John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. The senior Senator, as well as the junior Senator, from Minnesota, have views on this issue. I would not like to enter into a time agreement until such time as they at least are consulted. But I am sure they would be agreeable to a reasonable time limit. I did discuss with my colleagues from North Dakota that I sent staff out to Devils Lake to further look at this situation. I understand and appreciate their long involvement--I understand 9 years--in this issue. I would be more than willing to learn more about this issue. At this time, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. I would like to wait, if it is agreeable to the Senator from Alaska. I understand the senior Senator from Minnesota is on his way. If you could give me about 3 or 4 minutes?

Mr. McCAIN. I will be glad to yield.

Mr. McCAIN. The controversy surrounding this project is not limited to the environmental harm the pumps will cause. An independent economic analysis conducted by a highly respected economist, who also chairs the National Academy of Sciences panel, shows that the Yazoo pumps cannot be economically justified. It shows that the Corps has overstated just the agricultural benefits of the project by $144 million. It also shows that the Corps of Engineers is asking Federal taxpayers to spend well over $180 million simply to help large landowners earn more farm subsidy payments. Those subsidies are already substantial. In just the 2-year flood plain of the project area, where 150,000 acres of wetlands will be damaged, 51 landowners split $15.3 million on Federal farm subsidies in the 6 years from 1996 to 2001. One of those landowners received $2.7 million during that time while four others received more than $1 million each. Perhaps the worst thing about this project is that each and every benefit could be achieved in a way that would avoid each and every impact we are talking about. Nonstructural measures, including the purchase of conservation and flowage easements and targeted flood proofing of buildings, could reduce flood damages in the region. This alternative has been suggested for years but has been brushed aside by the Corps. The Corps has not finished its environmental review of this project, has not finished the feasibility study for this project, and it has not issued a record of decision. The Corps of Engineers has far to go to satisfy its planning requirements. The draft environmental review was so flawed that it was given the lowest possible rating by the EPA. This makes any directive to enter into a continuing contract for the pumps supply contract entirely premature. Given the widespread opposition to this project, the detailed and scientifically supported challenges to the Corps project analysis, and the ecosystemwide harm this project will cause, Congress would do an enormous disservice to taxpayers and the environment to direct the Corps to begin construction. This amendment would allow the planning process to proceed without interference. It would ensure we don't short circuit the ongoing environmental and physical review of this project that could destroy an entire ecosystem and cause taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment would eliminate $14.5 million for construction activities for the Yazoo Pump Station in Mississippi. It would require the completion of feasibility studies, environmental review, and the economic analysis that is required of other core projects. If the project proceeds unimpeded, there are 200,000 acres of environmentally sensitive wetlands that would be destroyed and a host of other environmental problems that will ensue. It is telling that the other Federal agencies charged with evaluating projects and protecting the Nation's environment are opposed to the project. The EPA has given, in the core analysis of this project, its lowest possible rating. And the analysis also revealed that the costs of the project far outweigh the benefits, questions that should be answered before this project proceeds. I urge my colleagues not to table the amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I know of no two Members of the Senate who have worked harder on behalf of their constituents than my friends from Mississippi. I also understand that they have special problems and special needs in one of the least economically well-off parts of America. I understand their dedication to this and other efforts they have made on behalf of their constituents. It is with that understanding that I still oppose this project. It has nothing to do with the admiration and respect I have for both of my dear friends. Mr. President, I hope this amendment will be sustained by my colleagues. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I understand I have 1 minute.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. McCAIN. In part it reads: While Canada sympathizes with North Dakota's problems with Devils Lake flooding, it cannot agree to a solution that poses a genuine threat to Canadian water resources, as well as to those of other states. There are alternative, internal solutions available to North Dakota, including the construction of additional flood protection works and the pursuit of upper basin storage approaches. Canada urges that additional funds not be provided for the Devils Lake outlet project unless and until all of the issues it raises are thoroughly addressed through studies repeatedly mandated by Congress, and following meaningful consultation with Canada under the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty. From a technical standpoint, there is serious doubt that an outlet with the proposed capacity would have any demonstrable effect on the level of Devils Lake. After thorough review, the Corps of Engineers announced in a June 1999 press release its conclusion that an outlet is not the necessary or appropriate solution, at this time, and recommended a review of alternatives. Restoration of drained wetlands is one possibility. As Devils Lake has no