John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to pay my respects to my fellow veterans. It is only through the leadership, dedication, and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform that we are able to enjoy the freedoms that we value so much as Americans. We cheer our veterans at homecomings and parades, and we grieve for them when they do not come home. At critical times in U.S. history, as we are facing now, we unfortunately find ourselves grieving more for our military service members, than celebrating and honoring their service. Veterans Day gives us a chance to honor and thank all of these heroes. On this Veterans Day, I would like to share the story of one such hero who touched many American lives--Commander Willie McCool. Commander McCool was killed earlier this year as he was piloting the Columbia Space Shuttle towards home. Recently, Commander McCool's family, Naval Academy classmates, and former cross-country and track teammates participated in a ceremony at the location where a memorial will be placed in his honor. The essence of what that memorial will stand for was captured perfectly in a recent Washington Post article by William Gildea, dated October 30, 2003. On October 2, 1982, as captain of the Naval Academy's men's cross country squad, McCool led the midshipmen to a victory over Georgetown and Syracuse Universities, while setting a personal record for the 5- mile race of 24:27. On February 1, 2003, Commander McCool and the members of his crew perished when Columbia came apart over Texas, only 15 minutes from landing. The location of the planned memorial for Commander McCool will be 15 minutes from the finish line on the day he set his best time. The spot was chosen to commemorate Commander McCool's life and acknowledge his contributions to the country, the Navy, and the Naval Academy's cross- country program, as well as to recognize the positive impact that being a Navy runner had on his life. Before inviting his cross-country coach Al Cantello to the Space Shuttle Columbia launch, Commander McCool sent a portrait of himself to Cantello with the following inscription: ``Your coaching laid a foundation of discipline, drive and passion that has carried me across the many milestones of my life. With boundless appreciation, Willie.'' From that foundation, Commander McCool developed into a top-notch Naval Officer and served our country in an exemplary manner. On this Veterans Day, I humbly thank Commander McCool, and his family, for his selfless service and sacrifice for our country. At this time, I ask unanimous consent that the October 30, 2003, Washington Post article regarding Commander Willie McCool be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I wish to pay my respects to my fellow veterans. It is only through the leadership, dedication and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform, that we are able to enjoy the freedoms that being an American entails. No matter what your views on the war on terror or the war in Iraq, all Americans can unite behind our brave men and women in uniform. These fine Americans have truly answered our Nation's highest calling and we are better off for it. Today is a day to give thanks to these heroes. On Veterans Day, I like to share the story of one of my heroes during my service, Mike Christian. I have shared his story before and it has become familiar to many, yet it bears repeating. This year, as Americans serve across the globe in important battles against error and tyranny, Mike Christian's story takes on even more meaning. In the same manner as service in Vietnam, a new generation of heroes is emerging in Iraq. In the early years of our imprisonment in Hanoi, the North Vietnamese kept us in solitary confinement, or if we were fortunate, two or three to a cell. In 1971, the North Vietnamese moved us from these conditions of isolation into large cells with as many as 30 to 40 men to a room. This was, as you can imagine, a wonderful chance. And was a direct result of the efforts of millions of Americans, led by people like Nancy and Ronald Reagan, on behalf of a few hundreds POWs, 20,000 miles from home. One of the men who moved into my cell was Mike Christian. Mike came from a small town near Selma, AL. He didn't wear a pair of shoes until he was 13 years old. At 17, he enlisted in the U.S. Navy. He later earned a commission. He became a naval aviator, was shot down and captured in 1967. Mike had a keen and deep appreciation for the opportunities this county--and our military--provide for people who want to work and want to succeed. The uniforms we wore in prison consisted of a blue short-sleeved shirt, trousers that looked like pajama trousers and rubber sandals that were made out of automobile tires. I recommend them highly; one pair lasted my entire stay. As part of the change in treatment, the Vietnamese allowed some prisoners to receive packages from home. In some of these packages were handkerchiefs, scarves, and other items of clothing. Mike got himself a piece of white cloth and a piece of red cloth and fashioned himself a bamboo needle. Over a period of a couple, of months, he sewed the American flag on the