John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield 1 of my 3 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I apologize, but the Senate is still not in order.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have concerns regarding this bill, the Transportation, Treasury, and general government appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004, as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee. While the bill appears to contain fewer earmarks than in previous years, it still contains far too many earmarks and provisions to change current policies. The need for efficient and safe transportation in America has never been greater. Today, we as a Nation transport more people and goods than ever before. As our Nation's dependence on international trade grows, so does our Nation's dependence on a transportation system that can keep goods moving not only at our borders, but across the Nation. On top of our commercial needs, Americans in general are more mobile than ever before. Due to this reality, the safety and security of our highways, airways, railways, and waterways must be a national priority. And as legislators, it is our duty to ensure that important transportation programs are fully funded. The measure before the Senate takes important steps towards achieving that goal. At the same time, however, I am troubled by many provisions in H.R. 2989, the fiscal year 2004 Transportation, Treasury, and general government appropriations bill as amended by Senate text in S. 1589. Once again, I find myself in familiar territory, rising in opposition to another appropriations bill that needlessly earmarks the hard-earned money of American taxpayers. While the bill in total is $300 million below the President's budget request, the transportation title of the bill alone contains over $7.5 billion in objectionable funding provisions that are either above the President's request for specific programs, locality-specific earmarks by appropriators, or both. The bill earmarks all intelligent transportation funds ($125 million) for 54 specific projects, including an intelligent transportation system for the Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce and a Weather Research Institute in North Dakota. The administration did not request any of the projects earmarked. The bill further would provide $1.3 billion for new fixed guideway systems. Under this funding, the bill alters the President's request by increasing or decreasing funding for 14 projects with full funding grant agreements already in place and earmarks funding for an additional 25 projects. The changes in funding levels for projects with grants agreements will have a significant impact on those projects, causing construction delays and cost overruns. The additional earmarks may very well affect the ability of other projects to receive full funding grant agreements in the future, because the earmarks are outside of the Federal Transit Administration's FTA review process and fund projects that are not ready or do not meet FTA's standards. The bill provides $18.4 million for the disposal of obsolete vessels in the National Defense Reserve Fleet of the Maritime Administration, $7 million above the President's request. While there is no question that these federally owned obsolete vessels pose serious environmental risks to the waters in which they are now moored, I cannot support funding above the President's request. The ship disposal program developed by the administration has taken into account not only the need to expedite disposal of these vessels, but also the limitations of the disposal market and other conditions for disposal. I do not believe the same can be said for the appropriators. Further, the bill as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee, in what I have been told is a drafting error, increases the administrative ``take-down'' authorized in the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act to finance motor carrier safety programs and motor carrier safety research from .45 percent to 2.55 percent and decreases the administrative ``take-down'' authorized in TEA-21 to administer Federal highway programs from 2.65 to 1.05 percent. As I understand it, the Committee intended to increase both ``take-downs'' in order to make additional funds available for earmarks. Not only is this authorizing language in an appropriations bill, such a change was not requested by the administration. The Senate bill also contains a provision to direct the Secretary of Transportation to enter into an agreement with the State of Nevada and the State of Arizona or both to provide a method of funding for construction of a Hoover Dam bypass bridge from funds allocated for the Federal Lands Highway Program. While this clearly is authorizing language in an appropriations bill, what is really odd, is the language is already law, as it was contained in the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution for fiscal year 2003. The bill would appropriate over $1.3 billion for Amtrak, $446 million above the President's request and nearly $300 million above Amtrak's fiscal year 2003 appropriation. Repayment of Amtrak's $105 million loan from DOT, made in 2001 to avoid Amtrak's threatened shut-down, would be postponed for a second year. The appropriations bill also renews conditions on Amtrak's funding adopted last year, conditions I believe are the reason Amtrak has a $200 million carry-over from fiscal year 2003 for next year. While I commend David Gunn, Amtrak's president, for his efforts to get Amtrak's costs under better control and exposing the costly mistakes made by his predecessor, I cannot support an appropriation for Amtrak above the President's request without real reform. Mr. Gunn refuses to make any changes to Amtrak's routes, many of which lose $200, $300, or even $400 for every passenger they carry. And while Amtrak is touting record ridership for fiscal year 2003, my colleagues need to realize that Amtrak still accounts for less than 1 percent of intercity travel. Amtrak's record ridership amounted to an increase of 276,632 passengers--about 15 percent of daily airline boardings. And the harsh reality is that to attract this small number of additional riders, Amtrak slashed fares; and through July 2003, revenues were down $85 million compared to 2002. If Amtrak thought it would make up price cuts with the fares received from additional riders, it seriously miscalculated. The report that accompanies the bill earmarks $1 million for the city of Crowley, LA's Historic Parkerson Avenue Redevelopment project. This is in addition to $500,000 given to the project 2 years ago. I'm sure that Crowley is a lovely community. But there are thousands of small towns just like Crowley that are equally deserving of redevelopment. What makes Crowley more deserving of a Federal grant than every other small town in America? The report also contains a provision earmarking $250,000 for a towboat display in Oklahoma. A retired towboat will be sandblasted, cleaned, painted and refurbished with a classroom area. Do you really think taxpayers would want their hard-earned dollars spent on this display? Is next year's appropriations bill going to contain funding to promote tourism so taxpayers all across America will know that they can come see a new towboat display in Oklahoma? While I say that sarcastically, one has to wonder how taxpayers are going to know that they have paid for and should visit such a display in Oklahoma. The report sets an all-time record for the amount of airport specific earmarks for the Airport Improvement Program by listing 241 airports. In the final appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003 there were 164, in fiscal