John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Kyl, as a co-sponsor of this important legislation, the Arizona Water Settlements Act of 2003, which would ratify negotiated settlements for Central Arizona Project, CAP, water allocations to municipalities, agricultural districts and Indian tribes, state CAP repayment obligations, and final adjudication of long-standing Indian water rights claims. These settlements reflect more than 5 years of intensive negotiations by state, Federal, tribal, municipal, and private parties. I commend all those involved in these negotiations for their extraordinary commitment and diligence to reach this final stage in the settlement process. I also praise my colleague, Senator Jon Kyl, and Interior Secretary Gail Norton, for their leadership in facilitating these settlements. From my experience in legislating past agreements, I recognize the enormous challenge of these negotiations, and I appreciate their personal dedication to this settlement process. This legislation is vitally important to Arizona's future because these settlements will bring greater certainty and stability to Arizona's water supply by completing the allocation of CAP water supplies. Pending water rights claims by various Indian tribes and non- Indian users will be permanently settled as well as the repayment obligations of the State of Arizona for construction of the CAP. I join with Senator Kyl today to express support for the agreements embodied in this bill and to encourage conclusion of this settlement process in the near future. Significant progress has been made in resolving key issues since we last sponsored a bill to facilitate this agreement in the 107th Congress. Some of these key issues pertain to the final apportionment of CAP water supplies, cost-sharing of CAP construction and water delivery systems, amendment of the 1982 settlement agreement with the Tohono O'odham Nation, mitigation measures necessitated by sustained drought conditions, and equitable apportionment of drought shortages. While this bill reflects agreements reached on a host of issues after an intensive and extended effort by the numerous parties involved, it is important to emphasize that this bill does not represent the final settlement. All parties recognize that a very limited number of the provisions of this bill may be modified as the negotiations continue. We fully expect that the legislative process will culminate with a final agreement early in the next congressional session. Mr. President, we introduce this bill today as an expression of our strong support of the various parties to successfully achieve conclusion to this process. The Arizona Water Settlements Act will be a historic accomplishment that will benefit all citizens of Arizona, the tribal communities, and the United States.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Kyl, as a co-sponsor of this important legislation, the Arizona Water Settlements Act of 2003, which would ratify negotiated settlements for Central Arizona Project, CAP, water allocations to municipalities, agricultural districts and Indian tribes, state CAP repayment obligations, and final adjudication of long-standing Indian water rights claims. These settlements reflect more than 5 years of intensive negotiations by state, Federal, tribal, municipal, and private parties. I commend all those involved in these negotiations for their extraordinary commitment and diligence to reach this final stage in the settlement process. I also praise my colleague, Senator Jon Kyl, and Interior Secretary Gail Norton, for their leadership in facilitating these settlements. From my experience in legislating past agreements, I recognize the enormous challenge of these negotiations, and I appreciate their personal dedication to this settlement process. This legislation is vitally important to Arizona's future because these settlements will bring greater certainty and stability to Arizona's water supply by completing the allocation of CAP water supplies. Pending water rights claims by various Indian tribes and non- Indian users will be permanently settled as well as the repayment obligations of the State of Arizona for construction of the CAP. I join with Senator Kyl today to express support for the agreements embodied in this bill and to encourage conclusion of this settlement process in the near future. Significant progress has been made in resolving key issues since we last sponsored a bill to facilitate this agreement in the 107th Congress. Some of these key issues pertain to the final apportionment of CAP water supplies, cost-sharing of CAP construction and water delivery systems, amendment of the 1982 settlement agreement with the Tohono O'odham Nation, mitigation measures necessitated by sustained drought conditions, and equitable apportionment of drought shortages. While this bill reflects agreements reached on a host of issues after an intensive and extended effort by the numerous parties involved, it is important to emphasize that this bill does not represent the final settlement. All parties recognize that a very limited number of the provisions of this bill may be modified as the negotiations continue. We fully expect that the legislative process will culminate with a final agreement early in the next congressional session. Mr. President, we introduce this bill today as an expression of our strong support of the various parties to successfully achieve conclusion to this process. The Arizona Water Settlements Act will be a historic accomplishment that will benefit all citizens of Arizona, the tribal communities, and the United States.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I first introduced legislation on this issue all the way back in 1992. Then again in 1993, then again in 1994, then again in 1995. In 1999, I drafted legislation that became law--as a compromise measure that paid special compensation pay for severely disabled military retirees with disabilities greater than 50 percent. Here we are in 2003 with an opportunity to finally rectify a problem that has plagued our veterans and to rectify it, once and for all, for all military retirees who have become disabled during their military service. I know personally the character of Americans who take up arms to defend our Nation's interests and to advance our democratic values. I know of all the battles, all the grim tests of courage and character, that have made a legend of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Forces devotion to duty. Let me remind this body of the grave sacrifice that our men and women who risk their lives for their country must endure. The United States has exerted military force more than 280 times since the end of World Ward II. We are even now engaged in an epic struggle against a new and hidden enemy that involves the men and women of our armed forces. Once again our young men and women are defiantly heading into harms way with the understanding that we, as the lawmakers of this great Nation, will ensure they are taken care of as citizens and as veterans for their actions above and beyond the call of duty. We now have an opportunity to show a measure of our gratitude to these brave men and women, and for the future men and women who continue to serve in this time of trial. The existing law as it stands is simply discriminatory and wrong. ``Concurrent receipt'' is, at its core, a fairness issue, and present law simply discriminates against career military people who have been injured or disabled while in conduct of their duties while in defense of this great Nation. Retired veterans are the only group of federal retirees who are required to waive their retirement pay in order to receive VA disability compensation. In my view, the two pays are for very different purposes; one for loyal and selfless service to our country. The other for physical or mental `pain and suffering' occurred in that service to country. The Retired Pay Restoration Act has received strong bipartisan support in Congress for several years. The Military Coalition, an organization of 33 prominent veterans' and retirees' advocacy groups, supports this legislation, as do many other veterans' service organizations, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars, American Legion and Disabled American Veterans. For the brave men and women who have selected to make their career in the U.S. military, they face an unknown risk. If they are injured, they will be forced to forego their earned retired pay in order to receive their VA disability compensation. In effect, they will be paying for their own disability benefits from their retirement checks. It is long overdue for us to redress the unfair practice of requiring disabled military retirees to fund their own disability compensation. Sixty percent is not enough! We need full funding for all military retirees. It is time to show our appreciation to the men and women who have sacrificed so much for our great Nation. Therefore, I am proud to rise today with Mr. Reid, to introduce the ``Retired Pay Restoration Act of 2003'', along with our colleagues Mr. Akaka, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Biden, Mr. Bingaman, Ms. Boxer, Mr. Breaux, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Cochran, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Feinstein, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Johnson, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Levin, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Lincoln, Mr. Miller, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Allard, Mr. Allen, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Smith, and Ms. Snowe, to correct this inequity for veterans who have retired from our Armed Forces with a service-connected disability. I am thankful for the Senate's action to address this important issue today and I urge the Chairman and Ranking Member to carry this legislative provision through Conference and final passage.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I first introduced legislation on this issue all the way back in 1992. Then again in 1993, then again in 1994, then again in 1995. In 1999, I drafted legislation that became law--as a compromise measure that paid special compensation pay for severely disabled military retirees with disabilities greater than 50 percent. Here we are in 2003 with an opportunity to finally rectify a problem that has plagued our veterans and to rectify it, once and for all, for all military retirees who have become disabled during their military service. I know personally the character of Americans who take up arms to defend our Nation's interests and to advance our democratic values. I know of all the battles, all the grim tests of courage and character, that have made a legend of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Forces devotion to duty. Let me remind this body of the grave sacrifice that our men and women who risk their lives for their country must endure. The United States has exerted military force more than 280 times since the end of World Ward II. We are even now engaged in an epic struggle against a new and hidden enemy that involves the men and women of our armed forces. Once again our young men and women are defiantly heading into harms way with the understanding that we, as the lawmakers of this great Nation, will ensure they are taken care of as citizens and as veterans for their actions above and beyond the call of duty. We now have an opportunity to show a measure of our gratitude to these brave men and women, and for the future men and women who continue to serve in this time of trial. The existing law as it stands is simply discriminatory and wrong. ``Concurrent receipt'' is, at its core, a fairness issue, and present law simply discriminates against career military people who have been injured or disabled while in conduct of their duties while in defense of this great Nation. Retired veterans are the only group of federal retirees who are required to waive their retirement pay in order to receive VA disability compensation. In my view, the two pays are for very different purposes; one for loyal and selfless service to our country. The other for physical or mental `pain and suffering' occurred in that service to country. The Retired Pay Restoration Act has received strong bipartisan support in Congress for several years. The Military Coalition, an organization of 33 prominent veterans' and retirees' advocacy groups, supports this legislation, as do many other veterans' service organizations, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars, American Legion and Disabled American Veterans. For the brave men and women who have selected to make their career in the U.S. military, they face an unknown risk. If they are injured, they will be forced to forego their earned retired pay in order to receive their VA disability compensation. In effect, they will be paying for their own disability benefits from their retirement checks. It is long overdue for us to redress the unfair practice of requiring disabled military retirees to fund their own disability compensation. Sixty percent is not enough! We need full funding for all military retirees. It is time to show our appreciation to the men and women who have sacrificed so much for our great Nation. Therefore, I am proud to rise today with Mr. Reid, to introduce the ``Retired Pay Restoration Act of 2003'', along with our colleagues Mr. Akaka, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Biden, Mr. Bingaman, Ms. Boxer, Mr. Breaux, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Cochran, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Feinstein, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Johnson, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Levin, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Lincoln, Mr. Miller, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Allard, Mr. Allen, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Smith, and Ms. Snowe, to correct this inequity for veterans who have retired from our Armed Forces with a service-connected disability. I am thankful for the Senate's action to address this important issue today and I urge the Chairman and Ranking Member to carry this legislative provision through Conference and final passage.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. One hour.

