Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the amendment I have cosponsored with Senator Warner will restore the President's request for the Department of Defense. I understand the reasons why the Budget Committee did not bring this full number out of the committee, but we wish to restore the President's request in full. We are engaged in a global war against terrorism. We have troops in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Haiti. More than half of our forces are overseas at the present time. I do not think it is time for us to cut the President's request for the Department of Defense.

Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I would like the Senate to join my good friend from Hawaii in celebrating this day. Today is Senator Inouye's 15,036th day in the Senate. That makes him the fifth longest serving Senator in the history of the United States. He has passed the record set by Senator John Stennis, who was previously the fifth longest serving Senator. Senator Inouye was sworn in as a U.S. Senator on January 3, 1963. Since that time he has cast 13,844 votes. Only four Members in history have cast more votes. During his Senate career, he has served with 355 of the 1,875 Senators who have been Members of this body. This means he has served with approximately 20 percent of all Senators in U.S. history. I count myself lucky to be one of the many Senators who continue to have the privilege to work alongside my good friend from Hawaii, Senator Inouye. Congratulations, Senator. (Applause, Senators rising.)

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the attached eulogy be printed in the Record today. Dr. James H. Billington, Librarian of Congress, delivered this eulogy on Tuesday, March 2, 2004 at the funeral of Daniel Boorstin, who served as Librarian of Congress from 1975 to 1987. It also appeared in Rollcall yesterday.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. 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.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Reluctantly, I must object to that request.

Mr. STEVENS. 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.

Mr. STEVENS. I yield.

Mr. STEVENS. 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.

Mr. STEVENS. I am happy to yield for a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS

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

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