadcast facilities. As of December 2000, minorities owned an estimated 3.8 percent of these facilities in the United States, despite representing an estimated 29 percent of the total United States population. The bill does not mandate ownership levels by any specific group. But it does ensure that certain small businesses are on equal footing with large companies. We should ensure that the American media landscape includes opportunities for these voices to be heard.

Too often today, new entrants and small businesses lose out on opportunities to purchase telecom assets because they don't offer sellers the same tax treatment as their larger competitors. A small purchaser's cash offer triggers tax liability, while a larger purchaser's stock offer may be accepted effectively tax-free. When an entity chooses to sell a telecom business, our tax laws should not make one bidder more attractive than another.

The goal of viewpoint diversity has been at the center of recent debate over media ownership rules. While it is important to discuss the relative merits of ownership restrictions, we must also consider market-based, voluntary methods of facilitating entry and diversity of ownership. And that's what this legislation would do.

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

I ask that I be recognized for up to 20 minutes.

I object.

I remove my objection.

What is the regular order?

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. The amendment is numbered 214.

I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the amendment.

Mr. President, as soon as the Senator from Minnesota arrives in the Chamber, I intend to propose a time agreement so we can dispense with this amendment. I would like to consult with cosponsors before we do. I don't think this issue needs to be debated very long. But I will propose a time agreement very shortly.

I offer an amendment to a provision of a bill regarding a project to construct an outlet in Devils Lake, ND. The project is very controversial and its impact extends well beyond North Dakota into Minnesota, Missouri, and Canada. I am pleased to be joined in support of this by Senators Dayton and Coleman.

The outlet from the landlocked lake allows contaminated water to flow into neighboring waterways, causing the introduction of invasive species.

I ask unanimous consent to have letters of support be printed in the Record.

The Canadian Government is so concerned that it was a leading item in recent talks between President Bush and the Prime Minister of Canada.

The provision authorizes $5 million for construction and a total of $100 million for the Corps of Engineers to have completed their feasibility study or environmental review. In fact, the Corps has indicated they do not believe the outlet would accomplish the purpose for which it was intended.

There is a letter from the Canadian Ambassador addressed to the Honorable Bill Young, chairman of the Appropriations Committee that I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record.

In part it reads:

While Canada sympathizes with North Dakota's problems with

Devils Lake flooding, it cannot agree to a solution that

poses a genuine threat to Canadian water resources, as well

as to those of other states. There are alternative, internal

solutions available to North Dakota, including the

construction of additional flood protection works and the

pursuit of upper basin storage approaches. Canada urges that

additional funds not be provided for the Devils Lake outlet

project unless and until all of the issues it raises are

thoroughly addressed through studies repeatedly mandated by

Congress, and following meaningful consultation with Canada

under the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty.

From a technical standpoint, there is serious doubt that an

outlet with the proposed capacity would have any demonstrable

effect on the level of Devils Lake. After thorough review,

the Corps of Engineers announced in a June 1999 press release

its conclusion that an outlet is not the necessary or

appropriate solution, at this time, and recommended a review

of alternatives. Restoration of drained wetlands is one

possibility. As Devils Lake has no natural outlet, its high

levels may well have been exacerbated by the amount of run-

off from drained wetlands in the basin.

I have had extended conversations with both Senators from North Dakota. I do not claim to have extensive education and expertise on this issue. I think it is serious when we have these concerns by Canada and neighboring States and there is not a cost-benefit analysis.

My friends from North Dakota point out that it is under the way in which that cost-benefit analysis is conducted. With a basin such as this, that catches water and does not release water, as happens in the case of rivers, this is very difficult, if not impossible, to do. I still believe we should be able to fashion some kind of formula to find out what the cost-benefit ratio is.

I also point out that, thanks to the good efforts of the Senators from North Dakota, $350 million has been spent in the last several years, raising highways and relocating individuals who live in proximity to Devils Lake.

There are concerns raised. I think the concerns are serious. I also assured my colleagues from North Dakota that I will send my staff out to North Dakota.

I will be glad to yield.

I would like to wait, if it is agreeable to the Senator from Alaska. I understand the senior Senator from Minnesota is on his way. If you could give me about 3 or 4 minutes?

The senior Senator, as well as the junior Senator, from Minnesota, have views on this issue. I would not like to enter into a time agreement until such time as they at least are consulted. But I am sure they would be agreeable to a reasonable time limit.

I did discuss with my colleagues from North Dakota that I sent staff out to

Devils Lake to further look at this situation. I understand and appreciate their long involvement--I understand 9 years--in this issue. I would be more than willing to learn more about this issue.

At this time, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield my 2 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 230 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to reduce funding for the Yazoo Pump Project in Yazoo Basin, MS. I believe the project is wasteful and environmentally harmful. It has not been subjected to standard responsible environmental or economic assessment. And although it was touted as a flood control project, the Yazoo pumps are not designed to save homes and lives. Instead, in my view, the pumps are specifically designed to drain wetlands so that large landowners can increase agricultural production on marginal lands, the majority of which are irreplaceable wetlands.

In fact the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has indicated this project will likely be subject to a Clean Water Act veto because the project will drain and damage more than 200,000 acres of significant wetlands in the Mississippi flyway. That is more than three times the number of wetlands lost across the country in an entire year from all causes. It is more than seven times as many wetlands as the Corps allows private developers to destroy in an entire year nationwide under the Clean Water Act section 404 permit program.

Wetlands drained will include more than 31,000 acres currently enrolled in the Wetlands Reserve and Conservation Reserve programs which the Federal taxpayers already have paid more than $30 million to protect. Tens of thousands of acres of forest and wetlands located on Federal and State lands will also be damaged. But the harm won't end there. The pumps will alter the hydrology of the entire 925,000-acre project area and of the Dear Creek, Steele Bayou, Little Sunflower, and Big Sunflower Rivers that flow through that area. The project also encourages increased pesticide use in an area of the country already plagued by significant toxic contamination.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has also opposed the project due to the severity of the ecological harm it will cause.

I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the opposition statement of the EPA.

The controversy surrounding this project is not limited to the environmental harm the pumps will cause. An independent economic analysis conducted by a highly respected economist, who also chairs the National Academy of Sciences panel, shows that the Yazoo pumps cannot be economically justified. It shows that the Corps has overstated just the agricultural benefits of the project by $144 million. It also shows that the Corps of Engineers is asking Federal taxpayers to spend well over $180 million simply to help large landowners earn more farm subsidy payments.

Those subsidies are already substantial. In just the 2-year flood plain of the project area, where 150,000 acres of wetlands will be damaged, 51 landowners split $15.3 million on Federal farm subsidies in the 6 years from 1996 to 2001. One of those landowners received $2.7 million during that time while four others received more than $1 million each.

Perhaps the worst thing about this project is that each and every benefit could be achieved in a way that would avoid each and every impact we are talking about. Nonstructural measures, including the purchase of conservation and flowage easements and targeted flood proofing of buildings, could reduce flood damages in the region. This alternative has been suggested for years but has been brushed aside by the Corps. The Corps has not finished its environmental review of this project, has not finished the feasibility study for this project, and it has not issued a record of decision. The Corps of Engineers has far to go to satisfy its planning requirements. The draft environmental review was so flawed that it was given the lowest possible rating by the EPA.

