John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Is the Senator speaking for or against?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Alaska such time as he may consume.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time is remaining on both sides, and at what time will the vote take place?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise to speak in opposition to S.J. Res. 17. I had the opportunity to make a full statement last week. In my time as chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, no issue has erupted so rapidly and evoked such passion from the public as media consolidation. These are critically important decisions. If we could have a little straight talk this morning, if the Senate passes this resolution, there is no objective observer that believes the House will act accordingly. Now, the Senator from North Dakota may think it is important to have this Senate on record, and I don't disagree with that at all. Any prospects of it becoming a reality is minimal, at best. We should all recognize that. Second, all kinds of allegations have crept in about various motivations on both sides of this issue. Some have been accused of wanting to return to the fairness doctrine. Some are saying it is because of ideological bias, dislike of talk radio, or dislike of the New York Times acquiring more cable companies and media. I don't accept any of those arguments from both the right and left. There is legitimate basis for concern about continued consolidation of the media. This is not the appropriate vehicle for addressing that in 4 hours of debate and a blanket repudiation of regulations, some of which have been good, in my view, because they have reined in, at least to some degree, the continued consolidation in the most egregious and most incredible media consolidation, and that is radio in America today. We have legislation passed through the Commerce Committee, S. 1046, which after being composed, marked up, amended, and debated in the Commerce Committee is on the calendar and ready for floor consideration. If we are serious about addressing this issue, we should do it by calling up from the calendar for debate and amendment S. 1046 and we can explore the myriad and complex aspects of this issue. For example, the Appropriations Committee has now added, I am told, to their bill the 45-percent cap being rolled back to 35 percent. According to BusinessWeek magazine, the 45-percent cap has become a rallying symbol, but the regulations that would truly reorder America's media landscape and affect local communities have flown under the radar. These allow companies to snap up not only two to three local TV stations in a market but also a newspaper and up to eight radio stations. If the courts and Congress are worried about the dangers of media consolidation, they will have to resist calling it a day after dispensing with the network cap and go after the rules with real bite. As it now stands, TV's big networks will be losers among media outlets, thanks mostly to vociferous lobbying by independent TV affiliates. With strong ties to lawmakers who depend on them for campaign coverage, the affiliates have succeeded in getting a House vote against the 45 percent and will likely see a rerun of that episode when the Senate votes by October. With Fox and CBS already each owning stations that cover about 40 percent of the Nation's audience, going up another 5 percent is not going to make a dramatic difference. In contrast, opening the floodgates to allow local behemoths to combine newspapers, TV, and radio stations under one roof would change media ownership in towns and cities, concentrating it in the hands of a few. Even in midsized cities such as San Antonio, for instance, one company might own the leading newspaper, two TV stations, eight radio stations, and several cable channels. What we are doing is interesting but if we are going to address this issue in a serious fashion, and there is reason for concern, we ought to do it in a fashion far different from this. I point out that the CRA precludes an agency adopting similar rules without substantive congressional legislation. In other words, the FCC would be prevented, if this is passed, from acting on any rules regarding media consolidation. Almost all Members of this body have some degree of concern at least about some aspect of it. I hope all of our colleagues had the opportunity to see the Wall Street Journal article on September 15 entitled: Show of Strength: How Media Giants Are Reassembling The Old Oligopoly; Mix of Broadcast and Cable Proves Lucrative in Making Deals. Viacom and its big media peers have been snapping up cable channels because they are one of the few entertainment outlets generating strong revenue growth these days. More broadly, the media giants have discovered that owning both broadcast and cable outlets provides powerful new leverage over advertisers and cable- and satellite-TV operators. The golaiths are using this advantage to wring better fees out of the operators that carry their channels and are pressuring those operators into carrying new and untried channels. They're also finding ways to coordinate promotions across their different holdings. Entertainment giants such as Viacom, NBC parent General Electric Co. and Walt Disney Co., which owns ABC, now reach more than 50 percent of the prime-time TV audience through their combined broadcast and cable outlets. The total rises to 80 percent if you include the parents of newer networks--such as New Corp.'s Fox and AOL Time Warner Inc.'s WB-- and NBC's pending acquisition of Vivendi Universal SA's cable assets, estimates Tom Wolzein, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. The big media companies are quietly re-creating the ``old programming oligopoly'' of the pre-cable era, notes Mr. Wolzein, a former executive at NBC. Of the top 25 cable channels, 20 are now owned by one of the big five media companies. The idea of owning broadcast networks as well as cable channels is ``comfortable for people like ourselves,'' says Bob Wright, chairman of NBC, which two weeks ago signed a preliminary agreement to acquire Vivendi Universal's USA and Sci-Fi cable channels, along with the Universal film studio, bolstering a stable of cable channels that includes Bravo, MSNBC and CNBC. ``There has been so much consolidation'' among the distributors that ``unless you are equally big . . . you risk a situation where you can be marginalized,'' says Viacom President Karmazin. Viacom president Karmazin is a man, who, by the way, I happen to admire enormously. I am not blaming any of these people, executives or organizations, for seeking to gain as much market share as they can. But the reason I refer to this Wall Street Journal article is this is a complex set of issues. When we are talking about cable consolidation, cable rates, all of the other. Since 1990, almost half of the top 50 cable channels have changed hands. Among the big deals: Disney's $19 billion acquisition of ESPN's parent, Capital Cites/ABC, and Time Warner's $6.7 billion purchase of CNN parent Turner Broadcasting, both negotiated in the summer of 1995. In 2001, Disney bought the Family Channel from News Corp. for $5.2 billion. Last year, NBC bought Bravo for $1.3 billion. CBS, owner of The Nashville Network--now Spike TV--and Country Music Television, itself was gobbled up in 2000 by MTV's longtime parent, Viacom. Viacom has since added channels such as BET and Comedy Central. Mr. Karmazin recently boasted to investors that the company's broadcast and cable outlets reach 26 percent of the Nation's viewers in prime time, a significantly bigger share than any other company. Having such a big market share is ``real important for lots of reasons, in terms of dealing with advertisers and our cable partners,'' he told investors. There is something going on here that deserves investigation, not just a simple CRA vote and then move on. At the hearing before the Commerce Committee, all five FCC Commissioners agreed--all five, for one of the first times I have ever heard the FCC Commissioners agree to anything--the consolidation of radio that occurred in local markets has been excessive. While it received little credit amid the outcry against the regulations, the FCC attempted to address this problem by describing new market definitions designed to tighten the limits on logical radio ownership. The resolution would have the perverse consequences of eliminating these efforts and prohibiting the FCC from adopting similar measures in the future, a move that surely will be applauded in the corporate offices of large radio station groups that hope to perpetuate their ability to benefit from existing loopholes. Likewise, this resolution could have grave unintended consequences for other media ownership rules the Commission decided to leave unchanged. For example, the FCC retained its limit on the number of local radio stations one entity may own and retained its rule prohibiting one entity from owning two of the four largest television networks. The decision to retain these rules will also be rejected if the resolution is enacted. If the FCC were to read this statute, as many have, as limiting its permissible actions