year 2002 there were 101, and in fiscal year 2001 there were 158. There is also an unauthorized transfer of $100 million from the FAA's modernization account to the Airport Improvement Program. This transfer of $100 million is then set aside for--surprise, surprise-- discretionary grants that can be used to fund projects at the 241 airports that are listed. So we are taking money from the program that funds air traffic control modernization--such as newer and better radars--to fund the 241 airport earmarks. The bill appropriates $52 million for the airport and airway trust fund for the essential air service program. This is not authorized and was not requested by the President. The trust fund was specifically established to fund the capital and operating expenses of the Federal Aviation Administration, FAA, not to subsidize airline service. In addition to the Transportation funding, the bill contains appropriations for Treasury and general government. I do want to acknowledge that the appropriators seem to have kept parochial spending to a minimum in the Treasury and general government appropriations titles of the bill. However, I have identified approximately $283 million in locality-specific earmarks in these titles. While the amounts associated with each individual earmark may not seem extravagant, taken together, they represent a serious diversion of taxpayers' hard-earned dollars at the expense of numerous programs that have undergone the appropriate merit-based selection process. It is my view that the officials who run these programs should be the ones who decide how best to spend the appropriated funds. After all, they know what their most pressing needs are. For example, the Treasury and general government titles include the following earmarks or special treatment: Language urging the IRS to make no staffing reductions at the Martinsburg National Computing Center and the programmed level at the Administrative Services Center in Beckley, WV; $350,000 to continue the Upper Great Plains Native American Telehealth Program at the University of North Dakota; $2.025 million to acquire land in Anchorage, AK, to build a new regional archives and records facility for the National Archives and Records Administration; $500,000 for the Ruffner Mountain Educational Facility in Alabama; $500,000 for the Saenger Theatre Restoration Project in Alabama; $500,000 for the State of Alaska to assist in preparation for its statehood celebration; and $500,000 for the State of Hawaii to assist in preparation for its statehood celebration. There are more projects on the list that I have compiled, which will be available on my Senate Web site. In closing, I am encouraged that the appropriators have begun to curb their appetite for earmarking in this bill, however there are still hundreds of millions of dollars in unnecessary earmarks that severely restrict the authority granted the agencies charged with carrying out the policy goals established by Congress. In addition, there are numerous statutory provisions that infringe on the jurisdiction of the authorizing committees, and circumvent the authorizing process. Both the authorizing committees and appropriations committee must renew their commitment to work through the long established legislative process of authorizing programs and then appropriating funds accordingly. We can and must do better in providing oversight and establishing policies that grant the administration the funding and flexibility it needs to move our nation forward.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I thank Senator Hatch and Senator Leahy for their work to improve the criminal provisions and strengthen the Burns-Wyden CAN-SPAM Act. The active participation of Senator Hatch and his committee on this issue has been extremely valuable. I join my friend from Oregon in urging Senator Hatch to have oversight on how this law is enforced and that it is properly done. We face challenges in enforcement of this act, particularly in light of the changes in technology that will inevitably occur which will make this legislation even harder to enforce than it is today. I thank Senator Hatch, and I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask consent that the following amendments be the only first-degree amendments in order to the bill and that they be subject to second-degrees which would be relevant to the first degree to which they are offered: Corzine amendment, Santorum amendment, Enzi amendment, Landrieu amendment, and Boxer amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Leahy for his work on this amendment, along with Senator Hatch, who lends and contributes a great deal of teeth to this bill. I know they have worked very hard. As I mentioned to Senator Hatch, as did the Senator from Oregon, we know that the Senator and his committee will be involved in the oversight of the enforcement of this legislation. We thank you for his valuable contribution. I urge the sponsors of those amendments, Senators Corzine, Santorum, Enzi, Landrieu, Boxer, and Harkin, to please come to the floor in courtesy to their colleagues so we can take up and dispose of these amendments. Please show some courtesy to your colleagues. If you have amendments pending, please come. We are ready for them. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that we lay aside the pending amendment so Senator Harkin may be recognized. Amendment No. 1895

Mr. McCAIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN. Let me put it this way: I ask unanimous consent that after the adoption of the Corzine amendment, the bill be read a third time and a final vote be taken at 6:30, with the understanding that if the Corzine amendment is not adopted that would not happen.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. Under the previous order, I believe the vote will start at 6:30.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I support the amendment by Senator Corzine. I thank my colleagues for reaching a compromise at this time. I thank those who rapidly wrote this amendment on short notice so we could complete work on this legislation. The amendment has two components. The first part addresses labeling of unsolicited commercial e-mail with the term ADV and also addresses the possibility of industry self-regulation. The Federal Trade Commission has raised serious concerns with both of these proposals with respect to ADV labeling. The FTC has written to me in opposition to labeling: First, consumer groups, ISPs, and emailers at the SPAM Forum roundly criticized the mandatory use of an ``ADV'' label. Labeling requirements could harm legitimate marketers, while illegitimate marketers are likely to ignore the requirement. Indeed, although several States require ``ADV'' labels on unsolicited commercial email, in its recent study on False Claims in SPAM, Commission staff found that only 2 percent of email messages analyzed contained such a label. In lieu of Senator Corzine's original proposal to make ADV labeling an industry self-regulation, the amendment has been modified to require the Federal Trade Commission to report to Congress on whether the ADV labeling and industry self-regulation should be implemented. So I think this is a sensible solution in light of the Federal Trade Commission's concerns as I just read from their report to Congress. The second part of the amendment would authorize the Federal Trade Commission to adopt a bounty hunter proposal to give people a portion of the fines collected from spammers that they hope to catch. As with the Do Not Spam Registry, the FTC would be authorized to act after first sending a report to Congress. I support the amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. I am glad to yield.

