John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, along with Senator Russ Feingold, I am proud today to introduce the Presidential Funding Act of 2003. This legislation will improve and reform the presidential public financing system. With major presidential candidates opting out of public financing for their 2004 primary campaigns, reform of the system of financing presidential nominations is needed more than ever. The presidential public financing system has been in place for three decades and has achieved broad public acceptance. From 1976 to 2000, every major party presidential nominee has accepted public financing for the general election and, nearly all of the nominees have also accepted it for their primary elections. A total of 46 Democrats and 29 Republicans have accepted public financing for the presidential primaries during this period. Since its creation, the presidential financing system has worked non- ideologically, with victories for three Republicans and two Democrats. It has also provided for competitive elections. In the five races that have been run under the system involving an incumbent president, challengers have won in three of those elections. This system of voluntary spending limits in exchange for public funding has been a nonpartisan success. Last year's enactment of a ban on soft money addressed what had become a basic problem for the effectiveness and credibility of the presidential system. For the system to continue serving the nation effectively, its remaining problems now must be solved. This legislation will repair and revitalize the presidential campaign finance system in the following ways. First, our legislation increases the overall spending limit for the presidential primaries and provide more public matching funds for presidential primary candidates. The overall spending limit in the primaries for publicly financed candidates has failed to keep pace with reality. This was demonstrated when in 2000, public financing and spending limits for the primaries were rejected and a record $100 million in private contributions was spent to gain the Republican party's nomination--more than twice the amount that the publicly financed candidates were allowed to spend. During the 2004 presidential primary period, it is expected that Republicans will raise and spend as much as $200 million. Our legislation increases the individual contribution limit from $1,000 to $2,000. Therefore, it will be easier over time for other candidates to reject public financing and raise private money in excess of the overall primary spending limit, thereby worsening the competitive disadvantage of publicly-financed candidates. In addition, the ``front-loading'' of presidential primaries has created a much shorter nominating period--now likely to end by early March--and a longer actual general election period than existed when the presidential financing system was created in 1974. As a result, a potential ``gap'' exists in funds available for a publicly financed nominee to spend between gaining the party nomination in March and the party's summer nominating convention, when the nominee receives public funds for the general election. This creates a further competitive disadvantage. To address these problems, our legislation increases the overall spending limit for the presidential primaries to $75 million from the $45 million limit in effect for the 2004 presidential election. This would equal the $75 million spending limit in effect for the general election, which applies to a much shorter period than the primaries. The amount of public matching funds for individual contributions in the primaries is also increased from the current one-to-one match to a four-to-one match for up to $250 of each individual contribution. This would greatly increase the value of smaller contributions in the presidential nominating process, as was intended by the presidential financing system. It would decrease the reliance on larger contributions, provide more public funds to meet the higher spending limit, and improve the ability of publicly financed candidates to run competitive elections. When the $1000 individual contribution limit was doubled last year, increasing the potential role of private contributions in the presidential financing system, no similar adjustment was made to increase the role of public matching funds. A new four-to-one multiple match for up to $250 of each individual contribution would accomplish that goal. In addition, the threshold for qualifying for matching public funds in the primary has not changed since the system was established. Our legislation increases the qualifying threshold should be increased by more than doubling the threshold to require candidates to raise $15,000 in each of 20 states in amounts of no more than $250 per individual donor. Although the existing threshold has worked well during the history of the current system, a higher qualifying amount is appropriate for the future, especially since candidates would now be eligible to receive greater amounts of matching funds. Second, our legislation requires a candidate to opt in or out of the public financing system for the entire presidential election, including both the primary and general election. The purpose of the presidential public financing system is to allow candidates to run competitive races for the presidency without becoming dependent on or obligated to campaign donors. That purpose is undermined when a candidate opts out of the system to raise and spend large amounts of private money for a primary or general election race. Such candidates should not be able to reject public financing and then get the system's benefits when it suits their tactical advantage. A candidate should have to opt in or out of the system for the whole election. Third, our legislation repeals the state-by-state primary spending limits and allows publicly financed primary candidates to receive their public matching funds before January 1st of the presidential election year. The State-by-State primary spending limits have not worked. The limits have proven to be ineffective and have served to unjustifiably micromanage presidential campaigns. Under current law, primary candidates can begin to raise private contributions eligible to be matched beginning on January 1 of the year before a presidential election year. They are not eligible, however, to receive any of the matching public funds until January 1 of the presidential election year. With the current ``front-loaded'' primary system, and with the nomination likely to be decided in the early months of a presidential election year, primary candidates need to be able to spend more funds at an earlier period than before. As a result, under our legislation, presidential primary candidates will be eligible to start receiving matching public funds on July 1 of the year before a presidential election year. Fourth, our legislation provides additional public funds in the presidential general election for a publicly financed candidate facing a privately financed candidate who has substantially outspent the combined primary and general election spending limits. As more wealthy individuals decide to spend their personal wealth to run for public office, the potential grows for an individual to spend an enormous amount of personal wealth to seek the presidency. There already have been candidates for the U.S. Senate and in mayoral races, for example, who have spent as much in personal wealth on their races as each major party presidential nominee received in public funds in 2000 to run their general election campaign. In addition, with the increased individual contribution limit, a presidential candidate could decide to forgo public funding and raise and spend private contributions far in excess of the spending limits for publicly financed candidates. To address this potential problem, our legislation makes a publicly financed major party nominee eligible to receive an additional $75 million for the general election race, when a privately financed general election candidate has spent more than 50 percent above the total primary and general election spending limit for the publicly financed candidate. In other words, once a presidential general election candidate has spent more than a total of $225 million to seek the presidency, a publicly financed major party nominee, subject to a spending limit of $75 million for the primaries and $75 million for the general election, would receive an additional $75 million for the general election race. Fifth, our legislation increases the funds available to finance the presidential public financing system. Currently, the public financing system is funded by a voluntary $3 check-off available to taxpayers on their tax forms on an annual basis. This mechanism will not raise sufficient resources in the long term to finance the costs of a revised presidential system. The $3 tax check-off is increased to $6 and indexed for inflation to help ensure there are sufficient funds available for future presidential elections. In addition, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) is authorized to conduct a public education campaign to explain to citizens why the check-off exists and how it works, including the fact that it does not increase the tax liability of taxpayers. The current presidential public financing law creates a priority system that allocates available public funds from the check-off to the nomination conventions, the presidential general election and the presidential primaries in that order. This order of priority does not make sense. Our legislation revises the order of priority for use of public funds to make funding of the general election candidates the first priority, funding of the primary election candidates the second priority, and funding of the nomination conventions the third priority. Furthermore, a U.S. Department of the Treasury ruling prohibits taking into account the tax check-off revenues that will be received in April of the presidential election year in determining at the start of each presidential election year the total amount of funds available to be given to eligible candidates from the fund. This has had the effect of artificially lowering the amount of funds available and creating temporary shortfalls for primary candidates during the opening months of the presidential election year at the time when they need the funds the most. Our legislation revises the law to require the U.S. Department of the Treasury (as it used to do) to estimate at the end of the year prior to a presidential election year the amount of check-off funds that will be received in the presidential election year and to take these funds into account in determining the total amount of funds available under the presidential system. Finally, our legislation implements the soft money ban to ensure that the parties and federal officeholders and candidates do not raise or spend soft money in connection with the presidential nominating conventions. Despite the passage of the new campaign finance law and its ban on soft money, federal officeholders and national party officials have continued to raise soft money to finance the national nomination conventions on the fictional premise that such funds are not in connection with a ``federal election'' but rather are for municipal or civic purposes. The reality is that a presidential nominating convention is defined as a ``federal election'' election under the campaign finance law. Furthermore, federal officeholders and candidates and national party officials who raise soft money for the conventions are subject to precisely the same kind of problems of corruption and the appearance of corruption that the new law prevents by banning soft money. To reaffirm that the soft money ban applies to the presidential nominating conventions, our legislation explicitly prohibits the national parties and federal officeholders and candidates from raising and spending soft money to pay for the presidential nominating conventions, including for a host committee, civic committee or municipality. The highly expensive, front-loaded, nationalized, primary system requires that we more than ever fix the presidential public funding system. We must continue to promote competition in order to give voters choices. Our legislation not only saves the existing system but improves it as well. It not only shores up the financial foundations of the system but it would also bring more donors into the system, making financial participation more democratic. It would give our citizens a stake in their government. It is our hope that with the enactment of this legislation, candidates will no longer take small donors for granted and finally hear their voices. In return, all of our citizens will feel reconnected to the presidential financing process that at times, has left them behind.