John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my good friend and colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, and our good friends who lead the campaign finance reform fight in the House, Representatives Shays and Meehan, in introducing a bill to end the illegal practice of 527 groups spending soft money on ads and other activities to influence Federal elections. As my colleagues know, a number of 527 groups have been raising and spending substantial amounts of soft money in a blatant effort to influence the outcome of this year's Presidential election. These activities are illegal under existing laws, and yet once again, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has failed to do its job and has refused to do anything to stop these illegal activities. Therefore, we must pursue all possible steps to overturn the FEC's misinterpretation of the campaign finance laws, which is improperly allowing 527 groups whose purpose is to influence Federal elections to spend soft money on these efforts. Last week, we filed a lawsuit to overturn the FEC's failure to issue regulations to stop these illegal practices by 527 groups. President Bush and his campaign filed a similar lawsuit against the FEC last week as well, and I also appreciate President Bush's support for the legislative effort we begin today on 527s. We are introducing legislation that will accomplish the same result. We are going to follow every possible avenue to stop 527 groups from effectively breaking the law, and doing what they are already prohibited from doing by longstanding laws. The bill we introduce today is simply. It would require that all 527s register as political committees and comply with Federal campaign finance laws, including Federal limits on the contributions they receive, unless the money they raise and spend is only in connection with non-Federal candidate elections, State or local ballot initiatives, or the nomination or confirmation of individuals to non- elected offices. Additionally, this legislation would set new rules for Federal political committees that spend funds on voter mobilization efforts effecting both federal and local races and, therefore, use both a federal and a non-Federal account under FEC regulations. The new rules would prevent unlimited soft money from being channeled into Federal election activities by these Federal political committees. Under the new rules, at least half of the funds spent on these voter mobilization activities by Federal political committees would have to be hard money from their Federal account. More importantly, the funds raised for their non-federal account would have to come from individuals and would be limited to no more than $25,000 per year per donor. Corporations and labor unions could not contribute to these non- federal accounts. To put it in simple terms, a George Soros could give $25,000 per year as opposed to $10 million to finance these activities. Let me be perfectly clear on one point here. Our proposal will not shut down 527s, it will simply require them to abide by the same Federal regulations every other Federal political committee must abide by in spending money to influence Federal elections. It is unfortunate that we even need to be here introducing this bill today. This legislation would not be necessary if it weren't for the abject failure of the FEC to enforce existing laws. As my colleagues well know, some organizations, registered under section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code, have had a major impact on this year's presidential election by raising and spending illegal soft money to run ads attacking both President Bush and Senator Kerry. The use of soft money to finance these activities is clearly illegal under current statute, and the fact that they have been allowed to continue unchecked is unconscionable. The blame for this lack of enforcement does not lie with the Congress, nor with the Administration. The blame for this continuing illegal activity lies squarely with the FEC. This agency has a duty to issue regulations to properly implement and enforce the nation's campaign laws--and the FEC has failed, and it has failed miserably to carry out that responsibility. The Supreme Court found that to be the case in its McConnell decision and Judge Kollar-Kotelly found that to be the case in her recent decision overturning 15 regulations incorrectly adopted by the FEC to implement the new BCRA law. That is why a Los Angeles Times editorial today stated that, ``her decision would make a fitting obituary for an agency that deserves to die.'' It should be clear by now why we have introduced legislation to abolish the FEC and replace it with a new enforcement agency. And we will be conducting a major effort starting at the beginning of next year to enact our bill to get a new, true enforcement agency and to pass the 527 reform act we are introducing today. We are not going to allow the destructive FEC to continue to undermine the nation's campaign finance laws as it has been consistently doing for the past two decades. In the mean time, given the unmitigated failure of this agency, I believe that its Chair, Bradley Smith and its Vice Chair, Ellen Weintraub, should resign and recognize that they have failed to carry out their responsibilities as public officials. Opponents of campaign reform like to point out that the activities of these 527s serve as proof that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) has failed in its stated purpose to eliminate the corrupting influence of soft money in our political campaigns. Let me be perfectly clear on this. The 527 issue has nothing to do with BCRA, it has everything to do with the 194 law and the failure of the FEC to do its job and properly regulate the activities of these groups. As further evidence of the FEC's lack of capability, let me quote from a couple of recent court decisions which highlight this agency's shortcomings. First, in its decision upholding the constitutionality of BCRA in McConnell v. FEC, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the FEC had ``subverted'' the law, issued regulations that ``permitted more than Congress had ever intended,'' and ``invited widespread circumvention'' of FECA's limited on contributions. Additionally, just this past Saturday, a federal district court judge threw out 15 of the FEC's regulations implementing BCRA. Among the reasons for her actions were that one provision ``severely undermines FECA'' and would ``foster corruption'', another ``runs completely afoul'' of current law, another would ``render the statute largely meaningless'' and, finally, that another had ``no rational basis.'' The track record of the FEC is clear, and by their continued stonewalling, the Commission has proven itself to be nothing more than a bureaucratic nightmare, and the time has come to put an end to its destructive tactics. The FEC has had ample, and well documented, opportunities to address the issue of the 527s illegal activities, and each time they have taken a pass, choosing instead to delay, postpone, and refuse to act. Enough is enough. It is time to stop wasting taxpayer's dollars on an agency that runs roughshod over the will of the Congress, the Supreme Court, the American people, and the Constitution. We've fought too long and too hard to sit back and allow this worthless agency to undermine the law. So, here is the bottom line: if the FEC won't do its job, and its commissioners have proven time and time again that they won't, then we'll do it for them. The bill Senator Feingold and I introduce today will put an end to the abusive, illegal practices of these 527s. And we will fight beginning next year to replace this rogue agency with a real enforcement agency. I urge my colleagues to support swift passage of these bills and put an end to this problem once and for all. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the swift confirmation of Congressman Porter Goss as Director of Central Intelligence. I have been privileged to know Mr. Goss for a number of years, and I can attest that he is a leader, a man of personal intelligence and integrity, and a true patriot. He is also extremely well qualified for the position to which he has been nominated. I do not believe I am divulging any state secrets when I mention that Porter Goss knows the intelligence community from the ground up-- beginning with his service as a young case officer and most recently as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. His 10-year career with the Central Intelligence Agency gave him a thorough understanding of how that large organization operates--invaluable background as the Congress and the executive branch proceed with various plans for reorganizing the intelligence community. His experience on the CIA staff, combined with his oversight responsibilities in the House, makes him perhaps uniquely qualified to understand the challenges and opportunities facing the community today. Congressman Goss has demonstrated time and again his commitment to the needs and goals of the intelligence community in its service to our Nation and the American people. He is not merely qualified. He was meant for this position. When he takes up his duties, he will do so at a time of great change in the intelligence community. Reeling from the intelligence failures of 9/11 and Iraq, and faced with comprehensive reorganization, the community's leadership has rarely been so important. I am confident that Mr. Goss will lead the CIA in an independent and nonpolitical manner as he has committed to do, ensuring that policymakers receive the best intelligence and analysis that our government can provide. I am also confident that he will be helpful as the Congress reorganizes itself in order to better conduct oversight over the intelligence community. We in the Congress sometimes forget that intelligence failures the Nation has experienced are not limited to the agencies alone. Congressional oversight has been, as the 9/11 Commission put it, ``dysfunctional,'' and must be changed. As we face the national security challenges that are so evident to all of us, the Nation will be privileged to have Porter Goss at the helm of the CIA. America needs an individual who will help lead our intelligence agencies into a new era. I wholeheartedly support his confirmation.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate for not more than 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I support passage of the fiscal year 2005 Military Construction Appropriations Act. This bill provides $10 billion in funding for important military construction activities including base housing and the construction and maintenance of base infrastructure. Amazingly, this report contains only 35 earmarks totaling $44.7 million, which is significantly less than the approximately $80 million in unauthorized earmarks contained in last year's appropriations bill. Although 70 percent of these earmarks are directed to the States of appropriators, I applaud the Military Construction Subcommittee for their generally clean bill. I am particularly pleased by the language in the report that specifically states that the committee has provided construction funds only for projects that were included in the Senate- passed version of the fiscal year 2005 Defense Authorization Act, currently pending in conference. This appropriations bill is a good example of how the legislative process is expected to work, wherein the work of the authorizers is fully taken into account by the appropriators. I hope this can be emulated by all appropriations subcommittees and authorizing committees. As we progress towards the scheduled base closure and realignment round in 2005, I am encouraged to see that my colleagues have resisted the temptation to add pork to bases in their States in what would be a misguided effort to save their bases base closure. Such efforts would be a waste of taxpayer money and would not prevent their base from being closed. In an effort to contain the wasteful spending inherent in Member- requested construction projects. I sponsored, and the Senate adopted, merit-based criteria for evaluating member add-ons as a part of the fiscal year 1995 Defense Authorization Act. The criteria are: No. 1, the project is in the service's future years defense plan; No. 2, the project is mission essential; No. 3, the project does not conflict with base realignment proposals; No. 5, the service can offset the proposed expenditure within that year's budget request. These criteria have been useful in ferreting out programs or projects of questionable merit, and in determining the relative priority of projects that have been requested by Members for strictly parochial reasons, often at the expense of the readiness of our Armed Forces. Unfortunately, in the years that these criteria have been in place, no offsets have been provided for any project. All of the 35 earmarks, totaling $44.7 million, are under the minor construction account. Normally, this account is intended to be used for urgent and unforeseen requirements and, therefore, neither the President's budget nor the authorizing committees identify specific projects to be funded. Once the services decide to spend the money, the authorizing and appropriations committees must approve or disapprove of the minor construction project to which the services plan to fund. By earmarking the funds in the minor construction account, the appropriators have usurped the authority of the authorizing committee to approve or reject these projects. I commend the chairman of the Military Construction Subcommittee, Senator Hutchison, and the ranking member, Senator Feinstein, for their work on this bill and their continued support for our military. Their attention and commitment to only supporting high-priority projects for the Navy, Marine Corps, Army and Air Force is once again exemplary and provide for a sound measure to fund military construction in the coming fiscal year.