Mr. McCAIN. Actually, I object. I will not take a time agreement at this time. I will agree. I withdraw my objection.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, usually I begin my diatribes on the appropriations bill by lifting up the appropriations bill for all to see; one, it hasn't been delivered and, two, I note by the size of the existing copy down by the desk of the manager that it would be quite a task to pick up this year's appropriations bill. At my advanced age, I might be in danger of sustaining a hernia. But I still think that this probably is--if I may borrow a phrase from one of our longtime adversaries--the mother of all appropriations bills. It is some 5,000 pages. I can safely say that I have not read it. My staff has been feverishly going through certain parts of it, each being parceled out. Clearly, we have a mammoth conference report on this omnibus appropriations legislation, which nobody has been able to review, examine, and debate. I say that not without sympathy for the Senator from Alaska, who is faced with a situation where negotiations--in fact, they are going on almost as we speak, or are being completed as we speak. Certainly, the reasons for the delay--some 4 months of delay-- was not under his control. But I want to discuss this very briefly in context. The context that we are looking at with this legislation is a huge looming deficit that is in front of us and growing in size almost as far as the eye can see. The eye used to be able to see for 10 years. Now we have changed the procedures where the eye can only see for 5 years. But only a short time ago, we were awash in huge surpluses. I will never forget when Alan Greenspan testified before Congress in favor of the 2001 tax cuts because we wanted to make sure we didn't spend down the debt too fast. We didn't want to spend down that debt too quickly because that would have some bad effects on our economy. Well, we don't have to worry about spending the debt down too quickly now. In 2001, we had a $127 billion surplus. We are living in a different time now. The Congressional Budget Office recently forecast a larger than expected deficit of $199 billion for this year; and last week, with the result of the President's budget for 2004, the OMB projected record deficits of $304 billion this year and $307 billion next year. I have, as chairman of the Commerce Committee, seen enough of our needs for security and safety at our airports, railway stations, ports, all over America, to tell you that we have very large expenditures ahead of us. Those expenditures are justified when we are talking about the security of this Nation. The funding for the Transportation Security Administration was justified. I am proud that we not only passed the legislation, but we funded that enormous effort to ensure the security of our airports, which is still not complete. But the fact is, we will soon run out of borrowing authority and might have to look to other sources of funding, such as the Social Security trust fund, in the absence of a legislated increase in the debt ceiling. There are a lot of words that are not used anymore around here, but the one that has completely and totally disappeared is the good old ``lockbox.'' I wonder what happened to the good old lockbox. That was the one we were going to put Americans' payments into Social Security into and we were never going to touch it again. Not only is our economy in distress, we are also one step closer to war. There are threats to national security that must be disposed of. Yet this appropriations bill, in my view, has not changed since last year. In fact, it is predictably about 11 times worse. The amounts associated with each earmark may not seem extravagant, but taken together they represent an incredible diversion away from Federal programs that have undergone the appropriate merit-based process. I have two problems with this process. One, of course, is the appropriating of moneys that are really unnecessary and unauthorized and wasteful, very wasteful, but also in this legislation are many fundamental policy changes and, of course, I object, as chairman of the Commerce Committee, that it didn't go through my committee. But I object to it even more when we have not had the open debate and votes taken on matters that have national implications that are fundamental policy decisions. Let's go back to some of the necessary earmarks: First, $280,000 for asparagus technology and production in Washington; $220,000 to research future foods in Illinois--only in Illinois, of course. My colleagues may note, as usual, the need for these earmarks are nearly always geographically based. Next is $700,000 for the Midwest poultry consortium in Iowa; $250,000 for research on the interaction of grapefruit juice and drugs. I always wondered what kind of experiments these are. One of our all-time favorites, made famous a number of years ago, is money that was spent to study the effect on the ozone layer of flatulence in cows. One always wondered about the testing procedures used to determine those effects on the ozone layer. This is another one that intrigues the observer. Regarding the interaction of grapefruit juice and drugs, of course, one's imagination can be stimulated by the prospect of the interaction of grapefruit juice and drugs. Then we have $600,000 for tristate joint peanut research in Alabama; $500,000 for Missouri, Iowa, and Illinois Corn Growers Association for a pilot program to develop ``production protocols.'' Again, I have to sometimes display my ignorance. I didn't know that in order to grow corn, there was a particular requirement for a protocol regarding production. I see that the Senator from Iowa just came on the floor. He may be able to illuminate me on the production protocols associated with corn growing. But whether he can or not, there will be $500,000 being split up between his State, Missouri, and Illinois to their corn growers associations. But this won't be an overall production protocol; this is only a pilot program. So I am sure there will be a great deal of additional money coming once we develop the pilot program for production protocols of growing corn. Next is $50,000 to combat ``feral hogs'' in Missouri. You know, somewhere I had a little depiction of feral hogs. I did not know that they were a threat to civilization as we know it, or at least enough to require $50,000 to combat feral hogs. Sometimes one would get the impression that perhaps the people in Illinois could fund their own combat scenario with feral hogs. Nonetheless, we will be coming in with 50 grand to combat those feral hogs, which I am sure are a serious scourge. There is $500,000 to continue hybrid poplar research in Wisconsin. I am sure next year we will have a continued program to develop production protocols for growing corn; $2 million for the biomass gasification research facility in Birmingham, AL. Again, I look forward to seeing what that is all about. And then, staying right on this important mission of gasification, we have another $500,000 for the gasification of switchgrass in Iowa. Perhaps switchgrass can be part of the production protocol of corn. But one doesn't know; $1 million for the National Agricultural Based Industrial Lubricant Center; $10 million to develop a high-speed data transmission between the Library of Congress and education facilities, libraries, and networks serving western North Carolina. I did not know there was a special need in the western part of North Carolina, as there might have been for other parts of the country. But we will spend $10 million to do that; $500,000 to be split between the Alexandria Museum of Art and the New Orleans Museum of Art for activities relating to the celebration of the Louisiana Purchase bicentennial celebration; $200,000 for the replacement of Minton tile in the Capitol complex; $1 million for a company called Culpepper Glass in Warrenton, VA, that produces glass display cases for the Library of Congress. I assume, of course, there is no other company that could produce glass display cases for the Library of Congress. That is why the Culpepper Glass Company in Warrenton, VA, had to be designated in this legislation; $3 million for an award to the National Technology Transfer Center for a coal slurry impoundment pilot project in southern West Virginia; $1 million for an automated nursery project in Mississippi; $500,000 for Vermillion Community College in Ely, MN, for the development of a professional forest harvester program. Mr. President, if my colleagues will indulge me, I have to go back to my favorite from last time for just a moment. I know the hour is late, but this is too much. We were able to keep, through very serious contemplation and discussion among conferees, $1 million for a DNA bear sampling study in Montana; $1 million will be spent to sample the DNA of bears in Montana. Because these appropriations are never discussed with nonmembers of the Appropriations Committee, one can only imagine and conjure up an idea as to how this might be used. Approach a bear: That bear cub over there claims you are his father, and we need to take your DNA. Approach another bear: Two hikers had their food stolen by a bear, and we think it is you. We have to get the DNA. The DNA doesn't fit, you got to acquit, if I might. I think it is important to appreciate that this $1 million for a DNA bear sampling study could solve a lot of crime in Montana. It is a pretty high-crime area. It seems to me that is, indeed, a very worthwhile expenditure of the taxpayers' dollars. While we are at it, I want to jump out of line here a second: $202,500 to the National Peanut Festival Fairgrounds for the construction of the National Peanut Festival Agriculture Arena in Dothan, AL. I was interested in the National Peanut Festival. I did not see it much on television or hear much about it. So I went to the Web site, and I think you will be comforted to know we are spending this $202,500 for the 9-day celebration of the peanut harvest, which includes a variety of competitions, including recipe contests, beauty pageants, and tennis tournaments. Included for your viewing pleasure on this Web site is a very interesting picture. I am sorry my colleagues cannot see it, but I would be willing to provide them with copies, but there are three individuals standing by a contraption that I have not seen before, and it says farmers demonstrate antique peanut harvesting equipment at Pioneer Peanut Days. Again, it seems to me that is a worthwhile investment of $202,500. I have also one more that is kind of interesting: $900,000 for the Show-me Aquatic Center for Development; $900,000 for the Show-me Aquatic Center in Missouri. We found a picture of it. It says: ``Please Touch Me Museum, 210 North 21st Street, Philadelphia''--this is the 270,000 Please Touch Me Museum, I apologize. That is for kids and grownups. Of course, I had that confused with the very important facility that is in Missouri. I certainly would not want to confuse the different States. One of the more remarkable aspects of this bill is in the HUD section, under EDI. There are 885 individual earmarks. Some of them are very interesting. Of course, there is $202,500 to continue the rehabilitation of the former Alaska Pulp Company mill site in Sitka, AK. I am reluctant to ask the Senator from Alaska how much that continuing rehabilitation is going to cost us overall. We have a lot of important construction: $45,000 for the city of Tuscumbia, AL, for construction of facilities associated with the Helen Keller Festival; $90,000 for the city of