Floor Statements

Mr. President, I oppose this resolution which would disapprove all of the FCC's recent rulings on media ownership. I oppose it for several reasons.

In the first place, the court of appeals has stayed this resolution, and it is reviewing its contents. I do not think it is appropriate for the Senate to pass such a resolution when there already exists legislation that addresses the most contentious media ownership issues.

As one of the original sponsors of the legislation that is on the calendar already, I urge the Senate to take up that bill and not approve this resolution. My legislation, S. 1046, has the support of a majority of the Members of the Senate Commerce Committee.

I do not support this attempt to unravel everything that the FCC did regarding the media ownership rules. For the most part, I think the Commission did a good job on the media ownership issues, absent one issue regarding 35 percent.

My main concern all along was to keep the national ownership cap at the 35 percent level, and that was the primary focus of the bill that I introduced. In fact, that bill already passed out of the Commerce Committee.

My bill prohibits ownership of TV broadcast stations if the ownership exceeds 35 percent of the national TV audience. It maintains the status quo for the cap and closely tracks what Congress originally intended in the Telecom Act.

There were several amendments that were added to my bill in the Commerce Committee which addressed other parts of the rules. One was offered by my colleague from North Dakota. That amendment undid the Commission's decision to lift the cross-ownership ban.

I didn't agree with his original amendment because I thought that the FCC's decision to lift the cross-ownership ban was prudent. I was concerned that the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota didn't contemplate situations in small markets where cross-ownership between newspapers and TV stations is necessary. Therefore, in committee I added language to his amendment which allows for a waiver procedure in small markets.

This pending resolution, however, does not contemplate the small markets at all in the context of cross-ownership. This concerns me and should certainly concern others as well, especially those who represent small markets.

Last week the Third Circuit issued an order staying the FCC media ownership rules, pending resolution of the consolidated proceeding before that court. Therefore, this Third Circuit stay has creates status quo allowing the stake holders to fully brief and argue their sides.

Finally, the issue that has received the most support and attention from my colleagues and from diverse interest groups is the 35 percent cap issue. That issue has been addressed by both the House in the CJS appropriations bill and by the Senate Appropriations Committee in the CJS bill.

Therefore, with all of these various tracks already in play, I don't think it is wise to open another can of worms on the same issues. It is not productive.

Mr. President, in the morning hours of September 11, 2001, our Nation endured a terrible tragedy. In the wake of that tragedy, the response from our ``Last Frontier'' was overwhelming. Two years ago, Alaskans volunteered their time and their resources to assist the victims of the attacks. One year ago, the people of our State found unique ways to commemorate our Nation's loss. This year we join the Nation once again in mourning and remembrance.

Since the September 11 attacks, the United States has led the campaign to wipe out terrorism and those who support it. John F. Kennedy once warned the world ``. . . that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.'' The bravery and courage our troops demonstrated on battlefields in Afghanistan and Iraq confirmed that Americans will make the ultimate sacrifice to preserve freedom.

Here at home we are a safer Nation. We have established the Homeland Security Department, changed our laws so that agencies can share information, ensured better communication between State and Federal law enforcement, and provided better protection for ports and other points of entry. But the war on terror requires more and we must stay the course.

In his speech on Sunday night, President Bush reaffirmed our commitment to this cause and called upon the Congress and the Nation to once again prove our resolve. I urge all Americans to support the President. History has taught us that freedom always comes at a cost; we mut pay the price. New coalitions have formed among terrorists. Those who wish us ill present us with an almost world-wide burden. Nevertheless, we cannot neglect our responsibilities.

I hope all Alaskans will remember the victims of September 11 today by attending a memorial service or prominently displaying an American flag. The victims of September 11 and the volunteer soldiers who gave their lives in the campaign against terror gave what Lincoln called the ``last full measure of devotion.'' Today, we honor their memory and their sacrifice.

If the Senator yields, I, as chairman of the committee, understand fully the necessity to have these votes and this momentum continue. But in my time here in some 35 years, I have never seen the unveiling of a statue for Statuary Hall be interrupted by a vote.

I suggest if we are going to have votes, we could stack a vote. It only means stacking one vote to do that. But from the hour of 4:30 to 5:30, I believe the honor we are bestowing on the former Vice President, by putting his bust in the Hall, should be respected. I hope the managers of the bill will comply with tradition and allow that to continue. It just merely means stacking a vote. If one, by chance, is to be scheduled between 4:30 and 5:30, I urge that it be stacked beyond the hour of 5:30.

