Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. 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

Mr. STEVENS. 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.

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

Mr. STEVENS. 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

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

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

Mr. STEVENS. 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

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

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. 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.

Mr. STEVENS. 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.

Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS. 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.

Mr. STEVENS

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. 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.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. 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.

Mr. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS. 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.