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has agreed by unanimous consent to pass a substitute amendment to the Federal Trade Commission Reauthorization Act, S. 1234. The bill would reauthorize the Federal Trade Commission in furtherance of its mission to enhance the efficient operation of the marketplace by both eliminating acts or practices that are unfair or deceptive and preventing anti-competitive conduct. Further, the legislation would authorize funding for the FTC through 2008, and enhance the Commission's ability to combat international--or cross-border--fraud. In addition to reauthorizing this vital consumer protection agency for the period 2005 through 2008, the bill, as amended, is also designed to mitigate the challenges that the FTC increasingly faces in combating cross-border fraud. The FTC's consumer protection responsibilities are essential, particularly in today's global climate of high-speed information and marketing, which know no international borders. This legislation is crucial to the FTC's ability to protect American consumers by authorizing the Commission to: Share information involving cross-border fraud with foreign consumer protection agencies; secure confidential information from those foreign agencies; work in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Justice to seek redress for American consumers in foreign courts; make criminal referrals to the DOJ for cross-border criminal activity; and generally strengthen its relationship with foreign consumer protection agencies. Under the FTC's current authority the agency is not able to exchange information with its foreign counterparts to shut down consumer scams originating outside the United States, but perpetrated against American consumers. As a consequence, the FTC is left without the ability to seek redress on behalf of defrauded consumers. In addition, the FTC is not currently considered a ``market regulator,'' and thus, banking agencies may not share suspicious consumer information with the FTC. As a result, the FTC is not able to trade funds derived from illegal Internet schemes sent through U.S. banks and placed in offshore bank accounts. Thus, those who devise and carry out such schemes are too often allowed to escape the grasp of the FTC. But even if the FTC were able to share information with its foreign counterparts and market regulators, the FTC would be unable to litigate consumer protection cases in foreign courts. While these are descriptions of merely a few gaps in the FTC's current international consumer protection authority, they underscore how vulnerable American consumers are to cross-border fraud. This legislation would fill these and other gaps in the FTC's current international consumer protection authority, and allow the FTC to function more effectively in carrying out its Congressional mandate to protect American consumers. This bill, as amended, would also grant authority to the FTC to provide investigative and other services to a requesting domestic law enforcement agency and receive from that agency, if offered, reimbursement for the FTC's involvement. Finally, the amendment would provide to the Commission the authority it has requested to receive gifts or items that would be useful to the Commission as long as a conflict of interest is not created by such receipt. The underlying bill was considered and reported unanimously last year by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Since being placed on the Senate Calendar, its provisions have been thoroughly vetted on a bipartisan basis with the multiple federal agencies that have a vested interest in its enactment. We have worked with and received sign off from each affected agency on this substitute amendment.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as we debate the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill for fiscal year 2005, threats against our country and our way of life continue to mount. The reality of the world in which we live today is that terrorists are plotting ways to destroy our way of life and seek to destroy the freedoms and liberties we cherish. The recently released 9/11 Commission report outlines the failures that lead to the September 11 terrorist attacks and poses 41 recommendations on how to address identified failures and deter future terrorist attacks. Senators Lieberman, Specter, Bayh and others have joined with me introducing legislation that encompasses all of the Commission recommendations. A number of the Commission's recommendations relate directly to the Department of Homeland Security and merit discussion today. Obviously, one of the best ways to prevent terrorists from attacking our country is to prevent them from entering in the first place. The Commission urges the Government to integrate watch lists, speed up the full implementation of USVISIT, which is an automated biometric exit and entry program, and work with our allies to better coordinate terrorist travel intelligence. Actions must be taken to close current gaps in our security that allow people to travel into the United States without passports or other identification. Though challenging, it will be possible to tighten security and implement needed changes as recommended by the Commission without unnecessarily impeding the flow of people in and out of our country. The Commission also was clear that ``[h]omeland security assistance should be based strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities'' and that ``Congress should not use this money as a pork barrel.'' As the Commission reported, ``[p]opulation density, vulnerability and critical infrastructure should be the criteria by which homeland security assistance is based. I whole-heartedly agree. We must continue to resist any urge to earmark homeland security funds and I am pleased by the restraint the Appropriations Committee has once again shown while considering this homeland security funding legislation. Just 2 years ago, we created the third largest Government agency, the Department of Homeland Security, bringing 21 distinct Federal agencies under the direction of one Department. Since that time, considerable progress has been made in protecting our country. However, as succinctly stated in the Commission's report, we are still not safe. We have yet to adequately develop strong measures to protect our air, land, and sea ports of entry. Our borders remain porous. We need to develop more efficient ways for states and localities to receive much needed funding to increase their preparedness for a terrorist attack. I also remain very concerned at the continuing problems surrounding interoperability. I commend the chairman of the DHS Subcommittee, Senator Cochran, for developing an appropriations bill with minimal earmarks or unrequested spending. Although this is only the second Homeland Security Appropriations bill, I remain encouraged that the Appropriations Committee has resisted the urge to load its DHS appropriations legislation with unrequested spending. I urge my colleagues to hold strong as the bill continues through the legislative process. I would be remiss if I did not point out that the few earmarks contained in this bill are targeted, as usual, to the home States of appropriators. Examples of earmarks and directive language include: The bill provides $15.4 million for the Coast Guard's bridge alteration program, despite the fact that the President requested no funds for this program. The report then earmarks the funds as follows: $4.4 million for the Florida Avenue Bridge, New Orleans, LA; $3 million for the EJ&E Railroad Bridge, Morris, IL; $5 million for the Fourteen Mile CSX Railroad Bridge, Mobile, AL; $3 million for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Bridge, Burlington, IA. The bill provides $5 million above the President's request for identified perimeter security and firearms range needs, and the report specifies that the extra funds are to be spent at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Artesia, NM; Agricultural pests: citing Hawaii's ``globally significant natural environment,'' the Committee report states that DHS should work with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Hawaii Department of Agriculture in sharing information and expertise to ensure protection against agricultural pests. In this time of heightened security and exploding federal budgets, one should question the need for such a provision. I, for one, had not been unaware of an impending scourge of agricultural pests--pests that obviously have the good sense to live in a state that is popular travel destiny--pose a threat to the security of the homeland. Out of the acquisition, construction, improvements and related expenses account provided for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, the committee report specifically identifies alterations and maintenance funding for buildings at four locations three of which happen to be represented by appropriators. The locations are Artesia, NM; Cheltenham, MD; Charleston, SC; and Glynco, GA. Mr. President, the role of our Department of Homeland Security is perhaps most vital when it comes to protecting our Nation's borders. I am pleased that the committee has continued to fund improvements in the technology available for the Department of Homeland Security to protect our borders. However, money alone will not solve this problem. We must reform our immigration laws while we work to improve border security. Historians will judge the 108th Congress by the way we address international terrorism and respond to the attacks of September 11. While much work remains to be done to secure our homeland, including action on 9/11 Commission recommendations, we can take another important step by passing this legislation. Mr. President, once again, I thank the appropriators for their efforts to move a relatively clean homeland security appropriations bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, has all time expired?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has agreed by unanimous consent to pass H.R. 361, the Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust Act, SPARTA. The bill would help to protect amateur athletes from exploitation by sports agents. I commend Congressman Tom Osborne for his tireless work on this legislation and his ongoing commitment to ensuring that amateur athletes are treated with fairness and dignity. This legislation is needed because State and Federal penalties for agents who engage in dishonest practices to lure athletes to sign contracts are seen by many groups as weak. For example, misconduct such as secret payments to amateur athletes, undisclosed payments to family or friends of athletes, unrealistic promises, pressure placed on the athletes, and even blackmail often go unpunished despite the severe damage that their practices cause to our country's amateur athletes. Under SPARTA, sports agents would be prohibited from providing false or misleading information, making false promises, or providing anything of value to amateur athletes or their families. Each violation of SPARTA would be deemed an unfair or deceptive act or practice under the Federal Trade Commission Act, FTCA. SPARTA would authorize civil actions by the Federal Trade Commission, State attorneys general, and educational institutions against violators. In addition, SPARTA would serve as a Federal backstop for an ongoing effort by the National Collegiate Athletic Association, NCAA, college coaches, university presidents, and athletic directors to promote at the State-level legislation developed by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws to regulate the business practices of sports agents. The legislation, titled the Uniform Athlete's Agent Act, UAAA, would require that sports agents be registered with the States in which they operate, and provide uniform State laws addressing their conduct and practices. To date, the legislatures of 29 States and two territories have passed the UAAA, but no similar Federal standard exists. We must protect our youth from the predatory practices of those who do not share their best interests. This bill represents a positive step toward protecting amateur athletes and I thank my colleagues for their support in its passage.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this week marks the third anniversary of that terrible day in 2001 when terrorists attacked America's commercial and governmental capitals. On that occasion, in the largest attack ever on American soil, 2,973 innocent individuals lost their lives. The victimization of America went beyond this astounding number, with physical injuries to many, damage to our Nation's economy, and psychological trauma among millions who witnessed these shocking events. While nothing we do can erase this pain, we can honor and pay tribute to those who have suffered by ensuring that terrorists never again attack our land. We have come a long way since 2001 in enhancing this country's ability to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks, but, as the 9/11 Commission said in its final report, we are not yet safe. Increasing our safety against terrorist attack requires new strategies, new ways of thinking, and new ways of organizing our government. Today I am pleased to be joined by Senators Lieberman, Specter, Bayh, Graham of South Carolina, Daschle, and Clinton in introducing legislation designed to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations, which were issued just prior to the August recess. Governor Tom Kean and Representative Lee Hamilton have endorsed this bill, and assured us that it accurately reflects the Commission's intent. With the introduction of this bill, the Senate now has before it legislation that addresses each of the Commission's 41 recommendations, which together are designed to build unity of effort across the U.S. Government--all in an effort to prevent future terrorist attacks. The provisions of this bill outline the shape and objectives of a global counterterrorism strategy, and suggest a reconfiguration of our national security and homeland security apparatus within the U.S. Government. As anyone who reads the legislation will quickly see, it also cuts across jurisdictional lines with respect to the Senate committee prerogatives. There are portions of this bill that deal with intelligence, foreign affairs, defense, border security and commerce, transportation security, and more. In normal times, naysayers would caution that this fact alone could paralyze this body. But these are not normal times. International