John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, why can't we go on with the next vote, the regular order, I ask the distinguished Democratic leader?

Mr. McCAIN. I object. What is the regular order?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thought maybe we had done enough pork barreling for one bill, but apparently there is never enough around here, never enough. I would ask the Senator from Hawaii, when is it enough? Another $1.9 million, that is all, just $1.9 million. We are already, for hurricane recovery, $7.7 billion above the President's request; emergency agricultural disaster assistance, $3.9 billion above the President's request; drought emergency assistance, $12.5 million; port security enhancement, $650 million; general provisions, $36 million. It goes on and on and on. We are going to do something else for the State of Hawaii so we can win the war in Iraq and so we can respond to the hurricanes. One of these amendments is to provide assistance relating to assessments and monitoring of waters in the State of Hawaii--a million bucks for assistance relating to assessments and monitoring of the waters in the State of Hawaii, provided that the amount under this is designated an emergency requirement. What is it that is going on in the waters of Hawaii that designates it as an emergency? Then we have a $900,000 earmark, all for Hawaii, for assistance with assessment of critical reservoirs and dams in the State of Hawaii. I know something about that. We have a few reservoirs and dams in my State. I have yet to see an emergency that had to do with the war in Iraq and hurricanes that required that, but we are going to give them another $900,000. The sad thing about this is, they will probably get it. I am going to force a recorded vote on both of these amendments, but they will probably get it. Then in conference, there will be more money for Hawaii. And then in the next appropriations bill, there will be more money for Hawaii. My constituents live in Arizona. A lot of us are getting sick and tired of this--sick and tired, sick and tired. I ask unanimous consent to ask for the yeas and nays on both amendments and separate votes.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3616 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 minutes as in morning business.

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 3617. I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the editorial contained in the Washington Post on April 29 basically saying: There are, no doubt, farmers who have suffered severe losses this year. Isn't that what crop insurance--government- subsidized crop insurance, to the tune of $4.2 billion this year--is supposed to be about? The administration is right to oppose this provision; They are talking about the provision of $4 billion in disaster payments to farmers as part of the emergency spending bill-- the Senate ought to show enough discipline to take it out.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will be brief. I understand Hawaii experienced severe flooding this winter. It should be pointed out that the heavy tropical rains did not lead to a Presidential disaster declaration. Surely the flooding impacted a broad range of agricultural commodities in Hawaii, not just sugarcane growers, and the Secretary of Agriculture is providing assistance under existing USDA disaster recovery programs. These programs will help farmers with noninsured crops, debt management, emergency loans, infrastructure repair, and farmland rehabilitation. Do we really need an additional earmark of $6 million for Hawaiian sugarcane growers on top of the assistance already offered by the USDA? Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a USDA factsheet that contains the programs that are available: Emergency Conservation Program, Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program, Disaster Debt Set-Aside Program, and the Emergency Loan Program.

Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment would strike the $6 million earmark for sugarcane growers in Hawaii, which was not included in the administration's emergency supplemental request. I would again remind my colleagues of the Statement of Administration Policy which was issued on April 25, obviously on the legislation now being considered. Again, this has been repeated several times in the Chamber, but I think it is important to again quote from the administration's statement, saying: The administration is seriously concerned with the overall funding level and the numerous unrequested items included in the Senate bill that are unrelated to the war or emergency hurricane relief needs. The final version of the legislation must remain focused on addressing urgent national priorities while maintaining fiscal discipline. Accordingly, if the President is ultimately presented a bill that provides more than $92.2 billion, exclusive of funding for the President's plan to address pandemic influenza, he will veto the bill. The administration statement goes on to say: The administration strongly opposes the committee's agricultural assistance proposal totaling nearly $4 billion. The 2002 farm bill was designed, when combined with crop insurance, to eliminate the need for ad hoc disaster assistance. In 2005, many