inside of his shirt. Every afternoon, before we had a bowl of soup, we would hang Mike's shirt on the wall or our cell, and say the Pledge of Allegiance. I know that saying the Pledge of Allegiance may not seem the most important or meaningful part of our day now, but I can assure you that--for those men in the stark prison cell--it was indeed the most important and meaningful event of our day. Our day, the Vietnamese searched our cell and discovered Mike's shirt with the flag sewn inside, and removed it. That evening they returned, opened the door of the cell, called for Mike Christian to come out, closed the door of the cell, and for the benefit of all of us, beat Mike Christian severely for the next couple of hours. Then they opened the door of the cell and threw him back inside. He was not in good shape. We tried to comfort and take care of him as well as we could. The cell in which we lived had a concrete slab in the middle on which we slept. Four naked light bulbs in each corner of the room. After things quieted down, I went to lie down to go to sleep. As I did, I happened to look in the corner of the room. Sitting there beneath that dim light bulb, with a piece of white cloth, a piece of red cloth, another shirt and his bamboo needle, was my friend, Mike Christian. Sitting there, with his eyes almost shut from his beating, making another American Flag. He was not making the flag because it made Mike Christian feel better. He was making the flag because he knew how important it was for us to be able to pledge our allegiance to our flag and country. Duty, Honor, Country. We must never forget the millions of Americans who, with their courage, with their sacrifice, and with their lives, made those words live for all of us. This year, as we pause to remember those men and women currently serving their country, as well as our family and friends who serve before us, we need to remember the sacrifices of people like Mike Christian who made this Nation what it is today.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator from Kentucky yield?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, my colleagues may be wondering what happened on the Internet tax moratorium bill. I wish to make a couple of comments. There was significant disagreement over a variety of issues on both sides of the aisle concerning various provisions of S. 150, the Internet tax moratorium bill. It is now narrowed down to one final difference--the rest are negotiable or have been negotiated--and that is the definition of ``Internet access.'' It sounds pretty technical and a bit arcane, but it is really the vital aspect of this issue. I think both opponents and supporters of the Internet tax moratorium will agree to some kind of moratorium, but the question of the definition of Internet access, particularly as it has been affected by the development of new technologies that now apply to the Internet, has complicated the issue. Intense negotiations are going on, on both sides. I think there is a recognition on both sides that we need to act on the issue of the Internet tax moratorium. I will be actively engaged in those negotiations, and I hope that absolutely before we leave for the Christmas break, we will have this issue resolved and voted on by the Senate. I thank my friend from Kentucky.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Will my friend from Nevada yield for another parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry: Wouldn't rule XVIIII 1(b) begin to apply concerning proceedings while legislation is before the Senate?

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator and yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask the Senator from Michigan if she would be agreeable to a two-word addition in the last paragraph, that between the words ``all'' and ``requests'' the words ``constitutionally appropriate'' be added. I wonder if that would be agreeable to her. If it is not agreeable to her, I will not propose the amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to ask a question of the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, do I still have the floor?

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask my friend from North Dakota--this is on the Stabenow amendment--we would like to have a couple-word change. If he would look at the amendment where it says, in the last paragraph, ``The White House and all Executive Branch agencies should respond promptly and completely to all requests by Members of Congress,'' that between ``all'' and ``requests,'' if we could add the two words ``constitutionally appropriate.'' Would that be agreeable to him, so it would read: ``completely to all constitutionally appropriate requests by Members of Congress''? I assume that most Members of Congress would not make unconstitutionally appropriate requests, but that seems to be perfecting language that some of my friends would like to have added.

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield so I can make an announcement?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, if my colleague would allow me to speak for 5 minutes in morning business about an important issue to me.