in biennial review proceeding to exclusively deregulatory changes to its rules, the FCC may have no choice but to raise the number of stations that one entity is permitted to own in a local market or eliminate the dual rhetoric network rule. This cannot be the outcome intended by the sponsors of this resolution, though it is one that could conceivably result. Finally, the use of the CRA in the present case will create a regulatory void likely to be filled only by uncertainty about the status of the FCC's media ownership rules. As a result, all of the rules, even those that the proponents of the resolution favor, may be vulnerable to court action. The absence of an affirmative congressional directive will cast considerable doubt on the FCC's ability to enforce its previous rules given that one of the FCC's previous attempts to retain the rules was found by the DC Circuit to be arbitrary and capricious. Another was found not to have justified that the rules are necessary in the public interest. In both cases, the DC Circuit remanded the rules to the FCC and directed the agency to either articulate a justification for retaining the rules or modify them. The lack of an enforceable FCC order will leave these court orders unanswered, risking additional court action that relaxes the rules even further or even invalidates them entirely. My point is that we have a very complex set of issues to address. I believe there is reason for concern about media consolidation, as the Senator from North Dakota has fairly overused the comment that there are many voices and one ventriloquist. At the same time this action would invalidate both good and bad, this action would make many believe that we have resolved the issue and moved on. On the calendar is S. 1046, a bill that was properly considered and reported out by the Commerce Committee. That is the way we should be addressing this issue so that this issue can be fully ventilated and fully understood. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I control the time.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, is the Senator from North Dakota granting himself time?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will take 1 more minute.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota for, as always, informing, and sometimes with very startling information. I still find it very difficult to understand the situation that happened in his State. When there was a toxic spill, and the radio stations were attempted to be contacted to alert the population, the citizenry, there was not a single soul in any of the six radio stations. All the broadcasting was done from somewhere else. That, obviously, was not the intent of the law, the intent of Congress, nor, indeed, the intent of the Federal Communications Commission. But these examples happen today. I rise to speak in opposition to S.J. Res. 17, which has already been described by my colleague from North Dakota. As a result, pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, these rules would have no force or effect, and the FCC would not be able to adopt any similar regulations until Congress authorized the Commission to do so. I share many of the concerns expressed by my friends from North Dakota and Mississippi. I oppose the resolution because I believe that rejecting the rules without providing further guidance is not an appropriate congressional response. In addition, the nullification of all of the FCC's new media ownership regulations is, in my opinion, too sweeping. Whether we agree with them or not, the FCC's actions are a direct result of the direction given to it by Congress in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which should have been called ``Leave No Lobbyist Behind Act of 1996.'' And might I add, as we are all responsible for our votes, my colleague from North Dakota voted for that bill, as did my colleague from Mississippi. I voted against it. I voted against it because I thought it was an outrageous exercise of lobbying power and special interest power and would have enormous unintended as well as intended consequences; and the unintended consequences we are dealing with today. So let's be clear, all of my colleagues, what is the genesis of this problem. That is the 1996 Telecommunications Act. I say so because the DC Court of Appeals vacated the 35-percent cap and remanded it back to the FCC. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals found that: Congress set in motion a process to deregulate the structure of the broadcast and cable television industries [in the act]. In fact, the court--I think very appropriately--characterized the 1996 act's deregulatory tone as not subtle but quite explicit, likening it to ``Farragut's order at the battle of Mobile Bay--`Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead.' '' That is how the court described the 1996 deregulatory act that my colleagues are on the floor now examining and wanting to reverse. Let's at least take responsibility for our action that set this train in motion. I agree with my colleagues, particularly on the issue of radio. When there is an example such as what happened in Minot, ND, and testimony before our committee that there is an organization, Clear Channel--let's say who they are--that owns, as the Senator from North Dakota mentioned, 1,300 radio stations, the ticket sales, the promotions, and the concerts--artists have come to us and stated unequivocally that they have been basically blackmailed and told to do concerts at a certain place or their works would not be played on the radio stations. Now, I can't prove that. I am only telling you what information was given us. So we have a tough situation. The resolution offers neither congressional direction for the FCC's next review of these rules nor a remedy for the infirmities of the existing statute that pushed the FCC to its recent decision. Moreover, the resolution would throw out the entirety of the FCC's action, including some rules that would actually tighten radio ownership limitations. Finally, the resolution could result in significant uncertainty about the status of the FCC's media ownership rules. Let me mention one other thing before I go into a little bit more about this process. As usual, unfortunately, tragically, the Appropriations Committee has now gotten into the act. The Appropriations Committee, I understand, on the Commerce, State, and Justice appropriations bill is now going to remove the provision of 35 to 45 percent media ownership, but they are not--they are not--going to touch the cross-ownership aspect of the rules that the FCC issued. Why? Why would that be? Well, my dear friends and colleagues, I only know one reason: The National Association of Broadcasters supports the 35 to 45 percent and opposes the cross ownership. Which is worse, that a conglomerate owns now 45 percent of the television stations in a market, or a conglomerate owns three televisions stations, the newspaper--the Los Angeles Times--the Internet, the cable company, and 8 radio stations? That is okay according to the Appropriations Committee. But they are going to take care of the 35 to 45 percent aspect of it and jam it into an appropriations bill, by the way, without a hearing before the Appropriations Committee, as usual. The Commerce Committee acted with a piece of legislation that is on the calendar. S. 1046, which passed through the committee, addresses the entire issue. Do you think we will get S. 1046 before this body before this year ends, my friends? No. But we will have to fight like blazes a one single shot provision that has been placed in an appropriations bill, in clearly a gross excess of their responsibilities, which are to fund authorized programs. So I guess if there is any lack of cynicism amongst my colleagues about this whole process we are undergoing right now, any lack of cynicism should be dispelled by the actions of the Appropriations Committee. Whether we agree with them or not, as I mentioned, those actions are a direct result of the 1996 act. In short, if the Congress is unsatisfied with the result of the FCC review, it should step in to provide new direction. Simply saying, ``You got it wrong, try again,'' in my view, is not an appropriate response. Although they are not provided in the resolution before us, new directions to the FCC have been provided and reported out of the Commerce Committee. The bill is on the Senate calendar awaiting action. The bill would establish explicit, sustainable media ownership limits while preserving new radio ownership rules tightened by the FCC in its June 2 order. While I don't support the resolution, I do support S. 1046. I have not always supported retaining strict limits on media consolidation, and in the past I have spoken frequently about the merits of deregulation of media markets. Over the years, I have written letters to the FCC insisting that they deregulate in this area of media markets. Moreover, even a few years ago, I offered legislation to raise the national television station ownership cap to 50 percent and to eliminate limits on newspaper and broadcast cross-ownership. I continue to believe in the principle of allowing markets, and not government, to regulate the way businesses operate. After chairing seven hearings on media ownership and observing unprecedented public outcry, it is apparent to me that the business of media ownership, which can so affect the nature and quality of our democracy, is too important to be dealt with so categorically. As a result, I have come to believe that stringent, but reasonable, limits on media ownership may very well be appropriate. It is a testament to the vitality and health of our democracy that the public mobilized to defend what they perceived as a challenge to this democracy. If Congress is displeased with the Commission's new rules, however, we must accept some responsibility for them. Congress and the courts gave the Commission little choice but to deregulate the media industry. When the D.C. circuit court of Appeals vacated the 35 percent cap and remanded it back to the FCC for further consideration, it found that ``Congress set in motion a process to deregulate the structure of the broadcast and cable television industries'' in the Act. In fact, the court characterized the 1996 Act's deregulatory tone as not subtle, but quite explicit, likening it to ``Farragut's order at the battle of Mobile Bay--`Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead.''' Led by the able chairman, Michael Powell, the Commission followed the direction of Congress and the courts. The commission incrementally increased the network ownership cap to 4.5 percent finding that a ``modest relaxation of the cap will help networks compete more effectively with cable and DBS operators and will promote free, over-the-air television by deterring migration of expensive programming to cable networks.'' I ask unanimous consent that an article by Michael K. Powell that appeared in the Wall Street Journal this morning be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, two networks, Viacom/CBS and News Corp. have been operating at almost 40 percent for almost 2 years now due to stay from courts and waivers from the FCC. The Commission also relaxed its cross-ownership rules by permitting combinations of multiple television, radio, and newspaper outlets in more American media markets. The Commission had limited discretion in its decision-making process. We, however, do not. If Congress is displeased with the results of the Commission's review, it should legislate a solution, not just disapprove of the Commission's actions. Unlike the Commission, Congress consists of elected officials who must consider the views of the American public, not court mandates and statutory directives, when tackling difficult questions like the ones posed here. The public has strongly voiced its dissatisfaction with the new rules. The Commission received more public comments about its media ownership proceeding than any other proceeding. My office continues to receive numerous letters, phone calls, and e-mails from the public addressing the new rules. As representatives of the public, Congress should take a lead role in examining these rules, and if necessary, crafting new limits. As William Safire wrote recently in an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times, itself a large owner of several media outlets: ``The effect of the media's march to amalgamation on Americans' freedom of voice is too worrisome to be left to three unelected commissioners. This far- reaching political decision should be made by Congress and the White House, after extensive hearings and fair coverage by too-shy broadcasters, no-local-news cable networks and conflicted newspapers.'' In discussing this resolution, we must also be mindful that its passage would roll back all of the FCC's rules, even those that tightened radio ownership limits. The Telecommunications Act eliminated the national radio ownership cap thereby allowing one company to grow at an unprecedented pace from 40 to more than 1,200 radio stations, including ownership of 6 of the 7 commercial radio stations in Minot, ND. At a hearing before the Commerce Committee, all five FCC Commissioners agreed that the consolidation of radio that has occurred in local markets has been excessive. This brings me to the issue we must continue to discuss and to which I don't know the answer: How much is too much? In my home State of Arizona, Gannett owns a newspaper and a television station. Is that bad? I have seen no ill effects of it. I have seen no consolidation problems, no collusion between the two, no problem with the citizens of my State receiving correct and accurate and unbiased information. What if Gannett owned two television stations, or three stations or four stations? What is the point, I ask my colleagues--and that requires an incredible amount of knowledge, which I admit I don't possess, as to what the proper degree of media concentration is allowable. Then you have a difference in markets. Minot, ND--with all due respect to the large population of North Dakota--I think has 27,000 or 37,000 people--higher than that. The valley which I was just describing has over 3 million people. So it is not only a problem of the criterion itself for ownership, it also has a lot to do with large or small populations. I don't think a small town is going to have five television stations or eight television stations. So should the owner of the television station in Greenwood, MS, be allowed to own the newspaper? Is that control there? That may be excessive. But in Phoenix, AZ, ownership of one television station and a newspaper clearly is not of significant impact. So this is why it is important that we continue to examine these issues carefully and try to get the best knowledge and information we have. But I think there is one area of agreement, whether we succeed or whether the proponents of the CRA succeed: There is too much concentration in radio. I know of no credible person who disagrees with that. While it received little credit amid the outcry against the regulations, the FCC attempted to address this problem by prescribing new market definitions designed to tighten the limits on local radio ownership. This resolution would therefore have the perverse consequence of eliminating efforts taken by the Commission to strengthen its radio ownership rules--a move that surely would be applauded in the corporate offices of large radio station groups that hope to perpetuate their ability to benefit from existing loopholes. Moreover, the resolution would limit the FCC's ability to reinstate its more stringent radio market definition, because the CRA precludes the FCC from adopting rules ``in substantially the same form'' as those that have been disapproved without further direction from Congress. Finally, the use of the CRA in the present case will create a regulatory void likely to be filled only by uncertainty about the status of the FCC's media ownership rules. The absence of an affirmative Congressional directive will cast considerable doubt on the enforceability of the FCC's previous rules, given that one of the FCC's previous attempts to retain the rules was found by the D.C. Circuit to be arbitrary and capricious, and another was found not to have justified that the rules are ``necessary in the public interest.'' In both cases, the D.C. circuit remanded the rules to the FCC and directed the agency to either articulate a justification for retaining the rules or modify them. The lack of an enforceable FCC order will leave these court orders unanswered, risking additional court action that relaxes the rules even further, or even invalidates them entirely. Moreover, passage of this resolution would appear to set up the FCC for failure when conducting its next biennial review in 2004. In that proceeding, the FCC will likely have to justify its new rules before a court that has stated that the Telecommunications Act sets in motion a process of deregulation, while remaining mindful of Congress' disapproval of its 2002 Biennial Review. Chairman Powell has stated that the courts placed ``a high hurdle before the Commission for maintaining a given regulation, and made clear that failure to surmount that hurdle, based on a thorough record, must result in the rule's modification or elimination.'' Moreover, the Commission will also be forced to explain how it reached a different conclusion after previously having made extensive findings that undercut the network ownership cap and cross-ownership limits. Whatever action the Commission takes will be ripe for challenge by an unsatisfied party. These rules have been mired in litigation for too long. If Congress believes that it is appropriate to retain certain ownership restrictions under today's market conditions, then it should pass legislation explicitly stating so. Again, S. 1046 is the appropriate legislative vehicle to achieve this goal. The Commission did its job by promulgating new rules after completing an intense twenty-month review. During that time the Commission reviewed twelve studies it commissioned to gather empirical evidence on the media industry, and studied over 500,000 public comments to better understand the media marketplace. As Mr. Safire suggested, it is now time for Congress to do its job. Congress has spent the past few months studying the previous rules, digesting the new rules, and holding multiple hearings on this issue. I have come to appreciate the importance of appropriate limits on media ownership. The media has a tremendous impact on the everyday lives of all Americans. By selecting and framing issues and ideas and promoting public discourse, the media facilitate a critical function in our democracy. It is now time for Congress to offer guidance, not simply reject the FCC's rules. My decision to oppose this resolution has been a difficult one for me, in large part, because I hold the senior senator from North Dakota in such high regard. I commend Senator Dorgan for his leadership in bringing the issue of media ownership to the attention of his colleagues. Earlier this year, he raised the now-famous issue of radio ownership in Minot, ND, in the Senate Commerce Committee. That issue was the catalyst for the Committee's subsequent review of media ownership, which included seven hearings this year. Few, if any, members of the Commerce Committee or the Senate understands the intricacies of this issue better than Senator Dorgan. Finally, I thank colleagues for their interest and involvement in this issue--especially three colleagues on the Commerce Committee: Senators Wyden, Lott, and Dorgan. They have been incredibly involved in these issues. We have had some of the best hearings I have ever participated in on these issues. I think we have contributed not only to the knowledge of our colleagues but to that of the American people. I want to commit, no matter how it comes out today, that we will continue to bring the Commissioners before the committee, bring the smartest people we can find before the committee, and move forward in an orderly legislative process. I hope one of the things we can do as early as possible is get consideration of the legislation that we passed through the committee, after careful deliberation and discussion and a very spirited markup. So I thank my colleagues. I think this is an important part of the debate and, for sure, we will be discussing this issue for a long time. I ask Members to vote against S.J. Res. 17 but support passage of S. 1046. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to thank both Senator Specter and Senator Harkin for their hard work on this important legislation which provides Federal Funding for the Departments of Labor, DOL, Health and Human Services, HHS, and Education, and related agencies. It funds programs that are among the most critical to the health and well-being of our Nation. With our military forces deployed abroad and a struggling domestic economy here at home, providing for and protecting our Nation has never been more challenging or more important. The funding provided by this bill for domestic health programs is critical for our country, States and local governments. Given the poor state of our national economy and the rising number of unemployed and uninsured Americans, as well as the budget crises facing most State governments, resources provided by this legislation will help meet the substantial health care needs of our Nation's vulnerable populations. I am pleased that this legislation provides increased funding for a number of programs that are particularly important in light of the many threats facing our Nation today. This bill increases funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, which plays a vital role in protecting our nation from bioterror attacks and ensuring adequate preparedness for health emergencies. With the recent threat of foreign born illnesses such as SARS and Monkey Pox, increased funding for the Infectious Disease Initiative is especially important and will ensure quick response to public health threats. Additionally, this bill increases funding for National Institutes of Health, NIH, by $1 billion over the last fiscal year. That increase will enable the continuation and expansion of research into treatments and cures for chronic diseases such as cancer and diabetes, new infectious diseases that threaten our Nation's safety, and diseases that disproportionally affect older Americans, such as Alzheimer's. I have strongly supported doubling the amount of the NIH budget, and I am pleased that its funding continues to increase. In addition to funding key public health programs, this bill provides funding to help States and local communities educate our children. I applaud the fact that funding for education for individuals with disabilities and programs to improve educational opportunities for economically disadvantaged students have been increased in this bill. I also am pleased that this legislation increases funding for Head Start to ensure that low-income children are physically and mentally prepared to begin school. These and the many other important programs funded throughout this legislation will help many Americans. However, I am disappointed to find that the report accompanying this bill is laden with directives and suggestive language that predetermines which programs may receive funding. This language eliminates the ability of the agencies funded by this bill to determine, by a fair and competitive process, which programs to fund. This is yet another example of the micro-management of federal agencies at the hands of the appropriators. I would like to note that both the bill and the report contain only a handful of earmarks, and I commend the Appropriations Committee for its restraint. I encourage the members of the Committee to resist the temptation to weigh down this important bill with locally specific parochial projects when the bill is negotiated with the House of Representatives during conference. Unfortunately, however, the list of directive and suggestive language included in the actual bill language and the accompanying report are extensive, and I will not burden the chamber by listing each one individually. Instead, I highlight a few examples: In the report language, for the Department of Labor, the Committee ``recommends'' $7 million for the Denali Commission for job training in rural Alaska. The funding is intended to train rural Alaskans for high- paying jobs in their villages. Any doubt as to whether the appropriators wanted this funding to occur is dispelled by the fact that the bill language authorizes ``such sums as may be necessary'' to the Denali Commission to conduct this Alaskan job training. Although this specific authority and funding was unrequested by the Administration, the appropriators apparently think they know better. They not only provide the appropriation, but they also want to do the work of the authorizing committee as well. How fortunate it is that this activity in the State of Alaska has such ardent supporters in the members of the Appropriations Committee and has received special treatment at the expense of other states. Furthermore, the report language expresses the Committee's concern about the Department of Labor's reorganization proposal, which would close the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, offices in Bangor and Portland, Maine, and would consolidate the activities of those offices in Augusta, Maine. Instead of allowing DOL to do their job and streamline the operations of OSHA, the Committee in its report, ``expects'' the Department of Labor to maintain the existing organizational structure with offices in Bangor and in Portland, including providing adequate office space for the current Bangor OSHA staff. Again, the appropriators are catering to a locality-specific interest in Maine at the expense of the national interest in having a more efficient government agency. Furthermore, this legislation includes legislative and report language that creates a new National Cord Blood Stem Cell Bank Program, through the Health Resources and Services Administration, and appropriates $10 million for the new program. This program may further important life-saving research; however, this is a new legislative initiative, not authorized by the committee of jurisdiction, and not requested by the Administration, but created and funded entirely by the appropriators. Similarly, the report language accompanying the bill includes directive and suggestive language for the Department of Health and Human Services to initiate a number of new programs, all of which may be worthy of consideration; however, none have been requested or authorized. These programs range from the creation of a Diamond Blackfan Anemia Clinical Care Center to $500,000 allocated for the CDC to create a registry and database of children nationwide with craniofacial malformation. Although these new programs will undoubtedly benefit many children and individuals, they are further examples of new programs created the appropriators, by circumventing the authorizing committee of jurisdiction. Also included in the report is language directing HHS and the Department of Education to complete over 20 reports, all at the specific request of the Appropriations Committee. These reports concern important programs within the Departments, but producing them will require substantial manpower and time, diverting scarce and valuable resources to projects dictated by the Appropriations Committee. With this sluggish economy expected to push this year's budget deficit past a whopping $450 billion and numerous threats facing our nation, funds must be expended on programs that will provide the maximum benefit for all Americans. It cannot be spent on unauthorized and unrequested projects and reports demanded by members of the Appropriations Committee. This is simply wrong and does a disservice to all Americans.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I object.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Is the amendment debateable?

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend from Indiana to offer an amendment to the fiscal year 2004 Labor-HHS Appropriations Act. I would like to thank Senator Specter and Senator Harkin for their support for this amendment. I usually come down to the Senate floor to criticize the amount of unrequested spending in appropriations bills. Not often do I propose an increase in spending for a specific program. However, today, I feel obligated to offer an amendment to increase the level of funding for the Special Volunteers for Homeland Security program with the Corporation for National and Community Service. I am requesting that we raise our level of funding by $5 million, to bring the total level of funding to $10 million, which is what the program was funded at last year. The administration requested a total of $15 million for this program this year. We are simply proposing to restore one half of the additional money the President requested. This issue is of enough importance to the administration as it was included in their Statement of Administrative Policy. The amendment Senator Bayh and I propose restores important money to the Special Volunteers for Homeland Security program, a critical component on national service. This amendment increases the funding for this program by $5 million to be more in line with the amount requested in the President's 2004 Budget. We live in a time of heightened security where terror alerts have become an unfortunate reality. It is sobering to realize that the chances are strong that we will face another terrorist attack in the future. In addition to devoting considerable resources to fighting terror at home and abroad, we need to devote significant resources to preparing our domestic response to any future attack. We would be failing in our responsibilities if we do not adequately prepare for the next attack. The realities of the world in which we live today, require us to educate and prepare the public about terrorism and disasters. These volunteers are an extremely effective way to achieve our mission. We need to be fully funding these programs. For a number of years, Senator Bayh and I have been working together to increase opportunities for service in the United States. We have introduced legislation, the Call to Service Act, in the last two Congresses that would increase volunteer opportunities with AmeriCorps. We have also worked together successfully to create a short-term enlistment program for our military. One of the fundamental aspects to any expansion of service opportunities must be to increase the number of volunteers in homeland security projects. Our legislation specifically calls for more volunteers to perform homeland security function. Service programs such as the one in this amendment provide an important resources in preparing our Nation to respond to a range of emergencies by providing people who can serve in important capacities such as fighting forest fires, disaster relief, and working in hospital emergency rooms. I would like to share some examples of the works these volunteers do in the various states and country. Currently, there are 17 programs that received money during the second year of this program. The grantees are a diverse group and are spread across the country from Alaska to Florida. Important groups such as Volunteer Florida, the American Red Cross of Greater New York and the Housing Authority of the City of Milwaukee are all grantees under this program. In the first year of the program, 350 volunteers with the Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska were able to deliver training to help homebound seniors and help 4,500 disabled residents of Anchorage prepare to respond to a disaster. In Oklahoma, volunteers with the city of Tulsa developed a citywide volunteer disaster mobilization plan. Volunteers helped to educate the general public by distributing a family preparedness guide provided with information how to prepare for disasters. The volunteers convened meetings that included information on bioterrorism response by local health departments and established safe and secure teams throughout the community to serve as trained resources. I could go on at length about the good things these programs accomplish. Increasing the Special Volunteers for Homeland Security program is consistent with our overall need to increase opportunities for Americans to serve their country. We need to increase spending for funding for all volunteer programs. Internationally, increasing programs such as the Peace Corps are important in spreading American ideals and values. Domestically, programs such as AmeriCorps need to be expanded to provide services and assistance to those in need. Any expansion of AmeriCorps and domestic volunteer opportunities would be an excellent opportunity to increase volunteer positions in the area of homeland security. Once again, I thank my colleagues from Pennsylvania and Iowa for their work on this important piece of legislation. I look forward to continuing my work with Senator Bayh and the rest of my colleagues in the Senate to increase national service opportunities. amendment No. 1644

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Kyl in introducing legislation that would rename the Veterans Administration medical center in Prescott, AZ after Bob Stump. In June of this year, Arizonans suffered a major loss with the passing of Bob Stump, a native son who made his mark for our State and our Nation. Congressman Stump had a patriot's devotion to those who served our country in uniform. He will be deeply missed by his friends, family and a grateful Nation. Congressman Stump served his country and the residents of Arizona admirably in the United States Navy, during World War II; in the Arizona State legislature; and in the United States Congress. Congressman Stump's service in the House of Representatives was marked by this dedication to his constituents in Arizona. Never one for the trappings of a political office, Bob read and responded to all of his mail, he never had Press Secretary and often answered the office phone personally. One could not overlook his leadership in Defense and Veterans issues. Serving as Chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee, his work has so beneficial to America's veterans that a street in Arlington National Cemetery was named after him. Everywhere I travel, veterans remark to me that Bob Stump put Veterans needs first. Bob's strong leadership of the House Armed Services Committee helped usher in many of the technological advances that characterize our modern military. This legislation serves as a memorial to a member of Congress who left an indelible legacy.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to reintroduce legislation to authorize a three-year nationwide school choice demonstration program targeted at children from economically disadvantaged families. The Excellence Through Choice to Elevate Learning Act, or the EXCEL Act, will expand educational opportunities for low-income children by providing parents and students the freedom to choose the best school for their unique academic needs while encouraging schools to be creative and responsive to the needs of all students. This bill authorizes $1.8 billion annually for fiscal years 2004 through 2007 to be used to provide school choice vouchers to economically disadvantaged children throughout the nation. The funds allocated by the bill will be divided among states based upon the number of children they have enrolled in public schools. States will then conduct a lottery among low-income children who attend the public schools with the lowest academic performance in their State. Each child selected in the lottery would receive $2,000 per year for three years to be used to pay tuition at any school of their choice in the State, including private or religious schools. The money could also be used to pay for transportation to the school or supplementary educational services to meet the unique needs of the individual student. In total, this bill authorizes $5.4 billion for the three-year school choice demonstration program, as well as an evaluation of the program by the General Accounting Office. The cost of this important test of school vouchers is fully offset by eliminating more than $5.4 billion in unnecessary pork and inequitable corporate tax loopholes. We all know that one of the most important issues facing our nation is the education of our children. We must strive to develop and implement initiatives which strengthen and improve our education system thereby ensuring that our children are provided with the essential academic tools for succeeding professionally, economically and personally. I am sure we all agree that increasing the academic performance and skills of all our nation's students must be the paramount goal of any education reform we implement. School vouchers are a viable method of allowing all American children access to high quality schools, including private and religious schools. Every parent, not just the wealthy, should be able to obtain the highest quality education for their children. Tuition vouchers would provide low-income children trapped in poor or mediocre schools the same educational choices as children of economic privilege. Some of my colleagues may argue that vouchers would divert money away from our Nation's public schools. They will claim it is better to pour more and more money into poor performing public schools, rather than promote competition in our school systems. I respectfully disagree. While I support strengthening financial support for education in our nation, the solution to what ails our system is not money alone. Currently our nation spends significantly more money on education than most countries and yet our students consistently score lower than their peers. Students in countries which are struggling economically, socially and politically, such as Russia, outscore U.S. children in critical subjects such as math and physics. Clearly, we must make significant change beyond blindly throwing money into the current structure in order to improve our children's academic performance in order to maintain a viable force in the world economy. It is shameful that we are failing to provide many of our children with adequate training and quality academic preparation for the real world. The number of college freshmen who require remedial courses in reading, writing and mathematics when they begin their higher education is unacceptably high. It does not bode well for our future economy if the majority of workers are not prepared with the basic skills to engage in a competitive global marketplace. I concede that school vouchers are not the magic bullet for eradicating all that is wrong with our current educational system, but they are an important opportunity for providing improved academic opportunities for all children, not just the wealthy. Examination of the limited voucher programs scattered around our country reveal high levels of parent and student satisfaction, an increase in parental involvement, and a definite improvement in attendance and discipline at the participating schools. Vouchers encourage public schools, communities and parents to work together to raise the level of education for all students. Through this bill, we have the opportunity to replicate these important benefits throughout all our nation's communities. Thomas Jefferson said, ``The purpose of education is to create young citizens with knowing heads and loving hearts.'' If we fail to give our children the education they need to nurture their heads and hearts, then we threaten their futures and the future of our nation. Each of us is responsible for ensuring that our children have both the love in their hearts and the knowledge in their heads to not only dream, but to make their dreams a reality. The time has come for us to finally conduct a national demonstration of school choice to determine the benefits or perhaps disadvantages of providing educational choices to all students, not just those who are fortunate enough to be born into a wealthy family. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and put the needs of America's school children ahead of pork barrel projects and tax loopholes benefitting only special interests and big business. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to reintroduce legislation to authorize a three-year nationwide school choice demonstration program targeted at children from economically disadvantaged families. The Excellence Through Choice to Elevate Learning Act, or the EXCEL Act, will expand educational opportunities for low-income children by providing parents and students the freedom to choose the best school for their unique academic needs while encouraging schools to be creative and responsive to the needs of all students. This bill authorizes $1.8 billion annually for fiscal years 2004 through 2007 to be used to provide school choice vouchers to economically disadvantaged children throughout the nation. The funds allocated by the bill will be divided among states based upon the number of children they have enrolled in public schools. States will then conduct a lottery among low-income children who attend the public schools with the lowest academic performance in their State. Each child selected in the lottery would receive $2,000 per year for three years to be used to pay tuition at any school of their choice in the State, including private or religious schools. The money could also be used to pay for transportation to the school or supplementary educational services to meet the unique needs of the individual student. In total, this bill authorizes $5.4 billion for the three-year school choice demonstration program, as well as an evaluation of the program by the General Accounting Office. The cost of this important test of school vouchers is fully offset by eliminating more than $5.4 billion in unnecessary pork and inequitable corporate tax loopholes. We all know that one of the most important issues facing our nation is the education of our children. We must strive to develop and implement initiatives which strengthen and improve our education system thereby ensuring that our children are provided with the essential academic tools for succeeding professionally, economically and personally. I am sure we all agree that increasing the academic performance and skills of all our nation's students must be the paramount goal of any education reform we implement. School vouchers are a viable method of allowing all American children access to high quality schools, including private and religious schools. Every parent, not just the wealthy, should be able to obtain the highest quality education for their children. Tuition vouchers would provide low-income children trapped in poor or mediocre schools the same educational choices as children of economic privilege. Some of my colleagues may argue that vouchers would divert money away from our Nation's public schools. They will claim it is better to pour more and more money into poor performing public schools, rather than promote competition in our school systems. I respectfully disagree. While I support strengthening financial support for education in our nation, the solution to what ails our system is not money alone. Currently our nation spends significantly more money on education than most countries and yet our students consistently score lower than their peers. Students in countries which are struggling economically, socially and politically, such as Russia, outscore U.S. children in critical subjects such as math and physics. Clearly, we must make significant change beyond blindly throwing money into the current structure in order to improve our children's academic performance in order to maintain a viable force in the world economy. It is shameful that we are failing to provide many of our children with adequate training and quality academic preparation for the real world. The number of college freshmen who require remedial courses in reading, writing and mathematics when they begin their higher education is unacceptably high. It does not bode well for our future economy if the majority of workers are not prepared with the basic skills to engage in a competitive global marketplace. I concede that school vouchers are not the magic bullet for eradicating all that is wrong with our current educational system, but they are an important opportunity for providing improved academic opportunities for all children, not just the wealthy. Examination of the limited voucher programs scattered around our country reveal high levels of parent and student satisfaction, an increase in parental involvement, and a definite improvement in attendance and discipline at the participating schools. Vouchers encourage public schools, communities and parents to work together to raise the level of education for all students. Through this bill, we have the opportunity to replicate these important benefits throughout all our nation's communities. Thomas Jefferson said, ``The purpose of education is to create young citizens with knowing heads and loving hearts.'' If we fail to give our children the education they need to nurture their heads and hearts, then we threaten their futures and the future of our nation. Each of us is responsible for ensuring that our children have both the love in their hearts and the knowledge in their heads to not only dream, but to make their dreams a reality. The time has come for us to finally conduct a national demonstration of school choice to determine the benefits or perhaps disadvantages of providing educational choices to all students, not just those who are fortunate enough to be born into a wealthy family. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and put the needs of America's school children ahead of pork barrel projects and tax loopholes benefitting only special interests and big business. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Kyl in introducing legislation that would rename the Veterans Administration medical center in Prescott, AZ after Bob Stump. In June of this year, Arizonans suffered a major loss with the passing of Bob Stump, a native son who made his mark for our State and our Nation. Congressman Stump had a patriot's devotion to those who served our country in uniform. He will be deeply missed by his friends, family and a grateful Nation. Congressman Stump served his country and the residents of Arizona admirably in the United States Navy, during World War II; in the Arizona State legislature; and in the United States Congress. Congressman Stump's service in the House of Representatives was marked by this dedication to his constituents in Arizona. Never one for the trappings of a political office, Bob read and responded to all of his mail, he never had Press Secretary and often answered the office phone personally. One could not overlook his leadership in Defense and Veterans issues. Serving as Chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee, his work has so beneficial to America's veterans that a street in Arlington National Cemetery was named after him. Everywhere I travel, veterans remark to me that Bob Stump put Veterans needs first. Bob's strong leadership of the House Armed Services Committee helped usher in many of the technological advances that characterize our modern military. This legislation serves as a memorial to a member of Congress who left an indelible legacy.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I support swift passage of the U.S.-Chile and U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Acts, S. 1416 and S. 1417, respectively. These are the first in what I hope will be a long list of trade agreement implementation bills necessary to enact trade deals negotiated and signed by the President under the authority granted him by Congress last year. Stemming from the Trade Act of 2002, which included Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), agreements such as the two before us are helping to reestablish U.S. credibility in the area of trade. The President and his administration are now able to more freely negotiate, encouraging countries once reluctant to begin trade negotiations with the U.S. to come to the table. The U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement and the U.S.- Singapore Free Trade Agreement are prime examples of the United States' commitment to free and open trade. I hope they provide a launching pad for new trade agreements with key partners in every region of the world. Our staunchest allies and most important trading partners have had reason to doubt our dedication to the free trade principles we have long advocated as a driving force of prosperity and stability. A series of short-sighted, protectionist actions in recent years has jeopardized our relationships with our most important trading partners. That makes enactment of these bilateral free trade agreements even more important. These agreements may not have a dramatic economic impact in the United States, but they are sure to yield benefits to American consumers and businesses. Enactment of agreements such as those before us help us regain our credibility and leadership in championing free- trade principles around the world. I hope they set a precedent for more aggressive liberalization of our trade with other nations in Asia, Latin America, Africa, Europe, and the Middle East. I commend Ambassador Zoellick for his efforts to bring these free trade agreements to fruition, as well as for his commitment to exhaustive consultations with Congress. Our agreement with Chile is one more step towards our goal of a Free Trade Area of the Americas, on which we all hope to see greater progress. Our agreement with Singapore, a key ally in the war on terror, will hopefully help propel future trade liberalization in Southeast Asia, one of the world's most dynamic regions. As it stands now, Singapore is our 12th largest trading partner, and our largest trading partner in the strategic region of Southeast Asia. This agreement would eliminate many barriers to trade and investment, and improve market access and opportunities for U.S. goods and services. In addition, this agreement would provide regulatory reforms and transparency, two key components in establishing the strong ties and trust necessary for trade. Implementation of the negotiated agreement with Chile would place us on an equal footing with the European Union and Canada, which already enjoy their own FTAs with Chile. Despite having to play market access catch-up, our farmers and ranchers will enjoy duty-free access to Chile's markets within 12 years; and computer and other information technology products, medical equipment, and other goods will gain immediate duty-free access. Throughout the negotiating process, environmental and labor matters received considerable scrutiny. The FTAs address these concerns through provisions laid out in both agreements that call for Singapore and Chile to provide a high level of environmental protection, and require each nation to endeavor to improve upon their laws where necessary. Each nation is to reaffirm its obligations as part of the International Labor Organization and strive to make sure its laws reflect the labor principles therein. These negotiations and the agreements they have produced are a good start towards accomplishing Congress' purpose for passing the Trade Act last year: an aggressive agenda to liberalize trade with key partners, producing comprehensive agreements which reduce barriers to trade, providing tangible benefits to American consumers and businesses, and reestablishing our credibility and leadership in championing free trade principles around the world. I am, however, concerned that immigration provisions contained in these trade bills set a bad precedent. Although I support the spirit of these provisions, I strongly believe that changes to U.S. immigration policy should be thoroughly debated in Congress and such modifications do not belong in trade agreements negotiated between our government and other nations. I discourage their inclusion in future trade agreements. Overall, these are fine examples of what Congress intended when we passed TPA. I hope we will soon see action on free trade agreements that are currently being negotiated with Australia, Central America, Morocco, Southern Africa, and others in the not too distant future. I also would like to see the Administration take concrete steps to liberalize trade in the greater Middle East, in effect operationalizing the President's call for a free trade area there within a decade. Finally, I hope that the administration, with Congress's support, can make significant progress in the next round of global trade talks this fall. Global trade liberalization through the World Trade Organization is the most effective and efficient way to bring down barriers to trade, the best way to open the markets of key trading partners in Europe and Asia, and to enforce free trade principles. The conclusion of economically meaningful bilateral trade agreements, coupled with an aggressive campaign for global trade liberalization, will reestablish our credibility and leadership on free trade and energize the American and global economies. America and the world will be better off as a result.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Our Democracy, Our Airwaves Act.'' This legislation is designed to increase the flow of political information in broadcast media and to reduce the cost to candidates of educating the electorate on their candidacy. Consistent with broadcasters' obligations to serve the public interest in exchange for being licensed to use the public airwaves, the bill would require broadcast licensees to air a minimum of two hours per week of candidate-centered or issue-centered programming before a primary or general Federal election. This legislation also would establish a program to provide candidates and national committees of political parties vouchers that they may use for political advertisements on radio and television broadcast stations. An annual spectrum use fee paid by broadcasters would fund the voucher system. Finally, the bill would require broadcast television and radio stations to provide candidates and parties with non-preemptible advertising time at the lowest rate provided to any other advertiser. At a recent Committee hearing I chaired on the public interest obligations of broadcasters, it became apparent that local broadcasters are not adequately covering political campaigns as part of their local newscasts. The hearing examined the results of a study prepared by the Lear Center Local News Archive, which found that over a seven-week period from September 18, 2002 through November 4, 2002, 56 percent of the top-rated half-hour news broadcasts did not contain a single political campaign story. In the 44 percent of broadcasts that did contain campaign coverage, the average campaign story was 89 seconds long. When campaigned stories did air, only 28 percent contained stories where candidates spoke with the average sound bit being 12 seconds long. This study illustrates the pressures on political candidates to raise money because they are forced to gain the public's attention through the use of costly advertisements. Our democracy is stronger when a candidate's success is achieved by ideas, not by dollars, and when an electorate is informed by facts, not 12-second sound bites. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today, by request, I am introducing the Passenger Rail Investment Reform Act, the Administration's long-awaited legislative proposal for restructuring Amtrak and the intercity passenger rail program. In doing so, I want to express my appreciation to Transportation Secretary Mineta and departing Deputy Secretary Michael Jackson for meeting their commitment to me in April to deliver the Administration's proposal before the August recess. I also want to credit the work of the Amtrak Reform Council, the basis for several elements of the Administration's plan. Amtrak began operation in 1971 as a for-profit corporation and was to be free of all Federal support by 1973. Throughout its history, including between 1997 and 2001, Amtrak led Congress to believe that profitability, or at least operational self-sufficiency was achievable. But 32 years after its establishment, Amtrak is running annual deficits exceeding $1 billion; has run up a debt of nearly $5 billion; continues to operate trains that lose over $400 per passenger; and yet still has less than 1 percent of the intercity travel market. Clearly, reform is needed. I hope the legislation I am introducing today will serve as the basis for developing a consensus about the future of Amtrak and intercity rail passenger service. Even Amtrak supporters should admit that without significant restructuring, the passenger rail program cannot be entrusted with billions of dollars of additional financial support from the taxpayers, as some are proposing, particularly financing outside of the annual appropriations process, which at least gives Congress the ability to adjust Amtrak's funding based on its performance and use of taxpayer dollars. Nor, in my view, should high-speed rail projects go forward until the Amtrak problem is solved. My priority is to establish a network of train service that makes economic sense, minimizes subsidies at all levels of government, and provides fair and open competition for Amtrak. The Administration's proposal is a good start. Federal support for intercity passenger rail service would be modeled after the existing transit program and consist of capital funding matched by the States and managed through a ``full funding grant agreement'' process. States, rather than the Federal Government, would be responsible for funding operating losses after a transition period. Following the recommendation of the Amtrak Reform Council, the legislation would divide Amtrak into an operating company which would operate train services, and an infrastructure company which would maintain the Northeast Corridor (NEC). After a transition period, the services provided by both companies would be subject to competition through competitive bidding. The NEC would be restored to a state of good repair, and leased to and managed by an interstate compact. Amtrak would not be privatized but would have to compete with companies in the private sector, ensuring a lower-cost solution for the taxpayers. I intend to hold a hearing on the Administration's bill and the bill being introduced today by Senator Hutchison, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine. If a consensus can be reached on a responsible proposal to fund and reform Amtrak and provide for an improved rail passenger program, the Committee will mark up legislation in the fall. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Our Democracy, Our Airwaves Act.'' This legislation is designed to increase the flow of political information in broadcast media and to reduce the cost to candidates of educating the electorate on their candidacy. Consistent with broadcasters' obligations to serve the public interest in exchange for being licensed to use the public airwaves, the bill would require broadcast licensees to air a minimum of two hours per week of candidate-centered or issue-centered programming before a primary or general Federal election. This legislation also would establish a program to provide candidates and national committees of political parties vouchers that they may use for political advertisements on radio and television broadcast stations. An annual spectrum use fee paid by broadcasters would fund the voucher system. Finally, the bill would require broadcast television and radio stations to provide candidates and parties with non-preemptible advertising time at the lowest rate provided to any other advertiser. At a recent Committee hearing I chaired on the public interest obligations of broadcasters, it became apparent that local broadcasters are not adequately covering political campaigns as part of their local newscasts. The hearing examined the results of a study prepared by the Lear Center Local News Archive, which found that over a seven-week period from September 18, 2002 through November 4, 2002, 56 percent of the top-rated half-hour news broadcasts did not contain a single political campaign story. In the 44 percent of broadcasts that did contain campaign coverage, the average campaign story was 89 seconds long. When campaigned stories did air, only 28 percent contained stories where candidates spoke with the average sound bit being 12 seconds long. This study illustrates the pressures on political candidates to raise money because they are forced to gain the public's attention through the use of costly advertisements. Our democracy is stronger when a candidate's success is achieved by ideas, not by dollars, and when an electorate is informed by facts, not 12-second sound bites. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today, by request, I am introducing the Passenger Rail Investment Reform Act, the Administration's long-awaited legislative proposal for restructuring Amtrak and the intercity passenger rail program. In doing so, I want to express my appreciation to Transportation Secretary Mineta and departing Deputy Secretary Michael Jackson for meeting their commitment to me in April to deliver the Administration's proposal before the August recess. I also want to credit the work of the Amtrak Reform Council, the basis for several elements of the Administration's plan. Amtrak began operation in 1971 as a for-profit corporation and was to be free of all Federal support by 1973. Throughout its history, including between 1997 and 2001, Amtrak led Congress to believe that profitability, or at least operational self-sufficiency was achievable. But 32 years after its establishment, Amtrak is running annual deficits exceeding $1 billion; has run up a debt of nearly $5 billion; continues to operate trains that lose over $400 per passenger; and yet still has less than 1 percent of the intercity travel market. Clearly, reform is needed. I hope the legislation I am introducing today will serve as the basis for developing a consensus about the future of Amtrak and intercity rail passenger service. Even Amtrak supporters should admit that without significant restructuring, the passenger rail program cannot be entrusted with billions of dollars of additional financial support from the taxpayers, as some are proposing, particularly financing outside of the annual appropriations process, which at least gives Congress the ability to adjust Amtrak's funding based on its performance and use of taxpayer dollars. Nor, in my view, should high-speed rail projects go forward until the Amtrak problem is solved. My priority is to establish a network of train service that makes economic sense, minimizes subsidies at all levels of government, and provides fair and open competition for Amtrak. The Administration's proposal is a good start. Federal support for intercity passenger rail service would be modeled after the existing transit program and consist of capital funding matched by the States and managed through a ``full funding grant agreement'' process. States, rather than the Federal Government, would be responsible for funding operating losses after a transition period. Following the recommendation of the Amtrak Reform Council, the legislation would divide Amtrak into an operating company which would operate train services, and an infrastructure company which would maintain the Northeast Corridor (NEC). After a transition period, the services provided by both companies would be subject to competition through competitive bidding. The NEC would be restored to a state of good repair, and leased to and managed by an interstate compact. Amtrak would not be privatized but would have to compete with companies in the private sector, ensuring a lower-cost solution for the taxpayers. I intend to hold a hearing on the Administration's bill and the bill being introduced today by Senator Hutchison, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine. If a consensus can be reached on a responsible proposal to fund and reform Amtrak and provide for an improved rail passenger program, the Committee will mark up legislation in the fall. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.