crops had record or near record production and the U.S. farm sector cash receipts were the second highest ever. Furthermore, the proposed level of assistance is excessive and may overcompensate certain producers for their losses. So the administration is pretty clear about this issue of these add- ons which have ballooned this bill from $92 billion to $105 billion or so. I also point out for my colleagues' benefit that the American people are growing very weary of this earmarking process. Last Thursday, there was a poll published in the Wall Street Journal, which is an NBC News/ Wall Street Journal poll, and it was interesting in that it says: In particular, Americans who don't approve of Congress blame their sour mood on partisan contention and gridlock in Washington. Some 44 percent call themselves ``tired of Republicans and Democrats fighting each other.'' Thirty-six percent say nothing seems to get done on important issues. Further, 34 percent cite corruption among lawmakers. Among all Americans, a 39 percent plurality say the single most important thing for Congress to accomplish this year is curtailing budgetary earmarks benefiting only certain constituents. If there is ever a bill that would emphasize the frustration Americans have felt, it is this legislation that is before us. A worthy cause, although I intend, along with others, to stop this business of continuing to fund the war in Iraq, which has been going on now a number of years now, the ``emergency supplemental,'' it is long overdue and time to focus on the normal budgetary process because we know we will be spending money on Iraq, unfortunately, for a long period of time. But this vehicle in itself is a violation of the normal procedures of the Senate because it should be authorized and then appropriated. But this vehicle is then, of course, used to load up unnecessary, unwanted, unfortunate, and sometimes outrageous additional spending. For example, in this bill, which is not subject to this amendment, we have $15 million to the USDA Ewe Lamb Replacement and Retention Program. This program already exists and is meant to assist with lamb breeding stock needs, not hurricane recovery; $400,000 goes to the Rio Grande Valley sugar growers for assistance with sugarcane storage and transportation costs to the port of Baton Rouge, LA. Among the many sugar growers nationwide, why are we providing an earmark to this particular group? There is $120 million for sugarcane and sugar beet disaster assistance in Florida. Rather than using existing USDA disaster assistance programs, this legislation would establish a special program that caters directly and solely to Florida sugar. By the way, it is one of the most heavily subsidized industries in America today. There is $6 million to compensate owners of flooded crop and grazing land in North Dakota. Hurricanes in North Dakota? North Dakota is one of the nation's top producers of, you guessed it, sugar. Mr. President, the amendment I offer today would strike an earmark in the bill that provides $6 million to sugarcane growers in Hawaii. Obviously, the Hawaiian lands were not anywhere near the path of the 2005 hurricanes. Certainly it is appropriate that any farmer impacted by a natural disaster can seek Federal assistance which, as I already said, is why there are existing USDA disaster recovery programs authorized under the 2002 farm bill. But in this case the appropriators are establishing a special program that caters directly to Hawaiian sugar growers via a must-pass emergency appropriations bill. I think it is important that we continue to go back, as we argue the merits or demerits of these earmarks, to the fact that this is the ``Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery.'' Hawaiian sugar growers do not fit in any of those categories. According to this bill, according to the legislation before us, the Secretary shall use $6 million to ``assist sugarcane growers in Hawaii by making a payment in that amount to an agricultural transportation cooperative in Hawaii, the members of which are eligible to receive marketing assistance loans and loan deficiency payments.'' What does that mean? I can only assume this funding will be directed to the Hawaii Sugar and Transportation Cooperative, the only entity that received $7.2 million from a nearly identical provision in last year's, guess what, military construction appropriations. This same entity has already got $7.2 million out of a MilCon bill. I am informed the members are the Gay and Robinson Sugar Company, the island of Hawaii, and the Hawaiian Commercial Sugar Company, the island of Maui. These are producer-owned sugarcane mills that own the land. Let me repeat. The same cooperative got a bailout a year ago. Are we now going to start providing these two companies with annual supplemental appropriations bailouts? I urge my colleagues to question what we are doing. Let me quote from the administration's Statement of Administrative Policy again: In 2005, many crops had record or near record production and U.S. farm sector cash receipts were the second highest ever. Furthermore, the proposed level of assistance is excessive and may overcompensate certain producers for their losses. What are we trying to do with this bill? We are trying to tell our