Mr. McCAIN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada, who understands parliamentary procedures as well as anyone. There are some discussions going on about some agreement that might be reached on this issue with some of my colleagues. I hope we can make progress on that. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I believe the Senators from Tennessee and Delaware have an amendment filed. We are ready to consider that amendment or other amendments, if Senators have amendments that they would bring them to the floor so we can move forward with legislation. I mention to my friend from North Dakota, who is an articulate and passionate defender of his point of view on the Internet tax issue, the reason why I mentioned his absence last night was I meant he would have contributed a good deal to the debate and discussion given his many years of involvement in this issue, which I have always enjoyed, not only on that issue but on numerous others. So I would ask if our colleagues would file their amendments, bring them forward, as well as amendments that may be applicable. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, for the benefit of my colleagues, we have been in some intense negotiations on the Internet tax issue. We have made significant progress. We still have one significant hurdle remaining where we can perhaps get all sides together. There is about a 50-50 chance. But we should know in about 20 minutes as to whether we will reach this very important agreement which would basically eliminate any major issues associated with the Internet tax issue. I thank my colleague from Illinois for yielding. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, shortly the sponsors will be proposing an amendment. In the meantime, I ask to speak as in morning business for 4 minutes.

Mr. McCAIN. I am sorry to say the Senate is still not in order.

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Joint Economic Committee be authorized to conduct a hearing in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Friday, November 7, 2003, from 9:30 a.m. to 1 p.m.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Will the majority leader yield?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I point out that we went on to the Internet tax moratorium bill last night with the anticipation of amendments being proposed and votes starting this morning--stacked votes. That is what we usually do on a Thursday evening. Whether that is a good idea or a bad one, it is a very common practice. We had anticipated at least three amendments and then stacked votes this morning and moving forward with the bill. Then, I was told later in the evening there would be one amendment that would be proposed and we would stack it for this morning; and not too late last night, the sponsors of the amendment said they were going to file the amendment and debate it this morning. With all due respect, that is not the way we usually do business here. We tell people what we are going to do and go with their word and move forward. I think we need to get this done because the Internet tax moratorium has expired. If we don't want the Internet tax moratorium to prevail, that is a decision to be made by the body. We should make the decision. I hope the majority leader will stick with his comments. There are not that many items of dispute on the Internet tax moratorium. It has been debated on several occasions in past years. So I hope relevant amendments--and I don't think there are more than two or three, to be honest--are offered and we can move forward with those with a reasonable debate time and dispose of this today, understanding that all Members have the problem of scheduling and want to leave. So I urge the cooperation of all Members so we can dispose of important amendments and move forward. I see my colleague from North Dakota who is ready to speak. I wish he had been here last night to speak. We could have done an amendment and debated it. Instead, we put it off for this morning, which I hope will make comments more abbreviated so we can move to the substance of the amendment and passage of the bill. I thank the leader and I appreciate his commitment to try to get this done today.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to address an article that appeared on the front page of Roll Call on Thursday, November 8. The title of the article was ``McCain Breaks Own Pork Rule,'' and it addressed my efforts, as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, to secure authorized funding--I emphasize authorized--for land acquisition at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona. Sadly, the headline was misleading and the article itself was simply inaccurate. As my colleagues know--and I see my colleague from West Virginia in the Chamber--for many years I have made it a point to carefully scrutinize the annual appropriations bills which are, in my view, wasteful porkbarrel spending. I have specific criteria for identifying these projects which are very clear. Simply put: If an item is requested by the administration or properly authorized, I do not object to it and I do not consider it a porkbarrel project. Having said that, let me address the situation discussed in the Roll Call article. The authorization for funds for the land acquisition at Luke Air Force Base was included in both the House Armed Services Committee markup of the fiscal year 2003 Defense authorization bill and the fiscal year 2003 authorization conference report, and in the Senate Armed Services Committee markup of the fiscal year 2004 authorization bill. As a member of the authorizing committee, I readily admit I worked hard to procure the authorized funds necessary for the land acquisition. As all of my colleagues are aware, authorizing the expenditure of Federal funds before appropriating them is the proper process. It is the way we are supposed to do things in this body. As no one disputes, the authorization bill includes a provision for the Luke land acquisition. It will be adopted by both Chambers and signed into law by the President. I cannot recall a Defense appropriations or Military Construction appropriations markup occurring after the Defense authorization bill conference report was signed into law. As my colleagues know, appropriators have only the Senate-passed authorization bill to use in determining whether projects proposed for inclusion in their markup are authorized. Simple fact and not my opinion--I emphasize, it is a fact, not my opinion--rule XVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate expressly acknowledges that Senate bills that were previously passed in the current session authorize appropriations. The rule states in part that: The term unauthorized appropriation means an appropriation (i) not specifically authorized by law or Treaty stipulation unless the appropriation has been specifically authorized by an Act or resolution previously passed by the Senate during the same session. . . . That is exactly what happened with the authorization bill. Therefore, the Senate considers it authorized when the authorization bill passes the Senate, not when the conference report is signed into law. Again, this is a standing rule of the Senate, not an arbitrary decree of my own. I have never objected to an appropriation on the grounds that while it was authorized in the Senate-passed bill and was accepted by House and Senate conferees, the conference had yet to finish its work. I consider such an appropriation to be authorized while consistent with Senate rules and the fact that the report had yet to be voted only a technical formality. The article also suggested that I requested from the Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee an unauthorized earmark for Luke Air Force Base. That suggestion is simply not true. I categorically deny ever approaching any member of the Appropriations Committee in order to request funding for this project, or any other project for that matter. It just simply didn't happen. If there is any member of the Appropriations Committee who will come forward and say that I did, I would be very interested, because it didn't happen. The fact is, when I was approached by the chairman of the Senate Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee, who informed me that if I wanted the money authorized for Luke included in her subcommittee's markup, I would have to send her a letter requesting it, I firmly refused to do so, noting only in conversation with the chairman that the money had been authorized and that the appropriators should follow that instruction. I believe strongly, as every Member of the Senate knows, that appropriators should follow the instructions of the authorizing committees. And no one should have to write a letter requesting it. I never have. It has come to my attention that three different members of the Appropriations Committee told the Roll Call reporter responsible for this article that I approached them and requested this funding. Again, this is not true. I challenge any member of the House or Senate Appropriations Committee to come forward and prove I made any such request. I have with me a letter to the editor of Roll Call from Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste. As my colleagues know, Citizens Against Government Waste is a very well respected and nonpartisan government watchdog organization. I have worked with them for many years, and I am proud of our joint efforts to combat wasteful spending. In the letter Mr. Schatz says: Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) is concerned about the accuracy of the article, ``McCain Breaks Own Pork Rule,'' that Roll Call published on November 6. [Citizens Against Government Waste] is dedicated to hunting down pork-barrel projects in every appropriations bill. In fact, CAGW's fiscal Congressional Pig Book contained 9,362 pork-barrel projects. Senator John McCain has been the leading voice in the Senate trying to stop this egregious practice. As for the $14.3 million for Luke Air Force Base mentioned in your article, Sen. McCain has assured us he did not request any unauthorized fund from any member of the appropriations committee. We have worked closely for many years with Senator McCain in our joint effort to combat wasteful government spending. He believes that spending provisions, particularly defense- related projects, be contained in the Department of Defense authorization bill. Senator McCain serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and he readily admits that he worked hard to ensure that funding for Luke AFB was included in the Senate DOD authorization bill. The timing of the authorization versus appropriations bills is a red herring in this story, designed to make it appear that Senator McCain has violated his own rules on pork barrel spending. Sincerely, Tom Schatz, President, Citizens Against Government Waste. Mr. President, I regret I had to take the time of the Senate to address this issue. I feel it is important for my colleagues to know the truth. I know very well if I violated my own rules, it would get a lot of publicity and longevity. I have not done that in 17 years, and I will not. That is why I come to the floor today to correct what was written in that article. I have been very diligent in ensuring my office never violates the same standards for appropriations to which I have long insisted my colleagues adhere. I did not do so in this case and I will not do so in the future. I appreciate the indulgence of my colleague from North Dakota. I yield the floor. Tankers