Prattville, AL, for the Boys and Girls Club of Prattville. I mentioned the peanut festival. Here are a couple new ones: $810,000 for the city of St. Louis, MO, for lighting sidewalks, curb, and street furniture along Kings Highway Boulevard and Chippewa Street. It must be a fairly serious situation there that we need to spend $810,000 down there on Kings Highway Boulevard and Chippewa Street in St. Louis. I mentioned the Show-Me Aquatic Center in Missouri; $105,000 for the Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute in Columbia, MO, to analyze commercial shipping alternatives; $90,000 to the city of Natchez, MS, for a feasibility study to develop a slack water port. That is just for a feasibility study; $135,000 to the Culinary and Hospitality Academy Center of Las Vegas, NV, for construction related to the expansion of an education training center. For those of you who have not visited Las Vegas lately, I can tell you it is a very depressed and deprived area, and I can certainly understand why the Culinary and Hospitality Academy Center would need $135,000. I thought they could use some of mine. For the arts, we have $162,000 for facilities renovations and improvements for the Woolworth Theater in Glens Falls, NY; $162,000 for the Catskill Mountain Foundation in Hunter, NY, for reconstruction of the Tannersville Theater; $180,000 to the Bethel Performing Arts Center in Bethel, NY, for construction of a performing arts facility; $225,000 to the village of East Syracuse, NY for the renovation of the Hanlan pool; $270,000 to Garth Fagan Dance Studio in Rochester, NY, for construction of a new theater for the Garth Fagan Dance Studio; $121,500 to the Bedford County Agricultural Society in Pennsylvania for facilities improvements at the Bedford County Fairground; $202,000 to the New York Agricultural Society for facilities improvements to the New York Expo Center Arena and Livestock Expedition Hall, and I mentioned the Please Touch Museum in Philadelphia, PA.; $810,000 to the City of Fort Worth, TX--another impoverished area--for waterfront facilities construction for the Trinity River Basin Project; $180,000 to the Shenandoah Valley Discovery Museum for facilities expansion; $216,000 to the Virginia Living Museum in Newport News, and the list goes on. There is a certain common thread one will find throughout these 885 projects. I am sorry I did not have time to total it up, but it would have to be in the tens of millions of dollars. There is one common thread. About 95 percent of these projects that are earmarked belong to the States that are represented by members of the Appropriations Committee. I joke a lot about this, and I will continue to do so, but that is not right. That is not the right thing to do. I regret the conferees choose to adopt a special interest provision for one foreign cruise ship company at the expense of all other companies. The last time Congress meddled in this area with hollow promises of spurring the American shipbuilding industry, it ended up costing the American taxpayers $185 million in loan guarantees. It was one of the most egregious I have seen of egregious things to take the money from a billionaire that--excuse me. We took no money from the billionaire who runs river boat casinos and who tried to build two ships in Pascagoula, MS, which every expert knows is not possible. The project failed and the American taxpayer was on the hook for $185 million. Not satisfied with costing the American taxpayer $185 million, a Senator from Hawaii put into this bill a requirement that grants a subsidiary of the Malaysian-owned Norwegian Cruise Lines the exclusive right to operate three large foreign-built cruise vessels in the domestic cruise trade. This will be permitted notwithstanding the Passenger Vessel Services Act, which requires vessels transporting passengers between ports in the U.S. to be U.S.-owned, U.S.-built, U.S.-flagged and U.S.-crewed. I am not a fan of those requirements. But why in the world do we make exception for a law in an appropriations bill when you know what the result is going to be? By granting exclusive rights to one cruise line, there will be no competition and the people who want to cruise Hawaii will pay much higher prices than for a commensurate cruise that people would take out of the East Coast. I do not know if the Presiding Officer has ever been to Miami, but there are all kinds of ships cruising out of Miami, going all different places, for all different purposes, at very low cost. That is because they are all competing against each other. The Senator from Hawaii puts in a violation of law, and an exclusivity which is going to cost people who want to cruise the Hawaiian Islands an enormously greater amount of money. Why? That is crazy. I would have thought the Senator from Hawaii, after costing the taxpayers $185 million because of a provision he put in an appropriations bill--it never went through my committee which has oversight of it. It was never mentioned in my committee--after costing the taxpayers $185 million, the Senator from Hawaii then pulls this one. I am angry about it, and I will continue to be angry about it because the citizens of my State of Arizona would like to cruise the Hawaiian Islands and they would like to do it at the cheapest possible cost. When there is no competition, there is not low cost. There has been no analysis of granting this exclusive exemption from the Passenger Vessel Services Act to the ``Norwegian Cruise Lines'' owned by a Malaysian company. Nor have the committees of jurisdiction had an opportunity to consider the proposal. I tell the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Hawaii, we are going to have a hearing on this issue, we are going to have a GAO investigation, and we are going to find out why they lost $185 million because of a provision put into this bill. We are also going to get an estimate of how much this exclusivity is going to cost my citizens who want to go on a cruise at the least possible cost. I will not quit on this issue. It is wrong, and it is the wrong way to treat this process. We will have hearings in the Commerce Committee, and we will expose this for what it is--disgraceful. There are numerous other provisions in this conference report that circumvent the clear jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee. It incorporates almost wholesale a bill passed last year by the House of Representatives regarding air traffic control towers. The provision expands on the class of air traffic control towers that is eligible for Federal money. I am all for aviation safety and it may be a good provision. I am troubled by several aspects of it. First, the provision does not make new towers eligible for reimbursement. It makes eligible towers that were built beginning in 1996, over 7 years ago. At least the provision passed last year by the House provided that an airport tower would be eligible for a grant under this program only if the Secretary certified that the selection of the tower for eligibility was based on objective criteria giving no weight to any congressional committee report, joint explanatory statement of a conference report, or statutory designation. I wish to congratulate my House colleagues because they were concerned about the pork barrel projects practice and tried to insulate this particular program from such behavior. Guess what. That provision that eliminated no objective criteria giving no weight to any congressional committee report, joint explanatory statement of a conference committee, or statutory designation was eliminated. Why would that be eliminated, I wonder? The conference report also includes a provision and implements a whole new funding scheme for airport security projects. I am very concerned about funding for airport security. This is a reauthorization year for aviation programs and the Senate Commerce Committee, the committee of jurisdiction, has already begun hearings of FAA issues. Yet the appropriators have taken it upon themselves to establish a brand new funding scheme that has never been vetted, discussed, or voted on by the authorizing committee. Some might start to wonder just what the Commerce Committee's role is in policy decisions regarding the programs under its jurisdiction. This provision authorizes a new $2.5 billion program over 5 years for airport security projects without any discussion that I am aware of. The TSA was not consulted about this provision. It seems the special interest groups who were shopping this provision were the only ones that mattered. If this had gone through the regular legislative process, at least all parties could have been heard. There are many different ways to fund security projects. This provision may be a good one. It mirrors a similar program set up at the FAA. However, the Department of Transportation Inspector General proposed several other ideas to our committee. Another provision would allow airports to give airport improvement program money back to the FAA so the agency can hire staff to speed up environmental reviews of airport projects. This is an area in which the Commerce Committee took action last year and will continue to pursue this year. It should not be addressed in an appropriations bill. I commend the conferees for their attempts to help protect the investment the American taxpayers continue to provide to Amtrak. The conference report, which provides Amtrak $1.05 billion for fiscal year 2003, includes conditions that require the funding to be appropriated on a quarterly basis through formal grant agreements with DOT. The conferees worked to ensure that Amtrak reserved sufficient funds to meet its contractual obligations with State and local subdivisions for commuter and intercity corridor services. Amtrak should not be in a position to shut down commuter operations as it threatened last summer because it does not have sufficient funds to operate its entire network. The conference committee has slightly reduced Amtrak's appropriation from that provided in the Senate-passed measure, but it has also postponed repayment of Amtrak's $100 million loan from DOT. The conferees authorized the Secretary of Commerce to award grants and make direct lump sum payments of up to $50 million to support travel to the United States. To carry out this new authority, the appropriators established the United States Travel and Tourism Promotion Advisory Board and provided $50 million. This tourism board has never been considered by the authorizing committee of jurisdiction. Nor did the Department of Commerce have any input on the creation of this new board. Who came up with $50 million--and establish a new bureaucracy? The U.S. Travel and Tourism Promotion Advisory Board, and gives them $50 million. I am pleased to see the conferees appropriated money for election reform. The conference report on NOAA provides more than $490 million in earmarks, and just for aquatic, not atmospheric programs of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, to go toward 150 earmarks. The administration did not request funding for these programs in the budget, and many programs they did request funding for are underfunded or zero funded. The conference report appropriated an astounding $100 million for fisheries disasters assistance. Of this amount, $35 million is for direct assistance to the State of Alaska for any person, business, or town that has experienced an economic hardship even remotely related to fishing. This is in addition to the $20 million they are also getting for developing an Alaskan seafood marketing program. Of the remainder, $35 million is for the shrimp industries in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic to provide far-reaching assistance for many aspects of these fisheries; $20 million is provided for voluntary capacity reduction programs in the Northeast and west coast fisheries; $5 million is for Hawaiian fishermen affected by fishing area closures and other management rules; and $5 million is for blue crab fisheries affected by low harvests. The conference report requires the Department of Commerce and Coast Guard to provide coordinated, routine support for fisheries monitoring and enforcement through use of remote-sensing aircraft and communications assets, with particular emphasis on Federal waters seaward to South Carolina and Georgia. Without review by the authorizing committee, we have no basis for knowing why this is a good use of Federal dollars and resources. The conference report earmarks $10 million to promote and develop fishery products and research pertaining to American fisheries funds to develop an Alaskan seafood marketing program. Ten million is a lot of money to be spending on a marketing program. As far as the Coast Guard is concerned, managers earmark a total of $83 million of the Coast Guard budget. That earmark is an increase of $10 million over last year, and many of them have obviously never been proposed. In HUD, as I mentioned, 885 targeted grants. I also will