terrorism poses a real and present danger to the United States, and it is our responsibility as elected officials to take action on the Commission's recommendations. I would like to highlight some of the major aspects of the bill, and I know that the other sponsors also will provide details on the bill's structure. The largest section of this bill concerns the reorganization of our intelligence community. This legislation establishes a National Intelligence Authority to unify the efforts of the community, and this new entity would be headed by a National Intelligence Director, NID. The NID also would act as the principal intelligence advisor to the President, taking over this function from the Director of Central Intelligence. The NID would have direct budgetary authority and significant personnel authority over all of the intelligence agencies, except those that generate intelligence that falls under the purview of one department alone, such as tactical military intelligence. The NID would have influence over the budgets for these other entities that do provide this very specific intelligence. Assisting the NID would be four deputies, including a principal deputy, another that serves currently as the CIA Director and would handle foreign intelligence, a deputy that also serves as the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, and a fourth that handles domestic intelligence. Also established in this bill is a National Counterterrorism Center to oversee all of the U.S. Government counterterrorism operations, including analysis, net assessments, and guidance for joint counterterrorism operations. The center would be headed by a deputy- level official who can adjudicate policy disagreements among the agencies and, if need be, bump them up to the National Security Council for a decision. In addition to the National Counterterrorism Center, the bill authorizes the NID to establish ``National Intelligence Centers'' that will address particular geographic or functional areas. These centers will, like the NCTC, bring together the full range of reporting and analysis on particular topics so that no one with a need to know is cut out of the loop. There are also provisions designed to ensure that increased centralization of the intelligence community does not lead to a reduction in the range of analytical views available to policymakers. Finally in the intelligence title, the bill codifies the critical reforms that Director Mueller has begun at the FBI, including his efforts to improve the FBI's intelligence capabilities and develop a personnel cadre that specializes in national security issues. In its report, the 9/11 Commission found that the biggest impediment to ``connecting the dots'' among diverse sources of homeland security information is the widespread resistance to sharing. To address this problem, the Commission recommended that the President create a new ``trusted information network'' modeled on a framework developed by a Markle Foundation task force. This bill directs the President to create an information network among all Federal departments and agencies with responsibilities for homeland security, among State and local authorities, and among relevant private sector entities. The legislation describes key attributes that should be incorporated into the network and sets forth an ambitious schedule for development and implementation. The Commission report stated that, ``Of all our recommendations, strengthening congressional oversight may be among the most difficult and important. So long as oversight is governed by current congressional rules and resolutions, we believe the American people will not get the security they want and need. The United States needs a strong, stable, and capable congressional committee structure to give America's national intelligence agencies oversight, support, and leadership.'' The Commission offered several options for how Congress should be restructured to best provide for strong oversight over both intelligence and homeland security. With respect to intelligence, it recommended that Congress create either a joint committee modeled after the Joint Atomic Energy Committee or House and Senate Committees with combined authorizing and appropriating powers. With respect to homeland security, it recommended that Congress create a single, principal point of oversight and review, noting that DHS officials now appear before 88 different committees and subcommittees. Late last month, the Senate leadership tasked a bipartisan working group with examining how best to implement these recommendations and asked it to report back to the leadership as soon as possible. In recognition of this ongoing review, our bill does not propose the committee structures we believe should be adopted, but instead includes a Sense of the Congress that both houses of the 108th Congress adopt all necessary rule changes so that the committee structures for the 109th Congress are revised in accordance with one of the options recommended by the Commission. It is incumbent on each member to put aside jurisdictional power struggles and take action that is in the interest of securing our homeland. We should strive to never again read a report that calls Congressional oversight ``dysfunctional.'' We simply must heed the Commissions call to action and fundamentally overhaul Congressional oversight for intelligence and homeland security. As the Commission stated, ``tinkering with the existing structure is not sufficient.'' As recommended by the Commission, we have included provisions to help ensure that an incoming President-elect can start putting together his national security team during a transition between administrations. Our legislation would establish procedures for expediting security clearances and Senate consideration of top national security appointees, as well as any necessary clearances for presidential transition team members. In addition, it directs the President to consolidate security clearance responsibilities in a single Federal agency, and to work with the new NID to set uniform standards for granting security clearances so that they are accepted by all Federal agencies. One lesson from the Commissions report is that no one set of strategies is sufficient to prevent future terrorist attacks. The United States must use all of the instruments at our disposal to counter the short and long-term threats posed by international terrorism. For this reason, we have devoted an entire title of the bill to the role of diplomacy, foreign aid, and the military. The legislation would renew the U.S. commitment to Pakistan's future, in light of the critical role that country plays in the war on terror, and authorizes a substantial increase in aid to Afghanistan. It addresses our relations with Saudi Arabia and suggests establishing an international contact group to develop a multilateral counterterrorism strategy. Other provisions in our bill will enhance America's ability to fight the war of ideas by promoting universal values of democracy, tolerance, and openness. It authorizes increased funding for U.S. broadcasts to Muslim countries and would ramp up the scale of education and exchange programs. This bill notes that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is a grave and gathering threat to this country, and suggests ways to strengthen our nonproliferation programs. And, since portrayals of mistreatment of captured terrorists hinders our ability to engage in the wider struggle against them, this legislation both reiterates standards for their humane treatment once captured, and calls on the U.S. Government to develop a common approach to detainee treatment, along with its coalition partners. One significant way to prevent future terrorist attacks on American soil is to stop terrorists from entering the country in the first place. This bill contains a number of provisions that would enhance the security of our borders, transportation systems and critical infrastructure. For example, our legislation requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to work with multiple government agencies to develop a unified strategy to intercept terrorists, find terrorist facilitators, and constrain terrorist mobility both domestically and internationally. In addition, to efficiently screen persons entering the United States, we must integrate the multiple terrorist screening systems already in place. This bill would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop a comprehensive screening system that brings together an integrated network of screening points, and to work to fully implement the entry and exit functions of the U.S. VISIT system at all ports of entry as quickly as possible. The Commission also pointed out what appears to be a gaping hole in our border security. I am referring to the ability of people who claim to be United States citizens to orally attest to their citizenship when passing from Canada or Mexico into the United States. Numerous reports, including a recent GAO study, point to our porous borders as potential terrorist entryways into this country. Our legislation would require everyone entering the U.S. to present a passport, at a minimum. Of course, travel documents only work insofar as they are authentic and can be authenticated by our officials. Our bill requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish uniform Federal standards for driver's licenses and birth certificates. It is long past time that we take action to protect these documents from being used to commit identity theft, terrorism, and other criminal acts. Although there has been considerable progress in tightening transportation security since September 11, the Commission made several recommendations to further improve the system. For example, the computer systems and protocols used to vet passengers before they board a plane are not substantially different than the systems that failed to prevent the 9/11 hijackers from boarding their flights. Therefore in this legislation we require the Transportation Security Administration to take over and improve the no-fly list process, and to improve the screening of air passengers for explosives and the screening of air cargo. In addition, we require DHS to set risk-based priorities for defending various transportation assets, and then figure out a plan and budget to get the job done. Mr. President, I am in full agreement with the Commission that we need to broadly address transportation security vulnerabilities. In fact, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation has already reported several legislative measures designed to improve the security of other transportation modes. A maritime security bill was signed into law in 2002, and we reported a subsequent maritime security measure earlier this year. We also reported, and the Senate has passed, a bus security bill, and our rail security legislation is pending on the Senate Calendar. These measures must be enacted before we adjourn. The Commission made a number of recommendations to further our national preparedness and emergency response efforts. Its report states that ``homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities,'' and implores that ``Congress should not use this money as a pork barrel.'' I heartily agree. In following this recommendation, the legislation directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to allocate assistance based on the threats, risks, and vulnerabilities facing a community, along with its population and other specific criteria. It also establishes an expert advisory panel to develop benchmarks for assessing the homeland security needs and capabilities of various communities, and rescinds the current formula for homeland security grants. The bill would also require certain broadcasters to vacate their television channels in a crisis so that their airwaves are available to first responders, and ensure that public safety organizations have access to this spectrum no later than January 1, 2007. In addition, it directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to work with other officials in developing effective communications capabilities, including back-up support. These steps are vital for closing the existing gaps in interoperability of emergency communications systems. The Commissioners pointed out that the private sector controls 85 percent of the critical infrastructure in the Nation. Our bill directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish a program to promote private sector preparedness for terrorism and other emergencies. It also directs the Secretary to report to Congress regularly on the adequacy of the government's plans to protect our Nation's critical infrastructure. All of us who are concerned with threats to this Nation's security also wish to ensure that our efforts to protect Americans do not infringe on our civil liberties. After all, giving up the way of life we have fought so hard to defend is not an acceptable price for greater security. We must find a way to balance the two, and that is what this bill proposes to do. It creates a Privacy and Civil Liberties Board, as well as designated privacy and civil liberties officers within relevant Federal agencies, to analyze actions the enhanced security measures taken by our government and to ensure that civil liberties are appropriately considered as these policies are developed. The Board, which would reside within the Executive Office of the President, would advise the President and Federal agencies on the privacy and civil liberties implications of proposed and extant laws, as well as authority to oversee Federal agencies to ensure that civil liberties are being protected. In addition, the legislation requires certain agency heads to designate senior officers to serve as privacy and civil liberties resources and watchdogs. Among these officers' responsibilities is ensuring that their agency has a process in place to receive, investigate, and respond to complaints from people who report privacy or civil liberties violations. Having described the bill we are introducing today, I'd like to reiterate that it addresses each of the Commission's recommendations-- not more, not less. The sponsors all recognize that other legislative proposals will