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, along with Senator Russ Feingold, I am proud today to introduce the Presidential Funding Act of 2003. This legislation will improve and reform the presidential public financing system. With major presidential candidates opting out of public financing for their 2004 primary campaigns, reform of the system of financing presidential nominations is needed more than ever. The presidential public financing system has been in place for three decades and has achieved broad public acceptance. From 1976 to 2000, every major party presidential nominee has accepted public financing for the general election and, nearly all of the nominees have also accepted it for their primary elections. A total of 46 Democrats and 29 Republicans have accepted public financing for the presidential primaries during this period. Since its creation, the presidential financing system has worked non- ideologically, with victories for three Republicans and two Democrats. It has also provided for competitive elections. In the five races that have been run under the system involving an incumbent president, challengers have won in three of those elections. This system of voluntary spending limits in exchange for public funding has been a nonpartisan success. Last year's enactment of a ban on soft money addressed what had become a basic problem for the effectiveness and credibility of the presidential system. For the system to continue serving the nation effectively, its remaining problems now must be solved. This legislation will repair and revitalize the presidential campaign finance system in the following ways. First, our legislation increases the overall spending limit for the presidential primaries and provide more public matching funds for presidential primary candidates. The overall spending limit in the primaries for publicly financed candidates has failed to keep pace with reality. This was demonstrated when in 2000, public financing and spending limits for the primaries were rejected and a record $100 million in private contributions was spent to gain the Republican party's nomination--more than twice the amount that the publicly financed candidates were allowed to spend. During the 2004 presidential primary period, it is expected that Republicans will raise and spend as much as $200 million. Our legislation increases the individual contribution limit from $1,000 to $2,000. Therefore, it will be easier over time for other candidates to reject public financing and raise private money in excess of the overall primary spending limit, thereby worsening the competitive disadvantage of publicly-financed candidates. In addition, the ``front-loading'' of presidential primaries has created a much shorter nominating period--now likely to end by early March--and a longer actual general election period than existed when the presidential financing system was created in 1974. As a result, a potential ``gap'' exists in funds available for a publicly financed nominee to spend between gaining the party nomination in March and the party's summer nominating convention, when the nominee receives public funds for the general election. This creates a further competitive disadvantage. To address these problems, our legislation increases the overall spending limit for the presidential primaries to $75 million from the $45 million limit in effect for the 2004 presidential election. This would equal the $75 million spending limit in effect for the general election, which applies to a much shorter period than the primaries. The amount of public matching funds for individual contributions in the primaries is also increased from the current one-to-one match to a four-to-one match for up to $250 of each individual contribution. This would greatly increase the value of smaller contributions in the presidential nominating process, as was intended by the presidential financing system. It would decrease the reliance on larger contributions, provide more public funds to meet the higher spending limit, and improve the ability of publicly financed candidates to run competitive elections. When the $1000 individual contribution limit was doubled last year, increasing the potential role of private contributions in the presidential financing system, no similar adjustment was made to increase the role of public matching funds. A new four-to-one multiple match for up to $250 of each individual contribution would accomplish that goal. In addition, the threshold for qualifying for matching public funds in the primary has not changed since the system was established. Our legislation increases the qualifying threshold should be increased by more than doubling the threshold to require candidates to raise $15,000 in each of 20 states in amounts of no more than $250 per individual donor. Although the existing threshold has worked well during the history of the current system, a higher qualifying amount is appropriate for the future, especially since candidates would now be eligible to receive greater amounts of matching funds. Second, our legislation requires a candidate to opt in or out of the public financing system for the entire presidential election, including both the primary and general election. The purpose of the presidential public financing system is to allow candidates to run competitive races for the presidency without becoming dependent on or obligated to campaign donors. That purpose is undermined when a candidate opts out of the system to raise and spend large amounts of private money for a primary or general election race. Such candidates should not be able to reject public financing and then get the system's benefits when it suits their tactical advantage. A candidate should have to opt in or out of the system for the whole election. Third, our legislation repeals the state-by-state primary spending limits and allows publicly financed primary candidates to receive their public matching funds before January 1st of the presidential election year. The State-by-State primary spending limits have not worked. The limits have proven to be ineffective and have served to unjustifiably micromanage presidential campaigns. Under current law, primary candidates can begin to raise private contributions eligible to be matched beginning on January 1 of the year before a presidential election year. They are not eligible, however, to receive any of the matching public funds until January 1 of the presidential election year. With the current ``front-loaded'' primary system, and with the nomination likely to be decided in the early months of a presidential election year, primary candidates need to be able to spend more funds at an earlier period than before. As a result, under our legislation, presidential primary candidates will be eligible to start receiving matching public funds on July 1 of the year before a presidential election year. Fourth, our legislation provides additional public funds in the presidential general election for a publicly financed candidate facing a privately financed candidate who has substantially outspent the combined primary and general election spending limits. As more wealthy individuals decide to spend their personal wealth to run for public office, the potential grows for an individual to spend an enormous amount of personal wealth to seek the presidency. There already have been candidates for the U.S. Senate and in mayoral races, for example, who have spent as much in personal wealth on their races as each major party presidential nominee received in public funds in 2000 to run their general election campaign. In addition, with the increased individual contribution limit, a presidential candidate could decide to forgo public funding and raise and spend private contributions far in excess of the spending limits for publicly financed candidates. To address this potential problem, our legislation makes a publicly financed major party nominee eligible to receive an additional $75 million for the general election race, when a privately financed general election candidate has spent more than 50 percent above the total primary and general election spending limit for the publicly financed candidate. In other words, once a presidential general election candidate has spent more than a total of $225 million to seek the presidency, a publicly financed major party nominee, subject to a spending limit of $75 million for the primaries and $75 million for the general election, would receive an additional $75 million for the general election race. Fifth, our legislation increases the funds available to finance the presidential public financing system. Currently, the public financing system is funded by a voluntary $3 check-off available to taxpayers on their tax forms on an annual basis. This mechanism will not raise sufficient resources in the long term to finance the costs of a revised presidential system. The $3 tax check-off is increased to $6 and indexed for inflation to help ensure there are sufficient funds available for future presidential elections. In addition, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) is authorized to conduct a public education campaign to explain to citizens why the check-off exists and how it works, including the fact that it does not increase the tax liability of taxpayers. The current presidential public financing law creates a priority system that allocates available public funds from the check-off to the nomination conventions, the presidential general election and the presidential primaries in that order. This order of priority does not make sense. Our legislation revises the order of priority for use of public funds to make funding of the general election candidates the first priority, funding of the primary election candidates the second priority, and funding of the nomination conventions the third priority. Furthermore, a U.S. Department of the Treasury ruling prohibits taking into account the tax check-off revenues that will be received in April of the presidential election year in determining at the start of each presidential election year the total amount of funds available to be given to eligible candidates from the fund. This has had the effect of artificially lowering the amount of funds available and creating temporary shortfalls for primary candidates during the opening months of the presidential election year at the time when they need the funds the most. Our legislation revises the law to require the U.S. Department of the Treasury (as it used to do) to estimate at the end of the year prior to a presidential election year the amount of check-off funds that will be received in the presidential election year and to take these funds into account in determining the total amount of funds available under the presidential system. Finally, our legislation implements the soft money ban to ensure that the parties and federal officeholders and candidates do not raise or spend soft money in connection with the presidential nominating conventions. Despite the passage of the new campaign finance law and its ban on soft money, federal officeholders and national party officials have continued to raise soft money to finance the national nomination conventions on the fictional premise that such funds are not in connection with a ``federal election'' but rather are for municipal or civic purposes. The reality is that a presidential nominating convention is defined as a ``federal election'' election under the campaign finance law. Furthermore, federal officeholders and candidates and national party officials who raise soft money for the conventions are subject to precisely the same kind of problems of corruption and the appearance of corruption that the new law prevents by banning soft money. To reaffirm that the soft money ban applies to the presidential nominating conventions, our legislation explicitly prohibits the national parties and federal officeholders and candidates from raising and spending soft money to pay for the presidential nominating conventions, including for a host committee, civic committee or municipality. The highly expensive, front-loaded, nationalized, primary system requires that we more than ever fix the presidential public funding system. We must continue to promote competition in order to give voters choices. Our legislation not only saves the existing system but improves it as well. It not only shores up the financial foundations of the system but it would also bring more donors into the system, making financial participation more democratic. It would give our citizens a stake in their government. It is our hope that with the enactment of this legislation, candidates will no longer take small donors for granted and finally hear their voices. In return, all of our citizens will feel reconnected to the presidential financing process that at times, has left them behind.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is now considering S. 579, the National Transportation Safety Board Reauthorization Act of 2003. This bill was introduced by Senators Hollings, Lott, Hutchison, Rockefeller and myself, and it was unanimously approved by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on March 22, 2003. Each year, the National Transportation Safety Board, NTSB, investigates more than 2,000 transportation accidents and events, including all fatal aviation accidents, and hundreds of railroad, highway, maritime, and pipeline transportation accidents. The NTSB also conducts safety studies, and evaluates the effectiveness of other government agencies' programs for preventing transportation accidents. Most importantly, the NTSB makes safety recommendations, based on its investigations, to federal, state and local government agencies and to the transportation industry regarding actions that should be taken to prevent accidents. This legislation would authorize appropriations for the NTSB for fiscal years 2003 through 2006. It also would allow the NTSB to relinquish responsibility for providing assistance to families of victims of accidents to the FBI if it takes over the investigation, and give the NTSB expedited procurement procedures to aid in accident investigations. The bill is being proposed along with an amendment that incorporates provisions from the House-passed version of its NTSB reauthorization bill, H.R. 1527. The amendment was developed in cooperation with the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Among other things, it includes a provision that would require the Secretary of Transportation to submit annual status reports on the Department's progress in meeting the safety recommendations stemming from the NTSB's ``most wanted list.'' The NTSB's safety investigations and the resulting recommendations play a vital role in ensuring the safe and efficient operation of our nation's transportation system. It is my understanding that the NTSB supports this legislation. I urge the Senate to pass this important legislation so the House of Representatives can consider it before they adjourn for the year.