talk for a minute about the lowly catfish, one of my favorite subjects. We know the lowly catfish has been the subject of a great deal of debate and discussion on the floor of the Senate due to the fact that in another appropriations bill, we changed the name of the catfish that comes from Vietnam to basa. But now the lowly catfish, those that are still named catfish because they are raised in the United States, we are now qualifying catfish for livestock compensation programs. Catfish are cows. As my colleagues know, the livestock compensation program is a Federal farm program that compensates eligible livestock producers, such as owners of beef and dairy cattle, sheep, goats, or certain breeds of buffalo that have suffered losses or damages as a result of a severe drought. Now it is the catfish. I often take issue with various farm policies that disproportionately benefit large agribusinesss or farms at the expense of farmers and taxpayers, and those that compromise American agricultural trade commitments. This effort to compensate catfish farmers from a farm program that is intended for livestock stands out. I am certain that catfish proponents will offer a dozen different explanations to justify this provision. In fact, the last time we discussed this, one of my colleagues from Tennessee talked about in his State there are catfish that leave the water and travel in herds, so perhaps that is why we are now calling a catfish a cow. But not even hog, poultry, or horse producers are eligible under the livestock compensation program. Why should catfish then get livestock payments? We know labeling continues to be a nationally significant agricultural issue. Again, the issue was addressed in the appropriations bill. The Army Corps of Engineers is, of course, one of the favorite places. Not only are there a lot of earmarks, but there are significant changes in policy or law under the rubric of this appropriations bill. In this legislation, the administration is prevented from proposing or even studying changes to the Army Corps of Engineers civil works program, such as reorganizing aspects of the agency's management structure, without specific direction in an act of Congress. It seems to me that is remarkable micromanaging. I guess I have taken enough of my colleagues' time at this late hour, and I know we should be voting on this bill and leaving. I point out again, this bill which the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee described as the largest appropriations bill in the history-- and I certainly take his word for it--in my now 17 years of monitoring these things, has the largest number of earmarks by far. I find that wrong for a variety of reasons, but one of them being that we are supposed to be in a war. We are about to ask young men and women to make sacrifices. In fact, some of them in the next few weeks may make the ultimate sacrifice. And here we are, business as usual, business as usual, larding on porkbarrel projects, running up the deficits to historic proportions in some respects. I imagine it is historic as far as the turnaround is concerned, from a $127 billion surplus to a $300 billion deficit. I mind that very much. I think it is wrong. I think it is the wrong signal to send to the American people about our seriousness of addressing the challenges of the war on terror. But I am also disturbed about the policy changes that are made in appropriations bills which render authorizing committees nearly irrelevant. It is not the right thing to do. There are provisions in this bill--and I will be providing them for the record--of many policy changes that should have required hearings, debate, votes on specific issues. Instead, they are decided by a small group of Senators and House Members rather than all of us being able to exercise not only our privileges but our responsibilities as we determine the policies that affect the future of our citizens in our respective States. I ask unanimous consent that a document entitled ``Commerce Committee Provisions'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I see the Senator from West Virginia. I appreciate the indulgence of the Senator from West Virginia. I will take just a minute. I thank the Senator from Alaska for the hard work he and his staff have done. I also hope Members understand that we did not receive this bill until sometime late morning and it is, as the Senator from Alaska pointed out, the largest bill in the history of Congress. I see it sitting to his right. I think it is several thousand pages. I believe, in all candor, in order to review it, my staff would have to stay up all night. I understand the urgency of voting tonight, but I hope the Senator will indulge me and my staff another hour and a half for us to get through at least a majority of the bill, and then I would be asking for an hour, but I will not use a complete hour to comment on the bill. That way, I hope it can accommodate Members so we could have a vote relatively early this evening. We are not finished by a long shot reviewing the bill. It is the largest appropriation in the history of this country. At least in my mind, it deserves scrutiny and comment. I thank the Senator from Alaska. I thank the Senator from West Virginia. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, after leading the U.S. congressional delegation to the Munich Conference on Security Policy last weekend, Senator Lieberman and I introduced this resolution to thank 18 Europeans for standing with us in demanding that Security Council resolutions against Iraq be enforced. Contrary to what you may read in the press, and despite shrill objections from Paris and Berlin, most European governments believe Iraq must be held to account for its defiance of Security Council Resolution 1441. France and Germany are isolated within Europe in their approach to enforcing, or in their case failing to enforce, Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. Recent actions by Paris and Berlin in the most important international fora--the Security Council, the North Atlantic Council, and the European Union--raise serious doubts among nations on both sides of the Atlantic about their commitment to multilateral diplomacy and cause real damage to those institutions. The French and German objection, for reasons of calculated self- interest--a very flawed calculation, I fear--to a routine request to the North Atlantic Council to upgrade Turkey's defenses against the military threat from Iraq was a terrible injury to an Alliance that has served their broader interests well. For over three weeks, the United States, with fourteen of our eighteen European allies in the North Atlantic Council, has supported this necessary action, but has confronted a new unilateralism conceived in Paris and Berlin, a unilateralism that exposed the sneering in those capitals about the impulsive cowboy in the White House for the vacuous posturing and obvious misdirection it is. Whatever NATO decides, Franco-German unilateralism will have a lasting impact on trans-Atlantic security calculations. If this minority French-German obstruction is not overcome, France and Germany will have to answer to those who argue that Iraq could be to NATO what Abyssinia was to the League of Nations. The United Nations Security Council risks that same fate should it fail to hold Iraq accountable for its defiance. Patient American and British diplomacy at the U.N. delivered a unanimous vote in favor of Council Resolution 1441. France played a key role in negotiating the resolution and knew what they were voting for, Germany was fully aware of the debate as it prepared to assume the Council presidency in January. Americans, and many Europeans, were therefore astonished when France and Germany announced in advance of further consideration of the problem of Iraq that under no circumstances would they support enforcing the resolution's terms against Iraq. The behavior of France and Germany has set back European unity and created a divided front that makes Iraq's peaceful disarmament less likely. Nations across Europe that have recently expressed a different view of multilateral obligations, including some of our oldest allies and our newest friends, expose the myth that France and Germany speak for Europe. The majority of Europe's democracies have spoken, and their message could not be clearer. Most European governments support the Security Council's clear mandate to require Iraq's full disarmament and do not shrink from the grave responsibilities such a commitment entails. Most European government understand clearly that if the Security Council fails to enforce its demands of Iraq, the Council risks impotence and irrelevance. In short, most European governments behave like allies that are willing to meet their responsibilities to uphold international peace and security in defense of our common values. As the foreign ministers of Romania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Albania, and Macedonia have declared, ``the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's regime requires a united response from the community of democracies. We call upon the U.N. Security Council to take the necessary and appropriate action in response to Iraq's continuing threat to international peace and security.'' As the leaders of Britain, Spain, Italy, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Denmark, and Portugal have written, ``Resolution 1441 is Saddam Hussein's last chance to disarm using peaceful means. The opportunity to avoid greater confrontation rests with him. . . . [T]he Security Council must maintain its credibility by ensuring full compliance with its resolutions. We cannot allow a dictator to systematically violate those resolutions. If they are not complied with, the Security Council will lose its credibility and world peace will suffer as a result.'' We thank this European majority for standing with us. I ask unanimous consent that two pieces of supporting material be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today, there is a greater awareness of the precarious financial condition confronting our Nation's Social Security system. Unfortunately, partisanship has controlled the debate on reform, polarizing and paralyzing Congress, while the fate of Social Security has become more grim and the consequent need for reform has become more urgent. It is now time for us to come together to reform and revitalize this system, so that Social Security will continue to benefit both the seniors of today and tomorrow. As elected officials, we have an obligation to ensure that Social Security benefits are paid as promised, without unfairly burdening the workers of today. American workers deserve to know the true financial status of the Social Security program. Each individual should have the right to honest information, including the real value of their personal retirement benefits. Most Americans have little knowledge of the true financial status of Social Security because the current system does not provide them with practical, easy to understand information. Today, Senator Lindsey Graham and I are introducing a bill that will require the inclusion of that practical information in annual Social Security statements sent to all taxpaying Americans. These statements will include straight forward information regarding the average rate of return workers can expect to receive from Social Security as compared to the amount of taxes an individual pays into the program, the amount Social Security receives in payroll, how much revenue is needed to give promised benefits to seniors, and the date when the program will no longer have sufficient funds to pay promised benefits. It is only fair and just to provide everyone with the true facts about how much they will pay in payroll taxes and what the limited return will be on their contributions. We must talk straight to Americans about Social Security and begin working together in a bipartisan fashion to make the necessary changes to strengthen and save the Nation's retirement program for the seniors of today and tomorrow. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today, there is a greater awareness of the precarious financial condition confronting our Nation's Social Security system. Unfortunately, partisanship has controlled the debate on reform, polarizing and paralyzing Congress, while the fate of Social Security has become more grim and the consequent need for reform has become more urgent. It is now time for us to come together to reform and revitalize this system, so that Social Security will continue to benefit both the seniors of today and tomorrow. As elected officials, we have an obligation to ensure that Social Security benefits are paid as promised, without unfairly burdening the workers of today. American workers deserve to know the true financial status of the Social Security program. Each individual should have the right to honest information, including the real value of their personal retirement benefits. Most Americans have little knowledge of the true financial status of Social Security because the current system does not provide them with practical, easy to understand information. Today, Senator Lindsey Graham and I are introducing a bill that will require the inclusion of that practical information in annual Social Security statements sent to all taxpaying Americans. These statements will include straight forward information regarding the average rate of return workers can expect to receive from Social Security as compared to the amount of taxes an individual pays into the program, the amount Social Security receives in payroll, how much revenue is needed to give promised benefits to seniors, and the date when the program will no longer have sufficient funds to pay promised benefits. It is only fair and just to provide everyone with the true facts about how much they will pay in payroll taxes and what the limited return will be on their contributions. We must talk straight to Americans about Social Security and begin working together in a bipartisan fashion to make the necessary changes to strengthen and save the Nation's retirement program for the seniors of today and tomorrow. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senators Leahy, Lieberman, and Harkin in submitting a resolution to make Congressional Research Service, CRS, reports, and other Senate documents, accessible over the Internet to the American people. CRS is well-known for producing high quality reports and issue briefs that are concise, factual, and unbiased--a rarity in Washington. Many of us rely on the work of CRS to make decisions on a wide variety of diverse legislative proposals, such as formulating policies on homeland security, determining the implications of war with Iraq, contemplating the future of the Internet, developing health care reform, and analyzing tax policy. Also, we routinely send CRS reports to our constituents in order to help them understand the important issues of our time. The sponsors of this resolution believe that it is important for the public to have access to these CRS reports. The American public paid over $81 million to fund CRS's operations in fiscal year 2002 alone. The informational reports covered by this resolution are not confidential or classified, and the public deserves to have access to them. By making these reports publicly available, the Senate will better serve an important function in helping to inform their constituents. Members of the public will be able to read these CRS products and receive a concise summary of issues that concern them. These reports also will help voters make decisions and petition their legislators on how to best represent them. Currently, corporations, universities, and other well-heeled entities often hire former Members of Congress as lobbyists to get access to these reports. However, the general public does not have access to these reports. Instead, the public has to obtain these reports through independent companies, such as Penny Hill Press, which charges almost $30 for each report. Otherwise, they must search through a variety of government and non-government web sites for outdated reports or get them from their Members of Congress through the mail. It is not fair for the American people to have to pay a third party or search all over the web for products for which they have already footed the bill. This resolution is drafted to set up a system for distributing CRS Reports that is similar to a pilot program ongoing in the House of Representatives. Under our resolution, the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms would establish and maintain a system for distribution of CRS documents. The public would only be able to access these documents through Senators' or Senate Committees' web pages. This system would allow Senators and Committee Chairmen to be able to choose which documents are made available to the public through their web page. This resolution also includes other safeguards to ensure that CRS is able to carry out its mission. Confidential information and reports done for confidential research requests would not be made available to the public. The resolution provides authorization for the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms to remove the names of CRS employees from these products to prevent the public from distracting CRS employees. In addition, the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms would be authorized to remove copyrighted information from the publicly-available reports. This resolution would ensure that the CRS' mission is not altered in any way, and that it cannot be open to liability suits. Finally, we recognize that cost concerns had been raised about prior versions of this legislation introduced in past Congresses. Yet, our understanding is that the House system of distribution has been achieved at a relatively low cost. We have designed this resolution to eliminate the cost burden to CRS by shifting the operation and maintenance of the system over to the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms. In addition, the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms is directed to ask the General Accounting Office, GAO, to evaluate the program after one year to explore how to make the operations more cost-effective. The resolution also would require the Senate Office of Public Records to put other selected documents related to Members' receipt of honoraria and travel reimbursement on the Internet. We have already voted to make this information available to the public. Unfortunately, the public can only get access to this information by personally visiting an office in the Hart building. This resolution would allow our constituents throughout the country to access this information more readily. This resolution has been endorsed by many groups, including the Project on Government Oversight, the Congressional Accountability Project, Intel, Computer & Communications Industry Association, the Center for Democracy and Technology, the American Library Association, SeeBeyond Technology Corporation, and others. I ask unanimous consent that these letters of support be printed in the Record. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. The Internet offers a unique opportunity to allow the American people to have everyday access to important information about their government.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Rockefeller, Chafee and a bipartisan group of my colleagues in introducing a bill to restore funding which was previously allocated to the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP. Established in 1997 as part of the Balanced Budget Act, SCHIP was developed as a means for states to provide basic health coverage for uninsured children of low income families, who are not eligible for coverage under Medicaid. Through the Fedeal-State matching program, SCHIP has provided coverage for millions of uninsured children. In fiscal year 2001, 4.4 million children were enrolled in SCHIP. Today every State in the country, five territories, and the District of Columbia are using SCHIP to develop innovative programs to expand health coverage to even more children. In my home State of Arizona, our SCHIP program, KidsCare, was developed to provide low income children with medical, dental, and vision coverage. KidsCare has successfully enrolled almost 50,000 uninsured children and is anticipating reaching 60,000 by fiscal year 2004. When Arizona found that children are more likely to received health care if their parents also have access, and the flexibility of SCHIP enabled Arizona to expand its program. Last October Arizona began covering not just children, but also their parents. Arizona now provides health coverage to almost 8,000 uninsured parents. Although a substantial number of eligible children and parents still need coverage, I believe this relatively young program is nothing short of a success. Due to Congressional inaction, approximately $2.7 billion of unspent SCHIP funding reverted to the Treasury at the end of last year. The bill we are introducing today would return that money to SCHIP, ensuring that funds are allocated to States that need more funding to continue existing programs, while allowing other States to develop new and innovative programs to help our Nation's children get access to health care. The number of uninsured Americans reached 41 million in 2001 and continues to rise. However SCHIP is successfully reducing those numbers for one of the most vulnerable populations in our Nation, our children. I hope the Senate will act expeditiously on this important legislation to return the funds that belong in SCHIP and to ensure that we are expanding, not reducing, the number of children covered through this innovative program.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Hollings, Biden, DeWine, and Cantwell in introducing the Firefighting Research and Coordination Act. This legislation would provide for the establishment of a scientific basis for new firefighting technology standards; improved coordination between Federal, State, and local fire officials in training and response to a terrorist attack or a national emergency; and authorize the National Fire Academy to offer training to improve the ability of firefighters to respond to events such as the tragedy of September 11, 2001. Representatives Camp, Deutsch, Israel, Etheridge, and Weldon are introducing companion legislation. Similar legislation was approved by the Senate Commerce Committee last September. The purpose of this legislation is to act upon some of the lessons learned from the tragic terrorist attacks, and also address other problems faced by the fire services. On September 11, the New York City firefighters and emergency service personnel acted with great heroism in selflessly rushing to the World Trade Center and saving the lives of many Americans. Tragically, 343 firefighters and EMS technicians paid the ultimate price in the service of their country. While we strive to prevent any future attack in the United States, it is our duty to ensure that we are adequately prepared to respond to any future catastrophic act of terrorism. In addition, we must recognize that many of the preparations we make to improve the response to national emergencies also will aid our firefighters for their everyday role in protecting our families and homes. Today's firefighters use a variety of technologies including thermal imaging equipment, devices for locating firefighters and victims, and state-of-the-art protective suits to fight fires, clean up chemical or hazardous waste spills, and contend with potential terrorist devices. The Federal Government's Firefighter Investment and Response Enhancement, FIRE, program is authorized for $900 million for Fiscal Year 2004 to assist local fire departments in purchasing this high-tech equipment. It is important that the American taxpayers' money is used to buy equipment that will effectively protect our local communities and the responders. Unfortunately, there are no uniform technical standards for new equipment used in combating fires. Without such standards, local fire companies may purchase equipment that does not satisfy their needs, or even purchase faulty equipment. A January 2003 Consumer Reports article states that much of the emergency equipment sold today is not tested or certified by the government or independent labs. The article states that ``the confusion will get worse, emergency departments say, as new equipment floods the market in response to increased government funding.'' The lives of professional and volunteer emergency personnel, and the citizens they protect, are at risk from untested equipment. This bill seeks to address the need for new equipment standards by establishing a scientific basis for voluntary consensus standards. It would authorize the U.S. Fire Administrator to work with the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Inter-Agency Board for Equipment Standardization and Inter-Operability, other federal, state, and local agencies, national voluntary consensus standards development organizations, and other interested parties to establish measurement techniques and testing methodologies for new firefighting equipment. These new techniques and methodologies will act as a scientific basis for the development of voluntary consensus standards. This bill would allow the federal government to work with the private sector in developing the basic uniform performance criteria and technical standards to ensure the effectiveness and compatibility of these new technologies. The bill would authorize $2.2 million in Fiscal Year 2004 for these efforts. As my colleagues know, many issues regarding coordination surfaced on September 11. Titan Systems Corporation recently issued an after-action report, on behalf of the fire department of Arlington County, VA, which highlighted problems between the coordination of