Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the attached statement from the President of the United States be printed in the Record, consistent with the War Powers Resolution.

Mr. President, I am proud to introduce, with my colleague from Oregon, a bill which protects children from being strategically targeted by commercial advertising.

I was shocked to learn that presently there is no law that restricts companies from purchasing databases which contain information about children.

In fact, websites have been brought to my attention that actually sell lists of children as young as pre-school.

The thought of companies acquiring lists of information about kids that are barely past the toddler stage is appalling.

These companies actually market that the lists can be selected and purchased by sorting according to different age groups. They suggest possible commercial uses for the lists such as for magazines, amusement parks, child care services, etc.

One of the websites even points out that many high school students have their own credit cards or have use of their parents' credit cards. The website then suggests that companies could buy these lists so they could market to children various products such as clothing, computers, etc.

The bill that we are introducing today will deter entities from selling

these lists of personal information about children to be used for commercial purposes.

The bill will prohibit anyone from selling or buying personal information about a person who is known to be under 16 years of age unless: 1. The parent has given express consent; or 2. The buyer certifies that the information is being obtained for strictly non- marketing purposes. If that is the case, they can't subsequently sell the information to a commercial marketing group.

The enforcement will be by the Federal Trade Commission and the 50 attorney generals.

I look forward to working with my colleague from Oregon and others on this bill.

Mr. President, I am proud to introduce, with my colleague from Oregon, a bill which protects children from being strategically targeted by commercial advertising.

I was shocked to learn that presently there is no law that restricts companies from purchasing databases which contain information about children.

In fact, websites have been brought to my attention that actually sell lists of children as young as pre-school.

The thought of companies acquiring lists of information about kids that are barely past the toddler stage is appalling.

These companies actually market that the lists can be selected and purchased by sorting according to different age groups. They suggest possible commercial uses for the lists such as for magazines, amusement parks, child care services, etc.

One of the websites even points out that many high school students have their own credit cards or have use of their parents' credit cards. The website then suggests that companies could buy these lists so they could market to children various products such as clothing, computers, etc.

The bill that we are introducing today will deter entities from selling

these lists of personal information about children to be used for commercial purposes.

The bill will prohibit anyone from selling or buying personal information about a person who is known to be under 16 years of age unless: 1. The parent has given express consent; or 2. The buyer certifies that the information is being obtained for strictly non- marketing purposes. If that is the case, they can't subsequently sell the information to a commercial marketing group.

The enforcement will be by the Federal Trade Commission and the 50 attorney generals.

I look forward to working with my colleague from Oregon and others on this bill.

Mr. President, I and my colleagues would like to engage my friend, the majority leader, in a colloquy regarding a necessary change

that must be made to the Transportation, Treasury, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2004. This change pertains to the administration of the Federal Aid Highway Program and corrects a technical drafting error in the original bill. This technical correction must be enacted soon so as not to create unnecessary confusion as to how the program is to be administered.

It was my expectation and that of several of my colleagues that this technical correction would be included as part of the temporary extension bill that was to be adopted today to extend the Federal Aid Highway Program for an additional 2 months. However, since it is the desire of the majority leader to have the Senate pass the House-passed bill that was adopted last evening, we are not in a position to have the technical correction included in the bill at this time. It is essential that this correction be enacted into law at the earliest possible date. It must be enacted into law during the next few weeks so that the intent of the appropriations act can be carried out as intended.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the attached statement from the Office of Compliance be entered into the Record today pursuant to section 303(b) of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1384(b)).

office of compliance

The Congressional Accountability Act of 1995: Second Notice

of Proposed Amendments to the Procedural Rules.

Introductory statement:

On September 4, 2003, a Notice of Proposed Amendments to

the Procedural Rules of the Office of Compliance was

published in the Congressional Record at S11110, and H7944.

As specified by the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995

(``Act'') at Section 303(b) (2 U.S.C.1384(b)), a 30 day

period for comments from interested parties ensued. In

response, the Office received a number of comments regarding

the proposed amendments.

At the request of a commenter, for good reason shown, the

Board of Directors extended the 30 day comment period until

October 20, 2003. The extension of the comment period was

published in the Congressional Record on October 2, 2003 at

H9209 and S12361.

On October 15, 2003, an announcement that the Board of

Directors intended to hold a hearing on December 2, 2003

regarding the proposed procedural rule amendments was

published in the Congressional Record at H9475 and S12599. On

November 21, 2003, a Notice of the cancellation of the

December 2, 2003 hearing was published in the Congressional

Record at S15394 and H12304.

The Board of Directors of the Office of Compliance has

determined to issue this Second Notice of Proposed Amendment

to the Procedural Rules, which includes changes to the

initial proposed amendments, together with a brief discussion

of each proposed amendment. As set forth in greater detail

herein below, interested parties are being afforded another

opportunity to comment on these proposed amendments.

The complete existing Procedural Rules of the Office of

Compliance may be found on the Office's web site:

www.compliance.gov. How to submit comments:

Comments regarding the proposed amendments to the Rules of

Procedure of the Office of Compliance set forth in this

NOTICE are invited for a period of thirty (30) days following

the date of the appearance of this NOTICE in the

Congressional Record. In addition to being posted on the

Office of Compliance's section 508 compliant web site

(www.compliance.gov), this NOTICE is also available in the

following alternative formats: Large Print, Braille. Requests

for this NOTICE in an alternative format should be made to:

Bill Thompson, Executive Director, or Alma Candelaria, Deputy

Executive Director, Office of Compliance, at 202-724-9250

(voice) or 202-426-1912 (TDD).

Submission of comments must be made in writing to the

Executive Director, Office of Compliance, 110 Second Street,

S.E., Room LA-200, Washington, D.C. 20540-1999. It is

requested, but not required, that an electronic version of

any comments be provided on an accompanying computer disk.

Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to the Executive

Director at 202-426-1913 (a non-toll-free number.) Those

wishing to receive confirmation of the receipt of their

comments are requested to provide a self-addressed, stamped

post card with their submission.

Copies of submitted comments will be available for review

on the Office's web site at www.compliance.gov, and at the

Office of Compliance, 110 Second Street, S.E., Washington,

D.C. 20540-1999, on Monday through Friday (non-Federal

holidays) between the hours of 9:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.

Supplementary Information: The Congressional Accountability

Act of 1995 (CAA), PL 104-1, was enacted into law on January

23, 1995. The CAA applies the rights and protections of 11

federal labor and employment statutes to covered employees

and employing offices within the Legislative Branch of

Government. Section 301 of the CAA (2 U.S.C. 1381)

establishes the Office of Compliance as an independent office

within that Branch. Section 303 (2 U.S.C. 1383) directs that

the Executive Director, as the Chief Operating Officer of the

agency, adopt rules of procedure governing the Office of

Compliance, subject to approval by the Board of Directors of

the Office of Compliance. The rules of procedure generally

establish the process by which alleged violations of the laws

made applicable to the Legislative Branch under the CAA will

be considered and resolved. The rules include procedures for

counseling, mediation, and election between filing an

administrative complaint with the Office of Compliance or

filing a civil action in U.S. District Court. The rules also

include the procedures for processing Occupational Safety and

Health investigations and enforcement, as well as the process

for the conduct of administrative hearings held as the result

of the filing of an administrative complaint under all of the

statutes applied by the Act, and for appeals of a decision by

a hearing officer to the Board of Directors of the Office of

Compliance, and for the filing of an appeal of a decision by

the Board of Directors to the United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit. The rules also contain other matters

of general applicability to the dispute resolution process

and to the operation of the Office of Compliance.