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is about to vote on the Conference Report to H.R. 2115, the FAA reauthorization bill. This legislation is critical to our Nation's air transportation system, providing necessary funding for aviation safety and security for fiscal years 2004 to 2007. CIvil aviation generates more than $900 billion in GDP every year, and we all know that it has faced very difficult economic times. Since September 11, 2001, Congress has passed a number of bipartisan aviation bills to aid the industry and, more importantly, to assure that the air traveling public could continue to rely on this vital transportation mode. Among the many bills enacted, we established the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to oversee aviation security; we provided grants and loans to help the airline industry through their difficult economic times; and we extended terrorism insurance to the aviation industry. Without these important measures, the aviation industry would be in far worse condition. The Conference Report pending before us is as important to the health of our aviation system as any of the other bills I just mentioned. This multi-year FAA authorization legislation is needed by airports, so that airport construction projects don't come to a halt and cause layoffs in the construction sector. It is needed by aviation manufacturers and by the airline industry. Above all, it is needed by our air travelers, who rely on a safe and security air transportation system. The Conference Report on H.R. 2115 authorizes over $60 billion in aviation spending over the next four years to improve our Nation's aviation system. It includes: $14.2 billion for security, safety and capacity projects for the Airport Improvement Program (AIP)--over 50 percent of this funding is likely to be spent on safety projects. In fiscal year 2004 alone, this funding will create approximately 162,000 direct and indirect jobs. However, the AIP funding ONLY becomes available if this Conference Report is signed into law--the passage of the transportation appropriations bill is NOT sufficient to make the funds available; $13.3 billion to modernize the air traffic control system; $31 billion to operate the FAA's air traffic control system and to support the FAA's safety programs; $1.6 billion for aviation research and development; $2 billion for airport security projects, and, $500 million for the Essential Air Service program. The majority of this funding will come from the Aviation Trust Fund, which is supported by taxes paid by the users of the system. Although this Conference Report provides a great boost for the modernization of the aviation system and for increasing capacity and efficiency, there are also numerous provisions in the Conference Report that will improve aviation safety and security. In support of improving safety, the Conference Report strengthens FAA enforcement against the users of fraudulent aircraft parts; increases penalties that the FAA may impose for safety violations--fines have not been adjusted since 1947, and as such, are sometimes simply treated as the cost of doing business by the entity being fined; and requires the FAA to update and improve its airline safety oversight program. In support of improved aviation security, the Conference Report includes $500 million per year to finance security capital improvements at airports--including the installation of explosive detection systems. After September 11, almost $500 million per year in AIP funds were diverted to security projects from safety and capacity projects. Although this may have been justifiable immediately after September 11, in the long run, a continuation of such diversion could be detrimental to the aviation system; extends the Secretary of Transportation's authority to provide War Risk insurance to airlines against terrorism; expands the armed pilot program to include cargo pilots; requires the TSA to improve the security at foreign repair stations that conduct work on U.S. aircraft; authorizes compensation to general aviation entities for losses resulting from security mandates; and provides for certification and better security training for flight attendants. In order to improve air transportation service, especially to smaller and rural communities, the Conference Report contains a number of provisions. The report reauthorizes the Essential Air Service (EAS) at current funding levels; establishes a number of EAS pilot programs to give communities flexibility in how they receive EAS service; makes permanent the Small Community Air Development program; establishes a National Commission on Small Community Air Service to make recommendations on how to improve air service to such communities; and includes a Sense of Congress that airlines should provide the lowest possible fare for all active duty members of the Armed Forces. Further, for large airports in Western States and smaller airports in the East, it frees up more takeoff and landing slots at Reagan National Airport. The Conference Report addresses numerous environmental issues. It streamlines environmental review of projects to increase airport capacity and improve aviation safety and security; authorizes grants to airports to permit them to purchase or retrofit low emission vehicles at airports; and authorizes projects that improve air quality and give airports emission credits for undertaking such projects. I want to recognize all the hard work that Senator Lott, as Chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, has put into the bill this year. Last winter, many in the aviation community predicted that Congress would not enact an aviation reauthorization bill this year. Senator Lott would not even consider such a scenario and kept us on a schedule where the Conference Report was actually completed before the August recess. This was only possible, as always, due to the work and cooperation on this bill from the ranking Democratic members of the Commerce Committee and its Aviation Subcommittee, Senators Hollings and Rockefeller. I also wish to thank Senator Dorgan for his work in brokering the compromise that allowed us to move forward with this Conference Report today. And I want to thank the administration, especially Secretary Mineta and FAA Administrator Blakey, in working long and hard with us to get a final compromise on the issue of privatization. I urge my colleagues to support final passage of the Conference Report and send it to the President.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. From the Chicago Tribune: Neither the contents nor the process for cobbling it together suggest this is the type of energy legislation this country needs. The Denver Post: . . . the most pernicious pork got added in conference committee. Congress should start over next year. Mr. President, let's put this up against the backdrop of a $500 billion deficit we are facing this year, with 12 percent growth of the Government. Don't call yourself a fiscal conservative and vote for this bill.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate will now consider S. 1152, the United States Fire Administration Act of 2003. I am pleased to offer a substitute amendment which includes the provisions of S. 321, the Firefighting Research and Coordination Act. I thank Senators Hollings, Brownback, Breaux, Biden, DeWine, Cantwell, Lindsey Graham, Carper, and Snowe for their support of these two bills. I also thank Representative Camp for his leadership in the House on the companion bill to S. 321. In addition, I thank Chairman Boehlert and ranking member Hall of the House Science Committee, and Chairman Nick Smith of the Research Subcommittee for their work on this legislation. The purpose of this legislation is to address many of the pressing needs of our fire services. As we face a war against terrorism, we must remember that firefighters are among the first to respond to any domestic terrorist event. In addition, today's firefighters must be prepared to deal with a host of other hazards caused by urban and wild land fires, natural disasters, hazardous materials spills, and other accidents. This legislation is designed to ensure that our Nation's first-responders are adequately prepared and trained to take action against these myriad threats. This legislation will reauthorize funding for the U.S. Fire Administration, USFA, for fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2008. The USFA's important mission is to reduce the loss of life and property due to fire and related emergencies. The agency utilizes a number of tools to fulfill its mission. The National Fire Academy, NFA, is the premiere training academy of the fire services, and has trained over 1.4 million firefighters and other first-responders in emergency management, fire prevention, and anti-terrorism. In addition, the USFA engages in research, testing, and evaluation activities with public and private entities to promote and improve fire and life safety. This legislation also would reestablish the position of U.S. Fire Administrator at USFA. The U.S. Fire Administrator plays a critical role in our Nation's fire control policy and homeland security initiatives by serving as the point-of-contact for the fire services. This position was eliminated in last year's legislation that established the Department of Homeland Security. On April 30, 2003, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation heard testimony from many of the major fire service organizations regarding the importance of the U.S. Fire Administrator, and the need for the administrator to serve as a representative of the fire services within the new Department of Homeland Security. The legislation would address a major issue that fire departments face in equipping themselves. Today's firefighters use a variety of technologies including thermal imaging equipment; devices for locating firefighters and victims; and state-of-art protective suits to fight fires, clean up chemical and hazardous waste spills, and contend with potential terrorist devices. Unfortunately, there are no uniform technical standards for new equipment used in combating fires. Without such standards, local fire companies may purchase equipment that is faulty or that does not satisfy their needs. A January 2003, Consumer Reports article reported that much of the emergency equipment sold today is not tested or certified by the government or independent labs. The article states that ``the confusion will get worse, emergency departments say, as new equipment floods the market in response to increased government funding.'' The legislation would help to resolve this problem by authorizing the U.S. Fire Administrator to work with other Federal agencies and interested parties to support the development of voluntary consensus standards for new firefighting technology. Fire departments would use these standards when buying equipment through the federal Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program. In the rare case where a standard is out of date, the U.S. Fire Administrator would be allowed to grant a waiver. The legislation also would address many of the coordination challenges that firefighters face during national emergencies. It would direct the U.S. Fire Administrator to provide assistance to State and local fire services in developing mutual aid plans, and report on a strategy for deployment of volunteers and other emergency response personnel. Additionally, the legislation would authorize the National Fire Academy to train firefighters on technologies and strategies to respond to future terrorist attacks. It also would authorize the U.S. Fire Administrator to work with other federal agencies to coordinate training programs to prevent duplication. The bill also would authorize the U.S. Fire Administrator to work with the Department of Agriculture and Department of the Interior to provide assistance in fire prevention and control technologies, including methods of containing insect-infested forest fires as well as measuring, tracking, and limiting the dispersal of the resulting smoke. In addition, the legislation would expand the Board of Directors of the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation from nine members to 12. And, it would allow local fire departments to purchase equipment for fighting fires with foam in remote areas without access to water under the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program. This legislation is supported by the National Volunteer Fire Council; the Congressional Fire Services Institute; the National Fire Protection Association; the International Association of Fire Chiefs; the International Association of Fire Fighters; the International Association of Arson Investigators; International Society of Fire Service Instructors; North American Fire Training Directors and the International Fire Service Training Association. I urge my colleagues to support swift passage of this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent to print the letter of endorsement in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I think this legislation is very timely because if we pass it, Thanksgiving will come early for the Washington special interests. The American public will be presented with an enormous turkey stuffed with their tax dollars. Tell your constituents to save their holiday Turkey carcasses because this farsighted bill even provides subsidies for carcasses used as biomass to generate energy. We cannot discuss the bill without looking at the fiscal condition of the United States of America today. According to recent reports, Government spending, thanks to the Congress, grew at 12 percent. We are looking at a half a trillion budget deficit next year. We have gone from a $5 trillion surplus over the last few years to a multitrillion- dollar deficit. So what do we do? We are passing a bill that will increase the deficit by at least somewhere around $24 billion. By the way, I am really sorry we have not gotten the bill. I understand it is 1,200 to 1,600 pages long. Of course, we are considering it without even having a chance to observe it, but it is printed in the Record. I imagine the Record is pretty big. Adding to this feast, this bill also contains the other white meat. Of course, I am referring to pork. I fear for the passage of a 1,200- page, pork-laden bill. The outbreak of Washington trichinosis will be so severe we will be forced to have a field office for the Centers for Disease Control right next to the Capitol. I am not saying this will not generate some energy, not at all. It will fill the coffers of oil and gas corporations, propel corporate interests, and boost the deficit into the stratosphere. Indeed, I have stated on several occasions the name of this bill should be the ``Leave No Lobbyist Behind Act of 2003.'' Given the magnitude of the largess offered in this bill, I hardly know where to begin. I feel somewhat like a mosquito in a nudist colony. I hardly know where to begin. At a time when it is crucial for our national security and economic welfare that we pursue a new course toward energy independence and global environmental protection, the provisions in this bill take exactly the wrong direction: increasing our dependence on conventional fuels; increasing environmental degradation; increasing our energy use; increasing our national debt; and diminishing protection for consumers and public health. Let's start at the top of the corporate subsidy heap. We have the biggest increase in corn and cash this Congress has ever seen, doubling the national ethanol mandate. A doubling. Gasohol production is the worst subsidy-laden energy use ever perpetrated on the American public, and it starts with sweet corn. Ten percent of the corn grown in this country is used to produce ethanol. Corn producers, like producers of other major crops, receive farm income and price supports. Let me remind my colleagues in the 107th Congress this body passed a farm bill which appropriated more than $26 billion in direct assistance to corn growers over 6 years. That is an average of $4.3 billion in direct subsidies each year just to corn growers. But obviously, they have not gotten enough. But add it up, and we are over $3 per gallon of ethanol. The cost to consumers does not stop with the production of energy. Environmental costs of subsidized corn results in higher prices for meat, milk, and eggs because about 70 percent of corn grain is fed to livestock. A GAO report concluded, ``ethanol tax incentives have not significantly enhanced United States energy security since it reduced United States gasoline consumption by less than 1 percent.'' So if we double it, maybe we will have less than 2 percent. It takes more energy to make ethanol from grain than the combustion ethanol produces. Seventy percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy actually in ethanol. Every time you make 1 gallon of ethanol there is a net energy loss. The National Academy of Sciences concluded in 2000 that ``the use of commonly available oxygenates in Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) has little impact on improving ozone air quality and has some disadvantages.'' They found that oxygenates can lead to higher nitrous oxide emissions, ``which are more important in determining--ozone levels in some areas.'' Reformulated gasoline, without oxygenates like ethanol, are widely available and are superior to gasohol. California has started a program called the ``Cleaner Burning Gasoline,'' which has better fuel economy and overall efficiency than gasohol. I believe it was in recognition of this fact that the House and Senate both passed Energy bills that would remove the Clean Air Act requirement to include an oxygenate in reformulated gasoline. But, the overall economic and environmental benefits of no longer requiring an oxygenate is wiped out by the $2 billion ethanol mandate doubling ethanol production in this bill. Another subsidy for ethanol producers is a partial exemption for the motor fuels excise tax, which is paid to the Highway Trust Fund. Presently, corn-to-gasohol producers take a $.052 per gallon exemption from the $.18 per gallon excise tax fuel producers are required to pay into the Highway Trust Fund. According to a recent General Accounting Office study, between 1979- 2000, this exemption has cost the Highway Trust Fund between $7.5 and $11.2 billion. While a tax credit in this bill, called the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit Act of 2003, attempts to change this trend, it merely provides the option for gasohol producers to pay the entire $.18 per gallon excise tax to the Highway Trust Fund, and claim a $.052 per gallon credit on their income tax. The credit would come from general treasury funds, and leave the Highway Trust Fund income in place, most blenders will continue to take the exemption, which is an immediate discount, rather than switching to the credit. This is a useless provision which won't actually bolster the Highway Trust Fund, or the U.S. Treasury. In fact, with doubled ethanol usage, the Federal government stands to lose even more in fuel tax revenue in the upcoming years. The national ethanol consumption in 2002 was 2.1 billion gallons. Multiply that by 52 cents per gallon, and you see how much revenue the highway trust fund has lost in excise tax in this past year alone. About $1.1 billion. How much more, then, of taxpayer funds, will be given back to the ethanol producers, as ethanol production and consumption doubles? The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the ethanol mandate will cost $2 billion over the next 5 years. For decades the largest ethanol producer has been Archer Daniels Midland, producer of more than one-third of all ethanol in 2002, and whose nearest competitor has the capacity to produce one-tenth of ADM's capacity. The excise tax exemption from ethanol has been estimated to account for more than $10 billion in subsidies to ADM--one corporation with $10 billion in subsidies--from 1980 to the late 1990s. In fact, it has been estimated that every dollar in profits earned by Archer Daniels Midland costs the taxpayers $30. Speaking of highly objectionable fuel additives, I must join my colleagues who have spoken against the MTBE liability waiver. Mr. President, it is an outrage to see a product liability waiver for producers of MTBE retroactive to September 5, 2003. This nullifies the lawsuits against MTBE producers that were filed after September 5, such as the case last year in the Superior Court in California, where a jury found that MTBE was a defective product and resulted in a settlement in which MTBE producers agreed to pay more than $50 million to clean up MTBE-contaminated water supplies. Who is going to pay to clean it up now? This provision to shield MTBE producers from product liability could, according to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, cost taxpayers--taxpayers, not industry--$29 billion to clean up contaminated ground and surface water. In 1998, the U.S. Geological Survey conducted an MTBE survey of water wells in industrial areas, commercial areas, residential areas, and mixed urban areas nationwide, and also estimated that cleaning up the MTBE-contaminated sites in soil and water nationwide is approximately $29 billion. Just when you believe this bill cannot get any worse, it does. Mr. President, $800 million--I usually go through these bills, and we find pork in the hundreds of millions, sometimes billions. This exceeds all of my past experiences. Mr. President, $800 million for a loan guarantee to subsidize the creation of a brandnew polluting, coal gasification plant in an economically depressed area of Minnesota. This new company, Excelsior Energy, was formed by lobbyists and executives with ties to a company that filed for bankruptcy after amassing a $9.2 billion debt and being fined $25 million for market manipulation. This brand new giveaway, which was in neither the House nor Senate- passed Energy bills, is estimated to cost between $2 billion to $3 billion. While this technology turns coal into a synthetic gas that can be combusted more efficiently, coal plants continue to be a leading source of global warming and should not be subsidized with scarce taxpayer dollars. Further, this $800 million loan guarantee does not require Excelsior Energy to meet any concrete job creation goals or standards. In a time of $400 billion annual budget deficits, why should U.S. taxpayers cover the cost of a new plant that will not even guarantee jobs? Minnesota already has a powerplant owned by Exel Energy. Now they need Excelsior Energy, a new plant burning more carbon? Mr. President, $95 million for a subsidy for a process known as ``thermal depolymerization.'' This is a good one. Now you can get a tax credit if you compress Turkey carcasses into energy. ConAgra Foods and Changing World Technologies, the two companies that would benefit from this giveaway, have built the only commercial ``thermal technology'' plant, which is located in Carthage, MO. The plant would convert poultry waste products from ConAgra's Butterball Turkey plant into energy. After including their cash cows and all the polluter pork they could find, energy conferees have now moved on to tax breaks for turkey. I encourage my colleagues to save their leftover turkey this year after Thanksgiving dinner. Instead of making sandwiches the next day, how about turning in your poultry for a tax credit? An amendment was added Monday night--Monday night--to authorize the lignite coal-fired electrical generating plant, which would employ clean coal technology to provide energy for a rapidly growing region. This amendment was not included in either the House or Senate passed energy bills. Another provision that we understand was inserted at the eleventh hour, and was never reviewed by either the House or the Senate, would suspend important environmental reviews to facilitate the construction of uranium processing facilities in New Mexico by the consortium, Louisiana Energy Services. A Time magazine article that appeared earlier this year raised serious questions about one of the consortium members, which it characterized as ``a European consortium linked to leaks of enrichment technology to, yes, Iran, Iraq, and North Korea--as well as to Pakistan.'' The article in Time magazine quotes a high-level U.S. nuclear security administrator as saying ``to have this company operating in the U.S. after it was the source of sensitive technology reaching foreign powers does raise serious concerns.'' I want to add, I do not know if that is true or not. I do not know if the Time magazine story is true or not. We do not know because we never had any scrutiny of the amendment. But I think it is a serious issue. I do not know. In addition to possible security concerns suggested by the time article, this extraordinary rider raises critical environmental concerns. Even though I understand that both Tennessee and Louisiana have rejected this facility, the Energy bill rider shortcuts the NEPA process and meaningful judicial review of the Environmental Impact Statement, for the construction of this facility in New Mexico. To add insult to injury, the provision further requires the Government to acquire the waste and dispose of it for a price that is possibly significantly less than the cost. I ask unanimous consent the Time magazine article be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. There are also four proposals known as green bonds that will cost taxpayers $227 million to finance approximately $2 billion in private bonds. One of my favorite green bond proposals is a $150 million riverfront area in Shreveport, LA. This riverwalk has about 50 stores, a movie theater, and a bowling alley. One of the new tenants in this Louisiana riverwalk is a Hooters restaurant. Yes, my friends, an Energy bill subsidizing Hooters and polluters, probably giving new meaning to the phrase ``budget busters.'' Although I am sure there is a great deal of energy expended at Hooters, I have never been present. Perhaps something has been missing in my life. This bill was developed in a secret, exclusive, partisan process, but it is no secret anymore. In the last few days, editorials have appeared in papers throughout the country. Here are a few choice words from various papers. One thing that is worthy of note, Mr. President, is that for the first time in my memory, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal both editorialize strongly against this bill. It is on the rarest of occasions that the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times--the Wall Street Journal: ``The Grassley Rain Forest Act,'' which refers to: ``Special applause goes to Senator Chuck Grassley for grabbing millions to build an indoor rain forest and a million-gallon aquarium in lush, tropical Iowa. '' Of course, the New York Times editorial, titled ``A Shortage of Energy,'' describes how the bill is a very serious one. Today China's message on energy--where it goes into a report from China--is that the Chinese are worried about their increasing reliance on foreign oil. The difference is, the Chinese are ready to do something about it, where Congress is not. Indeed, loopholes in the Energy bill could make American cars less efficient than they are. While the Chinese say their main concern is oil dependency, not global warming, more efficient cars should help on that, too. And where are our American leaders? Feathering nests rather than imposing discipline on the Nation's fuel use. I will not go through all of the editorials that I have seen, but it is overwhelming. Everybody who has looked at this bill realizes that it is a terrible mistake. It seems to me that this is the result of a broken process, a process that is conducted behind closed doors. I still do not have the bill in front of me. None of us do. I guess it is printed in the Record. I understand, because it is 1,200 pages long, the Record might be long. There was very little, if any, consultation with other Members of the Senate. My understanding is the Democratic side was cut out of it completely. And we are given a few short hours to examine a 1,200-page ``Energy bill.'' I want to return to my initial comments. It is serious when we are looking at a $\1/2\ trillion debt next year, when we have growth in the size of Government of 12 percent. What has happened to the Republican Party? What has happened to the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution? What has happened to the lockbox where we were going to take your Social Security money and put it into an account with your name on it? Instead, we have a $20 billion and some energy bill loaded with wasteful porkbarrel projects most of us had not either seen or heard of until the last few hours. I hope we can muster 40 votes--I hope so--because I think we have to restore some kind of fiscal sanity, some kind of environmental sanity to this Nation. This legislative process needs to be fixed. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to thank both Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski for their hard work on this important legislation which provides federal funding for the Departments of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies. Unfortunately, I must again speak about the unacceptably high funding levels of parochial projects in this appropriations bill. Overall, this legislation contains approximately $1.2 billion in unrequested spending and locality-specific earmarks. The Committee provides $29.3 billion in discretionary funding for the VA. That amount is $1.3 billion more than the President's budget request and $2.8 billion above the amount in fiscal year 2003. Some progress has been made to reduce the overall amount of earmarks for the VA in this spending bill. Among other Senators who have stood on the Senate floor to fight for additional funding for veterans' healthcare, I am concerned that the Committee has directed critical dollars from veterans' healthcare to fund spending projects that have not been properly reviewed. Certain provisions funded under the VA in this legislation illustrate that Congress still does not have its priorities in order. One especially troubling expense, neither budgeted for nor requested by the Administration over the past twelve years, is a provision that directs the VA to continue the twelve year old demonstration project involving the Clarksburg, WV, Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) and the Ruby Memorial Hospital at West Virginia University. Several years ago, the VA-HUD appropriations bill contained a plus-up of $2 million for the Clarksburg VAMC that ended up on the Administration's line-item veto list and since then the millions keep flowing. Three years ago, the Committee `recommended' $1 million for the design of a nursing home care unit at the Beckley, WV, VAMC. Two years ago they strengthened their report language urging `the VA to accelerate the design of the nursing home care unit at the Beckley, WV VAMC.'' Last year, they have urged the VA ``to include sufficient funding'' for a new nursing home care unit at the Beckley, WV VAMC. This year, they urge the VA to include sufficient funding in the 2005 budget request. For St. Louis, MO, the Committee `encouraged' the VA to pursue an innovative approach at a cost of $7 million for leasing parking spaces at the John Cochran Division of the VA Medical Center in St. Louis as a means to address a parking shortfall at the VA hospital. Additionally, the Committee ``supports continuation'' at the current spending level of the Rural Veterans Health Care Initiative at the White River Junction, VT VAMC. The current level is an astounding $7 million. While I am encouraged by the increase specifically in veterans health care funding over last year's enacted levels, we must do much more. We made a promise to our veterans that we would take care of their mental and physical health needs incurred for their many sacrifices for our nation. The VA currently has an incredible backlog of claims. Currently, four out of every ten claims for veterans' disability benefits are decided incorrectly further contributing to the backlog. The millions in dollars wasted in pork barrel spending would go a long way to decreasing the backlog in veterans claims by funding additional claims adjudicators and training. I would be remiss if I did not point out the provisions in this legislation related to AmeriCorps. Whether it is tutoring inner-city youth or fighting forest fires in the West, the lives of countless people are touched by AmeriCorps. AmeriCorps' efforts to reach out to those affected by natural disasters are paying serious dividends. Over 246,000 victims of fires, floods and hurricanes have been aided by AmeriCorps volunteers working in conjunction with groups such as the American Red Cross. Despite AmeriCorps' countless success stories, the appropriators have funded AmeriCorps $93.2 million below the President's request, while imposing incredibly restrictive report language that could very well fundamentally change the face of a very successful program. I was heartened when I saw that the President requested funding to expand AmeriCorps to 75,000 volunteers in Fiscal Year 2004. This was an important first step on the road to large scale expansion of AmeriCorps. Despite the President's request, the appropriators took it upon themselves to ensure that we do not provide adequate funding to reach this ambitious level set forth by the President. The Appropriations Committee's counterparts in the House of Representatives funded AmeriCorps with $23.4 million more than the Senate, yet only believe that they can fund 55,000 volunteers. Everybody is well aware of money management problems that the Corporation for National Service and AmeriCorps have faced over the last few years. I am confident that the change in leadership at the corporation should help minimize the potential for these same problems to repeat themselves. However, if we do not provide the amount of money the corporation says it will need to fully fund 75,000 volunteers, we are inviting a disastrous repeat of history. If we do not want to repeat this summer's battle for supplemental funds for AmeriCorps, we must fully fund AmeriCorps to the level that the Corporation feels is adequate, not the appropriators. The last authorization for the AmeriCorps program lapsed in 1996. It is time to reauthorize the program. The Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee has oversight responsibility for this program. It is time that we hold hearings to reauthorize this program and markup the Call to Service Act, which I authored with Senator Bayh and Senator Kennedy. If there is a need to impose restrictions on how AmeriCorps chooses its volunteers or how awards are given out, the HELP committee is where that debate needs to take place, not by the appropriators, without so much as a hearing. We have no idea what effect the restrictions in this legislation will have on AmeriCorps. We have not bothered to run them by the Corporation. Mr. President, we are failing in our oversight responsibilities. The overwhelming support for AmeriCorps among the grassroots groups is clear. Recently, an event called Voices for AmeriCorps was staged. This 100-hour event featured 130 AmeriCorps Alumni and 51 Members of Congress. In all over 700 people, representing 47 states expressed their support for AmeriCorps. During the summer, letters were sent to the President urging him to support an emergency appropriation request for AmeriCorps. These letters were sent by a bipartisan group of 79 Senators, 228 members of the House of Representatives, 44 Governors and 148 Mayors. The list of supporters is not restricted to elected officials. 250 private sector leaders took out a full page ad in The New York Times expressing support. 1100 community organizations have shown their support. The support for AmeriCorps is clear. It is time that we acknowledge their efforts and not only fully fund the President's request but expand AmeriCorps to new levels. This legislation also contains the funding for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The programs administered by HUD help our nation's families purchase their homes, helps many low-income families obtain affordable housing, combats discrimination in the housing market, assists in rehabilitating neighborhoods and helps our nation's most vulnerable--the elderly, disabled and disadvantaged--have access to safe and affordable housing Unfortunately, this bill shifts money away from many critical housing and community programs by bypassing the appropriate competitive process and inserting earmarks and set-asides for special projects that received the attention of the Appropriations Committee. This is unfair to the many communities and families who do not have the good fortune of residing in a region of the country represented by a member of the Appropriations Committee. In the report accompanying this bill, the Appropriators have taken two accounts, originally created as competitive grant programs to be administered by HUD, and earmarked close to 100% of those accounts. This bill funds the Economic Development Initiative at $140 million. However, the report lists 331 earmarks for that program, totaling over $136 million. Similarly, the committee funds the Neighborhood Initiatives program at $21 million, with report language listing 20 earmarks, totaling over $20 million. I am deeply concerned that once competitive programs have become nothing more than slush funds to fulfill influential members' parochial interests. Some of the earmarks for special projects in this legislation include: $1,000,000 for the Tongass Coast Aquarium in Ketchikan, AK for improvements; $400,000 for Love, Inc. in Fairbanks, AK for a social service facility; $250,000 for the Alaska Aviation Heritage Museum in Anchorage for improvements; $1,000,000 for Fort Westernaire in Golden, CO for the expansion of the Westernaire museum; $500,000 for Miami Dade County, FL for the construction of the Miami Dade County Performing Arts Center; $500,000 for the Hawaii Nature Center in Wailuku, HI for the Maui Renovation Project; $500,000 for the Field Museum in Chicago, IL; $100,000 for the Iowa State Fair Board in DesMoines, IA for a statewide awareness and education/exhibit. $280,000 for the City of Waterloo, IA for the John Deere brownfield and bio-based incubator project; $500,000 for the B&O Railroad Museum in Baltimore, MD for building renovations; $187,500 for Heartland Corn Products in Winthrop, MN for construction of a new facility; $100,000 for the Graveyard of the Atlantic Museum in Hateras, NC to complete construction; $450,000 for the Johnny Appleseed Heritage Center, Inc. in Ashland County, OH for construction of facilities; $200,000 for Holt Hotel in Wichita Falls, TX for continued renovations to the Holt Hotel; $250,000 for the Walter Clore Wine and Culinary Center in Prosser, WA for costs associated with its construction; $500,000 for Appalachian Bible College in Beckley, WV to complete its library resource center; and $1,000,000 for the Huntington Area Development Council in Huntington, WV for the construction of a business incubator. This bill also funds the Environmental Protection Agency which provides resources to help state, local and tribal communities enhance capacity and infrastructure to better address their environmental needs. Mr. President, the most egregious provision under the EPA section is the language that would significantly change states' authority under the Clean Air Act in order to protect an engine manufacturer in Missouri. This policy change has been advanced to serve the concerns of Briggs and Stratton, although its September 2003 filing to the SEC indicated that there would not be ``a material effect on its financial condition or results of operations'' and it has not been able to substantiate job loss claims. However, what has been substantiated by the many public health, state environmental departments, and environmental groups opposed to this are the detrimental effects it would have on air quality including ozone levels in many states, including my own. On behalf of the health of the citizens of our respective states, every Senator in this chamber should oppose this blatant and unacceptable change in national air pollution control policy which restricts every state's ability to make decisions that best serve the economic and environmental interests of the state. I support directing more resources to communities that are most in need and facing serious public health and safety threats from environmental problems. Unfortunately, after a review of this year's bill for EPA programs, I do not believe that we are responding to the most urgent environmental needs. Our nation's key environmental laws are an empty promise of protection without adequate enforcement. I am gratified that Senator Lautenberg's amendment was accepted to bring essential enforcement activities at EPA to levels comparable to last year's appropriation. Enforcement actions have been declining significantly in conjunction with the Administration's enforcement budget cuts. We cannot allow this trend