I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 1544, 1560, 1578, 1558, And 1552, As Modified, En Bloc

Madam President, I have at the desk a series of amendments that have been modified. I ask that these amendments be modified and adopted. They are amendment No. 1544 by Senator Akaka; amendment No. 1560 by Senator DeWine; amendment No. 1578 by Senator DeWine; amendment No. 1558 by Senator Kohl; and amendment No. 1552 by Senator Mikulski.

I ask unanimous consent they be modified.

I ask that the amendments be considered en bloc and agreed to en bloc.

I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1616 To Amendment No. 1542

Madam President, I offer an amendment on behalf of Senators Collins and Feingold regarding funding for dental health and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be adopted.

I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1617 To Amendment No. 1542

Madam President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of Senator Inhofe regarding impact aid and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be adopted.

I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1618 To Amendment No. 1542

Madam President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of Senator Wyden regarding an NIH report and ask unanimous consent for its consideration.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be adopted.

I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1619 To Amendment No. 1542

Madam President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of Senator Ensign regarding census data and ask unanimous consent for its consideration.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be adopted.

I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1620 To Amendment No. 1542

Madam President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of Senator Specter and ask unanimous consent for its consideration.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be adopted.

I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, I state for the record, all of those amendments were cleared by both Senator Specter and Senator Harkin as managers of the bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to each of the next three votes.

Mr. President, increasing scientific evidence indicates that what a person includes in his or her diet may be as important as what a person excludes. Scientists estimate that at least 30 to 40 percent of all cancers are linked to diet and related lifestyle factors.

Some foods contain substances known to increase the risk of cancer, including saturated fat, cholesterol, and oxidants.

Avoiding these foods may reduce the risk of many of the most common forms of cancer, including prostate cancer, breast cancer, and colon cancer. I happen to have an extreme interest in that because I am a prostate cancer survivor. I am now told other foods

contain substances that help protect against cancer and heart disease.

A growing number of compounds in fruits, vegetables, and cereal grains have been found to interfere with the process of cancer development in laboratory research.

Epidemiologists have found that populations that consume large amounts of plant-derived foods have lower incidence rates of some types of cancer.

According to a study conducted by Stephanie London, a doctor and epidemiologist at the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences and Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, broccoli and other members of the cruciferous vegetable family, including cabbage and bok choy, appear to protect humans from lung cancer.

Several other studies have pointed to the cancer-prevention properties of phytochemicals found in these vegetables. According to Hien T. Le, Ph.D., a molecular biologist with the University of California Berkeley, consumption of these cruciferous vegetables has been linked with prevention of cancers of the breast, endometrium, colon, and prostate cancer.

One study further found these chemicals are ``novel,'' naturally occurring and could have potential in cancer prevention or treatment.

Broccoli and related vegetables contain the chemical that kills the bacteria responsible for most stomach cancers, say researchers, confirming the dietary advice that moms have been handing out for years. Dr. Paul Talalay, a coresearcher at Johns Hopkins University, found the chemical sulforaphane even killed H. pylori, a bacteria that causes stomach ulcers and often fatal stomach cancers. Researchers stated:

If clinical studies show that a food can relieve or prevent

disease associated with this bacterium in people, it could

have a significant public health implication in the United

States and around the world.

The good news is there appears to be enough of this chemical in broccoli sprouts and some varieties of broccoli to significantly benefit people who eat them. However, researchers cannot now say how much broccoli one should eat for there to be such an impact. The actual amounts would need to be determined with long-term tests involving human trials. ``The levels at which we test it . . . is such that those could be achieved by eating broccoli or broccoli sprouts. It's a reasonable level that we think would be reached in the stomach,'' said Jed W. Fahey, of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

Researchers have created a synthetic version of the compound found in broccoli and other vegetables. ``It may be easier to take a cancer prevention pill once a day rather than rely on massive quantities of fruits and vegetables,'' says the study author, Jerome Kosmeder, another Ph.D. research assistant professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. However, such drug development is several years away, I am informed.

The reason for my statement today is that I recently met with Dean Ornish, a great friend, a medical doctor, founder and president of the Preventive Medicine Research Institute, and clinical professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. According to Dr. Ornish, ``We often have had a hard time believing that the simple choices we make in our life each day--what we eat, how we respond to stress, how much exercise we get, whether or not we smoke, and the quality of our relationships--have such a powerful impact on our health and well-being.''

With Dr. Ornish was Dr. S. Ward Casscells, a medical doctor who is the John Edward Tyson Distinguished Professor of Medicine and Public Health and vice president for biotechnology at the University of Texas Health Center in Houston.

Dr. Casscells was diagnosed with very aggressive metastatic prostate cancer in July of 2001. He began utilizing diet and a lifestyle program that Dr. Ornish and his colleagues had developed, along with conventional drug treatment. Today, Dr. Casscells shows no sign of cancer. He shows no sign at all of a cancer that had metastasized.

Meanwhile, researchers say populations should continue to eat healthy amounts of fruits and vegetables, enabling them to take advantage of cancer-fighting properties. Several other studies have pointed to the cancer prevention properties of the phytochemicals found in vegetables, according to several other people.

Mr. President, I emphasize, because of the nature of some of the moneys in this bill--I do believe we have spent a lot of Federal-tax payers' money on various approaches to cancer--I think we should concentrate more of the money we have available on these methods of prevention and methods of retarding the development of cancer once discovered.

I yield the floor.

While we are waiting momentarily, I want to take this opportunity to recognize the staff of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Subcommittee for all their efforts, hard work, and dedication on this very difficult bill.

First let me thank Senator Harkin's staff: Ellen Murray, Erik Fatemi, and Adrienne Hallet. They have worked shoulder to shoulder in a bipartisan fashion with our staff to put together this fine bill. It is a testament to their hard work, skill, dedication, and partnership.

I also commend and thank our subcommittee staff: Jim Sourwine, Mark Laisch, Sudip Parikh, Candice Rogers, and Carol Geagley. The staff deserves our gratitude for working diligently for many months, late nights, and weekends to put together this very important bill. I know every year both of these staffs reach across the aisle to work together to forge compromises on many contentious issues. I think we should all thank them and salute them.

Lastly, I will take a moment to give special praise to our subcommittee staff director Bettilou Taylor. Senator Specter and I often refer to Bettilou as ``Senator Taylor.'' She has one of the toughest jobs in the Senate. This is the largest bill this year. It probably is the largest domestic appropriations bill in the history of the United States to appropriate taxpayer money for Federal purposes. This is a very complex bill with difficult issues. Bettilou does it with a great deal of skill and grace. She is, in every sense of the word, a consummate professional. I thank her and I hope all Members will thank her for her outstanding work for the Senate and for the American people.

Part of what the Senator said I agree with. We should have been able to assign more money under our allocation process to this subcommittee. We are not able to do so. However, the Senator from Oklahoma was incorrect when he said we did not give them more money. Through the agreement with the administration, we did bring back money from the allocation process for education. We increased that amount, by virtue of what

we did, by $2.2 billion. We took $3 billion out of Defense and allocated it to several subcommittees, including $800 million to this subcommittee. But very clearly, this subcommittee is short of money.

There are a great many problems that we face. This bill is going to conference, and we don't know how we are going to work out some of the items in this bill. There are several allocations we have made under our process that the House has not made. I take the position that this emergency is necessary to get this item to conference to see how we can allocate it. Obviously, we are not going to bring a bill out of conference that the President will veto. If the President tells us he is going to veto it because of these emergency designations, assuming the House would agree to it--we don't know if the House will agree to it--but I do know this bill is very short of money.

The demands on our society are now so great that all of the things from SARS, to the things the CDC is doing, and all the things NIH is doing--this is a bill that just absolutely demands funding.

I take the position that it is not inconsistent with the comments I made to the President--that I would not support emergencies unless there was a true emergency. I think this is a true emergency.

But in any event, if the Senate will vote as the managers of this bill have requested, we will take the bill to conference at $1.5 billion more than the maximum amount I could possibly allocate and meet the other demands of our other 12 subcommittees.

I say to the Senator from Oklahoma that I don't think I am breaking my word at all. I hope the Senate will support us in taking this bill to conference with the most money we can possibly find to put in it and go to conference with the House.

There are a series of items in here to which we know the House will object. I believe by the time we come out, this emergency will not be needed. If it is needed, I will personally visit with the President of the United States about it, and we will see what he decides. If the President still takes the position that we should not include the money on an emergency basis, I will at that time oppose it.

But right now, I urge the Senate to waive this point of order. If it is the first one waived this year, this is the one to waive. This is the one necessary to do so.

I don't think it is inconsistent with my position.

I will tell Senator Nickles, the chairman of the Budget Committee, that I think with the constraints we are operating under this year in view of the problems we have, being at war, and at the same time conducting all of these enormous projects that we are facing in terms of the health and welfare of our country, including education--this, as I said before, is the largest bill we have--this bill is underfunded. But it is not underfunded because of what we did; it is underfunded because of what the Budget Committee did.

