John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the agriculture appropriations bill funds several important programs at the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and other domestic food services provided through the Department of Health and Human Services. These funding programs are critically important to our Nation's farmers, families, and children. Considering the importance of this bill, and at this critical time, I am once again greatly disappointed to report the amount of flagrant porkbarrel spending in this bill. This year's agriculture spending bill includes nearly $300 million in questionable earmarks. Despite the obvious need to eliminate the excessive special interest earmarks in the agriculture appropriations bill, the appropriators tacked on 395 of the usual garden-variety, special interest earmarks. Sadly, it appears that the porkbarrel ``business as usual'' attitude reigns once again. Let's take a look at some of the porkbarrel projects in this year's agriculture appropriations bill: An increase of $300,000 over the fiscal year 2003 level for research on alternative swine research; An increase of $1.4 million over the fiscal year 03 level for dairy forage research in Madison, WI; An increase of $1 million for research on taramix control using China beetles in Reno, NV; A $100,000 increase for the development of commercially approved vaccines for catfish in Auburn, IL; An increase of $450,000 over the fiscal year 03 level for a laboratory in Parlier, CA, to study the Glassy-winged sharpshooter and Pierce's disease; A $150,000 increase to study grape genetics in Geneva, NY; An additional $300,000 for potato storage research in Madison, WI; An additional $200,000 for research on seafood waste at the University of Alaska; An additional $300,000 for the U.S. Vegetable Laboratory in Charleston, SC; An unrequested earmark of $631,000 for alternative salmon products in Alaska; An earmark of $358,000 for alternative tobacco uses in Maryland; An earmark of $442,000 for apple fire blight in Michigan and New York; An earmark of $278,000 for asparagus technology and production in the State of Washington; An earmark of $200,000 for berry research in Alaska; $600,000 for cool season legume research in Idaho, Washington and North Dakota; $234,000 for cranberry and blueberry disease and breeding studies in New Jersey; A whopping $2 million for exotic pet diseases in California; $844,000 for soybean research in Illinois; $596,000 for peanut research in Alabama; $502,000 for wheat sawfly research in Montana; $450,000 for agricultural-based industrial lubricants in Iowa; $690,000 for agriculture waste utilization in WV--pretty fancy term for fertilizer; $150,000 for salmon quality standards in Alaska; $250,000 for the National Wild Turkey Federation, located in South Carolina; $300,000 for potato pest management in Wisconsin; $2 million to address chronic wasting disease in Wisconsin; $250,000 to address chronic wasting disease in Utah--maybe we should study chronic wasting disease right here in Washington, because the amount of waste that goes on in this city has reached chronic levels, and that is stating it mildly; $1 million for grasshopper and Mormon cricket activities in Utah; $300,000 for grasshopper and Mormon cricket activities in Nevada; $150,000 for beaver control in Kentucky; $225,000 for blackbird control in Kansas; $350,000 for evaluating native plant materials in Alaska; $600,000 for cranberry production in Massachusetts and Wisconsin. Here is the clincher: the report accompanying this bill directs the Secretary of Agriculture to take all necessary measures to maximize and to provide a fair allocation of resources under the farm bill to the State of Alaska. This directive is seen as necessary because the committee is deeply disturbed that Alaska has largely been ignored thus far in the implementation of the farm bill passed in 2002. We certainly would not want Alaska to suffer from a lack of Federal dollars now would we? Even the reliable earmarks like shrimp aquaculture and peanut research are included. Shrimp aquaculture in Arizona and other states has been a consistent beneficiary of taxpayer dollars for 11 years, with this year's earmark being $4.2 million. Unfortunately, there is little explanation included to justify why targeted Federal dollars for earmarked projects are more important than other programs to protect food safety or more directly support farm programs in this bill. I am confident that many of my colleagues will maintain the importance of the need to fully fund these and many of the other projects in their respective States. That is fine. I do not fault them for it. In fact, let me state clearly, that I do not question the merits of these projects. Most of them, I am sure, are very important and worthy for Federal funds. It is the process with which I have a serious problem. The Appropriations Committee has effectively usurped the power of the authorizing committees and acts as one, all-powerful funding machine. Projects are often funded with little or no background study, and are approved after simply being requested by a fellow Senator. These same projects are directed to certain States and localities, completely circumventing the proper, competitive-based awards process. Additionally, the Appropriations Committee routinely uses directive language to force cabinet secretaries and agency heads to use scarce taxpayer dollars to fund members' pet projects, while not alloting them a single dime with which to fulfill the requirements imposed upon them by the appropriators. This spending spree is an outrage. As all of my colleagues know, CBO recently projected a potentially debilitating $480 billion deficit for 2004. More importantly, we are at war. President Bush is poised to sign a supplemental appropriation of $87 billion for the ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Every one of us has asked ourselves the same question: ``where is that money going to come from?'' I have an idea Mr. President. Let's start with this bill. Let's eliminate all of the unrequested earmarks, all of the special deals, all of the pork and all of the waste. Let's prove to the American taxpayer that we in Washington do not see them as simply a cash cow for our every financial whim. I urge my colleagues to work harder to curb our habit of funneling resources to parochial interests. Serving the public good must continue to be our mandate, and we can only live up to that charge by keeping the process free of unfair and unnecessary spending that unduly burdens the American taxpayer.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill as thus amended be treated as original text for the purpose of amendment; provided there be no point of order waived by virtue of this agreement.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I send a substitute to the desk.