This makes any directive to enter into a continuing contract for the

pumps supply contract entirely premature. Given the widespread opposition to this project, the detailed and scientifically supported challenges to the Corps project analysis, and the ecosystemwide harm this project will cause, Congress would do an enormous disservice to taxpayers and the environment to direct the Corps to begin construction.

This amendment would allow the planning process to proceed without interference. It would ensure we don't short circuit the ongoing environmental and physical review of this project that could destroy an entire ecosystem and cause taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. President, I know of no two Members of the Senate who have worked harder on behalf of their constituents than my friends from Mississippi. I also understand that they have special problems and special needs in one of the least economically well-off parts of America. I understand their dedication to this and other efforts they have made on behalf of their constituents.

It is with that understanding that I still oppose this project. It has nothing to do with the admiration and respect I have for both of my dear friends.

Mr. President, I hope this amendment will be sustained by my colleagues. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. President, I yield my minute to the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Dayton.

Mr. President, I understand I have 1 minute.

Mr. President, this amendment would eliminate $14.5 million for construction activities for the Yazoo Pump Station in Mississippi. It would require the completion of feasibility studies, environmental review, and the economic analysis that is required of other core projects.

If the project proceeds unimpeded, there are 200,000 acres of environmentally sensitive wetlands that would be destroyed and a host of other environmental problems that will ensue.

It is telling that the other Federal agencies charged with evaluating projects and protecting the Nation's environment are opposed to the project. The EPA has given, in the core analysis of this project, its lowest possible rating. And the analysis also revealed that the costs of the project far outweigh the benefits, questions that should be answered before this project proceeds. I urge my colleagues not to table the amendment.

Mr. President, I voted in support of the Edwards amendment to delay the implementation of the EPA's final rule on New Source Review for six months for the purpose of ascertaining the impact on air quality and human health. There has been significant controversy and uncertainty about the effects of this rule. I believe in this case we need to have an independent assessment in order to assure the public that this regulatory change will not jeopardize existing air quality or human health.

Given that the rule represents a significant change in national clean air policy, we should have this essential information in hand at this final phase of the rule-making process. However, we haven't seen any thorough or independent analysis of the pertinent data or a definitive assessment of impacts.

I have stated my strong view on the issue of global climate change that we have sufficient information to move forward to define effective measures to address this most serious environmental problem. In order to move forward responsibly with this significant change of air emissions regulation, we apparently need additional scientific information.

I am struck by the extent of disagreement over the effects of this change amongst air quality experts, members of the regulated community, air quality regulators on the federal, state, and local levels, and environmental groups. I believe the federal taxpayers who pay for this regulatory program, in terms of both dollars and health impacts, would want Congress to approve the implementation of this new regulatory regime only if we are certain the costs are commensurate with the benefits.

At this point, there is significant confusion on this score. The EPA has testified that 50 percent of the facilities that are now subject to the Clean Air Act's technology requirements would fall out of those requirements under the rule changes. A number of reputable studies indicate that emissions will increase as a result. The argument has also been made by the Administration and others that air quality will improve because facilities would be encouraged to install new, more energy-efficient technology.

This amendment provides a six month period for an independent panel of scientific experts to give us the information that we need in order to assert that this policy change will benefit the public and the environment, as well as the regulated community. Once we have this information, we should move forward decisively to either put the final rule in place or reject this approach.

Mr. President, after six continuing resolutions to keep the Federal Government operating and more than 3 months into the new fiscal year, the appropriations process for fiscal year 2003 is finally coming to an end. Of the 13 appropriations bills that were required to be passed and enacted into law last year to fully fund programs for fiscal year 2003, only two were passed and enacted. The 11 remaining bills have been bundled up in this so-called ``omnibus'' appropriations legislation.

And once again, as in past years, we are faced with voting on a massive legislative package without adequate time for thorough review and debate. The 1,052-page bill before us, which appropriates approximately $400 billion,

was not made available for review at 9:00 p.m. on the night before the first full day of debate on the bill. The managers submitted for the Record what would have been the committee reports for the 11 bills encompassed in this omnibus, but it was not available for review until debate on this bill was well under way. Have members and their staffs even spent the time to learn what is contained in this monstrous vehicle?

When will we ever learn? I hope that the 108th Congress brings with it a renewed spirit of bipartisan cooperation. In the last Congress, such cooperation took a backseat to election year politics, partisan bickering, and ill-advised parliamentary tactics that had the effect of further polarizing this body. If we continue on this troubled path, we will be in the same situation 1 year from now. And again, this will be at the cost of the American taxpayer.

During times of threats to our national security, it has been common practice to ask Americans to sacrifice to protect our homeland. However, today some believe it appropriate to merely craft this appropriations bill with little regard for the severe security and fiscal challenges confronting our Nation. We are on the verge of a possible war, and our economy is in distress. So what are we appropriating scarce resources for? Orangutans, pig waste, and sea otter commissions.

There is approximately $11 billion in pork-barrel spending and a number of legislative riders that are riddled throughout this bill. In fact, Congressional earmarks reached their highest level during the last fiscal year, increasing 32 percent from the previous year. The multitude of unrequested funding earmarks buried in this 1,052-page bill will undoubtedly further burden American taxpayers. While the amounts associated with each individual earmark may not seem extravagant, taken together, they represent a serious diversion away from Federal programs that have undergone the appropriate merit-based selection process.

As I discussed earlier today, one of the most egregious riders we consistently see in appropriation bills are the Army Corps of Engineers's water projects. Water projects have become synonymous with pork because of the habitual authorization of these projects in appropriation bills. These water projects continue to be slipped into appropriation bills without congressional consideration as to their effects on the environment and without going through established project evaluation procedures.

Today's Washington Post reports that the Yazoo Pump project in central Mississippi--which would involve building the world's largest hydraulic pumping plant--would authorize $15 million to drain 200,000 acres of wetlands that is home to both waterfowl and rare plants. The sole purpose of this project is to drain environmentally sensitive wetlands for agricultural production. Touted as a ``flood control project,'' the Yazoo pump is not designed to save homes or land but to drain the wetlands for soybean and cotton production. More importantly, $30,000 of federal taxpayer money has already been spent to preserve these wetlands because of their unique features as a bird sanctuary. At a minimum, we should allow the EPA to complete its study of this project--environment review is still ongoing. In fact, in the draft environmental review, the EPA gave the Yazoo the lowest possible rating calling the project ``flawed and inadequate.'' If this project could not proceed forward on the merits, why should Congress give its blessing to it in a rider to an omnibus appropriation bill?

The next project, located in Devil's Lake, North Dakota not only authorizes a wasteful and highly controversial project but the rider also exempts the project from standard evaluation procedures. Today's Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that the rider provides $100 million for pipeline into the Sheyenne River, which flows into the Hudson Bay. Because of widespread water quality concerns on connecting rivers and lakes, there is strong opposition to this project from the Canadian government, the States of Missouri and Minnesota, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the EPA, national conservation organizations and environmental groups in North Dakota. Despite this opposition and the complex ecological issues raised by this project, funding has been authorized and standard language requiring the Corps to evaluate the merits of the project has been omitted. The bottom line: If this project was ever assessed on its merits, it would likely never survive.