be offered that address the security of our Nation in the face of terrorist threats. In particular, I want to acknowledge the efforts by Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Government Affairs Committee. That Committee has a key leadership role in this area, and it is one that I greatly respect. I know that they are working to report a bipartisan reform proposal to reform the Intelligence community in the days ahead and look forward to Senate debate on their proposal. The sponsors of today's legislation remain open to all proposals, and in fact, will have additional suggestions of our own. But the introduction of our legislation today ensures that the commendable work of the 9/11 Commission has a real opportunity to be debated, amended, and adopted. Despite the short and crowded legislative calendar, we urge the leadership to allow for debate on this and other proposals to address the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. Even in an election year, there is no higher priority than defending the American people against threats to their security. Mr. President, there has been much talk over recent months about the importance of firm resolve in the face of threats to America's security and its integrity. This legislation presents the Congress with an opportunity this year to exhibit some resolve of our own. While we will act in the shadow of the dark hours of September 11, we can show the American people--and the world--that this government is committed to facing down the worst threats that face us today. We can move forward-- yes, in an election year, yes, by actually finding agreement regardless of party or committee assignment--to better protect and preserve the security of this Nation. With the Senate's serious and thorough consideration of the Commission's recommendations, we will honor those who have been patient enough to afford us this opportunity to change. I will make two additional comments. One, we need to reform the institutions of government. This blueprint which outlines in legislative form the recommendations of the September 11 Commission are exactly that, a blueprint. I am confident that the Committee on Governmental Affairs, under the outstanding leadership of the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, working with Senator Lieberman, Senator Specter, and other members of the committee, will produce a legislative product of which everyone can be very proud. They have already begun a series of hearings, and I have complete confidence in their deliberations and their results. Let me also say that one of the most difficult aspects of reform will be reform of the institutions here and in the other body. There is no doubt that either one of the two committee recommendations--that there be a joint committee along the lines of the now defunct Joint Committee on Atomic Energy or two separate permanent committees. Those committees have to have budgetary authority. They must be able to appropriate. If not, those committees will be debating societies and they will not have the influence or power necessary or authority necessary to supervise America's intelligence operations. There are many other areas and many other ideas, including those of the White House and the executive branch that need to be taken into consideration. But I think this is a good start because if there is one thing all of us can agree on it is that the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission have been embraced by virtually one and all, clearly, with some reservations because it is not a perfect document. But overall, the overwhelming majority of Americans expect that we should act on this blueprint as a blueprint, but, second of all, that we should act-- that we should act. There is no disagreement that our intelligence agencies and our ability to obtain the vital information that is necessary to maintain our national security and prevent another terrorist attack require us to act in an expeditious fashion. I understand the majority leader, in consultations with Senator Daschle, has laid out a schedule for the Governmental Affairs Committee to report out the last week in September. I think that is a very worthwhile cause.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, thank you. (The remarks of Mr. McCain, Mr. Specter, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Bayh pertaining to the introduction of S. 2774 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 7, 2004 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today we are considering the conference report for the fiscal year 2005 Defense appropriations act. While I recognize the importance of passing this legislation prior to the upcoming recess, I am once again disappointed that we are acting on the appropriations measure prior to enactment of the Defense Authorization Act. The responsibilities of authorizers and appropriators are expected to be distinct. The Defense Authorization Act lays out the blueprint for the policies and funding levels for the Department of Defense and its programs. The role of the Appropriations Committee is to allocate funding based on policies provided by authorizations bills. In reality, the appropriators' function, however, has expanded dramatically, and the Appropriations Committee now engages in significant policy decision making and micromanagement, largely usurping the role of the authorizing committees. I remain hopeful that we will complete action on the Defense authorization act when we return in September in order to provide further clarification of congressional intent to the Department of Defense. In the meantime, enactment of the Defense appropriations legislation is very important, and it will enable us to continue to meet our obligations to support service members in the fight against terror. The conference report includes many critical funding provisions to which I lend strong support, such as the funding to increase Army end strength by 20,000 soldiers. Unfortunately, although not surprisingly, the conference report also includes a large number of unauthorized and unrequested provisions. While I appreciate the hard work and the laudable intentions of the members of the Appropriations Committee, the number of earmarks contained in this conference report is alarming. This conference report and accompanying statement of the managers contains close to 2,000 earmarks totaling $8.9 billion in Member adds. With Americans deployed across the globe fighting terror, and with looming budget deficits at home, the Congress faces some tough choices. We must find a way to uphold our fiscal responsibility while fully providing for our military needs. The costs that go along with the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq demand now, more than ever, a new fiscal sanity in approaching our appropriations bills. A half-a- trillion dollar budget deficit means we simply cannot afford business as usual. We simply cannot continue the binge of pork barrel spending that consumes an ever growing proportion of our Federal budget. While the cost of an individual project may get lost in the fine print of lengthy bills, together, they all do real damage. Collectively, these earmarks significantly burden American taxpayers. Not surprisingly, along with the growth in deficit spending over the past few years, there has also been a significant growth in earmarks and pork barrel spending. In fact, according to information compiled by the Congressional Research Service, CRS, the total number of earmarks has grown from 4,126 in fiscal year 1994 to 14,040 in fiscal year 2004. That is an increase of 240 percent in 10 years. In dollar terms, the earmarking has risen from $26.6 billion to $47.9 billion over the same period. Based on the calculations of my office, the fiscal year 2002 Defense appropriations act contained $3.7 billion in pork. The conference report on the fiscal year 2003 Defense appropriations act contained $8.1 billion in pork. The fiscal year 2004 Senate-passed Defense appropriations act contained well over $4 billion in pork. This year $8.9 billion was added in the conference report and the statement of the managers, which is more than twice the number in last year's Senate-passed version of the legislation. This is real money. Every year, countless important military and domestic programs go unfunded or underfunded. I find it hard to understand why we can find the money to pay for member add-ons, but then have to battle to fund concurrent receipt or the survivor benefit plan. The Joint Chiefs provided a list of critical requirements above what was provided for in the President's budget request. That list totaled nearly $18 billion for fiscal year 2005. I believe that if we have the resources, we should do all we can to provide additional defense funding for items and programs which the Joint Chiefs need. But instead, we routinely fund programs just because they are important to a particular state or district represented by a powerful Member of Congress. I find this practice to be a disservice to our military men and women, as well as to all American taxpayers. Once again, the appropriators' addiction to tanker recapitalization is too great for any amount of medication. The whole tanker love affair reads like a bad novel. It is very suspect that the Appropriations Committee added $100 million in this conference report under the heading ``Tanker Replacement Transfer Fund.'' Fortunately, the Senate provision prevailed and Chairman Stevens, as he publicly stated he would do, did not allow the House earmark for Boeing 767 tankers to carry through conference. On that point, the Tanker Replacement Fund is muted. Only the report language makes reference to the ``current tanker replacement program of record''--that program, undisput edly, is the KC-X program which is in the Air Force's Future Years Defense Program. Over the past 3 years, I have spoken at length on the Senate floor on the Boeing 767 tanker lease--it is difficult to understand why we are still debating a tanker program when no money has been included in the President's defense budget submitted to Congress. Further, the Senate Armed Services Committee did not authorize any funding for tanker recapitalization for fiscal year 2005. The Chief of Staff of the Air Force, General John P. Jumper, USAF, did not request advance procurement for tanker replacement in his ``Fiscal Year 2005 Unfunded Priority List,'' totaling nearly $4 billion, which he submitted to Congress in March 2005. The reason is simple--tanker replacement money is not needed now. However, the appetite for this scandal-riddled program is too great, despite the unethical acts of serious misconduct by Air Force officials and the firing of several senior Boeing officers, including the very top of the corporation. It is hard to comprehend why the appropriators continue to put tanker recapitalization ahead of greater priorities for our servicemen and women. Having said this, I congratulate the appropriators for considering the recent Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Aerial Refueling Requirements. Critically, the Defense Science Board task force found there is no compelling material or financial reason to initiate a replacement program prior to the completion of the Analysis of Alternatives, AoA, and the Mobility Capabilities Study, MCS.' Moreover the task force observed that the Air Force greatly overstated both the amount of corrosion throughout the KC-135 fleet and the KC- 135's operation and support cost growth. It also found that the KC-135E can fly to 2040. In other words, the `dominating rationale' cited by the Air Force to Congress for having taxpayers pay billions of dollars more for leasing Boeing's KC-767A tankers than they would for buying them outright, has been conclusively shown to be without merit. The Air Force's representations on this issue remains a matter of continuing investigative concern. The likelihood that the analysis of alternatives, AOA, and mobility capabilities study, MCS, if done properly, will recommend an acquisition method for these tankers now known to be wholly unsuitable here, is probably minimal. So the Secretary's decision appears fatal to at least the lease component of the proposal. I look forward to seeing the language in the fiscal year 2005 Defense appropriations act reconciled with the fiscal year 2005 National Defense Authorization Act, which remains in conference. The language in the Senate version of the Defense authorization bill is valuable in that for the first time, it will inject much needed sunlight on a program whose development has been largely insulated from public scrutiny. The tanker provision in the authorization bill ensures that any effort by the Air Force to replace its fleet of tankers is done responsibly, as is the case with most defense programs, however, that has not been the case so far. We should expect no less from the Air Force. Let me briefly highlight just some of the egregious examples of pork contained either in the conference report or the statement of managers for FY 2005: $3.5 million sleep deprivation research. Last night, my staff was here late into the night, conducting tests in sleep deprivation, as they compiled the seventy-plus pages of pork found in the joint explanatory statement. The results: they are tired. $3.4 million for USMC Hitchhiker. Back in my day, you could give a Marine a ride for free. $1 million for the Deep Digger. $1 million for repair to the Biathlon Trail at Fort Richardson, Alaska. $ million to restore the Woody Island and its historic structures. $110 million for the Advanced Procurement of F-15s. The air Force has decided to procure the F-22 to replace the F-15. Yet this earmark keeps the F-15 production line open, so I question the necessity of the F-22 procurement in the numbers of aircraft and at the funding levels requested by the Air Force. Apparently we just decided to pay for both. $1.9 million, for the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial celebration. You don't need to have the exploration skills of Lewis and Clark to see that this is a path to higher deficits. $1 million for the Center for Optical Logic Devices. I am the first one who would pay for logic if we could insert some into our political