These proposed amendments to the Rules of Procedure are the

result of the experience of the Office in processing disputes

under the CAA during the period since the original adoption

of these rules in 1995.

How to read the proposed amendments:

The text of the proposed amendments shows [deletions within

brackets], and added text in italic. Textual additions which

have been made for the first time in this second notice of

the proposed amendments are shown as italicized bold. Textual

deletions which have been made for the first time in this

second notice of the proposed amendments [[ are bracketed

with double brackets.]] Only subsections of the rules which

include proposed amendments are reproduced in this notice.

The insertion of a series of small dots (. . . . .) indicates

additional, unamended text within a section has not been

reproduced in this document. The insertion of a series of

stars (* * * * *) indicates that the unamended text of entire

sections of the Rules have not been reproduced in this

document. For the text of other portions of the Rules which

are not proposed to be amended, please access the Office of

Compliance web site at www.compliance.gov.

Proposed Procedural Rule Amendments

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the attached report from the President of the United States be printed in the Record, consistent with the War Powers Resolution.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business for up to 4 minutes.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as the days go by, I think it is more and more important to recognize that Senators have friends on both sides of this aisle. One of my great friends is Senator John Glenn and his wife Annie. They have been very important people in my life. I have great memories of times I spent with John Glenn privately.

For instance, I distinctly remember the time John and Annie asked my wife Catherine, my daughter Lilly, and me to go on their boat. It is called the SENIRAM. Few people, other than the occupant of the Chair, would recognize that name, but if you spell it backwards, you will get the point. We had a wonderful day with them. I have had wonderful times throughout the years we have known each other since John and Annie came to the Senate.

Recently, I had the occasion to attend a dinner in his honor. Our distinguished minority leader Tom Daschle was the keynote speaker. I think the remarks Senator Daschle made about John Glenn and his career were most appropriate and some of the finest I have heard.

I ask unanimous consent that the remarks of the distinguished Democratic

leader at the dinner honoring Senator John Glenn, an American hero, on the 100th anniversary of the Wright brothers' first flight, Friday, December 12, 2003, be printed in the Record.

I call attention to the Senators, as the leader's opening statement indicated, it is entirely possible a vote on the cloture motion will occur before 2 p.m. There are 4\1/2\ hours of debate equally divided prior to this second cloture vote, but those Members who want to speak should indicate to their respective floor leaders if they want to speak so we are not going to have anyone disturbed over relying on the concept that there are 4\1/2\ hours when there probably will not be 4\1/2\ hours of debate.

I yield.

Madam President, we are prepared to work with the minority in that regard and have the vote earlier if that is desired. I just want to call attention to the fact that Senators ought to take that into consideration in terms of whether or not they want to come to the floor and make a statement. If there is no indication anyone wants to speak, obviously we will go to a vote earlier.

At this time, I yield to the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, the right to designate the time allocated under the time agreement on this side.

I am happy to yield for a unanimous consent request.

Reluctantly, I must object to that request.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that the last 10 minutes before the 12 o'clock vote is reserved for the leaders.

Mr. President, I have not been on the Appropriations Committee as long as Senator Byrd but I have been there for many years and I can state to the Senate that it is not the first time the Senate has been faced with the prospect of voting for a conference report which had deleted items that had been passed by both the House and the Senate.

I say, frankly, I have voted for the items that had been deleted. One of them was the overtime provision. One was modified and that is the one concerning ownership limitations under the jurisdiction of the FCC of over-the-air media.

In each instance, the reason for our yielding was the other provisions of the bill. We had provisions the House is violently opposed to which many Members on both sides of the aisle thought were absolutely necessary for their constituencies or for the Nation.

I bluntly state I believe the best thing we can do is get a bill that will not be vetoed. We were looking at this in December, hopefully trying to get it passed. We are looking at it today, and I fervently pray it will pass because I know the harm being done to a lot of people all over the country by these bills not having become law when they should have before October 1 of last year.

I will speak about one particular area that has been criticized substantially, and that is the Bering Sea Aleutian Islands crab rationalization plan.

This plan, which was recommended to us by the regional council, was created under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and accomplishes two primary objectives of immediate concern: First, conservation and management of the crab resource; and, second, ending the deadly and inefficient race for this fish.

All of the press attention and misinformation on processor quota share has effectively twisted a fishery management plan for one fishery in the Bering Sea into a national debate on the regional council process and the U.S. fishery policy.

I remind my colleagues that the rationale behind the Magnuson-Stevens Act was to allow the various regions to craft their own unique fishery management plans to answer the conservation and management goals of their localities. The crab rationalization plan is no different in this regard. The North Pacific Council recognized all components of the crab fishery as a balanced, connected system, rather than competing parts. The only difference with the crab plan is a procedural one. Congress specifically directed the North Pacific Council to develop a plan that balanced harvesters, processors, and communities. Now Congress must implement the council's proposal.

The North Pacific Council voted unanimously--11 to 0--to recommend this voluntary, what we call, three-pie cooperative that recognizes investments made by harvesters, processors, and communities. It is a product of extensive analysis with numerous opportunities for public comment, hundreds of hours of public testimony, and an open and transparent public debate by the council.

The Alaska communities that are dependent on the crab resource being processed in their plants all support the plan. The vast majority of opposition has come from a vocal minority that want to receive a better deal and environmental groups that do not want any form of rationalization and would like to lock up marine resources. The state of the Bering Sea crab fisheries is poor, and the crab plan developed through this regional council process needs to be implemented now.

Opponents of the crab rationalization plan raise concerns about anticompetitive effects and potential antitrust violations. The crab plan is not exempt from antitrust laws. It is not exempt from antitrust laws. In fact, the provision specifically states the Secretary may revoke any processor quota share held by a person found to have violated antitrust laws. The plan contemplates no private, anticompetitive action, and will be ``actively supervised'' by the council and the State of Alaska.

Despite the fact that the crab plan is not exempt from antitrust laws and will be reviewed by the council, which can make changes as needed, and there will be a mandatory information collection and review process developed by the Secretary of Commerce and the Department of Justice to determine whether any illegal or anticompetitive acts have occurred, opponents still point to an opinion letter by the Department of Justice that theorizes about ``potential'' anticompetitive abuses. Nowhere does the Department of Justice opinion letter state that individual processor quota shares violate antitrust laws.

The Department of Justice letter--it is an opinion letter--recommends that, what we call, IPQs not be used because they are economically inefficient. However, the Department of Justice admits it ``did not consider factors outside the purview of antitrust laws such as the social goal of protecting jobs in historic fishing villages or balancing the regulatory effects evenly among harvesters and processors.''

This is where the Department of Justice letter and most opponents of the crab plan miss the point entirely. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the regional councils to consider--and I quote again-- ``protecting jobs in historic fishing villages.'' This consideration required by law will always be economically inefficient.

Pursuant to national standard 8 under the Magnuson-Stevens Act:

Conservation and management measures shall take into

account the importance of fishery resources to fishing

communities in order to (A) provide for the sustained

participation of such communities, and (B) to the extent

practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on such

communities.

That is section 301(A)(8) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

The North Pacific Council's crab plan is completely consistent with the goals of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to provide for the sustained participation of remote coastal communities in the Bering Sea in the crab fishery and minimize adverse economic impacts on these communities.