to continue and uphold our responsibility to protect human health and our vital natural resources under existing laws. The funding priorities in this bill seem to be slanted toward satisfying parochial and institutional interests rather than providing for robust implementation of national environmental laws. Many of the earmarks provided for the EPA are targeted for consortiums, universities, or foundations. There are many environmental needs in communities back in my home state of Arizona, but these communities will be denied funding as long as we continue to tolerate earmarking that circumvents a regular merit-review process. For example, some of the earmarks include: An increase of $500,000 for the painting and coating assistance initiative through the University of Northern Iowa; An increase of $500,000 for the Kenai River Center in Kenai, AK; An increase of $1,000,000 for the University of South Alabama for the Center for Estuarine Research; An increase of $250,000 for the Midwest Technology Assistance Center at the University of Illinois; An increase of $400,00 for the County of Hawaii and the Hawaii Island Economic Development Board for community-based waste recycling and reuse system; An increase of $425,000 for Southeastern Louisiana University for the Turtle Cove research station; $1 million for the Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County, FL for continued construction of the Tri-County Biosolids Pelletization Facility; $600,000 for the City of Jackson, TN for the Sandy Creek Sanitary Sewer Overflow Project; $1 million for Washoe County, NV for the North Lemmon Valley Artificial Recharge Project; $400,000 for Wright City, MO for the construction of an elevated water storage tank; and $300,000 to the City of Lancaster to construct an advanced ultrafiltration membrane water treatment system in Lancaster County, PA. While these projects may be important, why do they rank higher than other environmental priorities? It is also important to note that none of the earmarks for the EPA were even requested by the President's budget. For independent agencies such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, this bill also includes earmarks of money for locality- specific projects such as: An increase of $2.5 million to Marshall University in Bridgeport, WV for the Hubble Telescope Project; An increase of $2.5 million to the University of Mississippi for the Enterprise for Innovative Geospatial Solutions; An increase of $3 million for the University of Alaska for weather and ocean research; An increase of $1 million to the Delaware Aerospace Education and Foundation in Kent County, DE; An increase of $1.5 million for the Adventure Science Center in Nashville, TN for the Sudekum Planetarium; An increase of $2 million to Texas Tech University in Lubbock, TX for equipment at the Experimental Sciences Building; and An increase of $1 million to Utah State University in Logan, UT for the Intermountain Region Digital Image Archive and Processing Center. I want to alert my colleagues to what I consider to be a very serious funding issue concerning the future of our space program. As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, which has authorizing jurisdiction over NASA, I am greatly concerned that we apparently have not learned from last February's tragic Columbia Space Shuttle accident. What I find to be particularly remarkable is that while the Appropriators were not able to fully fund NASA, somehow the accompanying report still earmarks $81.6 million worth of pork and unrequested items in NASA's Science, Aeronautics and Exploration Account. Clearly, now more than ever, we should be doing everything in our power to ensure we aren't short- changing NASA safety needs. The Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB), which was assigned to determine the cause of that accident and to prevent future accidents, describes NASA as, ``An Agency Trying To Do Too Much With Too Little.'' The CAIB report, released in August, describes NASA's budget situation as follows: Between 1993 and 2002, the government's discretionary spending grew in purchasing power by more than 25 percent, defense spending by 15 percent, and non-defense spending by 40 percent. NASA's budget, in comparison, showed little change, going from $14.31 billion in Fiscal Year 1993 to a low of $13.6 billion in Fiscal Year 2000, and increasing to $14.87 billion in Fiscal Year 2002. This represented a loss of 13 percent in purchasing power over the decade. The report also raised very serious concerns regarding how earmarking has restricted NASA's ability to fund its priorities: Pressure on NASA's budget has come not only from the White House, but also from the Congress. In recent years there has been an increasing tendency for the Congress to add ``earmarks''--congressional additions to the NASA budget request that reflect targeted Members' interests. These earmarks come out of already-appropriated funds, reducing the amounts available for the original tasks. Have we learned nothing from the Shuttle accident and the CAIB report findings? I am afraid not, since this bill does not provide the level of funding for NASA and its programs requested by the President, yet continues the disturbing trend of earmarking NASA's budget in ways that have nothing to do with fulfilling its mission and purpose. We must do better. As Admiral Gehman testified during one of the Senate Commerce Committee's hearings this year, when I asked him about the effects of the $167 million that was earmarked in last year's appropriations bill (FY 2003), he said ``$100 million will buy a lot of safety engineers.'' Unfortunately, last year's earmarks did not allow for NASA to buy those needed safety engineers. I am not alone in my concern over the earmarks envisioned in this bill. The Administration's Statement of Administrative Policy goes so far as to call out an earmark for an entity in Hampton, VA, to prepare a research budget as ``one particularly troublesome earmark,'' stating that ``[b]udget development is clearly the purview of the executive branch and the Congress and the proposed effort is redundant and unnecessary.'' I think that it is important to know how we are spending the taxpayers' hard earned money, and have included a list of these earmarks at the end of my statement. I would like to take a few moments to discuss the International Space Station (ISS). The bill provides $200 million less than the President's request at a time when a number of serious safety concerns have been raised about the Space Station. For example, William F. Readdy, the NASA Associate Administrator at the Office of Space Flight, testified before the Commerce Committee that the Space Station onboard environmental monitoring system which, ``provides very high accuracy information on atmospheric composition and presence of trace elements . . . is not operating at full capacity.'' He also testified that the crew health countermeasures, which include an onboard treadmill and associated resistive exercise devices, were ``operating at various degrees of reduced capacity and needed to be repaired, upgraded or replaced.'' Recent articles in the Washington Post paint an even more disturbing picture. An October 23, 2003, article describes: The problems with monitoring environmental conditions aboard the space station have festered for more than a year, some NASA medical officials said. Space station astronauts have shown such symptoms as headaches, dizziness and ``an inability to think clearly,'' according to a medical officer who asked not to be named. The onboard sensors designed to provide real-time analysis of the air, water and radiation levels have been broken for months, which has made it impossible to determine at any given time whether there is a buildup of trace amounts of dangerous chemical compounds that could sicken astronauts, or worse. A November 9, 2003, Washington Post article reports that: A recent NASA study found that the risk of fire aboard the station has grown because the crew is stowing large quantities of supplies, equipment and waste in front of or near 14 portals that would be crucial for detecting and extinguishing a fire in any of the station's various compartments. There is also concern that a portion of the station's water stores supplied by the Russians may have high levels of carbon tetrachloride, a toxic contaminant. This article further stated that: As far back as March, internal studies warned of a host of dangers for six separate systems, including the thermal controls that cool the station's computers and interiors, that would likely grow out of trying to run the station with limited supplies and a caretaker crew of two instead of the normal complement of three. Before the recent launch of Expedition 8, the Chief of NASA's Habitability and Environmental Factors Office and NASA's Chief of Space Medicine signed a dissent to the ``flight readiness certificate.'' The dissent declared that ``the continued degradation in the environmental monitoring system, exercise countermeasures system, and the health maintenance system, coupled with a planned increment duration of greater than 6 months and extremely limited resupply, all combine to increase the risk to the crew to the point where initiation of [the mission] is not recommended. These are very serious issues that cannot be ignored, yet here we are, about to approve more than $81 million for unrequested earmarks while underfunding more pressing needs. How will these cuts to the President's budget request affect the safety of the space station? Are we really willing to take any risks? Furthermore, how do we explain to the public that we could not find the money to fully fund the International Space Station, but were able to earmark $81.6 million worth of pork barrel funding in NASA's Science, Aeronautics and Exploration Account? Again, this is the very type of earmarking that the CAIB report identified as serious cause for concern. That this practice continues in the face of legitimate safety concerns is simply unacceptable given the tragedies experienced just this year. When one considers the importance of ensuring the safety of the astronauts aboard the Space Station, don't you have to question the funding priority for projects such as the ultra-long balloon program at New Mexico State University, and the Classroom of the Future at Wheeling Jesuit University in West Virginia? These and other projects are the types of earmarks discussed by the CAIB. The Statement of Administration Policy opposes this $200 million reduction, stating that: ``After diligently rebuilding reserves to place the Station on sound financial ground, this reduction would deplete reserves deemed critical by independent cost estimates and limit the program's ability to address risks in FY 2004, including impacts from the Columbia accident.'' In addition, I have been informed that this reduction would place at risk actions that NASA is taking to address the Independent Management and Cost Evaluation (IMCE) Task Force recommendations to ensure a ``credible'' ISS Program. This bill would also reduce funding for other NASA programs. For example, it would reduce funding for the Global Climate Change Research Initiative by $11 million, a decrease of 47 percent. This reduction would significantly impact the development of the Advanced Polarimeter Sensor, which is designed to measure methane, tropospheric ozone, aerosols and black carbon in the atmosphere. The proposed reduction would delay the purchase of ``long-lead'' item purchases, which could potentially delay the launch date of the satellite from 2007 to 2008. The bill also would reduce funding for the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter (JIMO) by $20 million. This reduction would disrupt and delay the formulation of the JIMO and its associated space nuclear power and propulsion technologies. It also would also reduce funding for the preparation of solicitations for the science community and science investigations. In addition, it would reduce funding for spacecraft studies by three competing industry teams, which would result in delayed, less efficient, and disrupted spacecraft conceptual design work. Most importantly, funding for the Department of Energy reactor studies and technology recapture activities would be reduced. The reactor is the ``long-lead'' component of JIMO, and any delay to the reactor could eventually delay the launch of the vehicle. Finally, the bill would reduce funding for NASA's Earth Science Applications by $15 million a 20 percent decrease. This decrease would suspend or terminate projects in over 12 states that support the integration of Earth observations into decision support systems. The reduction would also suspend NASA's interagency commitments to establish best-practice solutions for the integration of Earth science research results into products and services for food and fiber production, coastal management, energy management, aviation safety, disaster management, and air quality forecasting. It is important to note for all of these projects that further delays usually equate to greater cost. I think it is important to comment on the fact that the administration has not provided any cost estimates for the space shuttle's return to flight, even though NASA has issued two versions of its Return To Flight plan. It is difficult to expect an appropriations bill to provide sufficient resources without the relevant information from NASA regarding the cost of these Shuttle operations, and I continue to request the administration provide this critical information to the Congress. The CAIB has listed 15 recommendations that must be implemented before the Space Shuttle can return to flight. These recommendations vary in technical complexity, and include modifying the Memorandum of Agreement with the National Imagery and Mapping Agency to ensure that images are taken of each Shuttle while on orbit, and developing a comprehensive inspection plan using non-destructive inspection technology to determine the structural integrity of all Reinforced Carbon-Carbon system components. The CAIB also recommends that NASA prepare a detailed plan for establishing an independent Technical Engineering Authority, independent safety program, and reorganized Space Shuttle Integration Office. Some of these recommendations will potentially be expensive to implement, and the Congress needs to have an estimate of their cost soon. We cannot wait until the FY 2005 budget submission to find out how much Return To Flight activities will cost if the Shuttle is expected to fly again next fall. I am also concerned about the Orbital Space Plane program, the development of which is estimated to cost the taxpayers upwards of $15 billion. This amount is already close to the original estimated development costs of $17.4 billion for the International Space Station. It is amazing that the escape vehicle for the station is about to cost as much as the Station was originally expected to cost. We must ensure due diligence is taken to protect this public investment. NASA has limited the competition to two companies, yet it has not provided a sufficient explanation to the authorizing committees of jurisdiction as to the merits of such a decision. I am not convinced this will generate either the cost savings or the innovation necessary to make this a successful program. Perhaps the more fundamental question is whether the OSP is the right approach in the first place. As the rush begins to develop this vehicle, many Members in both Houses are not sure how or if this project fits within the overall plans for the future of NASA. I share these concerns. We do not want to make the same mistakes that we made on the ISS. Those mistakes cost the American taxpayers dearly as the development costs of the ISS sky-rocketed by more than 50 percent. Even today, we still do not know the final costs of the Station, because of the delay caused by the grounding of the Space Shuttle. I believe it wise to wait for the results of the on-going inter- agency review of the nation's space program being undertaken by the administration before we dole out $15 billion that may be inconsistent with the future goals of the space program. We need to make the safety of the astronauts on the space station a top priority. We cannot risk placing the earmarks for parochial interests above the critical need to fund legitimate safety concerns.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senators Allen, Wyden, Hollings, and Stevens in sponsoring this substitute amendment to S. 189, the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act. I commend Senators Allen and Wyden for their leadership on this important legislation, and also thank Senators Stevens, Lott, and Sununu and Chairman Boehlert and Ranking Member Hall of the House Science Committee, for their work on this issue. Nanotechnology is a truly revolutionary field of science. Scientists have been able to develop materials and systems with dramatic new properties by manipulating structures and systems at the scale of 10-9 meters, or 1/100,000 the width of a human hair. This basic research has the potential to benefit virtually every sector of our economy, including biotechnology, telecommunications, national security, manufacturing, and computers. Some experts have projected that sales of products based on nanotechnology will reach $1 trillion by 2015. Many of our international economic competitors have begun to focus on this field. For example, the European Union budgeted $1.2 billion for nanotechnology research in 2003 and 2004. This bill is designated to highlight the United States' interest and efforts in this emerging technology. The bill would authorize a coordinated research program across the Federal Government through a National Nanotechnology Program. In addition, it would authorize funding for nanotechnology research at the National Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the Department of Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency from fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2008. I think that this multiyear authorization is important, because it signals to the Federal agencies, the States, and private industry our commitment to this important cutting-edge research. In addition, it is important to point out that the legislation deals with more than just basic research. The bill includes provisions that will ensure that social, ethical, environmental, educational, legal, and workforce issues will be analyzed, including the creation of a new center on a merit-reviewed, competitive basis to study these issues. The bill also would establish a program at NIST to conduct basic research on metrology and other issues relating to nanotechnology-based manufacturing. In addition, the bill would authorize the Secretary of Commerce, or his designee, to establish a clearinghouse of information for issues relating to nanotechnology commercialization. It is important that the private sector has access to this basic research in nanotechnology, so that United States can attain a competitive edge in this new field. I thank my colleagues for their support of this important legislation.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Russ Feingold as a co-sponsor of legislation that will require Senate candidates to file campaign finance reports in electronic form. This bill will finally remove the exemption the Senate has given itself from an important requirement of campaign finance disclosure laws that apply to everyone else, including candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives and Political Action Committees, PACs. Political committees active in federal elections must submit their quarterly financial reports for disclosure by the Federal Election Commission, FEC. Anyone interested can nearly instantaneously download the reports from the FEC website and conduct computer searches to learn about the contributions and expenditures of individual candidates for the House, non-Senate national party committees and PACs. The current problem is that they cannot do the same for Senate candidates and parties because of the Senate's insistence on paper rather than electronic filing. The FEC must do more processing of Senate paper reports than of House electronic ones. This involves printing or copying the Senate reports, up to 10,000 pages a day at times, hand- coding transactions that cannot be automatically processed, and keypunching the data into the electronic database. House electronic reports do not need the same treatment. The end result is that in contrast to the House, information from the Senate paper reports are often available well after the election has occurred. Due to this problem, voters are not well-informed about the campaign finance information of their Senators and Senate candidates. For voters who want to consider the nature of the campaign finance support received by a Senate candidate and its relationship to Senate legislative votes as a factor in deciding for whom they will cast a vote, they clearly cannot. To address this problem, our legislation requires Senate candidates to file their campaign finance reports electronically with the Secretary of the Senate. Within 24 hours of receipt of those reports, the Secretary is required to forward those reports to the FEC. The FEC, in turn is required to make those reports available on the Internet within 24 hours as they do other reports. Therefore, electronic versions of Senate reports will be available to the public within 48 hours of their filing. Electronic reports are not only transmitted instantly but are more accurate than paper submissions because software can easily correct mistakes. On the other hand, hand entering of data is always prone to error. Furthermore, the data in electronic reports can be rapidly searched via the Internet for answers to specific questions. Voters will no longer have to go through the time consuming process of reading pages and pages filed by Senate candidates or Senate party committees to figure out the major donors and their employers, and the major recipients of campaign spending. Instead, they can download a filed report from the FEC website onto their personal computers and quickly locate the information they need. This creates effective public disclosure. The Senate's current failure to provide its constituents with electronically disclosed, timely information is unconscionable. Senate filings should follow the same criteria as other campaign finance reports. There must not be a separate standard for the Senate. Ironically, while they do not currently file electronically, Senators and Senate candidates already use electronic software in compiling their paper reports. If Senators and Senate candidates can use technology to run their offices and websites, why can't they use it to better inform their own constituents about how their campaigns are funded? Their constituents have earned a right to that information. The public interest will be better served and voters' faith in their elected leaders will be restored.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. He says: Since 1998, we have conducted audits of various aspects of the Contract Tower Program and have found consistently that the program works well. We found that contract towers provide cost-effective services that are comparable in quality and safety to FAA-operated towers. The difference is it saves $170 million a year for the taxpayers. By the way, I hope the Senator from New Jersey can get over the Alaska issue. This is a fairly big bill. In all deep sympathy, I hope he can get over two towers in Alaska as we consider this serious issue. The process was not perfect. We probably should not have put this provision in in conference. We did so at the urging of the administration because there was the threat of a veto by the administration. Ever since then, we have tried to reach some kind of an agreement. We have agreed to have it language neutral. We have agreed there would be a year-long moratorium while GAO and other studies are conducted. The Senator from Mississippi and I have spent literally hundreds of hours trying to reach some accommodation to avoid a veto by the President of the United States who flat out said that--guaranteed in writing that we would have a veto--and at the same time try to satisfy the legitimate concerns because of the position of Senator Lautenberg and others who voted for the measure to which Senator Lautenberg referred. It seems to me we should have been able to come to some kind of an agreement, including the commitment that we got from the administration, or at least we would have held to, for an all-out moratorium. Now, if the Senator from New Jersey prevails on this vote, we have previous authorization and privatization will go on. So the Senator from New Jersey may feel great about it but the fact is that with the compromises we offered, he would have been far better off. Instead, we worry about two towers in Alaska. The point is, we have tried. We have tried to address this issue, which is a very small part of very large legislation, that has to do with aviation security; it has to do with airports; it has to do with all kinds of things. It is a massive bill and we are hung up on this one aspect for which there is a refusal to compromise on the part of the Senator from New Jersey, and I regret it. I deeply regret it because we may lose this vote, although I hope Members realize the consequences of the loss of this vote. Believe me, we are not going to shut down aviation in the United States of America over this issue. We are not going to allow that to happen. It is far too important to all of America's citizens. Again, I hope my colleagues will pay attention to the letter from Ken Mead, the inspector general of the Department of Transportation, that says clearly that the contract-operated towers are safe consistently, they are cost effective, and their quality and safety is comparable to FAA-operated towers. I reserve the remainder of Senator Lott's time.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Lott for all the work he did as chairman of the subcommittee on this issue. I know we don't have a great deal of time. Is the Senator aware in this bill we have $14.2 billion for security and safety for AIP, $13 billion to modernize the air traffic control system, $31 billion to operate--the list goes on and on. There are billions of dollars, including drastically needed improvements in security and essential air service. I note the Senator from West Virginia, as long as I have been on the committee, has sought money for essential air service. We also have environmental provisions. These are all being held up on one issue on which we have tried to reach some kind of compromise. My question to the Senator from Mississippi is this: Let's suppose we don't achieve cloture and we don't have 60 votes on this bill. What do the opponents gain by that? It seems to me what they gain is sooner or later we are going to extend the existing programs, which allows further privatization of the towers and other aspects of our air traffic control system, which is what they are fighting against. Yet they will lose. Is this some kind of a statement being made or is this reality? Is there anybody who believes we are going to shut down the air traffic control system, shut down aviation in America if we don't pass this bill? Either existing law will be extended or we are going to pass this bill. Is that the Senator's assessment? I think our colleagues ought to know what the consequences of this vote will be if we fail to achieve cloture.

Mr. McCAIN. First, when Air Force One takes the President down to his ranch in Texas, guess what. Horrors, the plane lands at an airport with a contract tower. When the Vice President travels to Jackson Hole, WY, his plane lands at an airport with a contract tower. Perhaps the safety concerns that always surrounds a President and Vice President have been waived in this case. One of the most respected men in Washington is Ken Mead. He is the inspector general of the Department of Transportation. He did a study on the issue of contract towers. I ask unanimous consent that his letter and that of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I will be brief. The letter says: Let me be absolutely clear. The administration has no plans to privatize the Nation's air traffic control system. I would resist and join in efforts to prevent that. It is very interesting: Baggage screeners? Could the Senator from New Jersey be talking about TSA talking about baggage screeners? That is an interesting depiction. They are required to be make sure there is security in our airports, I inform my colleague. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of jobs here. We are talking about safety. We are talking about improved security. We know what needs to be done to improve security at our airports. That is in this bill. These come from the recommendations of the TSA and the Department of Homeland Security. They are vital. If the Senator from New Jersey is interested in safety, then he will support the passage of this bill because it enhances in a broad variety of ways the safety of the airports in America. It is vital we implement these safety procedures. If they were not interested, Vice President Gore's National Performance Review in 1994, recommendation No. 9 for Department of Transportation, recommended converting 99 FAA staff control towers to contract operations. I wonder if the Vice President had that in mind at the time this process began. The important point is we tried very hard to come to some agreement. I don't think this has been a good process, but we made offer after offer. We have pressured the administration to come up with other offers. But the reality we were faced with was the threat of a Presidential veto. So we tried to reach accommodation. Obviously, that has not been enough. But I assure my colleagues that if we don't pass this legislation, we will be back to the status quo, and the status quo--because we are not going to let this authorization die--will be continued privatization of towers in America, a program which has been a successful experiment. I thank Senator Rockefeller for his hard work on this issue. I appreciate it. Especially, I thank Senator Lott for the many hours he put in trying to get this very important legislation passed.

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Russ Feingold as a co-sponsor of legislation that will require Senate candidates to file campaign finance reports in electronic form. This bill will finally remove the exemption the Senate has given itself from an important requirement of campaign finance disclosure laws that apply to everyone else, including candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives and Political Action Committees, PACs. Political committees active in federal elections must submit their quarterly financial reports for disclosure by the Federal Election Commission, FEC. Anyone interested can nearly instantaneously download the reports from the FEC website and conduct computer searches to learn about the contributions and expenditures of individual candidates for the House, non-Senate national party committees and PACs. The current problem is that they cannot do the same for Senate candidates and parties because of the Senate's insistence on paper rather than electronic filing. The FEC must do more processing of Senate paper reports than of House electronic ones. This involves printing or copying the Senate reports, up to 10,000 pages a day at times, hand- coding transactions that cannot be automatically processed, and keypunching the data into the electronic database. House electronic reports do not need the same treatment. The end result is that in contrast to the House, information from the Senate paper reports are often available well after the election has occurred. Due to this problem, voters are not well-informed about the campaign finance information of their Senators and Senate candidates. For voters who want to consider the nature of the campaign finance support received by a Senate candidate and its relationship to Senate legislative votes as a factor in deciding for whom they will cast a vote, they clearly cannot. To address this problem, our legislation requires Senate candidates to file their campaign finance reports electronically with the Secretary of the Senate. Within 24 hours of receipt of those reports, the Secretary is required to forward those reports to the FEC. The FEC, in turn is required to make those reports available on the Internet within 24 hours as they do other reports. Therefore, electronic versions of Senate reports will be available to the public within 48 hours of their filing. Electronic reports are not only transmitted instantly but are more accurate than paper submissions because software can easily correct mistakes. On the other hand, hand entering of data is always prone to error. Furthermore, the data in electronic reports can be rapidly searched via the Internet for answers to specific questions. Voters will no longer have to go through the time consuming process of reading pages and pages filed by Senate candidates or Senate party committees to figure out the major donors and their employers, and the major recipients of campaign spending. Instead, they can download a filed report from the FEC website onto their personal computers and quickly locate the information they need. This creates effective public disclosure. The Senate's current failure to provide its constituents with electronically disclosed, timely information is unconscionable. Senate filings should follow the same criteria as other campaign finance reports. There must not be a separate standard for the Senate. Ironically, while they do not currently file electronically, Senators and Senate candidates already use electronic software in compiling their paper reports. If Senators and Senate candidates can use technology to run their offices and websites, why can't they use it to better inform their own constituents about how their campaigns are funded? Their constituents have earned a right to that information. The public interest will be better served and voters' faith in their elected leaders will be restored.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. The Senator is correct.

Mr. McCAIN. The anticipated savings under the compromise as described in Section 135 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 are very significant. The original proposal to lease 100 tankers was extraordinarily costly, and the compromise allows us to avoid those costs. For example, the original proposal would have had us pay $7.4 million per plane in private construction financing costs. The compromise provides for the Air Force to make progress payments to build the planes, and in so doing, to avoid this significant and unnecessary cost. One of the reasons that the compromise authorizes the Air Force Secretary to use incremental funding to buy no more than 80 tankers is to allow the Air Force to get the tankers it needs in a manageable way that protects taxpayers. Senator Warner has said that, contrary to the statements of our House colleagues, the compromise does not codify or endorse the tanker acquisition plan that Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz described in his November 5, 2003, letter. The reason the compromise does not codify this approach is because paying for the tankers on delivery as the Deputy Secretary proposes could be very costly and could dramatically slash the savings that this compromise intends to provide--an outcome that is unacceptable.

Mr. McCAIN. I am grateful to the Senator form Virginia for his leadership on this issue. Three of the four defense committees that were required to approve the original proposal to lease 100 tankers, did so without sufficiently examining the proposal or its effects on taxpayers. It was the Senate Armed Services Committee that put the brakes on that costly and misguided procurement plan. By buying those tankers that it requires rather than leasing them, the Air Force can realize very significant savings. The Air Force can avoid paying the cost of borrowing the funds from the private market to build and acquire the planes, as originally proposed. The Air Force can also avoid paying the lease-specific costs that were apparently included in the price that it had previously agreed to pay for the tankers. Documents we have reviewed suggest that these lease-specific costs could be as high as $5.5 million per tanker. Arranging for a purchase of the tankers will also allow the Defense Department to question many of the other terms and conditions of the Air Force's original lease proposal, such as the maintenance and training costs, and whether the planes we are buying should be FAA-certified.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator for his continuing, active concern on this most important issue.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I would like to review with my colleagues section 135 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004. Under the leadership of Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Warner, and Ranking Member Levin, Congress recently agreed to modify the manner in which the Air Force may acquire Boeing 767 aerial refueling tankers. This compromise is contained in section 135. In the words of Chairman Warner on October 23, 2003, this compromise sought to put this program back into the traditional budget, procurement, and authorization process. Section 135 replaces the current authorization for the Air Force to lease 100 aircraft, with an authorization for the Air Force to lease no more than 20 tankers, and to buy no more than 80 aircraft using multiyear procurement authority and incremental funding. The original proposal to lease 100 tankers would have cost taxpayers $6.7 billion more than buying them outright, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Mr. McCAIN. The Senator is correct. The intent was to maximize savings to taxpayers. If the Defense Department, in the words of Senator Warner, puts this program in the traditional budget, procurement, and authorization process, the taxpayer will see significant savings.

Mr. McCAIN. Yes. On the other hand, if the Air Force executes under a single contract--presumably under the current proposed contract--and pays at delivery, taxpayers will see savings cut nearly in half, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates. Unfortunately, I have every reason to believe that the Air Force will proceed in this manner, which fundamentally belies the compromise proposal. By proceeding accordingly, the Air Force succeeds in deferring having to make hard budget decisions to acquire tankers it says it ``urgently'' needs, Boeing locks the Air Force into a contract to acquire 100 tankers, and the investment bank gets its cut for setting up any financing and providing other financial services associated with the deal. All of this is done at an unnecessarily high cost to taxpayers-- just as under the original proposal.