process, but this earmark won't do it. $7.7 million for the Chameleon Miniaturized Wireless System. Chameleons change colors; but one thing does not change is the unrequested provisions in appropriations bills. $2 million for the Air Battle Captain program at the University of North Dakota. This provision sends students from West Point to North Dakota for their flight lessons. Instead of letting flight schools compete for the ability to train these cadets, we have earmarked their training to North Dakota. We are putting parochial interests over the necessity to provide the best training possible for the best price to our Army cadets. $4.2 million for the LISA inspector. This sounds very interesting. $3.4 million dollars for Project Albert. Hey Hey Hey! Seems like Albert could get pretty fat off all the pork in this bill. $2.8 million for the C-135 Improved Waste Removal System. We need to improve the way we remove waste from this bill. Maybe combined with the Deep Digger, we can find a way. I use humor in describing some of these earmarks, but the damage they do is deadly serious. They pull money away from legitimate funding priorities and they waste taxpayer dollars. Each year, many of the same earmarks appear in appropriations legislation, and each year I come to the floor and point them out to my colleagues. Some of the appropriators' perennial favorite projects include: $4.3 million for the Smart Truck. This provision, which directly lines the pockets of the auto industry in Detroit, is not exactly smart. $7.5 million for the 21st Century Truck. This program has been around for years and not once has the Department of Defense requested funding for it. While I'm sure we all would love to jump into a truck that could be in a James Bond movie, I'm not sure it is appropriate for the Department of Defense to pay for it. $5.6 million for the New England Manufacturing Supply Chain. This is above and beyond the $14 million for this project already earmarked over the last two years. $33.9 million for the Maui Space Surveillance System. Why should we provide $44 million for this system, when there are many observatories in the United States, such as the Lowell Observatory in Arizona, that already offers many of the same benefits as the Maui site? $1 million for the Brown Tree Snakes. Once again, the brown tree snake has slithered its way into our defense appropriation bill. I'm sure the snakes are a serious problem, but a defense appropriations act is not the appropriate vehicle to address this issue. There are many earmarks that funnel dollars to worthy programs--such as breast cancer research, but there is no compelling national defense reason for these items to be on this piece of legislation. This type of critical research should be funded through the Labor/HHS appropriations bill. Our soldiers and sailors need to be provided with the best equipment, housing, and support possible. Scarce defense dollars should be used for these defense purposes, not others. Once again, the appropriations earmarks in this defense conference report are funneled primarily in to the home States of those Members who sit on the Appropriations Committee. If you look at the plus-ups in the Counter-Drug Activities the earmarking becomes clear. Plus-ups are included for the following States: Florida, Indiana, Tennessee, Alaska, Hawaii, West Virginia, Kentucky, Nevada, New Mexico. All of these states, I repeat, all of these States have Members on the Appropriations Committee in either the House or Senate. I find it hard to believe that only States represented by appropriators have drug problems. I could go on and on listing examples of pork in this legislation. We would fulfill our objectives better if we reassessed our spending priorities. This year's conference report also includes a number of ``Buy America'' provisions. For example, it prevents the foreign purchase of welded shipboard anchor and mooring chain four inches in diameter and under. Another provision ensures, that all carbon, alloy or steel plates are produced in the United States. Whew. I know we will sleep better at night knowing that all of our carbon plates are manufactured in the U.S. Yet another section prohibits the Department of Defense from purchasing supercomputers from a foreign source. I continue to be very concerned about the potential impact on readiness of our restrictive trade policies with our allies. Every year, Buy America restrictions cost the Department of Defense and the American taxpayers over $5.5 billion. From a philosophical point of view, I oppose these types of protectionist policies, and from an economic point of view they are ludicrous. Free trade is both an important element in improving relations among nations and essential to economic growth. From a practical standpoint, Buy America restrictions could seriously impair our ability to compete freely in international markets and also could result in the loss of existing business from long-standing trade partners. Not to mention that procurement policy determined in the Defense authorization bill, not in the appropriations bill. I also want to comment briefly about a provision contained in this Defense appropriations conference report that is entirely unrelated to funding our national defense needs. A so-called ``technical amendment'' was added to the Senate measure at the surprise of a number of us who have been on record for opposing such a provision when efforts were made to add it to other legislative measures. Despite the fact that a member of my staff was on the floor during the debate on the Defense appropriations bill and we had been assured the opportunity to review all amendments prior to their adoption, one amendment was suddenly accepted without the review or concurrence of myself or my staff. That amendment rewrites the Fiscal Year 2004 Omnibus Appropriations bill to allow for 23--States plus the District of Columbia, to receive over $300 million in additional funding for highway project earmarks. Of course, this project funding is on top of the funding they already receive under what many of us consider to be an unfair formula whereby the gas taxes of donor states are transferred to pay for the roads in donee states. With the adoption of this new provision that has been retained in the pending conference report, 23 States plus the District of Columbia, the majority of which are already donee States and receiving more funding than they contribute, will now receive even more money to pay for earmarked projects included in the Omnibus. Again, this funding is in addition to the funding distributed by formula. While the appropriators are taking action to ensure their earmarks are funded outside the formula, 27 States, the majority of which are donor States and already subsidizing other States' highways, will get no benefit, thereby exasperating highway funding inequity. While it doesn't surprise me that the appropriators found a vehicle for their provision; it does surprise me that they would act in such an orchestrated manner when they knew fully their efforts faced opposition if done so in what most of us consider to be regular order, whereby objectionable amendments are not added just because they are supported by the bill managers. One of the many Senatorial courtesies we all hold dear is that we usually can take Members at their word and that their rights will not be ignored simply for political expediency. Sadly, that was not the case with the adoption of this provision. The ongoing conference on the highway reauthorization bill is on life-support. If the House, Senate, and administration can reach an agreement on an overall funding level, I will certainly do all that I can as a conferee to ensure that earmarks are counted towards each State's formula distribution. It is only fair that we ensure that once a formula is determined; a formula that I am confident will still include donors and donees, that earmarks are not permitted to further shortchange donor States' highway funding. I also want to point out that buried at the end of the bill text is a legislative rider that changes our immigration laws. This provision carves out workers in the fish roe processing industry from numerical limitations under the H-2B visa program. While I will be the first to testify to the need to reform our immigration system, and have done so repeatedly, we should not begin to do it on the Defense Appropriations bill by giving a benefit to one small segment of the fishing industry. This is not the way to legislate. There are severe problems with our H-2B visas. We reached the numerical cap on visas early this year and dependent industries are now struggling to hire the labor they need to operate. The H-2B is just one example of our flawed immigration system; yet carving out a fix for parochial interests; without addressing the overall problem is shortsighted. While owners of fish roe processing facilities benefit from the help powerful members of the Appropriations Committee, every other industry- facing a labor shortage because of this cap will continue to suffer. I wish it were not necessary for me to come to the Senate floor with every appropriations bill to criticize the amount of unrequested spending in the legislation. I do so because I believe it is critical for American taxpayers to understand where the money from their pockets is really going. I urge my colleagues to stop ``porking up'' our appropriations bills. In a time of huge spending deficits and scarce dollars, it is long past time to stop feeding at the rough. We can do better.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a modified version of S. 849, the Northern Arizona National Forest Land Exchange Act, which I cosponsored last year with Senator Kyl. Since introducing that bill, I have met with hundreds of Arizonans and learned first-hand of the significant water issues raised by this proposed exchange of about 50,000 acres of private and Federal land in Northern Arizona. I am introducing this modified version of the legislation with the sincere hope of achieving a compromise agreement that can be enacted prior to adjournment. Let me be clear. I am not offering amendments to this bill to slow its progress, but rather I want to take this opportunity to address one of the most crucial challenges facing Arizona: sound management of its precious water resources. The persistent drought that is draining our reservoirs makes all of us aware of the limits of our water supplies. I strongly believe that the State of Arizona is at a crucial point where decisions regarding growth and water use must be made with the assurance of long-term availability of water supplies without draining our ground and surface waters dry. I am afraid we are currently on a collision course with the reality of our finite and dwindling water supplies and the future economic and environmental welfare of the State. In the context of this proposed exchange, it would be irresponsible of the Federal Government to transfer public lands into private hands in an area where water problems currently exist without an understanding of the potential water supply impacts. I have spent considerable time and effort in trying to develop a reasoned, compromise proposal that balances the various Arizona interests and achieves a fair and equitable exchange in the public interest. Therefore, it is my hope that the release of this amended bill with a new title addressing the associated water issues will be carefully considered by all interested parties. My objective is to encourage the formation of a partnership between Federal, State, and local stakeholders in order to facilitate sound, science-based water resource planning and management in the Verde River Basin. In my view, the development of such a collaborative decision- making body, modeled on the Upper San Pedro Partnership, would be a vital step in assuring the wise use of the finite water resources within the Verde River Basin. An earlier draft proposal of the partnership title to this bill was widely circulated in Northern Arizona and generated productive discussion and comment. This valuable input is reflected in the measure I am offering today. It encourages the creation of a multi-stakeholder partnership and clarifies the Federal role in providing scientific, technical, and financial assistance to State and local water resource planning and management efforts. With this important support, I expect that State and local interests that share ground and surface water resources will come together to advance protection and wise use of finite water supplies. I became fully aware of the crucial need for this Federal assistance through public meetings I held last December in Flagstaff and Camp Verde. More than 600 people gathered in Camp Verde to express their strongly held views of the proposed land exchange. The primary concern voiced was whether or not adequate water supplies are available in the area to provide for future development given that residents are already experiencing water supply problems. The U.S. Geological Survey presented information about its ongoing studies and what is not known about the hydrologic systems or water use impacts within the Verde Basin. The fact is that we simply do not have sufficient information to determine the quantity of water supply available over the long-term without adverse effects. I believe that it would be irresponsible of the Federal Government to transfer lands into private hands in an area where water problems already exist without an understanding of the potential impacts. That is why I am interested in expediting essential water studies in the Verde Basin to provide a scientific basis for sound decisionmaking by the partnership. In the short-term, I envision that the first task of the partnership would be to make a recommendation, based on a water budget analysis for the Verde Valley, regarding available water supply for future use on the Federal parcel in Camp Verde. Long-term water resource planning and management efforts within the region could also be developed through the partnership and informed by the ongoing water studies and analyses. I would like to briefly explain some of the provisions in this modified bill. First, under Title I of the bill, it would allow the cities