The report language for this bill directs the Agency for International Development to provide at least $2.5 million to the Orangutan Foundation located in Indonesia. The foundation likes to call the orangutan ``the neglected ape.'' Luckily for them, they are not being neglected by the Appropriations Committee. And, the appropriators not only like orangutans, they also are fond of gorillas. The Committee gave $1.5 million to groups like the Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund. Mr. President, why stop at giving special preference to these two primates? What about the other members of the animal kingdom? Which brings us to the lowly catfish and its heretofore unknown relation to the cow. In the emergency disaster relief section of this bill, a provision was included that would qualify catfish farmers for livestock compensation payments. As my colleagues know, the livestock compensation program is a Federal farm program that compensate eligible livestock producers-- such as owners of beef and dairy cattle, sheep, goats, or certain breeds of buffalo--who have suffered losses or damages as a result of a severe drought.

While I often take issue with various farm policies that disproportionately benefit large agribusiness of farms at the expense of small farmers and taxpayers, or those that compromise American agricultural trade commitments, this effort to compensate catfish farmers from a farm program that is intended for livestock stands out. I am certain that catfish proponents will offer a dozen different explanations to justify this provision. However, not even hog, poultry, or horse producers are eligible under the livestock compensation program. Why should catfish then get livestock payments? Mr. President, when did a catfish become analogous to a cow?

Catfish farmers are hardly left out in it the cold--they are eligible for other types of emergency assistance from USDA. Also, in the recent 2002 farm bill, domestic catfish proponents were successful in banning all catfish imports by requiring that foreign catfish be labeled as something other than catfish. It seems very clear to me that catfish farmers do not want to compete on a fair basis, domestically or abroad, and are willing to double-dip into disaster-relief funding intended for other farmers in need. Mr. President, let's remove this extraneous provision and let livestock be livestock, not catfish.

Other interesting earmarks include: $200,000 for the Anchorage People Mover in Alaska; $250,000 for the Mary Baldwin College in Staunton, Virginia for the Center for the Exceptionally Gifted; now they really are exceptionally gifted; $1.5 million for WestStart's Vehicular Flywheel Project in the State of Washington; an extra $1 million for the National Center for the Ecologically-based Noxious Weed Management at Montana State University; $600,000 to treat waste on small swine farms in South Carolina; $1 million for a DNA bear sampling study in Montana; $100,000 for the Alaska Sea Otter Commission; $300,000 to the Southern Regional Research Center at New Orleans, LA, for termite detection systems, evaluation of wood products for protecting building materials, and bait technology; $200,000 to study seafood waste at the University of Alaska; $300,000 for Old Stoney feasibility study in Wyoming; $650,000 for grasshopper and Mormon cricket activities in the State of Utah;

I am pleased to see that $1.5 billion was added to this legislation to supplement the $50 million that was originally appropriated to fund the recently-passed ``Help America Vote Act.'' However, I am concerned that this funding has only been added as a common pool and not designated according to the legislation that Congress passed last year. For example, the bill would not explicitly fund the program to improve accessibility for disabled voters at the poling places. I urge my colleagues to address this discrepancy in the House-Senate Conference.

I believe it is beneficial that the Senate address physician and hospital fee

schedules under Medicare. Recent Medicare physician fee reductions have forced many doctors across the Nation to reduce Medicare patients, leaving seniors without access to the care they need. Similarly, rural hospitals, particularly in my home State of Arizona, have experienced an unfair imbalance in payment schedules compared to their urban counterparts. Although our Nation's health care providers would benefit from provisions under this bill, I do not believe that appropriations bills are the venue for such legislative language. I am also concerned about giving hospitals and doctors well over $1 billion in additional funds from Medicare, without providing seniors with a much needed prescription drug benefit.

There are numerous provisions in this bill that circumvent the clear jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee. Perhaps the most egregious example is section 211 of Division B, which would grant new life to an already failed shipbuilding project that has cost the American taxpayer over $185 million, and give it to a foreign-owned corporation. I've already expressed my opposition to this special interest provision. But there are a host of other items that I wish to discuss.

Another section of the bill would allow a narrow class of airports to exclude air carriers that may want to provide scheduled air service. It is my understanding that this is so narrowly tailored that it benefits just one airport--Centennial Airport in Colorado.

Another provision would allow an airport to give Airport Improvement Program money back to the FAA enabling the agency to hire staff to speed up environmental reviews of that airport's projects. This is an area in which the Commerce Committee took action last year, and we will continue to monitor and pursue further action this year, should it be necessary. Appropriations bills are not the proper nor the traditional vehicles that should be used to address the AIP.

This bill also earmarks $1.2 billion for New Starts under the transit program. I find this set of earmarks to be particularly egregious. The earmarks do not just direct the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to spend the appropriated funds on pet projects in certain States, they also actually change the recommendations that FTA has made regarding which projects should be funded and the level of funding each project should receive in fiscal year 2003. Mr. President, when are we going to allow the FTA to do its job? The FTA, not the appropriators, should determine which projects have merit and should be funded.

This bill also would limit funding for the number of Coast Guard flag officers to 37. While the Coast Guard is authorized under title 14 to have 48 flag officers, it currently has 37 on active duty. But as the Coast Guard grows in size to meet its new homeland security missions, its authorized flexibility to promote additional flag officers would be severely restrained under this bill. If there is a concern that the Coast Guard has too many flag officers, then that concern should be addressed through the committee of jurisdiction--the Commerce Committee.

The bill provides $48.7 million for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for costs related to digital program developed associated with the transition of public broadcasting to digital broadcasting. This is $23.7 million more than the President's request, and it was not considered by the Commerce Committee, which is the authorizing committee. More importantly, I don't believe that Congress is exercising sound fiscal policy when we make a decision to appropriate millions of dollars to publicly funded television stations so that they may purchase the latest in digital technology. Rather the Corporation for Public Broadcasting should come before the authorizing committee to have a discussion with members on how to best achieve the goals of public broadcasters and ensure that taxpayer dollars are being spent wisely.

The bill appropriates $100 million for fisheries disaster assistance. Of this, $35 million is for direct assistance to the State of Alaska, for any person, business, or town that has experienced an economic hardship even remotely relating to fishing. This money is in addition to the $20 million for developing an Alaskan seafood marketing program.

Of the remainder, $35 million is for the shrimp industries of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic, to provide far-reaching assistance to these fisheries. $20 million is provided for voluntary capacity reduction programs in the Northeast and West Coast groundfish fisheries. $5 million is for Hawaiian fishermen affected by fishing area closures. And, 5 million for the blue crab fisheries affected by low harvest.

The bill provides these handouts without requiring any accountability on how the money is actually spent. Moreover, the allocations were made without offering any form of justification. How much federal money do these regions really need, if any? If these needs are legitimate, how do they compare to the needs of other regions? We may never know, because these appropriations circumvented every stage of committee review. We have no basis for determining how necessary this is or whether or not this is sound policy.