This is the one chance to overrule the Budget Committee. I intend to support Senator Specter, and I intend to support this emergency declaration.

Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Oklahoma. Up my way, we say, ``Wait until the last dog is hung.''

The agreement we made with the President will be kept. In the final analysis, it was not based on the allocations we made under our allocation process. It was based on the total.

We have 13 bills to consider. We will see to it that we keep our agreement with the President. As a matter of fact, he has the veto pen. He will see to it that we keep it.

But there is a problem of getting bills done and taking to the conference the things that the Senate wants considered in conference.

I join with the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from Iowa in wanting this money considered in conference. If it is not approved in conference, then we will not have approval.

I think there will be other items that the Senate will want to take out, and part of this money will come back in the final bill.

Will the Senator yield?

Leader, I state categorically I did not make an agreement on any particular bill. We made an agreement that the bottom line would not exceed the amount that the Senator from Oklahoma stated. We have a series of bills going to conference and we will keep that commitment.

But with due respect, I made no commitment on any particular bill, to the President or to anyone else.

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

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

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

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period for routine morning business.

Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 212 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask further unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the amendment to the preamble be agreed to, that the preamble, as amended, be agreed to, that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to this measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, September 9. I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then resume consideration of H.R. 2660, the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriations bill. I further ask consent that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. for the weekly party luncheons.

For the information of all Senators, tomorrow the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 2660, the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill. The hope of the majority leader is that we can work out an agreement which will allow us to proceed with the amendment process. The bill managers will be here throughout the day tomorrow and Senators who wish to offer an amendment are encouraged to contact the bill managers so they can schedule an orderly process for the consideration of amendments.

Members should expect rollcall votes throughout the day tomorrow. Members will be notified when the first vote is to be scheduled.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate adjourn following the remarks of Senator Reid.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the attached document from the Office of Compliance be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to salute a very special person, Joseph C. Chase, of the Senate Appropriations Staff who retired yesterday after 31 days of service in the Senate.

When asked for his wisdom and advice after such a long period of distinguished service, Joseph smiled and easily responded by saying ``deal with people as they are and always in a positive way.''

Joseph C. Chase was born on March 18, 1948. He was raised in Brandywine in Prince Georges County. He is a graduate of Gwynn Park Senior High School in 1967 and attended Bowie State University from 1968 to 1970 where he majored in physical education and studied to be a teacher.

Joseph comes from a large family. He is the tenth child in a family of 11, nine boys and two girls. In 1988, he donated a kidney to his brother Andrew Chase who worked for the Sergeant at Arms.

He has been married to his lovely wife Peggy Elsey Chase for 29 years. The Chases met in 1969, and were married on July 27, 1974. Peggy has been a teacher for over 30 years. The Chases have two children, a daughter JoVonna, born August 1, 1977, and a son Joseph Jr., born August 21, 1983. The have one granddaughter, Kylah who is 3\1/2\.

Joseph's family legacy on Capitol Hill started over 60 years ago with his uncle Lewis Brooks, age 89, who worked on the House side as a doorkeeper. Over the years, more than 20 members of Joseph's family have worked on Capitol Hill. After working as a driver for Master Distributors and Brody Brothers Trucking, Joseph started working for the Senate Sergeant at Arms in July of 1972. He then came to the Senate Appropriations Committee in March of 1973 under the chairmanship of Senator John McClellan. In total, Joseph has worked for the Senate for over 31 years.

Since that time, Joseph has witnessed the growth in size and power as well as a host of other changes on the Senate Appropriations Committee. When Joseph started it consisted of only 30 people--today we have 95. Full committee meetings and conferences were held in the Old Supreme Court Chamber, would last for days and days, and were usually closed to only members and very few staff.

Joseph is actively involved in his church and community. He is a senior member of Asbury U.M. Church in Brandywine which is pastored by W. Otto Kent. In addition to being a member of the Prince Hall Masons, he is a vice president of the Danville Floral Park Citizens Association.

In closing, I just want to offer a special thank you to Joseph for all his outstanding contributions to the Senate Appropriations Committee over the past 31 years and wish him the best of luck in all his future endeavors.

Mr. President, I would like to utilize the time allocated to me on H.R. 2738, the United States-Chile free-trade agreement.

Mr. President, I objected to the consideration of this bill by unanimous consent because I wished to make this statement concerning the salmon fishing industry.