Washington D.C., and Arlington County fire departments. The report cited the confusion caused by a large influx of self-dispatched volunteers, and increased risk faced by the ``bonafide responders.'' These conclusions are consistent with an article by the current U.S. Fire Administrator, R. David Paulison, in the June 1993 issue of Fire Chief magazine, where he described being overwhelmed by the number of uncoordinated volunteer efforts that poured into Florida after Hurricane Andrew. Additionally, many fire officials and the General Accounting Office, GAO, have highlighted the duplicative nature of many Federal programs and the need for better coordination between Federal, State, and local officials. The bill seeks to address these problems by directing the U.S. Fire Administrator to provide technical assistance and training for state and local fire service officials to establish nationwide and state mutual aid systems for responding to national emergencies. These mutual aid plans would include collection of accurate asset and resource information to ensure that local fire services could work together to deploy equipment and personnel effectively during an emergency. The bill also would direct the U.S. Fire Administrator to report on the need for a strategy for deploying volunteers, including the use of a national credentialing system. This legislation also would authorize the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to update the Federal Response Plan to incorporate plans for responding to terrorist attacks, especially events in urban areas. This update would include fire detection, suppression, and related emergency services. The bill would improve the training of State and local firefighters. It would authorize the National Fire Academy to offer courses in building collapse rescue; the use of technology in response to fires caused by terrorist attacks and other national emergencies; leadership and strategic skills including integrated management systems operations; deployment of new technology for fighting forest and wild fires; fighting fires at ports; and other courses related to tactics and strategies for responding to terrorist incidents and other fire services' needs. Finally, this bill would also direct the U.S. Fire Administrator to coordinate the National Fire Academy's training programs with the Attorney General, Secretary of Health and Human Services and other federal agencies to prevent and eliminate the duplication in training programs that has been identified by the GAO. In 2001, we were caught unprepared and paid a terrible price as a result. While we will never be able to prevent firefighter deaths because of the risks involved, it is our obligation to help ensure that future firefighters are adequately equipped and trained, and are working in coordination to respond to any future national emergencies. I am pleased to announce that this legislation is supported by the National Volunteer Fire Council; the Congressional Fire Services Institute; the National Fire Protection Association; the International Association of Fire Chiefs; the International Association of Fire Fighters; the International Association of Arson Investigators; International Society of Fire Service Instructors; North American Fire Training Directors and the International Fire Service Training Association. I ask unanimous consent that the letter of endorsement be printed in the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill also be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Rockefeller, Chafee and a bipartisan group of my colleagues in introducing a bill to restore funding which was previously allocated to the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP. Established in 1997 as part of the Balanced Budget Act, SCHIP was developed as a means for states to provide basic health coverage for uninsured children of low income families, who are not eligible for coverage under Medicaid. Through the Fedeal-State matching program, SCHIP has provided coverage for millions of uninsured children. In fiscal year 2001, 4.4 million children were enrolled in SCHIP. Today every State in the country, five territories, and the District of Columbia are using SCHIP to develop innovative programs to expand health coverage to even more children. In my home State of Arizona, our SCHIP program, KidsCare, was developed to provide low income children with medical, dental, and vision coverage. KidsCare has successfully enrolled almost 50,000 uninsured children and is anticipating reaching 60,000 by fiscal year 2004. When Arizona found that children are more likely to received health care if their parents also have access, and the flexibility of SCHIP enabled Arizona to expand its program. Last October Arizona began covering not just children, but also their parents. Arizona now provides health coverage to almost 8,000 uninsured parents. Although a substantial number of eligible children and parents still need coverage, I believe this relatively young program is nothing short of a success. Due to Congressional inaction, approximately $2.7 billion of unspent SCHIP funding reverted to the Treasury at the end of last year. The bill we are introducing today would return that money to SCHIP, ensuring that funds are allocated to States that need more funding to continue existing programs, while allowing other States to develop new and innovative programs to help our Nation's children get access to health care. The number of uninsured Americans reached 41 million in 2001 and continues to rise. However SCHIP is successfully reducing those numbers for one of the most vulnerable populations in our Nation, our children. I hope the Senate will act expeditiously on this important legislation to return the funds that belong in SCHIP and to ensure that we are expanding, not reducing, the number of children covered through this innovative program.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Hollings, Biden, DeWine, and Cantwell in introducing the Firefighting Research and Coordination Act. This legislation would provide for the establishment of a scientific basis for new firefighting technology standards; improved coordination between Federal, State, and local fire officials in training and response to a terrorist attack or a national emergency; and authorize the National Fire Academy to offer training to improve the ability of firefighters to respond to events such as the tragedy of September 11, 2001. Representatives Camp, Deutsch, Israel, Etheridge, and Weldon are introducing companion legislation. Similar legislation was approved by the Senate Commerce Committee last September. The purpose of this legislation is to act upon some of the lessons learned from the tragic terrorist attacks, and also address other problems faced by the fire services. On September 11, the New York City firefighters and emergency service personnel acted with great heroism in selflessly rushing to the World Trade Center and saving the lives of many Americans. Tragically, 343 firefighters and EMS technicians paid the ultimate price in the service of their country. While we strive to prevent any future attack in the United States, it is our duty to ensure that we are adequately prepared to respond to any future catastrophic act of terrorism. In addition, we must recognize that many of the preparations we make to improve the response to national emergencies also will aid our firefighters for their everyday role in protecting our families and homes. Today's firefighters use a variety of technologies including thermal imaging equipment, devices for locating firefighters and victims, and state-of-the-art protective suits to fight fires, clean up chemical or hazardous waste spills, and contend with potential terrorist devices. The Federal Government's Firefighter Investment and Response Enhancement, FIRE, program is authorized for $900 million for Fiscal Year 2004 to assist local fire departments in purchasing this high-tech equipment. It is important that the American taxpayers' money is used to buy equipment that will effectively protect our local communities and the responders. Unfortunately, there are no uniform technical standards for new equipment used in combating fires. Without such standards, local fire companies may purchase equipment that does not satisfy their needs, or even purchase faulty equipment. A January 2003 Consumer Reports article states that much of the emergency equipment sold today is not tested or certified by the government or independent labs. The article states that ``the confusion will get worse, emergency departments say, as new equipment floods the market in response to increased government funding.'' The lives of professional and volunteer emergency personnel, and the citizens they protect, are at risk from untested equipment. This bill seeks to address the need for new equipment standards by establishing a scientific basis for voluntary consensus standards. It would authorize the U.S. Fire Administrator to work with the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Inter-Agency Board for Equipment Standardization and Inter-Operability, other federal, state, and local agencies, national voluntary consensus standards development organizations, and other interested parties to establish measurement techniques and testing methodologies for new firefighting equipment. These new techniques and methodologies will act as a scientific basis for the development of voluntary consensus standards. This bill would allow the federal government to work with the private sector in developing the basic uniform performance criteria and technical standards to ensure the effectiveness and compatibility of these new technologies. The bill would authorize $2.2 million in Fiscal Year 2004 for these efforts. As my colleagues know, many issues regarding coordination surfaced on September 11. Titan Systems Corporation recently issued an after-action report, on behalf of the fire department of Arlington County, VA, which highlighted problems between the coordination of Washington D.C., and Arlington County fire departments. The report cited the confusion caused by a large influx of self-dispatched volunteers, and increased risk faced by the ``bonafide responders.'' These conclusions are consistent with an article by the current U.S. Fire Administrator, R. David Paulison, in the June 1993 issue of Fire Chief magazine, where he described being overwhelmed by the number of uncoordinated volunteer efforts that poured into Florida after Hurricane Andrew. Additionally, many fire officials and the General Accounting Office, GAO, have highlighted the duplicative nature of many Federal programs and the need for better coordination between Federal, State, and local officials. The bill seeks to address these problems by directing the U.S. Fire Administrator to provide technical assistance and training for state and local fire service officials to establish nationwide and state mutual aid systems for responding to national emergencies. These mutual aid plans would include collection of accurate asset and resource information to ensure that local fire services could work together to deploy equipment and personnel effectively during an emergency. The bill also would direct the U.S. Fire Administrator to report on the need for a strategy for deploying volunteers, including the use of a national credentialing system. This legislation also would authorize the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to update the Federal Response Plan to incorporate plans for responding to terrorist attacks, especially events in urban areas. This update would include fire detection, suppression, and related emergency services. The bill would improve the training of State and local firefighters. It would authorize the National Fire Academy to offer courses in building collapse rescue; the use of technology in response to fires caused by terrorist attacks and other national emergencies; leadership and strategic skills including integrated management systems operations; deployment of new technology for fighting forest and wild fires; fighting fires at ports; and other courses related to tactics and strategies for responding to terrorist incidents and other fire services' needs. Finally, this bill would also direct the U.S. Fire Administrator to coordinate the National Fire Academy's training programs with the Attorney General, Secretary of Health and Human Services and other federal agencies to prevent and eliminate the duplication in training programs that has been identified by the GAO. In 2001, we were caught unprepared and paid a terrible price as a result. While we will never be able to prevent firefighter deaths because of the risks involved, it is our obligation to help ensure that future firefighters are adequately equipped and trained, and are working in coordination to respond to any future national emergencies. I am pleased to announce that this legislation is supported by the National