Another provision authorized the Secretary of Commerce to award grants to encourage individuals to travel to the United States and establishes the United States Travel and Tourism Promotion Advisory Board; $50 million is appropriated to implement this section. This is yet another example of inserting authorizing language in an appropriations bill, and providing an enormous amount of money for an initiative that has not yet been fully examined and discussed by the Senate Commerce Committee.

The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that the Federal Government had a budget deficit of about $109 billion during the first quarter of fiscal year 2003. That is significantly more than the $35 billion shortfall recorded over the same period last year. And all forecasts project growing deficits for as far as the eye can see.

Our current economic situation and our vital national security concerns illustrate that we need more than ever to prioritize our Federal spending. While I commend members of the Appropriations Committee for holding down spending to the level recommended by the President, some of these provisions, as is the case in virtually all appropriations legislation, serve no national priority. My friends on the committee are no doubt tired of hearing me say this, but I am obliged to do so; we can and we must do better.

Mr. President, like many of my colleagues, I am very concerned about the growing number of uninsured Americans. This vulnerable population reached an estimated 41.2 million in 2001 and has surely grown during the recent economic down turn. I believe this is a serious problem facing our Nation and I am committed to working with my colleagues to reduce the number of uninsured Americans, to address their needs and to help all Americans access affordable health care. It is because of this commitment that I strongly support the Community Access Program (CAP) and I am pleased to see that it has been fully funded for fiscal year 2003 in the Senate-passed bill.

In my home State of Arizona and across the country, the CAP program has helped many hardworking Americans, who are neither eligible for State assistance or employer-based insurance, obtain access to health care. Five CAP programs currently operate in Arizona. All of them function differently, but together the programs help thousands of Arizonans access affordable health care. These programs are particularly critical in the southern border region of and in the northern rural areas of my State, where the programs

provide outreach services to low-income and non-English speaking patients. One program, the Pima Community Access Program (PCAP) works with doctors and hospitals to negotiate reduced rates for its members, and in some cases has successfully reduced the cost below that of our state Medicaid program.

The simple fact is that these programs are providing an invaluable service for the people of my State and across the country. CAP is one of several federally funded programs that exist to provide assistance to the uninsured. It is a merit-based grant program that allows local communities to develop plans that will best provide assistance to their uninsured populations. I believe that not only do we need to ensure funding for this important program, but we must also look towards expanding other successful programs and creating new innovative programs, like CAP, to address the needs of this vulnerable population.

Mr. President, I have a long statement concerning the bill. There are colleagues of mine waiting. Senator Kyl, my friend and colleague from Arizona, would like to talk about Korea. But I want to talk about the sense-of-the-Senate amendment on Korea.

First, I would like to make a few comments about the bill that just passed. This is a very massive piece of legislation. Obviously, there were many legislative authorizations about which I was pleased to hear the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee complain. But there are several in the area of water projects--the Yazoo Pump project in central Mississippi and Devils Lake in North Dakota.

I would like to point out a couple of items of interest.

Report language directs the Agency for International Development to provide at least $2.5 million to the Orangutan Foundation located in Indonesia. The foundation likes to call the orangutan ``the neglected ap.'' Luckily for them, they are not being neglected by the Appropriations Committee. The appropriators not only like orangutan, they are also fond of gorillas. The committee gave $1.5 million to groups such as the Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund.

I do not know why we stop at gorillas. What about man's best friend? What about other species around the world that are endangered? I am sure that animal lovers throughout the world would be pleased to know that we are not just selecting orangutans and gorillas for millions of the taxpayers' dollars, which brings us to the lowly catfish.

Many of my colleagues will remember that last year the lowly catfish was designated as not a catfish but basa, depending on where it was raised. If it was raised in a pond in Vietnam, it was called basa. If it was raised in Arkansas, Mississippi, or other Southern States, it was called a catfish--a very interesting interpretation of species of animals.

Now the Appropriations Committee has done another marvelous feat; that is, we have now concluded that the lowly catfish, heretofore unknown, is related to the cow. In the emergency disaster relief section of this bill a provision was included that would qualify catfish farmers for livestock compensation payments. Perhaps the livestock

compensation program is a Federal farm program that compensates eligible livestock producers such as owners of beef, dairy cattle, sheep, goats or certain breeds of buffalo that have suffered losses or damages as a result of the severe drought.

I discussed this issue with some of my colleagues. The distinguished President informed me that catfish in Tennessee many times walk on land and are seen to be moving about the countryside foraging in various places. That helps me understand the logic of designating the catfish as livestock.

My friend, Mr. Enzi of Wyoming, said he heard that trout can easily die in certain conditions. Trout can easily die. Certainly the same could be said about catfish. That could take place with catfish as well.

I often take issue with various farm policies that disproportionately benefit large agribusinesses or farms at the expense of small farmers and taxpayers or those who compromise American agricultural trade commitments. This effort to compensate catfish farmers from a farm program intended for livestock stands out. I am certain that catfish proponents will offer a dozen different explanations to justify this provision. But hogs, poultry, and horse producers are not eligible under the livestock compensation program. I wonder why catfish should get livestock payments when those worthy animals are excluded, such as hogs, poultry, or horses.

I think it is important for us to recognize that we have now a new category of livestock; and that is catfish. Catfish lovers, and I count myself as one, all over America will be very grateful to know not only are they a tasty treat, but they are eligible for disaster payments so that we can keep Americans supplied with catfish under any circumstances, drought or no drought.

Also, in the recent 2002 farm bill, domestic catfish proponents were successful, as I mentioned, in banning all catfish imports by requiring foreign catfish be labeled as something other than catfish.

I want to mention a few others and make a couple of comments about them.

Included in the bill are earmarks, among many others, such as $200,000 for the Anchorage People Mover in Alaska. Strangely, as I have mentioned in the past on numerous occasions, you will find many earmarks that are designated for the great state of Alaska; $250,000 for the Mary Baldwin College in Staunton, VA, for the Center for the Exceptionally Gifted. Now, my dear friends, they are exceptionally gifted because they have just received $250,000 for the exceptionally gifted. Not many colleges around the country are as lucky and exceptionally gifted as the young men and women at the Mary Baldwin College in Staunton, VA. And $1.5 million for WestStart's Vehicular Flywheel Project in the State of Washington.

One of the unfortunate aspects about an appropriations bill is that quite often, or most of the time, there is not an explanation. As I remember flywheel projects, it seems to me that was a perpetual motion machine. But it is something on which I think we should continue to make an effort. So we have decided to gift WestStart's--I don't know who WestStart's is. I know they are located in the State of Washington--$1.5 million to continue that effort. And $1 million for the National Center for the Ecologically Based Noxious Weed Management at Montana State University.

I think families all over America that have noxious weeds in their yards would be pleased to know that we are continuing a multimillion- dollar effort over a many-year period of time at the uniquely qualified Montana State University to try to get rid of these noxious weeds, or at least manage them, because I don't think they claim to remove noxious weeds. It is just a management program.

There is $600,000 to treat waste on small swine farms in South Carolina. I don't know if that means for small animals or small farms; that was not designated--perhaps both. It is in South Carolina. Since it is only $600,000, we all know it is chicken feed.