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. McCAIN. I say to my friends on both sides of the issue, I think we now have the proper legislative agenda in preparation for amendments. Before I make an opening statement, I thank Senators Allen and Wyden for their hard work on this issue. I also pay my respects to the Senator from Ohio, Senator Voinovich, and the Senator from Tennessee, Senator Alexander, who have taken a deep and abiding interest in this issue and have a very real understanding of it. This is a complex and difficult set of issues associated with the Internet. I apologize for leaving out my dear friend from Delaware, Senator Carper, who probably knows more than the other two put together; at least, he believes so. Again, these are difficult and complex issues. They have been affected significantly by changes in technology over the years. When we first did this moratorium issue, it was much simpler than it is today. As the Internet has obtained dramatically new capabilities with dramatic changes in its nature, the issue has changed. The Senators from Ohio, Tennessee, and Delaware have raised significant and valid concerns. We believe we have tried to address those concerns. Definitions certainly are critical in addressing this issue. Words have meaning and importance when we are talking about this issue before us. I hope we can give fair consideration to the concerns and the proposals made by the opposition to this bill or those who would like to see it significantly modified. Again, I thank my friends from Virginia and Oregon who have worked tremendously for years in the committee on this issue. I think the Senator from Oregon can remind me how many hearings we have had on this particular issue, but it must be in double digits--more than 10--over the past 6 or 7 years. Those hearings have been certainly appropriate, because each time we have had them the technology changed and the issues changed. Madam President, this bill would ensure that consumers would never have to pay a toll when they access the Information Highway. Whether consumers log onto the Internet via cable modem, DSL, dial-up, or another technology that has yet to be invented, under S. 150 they will not see any State and local taxes on their monthly Internet bill. Now would their monthly Internet bills increase because of State and local taxes on Internet access that are passed down to consumers. Plainly and simply, this is a pro-consumer, pro-innovation, and pro-technology bill. S. 150, which was introduced in January by Senator Allen, would make permanent the current Federal prohibition on State and local taxes on Internet access contained in the Internet Tax Freedom Act of 1998 (ITFA). It also would extend permanently the current moratorium in ITFA on multiple or discriminatory state and local taxes on e-commerce transactions. In addition, this bill would extend by 3 years the current grandfather clause contained in ITFA. This clause permits States that imposed or enforced a tax on Internet access prior to the passage of ITFA in 1998 to continue taxing Internet access. After 2006, this grandfathering protection would lapse. Five years ago, Congress took appropriate action when it passed the IFTA, legislation that encouraged the growth and the adoption of the Internet by exempting Internet access from State and local taxation, and by protecting e-commerce transactions from multiple or discriminatory taxation. As my colleagues know, over the past decade, the Internet has grown from a tool used primarily by academics and scientists for research purposes to a broadly utilized communications, information, entertainment, and commercial medium, as well as an important vehicle for political participation. Indeed, the Internet has started to become a fixture and core component of modern American life that has created and continues to generate social and economic opportunities throughout the United States. This was our goal then and it continues to be our goal today. There is little doubt that the development and growth of the Internet was aided by the moratorium. For example, in the past 5 years and with the help of ITFA, household use of the Internet has doubled. At the time of the legislation's enactment in 1998, 26 percent of United States households had Internet access. By 2001--the year that the moratorium was extended for a 2 year period--just over 50 percent of U.S. households had Internet access. By the end of 2002, approximately 64 percent of American households had Internet access. However, despite these significant growth rates, Internet access adoption rates remain low relative to other basic technologies. Broadband access in particular remain low. Indeed, in 2002, only 15 percent of American households had broadband Internet access. This means that a significant number of American consumers still have not gained the full benefits that Internet technologies promise. Today, we have the opportunity to extend permanently the Internet tax moratorium and thus fulfill our promise to consumers that Government taxes will not inhibit the offering of affordable Internet access. By supporting S. 150, we can continue to promote the adoption of the Internet by our citizens as well as encourage innovation relating to this technology. Just as Internet access evolved from basic dial-up service to broadband services since the enactment of ITFA, a permanent extension of the Internet tax moratorium is expected to encourage businesses to further evolve Internet technologies and consumers to continue adopting such technologies. I am fully aware that State and local government groups are concerned about certain aspects of this bill and, in particular, worry that this legislation will result in significant revenue losses to the States and localities. As many of you know, I have worked closely with the co- sponsors of the legislation in an attempt to accommodate many of the concerns of the States and local governments. In fact, I am a co- sponsor of the substitute amendment to S. 150 only because I was satisfied that the amendment's co-sponsors had compromised as much as they reasonably could with the States and localities. What we present today is a good-faith effort to address State and local worries while still keeping intact one of the key goals of S. 150: to keep Internet access tax free from taxation. I point in particular to our efforts to clarify that traditional telephone services would not become tax-exempt as a result of this legislation. Nor will this legislation prevent the States from imposing property, income, and other non-transactional taxes on Internet access providers. Nor would this bill make tax-free any service packaged with Internet access solely by virtue of such bundling. In addition, in order to give currently grandfathered States a reasonable amount of time to adjust their budgets, the bill extends the existing grandfathering provision by 3 years instead of terminating it immediately. I also am aware that some of my colleagues object to the Internet tax moratorium because they believe that Congress has no role in how States and localities tax Internet access. I respect the views of those Members, but I also respectfully disagree with them on this matter. Interstate communications--including the Internet--are part and parcel of interstate commerce, which Congress has the constitutional right to regulate. This means that Congress does indeed have the right to determine how the Federal Government, the States, and localities tax the Internet. There is also the argument that this extension is an unfunded mandate. On this point, it is important to note that this bill would not impose any additional responsibilities on State or local governments. Rather, S. 150 only says that States and localities may not impose taxes on Internet access. That's it. Furthermore, Congress made sure that ITFA held the Federal Government to the same standards as those imposed on the States. The act expresses the sense of Congress that no new Federal taxes on Internet access should be enacted. The Federal Government is in this with the States and localities because keeping Internet access tax-free is a core goal of our national economic policy. With respect to the question of whether it's wise to make Internet access tax free, this body has a long history of giving tax incentives to commercial activities that we believe help our society. The Internet is a technology that is a source of and vehicle for significant economic benefits. The proponents of this legislation strongly believe the Internet clearly merits the tax incentives provided by S. 150. But this debate is not just about economic benefits. During my presidential candidacy, one of the many rewarding experiences I had was seeing how the Internet served as a medium for political participation. Hundreds of thousands of people logged on to may campaign website where they were able to