John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator Brownback in introducing the Technology Administration Authorization Act of 2003. This legislation would authorize funding for the Department of Commerce's Technology Administration, which includes the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the Office of Technology Policy, and the Office of Space Commercialization. As we begin the 21st Century, we must recognize that technology is a vital key to our world leadership. In addition, technology is the engine that drives our economy. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there will be 2.5 million new jobs between 2000 and 2010, just in the field of information technology alone. According to the Department of Commerce, the contribution of the high-tech industry to the U.S. economy has doubled over the past 10 years, from 4.2 percent to 8.3 percent of the gross domestic product. Information technology has contributed more than one-third of the real U.S. economic growth, or approximately $170 billion. The Technology Administration has broad responsibilities including supporting the development of standards for first responders, promotion of space commercialization, publication of technical documents, and development of policies regarding technology transfer. The quality of work conducted at NIST labs in Gaithersburg, MD, and Boulder, CO, is evident by the awarding of two Nobel Prizes to NIST researchers, Dr. Bill Phillips and Dr. Eric Cornell, within the past seven years. NIST plays an important role in developing measurement methods, standards, and technologies that improve U.S. competitiveness in fields as diverse as chemical engineering, manufacturing, electronics, metallurgy, and physics. In addition, NIST is charged with the mission in our Constitution of setting, ``the Standard of Weights and Measures'' that are the foundation of our economy. NIST also runs the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award Program that recognizes performance excellence and quality. Recently, NIST has been charged with a number of new missions, including cyber security research and development, election reform, investigating the collapse of the World Trade Center, and developing metrology for the promising new field of nanotechnology. However, these new initiatives have diverted resources from NIST's traditional missions, and forced scientists to be laid off due to reduced funding. Given NIST's recognized leadership as a ``world class'' science institution, it is important that we ensure that it is adequately funded. This legislation would authorize the Technology Administration from Fiscal Years 2004 through 2008 to ensure a steady funding stream for this agency's activities. The bill is based on the President's budget request for NIST's laboratory activities, and includes funding increases of six percent per year to offset the deteriorating funding situation. The legislation also would authorize funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, (MEP), Program. As Secretary Evans recently stated, ``[m]anufacturing is a key pillar of our economy and we are committed to enhancing growth opportunities for our American manufacturing companies.'' I commend the Secretary for his recognition of the need to energize the manufacturing sector to restore robust growth to our economy. With this recognition in mind, I urge the Administration to be aware of the role that MEP can play in restoring the health of this sector. MEP centers aid small and medium-sized manufacturers by offering expertise, needs evaluation, training and information dissemination to help these companies deal with the challenges of globalization and weak economic growth. I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation. It is important that we reauthorize these programs to ensure that they continue to carry out their critical role in our Nation's economy. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator Brownback in introducing the Technology Administration Authorization Act of 2003. This legislation would authorize funding for the Department of Commerce's Technology Administration, which includes the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the Office of Technology Policy, and the Office of Space Commercialization. As we begin the 21st Century, we must recognize that technology is a vital key to our world leadership. In addition, technology is the engine that drives our economy. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there will be 2.5 million new jobs between 2000 and 2010, just in the field of information technology alone. According to the Department of Commerce, the contribution of the high-tech industry to the U.S. economy has doubled over the past 10 years, from 4.2 percent to 8.3 percent of the gross domestic product. Information technology has contributed more than one-third of the real U.S. economic growth, or approximately $170 billion. The Technology Administration has broad responsibilities including supporting the development of standards for first responders, promotion of space commercialization, publication of technical documents, and development of policies regarding technology transfer. The quality of work conducted at NIST labs in Gaithersburg, MD, and Boulder, CO, is evident by the awarding of two Nobel Prizes to NIST researchers, Dr. Bill Phillips and Dr. Eric Cornell, within the past seven years. NIST plays an important role in developing measurement methods, standards, and technologies that improve U.S. competitiveness in fields as diverse as chemical engineering, manufacturing, electronics, metallurgy, and physics. In addition, NIST is charged with the mission in our Constitution of setting, ``the Standard of Weights and Measures'' that are the foundation of our economy. NIST also runs the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award Program that recognizes performance excellence and quality. Recently, NIST has been charged with a number of new missions, including cyber security research and development, election reform, investigating the collapse of the World Trade Center, and developing metrology for the promising new field of nanotechnology. However, these new initiatives have diverted resources from NIST's traditional missions, and forced scientists to be laid off due to reduced funding. Given NIST's recognized leadership as a ``world class'' science institution, it is important that we ensure that it is adequately funded. This legislation would authorize the Technology Administration from Fiscal Years 2004 through 2008 to ensure a steady funding stream for this agency's activities. The bill is based on the President's budget request for NIST's laboratory activities, and includes funding increases of six percent per year to offset the deteriorating funding situation. The legislation also would authorize funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, (MEP), Program. As Secretary Evans recently stated, ``[m]anufacturing is a key pillar of our economy and we are committed to enhancing growth opportunities for our American manufacturing companies.'' I commend the Secretary for his recognition of the need to energize the manufacturing sector to restore robust growth to our economy. With this recognition in mind, I urge the Administration to be aware of the role that MEP can play in restoring the health of this sector. MEP centers aid small and medium-sized manufacturers by offering expertise, needs evaluation, training and information dissemination to help these companies deal with the challenges of globalization and weak economic growth. I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation. It is important that we reauthorize these programs to ensure that they continue to carry out their critical role in our Nation's economy. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, last year, Congress took the important step of restoring the health and integrity of our campaign finance system when it enacted the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, BCRA. However, the Federal Election Commission, FEC, has continually acted as a bureaucratic barrier to reform of the system. Time and time again, these unelected officials of the FEC have thwarted the enforcement of the Nation's campaign finance laws in deference to the partisan wishes of those who have appointed them. Along with Senator Feingold, I rise today to introduce legislation entitled the Federal Election Administration Act of 2003. This legislation creates a new independent agency, the Federal Election Administration, FEA, which replaces the Federal Election Commission in order to create a new system that finally enforces Federal campaign finance laws. Although it was set up to administer and enforce the Federal campaign finance laws, the FEC has not been doing its job. The FEC is a weak and failing agency, structured by Congress to be slow and ineffective, composed of commissioners whose appointments are tightly controlled by the Members of Congress and political parties they regulate, and has been impeded by a continual lack of resources. This legislation replaces the current system with a more effective campaign finance enforcement system. In its current form, the FEC has been faced with three major problems. The first problem has been that the FEC was structured by Congress to be ineffective. Prior to the creation of the FEC, Members of Congress feared that this proposed enforcement agency ran the risk of becoming too powerful. To ease these fears, Congress structured an agency designed to fail from the start. The FEC has six members, no more than three of whom can be members of the same political party. In practice, this has meant that there have been three Republicans and three Democrats as commissioners. Only stalemate and inaction on key issues have resulted. On important issues the votes have often been cast on a partisan basis, resulting in 3-3 deadlocks. Furthermore, the affirmative votes of four members are necessary for the FEC to act. Therefore, 3-3 ties have led to inaction. Partisanship has encroached upon nearly every major decision the FEC's six commissioners make. These partisan standoffs have stopped the FEC from enforcing actions against politicians and special interest groups, even when the FEC's general counsel has recommended that such enforcement proceed. FEC votes have been politicized to the point where commissioners of both parties have banded together to reject their staff's enforcement recommendations to serve the special interests of both parties. The FEC has lacked important powers. The FEC cannot make its own findings that a violation occurred, cannot seek court injunctions to stop illegal activity, and cannot conduct random audits of campaigns. The FEC cannot directly impose penalties, except in very minor matters. In short, the FEC can do little to enforce the law. Compounding this problem is that the FEC has sole jurisdiction over all enforcement of campaign finance laws. No matter how slow the FEC's proceedings are, no one can seek civil enforcement of the law through the courts. All complaints must be filed with the FEC and only the FEC has the authority to act on them. This legislation addresses this first problem. First, the new Federal Election Administration will consist of only three members to remove the possibility of deadlocked votes. There is a Chairman and two additional members, all of whom are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Chairman will serve a term of ten years and will have broad powers to manage and administer the agency, including the power to hire the staff director and general counsel, and to set the budget for the agency. The two other members will each serve six year terms and cannot come from the same political party. In the FEA, enforcement proceedings for violations of campaign finance laws will be conducted before impartial administrative law judges, similar to those in agencies such as the SEC and the EPA. An administrative law judge, ALJ, will conduct an enforcement proceeding after the three-member FEA, by majority vote, makes an initial determination to pursue an enforcement action. The FEA general counsel will represent the FEA in enforcement proceedings. The ALJ will have the authority to make findings of fact and reach conclusions of law. The general counsel and any respondent will have the right to appeal an ALJ decision to the FEA. The decision of the FEA regarding such an appeal will constitute final agency action and be subject to judicial review. By using ALJs, a system would be established for real enforcement not subject to partisan pressure. An ALJ will have the authority to find that violations of law have occurred, and to impose civil penalties and issue cease and desist orders, subject to an appeal to the FEA. The decision by the FEA regarding such an appeal will be final agency action and be subject to judicial review. The FEA will have the authority to apply to a federal district court for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction to prevent violations of law that would result in substantial harm to the public interest. The FEA will also have the authority to conduct a limited number of random audits of campaign committees. Unlike the FEC, the FEA will have real authority to act in a timely and effective way to function as a real enforcement agency. The second problem with the FEC is that the commissioners appointed to the FEC have been chosen based on their political allegiances rather than their qualifications and commitment to administer and enforce the law. As a result of this process, the FEC is a highly politicized agency beholden to the interests of federal officeholders and party leaders who name the commissioners and the campaign finance community the agency is supposed to regulate. FEC commissioner nominations are supposed to originate with the President and be confirmed by the Senate, but Congress really has the control over who is nominated. Nominees to the FEC are selected by party leaders in Congress and made official by the White House. Where the President has objected to a choice promoted by Congress, the congressional leaders have insisted on their nominees, and have usually won. Another issue is that few FEC commissioners have a background in enforcing laws. Most have come from the community that the FEC oversees--Congress, the political parties, and those in the campaign finance system. An example of the disproportionate control Congress has over FEC appointments was shown by the appointment of Bradley A. Smith in 2000 as a commissioner. The Smith case showed that an avowed opponent of the campaign finance laws--someone who had called the laws unconstitutional and urged their repeal--could be forced onto the FEC by his Senate sponsors over the objection of the President, who nevertheless nominated him. Despite resistance, President Clinton named Smith to the FEC after Senate Republican leaders insisted on the nomination. The further inappropriateness of Smith serving on the FEC was shown when in February 2002 he actively participated in the efforts in the House of Representative by reform opponents to kill campaign finance reform legislation. Smith joined with another FEC member who also opposed campaign finance laws. The two commissioners inserted themselves into the fight during House consideration of the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill by helping House Republican leaders work to defeat the bill. Clearly, the fact that FEC commissioners have become so publicly partisan in the policy debates on the election laws places in doubt the FEC's ability to credible enforce the law when its own commissioners openly denigrate the validity of those laws. This legislation addresses this second problem by the following means. An individual may not be appointed to the new Federal Election Administration if he or she is serving or has served as a member of the FEC subject to a term limit or during the four previous years, was a candidate or elected officeholder, an officer, employee or attorney of a candidate, officeholder or political party, or employed in certain executive branch positions. Such strict criteria on who may be appointed to the FEA would provide the best opportunity for obtaining highly qualified and publicly credible and unbiased individuals to effectively and impartially enforce the campaign finance laws. The last major problem with the FEC is that Congress has constantly abused its budget and oversight authority over the FEC. Time and time again, Congress has cut its budget. This legislation addresses this problem by having the budget of the new Federal Election Administration established by Congress based on a budget request prepared by its chairman and submitted directly to Congress. The General Accounting Office, GAO, will conduct periodic studies of the funding for the new FEA and submit recommendations to Congress on the level of funding necessary to provide adequate resources for the FEA to fulfill its duties. Unlike the FEC, the new agency will have the means to ensure that it will receive the adequate resources to effectively enforce the campaign finance laws. In conclusion, the fact that FEC commissioners were never able to find significant campaign finance violations by federal candidates and their political parties in the Democratic and Republican campaign finance abuses that occurred in the 1996 elections--especially in the abuses of President Bill Clinton, his campaign officials and his political party--is the classic example of the problems with the FEC. Furthermore, when Congress enacted the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, BCRA, the FEC undermined this new law by issuing regulations to implement BCRA that seriously weakened the law's main provisions. Both examples highlight the FEC's history of failure as an oversight and enforcement agency and the need for its overhaul. Effective enforcement is essential for laws such as BCRA to work in the long run, and achieving that requires the establishment of a new system to enforce campaign finance laws. With the establishment of this new Federal Election Administration to replace the FEC as a more effective enforcement agency, the campaign finance laws will now finally be taken seriously by candidates, parties, donors, and the public. Once this new agency is set up, the regulated community will comply with campaign finance laws because those laws can no longer be violated without punishment.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senator Hollings in introducing a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Surface Transportation Board, STB, for five years. The STB is an independent agency established January 1, 1996, as the successor to the Interstate Commerce Commission. It is responsible for the economic regulation of interstate surface transportation, primarily railroads. The STB's mission is to ensure that competitive, efficient, and safe transportation services are provided to meet the needs of shippers, receivers, and consumers. The agency has remained unauthorized since the end of fiscal year 1998, despite efforts by the Senate Commerce Committee to pass reauthorization legislation. The Surface Transportation Board Reauthorization Act of 2003 would reauthorize the STB for fiscal years 2004 through 2008 and provide sufficient resources to ensure the Board is able to continue to carry out its responsibilities. Specifically, the legislation would authorize $20.5 million for fiscal year 2004, rising to $23.5 million in fiscal year 2008. In fiscal year 2006, the legislation would authorize a higher appropriation, totaling $23.8 million, to cover the estimated costs that will be incurred to physically relocate the STB's offices. The legislation also proposes that the Board's Chairmanship position be subject to Senate confirmation, similar to other Boards and Commissions throughout the federal government, including the National Transportation Safety Board, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Export-Import Bank, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. I know that some of my colleagues, including several members of the Senate Commerce Committee, are interested in considering more sweeping legislation to amend the Staggers Rail Act, the landmark 1980 legislation that partially deregulated the freight railroads. As I have stated on numerous occasions, rail service and rail shipper issues warrant serious consideration. These matters have been the subject of many hearings before the Senate Commerce Committee, and Senator Hutchison will chair a Subcommittee hearing on captive shipper issues in the coming weeks. If a consensus is reached on other reforms needed to protect shippers and the public, additional legislation may be forthcoming from the Commerce Committee. I look forward to working with my colleagues in moving this bill through the legislative process in the weeks ahead. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I rise briefly to make a few remarks about the military construction appropriations bill, and, uncharacteristically, I commend the Appropriations Committee-- especially Chairman Stevens and Chairperson Hutchison, as well as the other members of the committee--for reporting out a bill with the lowest number of earmarks I have seen in a long time. The military construction appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004 has $80 million of unrequested and unauthorized military construction projects. Obviously, that is a lot of money. But I point out, to the great credit of the sponsors of this legislation on both sides of the aisle, it is far less than what was added last year, which was $900 billion. What is egregious and objectionable in this year's military construction appropriations bill that I have not seen to this degree in previous years is the extent to which the appropriators earmarked projects in the unspecified minor construction accounts--totaling $80 million. The authorization committee, once again, was circumvented and the President's budget was not requested. But the fact is that this is a much smaller number than before. In an effort to contain the wasteful spending inherent in member- requested construction projects, I sponsored, and the Senate adopted, merit-based criteria for evaluating member adds as a part of the fiscal year 1995 Defense Authorization Act. The criteria are: One, the project is in service's future years defense plan. Two, the project is mission essential. Three, the project can be put under contract in the current fiscal year. Four, the project doesn't conflict with base realignment proposals. Five, the service can offset the proposed expenditure within that year's budget request. These criteria have been useful in our efforts to determine programs of merit or nonmerit. Regarding the reduction in the amount of member adds in this legislation, there are, of course, a couple we have found that I found at least somewhat entertaining. While some of our soldiers and sailors have been on food stamps, we have found a way to provide $1.4 million to replace a working dog kennel. It is good to see that Fido has not been left out of this year's military construction appropriations. Having said that, I am grateful to my friends on both sides of the aisle, including the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the chairperson of the Military Construction Subcommittee, for their arduous work on the bill and their continued unequaled support for our men and women in the military. Their attention and commitment to supporting only necessary projects that are high priorities of the services is exemplary this year, in my view. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of the projects that were add-ons--not leaving out the replacement of the working dog kennel.

Mr. McCAIN. Might I ask where that is located?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senator Hollings in introducing a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Surface Transportation Board, STB, for five years. The STB is an independent agency established January 1, 1996, as the successor to the Interstate Commerce Commission. It is responsible for the economic regulation of interstate surface transportation, primarily railroads. The STB's mission is to ensure that competitive, efficient, and safe transportation services are provided to meet the needs of shippers, receivers, and consumers. The agency has remained unauthorized since the end of fiscal year 1998, despite efforts by the Senate Commerce Committee to pass reauthorization legislation. The Surface Transportation Board Reauthorization Act of 2003 would reauthorize the STB for fiscal years 2004 through 2008 and provide sufficient resources to ensure the Board is able to continue to carry out its responsibilities. Specifically, the legislation would authorize $20.5 million for fiscal year 2004, rising to $23.5 million in fiscal year 2008. In fiscal year 2006, the legislation would authorize a higher appropriation, totaling $23.8 million, to cover the estimated costs that will be incurred to physically relocate the STB's offices. The legislation also proposes that the Board's Chairmanship position be subject to Senate confirmation, similar to other Boards and Commissions throughout the federal government, including the National Transportation Safety Board, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Export-Import Bank, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. I know that some of my colleagues, including several members of the Senate Commerce Committee, are interested in considering more sweeping legislation to amend the Staggers Rail Act, the landmark 1980 legislation that partially deregulated the freight railroads. As I have stated on numerous occasions, rail service and rail shipper issues warrant serious consideration. These matters have been the subject of many hearings before the Senate Commerce Committee, and Senator Hutchison will chair a Subcommittee hearing on captive shipper issues in the coming weeks. If a consensus is reached on other reforms needed to protect shippers and the public, additional legislation may be forthcoming from the Commerce Committee. I look forward to working with my colleagues in moving this bill through the legislative process in the weeks ahead. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, last year, Congress took the important step of restoring the health and integrity of our campaign finance system when it enacted the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, BCRA. However, the Federal Election Commission, FEC, has continually acted as a bureaucratic barrier to reform of the system. Time and time again, these unelected officials of the FEC have thwarted the enforcement of the Nation's campaign finance laws in deference to the partisan wishes of those who have appointed them. Along with Senator Feingold, I rise today to introduce legislation entitled the Federal Election Administration Act of 2003. This legislation creates a new independent agency, the Federal Election Administration, FEA, which replaces the Federal Election Commission in order to create a new system that finally enforces Federal campaign finance laws. Although it was set up to administer and enforce the Federal campaign finance laws, the FEC has not been doing its job. The FEC is a weak and failing agency, structured by Congress to be slow and ineffective, composed of commissioners whose appointments are tightly controlled by the Members of Congress and political parties they regulate, and has been impeded by a continual lack of resources. This legislation replaces the current system with a more effective campaign finance enforcement system. In its current form, the FEC has been faced with three major problems. The first problem has been that the FEC was structured by Congress to be ineffective. Prior to the creation of the FEC, Members of Congress feared that this proposed enforcement agency ran the risk of becoming too powerful. To ease these fears, Congress structured an agency designed to fail from the start. The FEC has six members, no more than three of whom can be members of the same political party. In practice, this has meant that there have been three Republicans and three Democrats as commissioners. Only stalemate and inaction on key issues have resulted. On important issues the votes have often been cast on a partisan basis, resulting in 3-3 deadlocks. Furthermore, the affirmative votes of four members are necessary for the FEC to act. Therefore, 3-3 ties have led to inaction. Partisanship has encroached upon nearly every major decision the FEC's six commissioners make. These partisan standoffs have stopped the FEC from enforcing actions against politicians and special interest groups, even when the FEC's general counsel has recommended that such enforcement proceed. FEC votes have been politicized to the point where commissioners of both parties have banded together to reject their staff's enforcement recommendations to serve the special interests of both parties. The FEC has lacked important powers. The FEC cannot make its own findings that a violation occurred, cannot seek court injunctions to stop illegal activity, and cannot conduct random audits of campaigns. The FEC cannot directly impose penalties, except in very minor matters. In short, the FEC can do little to enforce the law. Compounding this problem is that the FEC has sole jurisdiction over all enforcement of campaign finance laws. No matter how slow the FEC's proceedings are, no one can seek civil enforcement of the law through the courts. All complaints must be filed with the FEC and only the FEC has the authority to act on them. This legislation addresses this first problem. First, the new Federal Election Administration will consist of only three members to remove the possibility of deadlocked votes. There is a Chairman and two additional members, all of whom are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Chairman will serve a term of ten years and will have broad powers to manage and administer the agency, including the power to hire the staff director and general counsel, and to set the budget for the agency. The two other members will each serve six year terms and cannot come from the same political party. In the FEA, enforcement proceedings for violations of campaign finance laws will be conducted before impartial administrative law judges, similar to those in agencies such as the SEC and the EPA. An administrative law judge, ALJ, will conduct an enforcement proceeding after the three-member FEA, by majority vote, makes an initial determination to pursue an enforcement action. The FEA general counsel will represent the FEA in enforcement proceedings. The ALJ will have the authority to make findings of fact and reach conclusions of law. The general counsel and any respondent will have the right to appeal an ALJ decision to the FEA. The decision of the FEA regarding such an appeal will constitute final agency action and be subject to judicial review. By using ALJs, a system would be established for real enforcement not subject to partisan pressure. An ALJ will have the authority to find that violations of law have occurred, and to impose civil penalties and issue cease and desist orders, subject to an appeal to the FEA. The decision by the FEA regarding such an appeal will be final agency action and be subject to judicial review. The FEA will have the authority to apply to a federal district court for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction to prevent violations of law that would result in substantial harm to the public interest. The FEA will also have the authority to conduct a limited number of random audits of campaign committees. Unlike the FEC, the FEA will have real authority to act in a timely and effective way to function as a real enforcement agency. The second problem with the FEC is that the commissioners appointed to the FEC have been chosen based on their political allegiances rather than their qualifications and commitment to administer and enforce the law. As a result of this process, the FEC is a highly politicized agency beholden to the interests of federal officeholders and party leaders who name the commissioners and the campaign finance community the agency is supposed to regulate. FEC commissioner nominations are supposed to originate with the President and be confirmed by the Senate, but Congress really has the control over who is nominated. Nominees to the FEC are selected by party leaders in Congress and made official by the White House. Where the President has objected to a choice promoted by Congress, the congressional leaders have insisted on their nominees, and have usually won. Another issue is that few FEC commissioners have a background in enforcing laws. Most have come from the community that the FEC oversees--Congress, the political parties, and those in the campaign finance system. An example of the disproportionate control Congress has over FEC appointments was shown by the appointment of Bradley A. Smith in 2000 as a commissioner. The Smith case showed that an avowed opponent of the campaign finance laws--someone who had called the laws unconstitutional and urged their repeal--could be forced onto the FEC by his Senate sponsors over the objection of the President, who nevertheless nominated him. Despite resistance, President Clinton named Smith to the FEC after Senate Republican leaders insisted on the nomination. The further inappropriateness of Smith serving on the FEC was shown when in February 2002 he actively participated in the efforts in the House of Representative by reform opponents to kill campaign finance reform legislation. Smith joined with another FEC member who also opposed campaign finance laws. The two commissioners inserted themselves into the fight during House consideration of the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill by helping House Republican leaders work to defeat the bill. Clearly, the fact that FEC commissioners have become so publicly partisan in the policy debates on the election laws places in doubt the FEC's ability to credible enforce the law when its own commissioners openly denigrate the validity of those laws. This legislation addresses this second problem by the following means. An individual may not be appointed to the new Federal Election Administration if he or she is serving or has served as a member of the FEC subject to a term limit or during the four previous years, was a candidate or elected officeholder, an officer, employee or attorney of a candidate, officeholder or political party, or employed in certain executive branch positions. Such strict criteria on who may be appointed to the FEA would provide the best opportunity for obtaining highly qualified and publicly credible and unbiased individuals to effectively and impartially enforce the campaign finance laws. The last major problem with the FEC is that Congress has constantly abused its budget and oversight authority over the FEC. Time and time again, Congress has cut its budget. This legislation addresses this problem by having the budget of the new Federal Election Administration established by Congress based on a budget request prepared by its chairman and submitted directly to Congress. The General Accounting Office, GAO, will conduct periodic studies of the funding for the new FEA and submit recommendations to Congress on the level of funding necessary to provide adequate resources for the FEA to fulfill its duties. Unlike the FEC, the new agency will have the means to ensure that it will receive the adequate resources to effectively enforce the campaign finance laws. In conclusion, the fact that FEC commissioners were never able to find significant campaign finance violations by federal candidates and their political parties in the Democratic and Republican campaign finance abuses that occurred in the 1996 elections--especially in the abuses of President Bill Clinton, his campaign officials and his political party--is the classic example of the problems with the FEC. Furthermore, when Congress enacted the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, BCRA, the FEC undermined this new law by issuing regulations to implement BCRA that seriously weakened the law's main provisions. Both examples highlight the FEC's history of failure as an oversight and enforcement agency and the need for its overhaul. Effective enforcement is essential for laws such as BCRA to work in the long run, and achieving that requires the establishment of a new system to enforce campaign finance laws. With the establishment of this new Federal Election Administration to replace the FEC as a more effective enforcement agency, the campaign finance laws will now finally be taken seriously by candidates, parties, donors, and the public. Once this new agency is set up, the regulated community will comply with campaign finance laws because those laws can no longer be violated without punishment.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will vote to table the motion to proceed to the consideration of S. 1162, the Child Tax Credit bill. However, I am only voting in favor of the motion to table in order to give the conference sufficient time to create a final bill so that millions of American families earning between $10,500 and about $25,000 will receive tax relief through the acceleration of the refundable child tax credit. Accelerating the refundability is especially important for military families. The Department of Defense estimates that there are approximately 192,000 families whose income is between $10,500 and about $25,000. I believe that it is highly unconscionable that many of them will not receive child tax credit relief this year unless we pass a child tax credit bill this summer. Therefore, I urge the conference to complete a final bill in a timely manner. Otherwise, if there is another motion to proceed to the consideration of this legislation, I will vote in favor of the motion to proceed. Vote on Motion to table motion to proceed to S. 1162

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, Americans are fortunate to enjoy some of the best medical care available in the world. If we do not reform the current system, however, our good fortune will not last. Medical malpractice reform looms as one of the most critical factors negatively impacting our Nation's health care system. In the year 2000, doctors alone spent $6.3 billion on medical malpractice insurance coverage. That does not take into consideration coverage paid for by hospitals, nursing homes, and other groups. Originally intended to provide patients with security by improving quality and providing fair and equitable compensation for valid claims, our Nation's medical malpractice system has only succeeded in adding billions of dollars a year to the cost of health care, while reducing patient access to physicians and treatment. The current system is broken. Qualified doctors with years of valuable experience are leaving the medical field in droves. Some are opting for early retirement, while others are changing fields. Many physicians, particularly those in high-risk specialties, are moving to States that have implemented reforms or are opting to scale back their practices. Discouraged by the current system, many of today's medical students cite medical malpractice as a major factor in their choice of fields. Rural areas have been hit particularly hard. In Arizona, our rural hospitals are struggling to keep qualified doctors. In our border region, where hospitals already struggle with the high cost of uncompensated care due to illegal immigrant populations, the Copper Queen Hospital in Bisbee has been without an obstetrician for over a year because of the high cost of medical malpractice insurance. Because of this void, pregnant women in southeastern Arizona have had to drive extremely long distances to reach the nearest hospital with an obstetrician. Earlier this year, the daughter of a hospital board member gave birth on the side of the highway as she and her husband drove over a mountain pass to the nearest hospital in Sierra Vista. Fortunately for Bisbee and the surrounding areas, a local community health center, which is shielded from high liability costs by Federal law, recently received a Federal grant to develop a birthing facility. Now, the community will be able to retain obstetricians and pregnant women will be assured access to vital prenatal care. Unfortunately, patients suffer most from the failures of our current system. Not only are patients losing access to qualified doctors, they are also losing health care coverage, substantially contributing to the rising numbers of uninsured Americans, most recently estimated at over 41 million. A recent study by Pricewater- houseCoopers found that 7 percent of the rise in health care costs are due to litigation and risk management. Those skyrocketing health care costs are passed from health insurance companies to employers, making it more difficult for American businesses to provide coverage to employees. Businesses today pass a larger share of the cost burden on to employees than ever before, and many, particularly small businesses, have made the difficult decision to drop employee coverage entirely. This morning, the Senate voted on the motion to invoke cloture on, S. 11, the Patients First Act of 2003. I voted to invoke cloture on this bill, not because I believe it is the perfect solution to this crisis, but because I believe that our Nation's medical malpractice system is broken and we must begin debating viable solutions. I have long supported tort reform generally, and medical malpractice in particular, because the current system is unfair and inefficient. Unfortunately, the medical malpractice debate has been polarized by two powerful special interest groups, preventing necessary compromise and real reform. On one side, the trial lawyers, fearing the loss of enormous jury awards, have fought tooth and nail against any cap on non-economic damages. Similarly, the insurance industry and other medical special interest groups have been equally unwilling to compromise on the dollar amount of these caps. As long as this body remains polarized in between these two competing interests, we will not have real reform and the American people will suffer. Under the bill considered today, patients would be able to recover the full cost of medical expenses coupled with past and future wage losses through unlimited economic damages. To address exorbitant jury awards for non-economic damages, this bill, caps non-economic damages at $250,000, while allowing states the flexibility to maintain their own caps. A federally imposed ceiling would be a tremendous help to States like Arizona that require State constitutional amendments in order to implement medical liability reform. The reality is, we know that caps on damages do successfully reduce the cost of medical malpractice insurance. Malpractice rates nationally, have risen three times faster than in California, where caps have been in place for twenty years. Similarly, a recent study by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality found that states that enacted limits on non-economic damages have 12 percent more doctors per capita than states without caps. Although I support reform efforts, I am concerned that $250,000 may not be a realistic amount at which to cap non-economic damages. I recognize that although the state-imposed cap of $250,000 has functioned well in California, there are also certain medical errors which are difficult, if not impossible to put a price tag on. Additionally, I believe any medical malpractice reform legislation must be coupled with meaningful measures to address the alarming numbers of medical errors in this country. A 1999 study by the Institute of Medicine found that upwards of 98,000 people a year die of medical errors. Congress must address this escalating problem, particularly in the context of the current debate. Bipartisan legislation establishing medical error reporting requirements passed the House and will hopefully pass the Senate later this year, however much more can and should be done on this issue. I believe a majority of my colleagues in the Senate agree that there does exist a serious problem in our Nation, that patients and doctors are suffering as a result, and something must be done. When the Senate voted this morning to invoke cloture, this bill did not have the votes necessary to continue debate. In fact, it did not even garner a majority vote. If we are truly committed to addressing this important issue, we must put special interests and partisan politics aside and work together to craft an equitable compromise.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the passage of the Medicare prescription drug benefits legislation is a difficult vote for me. It is unacceptable that in a country as wealthy as ours seniors across the country are struggling to afford the high cost of prescription drugs. I have supported adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare because I believe no beneficiary should have to choose between life-sustaining prescription medications and other vital necessities. Far too many American seniors face those choices every day. Many ration their supplies of medication, skip dosages, or cut pills in half. In Arizona, busloads of seniors depart from Phoenix and Tucson every week, heading south to Mexico to purchase lower cost prescription drugs. The story is similar across the northern border, where seniors make daily trips to Canadian pharmacies. Throughout the country, an increasing number of seniors are looking to online pharmacies, selling reduced-priced prescriptions imported from other countries, oftentimes with questionable safety. That said, I also recognize, as does every other Member of Congress, that Medicare is on a fast track toward bankruptcy. The most recent Trustee's Report adjusted down the year Medicare will reach financial insolvency by 4 years, to 2026. Clearly, it is incumbent upon us to include comprehensive reform of the system in any Medicare prescription drug package in order to ensure that Medicare is financially sound for current beneficiaries as well as future generations. Medicine has changed substantially since the creation of the Medicare system in 1965. Advances in medical technology and pharmaceuticals have led to more prescription-based treatments. The simple fact is, Americans now consume more prescriptions than ever before. In 1968, soon after the enactment of Medicare, American seniors spent about $65 a year on a handful of prescription medications. Today, seniors fill an average of 22 prescriptions a year, spending an estimated $999. The bill before us represents one of the largest enhancements to Medicare since its creation, setting up an entirely new bureaucracy and establishing a sizable new entitlement program. I believe this bill addresses a real problem, the need to help struggling middle and low- income seniors. However, we must have no illusions. There are dangerous complexities and potential unintended consequences associated with this bill. First, we must be realistic about the cost of this new entitlement program. For anyone who believes this bill will cost a maximum of $400 billion over the next 10 years, I have some oceanfront property in Gila Bend, AZ, to sell you. Medicare and Social Security, together, represent an enormous unfunded liability for our Nation. In a few short years, millions of baby boomers will hit retirement age and the system will quickly become insolvent. The numbers speak for themselves. Medicare currently has an unfunded liability of $13.3 trillion. Some have estimated the unfunded liability of the package before us in the $6 to $7 trillion range. A scholar at the American Enterprise Institute Scholar estimated that if passed, the Senate's prescription drug benefit legislation will result in a $12 trillion unfunded liability. Social Security and Medicare, with a prescription drug benefit, will together consume an estimated 21 percent of income taxes by the year 2020. Long after the Members of this Congress and administration have left office, our children and our grandchildren, and a future Congress and administration, will be struck with the burden of cleaning up the mess we have created. In the past 2 years, we have passed two large tax cuts. Government spending, however, has continued to increase well above the inflation use. Much of that spending is unnecessary, and represents a lack of fiscal discipline more common in times of federal budget surpluses. Yet our current budget deficit and national debt have risen dramatically. Security concerns in the post 9/11 era necessitate substantial increases in spending on defense and homeland security. We cannot sustain this level of fiscal profligacy indefinitely. This extraordinary large new entitlement we are debating will impose an equally extraordinary burden on taxpayers. The money has to come from somewhere, and none of the ``somewheres'' are desirable. The reality is, this new benefit will be funded by raiding other entitlement trust funds, or by increasing our national debt, or by substantially increasing taxes. Despite the enormous cost of this bill, this new entitlement will not provide the prescription drug coverage many seniors expect to receive. Nor does it enact significant reform measures needed to ensure the long-term solvency of the Medicare system. Those seniors who think this bill will solve their financial problems will soon learn that there are substantial limitations to the benefit. When it does pass, the new prescription benefit will not be available immediately. In fact, it will take several years just to establish the new bureaucracy which will administer the prescription benefits. Low-income seniors will benefit from this package, and I am pleased that they will. Many other seniors, however, will not receive a generous benefit, and might not even get out of the system what they will pay in deductible sand premiums. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 37 percent of employers currently providing coverage to Medicare eligible seniors, will drop coverage if this bill passes. Last week, the Wall Street Journal quoted one analyst who called this bill the ``automaker enrichment act,'' because companies such as the automakers who currently provide their retired employees with a prescription drug benefit are unlikely to continue doing so if the Federal Government assumes part of the burden for them. I am concerned that we are about to repeat--I emphasize repeat--an enormous mistake. I have been around here long enough to remember another large Medicare prescription drug entitlement program we enacted in 1988, Medicare Catastrophic. The image of seniors outraged by the high cost and ineffectiveness of that package should be a cautionary tale to all of us. Moreover, I am not confident that the Medicare Advantage portion of this new scheme, which establishes regional PPO options for seniors, will succeed. Many in the insurance industry have expressed skepticism and concern that such plans will not be profitable. In the end, the Federal Government, which acts as a fallback if no private plans are available, might end up covering the majority of the country. Not exactly the reform we all had hoped for. The American people should be aware that this new benefit has substantial cost to seniors, and to current and future generations of taxpayers, who will bear the majority of a crushing financial burden. There will be unintended consequences of our actions. We can be sure of that. Moreover, we should be honest about the cost of this measure-- $400 billion is merely a down payment for what we are creating. Given the fiscal realities we face, realities that will become more dire with every passing year, Congress and the administration should have committed to addressing the acute need for a drug benefit to alleviate the impossible choices confronting lower income seniors. And, most importantly, begun to seek consensus among responsible Members of both parties for the reforms we all know are necessary to save Medicare. I recently heard a good assessment of this package: it is ``an effort to do too much with too little, and thus doing nothing very well at all.'' There are several good amendments that have been adopted during this debate. I am encouraged that a bill Senator Schumer and I worked on for the last 4 years, might finally be enacted into law as part of this package. Our amendment will increase competition in the pharmaceutical industry and ensure that all Americans have access to lower cost generic drugs. That amendments, which would not have been possible without the leadership of Senator Gregg and the support of Senator Kennedy, will reduce the cost to the government of any Medicare prescription drug benefit. I was happy to cosponsor an important amendment with Senators Feinstein, Nickles, Chafee, and Graham, which I believe will add some fiscal discipline to the bill and the Medicare program. The amendment will add means testing to Medicare Part B--increasing co-payments for wealthier seniors. I am also pleased that several measures which I have supported and cosponsored as separate bills, have been adopted as part of this package, including the Immigrant Children's Health Improvement Act, the Blind Empowerment Act, and funds to reimburse hospitals for the uncompensated cost of caring for undocumented immigrants. Additionally, there have been several good amendments that I think will improve overall health care in our country. In particular, I believe Senator Grassley's amendment which requires agreements between brand and generic pharmaceutical companies to be reported to the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department will shine some much needed light on potential collusive agreements. Despite these welcome improvements, and recognizing that this legislation will address the crisis faced by lower income seniors, the costs of this entitlement remain, simply put, beyond the means of this country absent real reform of Medicare. Therefore, after much thought, I regret that I cannot vote for this legislation. I have reached this conclusion, not because I believe our seniors and disabled do not need or deserve prescription drug coverage, but because I do not believe our country can sustain the cost of this benefit, which will not, despite it's staggering expense, provide the assistance many beneficiaries will expect. As I noted, Congress and the administration should have addressed the acute need for assistance of lower income seniors. And before we consider extending that assistance to other seniors, we should save Medicare first by instituting the reforms we all know are necessary, but which we apparently prefer to defer until we have retired from public service. I know that those reforms pose a very difficult political challenge to us, and that the bipartisanship we have commended in the drafting and consideration of the legislation before us today would be put to a far more severe test should we genuinely attempt to save the Medicare system from insolvency. However, should we simply add another huge, new unfunded liability to an already fiscally unsound entitlement, imposing a breathtakingly heavy tax burden on our children and their children, with devastating consequences for their prosperity and the national economy, we will have done the one thing no public servant should want to be remembered for, we will have left the country worse off than we found it. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Gregg for his leadership on this legislation. I thank him for reaching out to Senator Schumer, Senator Kennedy, and myself to resolve issues that are important. He recognized the problem existed and worked to ensure loopholes in the system are closed and consumers have access to the best and most affordable medicines. Senator Gregg's leadership enabled the expeditious introduction and successful committee markup of this legislation. Under his chairmanship, the bill was reported out by unanimous consent last Wednesday. Senator Kennedy's support of this measure must also be recognized. His experience and technical expertise have been invaluable throughout the process. Staffs of all three of these Senators have worked 7 days a week for the last few weeks to ensure that the language we have crafted is as technically sound as possible without unintended consequences. I also thank my friend, Senator Schumer, with whom I have enjoyed working over the last few years. His dedication to American consumers and his commitment to restoring fairness to the drug industry must be commended time after time. This amendment will enhance competition and restore a level of sanity in the pharmaceutical market. The amendment closes loopholes in the current food and drug laws that allow brand pharmaceutical companies to protect themselves from generic competition by unfairly extending drug patent life, maximizing company profits on the backs of American consumers. This amendment ensures that lower cost generic drugs will get to market faster and with more competition, allowing substantial savings for both consumers and taxpayers. With this measure, we are one step closer to the larger goal of providing better access to affordable health care for all Americans. Several years ago, my good friend, Senator Schumer, and I began this effort when we introduced the first Greater Access to Affordable Pharmaceuticals Act in the fall of 2000. I joined Senator Schumer then in order to put a stop to the anticompetitive actions in the pharmaceutical industry that artificially inflate prices and keep lower cost prescription drugs out of the hands of American consumers. I am here today because those loopholes remain. Last summer, when the Senate was mired in partisan gridlock debating a Medicare prescription drug benefit, the later version of the bill was used as a vehicle for Medicare debate. Although the Senate failed to pass a Medicare prescription drug benefit package last summer, the GAAP Act passed by an overwhelming margin of 78 to 21. That bill set consumers on course to save an estimated $60 billion over 10 years, while providing seniors and all Americans with access to more affordable prescription drugs. Unfortunately, after our astounding victory for consumers, the bill was not subsequently passed or even considered by the other body. Today, we are once again debating Medicare prescription drug benefits. We have before us a plan that is estimated to cost a minimum of $400 billion over the next 10 years but will surely cost substantially more upon implementation. Unlike the majority of the amendments that have been and will be considered during this debate, the amendment we are offering will not cost the taxpayers a dime. In fact, it will save money for both the Federal Government and American consumers. The amendment is the result of a carefully crafted bipartisan compromise, which Senators Schumer, Gregg, Kennedy, and I reached several weeks ago. This amendment achieves the same goals Senator Schumer and I have been striving to achieve over the last few years. It closes loopholes in the law, encouraging competition, without sacrificing incentives for innovation, while discouraging anticompetitive behavior on the part of brand or generic drug companies. Of the many elements contributing to the rapid growth in our Nation's health care costs, the rising costs of prescription drugs is one of the most significant. This year alone, prescription drug costs are expected to rise by 19 percent. I ask my friend from New Hampshire if he would yield me an additional 4 minutes?

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend from New Hampshire. I want to repeat that comment. This year alone, prescription drug costs are expected to rise by 19 percent. Today, this morning, in New York, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Arizona, seniors are getting on a bus--in the case of Arizona, to drive to Mexico; in the case of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and New York, to go to Canada--to buy their prescription drugs. Most times these prescription drugs are fine. Most times they are exactly what they are advertised to be. But sometimes they are not. That is because these seniors who are having to get on the bus to go to Canada or Mexico simply cannot afford to go to their local druggist and get the prescription drugs that they very badly need--many cases in lifesaving situations. Skyrocketing health care costs have left many businesses struggling to provide coverage for their employees and an increasing number of Americans without any health insurance. Consequently, access to affordable prescription drugs represents one of the most serious problems facing our Nation's health care system today. Not isolated to one segment of society, this issue affects individuals, families, companies, and the like. The financial burdens associated with rising prescription drug costs have left many companies struggling to provide employees with health care coverage. This January, workers at General Electric staged a 2-day strike over increased copayments for prescription drugs covered under the company's insurance plan. General Motors, one of the largest providers of private sector health care coverage, spends billions of dollars a year on workers, retirees, and their dependents, over $1 billion of which is on prescription drugs alone. Even with aggressive cost-saving mechanisms in place, General Motors' prescription drug costs continue to rise between 15 percent and 20 percent per year. Given the crises in both corporate America and our Nation's health care system, anticompetitive behavior in the marketplace is particularly onerous. Such abuse simply has no place in our health care system. My intention in supporting this amendment is not to weaken patent laws to the detriment of the pharmaceutical industry, nor is it to impede the tremendous investments they make in the research and development of new life-sustaining drugs. The purpose of the underlying legislation is to close loopholes in the Hatch-Waxman Act, which established the generic drug industry we know today, and to ensure more timely access to generic medications. This is an important distinction which must be made clear. Nonetheless, to believe that patent laws are not being abused, is to ignore the mountain of testimony from consumers, industry analysts, and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Over the past three years several Senate and House committees have heard testimony regarding the extent by which pharmaceutical companies, including generic manufacturers, engage in anti-competitive activities and impede access to affordable medications. During a hearing at the Senate Commerce Committee, Chairman Muris of the FTC testified that: [in] spite of this remarkable record of success, the Hatch- Waxman Amendments have also been subject to abuse. Although many drug manufacturers, including both branded companies and generics, have acted in good faith, some have attempted to ``game'' the system, securing greater profits for themselves without providing a corresponding benefit to consumers. The intent of the Hatch-Waxman Act was to address the escalating costs of prescription drugs by encouraging generic competition, while at the same time providing incentives for brand name drug companies to continue research and development into new and more advanced drugs. To a large extent, Hatch-Waxman has succeeded in striking that difficult balance between bringing new lower-cost alternatives to consumers, while encouraging more investment in U.S. pharmaceutical research and development in the pharmaceutical industry has increased exponentially. Unfortunately, however, some bad actors have manipulated the law in a manner that delays and, at times, prohibits generics from entering the marketplace. I believe that this amendment will improve the current system while preserving the intent of Hatch-Waxman. This legislation is not an attempt to jeopardize the patent rights of innovative companies, nor does it seek to provide an unfair advantage to generic manufacturers. Rather, the intent of this amendment is to strike a balance between these two interests so that we can close the loopholes that allow some companies to engage in anti-competitive actions by unfairly prolonging patents or eliminating fair competition. In doing so, we offer consumers more choice in the marketplace. It is imperative that Congress build upon the strengths of our current health care system while addressing its weaknesses. This should not be done by imposing price controls or creating a universal, government-run health care system. Rather, a balance must be found that protects consumers with market-based, competitive solutions without allowing those protections to be manipulated at the consumers' expense--particularly senior citizens and working families without health care insurance. I want to thank my friend, Senator Schumer, with whom I have enjoyed working over the last few years. His dedication to American consumers and his commitment to restoring fairness to the drug industry must be commended. I also want to thank Senator Gregg for reaching out to Senator Schumer, Senator Kennedy and myself, to find middle ground. He recognized that this problem existed and joined us to ensure that loopholes in the system are closed and consumers have access to the best and most affordable medicines. Senator Gregg's leadership enabled the expeditious introduction and successful Committee markup of this legislation, where under his chairmanship the bill was reported out by unanimous consent last Wednesday. Senator Kennedy's support of this measure must also be recognized. His experience and technical expertise have been invaluable throughout the process. The staffs of all three of these senators have worked seven days a week for the last few weeks, to ensure that the language we have crafted is as technically sound as possible--without any unintended consequences. It is my strong belief that this measure represents a significant and immediate step that Congress can take to help to improve the lives of many Americans. I look forward to debating this issue and working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to protect the health care needs of older Americans while also eliminating the anti-competitive abuses of both pioneer and generic drug companies. This place in some ways has become more partisan than a lot of us would like. I think this legislation is an example of how people on both sides of the aisle can work together. In this case, the chairman and ranking member of the appropriate committee, Senator Gregg and Senator Kennedy, have worked together, as have Senator Schumer and I, and all others on his committee who have made this legislation come to the floor. I imagine it will pass with relative ease, to the benefit of many millions of Americans. I again thank all who have been involved in it. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I am honored today to pay tribute to a truly remarkable American, Dr. Ralph Nurnberger. As some of my colleagues may already know, Dr. Nurnberger was recently presented with the 2003 Excellence in Teaching Faculty Award from Georgetown University. I can think of no one more deserving of this award than Ralph Nurnberger. I have known Ralph for many years and I have long admired his dedication to Georgetown's students and his fellow faculty members. Anyone who has the privilege of knowing this fine man will agree that Georgetown University continues to be held in such high esteem because of professors like Ralph Nurnberger. He is a good friend and I extend my most sincere congratulations. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the citation honoring Dr. Nurnberger be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to note that, thanks to the efforts of millions of people all over the world, ASEAN, in a radical departure from their previous practice, has called for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi. I thank the Senator for his sponsorship of the legislation that I think may have had some beneficial effect. We obviously don't know all the factors that went into it, except to note also that people all over the world have been aroused on behalf of this great and truly good person. I thank the Senator from Kentucky for his efforts on her behalf.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am grateful to join my colleagues, Senators Evan Bayh, Ted Kennedy, and Barbara Mikulski in reintroducing the Call to Service Act of 2003. This important legislation significantly expands opportunities for citizens to serve their country as community volunteers and in homeland security functions. This legislation expands legislation that I introduced with senator Bayh in 2001. A key component of the original McCain/Bayh proposal became law last year. To meet the changing personnel needs of today's military, the Defense Department will now have a new, shorter-term enlistment option. Individuals who volunteer to serve under this new program serve on active duty for 15 months after their initial military training and can complete the remainder of their obligation by choosing service on active duty, in the Selected Reserve or in the Individual Ready Reserve, which can be fulfilled by in a civilian national service program such as the Peace Corps or AmeriCorps). In return for service, the legislation provides loan up to $18,000, an educational allowance under the Montgomery GI Bill. I am encouraged by the excitement expressed by the Pentagon in meetings about the implementation of the program. Two months after our legislation was introduced, President Bush made service programs a centerpiece of his 2002 State of the Union address. Unfortunately, since the speech, there has not been much followthrough on the part of this Administration. From the time President Bush was the Governor of Texas, through his experience as President, he has proudly pointed out the successes of this program. Yet the Fiscal Year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations bill he sent to the Congress forced cuts in the program. Combined with a 50,000 cap placed on the number of AmeriCorps volunteers, AmeriCorps now faces a crisis. My office has been inundated by phone calls from nervous AmeriCorps volunteers in recent days. They are all expressing the same fear that they will not have the opportunity to continue their service to our communities. Idealistic young men and women in this country got excited when they heard the President promise increased opportunities to serve. It is now time for the Congress and the President to expand opportunities to serve. There is no shortage of causes that volunteers are eager to fix. We have failing schools, desperate for good teachers. Children in our poorest communities are growing up in need of mentors. Millions of elderly Americans desperately want to stay in their homes and out of nursing facilities, but cannot do so without help with the small tasks of daily life. More and more of our communities are being devastated by natural disasters. Many of the AmeriCorps volunteers work for chronically understaffed organizations such as Boys and Girls Clubs, Habitat for Humanity and the Red Cross. I have to ask why would anyone think we should do anything except increase AmeriCorps to provide opportunities for as many people as possible to serve? Not only does the community as a whole suffer when AmeriCorps is cut, but those who are eager to serve are affected as well. Currently, over 490 individuals serve in Arizona. Many of Arizona's AmeriCorps volunteers take advantage of the educational opportunities that go along with their service. To date, over 2,100 Arizona residents have taken advantage of the $4,725 to help pay for college or pay back student loans. The fewer the number of slots available for AmeriCorps volunteers, the fewer the number of men and women who will be able to take advantage of this important opportunity. I am grateful Senators Bond and Mikulski are working to ensure that the OMB ruling on the use of the education trust fund is used. This will ensure that the cut in the number of volunteers is less than originally feared. However make no mistake, there will be far fewer volunteers in 2003. Our legislation seeks to increase the opportunity to serve in AmeriCorps. The Call to Service Act increases the number of people who volunteer for AmeriCorps by 25,000 per year until 175,000 people are serving in AmeriCorps each year for a five year period. This is a 125,000 increase in volunteers over the current 50,000 volunteers. Many of these new positions will be dedicated to homeland security. This legislation links AmeriCorps to Homeland Defense by directing the Corporation for National Service to work with the Department of Homeland Security to determine ways of promoting national security through service programs. This legislation also expands eligibility for willing and able seniors to volunteer in a variety of capacities through Senior Corps, including senior companion programs, tutoring, providing long-term care, and serving as foster grandparents. During my failed Presidential campaign in 2000, I had the opportunity to meet with students all across the country. I was deeply moved by the strong desire these young men and women expressed to serve their country. While I encourage military service to those I meet, I recognize this type of service is not for all. Our legislation increases the opportunities for these citizens. The response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 brought out the best in the citizens of the United States. Americans reached out to their friends, neighbors and those in their communities. Many examples of serving causes greater than their self interest abound. This dedication to volunteer service is still alive today. We cannot continue to wait to provide expanded opportunities for national service. Congress should no longer delay in taking action on legislation to provide opportunities for Americans to serve.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the resolution I am submitting today is a resolution to amend the Standing Rules of the Senate to give every Member the ability to raise points of order in objection to unauthorized appropriations or locality-specific earmarks that would circumvent the authorizing or competitive award process. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my colleagues, Senators Kyl, Sessions, and Feingold. Specifically, the resolution would establish a new procedure, modeled in part after the Byrd Rule, which would allow a point of order to be raised against any new or general legislation or unauthorized appropriations, including earmarks, in any general appropriations bills or amendments to general appropriations bills. It also would allow a point of order to be raised against any new or general legislation or unauthorized appropriations, new matter, or nongermane matter in any appropriations conference reports, and against unauthorized appropriations in amendments between the Houses. Unless a point of order is waived by the affirmative vote of 60 votes, the unauthorized provision would be extracted from the measure, and the overall cost of the bill would be reduced by the corresponding amount. Furthermore, if a point of order is sustained against a provision in a conference report, that provision also would be stricken. The legislative process would continue, however, and the legislation would revert to a nonamendable Senate amendment, which would be the conference agreement without the objectionable material, and the measure could then be sent back to the House. The proposed rules change also includes two exemptions to points of order that currently apply to amendments to appropriations bills under rule XVI: appropriations that had been included in the President's budget request or would be authorized by a bill already passed by the Senate during that session of Congress. Such appropriations would not be subject to points of order under the proposed rules change. Finally, as my colleagues know, the reports accompanying appropriations bills and the statements of managers that accompany conference reports are chock full of unauthorized appropriations and site-specific earmarks, typically far exceeding those in the bill language. There has been a growing tendency over the years for these reports to be viewed by Federal agencies as statutory directives. The fact is, of course, the Appropriations Committee reports and statements of managers are advisory only. Unless a device for curtailing such earmarking in report language is also implemented, the new rule could be rendered almost meaningless. Therefore, under our proposal, it would not be in order to consider an appropriations bill or conference report if the accompanying documents include unauthorized or earmarked items. The proposal would not be self-enforcing but, rather, it would allow any Member to raise a point of order in an effort to extract objectionable unauthorized provisions. Our goal is to reform the current system by empowering all Members with a tool to rid appropriations bills of unauthorized funds, porkbarrel projects, and legislative policy riders. For many years, I have worked to call attention to the wasteful practice of congressional earmarking whereby parochial interests are placed above national interests. Unfortunately, congressional earmarks have continued to rise year after year. In fact, according to information compiled from the CRS, the Congressional Research Service, the total number of earmarks has grown from 4,126 in fiscal year 1994, to 10,540 in fiscal year 2002. That is an increase of over 150 percent. And for the year 2003, the increase in number, from our preliminary estimates, is somewhere around 1,300 earmarks. Our current economic situation and our vital national security concerns require that now, more than ever, we prioritize our Federal spending. By the way, the earmarked funds have gone up a commensurate amount from $26.8 billion in fiscal year 1994, to $44.6 billion earmarked in 2002. I think what this chart shows is as important as the earmarks, given the fact that we are now up close to $50 billion in earmarked funds in our appropriations bills. And this chart does not include the number of fundamental policy changes that are made in the appropriations process because they cannot get through the authorizing process, which is the proper process. And they, many times--as in a case that I will mention in a few minutes-- often cost hundreds of millions of dollars to the taxpayers. Language included in the Department of Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998 is a classic example. There were no funds earmarked in that bill that would show up here. It did show up as one policy change. What it did do, in the Defense appropriations bill, is it granted a legal monopoly for American Classic Voyages to operate as the only U.S.-flagged operator among the Hawaiian Islands. After receiving the monopoly, American Classic Voyages secured a $1.1 billion loan guarantee from the U.S. Maritime Administration's title XI loan guarantee program for the construction of two passenger vessels known as Project America. Project America's subsequent failure 4 years later resulted in the U.S. Maritime Administration paying out $187.3 million of the taxpayers' money to cover the project's loan default and recovering only $2 million from the sale. I am not alone in the opinion that the earmarking process has reached the breaking point. Consider the administration's recently submitted proposal to reauthorize the multiyear highway transit and safety programs which will expire in September 30, 2003. Interestingly, that proposal, entitled the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003, SAFETEA, proposes to largely eliminate discretionary programs that currently exist under the Department's authority. Why is that? One would think the Secretary of Transportation would be advocating the growth of discretionary programs so that he can award Federal grants for projects based on a meritorious selection process. But over the years, such discretion has been assumed by the appropriators during the annual transportation appropriations process and all but nullified any role on the part of the Secretary and his ability to award discretionary grants. Transportation Secretary Mineta, in testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee, stated: SAFETEA eliminates most discretionary highway grant programs and makes these funds available under the core formula highway grants programs. States and localities have tremendous flexibility and certainty of funding under the core programs. Unfortunately, Congressional earmarking has frustrated the intent of most of these discretionary programs, making it harder for States and localities to think strategically about their own transportation problems. To further illustrate the enormity of the earmarking situation, my colleagues need only consider the transportation earmarking that has occurred during the past 5 years. According to the Department of Transportation inspector general, Congress appropriated $18 billion in discretionary funding for highway transit and aviation discretionary programs during fiscal years 1998 through 2002. Of that amount, $11 billion or 60 percent was earmarked by Congress. Let me just offer a few specific examples of recent earmarks: From the war supplemental appropriations conference report, $110 million for modernization of the Agriculture Research Service, and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Facilities near Ames, IA. That was from a war supplemental appropriations conference report, specifically for the war in Iraq and homeland security. From the 2003 omnibus appropriations conference report, $1 million for a bear DNA sampling study in Montana; $280,000 for asparagus technology and production in Washington; $220,000 to research future foods in Illinois; $10 million for a seafood marketing program in Alaska; $250,000 for research on the interaction of grapefruit juice and drugs; $50,000 to combat feral hogs in Missouri; $2 million for the Biomass Gasification Research Facility in Birmingham, AL; $500,000 for the gasification of switchgrass in Iowa; $1 million for the National Agriculture-Based Industrial Lubricants Center in Iowa; and $202,500 to continue rehabilitation of the former Alaska Pulp Company mill site in Sitka, AK. I usually make a lot of fun and jokes about these things, but it is getting out of hand. It is really getting out of hand. When we are looking at a $400 billion deficit this year, can we afford $1 million for a bear DNA sampling study in Montana? The conference report also included an agricultural policy change to make catfish producers eligible for payments under the livestock compensation program even though hog, poultry, or horse producers are not eligible. Further, the conference agreement contained provisions which allow a subsidiary of the Malaysian-owned Norwegian Cruise Lines the exclusive right to operate several large foreign-built cruise vessels in the domestic cruise trade. This provides an unfair competitive advantage to a foreign company at the expense of all other cruise ship operators and creates a de facto monopoly for NCL in the Hawaiian cruise trade. From the fiscal year 2002 transportation appropriations conference report, nearly $1 billion in highway program funding authorized to be distributed to the States by formula at the discretion of the Secretary was instead, for the first time, redirected and earmarked for projects such as $1.5 million for the Big South Fork Scenic Railroad enhancement project in Kentucky; $2 million for a public exhibition on ``America's Transportation Stories'' in Michigan; and $3 million for the Odyssey Maritime Project, a museum, in Washington. That was out of highway funds. The National Corridor Planning & Development & Corridor Border Infrastructure Program was authorized at $140 million. But the appropriators provided an additional $333.6 million over the authorized level for a total of $492.2 million in funding. The conferees then earmarked 100 percent of the funding for 123 projects in 38 States. Earmarks included, surprisingly, $54 million for three projects in West Virginia; $43 million for 18 projects in Kentucky; $34.5 million for seven projects in Mississippi; $34 million for five projects in Washington; and $27 million for six projects in Alabama. Twelve States received zero funding under any program: Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming. I could go on citing examples of arbitrary earmarks. I will refrain for now. But something has to be done to put a halt to the alarming increase in earmarking. I went over the rules changes and what they meant, but I would just like to give a most recent example. An issue that has arisen which is of great concern to many Americans is the issue of media concentration. We have had several hearings in the Commerce Committee. We had the FCC Commissioners up before the committee after they made a ruling. It has probably aroused more interest than any other issue ever before the Federal Communications Commission, certainly in recent memory. Seven hundred fifty thousand Americans contacted the FCC on this issue of media concentration. The issue is difficult. It is complex. We have had many hearings on it. Over time, I have become convinced that this issue is a serious one. I believe there are serious problems with radio concentration. I am not sure what the answer is and exactly how we go about addressing the issue of both vertical and horizontal concentration, cross-ownership of newspapers, and television stations and cable stations and radio stations. But the committee will continue to explore it. Last week, three of my colleagues from the Senate held a press conference: My dear friend Senator Hollings, ranking member of the Commerce Committee, former chairman; Senator Stevens of Alaska, second ranking member of the committee; and Senator Lott, a very distinguished member of the committee. At the time, they said they were introducing legislation to freeze the ownership at 35 percent which would then counteract and repeal the rule raising media concentration levels to 45 percent by FCC. The only reason I mention this is immediately in answer to the first question, they said: If we don't get it through the committee, we can always put it on an appropriations bill. That was the comment made. Mr. President, that is not the right way to do business on a major fundamental policy change, to tack it on as one line, as was described by Senator Hollings, that we can always just zero out the funding. That is not the way we should be doing business. This issue should be decided by all 100 Senators on the floor of the Senate. I am not saying the sponsors of the legislation are wrong. But this has to do with billions of dollars in acquisitions, or nonacquisitions, with fundamental changes within the media. The answer was, well, we will put it on an appropriations bill if we cannot get it through committee. The committee will be marking it up on Thursday. I don't know if it will get to the floor. That is up to the majority leader but, more importantly up to my colleagues who may put holds on it. These are serious issues that impact greatly the United States of America, and they are being decided on appropriations bills, stuck in without even so much as a hearing many times. I will be on the floor many times on this issue because it is a long way from us being able to remove this power from the Appropriations Committee and put it back into the authorizing committees where it belongs. Finally, some of the proudest and most intense and enjoyable moments of my political career have been as chairman of the Commerce Committee. I believe the Commerce Committee is well suited to address these issues. I believe the Commerce Committee is well suited to authorize major programs and address major policy challenges that confront the Nation, whether it is commerce, science, transportation, information technology, telecommunications, aviation, or all of the other issues. I don't think they should be decided by the Appropriations Committee, as far as policy is concerned. As far as the amounts of money are concerned, that is their job. I pretend to have no ambitions on that issue. We have to get this out-of-control--and I mean totally out-of- control--situation under control. The situation has been dramatically exacerbated by the fact that we are now looking, in sheer whole numbers, at the highest deficits in the history of this country. As far as a percent of GNP, they are not the highest, but we are talking about at least $400 billion this year. We are about to--I am happy to say--pass a Medicare prescription drug program that will cost about $400 billion or more over a 10-year period. We are looking at Social Security and Medicare. We cannot afford this high cost anymore. I believe the chairman of the Rules Committee will be holding a hearing on this issue. I don't believe it would get through the Rules Committee, but I am very grateful to Senator Lott that he would allow a hearing on this issue. But I do not intend to give up on it. We will be discussing it and debating it for a long time. My constituents--and every American--do not expect us to act in this fashion, which in many cases is totally irresponsible. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am grateful to join my colleagues, Senators Evan Bayh, Ted Kennedy, and Barbara Mikulski in reintroducing the Call to Service Act of 2003. This important legislation significantly expands opportunities for citizens to serve their country as community volunteers and in homeland security functions. This legislation expands legislation that I introduced with senator Bayh in 2001. A key component of the original McCain/Bayh proposal became law last year. To meet the changing personnel needs of today's military, the Defense Department will now have a new, shorter-term enlistment option. Individuals who volunteer to serve under this new program serve on active duty for 15 months after their initial military training and can complete the remainder of their obligation by choosing service on active duty, in the Selected Reserve or in the Individual Ready Reserve, which can be fulfilled by in a civilian national service program such as the Peace Corps or AmeriCorps). In return for service, the legislation provides loan up to $18,000, an educational allowance under the Montgomery GI Bill. I am encouraged by the excitement expressed by the Pentagon in meetings about the implementation of the program. Two months after our legislation was introduced, President Bush made service programs a centerpiece of his 2002 State of the Union address. Unfortunately, since the speech, there has not been much followthrough on the part of this Administration. From the time President Bush was the Governor of Texas, through his experience as President, he has proudly pointed out the successes of this program. Yet the Fiscal Year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations bill he sent to the Congress forced cuts in the program. Combined with a 50,000 cap placed on the number of AmeriCorps volunteers, AmeriCorps now faces a crisis. My office has been inundated by phone calls from nervous AmeriCorps volunteers in recent days. They are all expressing the same fear that they will not have the opportunity to continue their service to our communities. Idealistic young men and women in this country got excited when they heard the President promise increased opportunities to serve. It is now time for the Congress and the President to expand opportunities to serve. There is no shortage of causes that volunteers are eager to fix. We have failing schools, desperate for good teachers. Children in our poorest communities are growing up in need of mentors. Millions of elderly Americans desperately want to stay in their homes and out of nursing facilities, but cannot do so without help with the small tasks of daily life. More and more of our communities are being devastated by natural disasters. Many of the AmeriCorps volunteers work for chronically understaffed organizations such as Boys and Girls Clubs, Habitat for Humanity and the Red Cross. I have to ask why would anyone think we should do anything except increase AmeriCorps to provide opportunities for as many people as possible to serve? Not only does the community as a whole suffer when AmeriCorps is cut, but those who are eager to serve are affected as well. Currently, over 490 individuals serve in Arizona. Many of Arizona's AmeriCorps volunteers take advantage of the educational opportunities that go along with their service. To date, over 2,100 Arizona residents have taken advantage of the $4,725 to help pay for college or pay back student loans. The fewer the number of slots available for AmeriCorps volunteers, the fewer the number of men and women who will be able to take advantage of this important opportunity. I am grateful Senators Bond and Mikulski are working to ensure that the OMB ruling on the use of the education trust fund is used. This will ensure that the cut in the number of volunteers is less than originally feared. However make no mistake, there will be far fewer volunteers in 2003. Our legislation seeks to increase the opportunity to serve in AmeriCorps. The Call to Service Act increases the number of people who volunteer for AmeriCorps by 25,000 per year until 175,000 people are serving in AmeriCorps each year for a five year period. This is a 125,000 increase in volunteers over the current 50,000 volunteers. Many of these new positions will be dedicated to homeland security. This legislation links AmeriCorps to Homeland Defense by directing the Corporation for National Service to work with the Department of Homeland Security to determine ways of promoting national security through service programs. This legislation also expands eligibility for willing and able seniors to volunteer in a variety of capacities through Senior Corps, including senior companion programs, tutoring, providing long-term care, and serving as foster grandparents. During my failed Presidential campaign in 2000, I had the opportunity to meet with students all across the country. I was deeply moved by the strong desire these young men and women expressed to serve their country. While I encourage military service to those I meet, I recognize this type of service is not for all. Our legislation increases the opportunities for these citizens. The response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 brought out the best in the citizens of the United States. Americans reached out to their friends, neighbors and those in their communities. Many examples of serving causes greater than their self interest abound. This dedication to volunteer service is still alive today. We cannot continue to wait to provide expanded opportunities for national service. Congress should no longer delay in taking action on legislation to provide opportunities for Americans to serve.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in morning business.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I note the presence of the Senator from Kentucky. I ask unanimous consent to engage him in a 2- or 3-minute dialog.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the distinguished Senators from Pennsylvania for filing this amendment. I am aware of interest in proposals to allow increased flexibility in the use of Passenger Facility Charges as well as other Federal revenues. The Commerce Committee does plan to continue its examination of appropriate Federal policy measures that might address the concerns raised by my colleagues. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this issue.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to reauthorize the Maritime Administration, MARAD, for fiscal years 2004, 2005, and 2006. The bill was developed in consultation with Administration officials and would provide for needed reforms in a number of maritime programs. The bill would authorize appropriations for MARAD operations and training, administrative costs associated with the shipbuilding loan guarantee program authorized by Title XI of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, and the disposal of vessels in the National Defense Reserve Fleet that have been identified by the Secretary of Transportation as obsolete. The bill is designed to reform how MARAD manages the Title XI maritime loan guarantee program. Both the Department of Transportation Inspector General and the General Accounting Office have found that MARAD has failed to provide effective oversight in receiving and approving loan guarantees; has failed to closely monitor the financial condition of borrowers during the term of the loan; and has failed to adequately monitor the condition of projects subject to guarantees. They also found that MARAD was flagrant in its use of authority in granting waivers to its own regulations governing the program without taking steps to better secure the taxpayer against defaults. The bill includes reform provisions to address these findings. Furthermore, the bill would amend the Merchant Marine Act to give the Secretary of Transportation the authority to convey obsolete National Defense Reserve Fleet vessels to nonprofit organizations, a State, Commonwealth, or possession of the United States or any municipal corporation or political subdivision thereof or the District of Columbia for their use and to U.S. territories and foreign governments for use as artificial reefs. The bill also would amend the Merchant Marine Act to allow, under certain circumstances, otherwise unqualified U.S.-flag vessels to carry reference cargo reserved for qualified U.S. vessels. Finally, the bill would amend requirements for enforcement of the commitment agreements for students at the United States Merchant Marine Academy, USMMA, and students at the state maritime academies who receive student incentive payments, SIP; allow MARAD to use funds received from a settlement for legally authorized purposes, including completion of repairs to the Merchant Marine Academy, Fitch Building; provide the Secretary with the authority to also exclude vessels from the carriage of Government impelled cargoes that have been detained for violations of security standards contained within international agreements to which the United States is a party; allow MARAD to retain funds received as a result of final judgments and settlements in the Vessel Operations Revolving Fund; and clarify the decades-old authority of the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, SLSDC, to carry out the provisions of the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, PWSA, in the case of the Saint Lawrence Seaway. I look forward to working on this important legislation and hope my colleagues will join me in expeditiously moving this authorization through the legislative process. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Federal Communications Commission Reauthorization Act of 2003. This legislation is designed to reauthorize the Federal Communications Commission, FCC or Commission, so that it may continue to carry forth its charge to ensure interference-free communication on interstate and international radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable communications. This independent agency has not been reauthorized since 1991. The FCC is responsible for a wide range of duties, including establishing regulatory policies that promote competition, innovation, and investment in broadband services; ensuring that a comprehensive and sound national competitive framework for communications services exists; encouraging the best use of spectrum domestically and internationally; and providing leadership for the rapid restoration of the Nation's communications infrastructure in the event of disruption. This bill would reauthorize the Commission through fiscal year 2007. It would require that all application and regulatory fees paid to the Commission be deposited with the Commission subject to Appropriations. The legislation also would authorize the Commission to allocate sufficient funds to be used for an audit of the e-rate program to determine the specific fraud or abuse that has occurred during the operation of the program. Serious allegations of fraud in the operation of the e-rate fund have been raised in recent months, and we should provide the Commission adequate resources to ensure that e-rate funds are being used for the purposes intended. The Commission would be required to transmit a report of its findings and conclusions to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce on the anniversary of the Act's enactment for each year between 2004 and 2007. Further, this bill would clarify the Commission's review of its media ownership rules. Specifically, the bill sets forth the timing and the standard the FCC will use for reviewing its broadcast ownership rules. Currently, the FCC is required to review its broadcast ownership rules every 2 years. The bill lengthens the duration between reviews from 2 years to 5 years. At a recent hearing, all five FCC Commissioners recommended this change. The legislation also would clarify the actions the FCC may take during its media ownership reviews. Courts have found the current review standard to carry ``with it a presumption in favor of repealing or modifying ownership rules'' as part of ``a process of deregulation.'' This bill modifies the review standard to specifically allow the FCC to repeal, strengthen, limit, or retain media ownership rules if it determines such changes are in the public interest. At a recent hearing, several of the FCC Commissioners endorsed this change. The bill would increase the Commission's ability to enforce the Communications Act of 1934, the 1934 Act, by raising the statutory cap on Commission fines and forfeitures by a factor of ten. The Commission has sought this increased enforcement ability to ensure communications providers do not accept Commission fines as a ``cost of doing business.'' The bill also increases the statute of limitations for violations of FCC rules or regulations from one year to two years. The legislation also allows the Commission to assess fines against direct broadcast satellite (DBS) operators for violations of the Communications Act in the same manner that the Commission may assess fines against broadcasters and cable operators. The bill would further clarify that a party injured by a common carrier's violation of FCC rules or orders may recover damages for such injury in an action before the FCC or before a United States District Court. The need for this clarification is underscored by the recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals or the Second Circuit in Conboy v. AT&T Corp. Moreover, the new section would allow for the recovery of attorneys' fees in complaints filed either in district court or at the FCC. The bill also would allow the Commission to seize broadcasting equipment where one engages in malicious interference to radio communications. This type of behavior is particularly egregious when parties attempt to maliciously interfere with public safety frequencies. Furthermore, the bill would ensure that valuable spectrum does not lie fallow unnecessarily. It precludes a successful bidder in a spectrum auction from using bankruptcy to avoid its obligation to pay for its spectrum license. The bill also establishes an office within the Commission for the recording and perfecting of security interests related to licenses. It also would ban any payment or reimbursement to the FCC of travel costs for FCC officials or staff from a nongovernmental sponsor of a convention, conference, or meeting. Recent reports indicate that during the last eight years, FCC officials and staff have taken more than 2,500 trips paid for by the industries they regulate. Although this is perfectly legal and it is often appropriate for FCC officials and staff to attend such conventions, conferences, or meetings, it should be without the appearance of impropriety. Therefore, the bill authorizes the Commission sufficient funds to pay for their own travel costs in the future. The bill would impose a one year lobbying ban on high-level FCC staffers who leave the FCC's employment. Finally, the bill contains language in response to a recent court case before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to promulgate regulations necessary to require video descriptions of television programming to assist those who are visually impaired. This section would provide the FCC such authority. Reauthorizing the FCC is important so the agency may continue to successfully carry out its many responsibilities. I look forward to working on this important legislation and I hope that my colleagues will agree to join me in expeditiously moving this reauthorization through the legislative process. 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 legislation to reauthorize the Maritime Administration, MARAD, for fiscal years 2004, 2005, and 2006. The bill was developed in consultation with Administration officials and would provide for needed reforms in a number of maritime programs. The bill would authorize appropriations for MARAD operations and training, administrative costs associated with the shipbuilding loan guarantee program authorized by Title XI of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, and the disposal of vessels in the National Defense Reserve Fleet that have been identified by the Secretary of Transportation as obsolete. The bill is designed to reform how MARAD manages the Title XI maritime loan guarantee program. Both the Department of Transportation Inspector General and the General Accounting Office have found that MARAD has failed to provide effective oversight in receiving and approving loan guarantees; has failed to closely monitor the financial condition of borrowers during the term of the loan; and has failed to adequately monitor the condition of projects subject to guarantees. They also found that MARAD was flagrant in its use of authority in granting waivers to its own regulations governing the program without taking steps to better secure the taxpayer against defaults. The bill includes reform provisions to address these findings. Furthermore, the bill would amend the Merchant Marine Act to give the Secretary of Transportation the authority to convey obsolete National Defense Reserve Fleet vessels to nonprofit organizations, a State, Commonwealth, or possession of the United States or any municipal corporation or political subdivision thereof or the District of Columbia for their use and to U.S. territories and foreign governments for use as artificial reefs. The bill also would amend the Merchant Marine Act to allow, under certain circumstances, otherwise unqualified U.S.-flag vessels to carry reference cargo reserved for qualified U.S. vessels. Finally, the bill would amend requirements for enforcement of the commitment agreements for students at the United States Merchant Marine Academy, USMMA, and students at the state maritime academies who receive student incentive payments, SIP; allow MARAD to use funds received from a settlement for legally authorized purposes, including completion of repairs to the Merchant Marine Academy, Fitch Building; provide the Secretary with the authority to also exclude vessels from the carriage of Government impelled cargoes that have been detained for violations of security standards contained within international agreements to which the United States is a party; allow MARAD to retain funds received as a result of final judgments and settlements in the Vessel Operations Revolving Fund; and clarify the decades-old authority of the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, SLSDC, to carry out the provisions of the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, PWSA, in the case of the Saint Lawrence Seaway. I look forward to working on this important legislation and hope my colleagues will join me in expeditiously moving this authorization through the legislative process. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.