But my favorite--I will get to my favorite--again, strangely enough, $100,000 for the Alaska Sea Otter Commission.

There is $300,000 to the Southern Regional Research Center at New Orleans, LA, for termite detection systems, evaluation of wood products for protecting building materials, and bait technology.

Bait technology is something that all of us who love to fish will be very interested in hearing about. As we all know, for those of us who love to fish, bait technology is an intricate and very difficult challenge. So I can certainly see why the Southern Regional Research Center in New Orleans, LA, would be qualified.

There is $200,000 to study seafood waste at the University of Alaska. ``Seafood waste''--I am not exactly sure what that means, but I am sure it is an important study.

There is $300,000 for the Old Stoney feasibility study in Wyoming. Old Stoney, he has been in there before--Old Stoney. And, again, I am not sure exactly what Old Stoney is. I think he is a building, but I am not sure. And I don't know what the feasibility or nonfeasibility is of Old Stoney.

There is $650,000 for grasshopper and Mormon cricket activities in the State of Utah. I don't know exactly what activities the Mormon crickets engage in and grasshoppers, but they are going to have $650,000 to engage in their activities.

Finally, because my colleagues are waiting to speak, there is $1 million for a DNA bear sampling study in Montana. I have to repeat that: $1 million for a DNA bear sampling study in Montana.

Up to this time, in my limited knowledge and experience, I had only known that DNA studies were to determine paternity in the commission or noncommission of a crime. But perhaps there are other uses. And I am not really familiar with a lot of the bears that live up in Montana. But this is really quite a remarkable study--a remarkable study--$1 million.

And I don't know how many bears there are in Montana, but I wonder if probably that amount of money is very significant, because I think it would be very hard to hire people who are eager to go out and get a DNA sample from a grizzly bear. In fact, I would be very interested in knowing the methodology as to how this DNA sampling is obtained from these grizzly bears.

So I wish them all luck up there in Montana. We will eagerly await the results of the DNAs of these bears. And any of them that have been guilty of the commission of some serious crime, I am certain it will help us in identifying them. I do agree that it is very difficult to tell one from another. So that is probably why the DNA is warranted here, as I am sure the Senator from Alaska would allege and the good folks up in Montana who have been plagued with a lack of ability to identify the bears according to their DNA now for several generations.

So I do believe, in a moment of seriousness, we really need to scrutinize some of these appropriations items more carefully. They do amount to a great deal of money. Again, I see this legislating on appropriations continuing, which I think is an unfortunate practice.

I congratulate the distinguished manager of the bill with the efficiency and dispatch in which he handled the legislation today. I congratulate him for his hard work in providing much needed funding so we can now begin next year's efforts. And I look forward to being able to do this 13 times in the coming year rather than just once or twice.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield to the Senator from Arizona concerning a sense-of-the-Senate amendment.

Mr. President, the amendment Senators Bayh, Kyl, Sessions, and I offered expresses the sense of the Senate that North Korea must immediately comply with its international obligations to abandon and dismantle its nuclear weapons programs. As the administration explores a diplomatic solution to the crisis with North Korea, we believe it is important for the Senate to send Pyongyang a clear message that flagrant for its commitments to the United States and the international community remains unacceptable.

Our amendment highlights North Korea's violation of both the Agreed Framework and the North-South Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. It expresses the Sense of the Senate that the Agreed Framework, as a result of North Korea's own actions, is own actions, is null and void, and that North Korea must immediately come into compliance with its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty and other commitments to the international community.

Our amendment states that North Korea's pursuit and development of nuclear weapons represent a serious threat to the security of the United States and our allies; that any diplomatic solution to this crisis must achieve the total dismantlement of North Korea's nuclear weapons and nuclear production capability, backed by intrusive inspections; and that the United States and our regional allies should take measures to ensure the highest possible levels of deterrence and military readiness in the face of the North Korean threat.

We have also worked with Senator Lugar to craft language calling on North Korea to allow full verification of food aid assistance by providing the World Food Program access to all areas of North Korea and permitting the WFP to undertake random inspections. Since 1995, the United States has been the single largest food donor to North Korea, providing $620 million in food aid assistance. We must have confidence that this assistance is going to hungry North Koreans, not the country's political and military elite. I thank the Senator from Indiana for his contribution.

North Korea's pursuit of a nuclear arsenal directly threatens the security of the American people. Those who counsel a return to the status quo fail to grasp the danger of rewarding threats and retreat and concession.

We all hope for a diplomatic solution to the current crisis. But as we have seen in the debate over Iraq and in our previous dealings with Pyongyang, our desire for peaceful outcomes cannot blind us to the dangers of policy drift or diplomatic accommodation in the face of compelling threats to our security.

North Korea and Iraq present different faces of the same danger. I believe North Korea poses a greater danger than Iraq, and confronting it presents a more difficult challenge. That is all the more reason to take whatever action necessary to prevent Saddam Hussein from becoming a threat of equal magnitude, and just as difficult to confront.

But the greater difficulty of resolving the Korean crisis is not the central concern. The greater danger it poses is. This doesn't absolve us of the responsibility to meet and overcome the threat any more than it replaces the necessity of overcoming the threat from Iraq. Nine years ago we faced a difficult set of options in dealing with North Korea. We chose to avoid them, and our irresolution has placed us in even greater danger. I hope we don't make the same mistake again.

Our security depends on preventing North Korea from possessing a nuclear arsenal. That must be the primary object of our diplomacy. Freezing Pyongyang's nuclear program in place while we and our allies prolong the reign of the world's last Stalinist regime does not accomplish that objective, but merely encourages future attempts at nuclear blackmail. In my view, only if North Korea is prepared to surrender the enriched uranium it secretly attained, the spent fuel rods that would yield enough plutonium for three to five nuclear weapons, as well as dismantle the reactor and reprocessing plant it now threatens to restart, should we or any other country consider any assistance that might help North Korea escape the certain destiny of a failed state.

I am pleased the Senate is going on record in its clear support for North Korea's nuclear disarmament, a rigorous inspection regime in any diplomatic agreement that is reached, the highest possible level of military readiness against the threat North Korea poses, and full and effective monitoring of food aid assistance. The burden is on North Korea to comply with its obligations, not on the United States to refrain from telling the truth about this rogue regime, or facing the consequences of the grave threat it poses to our people and our interests.

Mr. President, the Senate has just confirmed the appointment of Asa Hutchinson to serve as the Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security at the Department of Homeland Security. This is a very important position within the newly created Department, and one that encompasses far-reaching responsibilities. Therefore, I am pleased the Senate was able to move expeditiously on this confirmation so that Congressman Hutchinson can be in his position when the new Department officially begins operation tomorrow, January 24.

The Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security is charged with critical duties, including: preventing the entry of terrorists and the instruments of terrorism into the United States; securing the borders, territorial waters, ports, terminals, waterways, and air, land, and sea transportation systems of the United States; administering U.S. customs laws; establishing national immigration enforcement policies and priorities; carrying out INS immigration enforcement functioning; and administering the granting of visas or other forms of permission to enter the United States.

With these duties will go jurisdiction over many existing government units, including the United States Customs Service of the Department of the Treasury, the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, of the Department of Transportation, the Federal Protective Service of the General Services Administration, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center of the Department of the Treasury, and the Office for Domestic Preparedness of the Office of Justice Programs of the Department of Justice.

Security policies are intertwined with safety policies, and many of the Under Secretary's functions are closely linked to other agencies of the federal governmental, such as the modal administrations responsible for transportation safety at the Department of Transportation. Further, many duties overseen by the Under Secretary have been and will continue to be performed by the Coast Guard. All of these functions will have to be carefully coordinated under Congressman Hutchinson's leadership.

The Under Secretary will face many difficult challenges, including those associated with the very serious situation at our southern border. For example, Arizona has been a leading gateway for illegal immigrants into the U.S. since the mid-1990s. Illegal immigrants are dying along on our borders. The attrition rate for Border Patrol Agents and INS inspectors has reached alarming levels. We have reached the point where we now have private citizens taking up arms and forming militia groups to patrol the border because they feel the federal government has failed to protect them. Just yesterday, the Wall Street Journal reported about the death of a U.S. Park Ranger in Arizona who was killed last August along the border, the fourth ranger killed in the line of duty since 1990. Further, uncompensated emergency and medical care provided to undocumented immigrants has left many border hospitals on the verge of financial ruin. Leadership and attention must be paramount in any effort undertaken by the Under Secretary to adequately address the wide range of border security issues, including how to ensure adequate resources are deployed for enforcement purposes.

Yesterday, the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee held its hearing to consider Congressman Hutchinson's nomination. We unanimously approved his nomination earlier today. The new Under Secretary will certainly have our Committee's full support as he takes on the many great challenges that he will face in his new position. The American public is very fortunate to have such a fine, capable, hardworking citizen agree to take on the immense responsibilities associated with this public service position.

I urge my colleagues' swift confirmation of Congressman Hutchinson.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield me 2 minutes?

I have the same concerns as articulated by the chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation of the Commerce Committee, Senator Lott. I know he and I would both be willing to look into this situation.

We are in great sympathy for the entire airline industry. United Airlines is in bankruptcy. They have similar problems.

As far as this giving any leeway is concerned, it says right here:

. . . funding rules [for certain plans] shall apply for any

plan year beginning after December 31, 2002, in the case of a

defined benefit plan. . . .

Then it goes on to describe USAir.

Then later on it says:

. . . the minimum funding requirements under this paragraph

shall be the requirements. . . .

This is clearly a mandate. There is no flexibility in this. We all know what ``shalls'' mean in appropriations bills.

I am in sympathy for the entire airline industry. That is why the first hearing we had in the Commerce Committee was on the status of the airline industry. CEOs of these industries came before us. They are in bad shape. They are in very bad shape. They are hemorrhaging hundreds of millions of dollars every year.

USAir is in bankruptcy. United is in bankruptcy. Others border on bankruptcy. This needs to be viewed in the context of the entire airline industry. As much sympathy as I have for USAir, I don't think we can do something such as this at this particular time on an omnibus appropriations bill.

I want to commit to the Senator from Pennsylvania, I appreciate his dedication to the people of Pittsburgh and to the people who are employed by USAir, and I look forward to working with him.

Senator Kyl and I would both like 15 minutes, if that is agreeable.

Ten each.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Could I ask the regular order?

On behalf of Senator Kennedy, Senator Kyl, Senator Feinstein, and myself, I believe there is an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I join my friend, Senator Kyl, and thank him, Senator Kennedy, Senator Feinstein, and Senator Feingold. I also thank Senator Stevens for his agreement to this amendment which we think is a very important amendment.

I understand that under the previous order, I have 10 minutes and the other Senator from Arizona has 10 minutes.

Mr. President, this amendment restores $165 million, which was the level of funding requested by the President, to the INS for development and implementation of the exit-entry systems to be used at ports of entry across the United States.

Before any of my colleagues might have an impression that somehow I am breaking some of my iron rules, the fact is this amount of money was requested by the President in the President's budget, so what Senator Kyl and

I are achieving here is the restoration of at least some of those funds for this very important program.

This morning, on the front page of the Wall Street Journal:

A Ranger's Death Shows New Hazards Of a Venerable Job. Law

Enforcement Has Become A Bigger Part of Duties; Some Bridle

at the Change. A Gunfight on the Border.

Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Ariz.

In the ovenlike afternoon heat last Aug. 9, Kris Eggle got

a call for help.

Mexican police were chasing a truck that was about to cross

the poorly marked national border into this desert park. Mr.

Eggle, a 28-year-old park ranger, raced to the scene and

found the truck stuck in a dust-filled pothole on the U.S.

side. Several men spilled out and ran.

Mr. Eggle spotted one of them trying to hide behind a bush.

He approached the suspect and prepared to arrest him, when

the man whipped out an AK-47 automatic rifle and fired.

Mr. Eggle, a dedicated member of the U.S. Park Service, was killed in that encounter. He is the fourth park ranger to be killed in recent times as we are experiencing an increasing level of violence on our southern border.

We are in a crisis on our southern border--not just Arizona, but Arizona, unfortunately, is experiencing a majority of these problems because there have been crackdowns in California and in Texas, which has then funneled people up through Arizona.

This is a tragedy--a tragedy. Last year, 320 illegal immigrants died in the desert of Arizona trying to get across, usually exploited by unscrupulous coyotes, as they are called, who brought them across the border and said, ``Tucson is right over the next hill,'' and left them to die in the desert of Arizona.

By the way, the motivation of those who died, I am sure, was simply to get a job so they could feed their families. The ones with the drug smugglers and the coyotes and the bad people, they don't starve in the desert because they know how to survive and they know where to go. Innocent people are dying every day in the deserts of Arizona and across this Nation. These innocent people, very frankly, are coming here because they want a better life in the United States. That is the same reason my ancestors came here and any of us who are not Native Americans.

There is a crisis in health care in Arizona. Emergency rooms are being shut down. Over $100 million in medical expenses was incurred by the State of Arizona last year because of medical services paid for by illegal immigrants. Senator Kyl will talk about the fact that it is the INS people who are waving medical emergencies across the border. That is a Federal responsibility. It is not a State responsibility. It is a Federal responsibility. Enforcement of our border is a Federal responsibility.

Do you know what else is happening? An interesting and very alarming thing is happening. People, believing--correctly--that the Federal Government won't take care of its responsibilities, are beginning to want to take these responsibilities in their own hands in the form of vigilantism.

The Arizona Daily Star, January 3, 2003:

Bisbee militia leader Chris Simcox says he is set today to

launch the first patrols along the border with members of his

Civil Homeland Defense group.

Simcox has said he plans to have groups of armed citizens

patrolling three areas of the Arizona-Mexico line, though he

wouldn't specify the sites.

Do you know what vigilantism leads to, Mr. President? There is no doubt what it leads to; that is the death of innocent people. Our border is uncontrolled. If we are going to win a war on terrorism, how do we know who those 1,000 people a day are? A thousand people a day who are coming across the Arizona border into our country are not just people who are seeking a job, not even just drug smugglers, but could be terrorists, as well.