I remind the Senate that half the coastline of the United States is off my State of Alaska. This council had an enormous problem to deal with, and it dealt with it unanimously.

Next, the opponents argue that the crab plan is precedent setting and will spread to other regional councils. This is a fishery management plan for only one fishery in the Bering Sea. In fact, the provision of the bill specifically provides that ``a council or the Secretary may not consider or establish any program to allocate or issue an individual processing quota or processor share in any fishery of the United States other than the crab fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands.'' It would take another act of Congress to approve a similar plan.

This crab plan is not precedent setting. It is an extension of the efficiencies and successes achieved under the American Fisheries Act, which we call the AFA. However, where the AFA has a closed class of processors that can participate in the Bering Sea pollock fishery, the crab plan provides for an open class of processors and allows for new entrants in the processing sector.

Opponents of the crab plan have argued that processor quota share is not needed to make the fishery safer or to provide for protections for the communities. My suggestion is these individuals who make those comments should visit the Pribilof Islands 800 miles west of my home near Anchorage. The Pribilof Islands are located in the middle of the Bering Sea. Or they should visit Dutch Harbor in the middle of January when the crab fisheries are in full swing. They can come by my office and see a picture of a crab fishing boat in mid-January, with ice 5 or 6 inches on the deck and on the rigging.

The middle of January is a terrible time, but that is the time when this great crab resource must be harvested. These communities are dependent on this crab resource and have made substantial investments to process rapidly the product during the mad race for fish in the current derby-style fishery. That means there was a very short period of time in which the crab could be harvested, and all the boats rushed in from everywhere trying to see if they could catch a portion of that resource. These communities have become dependent upon the crab resource crossing their docks.

Now, the crab fishery is a unique one in that there is a very high dollar value for a small amount of resource that can be processed quickly. If the crab plan only provided for harvester-only quota share, it would ultimately result in a de facto processing quota for the exclusive group of boat owners that control the harvesting rights to the resource.

Currently, in the Bering Sea crab fishery there is a surplus of catcher-processor vessels and floating crab processors that can be leased or bought cheaply. This mobile processing capacity in combination with a harvester-only share would enable fishermen to form cooperatives and vertically integrate such that none of the crab resource would ever have to come to shore-side processors.

Substantial investments made by shore-based processors would be lost and communities such as Unalaska, Adak, St. Paul, St. George, Akutan, and King Cove would lose out on processing jobs, taxes, and associated revenues. The North Pacific Council understood this and developed a plan that recognized the commitments made by all sectors of this fishery and tied the resource to the communities that have historically processed the crab.

Safety will also be achieved by this crab plan; this point is irrefutable. The reality is, if we do not pass the crab plan in its entirety now, it will be many years, possibly even 10 years, before the council could develop another rationalization plan and fully implement it.

The North Pacific Council is developing other comprehensive rationalization programs for the Gulf of Alaska groundfish fisheries and will likely turn to the Bering Sea nonpollock groundfish fisheries after that. This council cannot simply stop work on these other programs and address crab rationalization again. It would be extremely unfair to those other fisheries and would result in those programs having to be completely redone because data and factors would inevitably change causing the council recommendations and considerations to be vastly different.

If the crab plan does not move forward in its entirety the deadly race for fish will continue.

I believe some harsh realities about the Bering Sea crab fishery will illustrate why we must implement this provision immediately. The Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands crab fishery is rated the most dangerous occupation in the United States. From 1990 to 2001, there were 61 fatalities and 25 vessels were lost; and in the recent October 2003 red king crab fishery, boats were lost and a person killed. This past October crab fishery was one of the worst weather-wise ever, with nearly constant gale force winds and huge ocean swells. Under the crab plan fishermen could have chosen to wait until the weather cleared to harvest the crab.

That is the main point. Instead of regulating the time within which a crab must be caught, they regulate the catching of the crab and let the fishermen decide when it is safe to fish. Lives will be saved if we approve this plan.

Conditions are even more extreme during the winter crab fishery in the Bering Sea when it is almost always dark, extremely cold, and the seas send freezing ocean spray that ice down the crab vessels. I have a picture of that in my office. The derby-style fishery requires deckhands to work all day and all night, outside on icy decks, in rolling 10- to 20-foot seas, retrieving 700-pound steel pots, sorting crab and then dropping the pots in new places.

Obviously, this is very dangerous, but it is also very inefficient and damaging to the resource. The boats are racing to harvest the crab before the guideline harvest levels are reached, which requires them to pull their pots early not allowing them to ``soak'' longer, permitting younger crabs to escape. The result is the younger crabs are unnecessarily killed causing the stocks to suffer. We require the returning to the sea of the younger crabs. This plan will assist in implementing that requirement.

If we do not implement this provision lives will continue to be lost and the resource and the environment will suffer. The opposition of a vocal few that believe they deserve a better deal and environmental groups that want to turn the waters in the North Pacific into vast marine reserves or ``no-take-zones'' are behind the opposition to crab rationalization. Their attacks are shameful, self righteous, and disingenuous. We have an obligation to protect the crab resource in the Bering Sea and prevent any further loss of life in this fishery. This is exactly what crab rationalization will achieve and to argue anything else is just not true.

Three years ago Congress directed the North Pacific Fishery Management Council to analyze the management of the Bering Sea Crab fisheries and determine whether rationalization was necessary. The North Pacific Council completed its study and recommended a rationalization program that recognized the historical participation in the fishery of remote Alaska fishing communities, harvesters, and processors. The ``Three-pie Voluntary Cooperative Program'' developed by the North Pacific Council protects the resource and ends the dangerous race for fish. Section 801 of Title VIII-Alaskan Fisheries of the FY2004 Consolidated Appropriations conference report directs the Secretary to implement the North Pacific Council's crab rationalization program in its entirety.

Section 801 amends section 313 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act by adding a new subsection 313(j). Paragraph 313 (j)(1) directs the Secretary to approve and implement the North Pacific Council's rationalization program for the Bering Sea/ Aleutian Islands crab fisheries, including all trailing amendments. It also clarifies that the Secretary may approve and implement additional trailing amendments approved by the North Pacific Council. The Secretary must implement all parts of the crab rationalization program that were reported to Congress between June 2002 and April 2003, and all trailing amendments including those reported on May 6, 2003, no later than January 1, 2005. Any further amendments approved by the Council should be corrective in nature or address unforeseen problems with the overall functionality of the crab rationalization program. Primary elements of the Voluntary Three-pie Cooperative crab program that made three separate allocations, one to the harvest sector, one to the processing sector, and one to defined regions, should not change as this was the basis of understanding of how the crab fisheries would be rationalized in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. It is imperative that the deadly and inefficient race for crab in the harsh winter months in the Bering Sea ends. Congress expects the Secretary to meet the statutory deadline of implementation of the rationalization program in time for the 2005 crab fisheries. Congress does not expect the Council to revisit particulars of the crab rationalization program that were part of the initial report to Congress in June of 2002, such as individual harvest shares, processing shares, the 90/10 split of ``Class A'' and ``Class B'' shares, regional share designations, voluntary harvester cooperatives, and community development quota allocations, to name a few.

Paragraph 313(j)(2) directs the Secretary to approve all parts of the North Pacific Council's crab program, including harvester quota, processor quota, and community protections. It also includes a non- severability clause that prevents a court from overruling only certain parts of the program. If any part of the program is found to violate the law, the entire program fails and the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands crab fisheries will operate under their current open-access management scheme. It also prevents processors from improperly seeking crab deliveries harvested under a harvester's open-delivery quota.