of Flagstaff, Williams, and Camp Verde, as well as several local camps, the option to purchase lands directly from the Forest Service if they are unable to reach an agreement to purchase such lands from the Yavapai Ranch. These communities and camps are very interested in exploring the economic opportunities that would be afforded through the acquisition of certain lands currently held by the Federal Government. The bill also would eliminate the 820-acre Federal parcel in Clarkdale from exchange, at the request of that community. Next, the bill establishes a new Title II, which is designed to establish a framework to begin addressing the very serious water resource and management issues in Northern Arizona. The purpose of this title is to authorize assistance for a collaborative and science-based water resource planning and management partnership for the Verde River Basin, consisting of members that represent Federal, State, and local agencies, along with economic, environmental, and community water interests. The bill language makes it clear that this is not a Federal intrusion into State and local jurisdiction and responsibility for water management and control. Under Title II, Federal assistance would be authorized upon the formation of a Verde River Basin Partnership. The measure would authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to assist the Arizona Department of Water Resources and the Yavapai Water Advisory Council by participating in the formation of the partnership. While the partnership would not be a Federal entity, it would be eligible for Federal assistance through the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior. The amended bill directs the partnership to develop a plan for conducting water resource studies within the Verde River Basin. The plan would include; a list of specific studies and analyses that are needed to support the planning and management objectives of the partnership, identify any ongoing or completed water resource or riparian studies that are relevant to water resource planning and management for the Verde River Basin, provide study timeliness and cost estimates, and designate as a study priority the compilation of a water budget analysis for the Verde Valley. To assist the partnership, the bill directs the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with ADWR, to prepare and submit a report to the Partnership that provides a water budget analysis of the portion of the Verde River Basin within the Verde Valley. The partnership would then use the information, along with any other relevant information, and submit a preliminary report with its findings and recommendations regarding long-term available water supply within the Verde Valley to the Secretary, the Governor of Arizona, and representatives of the Verde Valley communities. Following this preliminary report, the partnership is expected to continue its work and submit a comprehensive report to the Secretary and the Governor of Arizona within 4 years. The comprehensive report would include the results of any water resource assessments conducted under this in the Verde River Basin. It also would identify: any areas in the Verde River Basin that are determined to have groundwater deficits or other current or potential water supply problems; long-term water supply management options for communities and water resources within the basin; and water resource analyses and monitoring needed to support the implementation of management options. Finally, the bill directs the Secretary of Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into a memorandum of understanding authorizing the U.S. Geological Survey to access Forest Service land, including stream gauges, weather stations, wells, or other points of data collection on the Forest Service land, to carry out necessary water studies. I want to do my part in moving the proposed land exchange forward, and it must be done in a manner that is fair to the current residents of Arizona and the Federal taxpayers. In order to do so, it simply must address the affected area's water supply. I remain hopeful that all the interested parties who strongly support the proposed exchange will carefully consider the proposal that I am introducing today.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today as the chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and I am pleased to announce today the successful completion of the conference report for H.R. 2443, The Coast Guard Maritime Transportation Act of 2004. The conference report will provide the Coast Guard with the authorization bill it desperately needs to carry out all its missions, protect the homeland, and ultimately prepare for the future. This legislation will provide the Coast Guard with an authorization for fiscal year 2004 and several critical programs. First and foremost, it authorizes the funding and personnel levels it needs to fulfill its obligation to the maritime communities of this Nation. It will provide the Coast Guard with $5.4 B in authorized operating expenses, and a $1.1 B authorization for the Integrated Deepwater Program designed to allow the Coast Guard to continue the prosecution of its traditional missions, while at the same time combating new and emerging threats. Additionally, the conference report authorizes an increase in the active duty personnel to 45,500 personnel, an increase of nearly 8,000, including an authorization for up to 6,700 officers that are desperately needed to fill critical homeland security positions. The Secretary of homeland security is now authorized to require vital electronic navigation systems onboard vessels the Secretary deems necessary in order to improve and facilitate safe navigation. A National Coast Guard Museum will be established in New London, CT that will exemplify the fine traditions and heritage that the United States Coast Guard possesses, yet until today, has been unable to properly display. This legislation will now allow the public to witness first hand, the legacy of what once was the Lifesaving Service, now evolved into the modern-day Coast Guard. This legislation also provides many provisions which improve the Coast Guard's ability to recruit, reward, and retain high-quality personnel. It addresses personnel management and quality of life issues by providing for a critical skills training bonus, retaining commissioned officers with essential skill sets and experiences, expanding property authorities to ease housing shortages, and includes several measures that grant parity with the other Armed Services. There are also many provisions regarding Law Enforcement, Marine Safety, and Environmental Protection which allow the Coast Guard to better accomplish its many missions. Further, the legislation requires increased reporting and targeting for inspection of cargo containers headed to the United States. It also provides for increased research and development to improve and deploy port security technology. There are also a number of provisions that clarify the role of the Coast Guard in leading the United States' efforts to improve port and maritime security. This legislation was crafted in a bi-partisan fashion and it provides the Coast Guard with a solid foundation to do its job both now, and in the future. I am proud to give the Coast Guard the resources it needs to carry out its many essential missions that will result in saved lives, seized contraband, a cleaner environment, and ultimately the protection of our homeland.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the United States has enjoyed a close relationship with Morocco since 1777, when Morocco became the first nation to recognize the sovereignty of our fledgling Government. Since then we have stood together through thick and thin, and Morocco today remains one of America's dear friends. This free-trade agreement, FTA, will further strengthen the bond between our two nations, and illustrates the benefits of greater economic ties with countries in the greater Middle East. Initially, the decision to begin negotiations with Morocco was controversial. But Morocco's economic liberalization and political reform efforts, combined with its role as a stabilizing force in the region, made the decision a simple one. The trade negotiations produced an agreement that will render more than 95 percent of bilateral trade in consumer and industrial products duty-free immediately. U.S. investors in Morocco will be increasingly able to rely on a secure, predictable legal framework mandated by the FTA. U.S. banks, insurance companies, telecommunications companies and others will get new access to markets within Morocco. In addition, U.S. firms are guaranteed a fair and transparent process for selling goods and services to a wide range of Moroccan Government entities, via the FTA's government contracting anti-corruption provisions. These kinds of measures are what we expect from a free- trade agreement. Unfortunately, this agreement also contains protectionist language antithetical to the tenets of free trade. As with the Australian FTA approved by the Senate last week, and the Singapore agreement that went into effect in January, the United States Trade Representative included language that could impair Congress's ability to pass and implement drug importation legislation. Such legislation is not only something Congress has worked on for the past several years, but has also enacted. The provisions USTR slipped into the Singapore, Australia and Morocco FTAs have significant implications for drug importation. Let us be clear about this language--it is antifree trade, serves only to block American consumers from accessing lower cost goods and services, and contravenes clear congressional intent. Congress has repeatedly voted, with bipartisan majorities, to allow drug importation. States and local governments are doing the same. An overwhelming majority of Americans believe that they have a right to import more affordable medicines. So a simple question comes to mind: what is our Trade Representative, who is charged with representing the interests of the American people, doing? Why deliberately include language in bilateral trade agreements that could thwart importation efforts? Why flagrantly disregard the intent of Americans and their elected representatives? It seems to me that the special interests have again found friendly territory. When Americans wonder how this continues to happen, they should take a glance at the list of intellectual property ``advisors'' that worked with the negotiators. These advisors include representatives from drug companies, the pharmaceutical industry as a whole, and other lobbyists with a direct interest in blocking drug importation. How many public health and consumer advocacy groups were included on this committee? Zero. The Singapore FTA was the first free-trade agreement to include language that could impact drug importation. The Morocco FTA must be the last. Our trade negotiators must be less mindful of special interests and more responsive to the express intent of the Congress. We granted the President trade promotion authority, TPA, in 2002 to demonstrate our Nation's re-energized commitment to negotiating strong free-trade agreements. TPA was designed to lead to free trade, not more protection. This agreement is not the first in which the administration has made use of TPA to promote its politically expedient policy priorities. Last year, immigration provisions were included in the Singapore and Chile FTAs. If the Administration is to continue to enjoy the privilege of TPA, trade agreements must no longer be vehicles that include items rightfully addressed by Congress under the Constitution. The United States has been and should be the leading promoter of an open global marketplace. Steel tariffs, agricultural subsidies in the farm bill, and other forms of protection, however, have damaged America's free-trade credentials. If special interest carve-outs, like the one for the pharmaceutical industry in this FTA, continue to pollute our trade agreements, we will all be worse off. Our economy will suffer and our leadership role on trade will further decline. I will vote yes, but let me reiterate what I said last week with respect to the Australia agreement: Should another FTA being negotiated now or in the future come before the Senate with similar protections for special interests, I will find it even more difficult to vote in favor of it.