The U.S. salmon fishing industry is facing an economic crisis. Chile has dramatically increased their production of farmed fish and flooded the U.S. market with pen-raised, chemically altered farmed salmon. Last year the United States imported $400 million in farmed salmon from Chile--a 100 percent increase from 1997. In 1998 Chile exported 51,000 metric tons of farmed salmon to U.S. markets. By 2002 Chile's farmed salmon production capabilities doubled and exported over 100,000 metric tons of farmed salmon fillets to U.S. consumers.

This farmed salmon comes into the U.S. each year largely unrestricted and considering a study that was released this week on the high levels of PCBs and other pollutants in farmed salmon, we may want to consider greater testing of this product. Additional analysis may be needed to determine the levels of contamination in farmed salmon and warn consumers of any potential health risks.

It is these factory-scale farms that have developed contaminated, genetically altered fish and created a glut in the domestic salmon market, causing prices for wild-caught salmon to plummet. Increased competition from farmed salmon has significantly impacted the livelihoods of the men and women that participate in the salmon fishery. The U.S.-Chile free trade agreement will not address any of the adverse economic impacts faced by the U.S. salmon industry.

These adverse effects are not limited to the salmon industry alone. In my state of Alaska, the economy has taken the brunt of this crisis with processing plant closures, lost jobs and fishing boats that remained tied up at the docks. The Alaska commercial fishing industry as a whole is feeling the effects of deflated price in salmon.

Alaska's commercial fishing industry is a primary employer, providing 47 percent of private sector jobs, and is second only to the oil industry in generating revenue to the state. In 2001, the fishing industry in Alaska provided tax revenues to the State of over $51 million, down roughly $8 million from 2000. The Division of Commercial Fisheries in Alaska reports that more than 4.7 billion pounds of fish and shellfish with an ex-vessel value of $871 million were harvested in waters off Alaska in 2001. Of this amount the ex-vessel value for salmon in 2001 was $229 million.

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game reports the ex-vessel value of Alaska's 2002 salmon season was roughly $140 million for a catch of 130 million fish.

This continues a trend of declining season values for salmon. The Bristol Bay sockeye salmon catch received its lowest value since 1977, receiving approximately $25 million for 10 million fish. At 40 cents a pound, Bristol Bay salmon in the 2002 season were at prices lower than those received nearly 30 years ago.

Western Alaska fishing-dependent communities were extremely hard-hit by the depressed prices in salmon and declared an economic disaster area by the State of Alaska. The administration recognized this situation and last fall directed the Economic Development Administration, under the Department of Commerce, and the Labor Department to assist these communities experiencing sudden and severe economic dislocation.

Several antidumping investigations were initiated against Chile. There appeared to be strong spikes of increased imports of Chilean farmed-salmon during the summer months, the only time of the year that fishermen can deliver fresh wild-caught salmon to market. This is obviously unfair advantage taken of these exporters in the United States. The International Trade Commission ruled that there was a reasonable indication that material injury was caused to U.S. producers of salmon. Subsequently, antidumping orders were placed on various Chilean companies. These cases involved U.S. aquaculture concerns that were ultimately bought out by foreign companies and are strong evidence that the U.S. salmon industry has been adversely affected by unrestricted imports of Chilean farmed salmon.

Considering this history of bad acts and numerous concerns raised by the Alaska delegation and Alaska seafood producers, the U.S. trade representative was put on notice about the problems faced by the domestic salmon industry. However, the trade representative only negotiated recommendations that Chile make their trade practices more transparent.

The fact is, U.S. fishermen are treated far differently than other contributors to the domestic economy. Last year we passed an unprecedented farm bill that provided significant relief for U.S. farmers; the steel industry benefits from tariffs on imported steel; tariffs are levied on Canadian timber; and tariffs have increased substantially on imports of farmed catfish. The salmon industry does not receive any such protections, and it should have received a greater recommendation from our trade negotiators.

The reality for the salmon industry is they must go it alone and hope they can weather this dramatic change in world markets for salmon. My ardent hope is for this fishery to survive, and it can only survive if the trade representative and the other negotiators for the United States wake up.

This year, we have not taken any further efforts to block this bill. We will not do so. I want to put the Senate and administration on notice that this is the last year this will be allowed to continue. With the increased information we now have concerning the harm that this fish causes to our consumers--and we know the harm that is already caused to fishermen--it is time for the Congress and administration to work to protect our wild salmon production, and to help it get to market and not face this unreasonable competition.

I point out, the spikes in their imports take place when our fish are available. They are destroying the price by flooding the market with their product, which is a tainted product. Something ought to be done about it soon.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time and suggest the absence of a quorum.

I move to reconsider the vote.