farmers, no matter where you are or what you farm, don't bother with crop insurance because come next year's supplemental, we will dole out far more than you need. As Secretary Mike Johanns said: I have spent the last week studying the bill to try to get an understanding of the mechanics of the bill, but taking it a step further, trying to get an understanding of what we have done for disaster relief in the last year. And what is the agricultural economy like that may lay the foundation for somebody to say we need disaster relief. He said for the 2005 and 2006 crop years, despite pockets of weather problems, ``Every year you see them. For a country this big, it is unusual not to have some weather issues out there.'' But despite pockets of problems, production and yields set records or near records recently. Johanns' conclusions, after getting answers to his questions: ``I got all that data and evidence, and that got me thinking, `What are they trying to do with that bill?' '' He is talking about the supplemental bill before us. ``So I studied the bill and I must admit, my forehead started wrinkling.'' Well, as noted in Saturday's Washington Post editorial, ``Should Farming Be the Nation's Only Risk-Free Enterprise?'' perhaps the intent in providing this $6 million to the Hawaiian sugar growers is to prop up a sugar industry which has fallen on hard times. With rising diabetes and child obesity rates which have more than doubled since 1977, maybe sugar isn't in demand as in previous years. Maybe the efforts by parents to have soft drink machines stripped from public schools is having a prolific effect on sugar production. If only that were the case. In reality, consumption of sweeteners in the U.S. has risen from 113 pounds per person per year in 1966 to around 142 pounds per person per year in 2004. At that rate Americans consume the equivalent of about 1 teaspoon of sugar per hour every 24 hours, 7 days a week. The U.S. News & World Report compared our sugar fix to other, more nutritious agricultural commodities and found that Americans ate an abysmal 8.3 pounds of broccoli a year in 2003, something I can understand. Again I question the need to spend more taxpayer dollars on sugarcane. Didn't we just vote last week not to fund a $15 million marketing program for seafood? Certainly less than a week later we are not going to turn around and vote to fund marketing to support this effort. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I come in support of the amendment. I know that we don't have too much time since the distinguished managers would like to get this bill moving, but let me just say that this is $15 million to be used, and I quote from the bill: ``Seafood promotion strategy,'' which is Congress's attempt to sell consumers pork masquerading as a fish. Similar to other appropriations in this bill, this $15 million is not limited to marketing seafood from the gulf coast region or other areas that were affected by Hurricane Katrina. For example, the Alaska Fisheries Marketing Board likely anticipates a payout from these appropriations. We have come a long way from an emergency supplemental. The board has received--this Alaska Fisheries Marketing Board--has received over $30 million from the Federal Government since 2003 from similar provisions in appropriations bills. Last year, this board used a half million dollars to pay Alaska Airlines to paint a giant salmon on a 737. We called it the ``salmon- 30-salmon,'' proving that fish do fly, thanks to the American taxpayer. According to a recent survey by Harris Interactive, 73 percent of all Americans say they eat seafood at least once a month, and 47 percent of all Americans consume more seafood now than they did 5 years ago. These record consumption levels were achieved without a pricey marketing campaign financed by American taxpayers. It appears that Charlie the Tuna and the Chicken of the Sea mermaid are doing their jobs just fine, without any help from the Federal Government. Additionally, a recent CRS report states: The marketability of catch from the gulf coast appears little affected by contamination from storm runoff or consumers' concerns. Mr. President, let me save the American taxpayers $15 million right now by telling all Americans now to eat seafood. Eat seafood. It is good for you. There we go. C-SPAN has millions of viewers, and they have heard the message. So the marketing campaign is complete. With the Federal budget deficit forecasted to reach $477 billion this year, I doubt the American taxpayer would approve of Congress spending $15 million to promote the consumption of seafood when Americans are already consuming record amounts of seafood. Lastly, the CRS report also found that prior to Hurricane Katrina, the gulf coast commercial shrimpers had been losing market share to ``competition from less expensive foreign imports and domestic harvesters for several years.'' Therefore, this $15 million marketing campaign seems to be targeted more toward stemming the success of less expensive imports than assisting the gulf coast region's economy. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment to strike the fishiest smelling pork in this bill. Let me just make one additional comment, if I could. It is clear--it is very clear--that what we have here is a broken process. Any defense money that we are taking out should have been part of the normal budgetary process. I want to tell my colleagues that I and others have embarked on an effort to bring the emergency supplemental that pays for the Iraq war into the normal budgetary process. We have been at war for 3 years. This is the fourth year. There is no reason to do business like this. It bypasses the authorization process, it bypasses any scrutiny by the proper committees, we then bring it to the floor, and it is filled with items such as this ridiculous $15 million for a seafood marketing campaign, and it grows and grows and grows. Today, in the Wall Street Journal, there is a poll. It says: ``Republicans sag in new poll.'' I found it very interesting that in describing the poll, in particular, Americans who don't approve of Congress blame their sour mood on partisan contention and gridlock in Washington. Some 44 percent call themselves tired of Republicans and Democrats fighting each other. Among all Americans, a 39-percent plurality say the single most important thing for Congress to accomplish this year is curtailing budgetary earmarks benefiting only certain constituents. I want to repeat that, Mr. President. A 39-percent plurality of Americans are sick and tired of the earmarking process that is going on. Now, when are we going to respond to the American people? Everyplace I go, every town hall meeting I attend, my constituents tell me they are sick and tired of this. And, now, according to a Wall Street Journal NBC poll, a 39-percent plurality say the single most important thing for Congress to accomplish this year is curtailing budgetary earmarks benefiting only certain constituents. This is a graphic example of what the American people are sick and tired of. By the way, immigration reform ranks behind earmarks in congressional action that is desired by the American people. It concludes by saying: Americans take dim views of both parties, giving Democrats a positive rating of just 33 percent and Republicans 35 percent. We are at an all-time low in the favorable opinion of the American people. This is an example. This $15 million is a very small but compelling example of our need to change the way we do business. If we vote again to keep this in this bill, we are sending the message to the American people that it is business as usual. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. If I may, if the Senator will yield for an additional question.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, if the Senator yields for a question, then he maintains the right to the floor. I by no means want to deprive him of that. Is the Senator from Oregon concerned that he is not going to get a vote on this amendment? Because it seems to me if the amendment is proposed and it is in order, at some point, after disposing of the pending amendments, unless there is something I don't understand, the amendment of the Senator from Oregon would then be subject to a vote. As the Senator from Oregon knows, there are several other pending amendments that we think are important as well, particularly having to do with earmarks. I note this morning in a Wall Street Journal-NBC poll, the No. 1 concern of Americans is earmarks. I find it very interesting that they are sick and tired of the absolutely incredible stuff we have loaded into this bill. The Senator from Oklahoma and I have an amendment about seafood marketing. The Senator from Oregon, I am sure, probably remembers that last year they spent some half a million to paint a giant salmon on a 737. The same money would go to that same outfit in this bill that is supposed to be for the war in Iraq. I am sorry for the long question. I apologize to my friend from Oregon. Is it his concern that he will not get a vote on this amendment or that he needs a vote now? Perhaps for the rest of us who are waiting to offer amendments, he could clarify. I thank the Senator from Oregon for his courtesy.

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. McCAIN. My understanding from talking to the floor staff, I say to the Senator from Oregon--and the distinguished chairman can probably help out on this--is we have a number of amendments in order which are going to be voted on, I think by an agreement between the two leaders, which is the general procedure around here. Nothing is more outrageous, as the Senator from Oregon pointed out, than these things that are stuffed into conference reports. But this isn't a conference report. This is an initial bite at an appropriations bill. I hope that perhaps we could work out something so we can continue with the amendment process and set a time for votes on all amendments, with the amendment of the Senator from Oregon in order following the others, as is the normal procedure. Maybe the Senator from Oregon could ask for that again, we could move forward. We all know that everybody's time is limited. I thank the Senator for responding to my question.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside and I send four amendments to the desk.

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator from Nevada explain exactly what his motion is?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Can the Senator yield to another Senator?