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement negotiated by the administration is not perfect. The distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee would agree with me on that point. It is often said around here that we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. This agreement for which we vote on implementing legislation today passes the ``good'' test, but barely. Throughout my career in public service, I have been an ardent supporter of free trade. Opening markets to the free flow of goods and services benefits America, benefits our trading partners. Trade liberalization creates jobs, expands economic growth, and provides consumers with access to lower cost goods and services. The North American Free Trade Agreement, despite criticism from some, has increased our cross-border trade between our northern and southern neighbors by incredible amounts of money, creating economic growth and prosperity on both sides of the border. In my judgment, free trade should mean truly free trade. There are some portions of this agreement which take admirable steps in that direction. For example, over 99 percent of the manufactured goods traded between our two countries--manufactured goods--will be duty and quota free and textile and apparel tariffs will be phased out. According to the International Trade Commission, U.S. consumers will receive a net welfare benefit increase of between $438 million and $639 million if the agreement is fully implemented. Ideally, this free-trade agreement would reach 100-percent duty-free treatment and tariff elimination immediately but I recognize that may not be possible. What I find truly offensive are protections for special interests such as dairy, beef, and sugar. Even these protections, however, pale in comparison with the language in this agreement that covers patented pharmaceutical products. I am astonished by the decision of the U.S. Trade Representative, Mr. Zoellick, for whom I happen to have the greatest admiration and appreciation. I am astonished that he would include language which would impair our ability to pass and implement drug importation legislation. The Singapore Free Trade Agreement, which went into effect on January 1, was the first free-trade agreement to include language that could impact drug importation. In a side letter of understanding between our respective Trade Representatives, both nations agreed the language would not prevent Singapore from engaging in the parallel importation of pharmaceuticals. Thus, the U.S. Trade Representative effectively made the provisions applicable only to the United States. USTR claims this language is consistent with longstanding U.S. patent law. If that is indeed the case, and if Singapore is not obligated to abide by the language, then why is the language included in the agreement? I suspect it was included in order to protect powerful special interests and to provide a template on which to base intellectual property provisions in future free-trade agreements. In fact, the Industry Sector Advisory Committee for Chemicals and Allied Products, which advised U.S. negotiators on this provision, stated that this language ``should not be viewed as setting any ceilings for the intellectual property chapters for future free-trade agreements; rather, each individual free-trade agreement should be viewed as setting a new baseline for future free-trade agreements.'' This pharmaceutical language was slipped into the Singapore FTA below the radar screen, without recognition of its potential implications for drug importation. Since that time, similar drug provisions have cropped up again in both the Australia FTA before us and the recently completed Morocco FTA. Let's be clear about this language. It is antithetical to the spirit of free trade and serves only to block American consumers from accessing lower cost goods and services. Not only does the intellectual property language in the Australia FTA offend all free traders, it also contravenes clear congressional intent. Let's look at the facts. In 2000, Congress passed the Medicine Equity and Drug Safety Act, MEDS Act, to allow American consumers to import lower cost prescription drugs from 25 industrialized countries with regulatory systems similar to ours. Although language added to that law acted as a poison pill and effectively prevented importation from taking place, congressional intent was crystal clear: We want to allow Americans to import safe prescription drugs. In the years after the MEDS Act passed, the cost of prescription drugs has continued to rise, the number of uninsured Americans has continued to grow, and Congress has continued to debate the issue of drug importation. This week, a study from Boston University found that drug spending, as a share of income, rose by 50 percent between 1998 and 2002. In the last 3 years, several additional importation measures have passed both Houses of Congress with substantial bipartisan support. In States, cities, and counties across the country, governments are implementing programs that would allow their residents to import lower cost prescription drugs. Today, approximately two-thirds of Americans believe they should be able to import lower cost drugs. Where does this leave us? Congress has repeatedly voted, with bipartisan majorities, to allow drug importation. States and local governments are doing the same. An overwhelming majority of Americans believe they have a right to import cheaper medicine. AARP, the leading advocacy group for senior citizens, recently joined the battle. So a simple question comes to mind: What is our U.S. Trade Representative, who is charged with representing the interests of the American people, doing? Why deliberately include language in bilateral trade agreements that could thwart importation efforts? Why flagrantly disregard the intent of Americans and their elected representatives? It seems to me that the special interests have found friendly territory. Now, supporters of this language will claim that nothing in this agreement prevents the Congress from passing legislation with respect to drug importation. They are absolutely correct. No trade agreement can prevent Congress from exercising its constitutional right to pass laws that govern our Nation. However, the language in this trade agreement does tie the hands of Congress, further complicating our efforts to pass a drug importation law. The USTR general counsel, John Veroneau, testified along these lines last month. He told the House Ways and Means Committee that new legislation on drug importation ``could give rise to an inconsistency between U.S. law and a commitment under this trade agreement.'' Given that similar language is now in not one but three trade agreements, it will presumably present the same problem for each. Let's be intellectually honest here. It is simply bad policy to enter into bilateral agreements knowing we want to modify domestic law and thereby place ourselves in violation of these various agreements. Imagine Americans' response if they knew that domestic health care policy was being crafted not by their elected officials in Congress but, instead, by free-trade negotiators. Now that this language is in three agreements, a precedent has been established for future FTAs. Indeed, USTR officials have indicated they intend to pursue similar language in all future FTAs. This means that future drug importation legislation will leave us in violation of our obligations to an ever greater number of trading partners and allies, undoubtedly creating a greater challenge to enacting and implementing importation law. When Americans wonder how this continues to happen, maybe they should take a glance at the list of intellectual property ``advisors'' who worked with the negotiators. These advisors include representatives from--guess who--drug companies--guess who--the pharmaceutical industry as a whole, and other lobbyists with a direct interest in blocking drug importation. How many public health and consumer advocacy groups were included on this committee? Zero. There is a popular philosophy among coaches known as game slippage which offers that you can make your team practice all you want, but, invariably, come gametime, some of what was taught in practice will not be applied during the game. I fear the administration is suffering from game slippage. It appears that Congress's intent over the last several years to address drug importation has slipped from the collective conscience of the administration and the U.S. Trade Representative when negotiating gametime comes around. Our trade negotiators must be less mindful of special interests and more responsive to the express intent of the Congress. We granted the President trade promotion authority in 2002 to demonstrate our Nation's reenergized commitment to negotiating strong free-trade agreements. TPA was designed to lead to free trade, not more protection. Yet we have protectionist measures in this FTA for the pharmaceutical, sugar, beef, and dairy industries that will likely result in higher prices and, in some cases, less supply. This agreement is not the first in which the administration has made use of TPA to promote its legislative priorities. Last year, immigration provisions were included in the Singapore and Chile FTAs. If the administration is to continue to enjoy the privilege of TPA, trade agreements must no longer be vehicles that include items rightfully addressed by Congress under the Constitution. The United States has been and should be the leading promoter of an open global marketplace. Steel tariffs, agricultural subsidies in the farm bill, and other forms of protection, however, have damaged America's free-trade credentials. If special interest carve-outs, as the one for the pharmaceutical industry in this FTA, continue to pollute our trade agreements, we will all be worse off. Our economy will suffer and our leadership role on trade will further decline. I have spoken at length about the very serious drawbacks of the Australia FTA. I will reluctantly support this implementing legislation because it, nevertheless, will have a net positive impact on the American economy. I also will vote for it because of my profound respect for the Government and the people of Australia. They have bravely stood by us for many decades and have shown enormous courage in helping us to fight the global war on terror. We are privileged to call the Australian people friends, and my comments here today should in no way reflect poorly on the proud nation with which we will embark on a new trading relationship. Mr. President, I will vote yes. But the administration must understand that continuing down a protectionist path harms American consumers and engenders ill will among our allies and trading partners. I support passage of this legislation, but should another FTA being negotiated now or in the future come before the Senate with similar protections for special interests, I will find it extremely difficult to do so again. FSC/ETI Tax Bill Mr. President, before I continue, I would like to mention just a word about the FSC/ETI tax bill that we apparently have an agreement to go to conference. The June 19 editorial in the Washington Times, not known for liberal propaganda, stated: The ideal solution would have been a quick, simple repeal of FSC-ETI, which is bad economic policy in any case. . . . Unfortunately, both the House and the Senate versions of the bill became magnets for special interests. A steady train of lobbyists tacked on $167 billion in tax breaks over the next 10 years to the Senate bill, while the House bill expanded by $143 billion in similar additions. The Senate bill, for example, includes breaks for NASCAR racetracks and foreign dog-race gamblers, while the House version lavishes its attention upon tobacco growers, timber owners and alcohol distillers. The imminent House-Senate conference, predictably, promises to be a de facto food fight between congressmen, lobbyists and tax watchdogs. And so while the lobbyists duke it out, EU sanctions will continue to rise, and American manufacturers and the U.S. economy will deal with the consequences. There are many other editorials about how incredible this bill has become and how we have lost any possible sense of what we are doing to our deficit and to the American people. If we pass this bill in its present form, I will do whatever I can to make sure every American knows what we have done here for the special interests in this town. Despite the passage of campaign finance reform, they rule in a way which is almost unprecedented at least in the 22 years I have been a Member of Congress. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have been very outspoken in my opposition to this bill, and was one of only five Senators to vote against its passage in May. I voted against it because it was loaded with wasteful spending and tax breaks for special interests and the super rich. With the Nation facing a half-trillion dollar deficit, now is not the time for Congress to be enacting wasteful tax credits. The proponents of this bill are fond of pointing out that it is ``revenue neutral'' and that all of the tax cuts in the bill are paid for with offsets. I firmly believe that, due to our current fiscal crisis, any proposed offsets would better be used to reduce the deficit. It is incomprehensible to me, at this time of record deficits and debt, coupled with our war against terrorism and the need to secure our homeland, that we would consider risking the future of our manufacturing base and our standing in the international community by wasting time and jeopardizing corrective action while carving out sweet deals for special interests. We missed a golden opportunity with this issue. We could have passed a good, clean bill months ago that would have brought us back into compliance with World Trade Organization, WTO, agreements and stop the burdensome tariffs now imposed on our manufactures. Unfortunately, the goal of achieving the legislation's underlying worthy purpose has been lost to a host of special interest add-ons. In a June 19th editorial, The Washington Times, not known for liberal propaganda, stated: The ideal solution would have been a quick, simple repeal of FSC/ETI, which is bad economic policy in any case. Unfortunately, both the House and the Senate versions of the bill became magnets for the special interests. A steady train of lobbyists tacked on $167 billion in tax breaks over the next 10 years to the Senate bill, while the House bill expanded by $143 billion in similar additions. The Senate bill, for example, includes breaks for NASCAR racetracks and foreign dog-race gamblers, while the House version lavishes its attention upon tobacco growers, timber owners and alcohol distillers. The imminent House-Senate conference, predictably, promises to be a de facto food fight between congressman, lobbyists and tax watchdogs. And so while the lobbyists duke it out, EU sanctions will continue to rise and American manufacturers and the U.S. economy will deal with the consequences. Let me quote from some other newspapers who have editorialized about this terrible bill. From The New York Times: What started out as Congress's urgent obligation to resolve a trade battle with the European Union has degenerated into an embarrassment as lawmakers and business lobbyists vie in a costly frenzy of corporate handouts. From The Dallas Morning News: The United States' credibility also is at stake. As a WTO member, the United States has an obligation to follow the trade body's rulings or risk undermining the WTO's authority over global trade. . . . The simple solution would be to end the tax break. But election-year politics threaten common sense. From The St. Petersburg Times: Tax cut fever has gripped lawmakers, and they're beginning to act delusional. . . . The bill is so irresponsible it deserves to fail. From The Los Angeles Times: Further driving up the federal budget deficit with tax breaks will probably worsen U.S. sales abroad. The more money the Treasury has to borrow to cover the deficit, the more pressure there is on the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates to attract those funds, eventually driving inflation. An article in the April 19th edition of The Washington Post exposed the Senate-passed bill for what it is and how it became such a monstrosity. The article stated the following: Congress's task seemed simple enough: Repeal an illegal $5 billion-a-year export subsidy and replace it with some modest tax breaks to ease the pain on U.S. exporters. But out of that imperative has emerged one of the most complex, special- interest-riddled corporate tax bills in years . . . The 930- page epic is packed with $170 billion in tax cuts aimed at cruise-ship operators, foreign dog-race gamblers, NASCAR track owners, bow and arrow makers and Oldsmobile dealers, to name a few. The article also quoted a tax lobbyist involved in drafting the bill as saying that it ``has risen to a new level of sleaze. I said a few months ago, any lobbyist worth his salt has something in this bill.'' This is not the way we should be doing the people's business. Incredible deals for the special interests, big tax breaks for oil and gas companies, and other big corporations have already stalled WTO compliance for too long. The manufacturing base of our country will suffer, the economy will suffer, and jobs will suffer. Is that what we want? Is that what the American people want? The answer is no. They deserve better than this, Mr. President. We work for them--not for the big money special interests and their fat cat lobbyists. As I have said before, we need to start making some tough decisions around here Mr. President. With little legislative time remaining this election year, the Senate would serve the American public far better if it stayed focused on accomplishing the intended purpose of legislating. Unfortunately, this FSC/ETI bill, which is a much needed bill, is being dragged down with the unnecessary weight of billions of dollars in wasteful subsidies, tax breaks, and special exemptions for the special interests. We have got to restore some sanity to the way we do things here in Washington. The facts are clear, we simply cannot continue to spend and spend and spend while continuing to cut taxes and fund the war against terrorism. It's high time we face up to the challenge and do what's right. Passing this bill, and the others like it of which this body has become so fond, is tantamount to placing a millstone of debt around the necks of our children, grandchildren, and who knows how many future generations of Americans. It has to stop, and I hope this body can find the courage to stop it.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, most Americans believe, as I do, that the institution of marriage should be reserved for the union of a man and a woman. But only a very small majority, and perhaps not quite a majority, support the idea--at this time--of amending the Constitution to prohibit the States from changing the legal definition of marriage to include any union other than that between a man and a woman. I know that Americans who support a Federal marriage amendment feel very strongly that same sex marriages judged lawful by the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and permitted, for a brief period, unlawfully, in certain other localities, threaten the institution of marriage as a core value of our culture. I know also that many of the opponents of the amendment believe it is purposely divisive, discriminatory and intended to deny some Americans their right to the pursuit of happiness. And I know that many, many of those Americans who do not presently support the amendment, but oppose same-sex marriage do not perceive it is urgently necessary to address this issue by means of amending the most successful and enduring political compact in human history. This close division of public opinion assures us one thing. A Federal marriage amendment to the Constitution will not be adopted by Congress this year, nor next year, nor anytime soon until a substantial majority of Americans are persuaded that such a consequential action is as vitally important and necessary as the proponents feel it is today. It is perfectly appropriate for Americans who do feel that strongly today to call the offices of their elected representatives and urge them to support the amendment. But their efforts would be better spent trying to convince a supermajority of the public to share their urgency because until they do there will not be a supermajority in Congress and among State legislatures willing to amend our Constitution. By my count, there is not at this time even a small majority of senators who would vote for Senator Allard's amendment, much less the 67 votes required by the Constitution. That won't change unless public opinion changes significantly. The founders, wisely, made certain that the Constitution is difficult to amend, and, as a practical political matter, can't be done without overwhelming public approval. And thank God for that. Were it any easier I fear we could not make the claim for the Constitution's enduring success that I have just made. Many, if not most, Americans have reasoned that there is no overriding urgent need to act at this time. And they are right to do so. The legal definition of marriage has always been left to the states to decide, in accordance with the prevailing standards of their neighborhoods and communities. Certainly, that view has prevailed for many years in my party where we adhere to a rather stricter federalism than has always been the case in the prevailing views among our friends in the Democratic Party. Some fear that the decision in Massachusetts will ultimately result in the imposition of different views on marriage in communities where the traditional view of marriage is considered singular and sacred. But there really is insufficient reason presently to fear such a result. I supported the Defense of Marriage Act adopted by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton in 1996. As my colleagues know, the Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, was proposed in response to a decision by the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii which concluded that a law banning same-sex marriages may violate the Equal Protection Clause of Hawaii's constitution. DOMA provides States an exemption from the ``full faith and credit'' clause so that each State would be able to decide for itself whether to recognize same-sex marriage. The law neither compels a State to recognize a same-sex marriage from another State, nor does it prohibit States from recognizing such marriages. It simply protects each State's right to choose how it will define marriage. Currently, 39 States have defense of marriage laws in place. And thus far, there has yet to be a successful challenge to DOMA in Federal Court. The Defense of Marriage Act represents the quintessentially federalist and Republican approach to this issue. The constitutional amendment we are debating today strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans. It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed, and imposes a Federal remedy for a problem that most states do not believe confronts them, and which they feel capable of resolving should it confront them, again according to local standards and customs. If a constitution is to be amended, it should be a State constitution. According to a report by the Heritage Foundation, an organization not known for its liberal sympathies, ``the best way to defend against a state court that might seek to overturn State public policy or force recognition of another state's marriage policy is to amend the State constitution to establish a state constitutional marriage policy.'' At this time, 16 States have pending constitutional amendments to protect marriage, and at least 3 others are expected to introduce such amendments soon. Colleagues who have told me of actions taken in this city or that county to impose a legal definition of marriage that conflicts with the prevailing view of marriage in their State have a far less draconian remedy at hand to correct the injustice than amending the United States Constitution--it is in their state legislatures. What evidence do we have that States are incapable of further exercising an authority they have exercised successfully for over 200 years? The actions by jurists in one court in one state do not represent the death knell to marriage. We will have to wait a little longer to see if Armageddon has arrived. If the Supreme Court of the United States rejects the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional; if State legislatures are frustrated by the decisions of jurists in more states than one, and if state remedies to such judicial activism fail; and finally, if a large majority of Americans come to perceive that their communities' values are being ignored and other standards concerning marriage are being imposed on them against their will, and that elections and state legislatures can provide no remedy then, and only then, should we consider, quite appropriately, amending the Constitution of the United States. I know passions run high on this issue. Americans who support the Federal marriage amendment do so very forcefully. They want this vote. But they should also know, and we should make sure they do know that it will never be adopted until many more Americans feel as strongly as they do. They have every right to demand a vote, even if the outcome is well-known. There are, of course, many other urgent priorities left to address in this Congress, not the least of which concern the physical security of this country, as Secretary Ridge has recently reminded us. But I have in the past supported legislation I knew lacked the necessary votes to prevail, and still insisted on a vote. In those cases, however, I had much broader public support for the legislation than exists for this proposed amendment. Still, I would normally be inclined to support any procedural motion to allow proponents their vote. But a procedural vote is unlikely to succeed, as we all know. That's why I supported the Democratic leader's offer of a unanimous consent agreement to allow an up or down vote on Senator Allard's amendment. I would very much like an up or down vote on the amendment. That offer was rejected, and it seems at the moment that the only vote on this issue that we're going to be allowed will be a procedural vote. I would not want to obscure my position on this issue by voting to proceed to the amendment, and then, following that vote's failure, having no further opportunity to take my stand by voting, and to be held accountable by my constituents for that vote. So, I am inclined at this time, if this will be our only vote in this debate, to cast a vote that reflects my position on the federal marriage amendment proposed by Senator Allard. I refer to Federalist Paper 45 to explain my vote, in which James Madison wrote ``the powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.'' I stand with Mr. Madison on this question, and against a Federal marriage amendment that denies the States their traditional right and their clear opportunity to resolve this controversy themselves. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I may require 15 minutes. I ask unanimous consent to extend from 12 to 15 minutes.

Mr. McCAIN. You are up. Then I asked unanimous consent to follow the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to follow the Senator from Kansas for a period of 12 minutes. Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Public Broadcasting Reauthorization Act of 2004. This legislation is designed to reauthorize the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB or ``the Corporation'') through 2011 to carry forth its mission to support the Nation's public broadcasting system. This private, non-profit corporation has not been reauthorized since 1996. In 1967, Congress created the Corporation, declaring, ``It is in the public interest to encourage the growth and development of public radio and television broadcasting, including the use of such media for instructional, educational and cultural purposes.'' Today, the primary function of the CPB is to receive and distribute governmental funds to stations, develop national programming, and maintain universal access to public broadcasting's educational programs and services through 356 public television stations and almost 800 public radio stations. In addition to authorizing the Corporation, the bill would explicitly provide public broadcast stations the ability to use CPB funds to produce local programming. An April 2004 General Accounting Office (GAO) report noted that 79 percent of the public television stations surveyed found that the amount of local programming they currently produce is not sufficient to meet local community needs. Eighty-five percent of the stations surveyed stated that they do not have adequate funds for local programming or that they would produce more local programming if they could obtain additional sources of funding. The bill would provide the Corporation the explicit authority to award grants for the production and acquisition of local programming and allow stations to use CPB funds supporting the digital transition to produce local digital programming. Furthermore, the bill would expand the definition of public telecommunications services to capture the services public broadcasters are now providing through their web sites and through digital multicasting. The bill would also allow CPB to recoup some federal funds provided to a public broadcast station if the broadcaster sells the station to an entity that does not offer public broadcasting services. Reauthorization would allow the CPB to continue carrying out its many responsibilities. I look forward to working with my colleagues to expeditiously move this measure through the legislative process. Today the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation held a hearing on public broadcasting. Mr. Ken Burns, a filmmaker, spoke eloquently at the hearing on the benefits public broadcasting provides to local communities. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Burns' testimony and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.