This amendment is attacking a small part of a major problem that we have in this Nation. I don't think it is a parochial attitude toward my own State when the facts are that three out of every five illegal aliens who are coming into the United States of America are apprehended in the State of Arizona. There are miles and miles and miles of border. What separates the United States of America from Mexico is seven strands of barbed wire. The latest tactic--I don't mean to take too much of my colleagues' time--is to take an SUV, put something in front of it, and bust right through the barbed-wire fence and bring in the drugs and bring in the illegals and everybody else who wants to get in. Senator Kyl went down and talked to a rancher--11 times in 1 week SUVs have driven right across his property, a couple of them armed. Our citizens deserve better than that; those who live along the border, those who run health care facilities along the border, deserve better than that and certainly the citizens of this country deserve a better enforcement of our national borders than they are receiving today.

I say in closing that Senator Kyl and I, along with other border State Senators, intend to make this an issue this year because it has to be addressed. It has to be addressed.

If we are going to preserve the security of this Nation, we have to have protection of our borders. It may cost money. It may be a difficult task to achieve. But the consequences of a failure to act are unacceptable.

I yield the remainder of my time and again I thank Senator Stevens for helping us with this amendment.

Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the debate has to be germane during the first 3 hours of the consideration of the bill under the so-called Pastore rule and that that be enforced.

Mr. President, I ask for a ruling from the Chair raising a point of order that during the first 3 hours of legislation it has to be germane to the pending legislation.

Mr. President, I raise the point of order that the debate is not germane at this time during the first 3 hours of the debate.

Mr. President, again I ask for a ruling of the Chair. The remarks the Senator from West Virginia is making are in a manager's amendment and not included in the present bill.

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

While I am waiting for the clerk, I mention that I was told by the distinguished manager of the bill after the last vote that I would be recognized for the next amendment. That did not happen. In the aspect of senatorial courtesy, I believe I have been given assurances that I would propose the next amendment. It is clear we are on Friday at 12:30, and we have additional amendments, some 40 or 50 amendments, that will require recorded votes. I think it is important at this time we move forward.

I intend to be brief in my description of this amendment and ask for the yeas and nays at the appropriate time. I have an amendment at the desk and ask for its reading.

Mr. President, this amendment would strike section 211 of division B of the resolution. What section 211 of division B does is pretty incredible. It would give the still-to-be created subsidiary of the Malaysian-owned ``Norwegian Cruise Lines,'' owned by Malaysia, the exclusive right to operate foreign-built cruise vessels in the domestic cruise trade.

Effectively, the provision would allow Norwegian Cruise Lines, which bought the pieces and parts of two ``Project America'' cruise vessels following the bankruptcy of a company called American Classic Voyages, to incorporate these parts into large cruise vessels that would be constructed in foreign shipyards. Then, notwithstanding the Passenger Vessel Services Act, the provision would allow the Norwegian Cruise Lines to flag these vessels as if they were U.S.-built vessels and operate them in the domestic trade--guess what--requiring service in Hawaii. The provision also allows the Norwegian Cruise Lines to bring over a third foreign-built ship to operate in the United States of America, in direct violation of existing law.

As many of my colleagues know, I am no fan of the protectionist laws that require domestic cruise ships to be U.S.-owned, U.S.-built, U.S.- flagged, and U.S.-crewed. However, I strongly object to waiving these laws for only one foreign-owned company.

These proposed vessels have a long and sordid history. The pieces and parts that NCL will build into cruise ships have cost the American taxpayers close to $200 million dollars. Again, these parts were bought following American Classic Voyages' bankruptcy, which had begun construction of two vessels in Ingalls Shipyard in Mississippi after securing loan guarantees from the Federal Government through an intensive lobbying effort.

Let me provide some history of American Classic Voyages' ``Project America'' for the record: The project, which was to consist of the construction of two large cruise ships in the United States, received considerable political support over the last several years. This political support translated into language being included in the Department of Defense Appropriation Bill for FY 1998 that granted a legal monopoly for its owner, American Classic Voyages, to operate as the only U.S. flagged operator among the Hawaiian islands. In March of 1999, the contract for Project America was signed with great fanfare in the rotunda of this very building.

Intense lobbying also created the political pressure that helped secure a $1.1 billion loan guarantee from the U.S. Maritime Administration's (MARAD) Title XI loan guarantee program for the construction of these two vessels--which is, by the way, the maximum allowable amount.

Within the first year of construction on the first of these cruise ships, the project was a year to a year and a half behind schedule. Both American Classic Voyages and Northrop Grumman Corporation--Ingalls Shipyard's parent company--were crying foul over construction problems and months of non-binding mediation over contract disputes.

On October 19, 2001, American Classic Voyages filed a bankruptcy petition under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The petition listed total assets of $37.4 million and total liabilities of $452.8 million. The cruise line said in its petition that it has more than 1,000 creditors, including the American taxpayers being represented by the Department of Transportation.

Had the Project America vessels been completed, they would have been the largest cruise ships ever built in the United States and could have sparked a new phase of commercial shipbuilding in this country.

Mr. President, none of that occurred. The failed project is one of the most costly loan guarantees ever granted under the Maritime Loan Guarantee Program. I questioned the merits of the ``Project America'' at the time the special legislation was considered and went so far as to introduce an amendment to the FY 1998 Department of Defense Appropriation Bill to remove the monopoly language. Based on the information available at the time, I believed then that the project was more likely to fail than to succeed.

Guess what? The project did fail. Project America resulted in the U.S. Maritime Administration paying out over $187.3 million of the American taxpayers' money to cover the loan default for this project, and recovering only $2 million from the sale of some of the construction materials and parts. But now, the provision in the Omnibus is built around the scraps of that horribly failed pork project, which would now go into the new venture.

Like ``Project America,'' the provision in this omnibus bill singles out one company; this time it is Norwegian Cruise Lines, for preferential treatment, and gives that company privileges enjoyed by no other. There has been no analysis, no discussion, no hearing, no debate on the value of granting an exclusive exemption for this one foreign- owned company--exclusive exemption from the Passenger Vessel Services Act.

Over the last several years, I have worked with all sectors of the maritime industry to look for solutions that would provide for a healthy U.S.-flagged cruise ship industry calling on ports nationwide. While these efforts have not come to fruition, I am committed to continuing this work. But those efforts will be, and should be, taken in the committee charged with this responsibility, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

The author of this language is a member of the Commerce Committee, and a valued one. I strongly urge him to bring this issue on the agenda of the Commerce Committee and maybe we can work this out, rather than tucking it in as a provision, without any debate, without any discussion, without any authorization at any time, in direct violation of existing law. It is a direct violation, an exemption from existing law, the Passenger Vessel Services Act.

Any proposed legislation from the Commerce Committee will be crafted in an open and inclusive manner, not behind closed doors as appears to have occurred with section 211.

Aside from the procedural concerns I have, section 211 is fundamentally unfair. I firmly believe what is good for one corporation is good for all. Section 211, however, would create an uneven playing field for cruise operators and, depending on how the language was interpreted, also would create an uneven playing field for States by requiring these vessels to operate only in Hawaii, leaving most coastal States with no regular U.S.-flagged cruise ship service.

Following on the heels of the failed attempt by American Classic Voyages to build a large cruise ship in a U.S. shipyard--an effort driven by lobbyists and special interests--I believe further efforts to expand the U.S.-flagged cruise ship fleet should be accomplished through the normal legislative process after debate and open examination. Any solution should benefit a broad section of the U.S. maritime industry and all of our Nation's ports. In order to spur such a debate, I offered that amendment to simply strike the special interest provisions in the omnibus bill. We can do better than this provision.

Let me just give a couple of quotes from the media, this one from the New York Times, June 18, 2002:

Critics Christen Ship Project as an Off-Course U.S.S. Pork.

Two years ago, with waving flags and hula dancers swaying,

the government announced an ambitious program to build two

passenger cruise ships--the first in a United States shipyard

since the 1950's--and provided more than $1 billion in loan

guarantees to get the program going.

It did not hurt that the ships were to be built in the

Pascagoula, Miss., shipyard where the father of Trent Lott,

the Republican Senate minority leader, once worked. As a

result, Senator Lott became one of the strongest supporters

of the program, which was named Project America.

Today, the project is being derided as an example of

political pork gone wrong. What remains of Project America is

an unfinished hull the size of two football fields and pieces

for a second ship lying around. The hull is not floatable; it

has neither a completed bow or stern; and its future is in

doubt. The price to the government for the failed project is

$187 million--money the government is trying to recoup by

putting the half-finished hull on the market.

By the way, they did put it on the market. They sold it for $24 million, of which the American taxpayer got $2 million--1, 2--$2 million, in return for a $187 million default.

How can we come to this body and tell them that we ought to do anything but leave this issue alone for now? Haven't we done enough damage to the American taxpayers? Isn't a $187 million default enough?

This dismal reality only confirms the worst fears of the

project's critics--and is a far cry from the high hopes of

those who backed it. Critics, who call Project America

corporate welfare, say it shows the dangers lurking behind

the tens of billions in loan guarantees the government has

extended to an array of businesses, among them airlines, the

housing industry and American exporters.

``This has turned into a corporate welfare debacle.''

* * * * *

The Maritime Administration's loan program is intended to

support domestic shipyards by guaranteeing the debt issued to

finance commercial ship construction. Last year, the agency

guaranteed $362 million; in 2000, $885 million.

When a project fails--as happened after American Classic's

bankruptcy filing--the government steps in to pay off the

debtholders.

You know, the interesting thing about this, too, this outfit that started this Project America, is there is a billionaire who operates a casino--riverboat. He is a billionaire. He didn't lose any money on this deal. He didn't lose any money. The American taxpayer did, because it was so well crafted, thanks to special interest lobbying, that the only exposure was to the American taxpayer--$187 million worth.

It will be argued that September 11 was the cause of the downfall of this magnificent project.

Even before Sept. 11, Project America had run into trouble.

It had fallen behind schedule and was far over budget. As a

result, Northrop Grumman, which owns the shipyard, took a $60

million write-off from it and American Classic lost $100

million. The yard itself will continue to make and repair

Navy vessels.

``The project was behind schedule and millions in the

hole,'' said John Graykowski, former administrator of the

government's shipbuilding program. ``The terrorists' attack

masked this reality and perhaps allowed the emperor to

maintain his modesty.''

So any argument that it was September 11 that caused this porkbarrel project to fail is simply not in compliance with the facts.

There have been a lot of articles written. There probably should have been more because of the incredible loss to the American taxpayer of $187 million--sorry, $185 million; we got $2 million back.

So now here we go. We take an omnibus appropriations bill of $400 billion and we stick into it a little amendment that violates existing law, protects a Malaysian--gives a special break to a Malaysian-owned Norwegian Cruise Lines, and we are supposed to sit back and accept that. I don't think so. I don't think so. Didn't we learn a lesson last time, when Congress got involved, when there were a few of us who said: Wait a minute, wait a minute, this is crazy; this is just crazy?

How many millions of Americans' taxpayer dollars do we have to spend before we stop this kind of activity?

There are a number of other aspects of this issue. The proposed amendment will achieve the completion of Project America. My response to that--when Project America's earmark was pushed through in 1998, the proponents alleged that the goals were to develop a U.S-built, U.S- flagged cruise vessel fleet by authorizing the temporary operation of foreign-built cruise ships in the domestic trade.

The provision in today's omnibus appropriations bill totally disregards the prior requirement that a company operating foreign-built U.S.-flag vessels in Hawaii trade build the U.S. vessels in the United States. Now they will be built overseas. Instead, 211 will allow the construction of two vessels, using some parts of the failed Project America project, but it would not accomplish the objectives of promoting U.S. shipbuilding, as was one of the alleged benefits under the original project. When the Project America earmark was pushed through in 1998, it was limited to one company and two vessels. When Project America encountered financial problems and then bankruptcy, all of the alleged benefits to the country were lost and cost the taxpayers nearly $200 million.

If the sponsors are now seeking to achieve a new objective--the operation of U.S-flagged cruise vessels regardless of where they are built--then the amendment should be expanded to allow foreign-built cruise vessels to operate under the U.S. flag in all the domestic cruise ship markets in order to increase the alleged economic benefits that would result from U.S-flagged cruise vessels.

As far as military preparedness goes, we don't need to even bother to discuss that.

The proposed amendment will benefit the U.S. economy. It has really benefited the U.S. economy a great deal so far.

The proposed amendment does not perpetuate the Project America monopoly. As drafted, the provision creates a de facto monopoly for one company in the Hawaii cruise trade, arguably in the U.S. coastal cruise market. No other company under this proposal, under this legislation, can operate foreign-built, U.S.-flagged--can, under this proposal, operate U.S.-flagged, foreign-built cruise vessels in the Hawaiian market or any other market. It is totally unrealistic to believe another company will be able to secure financing to build a vessel in the United States for operation in the Hawaii cruise trade in direct competition with the foreign-built, U.S.-flagged cruise vessels that would be authorized to operate under this provision with far less capital investment.

I will be glad to engage in more debate on this issue. This was a terrible thing we did to the U.S. taxpayers back in 1998 under a process that I have vehemently and strongly resisted because of these very circumstances. Provisions are inserted in appropriations bills without hearing, without authorization, without scrutiny.

Then some of us have to come to the floor and object to them without full and certain knowledge of the issue.

I promise you that if I had known for sure we were going to lose $187 million of the taxpayers' money, I would have filibustered.

I knew it was wrong and seriously flawed. I knew that some billionaire who operates riverboats probably isn't very good in the business of building massive cruise ships.

But we cannot continue this kind of activity. Just suppose that this is a good idea, that it is a great idea. Why are we putting it into an omnibus appropriations bill that is supposed to fund the functions of Government and not authorize in direct violation of existing law? How do we justify that?

I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if this amendment is allowed to stand in the appropriations bill without a hearing, without scrutiny, without any examination, without any authorization, it will be a violation of the Passenger Vessel Services Act, which required that any ship operating under these circumstances has to be built in the United States of America.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask the distinguished manager and chairman, does he anticipate further votes following the speaking?

Mr. President, I do not object.