access information and organize. For me, keeping Internet access tax-free is about protecting consumers' wallets, but it also is about improving our political process and the right and ability of those citizens to participate fully in that process. I recognize that there are others who wish to continue to make the Internet tax moratorium temporary. Their premise is that Internet technologies continue to evolve and thus Internet access may develop into a service the States and localities would wish to tax. I would respond that this moratorium should be permanent to continue encouraging those very Internet-related innovations. By making this moratorium permanent, the businesses that invest in and provide Internet access technologies will be able to operate in a predictable tax environment. This will result in continued investment in this very important medium. I will be very candid on this point, though: If a permanent moratorium passes and 3, 4, 5 years down the road we find that the effects of this moratorium were other than what we intend today, I will join my colleagues in reviewing this issue and work to amend the legislation to correct any unforeseen problems with it. But that should only happen if and when there is a legitimate problem. That doesn't need to happen, and it shouldn't have to happen, on a predetermined schedule. Today, however, we are here to vote on a bill that enjoys strong bi- partisan support--further evidence of the fact that this Senate believes in a permanent extension of the moratorium and the consumer and business benefits such an extension will bring. Likewise, H.r. 49, the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act, which is similar to S. 150, also enjoyed significant support in the House of Representatives. Indeed, the House passed H.R. 49 in September with strong bipartisan support, including support from the House leadership of both parties. S. 150 has been thoroughly vetted and considerably negotiated. It was approved by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation in July after the committee held hearings on the bill. In October, the Senate Committee on Finance discharged S. 150 after that committee examined the bill. Throughout this legislative process, the various stakeholders have met several times to try to come as close to a middle ground as possible without sacrificing the basic goals of this legislation. I believe that this bill is a strong attempt to address the concerns and needs of all the relevant stakeholders. For all of the reasons stated, I urge my colleagues to support this bill and add it to the long line of pro-consumer legislation we have passed this year--including the Do Not Call Registry and spam legislation. Let us again join together to give American consumers affordable access to the Internet, a crucial medium of communications, information, commerce, and political participation. I look forward to hearing the debate and discussion by my colleagues on both sides of the issue. We hope to have an amendment proposed by the Senators from Delaware, Ohio, and Tennessee, and we would like to debate that. Others would like to speak on that amendment, so we will not have a time certain set for that amendment. But we hope we can have it at a fairly early time in the morning. My understanding is we will be back in at 9:30. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I yield back the time.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I don't mind waiting a few minutes if the Senator from California wishes to proceed.

Mr. McCAIN. Yes.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we usually go back and forth, I tell my friend.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, a creeping coup against the forces of democracy and market capitalism in Russia is threatening the foundation of the U.S.-Russia relationship and raising the specter of a new era of cold peace between Washington and Moscow. The new authoritarianism in Russia is more than a test of America's ability to defend universal values that have taken shallow root since the Soviet empire collapsed. It presents a fundamental challenge to American interests across Eurasia. The United States cannot enjoy a normal relationship, much less a partnership, with a country that increasingly appears to have more in common with its Soviet and czarist predecessors than with the modern state Vladimir Putin claims to aspire to build. On October 25, masked Russian security agents from the FSB, the successor to the KGB, stormed Russian businessman Mikhail Khodorkovsky's private plane during a stop in Siberia. He now sits in prison awaiting trial, accused of tax evasion, fraud, forgery, and embezzlement. Russia's richest man, founder and chief executive of its most successful private company, a leader in incorporating Western principles of accounting and transparency into business practice, and a generous donor to charity, Khodorkovsky had committed what in the Kremlin's eyes is the worst crime of all: supporting the political opposition to President Putin. Such an alternative center of power could threaten the Kremlin's supreme political control. Upon assuming power in 2000, President Putin announced a now-famous ultimatum to Russia's top business leaders, whose fortunes were made by acquiring control of Russian assets privatized at fire-sale prices in the 1990s. President Putin said to them: stay out of political life and keep your fortune, or risk it by engaging in political activity. Most of the oligarchs chose to remain quiet. Three did not. Business tycoons Boris Berezovsky and Vladimir Gusinsky were forced into exile as a result of their support for opposition political parties and free media. Mikhail Khodorkovsky actually attempted to exercise basic political freedoms guaranteed, in theory, for all Russians. He has been thrown into jail as a result. Admittedly, Messrs. Gusinsky, Berezovsky, and Khodorkovsky may not provide to proponents of democracy and free markets in Russia the most laudable personal histories upon which to wage a resolute defense of our democratic principles. But failure to defend them would acknowledge exactly what the Kremlin cynically alleges: that they are being prosecuted because of the way they made their money. What has caused these three Russian tycoons to be singled out are their activities in support of opposition political parties and free media. In reality, a concerted campaign to clean up Russian politics and society would reach into every corner of the Kremlin and every boardroom in Russia, but that is not happening. For better or for worse, there is a consensus in Russian society that the past should remain in the past as Russia moves forward. If Russian business and government leaders are in fact going to be prosecuted for their conduct a decade ago, then perhaps the former KGB officer named Vladimir Putin who assisted Stasi leaders and Eric Honnecker in oppressing the German people should answer for his crimes. Mikhail Khodorkovsky's arrest, like the politically motivated indictments of Berezovsky and Gusinsky, should be seen not as prosecution for financial dealings done a decade ago--which would implicate thousands of Russian businessmen and political figures--but as part of a larger contest between the forces of statist control and a liberal-oligarchic elite. Who wins will go a long way toward determining whether Russia reverts to the traditions of its czarist- imperial past or charts a new course as part of an integrating, liberal international order. The consequences of this struggle, for both the Russian people and the world, will be profound. For the Russian people, President Putin's rule has been characterized by the dismantling of Russia's independent media, a fierce crackdown on the political opposition, and the prosecution of a bloody war against Chechnya's civilian population. The ascent of former KGB officers