natural outlet, its high levels may well have been exacerbated by the amount of run- off from drained wetlands in the basin. I have had extended conversations with both Senators from North Dakota. I do not claim to have extensive education and expertise on this issue. I think it is serious when we have these concerns by Canada and neighboring States and there is not a cost-benefit analysis. My friends from North Dakota point out that it is under the way in which that cost-benefit analysis is conducted. With a basin such as this, that catches water and does not release water, as happens in the case of rivers, this is very difficult, if not impossible, to do. I still believe we should be able to fashion some kind of formula to find out what the cost-benefit ratio is. I also point out that, thanks to the good efforts of the Senators from North Dakota, $350 million has been spent in the last several years, raising highways and relocating individuals who live in proximity to Devils Lake. There are concerns raised. I think the concerns are serious. I also assured my colleagues from North Dakota that I will send my staff out to North Dakota.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield my minute to the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Dayton.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to reduce funding for the Yazoo Pump Project in Yazoo Basin, MS. I believe the project is wasteful and environmentally harmful. It has not been subjected to standard responsible environmental or economic assessment. And although it was touted as a flood control project, the Yazoo pumps are not designed to save homes and lives. Instead, in my view, the pumps are specifically designed to drain wetlands so that large landowners can increase agricultural production on marginal lands, the majority of which are irreplaceable wetlands. In fact the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has indicated this project will likely be subject to a Clean Water Act veto because the project will drain and damage more than 200,000 acres of significant wetlands in the Mississippi flyway. That is more than three times the number of wetlands lost across the country in an entire year from all causes. It is more than seven times as many wetlands as the Corps allows private developers to destroy in an entire year nationwide under the Clean Water Act section 404 permit program. Wetlands drained will include more than 31,000 acres currently enrolled in the Wetlands Reserve and Conservation Reserve programs which the Federal taxpayers already have paid more than $30 million to protect. Tens of thousands of acres of forest and wetlands located on Federal and State lands will also be damaged. But the harm won't end there. The pumps will alter the hydrology of the entire 925,000-acre project area and of the Dear Creek, Steele Bayou, Little Sunflower, and Big Sunflower Rivers that flow through that area. The project also encourages increased pesticide use in an area of the country already plagued by significant toxic contamination. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has also opposed the project due to the severity of the ecological harm it will cause. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the opposition statement of the EPA.

Mr. McCAIN. I object.

Mr. McCAIN. I remove my objection.

Mr. McCAIN. What is the regular order?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. The amendment is numbered 214.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as soon as the Senator from Minnesota arrives in the Chamber, I intend to propose a time agreement so we can dispense with this amendment. I would like to consult with cosponsors before we do. I don't think this issue needs to be debated very long. But I will propose a time agreement very shortly. I offer an amendment to a provision of a bill regarding a project to construct an outlet in Devils Lake, ND. The project is very controversial and its impact extends well beyond North Dakota into Minnesota, Missouri, and Canada. I am pleased to be joined in support of this by Senators Dayton and Coleman. The outlet from the landlocked lake allows contaminated water to flow into neighboring waterways, causing the introduction of invasive species. I ask unanimous consent to have letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. The Canadian Government is so concerned that it was a leading item in recent talks between President Bush and the Prime Minister of Canada. The provision authorizes $5 million for construction and a total of $100 million for the Corps of Engineers to have completed their feasibility study or environmental review. In fact, the Corps has indicated they do not believe the outlet would accomplish the purpose for which it was intended. There is a letter from the Canadian Ambassador addressed to the Honorable Bill Young, chairman of the Appropriations Committee that I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Senate has just confirmed the appointment of Asa Hutchinson to serve as the Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security at the Department of Homeland Security. This is a very important position within the newly created Department, and one that encompasses far-reaching responsibilities. Therefore, I am pleased the Senate was able to move expeditiously on this confirmation so that Congressman Hutchinson can be in his position when the new Department officially begins operation tomorrow, January 24. The Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security is charged with critical duties, including: preventing the entry of terrorists and the instruments of terrorism into the United States; securing the borders, territorial waters, ports, terminals, waterways, and air, land, and sea transportation systems of the United States; administering U.S. customs laws; establishing national immigration enforcement policies and priorities; carrying out INS immigration enforcement functioning; and administering the granting of visas or other forms of permission to enter the United States. With these duties will go jurisdiction over many existing government units, including the United States Customs Service of the Department of the Treasury, the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, of the Department of Transportation, the Federal Protective Service of the General Services Administration, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center of the Department of the Treasury, and the Office for Domestic Preparedness of the Office of Justice Programs of the Department of Justice. Security policies are intertwined with safety policies, and many of the Under Secretary's functions are closely linked to other agencies of the federal governmental, such as the modal administrations responsible for transportation safety at the Department of Transportation. Further, many duties overseen by the Under Secretary have been and will continue to be performed by the Coast Guard. All of these functions will have to be carefully coordinated under Congressman Hutchinson's leadership. The Under Secretary will face many difficult challenges, including those associated with the very serious situation at our southern border. For example, Arizona has been a leading gateway for illegal immigrants into the U.S. since the mid-1990s. Illegal immigrants are dying along on our borders. The attrition rate for Border Patrol Agents and INS inspectors has reached alarming levels. We have reached the point where we now have private citizens taking up arms and forming militia groups to patrol the border because they feel the federal government has failed to protect them. Just yesterday, the Wall Street Journal reported about the death of a U.S. Park Ranger in Arizona who was killed last August along the border, the fourth ranger killed in the line of duty since 1990. Further, uncompensated emergency and medical care provided to undocumented immigrants has left many border hospitals on the verge of financial ruin. Leadership and attention must be paramount in any effort undertaken by the Under Secretary to adequately address the wide range of border security issues, including how to ensure adequate resources are deployed for enforcement purposes. Yesterday, the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee held its hearing to consider Congressman Hutchinson's nomination. We unanimously approved his nomination earlier today. The new Under Secretary will certainly have our Committee's full support as he takes on the many great challenges that he will face in his new position. The American public is very fortunate to have such a fine, capable, hardworking citizen agree to take on the immense responsibilities associated with this public service position. I urge my colleagues' swift confirmation of Congressman Hutchinson.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the amendment Senators Bayh, Kyl, Sessions, and I offered expresses the sense of the Senate that North Korea must immediately comply with its international obligations to abandon and dismantle its nuclear weapons programs. As the administration explores a diplomatic solution to the crisis with North Korea, we believe it is important for the Senate to send Pyongyang a clear message that flagrant for its commitments to the United States and the international community remains unacceptable. Our amendment highlights North Korea's violation of both the Agreed Framework and the North-South Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. It expresses the Sense of the Senate that the Agreed Framework, as a result of North Korea's own actions, is own actions, is null and void, and that North Korea must immediately come into compliance with its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty and other commitments to the international community. Our amendment states that North Korea's pursuit and development of nuclear weapons represent a serious threat to the security of the United States and our allies; that any diplomatic solution to this crisis must achieve the total dismantlement of North Korea's nuclear weapons and nuclear production capability, backed by intrusive inspections; and that the United States and our regional allies should take measures to ensure the highest possible levels of deterrence and military readiness in the face of the North Korean threat. We have also worked with Senator Lugar to craft language calling on North Korea to allow full verification of food aid assistance by providing the World Food Program access to all areas of North Korea and permitting the WFP to undertake random inspections. Since 1995, the United States has been the single largest food donor to North Korea, providing $620 million in food aid assistance. We must have confidence that this assistance is going to hungry North Koreans, not the country's political and military elite. I thank the Senator from Indiana for his contribution. North Korea's pursuit of a nuclear arsenal directly threatens the security of the American people. Those who counsel a return to the status quo fail to grasp the danger of rewarding threats and retreat and concession. We all hope for a diplomatic solution to the current crisis. But as we have seen in the debate over Iraq and in our previous dealings with Pyongyang, our desire for peaceful outcomes cannot blind us to the dangers of policy drift or diplomatic accommodation in the face of compelling threats to our security. North Korea and Iraq present different faces of the same danger. I believe North Korea poses a greater danger than Iraq, and confronting it presents a more difficult challenge. That is all the more reason to take whatever action necessary to prevent Saddam Hussein from becoming a threat of equal magnitude, and just as difficult to confront. But the greater difficulty of resolving the Korean crisis is not the central concern. The greater danger it poses is. This doesn't absolve us of the responsibility to meet and overcome the threat any more than it replaces the necessity of overcoming the threat from Iraq. Nine