Mr. McCAIN. I am told by the staff that we will commence this vote at 6:30. I hope by that time we would have the final writing of the Corzine amendment, which I could propose at that time and have adopted since it is agreed to by both sides. We are waiting for that. Is that correct?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we have discussed this amendment and we have now received clearance from both sides of the aisle and I urge its adoption.

Mr. McCAIN. It has been resolved. We are just waiting for the language to be done. We may have to fire some staff people, I am afraid. Senator Wyden was writing them before.

Mr. McCAIN. I believe the pending amendment is the Santorum-Enzi amendment.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as we await the completion of the Corzine amendment, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I assure the Senator from Pennsylvania that we will do everything we can to hold it. I have to tell my friend from Pennsylvania that probably the greatest single aspect of this spamming that is so disturbing to families all over America is the issue the Senator from Pennsylvania raises, and that is this graphic pornography that pops into view when children are trying to do their homework, much less other entertaining aspects of using the computer. I want to work with the Senator from Pennsylvania in every way we can to see if we can enact whatever safeguards to prevent this pollution of young Americans' minds.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, Senator Santorum would like to speak about the Santorum-Enzi amendment, and then we will have the Corzine amendment, which I will propose, and then we will be ready, I believe, for final passage. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, as we are nearing the end, I am waiting for the Corzine amendment that we will discuss and adopt. Then I believe we will be able to move to final passage. I am not positive, but I think we will be able to. I would like to again express my appreciation to the Senator from Montana, Mr. Burns, and Senator Wyden. Four years is a long time to work on a single issue. When these two Senators began work on this issue, spam was minuscule as compared to what it is today. I must admit, I didn't pay much attention to it then, nor did the members of the Commerce Committee, nor the oversight agencies. Both Senators had the foresight to see the incredible proportions that this spamming would reach and the effect that it would have not only on our ability to use e-commerce and e-communications but also on our ability to improve productivity. The costs involved in the spamming issue are pretty incredible when you count it all up according to certain experts. So I thank our staffs who have worked on this for so long. Without the leadership of the Senator from Montana, Mr. Burns, and that of Senator Wyden, we would not have been able to move this, after several hearings in the Commerce Committee, to the floor of the Senate. I have some confidence that our friends on the other side of the Capitol will act with some dispatch since they are as wary as we are of the gravity of this problem. As soon as we get the Corzine amendment, we will move forward.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, for the benefit of my colleagues, we have a Landrieu amendment which the Senator from Louisiana has been kind enough to withdraw, but we need to discuss what we need to do in the form of sending a letter to the Federal Trade Commission instructing them to take certain actions which I will discuss in a minute; a Corzine amendment which has two parts to it, which both sides have agreed to; and then I don't believe there will be any further amendments, although that is not completely clear. We could expect a vote on final passage relatively soon. Senator Landrieu was going to offer an amendment that would have required the Consumer Product Safety Commission to undertake a rulemaking to have manufacturers create a database for consumers to be notified of certain product recalls. I have committed to Senator Landrieu to work with the CPSC to solicit these views on her legislation and ask how best to accomplish her worthy goals of better informing consumers about product recalls. Senator Landrieu has hit on a very important issue. Unless you happen to see it by accident mentioned on television, the recalls are very seldom known by at least a majority of those who would be affected by it. I commit to Senator Landrieu to see how we can best accomplish that. I appreciate her forbearance at this time in withdrawing the amendment. I hope we can satisfy her concerns by asking for rapid action on the part of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. I yield the floor.