throughout Russia's ministries and in the Kremlin has enabled Putin to use the long arm of the state to crush internal dissent, silence opposing political voices, and subdue free media. During the first Chechen war, more Russians got their news from Vladimir Gusinsky's independent NTV than from state media. Today, there is almost no free media in Russia. Intimidation, coercion, assassination of journalists, and armed raids by the security services have put most independent media outlets out of business. Beatings and assassinations of journalists recall not the new Russia but the dark legacy of the Soviet past. Those independent media outlets that remain feel forced to practice the kind of self-censorship that characterized the Soviet Union. Today, most Russians who read newspapers or tune into television or radio hear only the voice of the Russian state--as they did under totalitarian rule. In a land where financial support for opposition political parties comes largely from business, the arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, like the indictments of Berezovsky and Gusinsky, sends a chillingly clear message to Russia's business community that their assets are safe only if they steer clear of politics. Putin himself made this same threat to the oligarchs in 2000; it is clear that his government is carrying it out, and that Khodorkovsky is the latest victim. Political assassinations also demonstrate the risk of speaking out against state power. Earlier this year, State Duma deputy Sergei Yushenkov, who had been investigating potential connections between the 1999 Moscow apartment bombings and the start of the second Chechen war, was killed outside his Moscow apartment. State Duma deputy Yuri Shendoshokhtin, who had been looking into the role of the FSB in the Moscow bombings as well as a scandal surrounding the involvement of FSB officers in illegal trade, was also killed in mysterious circumstances. Both crimes remain unsolved. In today's Russia--as in Soviet Russia, as in czarist Russia--the state uses its power to suppress political dissent. The arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky fits in a long tradition of political arrest and persecution stretching across the vast dictatorial tundra of Russian history. Under President Putin, Russian citizens in Chechnya have suffered crimes against humanity at the hands of Russian military forces. It was during Mr. Putin's tenure as Prime Minister in 1999 that he launched the Second Chechen War following the Moscow apartment bombings. There remain credible allegations that Russia's FSB had a hand in carrying out these attacks. Mr. Putin ascended to the presidency in 2000 by pointing a finger at the Chechens for committing these crimes, launching a new military campaign in Chechnya, and riding a frenzy of public anger into office. Since then, between 10 and 20,000 Chechen civilians have been killed and hundreds of thousands displaced by Russian security forces. At Putin's direction, the Kremlin recently stage-managed an ``election'' in Chechnya that put Moscow's hand-picked candidate in power. The principal voters were Russian conscripts forced to serve in Chechnya. Moscow has made no effort to address the political grievances of a population increasingly radicalized by the brutality of Russian rule. Yes, there are Chechen terrorists, but there are many Chechens who took up arms only after the atrocities committed by Russian forces serving first under Boris Yeltsin's and then Putin's orders. In short, Mr. President, I am worried that what we are seeing in Mr. Putin's government is a continuation of 400 years of autocratic state control, and repression. Since the end of the Cold War, many Western observers have optimistically argued that the way Russia is governed has fundamentally changed. Sadly, this appears not to be true. Whether ruled by the czars, Stalin, Brezhnev, or Putin, the Russian state has remained supreme within Russian society. It seeks fundamentally to control society, not to answer to it. The people serve the government, not the reverse. This is not the behavior of a modern European nation; it is a form of unenlightened despotism cloaked in the mantle of international respectability, which Russia derives principally from its relations with other great powers--particularly the United States. The ascent of former KGB officers to positions of power throughout the structures of the Russian state underscores this trend. Apparently KGB veterans Igor Sechin and General Viktor Ivanov, both deputy chiefs of presidential administration in the Kremlin, masterminded the assault on Mr. Khodorkovsky. I would like to congratulate the KGB for arresting one of the most pro-Western business figures in Russia today--someone whose personal and corporate behavior, through charitable giving and adopting Western standards of business, have brought more credit to Russia in the last three years than anything the Russian government has done. Meanwhile, the FSB has been unable to solve the murder of leading independent journalists. It has failed to bring to justice any suspects in the murder of democratic politicians. It has not been able to identify a single case of corruption inside the Russian government. Not a single Russian has been held to account for committing crimes against humanity in the Soviet Gulag. The FSB can't do any of that--but it can arrest Mikhail Khodorkovsky. What brave men they must be to kick down the doors of a private airplane and arrest an unarmed man. The FSB's dominance in the Russian Government has renewed the specter of the imperial temptation that has guided Russia's external relations for centuries. For too many of Russia's neighbors, it is like the old Beatles song: ``Back in the USSR.'' Under President Putin, Russia has refused to comply with the terms of the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe. Russian troops occupy parts of Georgia and Moldova. Russia has effectively annexed the Georgian province of Abkhazia, which it has occupied for a decade. Moscow has supported attempts to overthrow neighboring governments that appear too independent of Russia's embrace. Russian naval forces recently attempted to assert control in the channel connecting the Sea of Azov and the Black Sea from Ukraine. Russian secret services are credibly accused of meddling in elections in Azerbaijan and Georgia. Russian agents are working to bring Ukraine further into Moscow's orbit. Russian support sustains Europe's last dictatorship in Belarus. And Moscow has attempted to cynically manipulate Latvia's Russian minority and enforced its stranglehold on energy supplies into Latvia in order to squeeze the democratic, pro- American government in Riga. Under President Putin, Russia has pursued a policy in its ``near abroad'' that would create an empire of influence and submission, if not outright control. On October 9, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov declared that Russia reserves the right to intervene militarily within the Commonwealth of Independent States in order to settle disputes that cannot be resolved through negotiation. At the same press conference, President Putin declared that the pipelines in Central Asia and the Caucasus carrying oil and natural gas to the West were built by the Soviet Union, and said it is Russia's prerogative to maintain them in order to protect its national interests, ``even those parts of the system that are beyond Russia's borders.'' In the runup to the war in Afghanistan, President Putin was given great credit for ``allowing'' the United States to use the military facilities and airspace of sovereign countries in Central Asia. But Russia has no more right to speak for these countries than we do. The Putin Doctrine, asserting a right to imperial intervention in Russia's ``near-abroad,'' coupled with the ascendancy of the FSB, recalls a discredited Russian imperial past whose victims number in the millions. Russia's assertion of political control over its neighbors speaks not to a modern vision of Russian reform and renewal, but appears to reflect a czarist impulse to dominate neighboring populations. It is the international dimension of rising state control at home. The dramatic deterioration of democracy in Russia calls into question the fundamental premises of our Russia policy since 1991. American leaders must adapt U.S. policy to the realities of a Russian Government that may be trending towards neo-imperialism abroad and authoritarian control at home. It is time to face unpleasant facts about Russia. Russia is moving in the wrong direction--rapidly. While the United States undertakes a necessary and comprehensive review of our policy, I believe Russia's privileged access to critical Euro-Atlantic institutions should be suspended. This access was obtained with the understanding that President Putin was committed to free markets, the rule of law, pluralist democracy, journalistic freedom, and the lawful constraint of the intelligence and security services. These now appear to be false premises. The Russian Government is not behaving in a manner that qualifies it to belong in the club of industrialized democracies. The United States is hosting the next G-8 Summit at King Island, Georgia, in June 2004. Russia has been invited to participate and has been working its way in, but President Putin's conduct at home and abroad has worked Russia out. Putin's Russia should have no place at the next G-8 Summit. Congress should not consider the repeal of the Jackson-Vanik amendment for Russia. It would be incomprehensible to consider easing a law created in response to Soviet repression when the Russian Government is continuing a similar pattern of behavior. I will oppose any effort to repeal Jackson-Vanik as long as Russia is moving in the wrong direction. To any American businesses contemplating investment in or trade with Russia, I would simply say that this is not a place where the rule of law and Western codes of conduct prevail. You invest at your peril. Many Members of Congress have heard from U.S. businessmen who have lost money in Russia due to the absence of the rule of law. The American business community should consider itself warned: the Kremlin's recent behavior is a clear signal that your investments are not safe. I call on my own Government, including the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, to cease all guarantees of investment in Russia due to the unacceptable risk of state interference and expropriation, as demonstrated by the Russian Government's actions. American taxpayer dollars should not be used to subsidize U.S. investment in Russia as long as the rule of the FSB prevails over the rule of law. Clearly, in personal meetings, the President of Russia attempts to reassure the President of the United States that he is a fellow democrat. An accumulation of evidence forces me to draw the opposite conclusion. I hope I am wrong, but I am increasingly concerned that in Mr. Putin's soul is the continuity of 400 years of Russian oppression. Under President Putin's leadership, Russia looks to the West for prosperity, technology, and modernity, but seems to be striving in every way to keep the values of the West out of Russia. Far from having a vision for Russia in which democracy and freedom and the rule of law thrive, I fear President Putin may have a vision for Russia in which the capricious power of the police at home, and the menacing weight of subversion and intimidation abroad, guide the state. Administration policy must recognize the cold realities of Putin's Russia. The responsibilities that follow from this are clear: it is time for a hardheaded and dispassionate reconsideration of American policy in response to the resurgence of authoritarian forces in Moscow. It is time to send a signal to President Putin's government that undemocratic behavior will exclude Russia from the company of Western democracies. The wholesale suppression of free media and political opposition cannot be ignored. American policy must reflect the sobering conclusion that a Russian Government which does not share our most basic values cannot be a friend or partner and risks defining itself, through its own behavior, as an adversary. Mr. President, I thank the forbearance of my colleagues. I yield back the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I take a backseat to no one in my support of Second Amendment rights. But this right, which Americans have fought and died for, does not extent to terrorists, criminals and illegal aliens. That is why I am pleased to announce today a landmark agreement on gun show legislation that I have reached with Senators Jack Reed, Mike DeWine, and Joe Lieberman. The bill accomplishes two critical goals: It protects gun shows as a viable business and ongoing enterprise, and it slams the door on criminals, terrorists and illegal aliens who have successfully exploited a loophole in our gun safety laws to acquire firearms at gun shows for nefarious purposes. I know the gun safety issue is controversial in Congress and that there is a great deal of passion on both sides. This legislation replaces passion with pragmatism. It stakes out a sensible middle ground to solve the real problem of criminals and terrorists getting guns at gun shows without burdening gun show operators with punishing paperwork or treating enthusiasts who attend these shows as pariahs. For gun rights advocates like myself, this bill does not retreat one inch in the battle to protect our Second Amendment rights. It treats gun show operators and patrons with respect and requires simply that background checks be performed on all firearms sales at gun shows. For those who are rightly concerned about gun violence, this bill simply and straightforwardly accomplishes the goal of closing a loophole that has fueled illegal gun trafficking in America. I am a gun owner and I have attended many gun shows in my state of Arizona. More than most people, I know that the majority of gun show patrons and sellers are honest, law abiding citizens. But I also know that there is a sinister element that attends these shows and exploits this loophole. Defenders of gun shows, like myself, cannot ignore the staggering statistic that gun shows are the second leading source of firearms recovered in illegal gun trafficking investigations conducted by ATF. Just this week, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that ATF agents seized 572 firearms from five unlicensed sellers who were exploiting the gun show loophole in ways that threaten the safety of American citizens. The same article quoted an ATF agent saying ``crime guns do originate at gun shows. That's been documented.'' The fact that gun shows are a leading source of crime guns is reason enough to close the gun show loophole, but we also know of at least three cases where alleged terrorists used the gun show loophole to purchase firearms and that makes closing this loophole imperative. On September 10, 2001, a Federal court in Detroit convicted Ali Boumelhem, a known member of the terrorist group Hezbollah on seven counts of weapons charges for smuggling shotguns, ammunition, flash suppressors, and assault weapons parts to Lebanon. FBI agents followed Boumelhem to at least three Michigan gun shows in October 2000. According to the Middle East Intelligence Bulletin, the shipment in which he was finally arrested was part of a pattern-- Boumelhem ``traveled frequently to gun shows to buy arms and then hid them in cargo crates bound for Lebanon.'' According to the Associated Press, ``Federal agents say they watched Boumelhem, a resident of Detroit and Beirut, travel to gun shows to buy gun parts and ammunition for shipment overseas.'' On October 30, 2001, Muhammad Asrar, a Pakistani national with suspected al-Qaeda ties, pleaded guilty in Federal court in Texas to firearms-related charges. He was convicted of illegally possessing 50 rounds of 9mm ammunition. He was also convicted on an immigration charge--illegally overstaying his student visa since 1988. Asrar was arrested after an anonymous informant told authorities that Asrar had asked him whether he would smuggle a foreign national across the border from Mexico. Asrar also allegedly asked the informant if he would take pictures of tall buildings for him during his travels. Police seized several photos of tall buildings from Asrar's store. Asrar admitted to authorities that he had bought and sold a variety of guns at Texas gun shows over the previous 7 years, including a copy of a Sten submachine gun, a Ruger Mini-14 rifle, two handguns, and a hunting rifle. Despite the final adjudication of the ammunition and immigration charges, which can carry a penalty of up to 10 years in prison, Asrar remains under investigation by a Federal grand jury. According to the New York Times, Asrar is being investigated for possible links to al- Qaeda. Connor Claxton is an Irish national and an admitted member of the Irish Republican Army who is currently serving a prison term for attempting to smuggle guns bought in Florida to Ireland. At his trial he testified about how he came to the United States on IRA orders to buy weapons and ammunition for shipment back to Ireland and that he chose to come to Florida because ``we don't have gun shows in Ireland, and you see things here like you never imagined.'' According to his co-conspirator Siobhan Browne, Claxton ``spent more than $100,000 off the books on semi- and fully automatic weapons in sales from private dealers'' who are not required to perform background checks. Browne also said that Mickey Couples, a senior IRA leader, told her that ``the gunrunning mission had been going on for four years and that there were 50 IRA volunteers involved.'' In an era where America is right to be concerned about security, it is absolutely imperative that we close this dangerous loophole that allows criminals, terrorists, and illegal aliens to claim a right that they don't deserve. The McCain-Reed-DeWine-Lieberman bill requires instant criminal background checks for all firearm sales at gun shows. For licensed dealers selling at gun shows, this bill creates no new burdens. For unlicensed sellers, they will simply need to have an instant background check performed before they transfer a firearm. The instant check could be performed by a licensed dealer, local law enforcement, or by a new entity created by this bill called a special licensee--an individual or gun show employee who may perform instant background checks at gun shows only. The bill also defines a gun show in a fair and rational way. Any public event where 75 or more firearms are offered for sale is defined in the legislation as a gun show. Collectors who sell their own guns from their own homes are exempt. In addition, private hunt clubs that buy, sell, or trade firearms between members are also free from the requirements of this bill. Paperwork requirements under the bill are the minimum necessary to ensure compliance with the law. I made sure that gun show operators would not be buried under an avalanche of paper. Finally, the bill allows States to seek a waiver to make the instant check even quicker for unlicensed sellers at gun shows once that State has automated the records necessary to make the check as accurate as possible. I am aware that some sellers are concerned that the law allowing up to three business days to complete a background check is burdensome for weekend gun shows. Currently, because of improvements made by Attorney General John Ashcroft, 91 percent of all background checks are completed within five minutes and 95 percent are completed within two hours. For all intents and purposes, we now have a viable instant check system. But I would like to get that 95 percent success rate up to 100 percent and this bill will help entice States to get their felony, domestic violence and mental health records in order so that no one has to wait days to be approved or denied a firearm under instant check. This legislation should appeal to all but those who either hate guns and believe that no one should own them or those who believe that even terrorists, criminals and illegal aliens are protected under the Second Amendment. In 1999, every member of the Senate voted for some form of a bill to close the gun show loophole, but neither side was willing to compromise for the sake of America. Let's stop playing politics with guns and support a bill that closes a serious loophole while respecting the rights of those who enjoy gun shows. This is our chance.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I take a backseat to no one in my support of Second Amendment rights. But this right, which Americans have fought and died for, does not extent to terrorists, criminals and illegal aliens. That is why I am pleased to announce today a landmark agreement on gun show legislation that I have reached with Senators Jack Reed, Mike DeWine, and Joe Lieberman. The bill accomplishes two critical goals: It protects gun shows as a viable business and ongoing enterprise, and it slams the door on criminals, terrorists and illegal aliens who have successfully exploited a loophole in our gun safety laws to acquire firearms at gun shows for nefarious purposes. I know the gun safety issue is controversial in Congress and that there is a great deal of passion on both sides. This legislation replaces passion with pragmatism. It stakes out a sensible middle ground to solve the real problem of criminals and terrorists getting guns at gun shows without burdening gun show operators with punishing paperwork or treating enthusiasts who attend these shows as pariahs. For gun rights advocates like myself, this bill does not retreat one inch in the battle to protect our Second Amendment rights. It treats gun show operators and patrons with respect and requires simply that background checks be performed on all firearms sales at gun shows. For those who are rightly concerned about gun violence, this bill simply and straightforwardly accomplishes the goal of closing a loophole that has fueled illegal gun trafficking in America. I am a gun owner and I have attended many gun shows in my state of Arizona. More than most people, I know that the majority of gun show patrons and sellers are honest, law abiding citizens. But I also know that there is a sinister element that attends these shows and exploits this loophole. Defenders of gun shows, like myself, cannot ignore the staggering statistic that gun shows are the second leading source of firearms recovered in illegal gun trafficking investigations conducted by ATF. Just this week, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that ATF agents seized 572 firearms from five unlicensed sellers who were exploiting the gun show loophole in ways that threaten the safety of American citizens. The same article quoted an ATF agent saying ``crime guns do originate at gun shows. That's been documented.'' The fact that gun shows are a leading source of crime guns is reason enough to close the gun show loophole, but we also know of at least three cases where alleged terrorists used the gun show loophole to purchase firearms and that makes closing this loophole imperative. On September 10, 2001, a Federal court in Detroit convicted Ali Boumelhem, a known member of the terrorist group Hezbollah on seven counts of weapons charges for smuggling shotguns, ammunition, flash suppressors, and assault weapons parts to Lebanon. FBI agents followed Boumelhem to at least three Michigan gun shows in October 2000. According to the Middle East Intelligence Bulletin, the shipment in which he was finally arrested was part of a pattern-- Boumelhem ``traveled frequently to gun shows to buy arms and then hid them in cargo crates bound for Lebanon.'' According to the Associated Press, ``Federal agents say they watched Boumelhem, a resident of Detroit and Beirut, travel to gun shows to buy gun parts and ammunition for shipment overseas.'' On October 30, 2001, Muhammad Asrar, a Pakistani national with suspected al-Qaeda ties, pleaded guilty in Federal court in Texas to firearms-related charges. He was convicted of illegally possessing 50 rounds of 9mm ammunition. He was also convicted on an immigration charge--illegally overstaying his student visa since 1988. Asrar was arrested after an anonymous informant told authorities that Asrar had asked him whether he would smuggle a foreign national across the border from Mexico. Asrar also allegedly asked the informant if he would take pictures of tall buildings for him during his travels. Police seized several photos of tall buildings from Asrar's store. Asrar admitted to authorities that he had bought and sold a variety of guns at Texas gun shows over the previous 7 years, including a copy of a Sten submachine gun, a Ruger Mini-14 rifle, two handguns, and a hunting rifle. Despite the final adjudication of the ammunition and immigration charges, which can carry a penalty of up to 10 years in prison, Asrar remains under investigation by a Federal grand jury. According to the New York Times, Asrar is being investigated for possible links to al- Qaeda. Connor Claxton is an Irish national and an admitted member of the Irish Republican Army who is currently serving a prison term for attempting to smuggle guns bought in Florida to Ireland. At his trial he testified about how he came to the United States on IRA orders to buy weapons and ammunition for shipment back to Ireland and that he chose to come to Florida because ``we don't have gun shows in Ireland, and you see things here like you never imagined.'' According to his co-conspirator Siobhan Browne, Claxton ``spent more than $100,000 off the books on semi- and fully automatic weapons in sales from private dealers'' who are not required to perform background checks. Browne also said that Mickey Couples, a senior IRA leader, told her that ``the gunrunning mission had been going on for four years and that there were 50 IRA volunteers involved.'' In an era where America is right to be concerned about security, it is absolutely imperative that we close this dangerous loophole that allows criminals, terrorists, and illegal aliens to claim a right that they don't deserve. The McCain-Reed-DeWine-Lieberman bill requires instant criminal background checks for all firearm sales at gun shows. For licensed dealers selling at gun shows, this bill creates no new burdens. For unlicensed sellers, they will simply need to have an instant background check performed before they transfer a firearm. The instant check could be performed by a licensed dealer, local law enforcement, or by a new entity created by this bill called a special licensee--an individual or gun show employee who may perform instant background checks at gun shows only. The bill also defines a gun show in a fair and rational way. Any public event where 75 or more firearms are offered for sale is defined in the legislation as a gun show. Collectors who sell their own guns from their own homes are exempt. In addition, private hunt clubs that buy, sell, or trade firearms between members are also free from the requirements of this bill. Paperwork requirements under the bill are the minimum necessary to ensure compliance with the law. I made sure that gun show operators would not be buried under an avalanche of paper. Finally, the bill allows States to seek a waiver to make the instant check even quicker for unlicensed sellers at gun shows once that State has automated the records necessary to make the check as accurate as possible. I am aware that some sellers are concerned that the law allowing up to three business days to complete a background check is burdensome for weekend gun shows. Currently, because of improvements made by Attorney General John Ashcroft, 91 percent of all background checks are completed within five minutes and 95 percent are completed within two hours. For all intents and purposes, we now have a viable instant check system. But I would like to get that 95 percent success rate up to 100 percent and this bill will help entice States to get their felony, domestic violence and mental health records in order so that no one has to wait days to be approved or denied a firearm under instant check. This legislation should appeal to all but those who either hate guns and believe that no one should own them or those who believe that even terrorists, criminals and illegal aliens are protected under the Second Amendment. In 1999, every member of the Senate voted for some form of a bill to close the gun show loophole, but neither side was willing to compromise for the sake of America. Let's stop playing politics with guns and support a bill that closes a serious loophole while respecting the rights of those who enjoy gun shows. This is our chance.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I commend Senator Bingaman for his thorough analysis of the budgetary impediments to effective federal action to protect communities and our public forest lands from catastrophic wildfire. I am in agreement with many of the points that he makes because of what I have learned from numerous people in Arizona who have extensive hands- on experience with forest management and wildfire issues. With the compromise reached on Title I of 1904, we struggled to find common ground in our understanding of the nature of the problem in each of our states. However, the budget issues and inadequacy of funding that Senator Bingaman has discussed has not been addressed in this legislation. The practice of borrowing program funds to fight wildfires will continue to undermine our efforts to increase protection of communities in the wildland-urban interface and enhance forest health on at-risk public lands. Everyone involved in these endeavors at the federal, state, and local levels agrees that bankrupting essential program activities until they can be replenished at a later time with a supplemental is self- defeating. There is no disagreement on this score, it's simply a matter of putting the right funding mechanism in place to accomplish the objective of preserving the integrity of the forest land management agencies' programs. It is my understanding that Senator Craig and Senator Bingaman have come to an agreement that the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee will carefully consider this issue early next year. I look forward to following these proceedings to develop effective measures to ensure that the federal agencies have adequate resources to maintain essential program activities as well as fighting wildfires that occur with increasing frequency. I thank my colleagues for their commitment to addressing this widely recognized budgeting problem to allow our mutual community protection and forest restoration objectives to be achieved.