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleague from Virginia. Amendments Nos. 3620 and 3621, en bloc

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, H.R. 3351, the Native American Technical Corrections Act of 2005, was passed by the House on November 16, 2005, and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs. Many of the provisions in the House bill have already been acted on by the Senate in various bills. I will ask the Senate to pass the bill with a substitute amendment which includes most of the provisions in the original House version of the bill as well as some amendments that were not in the House version. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Dorgan as an original cosponsor of the amendment. The Senate amendment to H.R. 3551 that I am offering contains the following: Section 104 is the same as S. 1484, which passed the Senate on July 26, 2005, and it amends the Fallon Paiute Shoshone Indian Tribes Water Rights Settlement Act of 1990 to adjust the spending rule set forth in that act for the Tribe's Settlement Fund. The provision would authorize expenditure of 6 percent of the average market value of the Settlement fund over the preceding 3 years. Section 201 is the same as S. 706, which passed the Senate on July 26, 2005, and it authorizes the transfer of lands, now held by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to the Department of the Interior to be held in trust for the benefit of the Prairie Island Indian community in Red Wing, MN. The transfer will have no effect on the tax status of the lands, nor will the Prairie Island Indian Community be permitted to develop commercial or gaming facilities on the land; section 202 authorizes various 99-year leases. Part of this section passed Senate in S. 1485 on July 26, 2005, while other provisions were contained in H.R. 3351. Section 203 addresses the problem of lack of appraisers in Indian country by providing that for purposes of obtaining agricultural loans, the market value of land is the default appraisal value. This section is the same as S. 1489, that passed the Senate on July 26, 2005. Section 301 previously passed the Senate in S. 1295 on December 12, 2005, and it authorizes the National Indian Gaming Commission to collect fees up to 0.08 percent of gross gaming revenues, and eliminates $12 million cap, and subjects NIGC to the Government Performance and Results Act. Section 401, like S. 1758, that passed the Senate on August 22, 2005, amends the Indian Financing Act of 1974 to clarify that nonprofit tribal entities are eligible for Bureau of Indian Affairs Loan Guaranty Program. In addition, because the BIA is fast reaching its $500 million limit on the amount of loans it can have outstanding, and this section will increase that number to $1.5 billion. The four new provisions that have not passed the Senate as stand- alone measures do the following: Section 101 corrects a drafting error to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act; section 102 facilitates exchanges between Alaska Regional and Village Corporations of land obtained through the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act by clarifying that undeveloped land received by each Native corporation participant in the exchanges is deemed to be land conveyed under ANCSA; and section 103 will allow the State of Mississippi to pay the Mississippi Choctaw for work already preformed, through a newly established BIA Trust Fund. The final new provision is section 501, the Native American Probate Reform and Technical Amendment, described in more detail below. Section 501 corrects drafting errors and clarifies and includes new provisions relating to amendments made by the American Indian Probate Reform Act of 2004, AIPRA, and S. 1481, which was enacted into law in December of 2005. One of these provisions is an amendment to 25 U.S.C. 464. In 2004, this section was amended in AIPRA so that it would conform to the new uniform Indian probate code that was the centerpiece of AIPRA; however, after reviewing the various amendments that were made by AIPRA, which was a very complex piece of legislation, we concluded that the AIPRA amendments to 25 U.S.C. 464 was drafted in a way that its execution was unclear. So in the 109th Congress, we attempted to correct this in S. 1481--P.L. 109-157, enacted on December 30, 2005, by restating section 464 as it should have read. Unfortunately, there were drafting errors in S. 1481 that were not picked up prior to its enactment. Accordingly, my substitute amendment includes a new restatement of section 464 correcting these drafting errors and conforming the statute to the new uniform Indian probate code enacted as part of AIPRA. I would like to make the point here that the purpose of the amendments restating section 464, both in S. 1481 and in the current substitute amendment to H.R. 3351, were and are intended to do nothing more than to conform the provisions in that section relating to the devise and inheritance of lands to the new uniform probate code contained in the American Indian Probate Reform Act of 2004. As the author of both S. 1481 and the substitute amendment, I want to make it clear that neither measure intends to affect any of the other sorts of transactions that might otherwise be subject to section 464 or to affect in any way the application of any other Federal laws that might apply to lands that are covered by section 464. We are also making clarifying amendments to AIPRA relating to the effective date of its amendments and to its amendments to the ``Applicable Federal Law'' provisions of section 207(g) of the Indian Land Consolidation Act. With respect to the former, the substitute includes technical amendments to the effective date section of AIPRA, section 8(b) of AIPRA, to make it clear that the amendments that were made to 25 U.S.C. 464 and 25 U.S.C. 348 are intended to take effect 1 year after the date on which the Secretary of Interior certified that notice of the AIPRA amendments had been given to Indian country in accordance with AIPRA section 8(a), and that sections 348 and 464, as they read immediately prior to the passage of AIPRA, would continue to apply until the effective date of the new amendments. Finally, the substitute also makes some minor changes to the wording of section 207(g) of ILCA just to further clarify congressional intent that nothing in ILCA supercedes or affects the application of special laws that relate to specific Indian tribes or the allotted lands of specific tribes.