Paragraph 313(j)(3) authorizes the North Pacific Council to recommend to the Secretary and necessary changes after implementation of the crab program to continue to meet conservation and management goals set out in the program for the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands crab fisheries.

Paragraph 313(j)(4) specifies that the loan program defined under the crab rationalization program for captains and crew be authorized pursuant to relevant sections of Title XI of the Merchant Marine Act as amended for fisheries financing and capacity reduction and for direct loan obligations for fisheries financing and capacity reduction. The loan program for crab fishing vessel captains and crew members is to be a low interest loan program similar to

the loan program under the halibut and sablefish IFQ program.

Paragraph 313(j)(5) authorizes $1,000,000 each year from funds available in the National Marine Fisheries Service account for Alaska fisheries activities to implement the program.

Paragraph 313(j)(6) specifies that the antitrust laws of the United States apply to the crab program. It requires the Secretary of Commerce to work with Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission to develop and implement a mandatory information collection and review process to monitor the crab program and ensure no anticompetitive acts occur among persons receiving individual processing quota. If any person receiving individual processor quota is found to have violated a provision of the antitrust laws the Secretary may revoke their processor quota share.

Paragraph 313(j)(7) requires individual processor quota share under the crab program to be considered a permit and subject to sections 307 (Prohibited Acts) and 308 and 309 (penalties and criminal offenses) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. It specifies that, like individual fishing quota, issuance of individual processor quota share does not confer any compensation right if it is revoked or limited, and does not create title or other interest in or to any fish before purchase from a harvester.

Paragraph 313(j)(8) specifies that the restriction on the collection of economic data in section 303(d)(7) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act will not apply for any processor that receives individual processing quota under the crab program. In addition, the restriction on the confidentiality of information in section 402(b)(1) will not apply when the information is used to determine eligibility or verify history for individual processing quota. This is consistent with the exception to the confidentiality of information requirement under the Magnuson- Stevens Act for verifying catch under an individual fishing quota program.

Paragraph 313(j)(9) specifies that sections 308 (civil penalties and permit sanctions), 310 (civil forfeitures), and 311 (enforcement) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act will apply to the processing facilities and fish products of any person holding individual processing quota. In addition, to ensure compliance with the crab program it may be necessary for the Secretary to inspect a processor's facilities, therefore facilities owned or controlled by a person holding individual processing quota will be subject to the prohibited acts of section 307(1) subparagraphs (D), (E) and (L) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

The North Pacific Council is recognized for developing novel and innovative approaches to conservation and management of the abundant fisheries in the North Pacific. The ``Three-pie Voluntary Cooperative Program'' for rationalizing the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands crab fisheries is another example of that creativity. It is the product of three years of public meetings and discussion by industry sectors, citizens and affected communities, two years of discussion and development by the North Pacific Council and its Advisory Panel, and nearly two years of extensive and thorough analysis by Council staff, with technical assistance from the National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and independent economists and fisheries consultants.

The Council meticulously constructed the crab rationalization program to achieve bold conservation and management goals for the resource; but also considered the very unique reality of a high value, capital intensive, high risk fishery that is prosecuted entirely in the distant waters of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. The Council has done a great job crafting the Three-pie Voluntary Cooperative crab rationalization program and it is expected to implement the program in its entirety, including all trailing amendments, as reported to Congress in June of 2002. The Council should not revisit the particulars of the crab program, but should continue to work with the Commerce Department of ensure that the crab program is implemented in its entirety in time for the 2005 winter crab fisheries.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires fishery management plans and amendments to provide for the sustained participation of communities in the fisheries it had historically depended on for employment and economic opportunity. Small, isolated communities like St. Paul and St. George located on the Pribilof Islands, and Adak on the Aleutian chain have become dependent on the crab resource crossing their docks. This plan slows down the pace of the fishery, achieves efficiencies in harvesting the resource, manages and conserves the resource better, and helps decapitalize the fishery.

While there will inevitably be a degree of economic dislocation in the communities dependent on the revenues. The crab rationalization program addresses these concerns by tying the crab resource to the communities that historically processed the crab. Processor quota share is a form of community protection which maintains historical processing capacity in the communities. Processor quota share should remain in those unique, isolated committees like St. Paul, St. George, King Cove and Adak; communities completely dependent on the crab fishery, that do not benefit from multispecies processing and other economic opportunities. The North Pacific Council determined that for the crab fisheries, processor quota share was a necessary safeguard to protect the investments made by the processing sector and more importantly, to maintain the economic benefits in the communities that have historically depended on the resource.

Section 802 of Title VIII-Alaskan Fisheries directs the Secretary in consultation with the North Pacific Fishery Management Council to establish a pilot fisheries management program that recognizes the historic participation of fishing vessels and fish processors in the central Gulf of Alaska rockfish fishery. The provision delineates the years and types of rockfish that should be considered for a pilot rationalization program to allow for increased use and value in the fishery. The pilot rockfish program will expire when the North Pacific Council authorizes a comprehensive rationalization program for Gulf of Alaska Groundfish and implemented by the Secretary, or 2 years from the date of implementation, whichever is earlier. The pilot program contemplates new entrants into this fishery and provides a set-aside of up to 5 percent of the total allowable catch of such fishery for catcher vessels not eligible to participate in the program. In addition, the five percent that is available for new entrants must come into Kodiak, Alaska for processing and can be processed by processors that have not historically participated in the fishery. The North Pacific Council will establish catch limits for nonrockfish species and non-target rockfish species currently harvested along with pacific ocean perch, northern rockfish, and pelagic shelf rockfish, which should be based on historical harvesting of such bycatch species. The Gulf of Alaska rockfish pilot program should also recognize the historic fishing and processing participation of catcher-processors that have historically participated in this fishery, and should utilize the same years and species of fish considered under the provision.

The intent of the pilot program is to consider the historic participation of all of those that have been involved in the fishery. The Gulf of Alaska rockfish pilot program does not authorize individual processing quota share for processors in this fishery. The ``historic participation of fish processors'' under this pilot program should be considered pursuant to the cooperative model under the American Fisheries Act, or any other manner the North Pacific Council determines is appropriate. This provision in no way authorizes individual processor quota share for the comprehensive Gulf of Alaska groundfish rationalization program that the North Pacific Council is currently developing. This pilot program is intended to allow for better conservation and management of the central Gulf of Alaska rockfish and extend the work year for processing jobs in Kodiak.

Section 803 of Title VIII--Alaskan Fisheries directs the Aleutian Islands pollock allocation to the Aleut Corporation for economic development in Adak, Alaska. If the North Pacific Council opens the Aleutian pollock fishery, the allocation of pollock for economic development in Adak will be

restricted by the prohibited acts contemplated under section 307 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and subject to the penalties and sanctions under section 308 of the Act, including the forfeiture of any fish harvested or processed. Two classes of vessels may harvest this pollock allocation: vessels that are 60 feet or less in length overall and have a valid fishery endorsement can harvest the Aleutian pollock allocation and deliver it to Adak for processing; and vessels eligible to harvest pollock under section 208 of Title II of Division C of Public Law 105-277 are permitted to form partnerships with the Aleut Corporation to harvest the Aleutian Islands pollock allocation for economic development in Adak. Section 803 does not waive the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act or any other federal laws. The North Pacific Council and NMFS should be cautious in implementing section 803(a) to ensure that any reopening of a directed Aleutian Islands pollock fishery is accomplished in full compliance with all applicable law, and without disrupting 2004 groundfish fisheries which have already commenced.

In an effort to gradually establish a small boat fleet in Adak, subsection (b) of section 803 provides that during the years 2004 through 2008, up to 25 percent of the Aleutian allocation may be harvested by vessels 60 feet or less in length overall. During the years 2009 through 2013, up to 50 percent of such allocation may be harvested by vessels 60 feet or less in length overall. After the year 2012, 50 percent of such allocation shall be harvested by vessels 60 feet or less in length overall, and 50 percent shall be harvested by vessels eligible under section 208 of Title II of Division C of Public Law 105-277. Establishing a small boat fleet will be critical for the economic diversification of Adak and the revenues generated from the use of the Aleutian Islands pollock allocation will allow for greater investment opportunities in this community. For purposes of implementing this section, section 206 of the American Fisheries Act (AFA) is redefined so that the allocations in section 206(b) of the AFA should only apply to the Bering Sea portion of the directed pollock fishery.

Subsection (c) of section 803 codifies one of the longest standing conservation and management measures of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, the 2 million metric ton cap for groundfish in the Bering Sea. The optimum yield for groundfish in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area shall not exceed 2 million metric tons. Upon the recommendation of the North Pacific Council and approval of the Secretary of Commerce, and only if consistent with the conservation and management goals and requirements of the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the allocation of Aleutian pollock for economic development in Adak, may be in addition to the 2 million metric ton optimum yield. This treatment of the Aleutian Islands pollock allocation would only be during the 2004 through the 2008 fishing years, but only if harvests in excess of the cap do not result in overfishing and then only to the extent necessary to accommodate a directed pollock fishery in the Aleutian Islands and should not adversely affect the current participants in the Bering Sea pollock fishery in the near term. Eventually this pollock allocation will come under the combined optimum yield for all groundfish in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 2 million metric ton cap by taking proportional reductions in the total allowable catches for each of the existing groundfish fisheries as necessary to accommodate the establishment of the Aleutian Island pollock fishery.

Subsection (d) of section 803 allows the North Pacific Fishery Management Council to recommend and the Secretary to approve an allocation of Aleutian Islands pollock to the Aleut Corporation for the purposes of economic development in Adak pursuant to the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The North Pacific Council should consider pollock allocations given to the various groups that participate in the Community Development Quota program to recommend a reasonable amount of the Aleutian Islands pollock to the Aleut Corporation for purposes of economic development in Adak and in no case should this amount exceed 40,000 metric tons.

Nothing in this section requires the North Pacific Council to open the Aleutian Islands pollock fishery. The Council should not take any action in regards to this fishery which would require a new consultation under the current biological opinion or Endangered Species Act covering Steller sea lions.

Section 804 of Title VIII--Alaskan Fisheries prohibits any Regional Fishery Management Council or the Secretary from approving any fishery management plan or plan amendments to allocate or issue individual processing quota or processor share in any fishery of the United States other than the crab fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands.

In closing, I don't know of any time when we have tried to be bipartisan on a greater scale than in these seven bills in the omnibus bill. I personally have reviewed requests from Senators from both sides of the aisle. We have done our utmost to meet the most urgent needs in their States. We have talked to chairmen of the various committees and tried to work with them. In some instances the chairmen disagreed, but we have taken positions that are consistent with a majority of the committees in those instances.

I believe this is a good bill. The problem we face now in this cloture vote--I hope all Senators will consider it--is we are in an election year. We must once again face 13 appropriations bills for 2005. If we do not approve this bill, this omnibus bill, we will have to turn and go back and try to do what we should have done by October 1 of last year. That will obviously impede consideration of 2005 bills and, in my judgment, would ultimately lead to a post-election session. I don't know how many other Senators have lived through post-election sessions that were contentious, but I believe one this year would be very contentious. I hope the Senate will set its goal not to be in session after the election this fall.

We have Members who are retiring. Some Members may be defeated. The object of getting done before the election is to put to rest the disputes in the Senate and go on to the Presidential election and give time after the Presidential election to get ready for the next two Congresses which will come under the term from 2005 to 2009.

I thank all members of the committee for their cooperation with me. I have enjoyed working with the minority leader, Senator Daschle, the assistant minority leader, Senator Reid, as well as our leaders, Senator Frist and Senator McConnell, and with Members of the House.

This was a most difficult bill. It has been most difficult because of the fact we are at war. We are not only at war, but we created a new department which had to be funded and people had to be taken from the existing departments in order to staff that new department. We had to figure out the allocation of funds to this new department in a fair way that did not disturb the functions of the balance of these entities that were left in the former departments.

This Congress ought to congratulate itself for having reacted to the post-September 11, 2001 tragedy. We created a department which has made the United States safer, and we have funded the needs of our men and women in the Armed Forces who have answered the call of our country and our Commander in Chief.

I pray in this year 2004 we will not have any further disasters of that type, but the war on terrorism continues. A lot of the money that is in this bill goes to try to stave off further attacks on our people and historic objects in this country. We all are conscious of how much money that is taking. All you have to do is go through any airport to realize how life has changed since September 11, 2001. The money in this bill has been efficiently allocated. To the maximum extent possible, we have tried to deal with the requests of every Senator.

I see the minority leader now. He and I have talked at length about the COOL program, the country-of-origin labeling. I opposed that provision. We deleted it here in the Senate. Again, when we got to the conference, it was not possible to have the conference

complete without that provision in it. It was a judgment that we ought to get the bill to the Senate and get it approved and avoid a veto. I am not happy about that.

There are other provisions in this bill I am not happy about. But I can state to the Senate, in all, this bill is a good consensus. It is good for the country, and it will fund the agencies that need the money now. We could not fund this Government during a period of war that is going on in Iraq and our war on terrorism under a continuing resolution. I thank the minority leader for his statements the other day. The worst dream the chairman of the Appropriations Committee can have is the problem of facing up to whether the Deficiency Act will require shutting down the Government if we don't pass the bills. I hope and pray we will pass this bill today and avoid that contingency.

Mr. President, there are several provisions in the FY04 Omnibus Appropriations bill that merit further explanation.

The Transportation measure included $8 million for runway lighting in Alaska. Of the funds made available, it is the Committee's expectation that $3 million would be made available for laser technology in Girdwood, Alaska and Merrill Field in Anchorage, Alaska upon certification of the technology. I urge the FAA to act as quickly as possible to favorably approve the certification petition.

The Transportation bill included $2.3 million for ``trail and parking improvements'' for the Seward multi-agency visitor center in Seward, AK. Those funds are also available, if necessary, for the acquisition and completion of the plaza between Washington Street and the beginning of the historic Iditarod Trail in the Park Service/Portico Group plan.

Both the VA-HUD bill and the Agriculture appropriations bill include funds for rural water and sewer improvements in rural Alaska. The VA- HUD bill directs that beginning in FY05, EPA must set aside 25 percent of the funds for hub communities and a priority list must be established that will remain in effect for three years. The Rural Development Administration should follow the same process so the funds can be administered together to reduce administrative overhead.

In the Energy-Water appropriations bill adopted earlier, questions have been raised concerning Congress' intention with respect to the Douglas Harbor. Congress provided $3 million to the Corps of Engineers to construct the causeway and breakwaters at the harbor entrance. The Committee urges the corps to commence construction of that project during this construction season if at all feasible.

Funds were included in the Commerce, Justice, State section of the bill and earlier in the Interior appropriations bill concerning mass marking of fish that should be implemented to be consistent with one another. Both bills fund mass marking of fish produced in federally funded hatcheries. Marking refers to modifying the appearance of an immature fish in a hatchery so that when it matures there is an external mark that identifies it as originating from a hatchery. Mass marking refers to marking all or a substantial proportion of the fish releases from a hatchery. By mass marking the hatchery fish, fishery management agencies can direct fishery harvests on marked hatchery production while avoiding unmarked fish that might come from a depleted or endangered stock.

However, fishery management agencies all along the Pacific coast, in both Canada and the United States rely on one type of marking as a basis for identifying different stocks of salmon and obtaining information on those stocks that is vital to conservation and management programs. To assure that the mass marking program does not interfere with this crucial scientific program, it is the committee's intent that mass marking programs supported by Federal funding will ensure that hatchery Chinook salmon that are marked by removing all or part of the adipose fin are also tagged with a microwire tag or alternatively mark the fish with some other mark. This will help preserve the validity of the existing stock identification data base while also realizing the objectives of the mass marking programs by enabling increased harvests of threatened or depleted stocks.

The Justice Department budget within the Commerce, Justice, State bill included $12.5 million for internet safety for children. The committee urges the department to work with I-SAFE consistent with the Senate Report.

Mr. President, the significant number of Alaskans that are descendants of our original indigenous Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut inhabitants are a great source of pride and a unique part of our heritage. A majority of those Native Alaskans reside in one of more than 200 small rural villages.

Alaska is also unique in that, since the purchase of Alaska in 1867, Congress has adopted and implemented an Alaska Native policy that is different in a most important respect from the Native American policies that Congress has adopted and implemented in the ``lower 48.''

Congress created Native corporations and since statehood has required Alaska Natives to comply with the same criminal, civil, and regulatory enactments of the Alaska State Legislature to which all other Alaska residents are subject.

Like all citizens of my State, Alaska Natives participate in the development of those enactments by electing residents of the communities in which they live to serve in the Alaska State Legislature. In that regard, I am immensely proud that Alaska has a tradition of Native American involvement in the State political system that is unrivaled by that of any other State. The first Alaska Native was elected to our territorial legislature in 1924. In 1959 ten Alaska Natives served in the first Alaska State Legislature. And today, 10 of the 60 members of the 23rd Alaska State Legislature are Alaska Natives.

During the Clinton administration, the Secretary of the Interior, his solicitor and Ada Deer, the Under Secretary of Indian Affairs, argued that there are more than two hundred sovereign tribal governments in Alaska. Many believe that policy was wrong, as a matter of law, while others assert that tribes have always existed. The provision in this bill creating a rural justice commission does not take sides in that dispute. Rather it seeks a practical solution to the issue of rural justice and law enforcement.

One of the more pressing problems we now face is the issue of Department of Justice grants that have been issued to Alaska Native tribes. These grants have been used to create tribal courts that in some instances may exceed their lawful jurisdiction and to hire tribal police who are not currently authorized to enforce State laws.

Since the Appropriations Committee reported S. 1585 to the Senate in September, I was contacted by a number of Alaska Native leaders who have expressed legitimate concern that the State of Alaska's and the Federal Government's criminal justice systems need to be configured in new and innovative ways in order to better meet the unique law enforcement challenges that we face throughout rural Alaska. In order to facilitate an analysis of, and a constructive dialogue regarding, that very important subject, at my request the conference committee that I co-chaired included section 112(a)(2) in title I of division B of the H.R. 2673 conference report. This provision establishes an Alaska Rural Justice and Law Enforcement Commission that will study the criminal justice system in rural Alaska and then submit recommendations to Congress and the Alaska State Legislature regarding ways in which those systems can be improved.

Also at my request, the conference committee include a new section 112(a)(1) which prohibits the Department of Justice from making grants to Alaska Native organizations that are located in communities that have fewer than twenty-five permanent Alaska Native residents, as well as communities that are located within the municipality of Anchorage or one of six designated boroughs. The purpose of section 112(a)(1) is to allow rural communities grants to continue during the fiscal year during which the Alaska Rural Justice and Law Enforcement Commission will be developing its recommendations.

I want to emphasize that the conference committee does not intend the enactment of section 112(a)(1) to express a view as to whether the 108th

Congress believes that either a prior Congress or the Secretary of the Interior, acting lawfully pursuant to authority he has been delegated by Congress, has created ``federally recognized tribes'' in Alaska. Nor does the conference committee intend the enactment of section 112(a)(1) to create ``federally recognized tribes'' in Alaska by implication. The amendment takes no position on the issues which are now pending before the courts.

I also note that when this provision was originally drafted, we hoped the bill would become law back in September. The deadlines established in the amendment reflected that hope. But now, in January 2004 those deadlines are unrealistic and unachievable. Therefore the Commission should have through this year to complete its work and issue recommendations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the attached statement from the Office of Compliance be printed in the Record today pursuant to section 4(c)(4) of the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998 (``VEOA'') (2 U.S.C. 1316a(4)), and section 304(b) of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1384(b)).

Mr. President, the time is equally divided between now and 2:50; is that correct?

Seventeen minutes apiece.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I apologize for my voice. I hope I can keep it long enough to make this statement.

Republicans and Democrats worked together to adopt this omnibus conference report that is before the Senate today. It contains seven appropriations bills. It was my hope that the Senate would pass this bill last December, and it was a great disappointment to me that we did not pass it then.

Now, however, we still have the opportunity to send this report to the President, and I do urge all Senators to vote for cloture now.

The Senate should pass 13 separate appropriations bills each session. Senator Byrd also favors that approach. An omnibus bill is an option of last resort. Unfortunately, once again this fiscal year, this was our only way to do our duty to provide funding for essential services of our national Government.

Throughout his life, Ben Franklin reminded his colleagues that compromise was an essential part of government. He said:

Both sides must part with some of their demands.

That spirit is important when we must join the work product of several Appropriations subcommittees in an omnibus bill like the one before us now.

Are there provisions in this bill to which either the majority or the minority object? Yes. Does the White House endorse each of the provisions in this bill? Absolutely not. Are there parts of this bill I would rather not support at this time? Yes.

But the conference has concluded. The conference no longer exists, and a majority of the members on the conference agreed to this compromise that is before the Senate now.

The report before the Senate funds critical programs and services. Countless Americans have already been affected adversely because it has been delayed so far.

Already the Department of Housing and Urban Development has had to suspend all activities related to the FHA General Insurance and Special Risk Insurance Funds. Since January 14, HUD has been unable to fund programs related to the construction and rehabilitation of multifamily apartment projects, health care facilities, Hawaiian homelands mortgages under section 247, and home equity conversion loans that benefit elderly homeowners.

Our failure to pass this bill prevented key Government programs and agencies from fully responding to our Nation's crises and challenges. The recent bovine spongiform encephalopathy, BSE--mad cow--diagnosis will require a significant increase in animal health surveillance and food safety inspections. This bill contains $29.5 million over the fiscal year 2003 budget for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and an additional $36.6 million for the safety inspection service.

That funding will go a long way in helping these agencies respond to this recent crisis.

The impact of this delay has been felt throughout the country in a wide range of programs and services. This report includes a $38 million funding increase for the Health and Human Service Department's domestic AIDS drug assistance program and $2.4 billion to combat AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria around the world. That money is needed right now to purchase medications for people suffering with AIDS, but instead, because this report is stalled here on the Senate floor, many human beings continue to go without our humanitarian aid.

Our veterans have also suffered from the delay because new funding, not previously available, has been withheld. Because we are operating under a continuing resolution the VA was forced to curtail the hiring of new physicians and nurses. It has been unable to open 48 high priority community-based outpatient clinics. As pharmacy costs continued to rise, the VA was forced to strip funds from other priority areas because it could not meet the increasing demand for prescription drugs without new funds.

Several important new education programs do not have the funds needed. This bill includes $1.26 billion in new funding for State programs to help children with learning disabilities and physical and mental challenges, $57 million in new funds for reading programs, $50 million for our Nation's colleges, and $148 million in additional funds to expand and improve Head Start programs. Those funds did not reach our Nation's children because this conference report was delayed.

There are many more programs that remain underfunded while operating under the continuing resolution. The continuing resolution provides funds we believed in fiscal year 2002 were sufficient for fiscal year 2003, but that does not mean they are sufficient for this year--fiscal year 2004. Many Americans will continue to be denied benefits needed in 2004 if we do not support this omnibus bill. I ask the Senate to come together to demonstrate we will respond to these needs now by voting for cloture and in favor of this bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I say to my friends, I have no request for time, and there are 6 minutes remaining.

We will notify the two leaders. They still have reserved time, Mr. President.

I suggest the absence of a quorum with the time coming out of our time.

Mr. President, yesterday the House passed the fiscal year 2004 omnibus appropriations bill by a bipartisan vote. Republicans and Democrats alike joined in adopting this bill. I had hoped today the Senate could be given the opportunity to pass this bill which would fund a variety of programs critical to the American people and indeed the world.

That does not seem possible now, but the consequences of delay on this bill are real and the dangers are great. Many people will be affected by this delay. One of the bills included in the omnibus appropriations bill is the foreign operations budget. That measure includes increases in funds to combat the world's growing AIDS epidemic. With the support of Democrats and Republicans alike, $2.4 billion was added to this bill to combat AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria around the world. This money would be used to buy life-giving medicines to treat people suffering with AIDS. It will help save the lives of mothers, fathers, and their children afflicted by this deadly disease of AIDS.

If they have to wait another month or two, will it make a difference? Unfortunately, the stark answer is yes.

Bono, the founder of Data, a worldwide humanitarian group, has urged us to pass this bill now. He knows better than most of us what a delay will mean to the people on the ground who wait patiently for our help. Can they wait another month or two? Probably not.

Closer to home, there are others who will suffer if this measure is delayed. Our conferees provided an increase of $38 million to provide more AIDS drugs domestically through the AIDS drug assistance program at the Health and Human Services Department.

Our Nation's veterans will be among groups hit hardest by a delay on this bill.

Again, on a bipartisan basis, the Senate led the way in providing additional funds to make sure America's veterans will get the medical treatment they were promised. In my own State of Alaska, some veterans have had to wait months for a basic doctor's appointment. Unfortunately, the veterans in Alaska are not alone. The waiting lists for veterans around the country, from Arizona to West Virginia, North Dakota to Florida, are on the rise. As veterans return from Iraq, the demand for medical care will increase even more. Coupled with the 1 percent attrition rate for VA doctors per month--I repeat that, a 1 percent attrition rate in VA doctors per month--the waiting periods for veterans will only get longer with this delay.

Likewise, without the additional money provided in the bill, 48 community-based outpatient clinics will be in jeopardy. Since the VA is forced to operate under the lower funding level provided in the continuing resolution, those clinics cannot open. In addition, pharmacy costs are going up for our Nation's veterans. In 2003, drug costs rose by a whopping 11 percent. The VA is incurring increased demands for prescriptions every month. To cover the high cost of drugs, the VA has been forced to cut other high-priority medical programs. They are forced by this

delay to continue operating under last year's lower funding level. So the problem, again, will only get worse.

Some of the older veterans, especially those with whom I served during World War II, may be forced to wait longer for long-term care because of the delay of this bill. The VA had planned to increase long- term care by 20 percent with the funds in this bill. I am not sure those veterans from World War II can wait additional months for that care.

Worst of all, the VA has raised concerns that the continuing resolution may not authorize mandatory compensation and benefit payments for veterans which were scheduled to begin in January. So, according to that information that we received from the VA, unless we pass this bill this week, beginning on New Year's Day, the VA will not be able to make the compensation payments to 2.5 million veterans and 314,000 of their survivors. There remains some confusion about this issue.

Likewise, the VA will not be able to make benefit payments to another 537,000 veterans. These benefit payments are needs-based pensions and sustain veterans with no other means of support. The payments will average $790 per person per month. Obviously, those with no income cannot wait another month without the money to pay for their rent or their food.

I do not think it is fair to ask disabled veterans, for some of whom this is their only income, to wait an additional time. I do not think this is how our returning veterans from Iraq should be welcomed home.

Unfortunately, it is not just our Nation's veterans who will suffer as the Government is forced to continue operating under last year's levels for another month or two. The Federal Housing Administration at HUD has indicated to our committee that its prorated insurance authority under this continuing resolution is not enough to meet the current projections for either FHA mutual mortgage insurance or the FHA general insurance and special risk insurance fund. That means that sometime in January the FHA insurance program for single-family and multifamily housing will run out of money. Needy families will also be forced to wait for the section 8 rent subsidy vouchers. They are living in shelters and must stay there for a few more months because we cannot bring this bill to a vote.

Under the continuing resolution, the AmeriCorps Program, which helps needy families and communities, would also be in jeopardy. Passage of our omnibus bill in January will delay this. Unless we pass this omnibus bill in January, there will be a delay in the enrollment of tens of thousands of new volunteers.

The Nation's schoolchildren will also suffer if we do not pass this omnibus bill before the end of the year. On a bipartisan basis, the conferees agreed to an increase of $2.9 billion for education programs to help our Nation's schools. Unfortunately, that money is just not available under the continuing resolution, based on last year's appropriations. Undoubtedly, now, despite our pledge, some children will be left behind.

Under the continuing resolution, assistance for school districts, States, and colleges will also be delayed. For example, the conferees provided an increase of $728 million for poor schools under the title I grant program which helps disadvantaged children. These moneys are not available under the continuing resolution based on last year's level, and that money will not be there when the second semester starts the first week of January.

Kids with disabilities are also going to suffer. The conferees provided $1.26 billion in new funding to help States meet their responsibility for kids with learning disabilities and physical and mental challenges. Instead of continuing impressive increases in Federal commitment to reaching the 40 percent payment authorized for students with disabilities, under the continuing resolution the Federal contribution will be frozen at 17.5 percent. This bill would have paid 40 percent; the continuing resolution provides only 17.5 percent. I do not think our Nation's schools should have to wait for this additional money, which they should have received back in October shortly after the school year began.

Other education programs will suffer under the continuing resolution. New funds for reading, some $57 million, will be delayed; impact aid, about $49 billion for children of military families, will be affected; $50 million for our Nation's colleges will be in jeopardy. Saddest of all, to me, will be the delay in funding for Head Start. We had provided an additional $148 million to expand and improve Head Start programs around the country. That also will be delayed because the money is not within the continuing resolution.

In addition to the adverse impact on health care for our veterans, the continuing resolution will also have a negative effect on health care programs for other Americans. Most immediate, this bill provides an additional $50 million to prepare for a pandemic flu outbreak, which is upon us now. It is upon us as I speak. Normally the flu season does not begin in earnest until late January, but this year it is early. If this measure is delayed, that $50 million will sit in the Treasury while Americans go untreated and unvaccinated for the flu. I seriously question whether they can wait for January for that flu shot. I hope something will be done to meet that very pressing problem.

Likewise, the $261 million provided in this measure for the Centers for Disease Control to combat emerging infectious diseases is also not available under the continuing resolution. That means the funds needed to combat diseases such as SARS, monkeypox, and hepatitis may not be there when they are needed.

The $122 million the conferees added to strengthen and expand community health centers will be delayed under the continuing resolution. This medical care to the underserved and uninsured across the country should not be delayed, but it will be.

Similarly, the $1 billion in new money for health research at the National Institutes of Health will be delayed under the continuing resolution. That is research on heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and other killers. It will have to be delayed until the bill is finally passed.

Our omnibus bill also includes an additional $159 million to combat substance abuse and mental health diseases. Hundreds of thousands of Americans suffering from addiction and mental illness, who could have received additional care, will go untreated under the continuing resolution. These additional funds could treat thousands of Americans. They will not be available now.

The omnibus bill also funds the Agriculture Department which helps feed the Nation. On a bipartisan basis, the conferees agreed to make substantial increases in funding for programs to make sure that no child goes to bed hungry.

The conferees provided an additional $3.6 billion over the 2003 funding level for the Food Stamp Program. That money is continued now at the 2003 level--not at the higher level of this bill. In fact, it is not enough money to allow every qualified applicant to participate in the Food Stamp Program without this bill.

Not only that, but this bill provides an additional $1 billion in reserve funding to provide for any unanticipated increase in program participation in food stamps.

In total, that is an extra $4.6 billion for the Food Stamp Program, or just under $400 million a month. That is what is going to be delayed--at least $400 million a month.

This bill cannot possibly get to the President until the end of January. It means that almost $800 million will not be available to feed hungry families between now and the end of January. It means that some families may not have a Christmas dinner.

Likewise, the conferees provided an additional $837 million over the 2003 funding level for other child nutrition programs--programs such as school lunches, school breakfasts, child and adult food programs, and the special milk program. Since this bill has been delayed, that money will not be available to help the hungry. A 2-month delay will mean about $70 million a month will not be there for those people.

The omnibus appropriations bill funds the Department of Transportation programs for fiscal year 2004, as well as other critical programs.

For example, the conferees agreed to add an additional $1.5 billion to complete preparations for the November

Presidential election. Continued operation under a continuing resolution means the full amount of funding will be delayed, along with the installation of state-of-the-art voting machines. This is very critical to our Nation. We all remember the last election, and we pledged to fix that. I do not think it will be possible because of the delay of this bill.

This measure also funds transit programs at $7.3 billion to address traffic congestion around the country. It provides $13.9 billion for the Federal Aviation Administration to ensure the safety of our air transportation system. Increases in both programs are now in jeopardy because this bill will not pass before the end of the year.

I have great concerns about the delay in funding for counterterrorism that will result in not passing this measure now. The conference report includes significant new funding for the Department of the Treasury to disrupt the financing of terrorist groups. Delayed funding could hamper the ongoing efforts to disrupt the cash-flow to the terrorist groups throughout the world.

The State-Justice-Commerce bill is also included within this omnibus measure. If this bill is not adopted, critical funds for the FBI and counterterrorism programs will be delayed. In addition, the United States would be late in paying its dues to the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, which is due January 1.

The District of Columbia bill is funded in this legislation, including the voucher program which was controversial, I will admit. But it is to give kids attending failing schools a chance to succeed in life. If this voucher program which is now authorized is delayed, it probably cannot go into effect the next semester. It is uncertain whether the program can be up and running by the next school year unless this bill passes before the end of this year.

Despite reports in the press and some opponents, I think this is a bipartisan bill. I don't believe there is a Senator in the Chamber who cannot or has not claimed credit for at least one program in this bill. It funds programs for Republicans and Democrats alike, and includes projects for Senators who are up for election regardless of party. Each of these seven bills was worked out largely by the chairman and ranking member, a Republican and a Democrat, on each subcommittee. Only a handful of these issues were resolved at the full committee level in conference.

Are there provisions in this bill to which the minority object? Yes. Does the White House endorse all of what we have done in this bill? Absolutely not. Are there sections in the bill that even I oppose? Yes. I do oppose some of the provisions. But the bill is the product of compromise, and unfortunately, it is a compromise that comes about when we are forced to join bills together into an omnibus bill. Senator Byrd and I have consistently opposed the concept of omnibus bills, and we sought to have bills pass singularly as they should be--13 separate appropriations bills.

I know there are items in here with which Senator Byrd disagrees. As I said, I know there are provisions with which I disagree. But the one thing I do thank the Senator from West Virginia for is working to try to get 13 separate bills. It has not been possible for us to do that. We were forced at the last minute to make some concessions to the White House and to the House in order to get a bill that the House would pass and which the President would sign. Some of those concessions are not acceptable to the minority. I understand that. I understand the process. Unfortunately, the timing of this bill is such that we had no alternative but to make the concessions in order to get the bill to the House.

I had hoped that we would be able to pass it today. I know that is not possible. Delay of this bill is going to cause real problems for people around this country and around the world, as I said in the beginning. It will hit the neediest among us hardest of all. And for some, unfortunately, this delay may be a matter of life or death. During the season of peace and helping each other, particularly the spirit of Christmas and the spirit of bipartisanship, I had hoped the 2004 omnibus appropriations bill would be able to pass today. I regret deeply as chairman of committee that is not possible. I take full responsibility for the delay because it was just not possible for us, within the rules, to finish the bills and get them to the Senate before this time.

I yield the floor.

I thank my colleagues for explaining that this important provision allows carriers to interline cargo in Alaska, with an ultimate origin and/or destination outside of the United States, but does not allow foreign carriers to carry or transfer cargo with an ultimate origin and destination both in the United States.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the attached statement from the Office of Compliance be printed in the Record today pursuant to section 303(b) of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1383(b)).

Mr. President, my heart became heavy with sadness as I learned this weekend of the death of my close personal friend Ruth Burnett.

Ruth Burnett was not only a person who gave me great support as the manager of my Fairbanks office, she, her husband Wally Burnett, Sr. and I became friends 50 years ago after my family and I moved to Fairbanks. As the years went by, we kept in touch and from the days of my earliest Senate campaign Ruth and Wally supported me.

Ruth's time as mayor of Fairbanks brought us even closer together and I was delighted when Ruth agreed to be my representative in Fairbanks. She worked tirelessly, without regard to office hours. And she was responsible for bringing to our attention the plight of thousands of interior Alaskans so that my staff and I in Washington, DC could try to help them. She gave me many ideas on where to send Federal money in the interior so that we could do the most good for the most people.

Ruth's whole family pitched in to support her. Wally Burnett, Jr. was a leading member of my Washington, DC staff and the Senate Appropriations staff. Public service has been a hallmark of the Burnett family--a family with a great Alaskan tradition.

Ruth will be dearly missed, but her spirit will live on through the great family she leaves behind and through the many lives she touched.