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend. Since I will not speak again, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for engaging in a spirited and, I hope, informative debate. I thank, of course, my friend from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman. Briefly, as to this petition that keeps being referred to--the petition was led by Frederick Seitz, former president of the National Academy of Sciences--an article in the New York Times on April 22, 1998, entitled ``Science Academy Disputes Attack On Global Warms,'' states: The National Academy of Sciences has disassociated itself from a statement and petition circulated by one of its former presidents which disagrees with the scientific conclusions underlying international efforts to control greenhouse gas emissions. By the way, Virginia Spice of the Spice Girls, BJ Hunnicutt of ``Mash,'' and Perry Mason were among the signatories to that. They are all respected in their individual fields. I do not believe that 10 States in the Northeast would agree to a proposal that this is exactly modeled on, if there was going to be some devastating effect on the economies of 10 Northeastern States. Let's get real. This is a very minimal proposal, one that is a first step. I agree with the Senator from Oklahoma because it does not begin to comprehensively address the problem, but we have to start somewhere. We have to start somewhere. We have to begin to address this issue. This debate is important. I assure my colleagues, we will be back because those pictures that I showed are going to get worse and worse until we begin to address this issue. I thank my colleagues and yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to use 8 minutes of my 10 minutes. My favorite author is Ernest Hemingway, as he is of many millions of people throughout the world. One of his most famous short stories is entitled ``The Snows Of Kilimanjaro.'' At the beginning of the short story he says: Kilimanjaro is a snow covered mountain 19,710 feet high, and is said to be the highest mountain in Africa. Its western summit is called by the Masai ``Ngaje Ngaje,'' the House of God. Close to the western summit there is the dried and frozen carcass of a leopard. No one has explained what the leopard was seeking at that attitude. As the photograph shows here, the snows of Kilimanjaro may soon exist only in literature. There has been a lot of debate here about the scientific evidence-- 17,000 scientists say this, 10,000 scientists say that, my scientist says this--although clearly the National Academy of Sciences and other organizations including the World Meteorological Organization, I think, and others, should have some weight with my colleagues. If I might quote the punch line from an old joke, ``You can believe me or your lyin' eyes.'' These are facts. These are facts that cannot be refuted by any scientist or any union or any special interest that is weighing in more heavily on this issue than any issue since we got into campaign finance reform. That is the Arctic Sea. That is the Arctic Sea. If you look at the red line, that is the boundary of it in 1979. Look at it now. You can believe me or your lyin' eyes. Look at Mount Kilimanjaro. That picture was taken in 1993. That picture was taken in February of the year 2000. All of us cherish our national parks. Have a look at the Glacier National Park, which will have to have its name changed. The picture above was taken in 1932. That is a glacier ice cake. This picture is from the Glacier National Park archives. That is from 1932. Look at it 50 years later. It is not there. There will be no more glaciers in Glacier National Park, so we may have to give it a different name. We see devastating fires across California. It is very interesting that we have this debate while devastating fires, unprecedented in nature, are sweeping across California, fueled by unusual drought conditions. I don't have to tell people what the consequences of that are. An ice dam lake drained recently when the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf, which a century ago rimmed the coast, broke up along the coast of northeast Canada. NASA has confirmed that part of the Arctic Ocean that remains frozen year round has been shrinking at a rate of 10 percent per decade since 1980. At a conference in Iceland in August, scientists told senior government officials the Arctic is heating up fast, disclosing disturbing figures from a massive study of polar climate change. Dr. Robert Corell, who heads the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment Team, said: If you want to see what will be happening in the rest of the world 25 years from now, look at what is happening in the Arctic. Destruction of 70 percent of heat-sensitive coral reefs, in the world--70 percent of the heat-sensitive coral reefs in the world due to increases in water temperatures--places reef fisheries in jeopardy. I don't know what happens when the beginning of the food chain disappears. There is increasing coastal damage from hurricanes. Researchers at the University of Texas, Wesleyan University, and Stanford University earlier this year reported in the journal Nature that global warming is forcing species around the world, from California starfish to alpine herbs, to move into new ranges or altered habitats that could disrupt ecosystems. In an article in the July 3 Journal of Hydrology, ``Winters In New England Are Getting Shorter,'' according to the USGS scientists, northern New England winters have receded by 1 to 2 weeks during the past 30 years. Paul Eckstine, Harvard Medical School: Concerns about climate change are often mistakenly placed into the distant future but as the rate of climate change increases, so do the biological responses and costs associated with warming and unstable weather. The influence of intensifying drought on the spread of west Nile virus in the U.S., and the impacts of rising carbon dioxide levels on allergies and asthma, demonstrate that global warming has come into our backyards. Finally, Dr. Adare of the Climate Research Committee of the National Academy of Sciences, says: The planet has a fever and it is time to take action. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues not to listen so much to the opinions of labor unions, business special interests, or even scientists. Look at what is happening around the world. Use your eyes to see what is happening. The devastation wrought by climate change so far has been remarkable. There is a long series of happenings around the world. Key reports have been issued in the last few years by a number of bodies composed of the world's most eminent climate scientists, including the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the National Academy of Sciences, U.S. Global Change Research Program, and these experts all reached the same conclusions: No. 1. Greenhouse gasses are increasing in the atmosphere because of human activities and they are trapping increasingly more heat. No. 2. Increased amounts of greenhouse gases are projected to cause irreparable harm as they lead to increased global temperatures and higher sea levels. No. 3. The gases we emit to the atmosphere today will remain for decades or longer. Every time we emit now will require greater reductions later, making it more difficult to protect the environment. It is interesting to me that in July of the year 2003, Governor Pataki of New York announced that 9 States had formally agreed to join New York in developing a regional strategy in the Northeast to reduce greenhouse gas emissions--10 States. The States agreeing to participate are Connecticut, New Jersey, Vermont, New Hampshire, Delaware, Maine, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. The cap-and-trade initiative recommended by Governor Pataki would include developing a market-based emissions trading system that would apply to power generators emitting carbon dioxide, and it is modeled after the highly successful acid rain program of the 1990 Clean Air Act. This amendment is modeled on the highly successful acid rain program of the 1990 Clean Air Act. It is modest in its proportions.

Mr. McCAIN. How much time is controlled by Senator Inhofe and how much time is controlled by Senator Lieberman?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. McCAIN. Who is the minority side?

Mr. McCAIN. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 254 submitted earlier today by Senators Nelson and Graham of Florida.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. Is the Senator aware the major attack on this legislation will be related to the validity of the entire issue of climate change?

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