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I commend the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the senior Senator from Virginia, Senator John Warner for putting the Committee on Armed Services back on the map of relevancy and like any sea captain with a steady hand decisively changing the course of the committee from just a debating society. I believe that the Appropriations Committee will think twice before they try to pull this off again. This began in September 2001 when Secretary Roche, the Boeing Company and the Appropriations Committee decided to lease 100 Boeing 767 tankers and go around the traditional budget process at the Pentagon, go around the Secretary of Defense, go around the Office of Management and Budget, go around the authorizing committee--(SASC)--and insert a $30 billion new start lease of 100 Boeing 767 aerial refueling tankers into the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002--without a single hearing, debate, or vote. However, late yesterday afternoon Secretary Wolfowitz sent a letter to the defense committees which would enable the SECAF to sign a contract for the requisition of 100 tankers now, and to buy 80 of them on delivery. This language has negative financial and budgetary implications. Importantly, it will provide that lease-unique disbursements, such as construction financing--$7.5 million per plane--lease administration costs--costing up to $5.5 million per plane; FAA certification--which would be considerable and yet unnecessary when the Air Force owns the planes; and other costs such as operating expenses for any special- purpose entity extend to the order of 80 tankers--which the SECAF will buy. In addition, the USAF will not be required to set aside money now for the purchase of these tankers. So, when the tankers are built, the USAF will have to come up with the cash to pay for them. But, at that point, the temptation will be simply to extend the lease and not convert to a buy when the time comes to do so. So, this proposal puts no pressure on the USAF to make choices before starting to build planes number 21-100. Instead, it will have Congress over a barrel to pay for planes already built under the tanker lease regime. Thus, as is the case under the original lease proposal, the USAF will get its tankers in a way that defers the payment burden to someone else at some unspecified point in the future. This is what we were trying to originally avoid. The language we agreed to late last night is clear and would unequivocally prevent the USAF from leasing more than the 20 tankers. And more importantly will prevent ``costs that are unique to this lease arrangement . . . costs for issuing the bonds required to finance the lease or the construction of the tankers, operating expenses for the special-purpose entity, lease administration fees, FAA certification costs, etc.'' apply to the subsequent 80 aircraft. The Air Force will be forced to, just like the other military services do, obtain budget authority before placing an order for the purchase of tankers or before Boeing spends any money for the construction of those planes. Because this will require the USAF to pay at the time of order, make progress payments and acquire the tankers under two separate contracts, as it should, potential savings could be as much as $5.2 billion according to unofficial CBO estimates. Remarkably, the key threshold issue of corrosion remains an open issue. CRS still believes that, to date, the DOD has not provided a thorough corrosion assessment as the SASC asked for. And, the two reports that Secretary Roche cited as updating the Economic Service Life Study, ESLS, which concluded that the current fleet is viable to 2040, are in no way comparable in sophistication, depth or scope. So, to date, the DOD has produced, despite numerous requests, any data or analysis that invalidates the conclusions of the ESLS. The November 5, 2003, letter from the Deputy Secretary of Defense to Chairman Warner is disturbing. In this letter, the DOD describes how it intends to proceed acquiring tankers under the legislative language agreed upon by the conferees 2 days ago. In particular, it indicates that the DOD intends to sign the current contract for the acquisition of all the tankers now and not obtain requisite budget authority until the out-years to fund the purchase of the tankers. According to the letter, the DOD will fund its purchase of the 80 tankers by adding $3.8 billion in the out-years to ``achieve[ ] an immediate start to the program and allow [for the] purchase [of] the last 80 aircraft at time of delivery.'' There are several problems with this: It seems inconsistent with the plain language of the bill that the conference has agreed upon--that the USAF buy up to 80 aircraft under a multi-year procurement/incremental funding methodology. It will likely result in the proposals being scored as a $18 billion ``direct purchase.'' It suggests that taxpayers will be stuck with unnecessarily having to pay for construction financing costs at a premium open-market rate and other lease-unique disbursements. It is unabashedly similar to what the USAF intended to do under the original contract to lease 100 tankers, and I appreciate that we now have a commitment, as Senator Warner said on the floor of the Senate, that would put this program back into the traditional procurement process, this program back into the traditional budget process, and this program back into the traditional authorization process. I yield.