Volunteer Fire Council; the Congressional Fire Services Institute; the National Fire Protection Association; the International Association of Fire Chiefs; the International Association of Fire Fighters; the International Association of Arson Investigators; International Society of Fire Service Instructors; North American Fire Training Directors and the International Fire Service Training Association. I ask unanimous consent that the letter of endorsement be printed in the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill also be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am proud to sponsor the Military Home Owners Equity Act of 2003, S. 284. This is important legislation which I have been privileged to introduce in the Senate during previous Congresses. This legislation would allow members of the Uniformed Services, who are away on extended active duty, to qualify for the same tax relief on the profit generated when they sell their main residence as other Americans. I am pleased to announce that Secretary of State Colin Powell fully supports this legislation and this legislation enjoys overwhelming support by the senior uniformed leadership, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as the Office of Management and Budget Director Mitch Daniels, the 31-member associations of the Military Coalition, the American Foreign Service Association, and the American Bar Association. The average American participates in our Nation's growth through home ownership. Appreciation in the value of a home allows everyday Americans to participate in our country's prosperity. Fortunately, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 recognized this and provided this break to lessen the amount of tax most Americans will pay on the profit they make when they sell their homes. Unfortunately, the 1997 home sale provision unintentionally discourages home ownership among members of the Uniformed and Foreign Services. This bill will not create a new tax benefit; it merely modifies current law to include the time members of the Uniformed Services are away from home on active duty when calculating the number of years the homeowners has lived in their primary residence. In short, this bill is narrowly tailored to remedy a specific dilemma. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 delivered sweeping tax relief to millions of Americans through a wide variety of important tax changes that affect individuals, families, investors and businesses. It was also one of the most complex tax laws enacted in recent history. As with any complex legislation, there are winners and losers. But in this instance, there are unintended losers: members of the Uniformed and Foreign Services. The 1997 act gives taxpayers who sell their principal residence a much-needed tax break. Prior to the 1997 act, taxpayers received a one- time exclusion on the profit they made when they sold their principal residence, but the taxpayer had to be at least 55 years old and live in the residence for 2 of the 5 years preceding the sale. This provision primarily benefitted elderly taxpayers, while not providing any relief to younger taxpayers and their families. Fortunately, the 1997 act addressed this issue. Under this law, taxpayers who sell their principal residence on or after May 7, 1997, are not taxed on the first $250,000 of profit from the sale, joint filers are not taxed on the first $500,000 of profit they make from selling their principal residence. The taxpayers must meet two requirements to qualify for this tax relief. The taxpayer must one, own the home for at least 2 of the 5 years preceding the sale, and two, live in the home as their main home for at least 2 years of the last 5 years. I applaud the bipartisan cooperation that resulted in this much- needed form of tax relief. The home sales provision sounds great, and it is. Unfortunately,the second part of this eligibility test unintentionally and unfairly prohibits many of the women and men who serve this country overseas from qualifying for this beneficial tax relief. Constant travel across the United States and abroad is inherent in the Uniformed and Foreign Services. Nonetheless, some members of these Services choose to purchase a home in a certain locale, even though they will not live there much of the time. Under the new law, if they do not have a spouse who resides in the house during their absence, they will not qualify for the full benefit of the new home sales provision, because no one ``lives'' in the home for the required period of time. The law is prejudiced against families that serve our Nation abroad. They would not qualify for the home sales exclusion because neither spouse ``live'' in the house for enough time to qualify for the exclusion. This bill simply remedies an inequality in the 1997 law. The bill amends the Internal Revenue Code so that members of the Uniformed and Foreign Services will be considered to be using their house as their main residence for any period that they are assigned overseas in the execution of their duties. In short, they will be deemed to be using their house as their main home, even if they are stationed in Bosnia, the Persian Gulf, in the ``no man's land,'' commonly called the DMZ between North and South Korea, or anywhere else they are assigned. In the wake of September 11, our Armed Forces are now deployed to an unprecedented number of locations. They are away from their primary homes, protecting and furthering the freedoms we Americans hold so dear. We cannot afford to discourage military service by penalizing military personnel with higher taxes merely because they are doing their job. Military service entails sacrifice, such as long periods of time away from friends and family and the constant threat of mobilization into hostile territory. We must not use the tax code to heap additional burdens upon our women and men in uniform. In my view, the way to decrease the likelihood of further inequalities in the tax code, intentional or otherwise, is to adopt a fairer, flatter tax system that is far less complicated than our current system. But, in the meantime, we must insure the Tax Code is as fair and equitable as possible. The Taxpayers' Relief Act of 1997 was designed to provide sweeping tax relief to all Americans, including those who serve this country abroad. Yes, it is true that there are winners and losers in any tax code, but, this inequity was unintended. Enacting this narrowly tailored remedy to grant equal tax relief to the members of our Uniformed and Foreign Services restores fairness and consistency to our increasingly complex Tax Code. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today, I am joined by my colleague, Senator Dorgan, in introducing the Professional Boxing Amendments Act of 2003. This legislation is designed to strengthen existing Federal boxing laws by making uniform certain health and safety standards, establish a centralized medical registry to be used by local commissions to protect boxers, reduce arbitrary practices of sanctioning organizations, and provide uniformity in ranking criteria and contractual guidelines. This legislation also would establish a Federal regulatory entity to oversee professional boxing and set uniform standards for certain aspects of the sport. Since 1996, Congress has acted to improve the sport of boxing by passing two laws, the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996, and the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act of 2000. These laws were intended to establish uniform standards to improve the health and safety of boxers, and to better protect them from the sometimes coercive, exploitative, and unethical business practices of promoters, managers, and sanctioning organizations. While the Professional Boxing Safety Act, as amended by the Muhammad Ali Act, has had some positive effects on the sport, I am concerned by the repeated failure of some State and tribal boxing commissions to comply with the law, and the lack of enforcement of the law by both Federal and State law enforcement officials. Corruption remains endemic in professional boxing, and the sport continues to be beset with a variety of problems, some beyond the scope of the current system of local regulation. Therefore, the bill we are introducing today would further strengthen Federal boxing laws, and also create a Federal regulatory entity, the ``United States Boxing Administration'', USBA, to oversee the sport. The USBA would be headed by an Administrator, appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. The primary functions of the USBA would be to protect the health, safety, and general interests of boxers. More specifically, the USBA would, among other things: administer Federal boxing laws and coordinate with other federal regulatory agencies to ensure that these laws are enforced; oversee all professional boxing matches in the United States; and work with the boxing industry and local commissions to improve the status and standards of the sport. The USBA would license boxers, promoters, managers, and sanctioning organizations, and revoke or suspend such licenses if the USBA believes that such action is in the public interest. No longer would a boxer be able to forum- shop for a state with a weak commission if he or she is undeserving of a license. Under this legislative proposal, the fines collected and licensing fees imposed by the USBA would be used to fund a percentage of its activities. The USBA also would maintain a centralized database of medical and statistical information pertaining to boxers in the United States that would be used confidentially by local commissions in making licensing decisions. Let me be clear. The USBA would not be intended to micro-manage boxing by interfering with the daily operations of local boxing commissions. Instead, the USBA would work in consultation with local commissions, and the USBA Administrator would only exercise his/her authority should reasonable grounds exist for intervention. The problems that plague the sport of professional boxing compromise the safety of boxers and undermine the credibility of the sport in the eyes of the public. I believe this bill provides a realistic approach to curbing these problems, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am proud to sponsor the Military Home Owners Equity Act of 2003, S. 284. This is important legislation which I have been privileged to introduce in the Senate during previous Congresses. This legislation would allow members of the Uniformed Services, who are away on extended active duty, to qualify for the same tax relief on the profit generated when they sell their main residence as other Americans. I am pleased to announce that Secretary of State Colin Powell fully supports this legislation and this legislation enjoys overwhelming support by the senior uniformed leadership, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as the Office of Management and Budget Director Mitch Daniels, the 31-member associations of the Military Coalition, the American Foreign Service Association, and the American Bar Association. The average American participates in our Nation's growth through home ownership. Appreciation in the value of a home allows everyday Americans to participate in our country's prosperity. Fortunately, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 recognized this and provided this break to lessen the amount of tax most Americans will pay on the profit they make when they sell their homes. Unfortunately, the 1997 home sale provision unintentionally discourages home ownership among members of the Uniformed and Foreign Services. This bill will not create a new tax benefit; it merely modifies current law to include the time members of the Uniformed Services are away from home on active duty when calculating the number of years the homeowners has lived in their primary residence. In short, this bill is narrowly tailored to remedy a specific dilemma. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 delivered sweeping tax relief to millions of Americans through a wide variety of important tax changes that affect individuals, families, investors and businesses. It was also one of the most complex tax laws enacted in recent history. As with any complex legislation, there are winners and losers. But in this instance, there are unintended losers: members of the Uniformed and Foreign Services. The 1997 act gives taxpayers who sell their principal residence a much-needed tax break. Prior to the 1997 act, taxpayers received a one- time exclusion on the profit they made when they sold their principal residence, but the taxpayer had to be at least 55 years old and live in the residence for 2 of the 5 years preceding the sale. This provision primarily benefitted elderly taxpayers, while not providing any relief to younger taxpayers and their families. Fortunately, the 1997 act addressed this issue. Under this law, taxpayers who sell their principal residence on or after May 7, 1997, are not taxed on the first $250,000 of profit from the sale, joint filers are not taxed on the first $500,000 of profit they make from selling their principal residence. The taxpayers must meet two requirements to qualify for this tax relief. The taxpayer must one, own the home for at least 2 of the 5 years preceding the sale, and two, live in the home as their main home for at least 2 years of the last 5 years. I applaud the bipartisan cooperation that resulted in this much- needed form of tax relief. The home sales provision sounds great, and it is. Unfortunately,the second part of this eligibility test unintentionally and unfairly prohibits many of the women and men who serve this country overseas from qualifying for this beneficial tax relief. Constant travel across the United States and abroad is inherent in the Uniformed and Foreign Services. Nonetheless, some members of these Services choose to purchase a home in a certain locale, even though they will not live there much of the time. Under the new law, if they do not have a spouse who resides in the house during their absence, they will not qualify for the full benefit of the new home sales provision, because no one ``lives'' in the home for the required period of time. The law is prejudiced against families that serve our Nation abroad. They would not qualify for the home sales exclusion because neither spouse ``live'' in the house for enough time to qualify for the exclusion. This bill simply remedies an inequality in the 1997 law. The bill amends the Internal Revenue Code so that members of the Uniformed and Foreign Services will be considered to be using their house as their main residence for any period that they are assigned overseas in the execution of their duties. In short, they will be deemed to be using their house as their main home, even if they are stationed in Bosnia, the Persian Gulf, in the ``no man's land,'' commonly called the DMZ between North and South Korea, or anywhere else they are assigned. In the wake of September 11, our Armed Forces are now deployed to an unprecedented number of locations. They are away from their primary homes, protecting and furthering the freedoms we Americans hold so dear. We cannot afford to discourage military service by penalizing military personnel with higher taxes merely because they are doing their job. Military service entails sacrifice, such as long periods of time away from friends and family and the constant threat of mobilization into hostile territory. We must not use the tax code to heap additional burdens upon our women and men in uniform. In my view, the way to decrease the likelihood of further inequalities in the tax code, intentional or otherwise, is to adopt a fairer, flatter tax system that is far less complicated than our current system. But, in the meantime, we must insure the Tax Code is as fair and equitable as possible. The Taxpayers' Relief Act of 1997 was designed to provide sweeping tax relief to all Americans, including those who serve this country abroad. Yes, it is true that there are winners and losers in any tax code, but, this inequity was unintended. Enacting this narrowly tailored remedy to grant equal tax relief to the members of our Uniformed and Foreign Services restores fairness and consistency to our increasingly complex Tax Code. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today, I am joined by my colleague, Senator Dorgan, in introducing the Professional Boxing Amendments Act of 2003. This legislation is designed to strengthen existing Federal boxing laws by making uniform certain health and safety standards, establish a centralized medical registry to be used by local commissions to protect boxers, reduce arbitrary practices of sanctioning organizations, and provide uniformity in ranking criteria and contractual guidelines. This legislation also would establish a Federal regulatory entity to oversee professional boxing and set uniform standards for certain aspects of the sport. Since 1996, Congress has acted to improve the sport of boxing by passing two laws, the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996, and the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act of 2000. These laws were intended to establish uniform standards to improve the health and safety of boxers, and to better protect them from the sometimes coercive, exploitative, and unethical business practices of promoters, managers, and sanctioning organizations. While the Professional Boxing Safety Act, as amended by the Muhammad Ali Act, has had some positive effects on the sport, I am concerned by the repeated failure of some State and tribal boxing commissions to comply with the law, and the lack of enforcement of the law by both Federal and State law enforcement officials. Corruption remains endemic in professional boxing, and the sport continues to be beset with a variety of problems, some beyond the scope of the current system of local regulation. Therefore, the bill we are introducing today would further strengthen Federal boxing laws, and also create a Federal regulatory entity, the ``United States Boxing Administration'', USBA, to oversee the sport. The USBA would be headed by an Administrator, appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. The primary functions of the USBA would be to protect the health, safety, and general interests of boxers. More specifically, the USBA would, among other things: administer Federal boxing laws and coordinate with other federal regulatory agencies to ensure that these laws are enforced; oversee all professional boxing matches in the United States; and work with the boxing industry and local commissions to improve the status and standards of the sport. The USBA would license boxers, promoters, managers, and sanctioning organizations, and revoke or suspend such licenses if the USBA believes that such action is in the public interest. No longer would a boxer be able to forum- shop for a state with a weak commission if he or she is undeserving of a license. Under this legislative proposal, the fines collected and licensing fees imposed by the USBA would be used to fund a percentage of its activities. The USBA also would maintain a centralized database of medical and statistical information pertaining to boxers in the United States that would be used confidentially by local commissions in making licensing decisions. Let me be clear. The USBA would not be intended to micro-manage boxing by interfering with the daily operations of local boxing commissions. Instead, the USBA would work in consultation with local commissions, and the USBA Administrator would only exercise his/her authority should reasonable grounds exist for intervention. The problems that plague the sport of professional boxing compromise the safety of boxers and undermine the credibility of the sport in the eyes of the public. I believe this bill provides a realistic approach to curbing these problems, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Telecommunications Ownership Diversity Act of 2003. This legislation is designed to ensure that more Americans have an opportunity to provide their distinct voices in today's telecommunications marketplace. In addition to providing competition by certain small businesses, this bill would encourage ownership by individuals who are currently underrepresented in the ownership of telecommunications companies, including minorities and women, by making carefully crafted changes in the tax code. The bill would institute market-based, voluntary measures designed to achieve this goal. It would provide sellers of telecommunications assets a tax deferral when those assets are bought for cash by certain small businesses. It would also provide investors an incentive to consider certain small businesses by providing a reduction in the tax on gains from investment in these companies. Today, transactions in the telecommunications industry are routinely valued in the billions of dollars. Even radio, which has traditionally been a comparatively easier telecom segment to enter, has been priced out of the range of most would-be entrants. Given the significant cost of participating in this industry, the limited club of media and other telecommunications owners may not always include certain small businesses. This morning, I chaired a hearing in the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on media ownership. We heard of the difficulties small minority-owned businesses experience when trying to raise the capital necessary to enter this business. Minorities are woefully underrepresented in the ownership of commercial broadcast facilities. As of December 2000, minorities owned an estimated 3.8 percent of these facilities in the United States, despite representing an estimated 29 percent of the total United States population. The bill does not mandate ownership levels by any specific group. But it does ensure that certain small businesses are on equal footing with large companies. We should ensure that the American media landscape includes opportunities for these voices to be heard. Too often today, new entrants and small businesses lose out on opportunities to purchase telecom assets because they don't offer sellers the same tax treatment as their larger competitors. A small purchaser's cash offer triggers tax liability, while a larger purchaser's stock offer may be accepted effectively tax-free. When an entity chooses to sell a telecom business, our tax laws should not make one bidder more attractive than another. The goal of viewpoint diversity has been at the center of recent debate over media ownership rules. While it is important to discuss the relative merits of ownership restrictions, we must also consider market-based, voluntary methods of facilitating entry and diversity of ownership. And that's what this legislation would do. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Telecommunications Ownership Diversity Act of 2003. This legislation is designed to ensure that more Americans have an opportunity to provide their distinct voices in today's telecommunications marketplace. In addition to providing competition by certain small businesses, this bill would encourage ownership by individuals who are currently underrepresented in the ownership of telecommunications companies, including minorities and women, by making carefully crafted changes in the tax code. The bill would institute market-based, voluntary measures designed to achieve this goal. It would provide sellers of telecommunications assets a tax deferral when those assets are bought for cash by certain small businesses. It would also provide investors an incentive to consider certain small businesses by providing a reduction in the tax on gains from investment in these companies. Today, transactions in the telecommunications industry are routinely valued in the billions of dollars. Even radio, which has traditionally been a comparatively easier telecom segment to enter, has been priced out of the range of most would-be entrants. Given the significant cost of participating in this industry, the limited club of media and other telecommunications owners may not always include certain small businesses. This morning, I chaired a hearing in the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on media ownership. We heard of the difficulties small minority-owned businesses experience when trying to raise the capital necessary to enter this business. Minorities are woefully underrepresented in the ownership of commercial broadcast facilities. As of December 2000, minorities owned an estimated 3.8 percent of these facilities in the United States, despite representing an estimated 29 percent of the total United States population. The bill does not mandate ownership levels by any specific group. But it does ensure that certain small businesses are on equal footing with large companies. We should ensure that the American media landscape includes opportunities for these voices to be heard. Too often today, new entrants and small businesses lose out on opportunities to purchase telecom assets because they don't offer sellers the same tax treatment as their larger competitors. A small purchaser's cash offer triggers tax liability, while a larger purchaser's stock offer may be accepted effectively tax-free. When an entity chooses to sell a telecom business, our tax laws should not make one bidder more attractive than another. The goal of viewpoint diversity has been at the center of recent debate over media ownership rules. While it is important to discuss the relative merits of ownership restrictions, we must also consider market-based, voluntary methods of facilitating entry and diversity of ownership. And that's what this legislation would do. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I ask that I be recognized for up to 20 minutes.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield my 2 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad.