Floor Statements

Mr. President, this past Saturday, November 22, 2003, the Senate passed the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003. Section 214 of the conference report, entitled ``Affiliate Sharing,'' adds a new requirement for a notice and an opportunity for a consumer to opt-out of receiving solicitations from a person based on information that has been shared from an affiliate of that person

Several exceptions to the notice and opt-out requirement are included in the bill. The first, and most logical one, is an exception for a business sending solicitations to its own customers. The conference report defines this as a ``pre-existing business relationship.''

The conference report further defines categories of relationships that qualify as a ``pre-existing business relationship'' and directs the regulators, including the Federal Trade Commission, to use their regulatory discretion to deem any ``any other pre-existing customer relationship'' as qualifying for the definition that may be appropriate but not clear from the statute.

The first category of relationships that the conference report definition of ``pre-existing business relationship'' lists is a relationship based on ''a financial contract between a person and a consumer which is in force.'' ``Financial contract,'' however, is not defined and it is not clear on its face what the term describes. In any case, I believe the operative concern is that it must be a contract in force.

As a conference, I believe the conference report intends that the term ``pre-existing business relationship'' includes a contractual relationship between a consumer and a person, where the consumer has requested the provision of a good or service, or affirmatively registered to receive a service, whether or not a fee is assessed.

Certain business models, such as those in the online world, do not follow the traditional fee for services model that characterizes the brick and mortar world. Financial consideration may not exchange up front with a customer, or at all for that matter. Accordingly, I urge the regulators to factor in new and innovative business models when issuing the regulations implementing section 214 of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003, particularly with regard to the definition of ``pre-existing business relationship.''

Mr. President, as this debate goes forward, it is beginning to take on somewhat of a formulae pattern with one side saying, There are some good things in this bill, but it is so bad that we must do nothing, and the other saying, We have problems; there may be some bad things in this bill, but we have to move forward. Both sides agree the bill is not what individual Senators might prefer, but the way the argument comes down on one side or the other as to the balance.

I am reminded of the statement my father used to make when he served in this body. He said: We legislate at the highest level at which we can obtain a majority. With the Senate as equally divided as this one, with only a one-vote margin between the parties, obtaining a majority is very difficult. I pay tribute not only to the chairman of the Finance Committee, but to the ranking member of the Finance Committee who, in a bipartisan fashion, obtained a majority within that committee and brought a bill that has now obtained a majority in the House of Representatives, however close that was, and is on its way to obtaining a majority in the Senate.

As the debate has gone on, those who are saying, No, this bill is more bad than it is good, seem to have another mantra that I have heard over and over again. That mantra is this: This bill will destroy Medicare. Indeed, there are some who have gone so far as to say that it is the motive and purpose of the Republicans in this matter to destroy Medicare. I have had some say the Republicans have hated Medicare ever since it was established, and they want to kill it, and this bill is somehow a Trojan horse aimed at killing Medicare from the inside.

I reject the notion that the Republicans are trying to kill Medicare. I think that is ridiculous. I don't think there is any indication that is the case, never has been, but it is part of the political mantra that we hear over and over again.

More importantly, I want to address the question of the present health of Medicare absent this bill. We hear over and over again: Medicare is wonderful; we can't tinker with it in any way. The best thing we could do is just take a prescription drug program and put it into the present Medicare mix. Some of the provisions that are in this bill are innovative. Some of the provisions that are in this bill tinker with this wonderful program that everybody loves.

I would suggest to those who have that particular point of view that they should go out and spend some time dealing with Medicare as it presently is constituted, not in the theory of a committee hearing, but on the firing line with providers. Let me give you a few anecdotes out of the real world that have convinced me that while I believe the Federal Government should have the responsibility that it has adopted with respect to Medicare, I do not believe that the present Medicare system is so wonderful that it should not be tinkered with.

Example No. 1: As I have held town meetings around my State, people come to me and talk about their problems. I am sure every Senator has the same experience. Very often, the problems they talk about have to do with Medicare.

A woman came to me and said: I have finally figured out how to deal with Medicare.

It struck me as a little bit strange that she should be talking about Medicare because she didn't strike me as being old enough to worry about Medicare. Then she made it clear; she handles her mother's financial affairs.

So she said: On behalf of my 85-year-old mother, I handle all of her relationships with Medicare. She said: Again, I finally figured out how to handle it: I throw away everything unopened, and then once a month, I call the Salt Lake Clinic and say: How much do I owe you? She said: I am a professional. I am a college graduate. I am an educated woman. I am probably at the top of my powers in terms of my career. I cannot understand anything that comes from Medicare. I open these envelopes, and I try to read what it has to say. It is absolutely impenetrable, and I spent time trying to figure it out; I spent time trying to work it through and finally I adopted my present strategy. Once again, I throw away everything unopened. I don't even bother to look at it, and then at the end of every month, I call the Salt Lake Clinic--which is where her mother gets her health care provided--and I say: How much do I owe you? They give me a number, I write out a check, and life is simple.

She said: I may be overpaying, I may be underpaying, but who knows? Indeed, I don't think there is anybody on the planet who knows how much the bill really should be. She said: I decided that the peace of mind that comes from being able to handle this in this kind of fashion is worth whatever financial discrepancies there might be.

That does not sound to me like a program that is working so well that we can't do a little tinkering with it or a program that is going so smoothly that we can't try some innovation.

Our friends on the other side of the aisle are so horrified that this bill calls for some health savings accounts. I say to them: What are they afraid of? That they will work? Are they afraid the health savings accounts might demonstrate that there is a different way to deal with this, a way that is a little more straightforward, a way that does not involve the mountains of paperwork and the tremendous bureaucracy connected with it?

Example No. 2: I have a daughter of whom I am enormously proud who has a master's degree in speech therapy. After she graduated with that degree from George Washington University, she went to work in a nursing home. This daughter is a very enthusiastic young lady. Some might even suggest she is a little bit excitable. I would not, as her father, make that kind of a charge, but I have heard some who have suggested she gets excited.

She had been on the job, I imagine, a week, maybe a week and a half. She called me. The call came in as calls from my children usually do: Just as I am getting ready to go to bed.

I am so delighted to hear from my children that I do not resent the fact that they prevent me from getting the amount of sleep I would normally like. They can call any time. When she called and I answered, she said: Dad, you are a Senator. You have got to fix Medicare.

I said: OK. Calm down. Tell me what you are talking about.

Then she described the details of the difficulty she was having in her first job in this nursing home trying to provide therapy for seniors who were having serious problems with respect to Medicare. She made this fascinating statement to me. She said: Dad, do you know who the highest paid person in this facility is?

Well, I would have assumed it would be the administrator.

No.

Well, if it is not the administrator, then the most skilled doctor. I can see that a doctor might be paid more than an administrator.

She said: No. The highest paid person in this facility is the woman who is in charge of handling Medicare regulations.

I stopped to think about that for a minute. That means the skill required to understand all of the regulations relating to Medicare is in shorter supply and therefore can command a higher salary than the skill necessary to administer an entire facility or the skill necessary to provide medical services from a skilled physician.

She gave me an example. She said there was a senior in that facility who was having some problems swallowing. The doctor looked at it. The doctor said, I do not understand what the problems are, and called the speech therapist. My daughter, the speech therapist, came in and said: Yes, I understand the problems connected with this. It is fairly straightforward. It is fairly normal among seniors. Here is the way you deal with it. She needs this kind of therapy to deal with her swallowing problems. They are not just minor problems. They could affect her ability to eat and ultimately her ability to live because she needs the nourishment.

So my daughter said: This is what needs to be done.

Well, the relatives of the woman who had the swallowing difficulties said: Absolutely not, until we are sure Medicare will pay for it. We cannot have this kind of procedure and therapy prescribed unless we are sure it is covered by Medicare. If Medicare will pay for it, then grandma can have it, but if Medicare will not pay for it, we are not paying for it, no.

My daughter, in her innocence, first time on the job, said: Let me find out. So she made the inquiry, Will Medicare cover this particular treatment? Three days later, she gets an answer. It took that long to wade through all of the regulations, and all of the rest of it, by this person who was the highest paid person in the nursing home, to figure it out.

My daughter has had the tragic experience of having patients die on her, patients whom she believed she could have helped but was unable to help because of the delays built into dealing with all of the complexities connected with Medicare.

She said, again: Dad, you are a Senator. Fix it.

I said: Well, it takes a little more than one Senator to fix this.

Then she made a very interesting statement. She said: I cannot admit to any of my coworkers in this facility that my father is a Senator because they will be so outraged that my father is a Senator and is not doing anything about fixing Medicare.

So I suggest to those who say Medicare is so sacrosanct that we cannot try anything new, they ought to spend a little time dealing with patients and providers to discover that Medicare has become a bureaucracy of incredible impenetrability and needs to be addressed.

This bill addresses some of those problems. The most significant one, of course, is the fact that Medicare as it currently stands does not provide reimbursement for prescription drugs. Now that is a scandal. Every other health program in this country immediately recognized, as it came along, the shift in the way medicine is practiced in this country, but because Medicare is written by the Congress, it is not flexible enough to make that kind of shift.

We now have prescription drugs that prevent hospitalization, that prevent the necessity for operations and surgical procedures, but Medicare will not reimburse for that even though ultimately it would save tremendous amounts of money. The reason: Medicare is the best Blue Cross/Blue Shield fee-for-service indemnity plan of 1965 frozen in time.

It is almost like a bad movie, a Woody Allen movie where he sleeps for awhile and comes back 40 years later. Medicare has not kept up with the changes in the way medicine is practiced. It has not kept up with all of the things that happen outside of Medicare, in the private world, that happened just because the administrators of the plan look at what is happening in the practice of medicine and say we need to change the plan to adapt to the way medicine is practiced.

Medicare cannot because it has to be changed by Congress, and every time Congress comes along and says we need to try to make some of these changes, we run smack into the political reality that there can be some political hay made by standing up to defend Medicare, by saying the other side is trying to destroy Medicare. The scare tactics of this kind of campaign are something with which we are all familiar.

One of my colleagues on this side described a conversation she had during the 2000 election with her aunt who was in her nineties. Her aunt said: I am not sure I can vote for George W. Bush.

The Senator said: Why not?

She said: Well, he is going to destroy my Social Security.

Wait a minute, said the Senator. Governor Bush has not talked in any sense about your Social Security. He is talking about the future. He is talking about the teenagers. He is talking about the 20-somethings who are just coming into Social Security.

Oh, no, said the woman in her nineties, he is going to destroy Social Security and Medicare. Because she had seen television ads that suggested that any attempt to try to improve, modernize, change, or help either Social Security and Medicare meant destroy, meant we are against it.

We are hearing those same kinds of arguments today. Any attempt on the part of the Finance Committee to improve, change, innovate, experiment, or move in any direction other than the 1965 model is somehow an attempt to destroy.

Well, it is not. I think we all understand that. But that makes for a great bumper sticker. It makes for a great television 30-second sound bite to attack anybody who wants to try anything new as being against the old and, therefore, trying to destroy the whole program.

I have problems with this bill, as does every other Member of this body one way or the other. There are lots of things in it that I do not like and lots of things in it that I think will make the problem I have just described worse, make Medicare even more impenetrable than it is now, but I intend to vote for it. I intend to vote for it with enthusiasm, and I ask my colleagues to do the same thing, because for the first time since 1965, it is at least willing to break down some of the walls that have been built around this program. For the first time since 1965, it is at least willing to try and see if we can get a little experience with a few things that can move us into the 21st century.

I am sure I will be attacked in my election this November as being one who voted to destroy Medicare by virtue of this vote, by those who will want to continue to raise the specter that any kind of innovation or change is an attack at the fundamental program.

But let us understand the most important thing we are faced with here. Let us understand if we do nothing, if we preserve this program as it currently exists, it will destroy itself. This is not a partisan statement, this is not some conclusion Republicans have come to and Democrats dispute. The demographics are irresistible. What is happening in our country as we become older and older, as the good health care that we are receiving makes us live longer and longer, that demonstrates a financial situation that is unsustainable.

If we do nothing with Medicare in the name of preserving Medicare, we watch Medicare self-destruct. That is inexorable. There is no way around it.

I would have suggestions that would go far beyond what this bill does in moving us away from the present paradigm of Medicare into a world of innovation, change, and experimentation, not because I want to destroy Medicare but because I want it to survive. If you leave it on its present course, it is not going to survive.

There are a few halting steps in the right direction in this bill. We need more of them. We cannot stop with this bill. The Congresses of the future will have to deal with this problem, and it will only get worse the longer we delay taking those steps.

So I say let's take those steps now. Let's start with this bill with the full understanding, and with eyes wide open, that the future is going to bring us back to this issue again and again. The demographics are inexorable. They are going to require changes in the next Congress and in the Congress after that and in the Congress after that. They are going to force us to get out of the mindset that we have had since the 1960s, and that has nothing to do with who is in the White House or who controls the Senate in a partisan fashion. Those demographics are there. They are bearing down on us. The quicker we can understand that and begin to think in new ways, begin to experiment with new methods, the sooner we will solve the problem, not only for our existing seniors but, perhaps more important, for the baby boomers who are becoming seniors. We have to think in a new fashion or they will run into a demographic brick wall that will see this program self-destruct regardless of what we do.

So, as I say, for that reason, with all the problems I see in the bill, I am going to vote for it, and I am going to hope that future Finance Committees and Ways and Means Committees will move us in the direction of innovation and experimentation so we can boldly begin to find solutions to the problems that we face.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation authorizing the title transfer of certain features of the Provo River Project, UT, from the Bureau of Reclamation to non-Federal ownership. This title transfer will provide many benefits, both directly and indirectly, for both the local government and the Federal Government, including economic, environmental, recreational, and safety benefits.

The facilities to be transferred are the Provo Reservoir Canal and associated lands and structures, the Salt Lake Aqueduct and associated lands and structures, and a 3.79 acre parcel of land in Pleasant Grove, UT. The Provo Reservoir Canal is a large, open, mostly unlined, 21.5 mile long canal that was constructed by the United States in the 1940s. The water transported through the Provo Reservoir Canal is used principally for municipal and industrial purposes. The Salt Lake Aqueduct is a 41.7 mile long, 69 inch diameter pipe, constructed by the United States and completed in 1951. The Provo River Water Users Association recently constructed a $2 million office and shop complex on the Pleasant Grove property, without the use of Federal funds.

Title transfer will facilitate the use of tax-exempt bond financing and low-interest loan financing for needed improvements. Currently, there is no Reclamation program for rehabilitating aging Reclamation facilities. Federal ownership of the facilities to be improved prevents low interest loans by others. On the Federal level, the transfer would eliminate the demands on limited Reclamation resources for the administration of the Salt Lake Aqueduct and the Provo Reservoir Canal.

It is anticipated that following title transfer, needed improvements would be made. For example, the Provo Reservoir Canal will be enclosed to provide for the conservation of water, improved water quality and security, the construction of a public trail system on top of the canal, and to eliminate the hazards of an open unlined canal in an urban environment. The critical importance of eliminating the safety hazard of an open canal in an urban setting was recently reinforced by the tragic death of two young men who unfortunately were lured by the thrill of attempting a swim through the canal to the other end. The enclosure of the canal would eliminate this safety risk and hopefully prevent any others from making a similar mistake.

The transfer has significant local support, including Utah County, Salt Lake County, Sandy City, Salt Lake City, Lindon City, Draper, Pleasant Grove City, Orem City and American Fork City.

I look forward to working with the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy, the Provo River Water Users Association, and all interested parties to make this title transfer a success.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation authorizing the title transfer of certain features of the Provo River Project, UT, from the Bureau of Reclamation to non-Federal ownership. This title transfer will provide many benefits, both directly and indirectly, for both the local government and the Federal Government, including economic, environmental, recreational, and safety benefits.

The facilities to be transferred are the Provo Reservoir Canal and associated lands and structures, the Salt Lake Aqueduct and associated lands and structures, and a 3.79 acre parcel of land in Pleasant Grove, UT. The Provo Reservoir Canal is a large, open, mostly unlined, 21.5 mile long canal that was constructed by the United States in the 1940s. The water transported through the Provo Reservoir Canal is used principally for municipal and industrial purposes. The Salt Lake Aqueduct is a 41.7 mile long, 69 inch diameter pipe, constructed by the United States and completed in 1951. The Provo River Water Users Association recently constructed a $2 million office and shop complex on the Pleasant Grove property, without the use of Federal funds.

Title transfer will facilitate the use of tax-exempt bond financing and low-interest loan financing for needed improvements. Currently, there is no Reclamation program for rehabilitating aging Reclamation facilities. Federal ownership of the facilities to be improved prevents low interest loans by others. On the Federal level, the transfer would eliminate the demands on limited Reclamation resources for the administration of the Salt Lake Aqueduct and the Provo Reservoir Canal.

It is anticipated that following title transfer, needed improvements would be made. For example, the Provo Reservoir Canal will be enclosed to provide for the conservation of water, improved water quality and security, the construction of a public trail system on top of the canal, and to eliminate the hazards of an open unlined canal in an urban environment. The critical importance of eliminating the safety hazard of an open canal in an urban setting was recently reinforced by the tragic death of two young men who unfortunately were lured by the thrill of attempting a swim through the canal to the other end. The enclosure of the canal would eliminate this safety risk and hopefully prevent any others from making a similar mistake.

The transfer has significant local support, including Utah County, Salt Lake County, Sandy City, Salt Lake City, Lindon City, Draper, Pleasant Grove City, Orem City and American Fork City.

I look forward to working with the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy, the Provo River Water Users Association, and all interested parties to make this title transfer a success.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I am interested to hear the Senator make the point that an up-or-down vote is what we are asking for. The Senator was in the Chamber when the cartoon was displayed with highly offensive racial characteristics attributed to the judge from California. I ask the Senator if he is aware that this African-American woman, who in my opinion has been slandered, has been the subject of comment by Al Sharpton, one of the candidates for President. Al Sharpton said he disagrees with the woman and believes she is not qualified to sit on the bench but that she is entitled to an up-or-down vote. Is the Senator aware of Mr. Sharpton's comment on that?

I would say I almost never agree with Reverend Sharpton, but I have seen the diligence with which he and other civil rights leaders have pounced upon any politician who has ever dared hint at any kind of racial slur or attack on an African American. At least he has shown this degree of consistency, that he has now spoken up against those who are Democrats who may have been guilty of a racial slur, and come to the defense of an African American, even though he disagrees with her.

I think it appropriate for us to note that. I appreciate the Senator's yielding to me for the opportunity to make that comment.

May I respond?

Mr. President, I will answer the Senator from Louisiana.

I am unaware of how many nominees did not get out of committee. I am unaware of what may have happened prior to a nomination coming to the floor. But I do know I would allow a vote on every nominee who comes to the floor, regardless of which party it may be or regardless of which President might put that nominee forward. And I would agree with Al Sharpton or anyone else who called for an up-or- down vote, without a filibuster, on any nominee, any judicial nominee who has come forward.

There is no question but nominees get lost in committees. There is no question nominees get held up by holds and other activities. But once a nominee has been cleared by a majority vote of the committee and placed on the floor, that nominee is entitled to an up-or-down vote. I have always held that position. I always will hold that position. It is for that reason I will support the Frist-Miller rule change that will make that position very clear.

I do not care who the President is, under the Constitution he or she has the right to make nominations. The Senate handles those nominations. I understand sometimes those nominations will be stopped in committee. But once the committee has voted by a majority vote to put the nomination on the floor, whether it is my President or someone else's President, I will always support and always have supported the notion that that individual is entitled to an up-or-down vote.

Mr. President, we have compared numbers around here, particularly the number of 168 to 4 over and over again. I make it clear that these two numbers are not in the same ballpark; that is, this is not 168 who have been approved and 4 who have been disapproved. There has been no vote disapproving the 4. Rather, it is 168 who have received a vote in the tradition and the precedent set and maintained for 214 years.

The Constitution was ratified in 1789, and from that time forward there has never been an instance where a judge reported out of the Judiciary Committee, or whatever committees preceded the Judiciary Committee in the existence of the Senate, never been a time when a judge whose name has come to the floor has been denied a vote until this year. If you take apples and apples, if you take the number of those reported to the floor and voted on until this year, the number was 2,372-0 for 214 years. Whether it was under control of the Democrats or the Republicans, this body never denied a reported nominee a vote. Some of those who got votes got defeated, but no one who was reported was denied a vote until this year.

We talk about the law. We talk about the Constitution. One of the parts of the law as I understand it becomes established is the question of precedent, 214 years of precedent, 2,372 cases of precedent upset in this Congress by the Democratic leadership.

A lot of people have called a lot of people names during this debate. I don't want to do that. I was urged to do that just before I came over here by some who said: Why don't you say the kind of things about them they are saying about you or their nominees? Mix it up.

I don't want to do that because I don't think that is useful. What I would like to urge on the Senate on this occasion is that we go back to a proposal that was made some years ago by the Democrats, specifically, Senator Lieberman and Senator Harkin, a proposal endorsed by Senator Daschle, that said let us eliminate the filibuster for nominees, start out with a 60-vote cloture motion, followed up with a second cloture motion at a lower level, follow it up with another cloture motion at another level, and so on. The Republicans did not endorse that. I am, today, rising to endorse that. I am today rising to say, we thought that rule change was not necessary because we thought the precedent would hold. But the precedent has now been broken. The precedent did not hold.

The time has come to recognize the wisdom of Senator Lieberman and Senator Harkin and Senator Daschle and others to change the rules. The vote we will have tomorrow on what is now called the Frist-Miller proposal is a vote to endorse the wisdom and farsightedness of Senator Lieberman, Senator Harkin, and Senator Daschle in previous Congresses. And the practical effect of passing Frist-Miller will be to establish in the Senate rules a 214-year-old precedent that has been broken in this Congress for the first time. The effect would be to establish in the Senate rules a precedent that has held up 2,372 times, and has only fallen in this Congress. It will be a vote to make a bipartisan solution to a problem that has spawned far too much acrimony, far too much controversy. It will be a permanent solution to this matter.

It will not solve the question of Miguel Estrada who was tired of having his reputation trashed and decided to withdraw and thus deprive the United States of the opportunity to have the services of a man who excelled academically, who excelled professionally, who, though he was appointed to the Solicitor General's office by the first President Bush, was maintained in that office for several years by President Clinton because they thought he was that good.

Today he has been attacked on this floor as a lemon, someone who deserved to be rejected. We have fallen to that level of discourse, and we should avoid that level of discourse. Let us adopt a bipartisan solution which Republicans previously blocked. This Republican is prepared to repent. This Republican is prepared to say, OK, I recognize the wisdom of Senator Lieberman's proposal. I am willing to endorse it. Now it is before us once again. Let us not kill it just because it bears the name Frist-Miller instead of the names Lieberman-Harkin as it originally had.

Give Members an opportunity to put the bitterness, the wild and sometimes excessive statements behind us and move forward in the future as we have done in the past for 214 years to see to it that any nominee who makes it through the committee process and gets reported to the floor gets voted on, whether he or she is a Republican or a Democrat, Hispanic or an African American, a Roman Catholic or a Jew or whatever the situation. If he or she survives the committee process and comes to the Senate floor, he or she deserves a vote in the same tradition that we have followed for 214 years.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on Veterans Day, it is fitting to pause, remember and recognize the contributions of those who have defended America throughout our history. Today, I would also like to recognize a man who risked his life to save his fellow marines in the horrific World War II battle for Iwo Jima.

Historian David Kennedy, in his book ``Freedom from Fear,'' describes the battle of Iwo Jima:

The twenty-one-thousand-man Japanese garrison had

honeycombed Iwo's basaltic ridges and Suribachi's ashen

flanks with reinforced concrete-and-steel bunkers and stuffed

them with artillery, antiaircraft guns, mortars, and machine

guns. They were so well and deeply entrenched that seventy-

two days of aerial bombing and three days of naval shelling

barely scratched them. At first light on February 19 two

divisions of marines, each man carrying up to a hundred

pounds of gear, stepped from their amphtracs onto Iwo's

beaches and sank to their boot-tops in the powdery mixture of

sand and volcanic ash. Vehicles, including tanks and half-

tracks, soon bogged down in the quicksand-like topping of

pumice and cinder that blanketed the island. From the

Japanese bunkers and pillboxes a hellish rain of shells and

bullets pelted the beaches, where the marines seemed to be

moving in slow motion through the sucking sand . . .

The battle ground on . . . with unmatched barbarity.

Japanese soldiers stubbornly refused to surrender. When the

fighting ended at last in late March, only a few hundred

Japanese, mostly wounded, had allowed themselves to be taken

prisoner.

From February 19 to March 25, 1945, 6,140 Marine and Navy soldiers were killed on Iwo Jima and 17,372 were wounded. Nearly two of three soldiers who fought on Iwo Jima were killed or wounded. Twenty-two Marines and four corpsmen received medals of honor.

During those terrible days of February and March of 1945, George E. Wahlen was a medical corpsman. James Bradley, in the book, Flags of our Fathers said this:

. . . In the European theater, my dad (a navy corpsman)

would have worn a red cross on his helmet and expected the

Germans to spare him as a noncombatant. And he would have

been unarmed, according to the Geneva Convention. but the

Pacific theater was different. . . . The Japanese on Iwo Jima

had been trained to look for corpsmen by identifying their

telltale medical pouch--and shoot them on the spot. Without a

corpsman to save the wounded, the Japanese knew, their kill

ratio would be much higher . . .

Though seriously wounded three times in 26 days, corpsman George Whalen refused evacuation and repeatedly defined heavy mortar and rifle fire from the enemy to find and treat his wounded comrades. Disregarding his own safety, he continued to cross open terrain under fire to aid his friends, until he was so badly wounded, he could no longer walk. Even then, he carried on, crawling across the ground through the raging battle to administer aid to yet another fallen comrade. For his unselfish and steadfast courage, and for ``conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty.'' George Wahlen was awarded the Medal of Honor, and is Utah's only living recipient of that rare recognition.

We are all familiar with the language of military honors, but, in these challenging times, where American soldiers and sailors, airmen and marines, once again are serving in foreign lands and showing the same gallant spirit of sacrifice and courage in the face of battle, we need to hear it again. I would like to quote from Mr. Wahlen's citation:

Painfully wounded . . . he remained on the battlefield,

advancing well forward of the front lines to aid a wounded

marine and carrying him back to safety despite a terrific

concentration of fire. Tireless in his ministrations, he

consistently disregarded all danger to attend his fighting

comrades as they fell under the devastating rain of shrapnel

and bullets. . . . When an adjacent platoon suffered heavy

casualties, he defied the continuous pounding of heavy

mortars and deadly fire of enemy rifles to care for the

wounded, working rapidly in an area swept by constant fire

and treating 14 casualties before returning to his own

platoon. Wounded again . . . he gallantly refused

evacuation, moving out with his company the following day in

a furious assault across 600 yards of open terrain and

repeatedly rendering medical aid while exposed to the

blasting fury of powerful Japanese guns. Stouthearted and

indomitable, he persevered in his determined efforts as

his unit waged fierce battle and, unable to walk after

sustaining a third agonizing wound, resolutely crawled 50

yards to administer first aid to still another fallen

fighter. By his dauntless fortitude and valor, Wahlen

served as a constant inspiration and contributed vitally

to the high morale of his company during critical phases

of this strategically important engagement. His heroic

spirit of self-sacrifice in the face of overwhelming enemy

fire upheld the highest traditions of the U.S. Naval

Service.

James Bradley, in an article in the Wall Street Journal on November 10, 2002, considered the phrase ``Uncommon Valor was a Common Virtue'' in his search to learn the story of his dad, and others at Iwo Jima. Mr. Bradley wrote:

Corpsman George Wahlen was injured in the eye and shoulder,

but patched himself up secretly so he would not be evacuated.

When an exploding shell shattered his ankle, leaving his foot

dangling and all but disconnected from the leg, he shot

himself with morphine, taped up his ankle, and crawled back

to the fight with one good eye, one good arm, and one good

leg. Corpsman Wahlen had to be dragged off the field of

battle. ``Why?'' I asked. He answered, ``I just did what

anyone else would have done in the situation.''

. . . I thought to myself, ``If uncommon valor was so

common on Iwo Jima, why can't I find the Rambos of my

imagination?'' All I could find were humble guys who insisted

they hadn't done much . . . But I realized then that what my

dad's life and words, and the words and lives of these other

heroes, were trying to tell me, was that it was all about

common virtue.

My dad and his comrades were men of common virtue before

Iwo Jima, on Iwo Jima, and after Iwo Jima. Their actions and

lives were consistent . . . I realized that the key to my

dad's life was the attitude of common virtue he practiced

throughout his days. . . . My dad, running through bullets on

Iwo Jima, doing his duty in the Pacific. My dad having the

patience to teach me, a young son, how to tie his shoes. My

dad, just lending a hand in his community. . . . And I am

confident that if my dad were here to read these words about

common virtue being the root of heroism, he would shake his

head in agreement and say: ``It's as simple as that.''

Mr. Wahlen has demonstrated common virtue throughout his life and continues to do so. He did not end his service on Iwo Jima. Following World War II, true to the code of what Tom Brokaw called ``the greatest generation,'' he went on to serve his country in two more wars and to dedicate countless volunteer hours in following years to the service of his fellow veterans.

It is to honor this fine and humble man, who would be the last to claim such an honor for himself, that I am proposing to change the name of the Department of Veterans Affairs' Medical Center in Salt Lake City, UT to the ``George E. Wahlen Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center.'' Senator Hatch and I introduced this legislation, S. 1815, last week.

This is a proper and fitting thing to do, not only because of Mr. Wahlen's accomplishments and service, but also because he is beloved by his fellow veterans. This is made clear by the unanimous support I received in support of this change from all of the State commanders and directors of Utah's veterans' organizations and State and Federal agencies: the American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the VA Regional Office, the Utah Division of Veterans Affairs, and the VA Medical Center itself.

When carrying the 2002 Olympic Torch George Wahlen said, ``It's an honor, but I feel like I'm representing all the veterans in the State of Utah.'' He has represented veterans so often over the last 30 years. In this circumstance, we honor George Wahlen, as a veteran, a Medal of Honor recipient, a man of both valor and virtue, and as a representative of all of the veterans who have served their country.

Many veterans who returned as heroes are often uncomfortable with the designation of heroes. James Bradley, in Flags of our Fathers, recounted a story where his third grade teacher referred to James's father as a hero and wanted him to come and speak to his

class. He recounts the exchange with his father:

``Jim, your teacher said something about heroes . . .''

I shifted expectantly in my chair, waiting to hear some

stories of valor. Instead he looked me directly in my nine-

year-old eyes, signaling that he'd like to embed an idea in

my brain for the rest of my life. He said ``I want you to

always remember something. The heroes of Iwo Jima are the

guys who didn't come back.''

Today, we remember those who came back and those who didn't--those who didn't come back from Iwo Jima, from Guadalcanal, from Normandy, from Vietnam, from Korea, from Afghanistan, from Iraq.

While words fail to make an adequate tribute to those who lost their lives and paid a price in sacrifice for what we enjoy today, I will borrow from what has already been written. In 1940, Winston Churchill spoke to the House of Commons in relation to the Battle of Britain. He said, ``Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.''

There are heroes that never came back. There are heroes that did. Let us not forget.

Mr. President, the fiscal year 2004 Agriculture, Rural Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act includes appropriations for the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Review of the Food and Drug Administration to continue important vaccine and biological product research activities. Support of these research activities is essential for keeping CBER scientists and medical reviewers up-to-date and knowledgeable of the breakthrough science of vaccine and biological product research and development. Being involved in this cutting edge research better equips CBER scientists and reviewers with the best scientific-based tools for reviewing and regulating the safety and efficacy of live-saving vaccines and other biological products.

During our subcommittee and Committee deliberations, many colleagues shared my concerns about the emergence of SARS, West Nile Virus, monkey pox, antibiotic resistant staphylococcal infections in hospitals, and other naturally-occurring infectious diseases in the U.S. I believe there is a need to expedite the development and licensing of new vaccines and biologicals to protect our citizens from these naturally- occurring infectious diseases. As with recent efforts and increased appropriations to augment research, regulatory testing and scientific capabilities of the FDA to assist in combating bioterrorism threats, I endorse FDA's continued support of those capabilities at the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research to combat the public health threats from naturally-occurring diseases. It is my view that continued support of these capabilities will better enable the Center to recruit and retain highly-qualified, motivated scientists and medical reviewers for vaccines and other biological products.

In past years, CBER scientists engaged in laboratory and clinical research, which greatly improved their understanding of the science, their mission of assuring the safety and efficacy of the products under review by FDA, the medical needs of patients, and alternative products available. This understanding resulted in a more efficient and rapid agency licensing processes for many new products, which presented complex scientific, medical and public health issues. For example, CBER reviewers deeply involved in relevant laboratory research were responsible for the complex yet expeditious regulatory review and licensing of the four combination diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis (DTaP) vaccines and the four Hib (meningitis) conjugate vaccines during the last decade.

Past CBER research has significantly contributed to technology transfer and benefited the public through the development of assays and reagents, which would otherwise be too costly and time-intensive for industry to duplicate. This research has facilitated the expedited testing, development, and availability of several important licensed vaccines for the prevention of life-threatening pediatric diseases and is critical for others currently under development for licensing in the future.

Mr. President, I urge the Administration to provide sufficient funding in fiscal year 2005 for continued CBER research. These appropriations are essential for expediting not only the development and availability of licensed counter-bioterrorism vaccines and biological products, but also for those intended for the prevention and treatment of naturally-occurring infectious diseases, such as SARS, West Nile Virus and HIV-AIDS.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now return to legislative session.

I ask unanimous consent that we resume consideration of

I understand there are a number of amendments to be offered. Senator Dorgan has approached me about one he would like to offer. I have no particular preference as to the order in which the amendments come. I understand some Senators wish to make comments before we get into the amending process. I do not see the Senators in the Chamber who told me they planned to make some kind of a statement.

Senator Kohl and I are open for business.

Mr. President, I am thinking we should not plan on any votes until maybe 2 or 2:30. I understand there are some conflicts going on on both sides of the aisle. I would say to the Senator, if he is going to insist on a rollcall vote, we should stack it at that time.

I have a problem with the Senator's amendment in that the offset he cites is from buildings and facilities at the Department of Agriculture. One can say, well, you can always find an extra

$5 million, but that is an account that is committed to lease payments and other contracts that have been established for a while. It is $5 million, which in the scheme of things is not all that much money, but the offset is a bit problematical. We did fund this program at the requested level of $10 million, so it is going above the level.

These are the only comments I have on the amendment. I say to the Senator, if he insists on a rollcall vote, we possibly could set a time some time after 2 or 2:30 where the votes might occur, and I would hope to stack some votes at that time on amendments.

Mr. President, I thank my ranking member for his thoughtful analysis of this and concur. We will be happy to look through the bill and see if we can find an offset and, as he said, if not this year, then in future years, because I do think the issue the Senator from New Mexico has raised is a legitimate one.

Amendment No. 2115 Withdrawn

If the Senator will stay on the floor for a moment longer. If he doesn't talk when he comes back at 2 o'clock, we will accept the amendment now, at 1 o'clock; is that acceptable?

I am always happy to engage in a little humor with my friend. We served together as chairman and ranking member on another subcommittee. I assure him I am always happy to hear him at any time on any subject.

To move the bill forward, I have checked with Senator Kohl and he is fully in support of the Dorgan amendment. I have no objection to it. I ask unanimous consent that it be agreed to.

Mr. President, I see the senior Senator from Delaware here. I don't think he will talk about mad cow disease. I am happy to yield what time he might require for his statement. I ask him in advance if he will tell us how much time he will use.

I send the message out to those enjoying lunch, or those who are at the White House, or wherever, that we intend to finish this bill today. The assistant Democratic leader has told me that it is his desire from the other side that we finish this bill today. So I hope Senators who have amendments will come to the floor in a timely fashion. We will do the best we can to deal with the amendments in a timely fashion so we can finish the bill and get it on its way.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have no objection.

Mr. President, in an effort to establish a glidepath for us to bring this particular airplane in for a landing, in consultation with the assistant Democratic leader, I intend to offer a unanimous consent request that would set a time agreement for the debate on the country-of-origin labeling amendment. It would be my intention, once that time has expired, that we would turn to the amendment the Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from Montana wish to offer. At that time, I would be prepared to attach a time agreement to their offering of that amendment, as well as offering a time agreement to attach to the amendment to be offered by the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy. As far as I know, those are the only three amendments remaining that would require a rollcall vote.

So I say to the Senator from North Dakota, I would ask him to support my unanimous consent request that I will now propound, with the commitment on my part that as soon as the time has expired on the country-of-origin labeling amendment, we would then go to his amendment. I think the appropriate thing would be for him to offer his amendment at that time and then go directly into debate of that amendment.

With that explanation, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 4:30 this afternoon be equally divided for debate on the Daschle amendment No. 2078; provided, that at 4:30 the amendment be temporarily set aside and a vote occur in relation to the amendment at a time to be determined by the majority leader, after consultation with the Democratic leader; provided further, that no amendments be in order to the amendment prior to the vote.

Mr. President, I have no objection.

It is my understanding--if this unanimous consent request is agreed to--that debate on the Daschle amendment will cease at 4:30; we will then address the other amendments--only two of which I know of would require a rollcall vote--and if the majority leader and the Democratic leader so determine, we would then have a series of stacked votes on those three amendments.

Now, if other amendments arise, we can deal with them, but at the moment this is what we believe we have before us.

I thank the assistant Democratic leader and repeat his plea to Senators on our side of the aisle. If there are additional amendments, the time to call them to our attention is rapidly running out.

Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

Mr. President, I ask how much time would the Senator like?

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Idaho in opposition to the Daschle amendment.

Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I was interested to have one of the Senators point out that most Senators don't know anything about this because it was done in conference committee, and I certainly qualify as one who didn't know anything about it at the time the conference committee came to the floor. I have had a crash course in country of origin labeling since I became chairman.

I have come to several conclusions, which I will share with the Senate. No. 1, the bill was very badly written. I don't think there is any question about that. The idea of having consumer information with respect to food is a perfectly legitimate idea. It does indeed fit the pattern of consumers, and I have no problem with it. But it is clear, as we get into the details of this, that the bill that originally required it is very badly written. It uses the phrase, for example, ``born, raised, and slaughtered in the United States.''

I ask this question: What if you only get two out of three of those? What does that do to you with respect to the piece of beef you are talking about? Suppose it was born in one country, fed in another, and slaughtered in a third? That is not likely, but it is entirely possible. And from which country does it come?

You can say it is clearly not American beef if it was born in Canada, fed at feedlots in the U.S, and for some purpose, shipped to Mexico to be slaughtered, packed, and sent back. But what country is its country of origin? If you say it was born in Canada, it is Canadian.

Why does the law say ``born, raised, and slaughtered''--those three categories--if only one matters?

This is an interesting challenge because we have critters walking around on the range right now that were born somewhere prior to the passage of this law, and on which there are no records, which are going to end up in the food supply as hamburger or pot roast. Who is going to certify where they came from, with no records having been kept? That could be an argument for delaying the implementation of this legislation.

Ultimately, I say with some facetiousness but some seriousness, we are talking about a situation where, in order to comply with the law, every animal has to have a birth certificate and a passport. The passport has to be stamped every time it crosses State lines. Someone called me and said: Bob, we have to pass this because there are all kinds of piglets being born in Canada and then being shipped to the United States. I find that they are shipped to the United States within days after their birth. They are born in Canada, but they are shipped here, truly as piglets, almost within days or weeks after birth, and then the entire processing takes place in the United States. These are American jobs, American facilities that are handling them.

Do we say, because of their birth, they are Canadian, but because they are raised and slaughtered in the United States, does that make them naturalized American citizens or American pork, if you will? The law is badly written, and it clearly needs work or we would not be having this argument. Everyone I hear who opposes the Daschle amendment begins his statement by saying: I am in favor of country-of-origin labeling. But they are opposed to this particular legislation as it stands.

One of the other things that is wrong with it, in my view, is the $10,000-per-violation provision. If I am running a supermarket, and someone says, here is some American beef, and I am potentially liable for a $10,000 violation for every single one of those hamburger patties because each sale is a separate circumstance, I am going to say to the producer: I will not take your beef unless you are prepared to indemnity me against any lawsuits that might come from the Trial Lawyers Association if some consumer activist comes in here and can prove that particular hamburger pattie originated in Canada. I am not going to run that risk.

I think the Senator from Missouri was exactly right when he said the lawyers will be telling their corporate boards: Assume the worst and be as careful as you possibly can. Again, we have critters out there on the range that were born before the law was passed that are going to end up in the meat locker, and how are they going to be labeled? If they are mislabeled, there is a $10,000 fine for every pot roast that comes from those particular cows.

I am not sure the House solution is the right solution. I am not prepared to go to conference saying I will stand with the House language, because I think there is an alternative that might well be worked out, and should be worked out in conference, to say this is how we buy a little more time to deal with the uncertainties we have here, and we hope give the authorizing committee the opportunity to take another bite at the apple and see if they cannot write a country-of- origin labeling law that makes more sense than the present one.

But the Daschle amendment, by its nature, and by the debate and legislative history that is being laid down, is saying you enforce the law exactly as it stands, no changes. For that reason, I intend to vote against the Daschle amendment because I think there needs to be changes, and I think the debate demonstrates there needs to be changes. I hope the Daschle amendment is defeated.

When we get to conference, I hope the House language is modified and we use the vehicle of the conference to try to prod the authorizing committee in the direction of rewriting the basic bill so it can become workable.

One final example of how the statute is written that is unworkable, in my opinion, is that it prohibits the use of an identification mechanism to verify origin of the covered commodity. The Senator talked about putting an ear tag on the cow. That is illegal under this law. He is talking about the expense of it. It is the commonsense way to tag cattle. It is illegal, the way this thing is written.

So, as I say, as I have become acquainted with the whole matter, coming to it completely fresh and completely uneducated as to the issues before I had to look at it, I find myself in favor of the argument that consumers should know from which country the food comes. I have no problem with that at all, but I am convinced the law, as presently written, was so hastily put together that it has serious problems that cannot be fixed by regulations from USDA. I think they are acting in good faith in the regulations they drafted.

The question came up in the hearing when Secretary Veneman was asked: Why are you proposing such a cumbersome regulation?

She said: Because we believe it complies with the law.

She was asked: Whose interpretation tells you this complies with the law?

She said: The United States Department of Justice. The lawyers in the Justice Department looked at the law and said you have to have these burdensome regulations.

So I think there is a solution to this. I think we can work our way through it in time. There is time between now and November for us not to argue about should we implement the law as it stands, or should we prevent the law from going forward as it stands, but do what I think is the commonsense thing, which is simply rewrite the law.

Based on all of the research and evidence that has gone into the drawing of the regulation, we can now do it with a

little more leisure and more intelligence than was done the first time around.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and request that the time for the quorum call be charged equally to both sides.

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

Further, I ask unanimous consent that the time running on the Daschle amendment be set aside and reserved.

And that we now allow the Senator from North Dakota to proceed with his amendment.

It would be my intention, when Senator Harkin arrives to speak on the Daschle amendment, to ask that the Senator from North Dakota summarize his remarks to allow the Senator from Iowa to speak. I ask if the Senator from North Dakota would agree to do that.

When Senator Harkin arrives--we have been saving time for him--I ask if the Senator from North Dakota would summarize his statement at that point and allow Senator Harkin to make his comments on the Daschle amendment, after which we could then return to the Dorgan amendment.

Could we enter into an agreement that the total time consumed on the Dorgan amendment, without allocation to one side or the other, would be 30 minutes under the control of Senator Dorgan?

That is correct, so that anyone who wished to speak would have to get the permission of Senator Dorgan, and that 30 minutes might be interrupted by Senator Harkin's presentation, but the full 30 would be under the control of the Senator from North Dakota.

There has been no objection to this amendment raised on this side. I ask now for a voice vote.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I understand now that Senator Leahy has an amendment that he would like to offer and debate. I ask the Senator if he would agree to a half an hour time limit on his amendment.

Yes, half an hour evenly divided.

Mr. President, I am happy to propound a unanimous consent agreement that there be 40 minutes equally divided devoted to the Leahy amendment with no second-degree amendments allowed.

Mr. President, I appreciate the intent of the amendment my colleague from Vermont is offering. It is an attempt to ensure USDA will carry out mandatory conservation programs as Congress intended in the farm bill, as he has explained.

However, the effect of the Leahy amendment would be to freeze the largest conservation program, the Conservation Reserve Program, until a permanent fix for the problem the Senator has outlined has been found.

I am not a member of the authorizing committee, but I am told by many who are this was not the intent of Congress, that they are not anxious to have the Conservation Reserve Program frozen for any reason, for any purpose, so the Leahy amendment is opposed by many members of the authorizing committee, including its chairman, Senator Cochran.

I asked Senator Cochran if he would be interested in speaking on this amendment, and he smiled and very graciously delegated that responsibility to me. I am grateful for the confidence, but I feel less equipped perhaps than the chairman himself might be.

Nonetheless, the effect of the Leahy amendment would mean money would flow out of EQIP, WHIP, FRPP, and other programs to pay for the technical assistance for the Wetlands Reserve Program. Many members of the authorizing committee, along with conservation groups and farm groups, agree there is a problem, but not that there is a consensus as to how to solve the problem.

The Senator from Vermont has offered one proposal. But as yet, within the authorizing committee, there is not a great deal of support for that proposal that I am aware of.

I am happy to yield.

Mr. President, I am not arguing, and I do not know anyone who is arguing, that we do not have a problem, nor am I arguing the Congress ought to ignore it or put it off. However, I do believe it is a fix that ought to be crafted in the Senate authorizing committee, the committee which the Senator from Vermont chaired at one point, the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. The chairman of that committee has also expressed his opposition to this amendment.

Because I am not a member of the committee, I am not equipped to get into all of the details pro and con, other than to stand here as a surrogate for the chairman and say I believe this belongs in the authorizing committee and not on this appropriations bill. For that reason, I intend to vote against it. I understand a large number of members of the Agriculture Committee also intend to vote against it.

I do not have an argument, as I say, with the substance of the problem. The Senator from Vermont is correct when he talks about the fact that we have a problem or the problem needs to be addressed. I am simply opposing the amendment on the grounds this is not the vehicle with which to do it, and the particular approach he has adopted does not enjoy a consensus that would justify us going forward at this particular time.

I would hope he would be able to craft a solution that would enjoy that kind of consensus, and that we could return to this issue as a Senate and get it resolved at some point in the future.

Mr. President, we are currently drawing up a unanimous consent request that would lock down the time. Does the Senator from Vermont yield back the remainder of his time?

The Senator from Utah is willing to yield back the remainder of the time in opposition to the Senator's amendment. We have an amendment that will be offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania on which it is my intention to have a voice vote and accept. We are getting the exact language, but it is my intention that the Senator from Pennsylvania be given 15 minutes.

I would ask if Senator Harkin is still planning to come over to take his 15 minutes of debate on the Daschle amendment. If he is, that would mean we could vote on the Leahy amendment and the Daschle amendment and then on final passage around 5:30.

It is my understanding that he does as well. We are working all of that out.

We will work that out in a way that will protect every Senator's rights. But to move us along now, time having been yielded back on the Leahy amendment, I would ask that the Chair recognize the Senator from Pennsylvania for 15 minutes to lay down his amendment. During that 15-minute period, we will codify all of these various agreements and bring that unanimous consent request forward.

It is my intention.

It was my intention to vote on Leahy first.

Then I have some perfecting amendments and then final passage.

The Senator has summarized the situation very well, as he always does. I hope the Senate will agree to that unanimous consent request.

Mr. President, I ask a further modification: That I be given an additional 5 minutes, if necessary, for a response.

Madam President, I will respond to the Senator by telling him I am in favor of his amendment and will carry that attitude into conference and do the best I can to see to it that it survives.

I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania. I believe that, in the interest of time, a voice vote would be sufficient. I think we should have a voice vote rather than just accept the amendment by unanimous consent, so that the record does show that a formal vote took place.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

As I understand it, Senator Harkin still has 10 minutes to speak on the Daschle amendment. Is that correct?

Yes, the two votes will be stacked. We have reserved 10 minutes for the Senator from Iowa to speak on the Leahy amendment and 10 minutes for him to speak on the Daschle amendment. If he wishes to yield back his 10 minutes on the Daschle amendment, there will be no objection.

I thank the Senator for his courtesy and kind words. I must now confess error. When we entered into the unanimous consent agreement, we inadvertently left off an opportunity for the chairman of the Agriculture Committee to offer an amendment. I apologize to Senator Cochran for that oversight.

I ask unanimous consent that an additional 10 minutes be set aside, equally divided, between Senator Cochran and any opponents to his amendment, to be taken care of before we proceed to the vote.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum to allow Senator Cochran to come to the floor.

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

Senator Cochran is in the cloakroom and will be coming on to the floor momentarily. I simply want to once again apologize to him for our inadvertence in leaving his amendment off the list. I appreciate the indulgence of Senators to have this additional 5 to 10 minutes for the opportunity to dispose of this particular amendment.

Madam President, I ask for a voice vote.

Madam President, I understand that I had 5 minutes allocated to me under the unanimous consent agreement. I am prepared to yield that back and proceed to a vote.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, it is my understanding that all time has been yielded. We are, therefore, ready to vote.

Vote on Amendment No. 2119

Madam President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be 2 minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to the Daschle amendment. I further ask unanimous consent that the remaining two votes in this series, this one and the vote on final passage, be limited to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I yield back all of the remaining time.

Mr. President, I move to table the Daschle amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, with the motion to table having failed, I ask for a voice vote on the underlying amendment.

Mr. President, we are ready to move to final passage. I have some housekeeping details before we do that.

Amendments Nos. 2121, 2122, 2123, 2124, 2125, 2126, 2127, 2128, 2129,

2085, 2130, 2131, 2132, 2133, and 2134, En Bloc

Mr. President, I send to the desk a group of amendments, all of which have been cleared on both sides, and I ask unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc and that they be approved en bloc by voice vote.

Mr. President, at the request of the majority leader, I would like to have Senator Domenici recognized for a short colloquy and Senator Warner recognized for a short announcement.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

The amendment has been cleared on both sides. It was inadvertently left out of the other stack of amendments that were submitted. I ask that the amendment pass on a voice vote.

Mr. President, we have come to final passage. May I take the opportunity once again to thank Senator Kohl and his staff for the cooperative way in which they have worked to get us to this point. I appreciate very much the support of all Senators.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the adoption of amendment No. 2084.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to adopt the pending Kohl amendment, No. 2073.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the vote on final passage, the Senate insist on its amendments, request a conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate----

I ask unanimous consent that following the vote on final passage, the Senate insist on its amendments, request a conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate to consist of the members of the subcommittee and Senators Stevens and Byrd.

I ask unanimous consent to reconsider the votes of all the amendments that have been sent forward and for that motion to be laid on the table.

I have nothing further to say.

Initiative For Future Agriculture and Food Systems

The Senator is correct.

Yes. It is my understanding that these two critical emerging issues have not been funded in the previous two fiscal years.

I would be glad to join my colleague from Wyoming in a discussion and I agree with him that this is an important program for the West, and, if it is implemented properly, it should help States such as Wyoming and Utah, maximize local conservation efforts by allowing them to target dollars where they are needed most.

I agree with my colleague that this appears to be a worthy project whose goals of habitat protection and species restoration are consistent with the expressed goals of the Conservation Technical Assistance Program. I believe this innovative effort should be considered for funding by the Department of Agriculture, and I encourage them to work with the association to make these funds available.

Mr. President, the Senators from Iowa and Wisconsin raise a very important issue. We all hope that we will never have to find out how good the systems designed to block or mitigate against agro-terrorism are because of an actual attack. But, unfortunately we live in a world where we must prepare for such threats to the maximum extent feasible within our available resources. This is an area where the conference committee should explore the options that are before us to improve our Nation's defensive systems against threats to our agriculture and food systems.

ginseng

I am pleased to do so.

I thank the Senator for calling this to the committee's attention.

Again, I thank the Senator for bringing this issue to my attention. I look forward to working with my colleague on this issue in conference.

minority farmers and civil rights at usda

The concerns that my colleagues have raised in this regard are important ones and ones that I share. I will do all that I can to address their concerns about minority farmers and civil rights at USDA as we reconcile the Senate and House bills in conference.

I appreciate my colleague bringing this matter to my attention. I agree with my colleague that this is a vital international food aid program that provides much needed humanitarian assistance and increases school enrollment. Thus, I pledge to the Senator from Kansas that I will work in conference to secure the House level of $56.8 million.

I am told that approximately 63 million tons of topsoil erodes from cropland in the Great Lakes basin each year, reducing agricultural productivity. I am willing to address this problem.

Mr. President, last year Congress created the Public Television Station Digital Transition Grant Program within the U.S. Department of Agriculture to help public television continue broadcasting to rural America in the digital age.

As with any first year program there are some fine points that need to be ironed out. I am concerned about potential inequities in the distribution of funds that may result from the grant competition.

I support awarding grants to public television stations that provide a broadcast service to rural populations, regardless of the location of their main transmitter. If a public television station's digital transmitter serves less than 500,000 people it should be considered rural and automatically given the highest score for rurality.

The Department's use of Per capital Income, PCI, as a factor in determining an applicant's score is appropriate. However, I encourage the Department to weight PCI by population. Unless a score is weighted by population, it may result in an inequitable score if a small portion of the coverage area reaches an enclave of higher income viewers. Highest priority should be given to rurality and critical need in scoring applications. The weighted PCI score should not exceed 15 percent of the total score.

Furthermore, I believe that it would be beneficial for the Department to consult with public televisions stations through their national trade organization to assess the critical needs of the stations.

Finally, I support the sue of funds for purchasing equipment necessary to allow local control over digital content and programming through the use of multicasting and datacasting technologies.

I urge the Department to take the necessary steps to address these concerns.

Mr. President, I would like to note in the Record some Utah projects that are important to reference as a Senate priority as we conference this bill with the House. It is important that report language be included noting an application that will be submitted to USDA for Rural Community Advancement Program funding and placing a priority upon its consideration. This RCAP application will be for potable water, fire

protections, and waste water extensions in Wellsville, Utah.

I also note the importance of providing Natural Resource Conservation Service dollars for ditch, canal, and irrigation improvements in Wellsville, UT, as well as watershed protection funding under Public Law 566 for piping and lining the Washington Fields Canal in the vicinity of St. George and Washington County, UT. The WFC provides water to 4800 acres of farmland and is currently in very poor condition. Given the significant growth in this area and the listing of two endangered species in the river system, this funding is important to save water that is currently wasted and that could augment stream flows not only for the community, but as needed for environmental and conservation purposes.

Finally, I am supportive of several projects to bring drinking water to Kane County residents through the Kane County Water Conservancy District in southern Utah. These projects, including the Strawberry/ Movie Ranch, Meadow View Heights, and Johnson Canyon projects, are necessary because of the ongoing drought in Utah, the degraded existing water systems, and increased demand caused by development. These projects are of great value, and I hope that the USDA would seriously consider applications for loans and grants under the authorized program for water and waste disposal. The Johnson Canyon project, in particular, is of great importance to Kane County residents. Due to the severe drought and other factors, the well that supplies water to Johnson Canyon residents has shown a dramatic decrease in the drinking water quality, and individuals are now faced with installing reverse osmosis systems for their drinking water. In fact, because of the high level of total dissolved solids in the water, the well has become an inferior source, and the State of Utah recommends that an inferior source should not be allowed if a better source of water is available. The district has found higher quality water, and this project will allow development of this important resource.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, November 6, 2003, at 9:30 a.m. on Robert Crandell, Floyd Hall, and Louis Thompson to be members of the Amtrak Reform Board.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, November 6, 2003 at 10 a.m. to hold a Business Meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, November 6, 2003, at 9:30 a.m. in Dirksen Room 226.

I. Nominations

Henry W. Saad to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit; Janice R. Brown to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit; D. Michael Fisher to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit; James B. Comey to be Deputy Attorney General; Michael J. Garcia to be Assistant Secretary of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and Mark R. Filip to be U.S. District Court Judge for the Northern District of Illinois

II. Bills

S. 710, Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act of 2003 [Leahy, Hatch]; H.R. 1086, the Standards Development Organization Advancement Act of 2003 [Sensenbrenner]; S. 1685, Basic Pilot Program Extension and Expansion Act of 2003 [Grassley, Kyl]; S. Con. Res. 77, Expressing the sense of Congress supporting vigorous enforcement of the Federal obscenity laws [Sessions, Hatch]; and H.R. 1437, To improve the United States Code [Sensenbrenner, Conyers].

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, November 6, 2003 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space be authorized to meet on Thursday, November 6, 2003, at 2:30 p.m. on Lunar Exploration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, November 6, 2003, at 2:00 p.m., for a hearing entitled ``DOD's Improper Use of First and Business Class Airline Travel.''

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

Parliamentary inquiry: What is the pending business?

Mr. President, given that opportunity, I will consume a few of those minutes to respond to the conversations about Iraq.

I was in this body when we went to S-407 and heard the intelligence community brief us on the manufacture of chemical weapons taking place at what appeared to be a pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan. We were told repeatedly by high officials of the administration this was a plant producing weapons of mass destruction, chemical weapons; it had to be taken out by a cruise missile. Some of us asked to see the intelligence. We asked to know exactly what it was that led the administration to believe this was in fact a chemical plant.

As we were given that intelligence, I found myself questioning it. I walked away from that meeting saying to myself: This is a little bit thin. There is not a lot of substance here. But administration officials were very emphatic in saying, no, we have gone through the intelligence. It is very firm. We have to take this out.

The administration in this instance, of course, was the Clinton administration. The intelligence being presented to us was being presented by Secretary Cohen, the Secretary of Defense. We now know the intelligence was wrong. This was not, in fact, a factory for weapons of mass destruction. It was, rather, a pharmaceutical plant, just as the people said it was.

We blew it up nonetheless. We killed some people with the cruise missiles we threw in there. After recognizing the intelligence was wrong, we apologized, as indeed we should.

The question I would ask those who are now raising the issue about intelligence in Iraq would be this: Would they suggest the result of our actions in Iraq called for an American apology? Are they suggesting we should apologize to the people of Iraq for having taken out Saddam Hussein and, when we find him, replace him in power?

This is a man who killed 300,000 of his own people. We have uncovered the mass graves. This is a man responsible for over 1 million additional deaths in the two wars he started with his neighbors.

This is a man who has destroyed his own country. This is a man who has raped and brutalized those of his citizens whom he has not killed. This is a man who was willing to pay $25,000 to anyone who would wrap himself in dynamite and blow himself up, as long as he took some others with him. This is a man who had weapons of mass destruction and has used them against his own people. This is a man whose actions are clearly in violation of the U.N. Resolution 1441.

Am I supposed to apologize for having supported an effort to remove him just because some people are challenging the details of the intelligence that led us to this action? I do not apologize for one moment for supporting the war or for supporting the supplemental to pay for the war, because the consequences of the action we have taken have liberated over 20 million people and made the neighborhood in which Saddam Hussein lived substantially safer for all of the neighbors around him.

This is not similar to the case of the blowing up of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan because the intelligence was faulty, which took place in the Clinton administration. This is an action that history will look back upon and say we did the right thing.

With that, I yield back the remainder of morning business time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all after the enacting clause be stricken, that amendment No. 2072, which is the text of Calendar No. 216, S. 1427, the Senate committee-reported bill, be inserted in lieu thereof, that the bill, as amended, be considered as original text for the purpose of further amendments, and that no points of order be waived by reason of this agreement.

Mr. President, I am pleased to present the Agriculture appropriations subcommittee report to the full Senate and to recommend passage of this bill. I am very grateful to the ranking member, Senator Kohl, and his professional staff.

It has been one of the most satisfying experiences of my service in the Senate to see how Senator Kohl's staff and our staff have been integrated and have performed as truly professional staffs, regardless of any partisan affiliation. I think one of the reasons the bill moved as smoothly as it did through subcommittee and full committee is that the staffs have worked together in such a professional way. I am grateful to Senator Kohl for his wisdom in the people he has chosen, and I am grateful to them for the professional way in which they have handled it.

The bill is at the 302(b) discretionary allocation level of $17.005 billion. That is $873 million less than the fiscal 2003 level, which was $17.878 billion.

It is always difficult to bring an appropriations bill to the floor that has an allocation lower than the previous year and, in this case, it is almost $1 billion lower. That has made the challenge of putting the bill together extremely difficult and, once again, underscores the accomplishments of the professional staff as they have dealt with this challenge.

To run through the various titles of the bill and help people understand what we are talking about, I will give you the following numbers.

On title I, dealing with agricultural programs, we have a total of $26.776 billion, of which $20.658 billion is mandatory. This is $1.318 million more than fiscal year 2003.

On food safety, it is $783.761 million, which is an increase of $28.9 million over fiscal 2003. The Agricultural Research Service is at $1.092 billion. The Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service is at $1.118 billion. The Animal and Plant Inspection Service, APHIS, is at $711 million. That takes care of title I.

Title II, conservation programs, come in at a total of $973 million, which is $48 million less than fiscal 2003. Conservation operations are at $826.635 million.

Title III, rural economic and community development programs, the total appropriated funds will be $2.588 billion, which will support a loan level of $4.353 billion. Single-family housing is at the $4.084 billion level. The Rural Community Advancement Program is at $769.479 million. Distance learning, telemedicine, and broadband is at $685.963 million.

Title IV, domestic food programs, there is a total of $44.088 billion, of which $39.164 billion is mandatory. This is $2.197 billion more than fiscal 2003. Food stamps will be funded at $27.745 billion. WIC, Women, Infants, and Children, will be funded at $4.639 billion.

Title V, foreign assistance and related programs, there is a total of $1.486 billion, which is $349 million less than fiscal year 2003, which included supplemental funding of $369 million.

Title I, development food assistance, is $131.67 million.

Title II, emergency food assistance, is $1.192 billion. McGovern-Dole international food for education and child nutrition, which is a new discretionary account, is funded at $25 million.

On the overall bill, title VI, related agencies and the Food and Drug Administration, this is an increase. It is $1.482 billion, $16 million more than in fiscal 2003.

The Food and Drug Administration gets $1.39 billion in direct appropriations, plus an additional $302 million in user fees.

The committee provides $10 million toward the Government's share of the medical device review user fee program.

Finally, title VII, general provisions, the committee includes limitations on several farm bill mandatory programs. We do not freeze these programs at a level below fiscal 2003, and we do no harm to existing programs by these limitations.

The committee did not include a limitation on the mandatory funding level for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, EQIP.

Now, in the bill, there are necessary pay costs for employees covered: $131.208 million.

I will make a personal and parochial observation with respect to this bill. Utah is in its fifth year of the worst drought in memory, which is a situation shared by many Western colleagues. We have not provided emergency funding for the drought, but we have made substantial investments in farm programs and conservation efforts that we think will help producers deal with these weather-related disasters.

This is an appropriations bill, not an authorizing bill. I know there is a strong temptation to use appropriations bills as a vehicle to catch up on authorization situations. Senator Kohl and I have agreed that we will oppose any authorizing amendment regardless of how salutary it may be, unless it has been cleared by both the chairman and the ranking member of the appropriate authorizing committee.

I am grateful to Senator Kohl for his willingness and leadership on this particular issue. We have done our best to accommodate Member requests in this bill. This is not always possible. The fact that we are almost $1 billion less than fiscal 2003 makes it difficult. We have done our best to be as fair as we can and as complete as we can. If there are any funding amendments, therefore, offered on the floor, they must be offset.

It is the desire of the leadership, Senator Frist and Senator Daschle, to finish this bill today. I think that can be done. But if it is to be done, we are going to have to have full cooperation of all of the Senators. We know of some of the amendments that have been proposed. We have done our best to deal with those amendments at the staff level and in the committee by having conversations and occasionally colloquies. But we understand there are some amendments that will be proposed, will be debated, and will be voted on.

I ask for the cooperation of all of my colleagues and that, first, they come to the floor in a timely fashion to offer their amendments; secondly, that they would understand we need to move through these amendments as quickly as possible in order to meet the leadership's request that we finish the bill tonight. I am hoping we can finish it in good time tonight. We will stay, as I understand it from Leader Frist, as long as we have to stay to get the bill done.

While the time seems to be hanging heavily on people's hands right now, I hope they will come to the floor and offer their amendments now, rather than rushing in at 10:30 tonight and saying: I have an amendment, and I need to have it brought up.

I will do my best to allow full and fair debate on each amendment, but I am prepared to offer a tabling motion if it appears to me all of the arguments have been made. I believe we know which are the more controversial amendments. I have talked with people who stand on both sides of those amendments and suggested to them the arguments have been made; there is really nothing new to be said about it. While we did get the information on the record, we really need to come to a conclusion and move on these particular amendments.

I don't think there is any amendment on which a Senator is undecided. I think the controversial amendments have been sufficiently discussed prior to coming to the floor so that everyone pretty much knows where he or she stands.

I will use the tabling motion judiciously. I will not attempt to cut anybody off or violate his or her privileges, but I will do what I can to keep the bill moving in a timely fashion.

Amendment No. 2073

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself and Senator Kohl.

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

Mr. President, I understand Senator Kohl is on his way and will be here shortly. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, could I ask the Senator from West Virginia how long he intends to speak?

I have no objection.

Mr. President, we are back on the bill. I see some Senators have come to the floor and I ask those who are here if they intend to offer amendments.

I understand the Senator from California had the desire to offer her amendment, and I encouraged her to come to the floor to do so. Now she has come.

I ask the Senator from North Dakota how long he might want to take because I want to accommodate the Senator from California. I say that as if I control the time, which I clearly do not, but the Senator from Nevada has suggested the Senator from California be allowed to offer her amendment and I want to be as accommodating as I can be to all Senators.

In that case, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from North Dakota be recognized for 7 minutes and, further, that he be followed by the Senator from California.

Mr. President, I would have no objection to having the Senator from Michigan make his statement. But I wonder if we can arrive at some kind of time agreement as to how much longer we are going to spend on this amendment. I was told the Senator from California originally said she could deal with it in an hour and a half. I suggested an hour and was told that was not acceptable. I am now willing to say an hour and a half if we can, in fact, nail that time down, with the Senator's statement until now applying against the full hour and a half.

An additional hour and a half, I ask?

I ask unanimous consent, then, that the debate on the minority side be limited to an hour and a half from this point forward, and I will control the time on the majority side and see that we have no more than an hour and a half to respond.

In that case, I have no objection to the Senator from Michigan speaking now.

Mr. President, I yield half an hour to the Senator from Idaho.

Just a moment, Mr. President. I was unaware that the Senator from Mississippi was on the floor. He was hiding behind me. So I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Mississippi.

I yield a half an hour to the Senator from Idaho.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote in relation to the Feinstein amendment No. 2083 occur at 2:30 today; provided that no second-degree amendments be in order to the amendment prior to the vote, with the time until then equally divided in the usual form. I further ask unanimous consent that following that vote, the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of H.R. 2622, the Fair Credit Reporting bill. I also ask as in executive session that the Senate then proceed to executive session and an immediate vote on the confirmation of calendar No. 402, Roger Titus to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Maryland; provided further, that following that vote the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes equally divided for debate prior to each of the votes following the first vote.

I am happy to have the second two votes be 10-minute votes.

Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Idaho if he has further comments.

I yield 5 more minutes to the Senator from Idaho.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself and Senator Kohl and ask for its immediate consideration.

No, the unanimous consent agreement, I say to the Senator from California, is that no second-degree amendments are in order to her amendment.

This is a freestanding amendment separate and apart. If the Senator from California prefers, I can wait until after the vote to offer this amendment. This is a housekeeping action.

I will, indeed.

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

Mr. President, this amendment provides that statements made by Senator Kohl and myself, as well as colloquies we have with our colleagues during consideration of this bill would be germane for conference with the House. I urge adoption of this amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I understand there will be a response on this side so I would recommend to the Senator from California that she hang on to all the cards she has.

I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Idaho.

Madam President, I yield an additional 10 minutes to the Senator from Idaho and allow him to yield back whatever time he might decide not to use.

Madam President, what is the time situation?

Madam President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Wyoming.

Madam President, as I have listened to this debate, it has reminded me once again of why I am glad I did not go to law school. The details of the legislation are best left to the lawyers who have argued it.

I simply share with my colleagues a conversation I had when the question of derivatives arose with respect to the bankruptcy of Orange County in California. There was an attempt at that point to say we must regulate these derivatives. Derivatives are terrible. Derivatives are responsible for all of our troubles. Chairman Greenspan was asked pointblank if derivatives were responsible for the bankruptcy in California. He said no, all derivatives did was make the stupid actions of the treasurer of Orange County be carried out more effectively than would have been the case without them.

We must remember that derivatives are neutral. They are tools to be used by managers to hedge risks and to make things move more efficiently in the marketplace. We sometimes move away from that understanding and think they are inherently evil in and of themselves.

I accept the assurances that the trading in this area is appropriately managed by the regulatory agencies that have been set up and I intend to oppose the amendment. I urge my fellow Senators to do the same.

Madam President, I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

I will withhold.

Madam President, as I understand the colloquy, it was either a vote on the amendment or in relation to the amendment, and that a motion to table is determined as being in relation to the amendment.

Now, out of courtesy to the Senator from California, I will not make the motion to table. But I want to make it clear, I am reserving the right to make a motion to table in future situations similar to this. I do not want to be discourteous to her for her understanding, but it is my understanding that I do, indeed, have the right to make that motion.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.