years ago we faced a difficult set of options in dealing with North Korea. We chose to avoid them, and our irresolution has placed us in even greater danger. I hope we don't make the same mistake again. Our security depends on preventing North Korea from possessing a nuclear arsenal. That must be the primary object of our diplomacy. Freezing Pyongyang's nuclear program in place while we and our allies prolong the reign of the world's last Stalinist regime does not accomplish that objective, but merely encourages future attempts at nuclear blackmail. In my view, only if North Korea is prepared to surrender the enriched uranium it secretly attained, the spent fuel rods that would yield enough plutonium for three to five nuclear weapons, as well as dismantle the reactor and reprocessing plant it now threatens to restart, should we or any other country consider any assistance that might help North Korea escape the certain destiny of a failed state. I am pleased the Senate is going on record in its clear support for North Korea's nuclear disarmament, a rigorous inspection regime in any diplomatic agreement that is reached, the highest possible level of military readiness against the threat North Korea poses, and full and effective monitoring of food aid assistance. The burden is on North Korea to comply with its obligations, not on the United States to refrain from telling the truth about this rogue regime, or facing the consequences of the grave threat it poses to our people and our interests.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have a long statement concerning the bill. There are colleagues of mine waiting. Senator Kyl, my friend and colleague from Arizona, would like to talk about Korea. But I want to talk about the sense-of-the-Senate amendment on Korea. First, I would like to make a few comments about the bill that just passed. This is a very massive piece of legislation. Obviously, there were many legislative authorizations about which I was pleased to hear the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee complain. But there are several in the area of water projects--the Yazoo Pump project in central Mississippi and Devils Lake in North Dakota. I would like to point out a couple of items of interest. Report language directs the Agency for International Development to provide at least $2.5 million to the Orangutan Foundation located in Indonesia. The foundation likes to call the orangutan ``the neglected ap.'' Luckily for them, they are not being neglected by the Appropriations Committee. The appropriators not only like orangutan, they are also fond of gorillas. The committee gave $1.5 million to groups such as the Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund. I do not know why we stop at gorillas. What about man's best friend? What about other species around the world that are endangered? I am sure that animal lovers throughout the world would be pleased to know that we are not just selecting orangutans and gorillas for millions of the taxpayers' dollars, which brings us to the lowly catfish. Many of my colleagues will remember that last year the lowly catfish was designated as not a catfish but basa, depending on where it was raised. If it was raised in a pond in Vietnam, it was called basa. If it was raised in Arkansas, Mississippi, or other Southern States, it was called a catfish--a very interesting interpretation of species of animals. Now the Appropriations Committee has done another marvelous feat; that is, we have now concluded that the lowly catfish, heretofore unknown, is related to the cow. In the emergency disaster relief section of this bill a provision was included that would qualify catfish farmers for livestock compensation payments. Perhaps the livestock compensation program is a Federal farm program that compensates eligible livestock producers such as owners of beef, dairy cattle, sheep, goats or certain breeds of buffalo that have suffered losses or damages as a result of the severe drought. I discussed this issue with some of my colleagues. The distinguished President informed me that catfish in Tennessee many times walk on land and are seen to be moving about the countryside foraging in various places. That helps me understand the logic of designating the catfish as livestock. My friend, Mr. Enzi of Wyoming, said he heard that trout can easily die in certain conditions. Trout can easily die. Certainly the same could be said about catfish. That could take place with catfish as well. I often take issue with various farm policies that disproportionately benefit large agribusinesses or farms at the expense of small farmers and taxpayers or those who compromise American agricultural trade commitments. This effort to compensate catfish farmers from a farm program intended for livestock stands out. I am certain that catfish proponents will offer a dozen different explanations to justify this provision. But hogs, poultry, and horse producers are not eligible under the livestock compensation program. I wonder why catfish should get livestock payments when those worthy animals are excluded, such as hogs, poultry, or horses. I think it is important for us to recognize that we have now a new category of livestock; and that is catfish. Catfish lovers, and I count myself as one, all over America will be very grateful to know not only are they a tasty treat, but they are eligible for disaster payments so that we can keep Americans supplied with catfish under any circumstances, drought or no drought. Also, in the recent 2002 farm bill, domestic catfish proponents were successful, as I mentioned, in banning all catfish imports by requiring foreign catfish be labeled as something other than catfish. I want to mention a few others and make a couple of comments about them. Included in the bill are earmarks, among many others, such as $200,000 for the Anchorage People Mover in Alaska. Strangely, as I have mentioned in the past on numerous occasions, you will find many earmarks that are designated for the great state of Alaska; $250,000 for the Mary Baldwin College in Staunton, VA, for the Center for the Exceptionally Gifted. Now, my dear friends, they are exceptionally gifted because they have just received $250,000 for the exceptionally gifted. Not many colleges around the country are as lucky and exceptionally gifted as the young men and women at the Mary Baldwin College in Staunton, VA. And $1.5 million for WestStart's Vehicular Flywheel Project in the State of Washington. One of the unfortunate aspects about an appropriations bill is that quite often, or most of the time, there is not an explanation. As I remember flywheel projects, it seems to me that was a perpetual motion machine. But it is something on which I think we should continue to make an effort. So we have decided to gift WestStart's--I don't know who WestStart's is. I know they are located in the State of Washington--$1.5 million to continue that effort. And $1 million for the National Center for the Ecologically Based Noxious Weed Management at Montana State University. I think families all over America that have noxious weeds in their yards would be pleased to know that we are continuing a multimillion- dollar effort over a many-year period of time at the uniquely qualified Montana State University to try to get rid of these noxious weeds, or at least manage them, because I don't think they claim to remove noxious weeds. It is just a management program. There is $600,000 to treat waste on small swine farms in South Carolina. I don't know if that means for small animals or small farms; that was not designated--perhaps both. It is in South Carolina. Since it is only $600,000, we all know it is chicken feed. But my favorite--I will get to my favorite--again, strangely enough, $100,000 for the Alaska Sea Otter Commission. There is $300,000 to the Southern Regional Research Center at New Orleans, LA, for termite detection systems, evaluation of wood products for protecting building materials, and bait technology. Bait technology is something that all of us who love to fish will be very interested in hearing about. As we all know, for those of us who love to fish, bait technology is an intricate and very difficult challenge. So I can certainly see why the Southern Regional Research Center in New Orleans, LA, would be qualified. There is $200,000 to study seafood waste at the University of Alaska. ``Seafood waste''--I am not exactly sure what that means, but I am sure it is an important study. There is $300,000 for the Old Stoney feasibility study in Wyoming. Old Stoney, he has been in there before--Old Stoney. And, again, I am not sure exactly what Old Stoney is. I think he is a building, but I am not sure. And I don't know what the feasibility or nonfeasibility is of Old Stoney. There is $650,000 for grasshopper and Mormon cricket activities in the State of Utah. I don't know exactly what activities the Mormon crickets engage in and grasshoppers, but they are going to have $650,000 to engage in their activities. Finally, because my colleagues are waiting to speak, there is $1 million for a DNA bear sampling study in Montana. I have to repeat that: $1 million for a DNA bear sampling study in Montana. Up to this time, in my limited knowledge and experience, I had only known that DNA studies were to determine paternity in the commission or noncommission of a crime. But perhaps there are other uses. And I am not really familiar with a lot of the bears that live up in Montana. But this is really quite a remarkable study--a remarkable study--$1 million. And I don't know how many bears there are in Montana, but I wonder if probably that amount of money is very significant, because I think it would be very hard to hire people who are eager to go out and get a DNA sample from a grizzly bear. In fact, I would be very interested in knowing the methodology as to how this DNA sampling is obtained from these grizzly bears. So I wish them all luck up there in Montana. We will eagerly await the results of the DNAs of these bears. And any of them that have been guilty of the commission of some serious crime, I am certain it will help us in identifying them. I do agree that it is very difficult to tell one from another. So that is probably why the DNA is warranted here, as I am sure the Senator from Alaska would allege and the good folks up in Montana who have been plagued with a lack of ability to identify the bears according to their DNA now for several generations. So I do believe, in a moment of seriousness, we really need to scrutinize some of these appropriations items more carefully. They do amount to a great deal of money. Again, I see this legislating on appropriations continuing, which I think is an unfortunate practice. I congratulate the distinguished manager of the bill with the efficiency and dispatch in which he handled the legislation today. I congratulate him for his hard work in providing much needed funding so we can now begin next year's efforts. And I look forward to being able to do this 13 times in the coming year rather than just once or twice. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield to the Senator from Arizona concerning a sense-of-the-Senate amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, like many of my colleagues, I am very concerned about the growing number of uninsured Americans. This vulnerable population reached an estimated 41.2 million in 2001 and has surely grown during the recent economic down turn. I believe this is a serious problem facing our Nation and I am committed to working with my colleagues to reduce the number of uninsured Americans, to address their needs and to help all Americans access affordable health care. It is because of this commitment that I strongly support the Community Access Program (CAP) and I am pleased to see that it has been fully funded for fiscal year 2003 in the Senate-passed bill. In my home State of Arizona and across the country, the CAP program has helped many hardworking Americans, who are neither eligible for State assistance or employer-based insurance, obtain access to health care. Five CAP programs currently operate in Arizona. All of them function differently, but together the programs help thousands of Arizonans access affordable health care. These programs are particularly critical in the southern border region of and in the northern rural areas of my State, where the programs provide outreach services to low-income and non-English speaking patients. One program, the Pima Community Access Program (PCAP) works with doctors and hospitals to negotiate reduced rates for its members, and in some cases has successfully reduced the cost below that of our state Medicaid program. The simple fact is that these programs are providing an invaluable service for the people of my State and across the country. CAP is one of several federally funded programs that exist to provide assistance to the uninsured. It is a merit-based grant program that allows local communities to develop plans that will best provide assistance to their uninsured populations. I believe that not only do we need to ensure funding for this important program, but we must also look towards expanding other successful programs and creating new innovative programs, like CAP, to address the needs of this vulnerable population.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, after six continuing resolutions to keep the Federal Government operating and more than 3 months into the new fiscal year, the appropriations process for fiscal year 2003 is finally coming to an end. Of the 13 appropriations bills that were required to be passed and enacted into law last year to fully fund programs for fiscal year 2003, only two were passed and enacted. The 11 remaining bills have been bundled up in this so-called ``omnibus'' appropriations legislation. And once again, as in past years, we are faced with voting on a massive legislative package without adequate time for thorough review and debate. The 1,052-page bill before us, which appropriates approximately $400 billion, was not made available for review at 9:00 p.m. on the night before the first full day of debate on the bill. The managers submitted for the Record what would have been the committee reports for the 11 bills encompassed in this omnibus, but it was not available for review until debate on this bill was well under way. Have members and their staffs even spent the time to learn what is contained in this monstrous vehicle? When will we ever learn? I hope that the 108th Congress brings with it a renewed spirit of bipartisan cooperation. In the last Congress, such cooperation took a backseat to election year politics, partisan bickering, and ill-advised parliamentary tactics that had the effect of further polarizing this body. If we continue on this troubled path, we will be in the same situation 1 year from now. And again, this will be at the cost of the American taxpayer. During times of threats to our national security, it has been common practice to ask Americans to sacrifice to protect our homeland. However, today some believe it appropriate to merely craft this appropriations bill with little regard for the severe security and fiscal challenges confronting our Nation. We are on the verge of a possible war, and our economy is in distress. So what are we appropriating scarce resources for? Orangutans, pig waste, and sea otter commissions. There is approximately $11 billion in pork-barrel spending and a number of legislative riders that are riddled throughout this bill. In fact, Congressional earmarks reached their highest level during the last fiscal year, increasing 32 percent from the previous year. The multitude of unrequested funding earmarks buried in this 1,052-page bill will undoubtedly further burden American taxpayers. While the amounts associated with each individual earmark may not seem extravagant, taken together, they represent a serious diversion away from Federal programs that have undergone the appropriate merit-based selection process. As I discussed earlier today, one of the most egregious riders we consistently see in appropriation bills are the Army Corps of Engineers's water projects. Water projects have become synonymous with pork because of the habitual authorization of these projects in appropriation bills. These water projects continue to be slipped into appropriation bills without congressional consideration as to their effects on the environment and without going through established project evaluation procedures. Today's Washington Post reports that the Yazoo Pump project in central Mississippi--which would involve building the world's largest hydraulic pumping plant--would authorize $15 million to drain 200,000 acres of wetlands that is home to both waterfowl and rare plants. The sole purpose of this project is to drain environmentally sensitive wetlands for agricultural production. Touted as a ``flood control project,'' the Yazoo pump is not designed to save homes or land but to drain the wetlands for soybean and cotton production. More importantly, $30,000 of federal taxpayer money has already been spent to preserve these wetlands because of their unique features as a bird sanctuary. At a minimum, we should allow the EPA to complete its study of this project--environment review is still ongoing. In fact, in the draft environmental review, the EPA gave the Yazoo the lowest possible rating calling the project ``flawed and inadequate.'' If this project could not proceed forward on the merits, why should Congress give its blessing to it in a rider to an omnibus appropriation bill? The next project, located in Devil's Lake, North Dakota not only authorizes a wasteful and highly controversial project but the rider also exempts the project from standard evaluation procedures. Today's Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that the rider provides $100 million for pipeline into the Sheyenne River, which flows into the Hudson Bay. Because of widespread water quality concerns on connecting rivers and lakes, there is strong opposition to this project from the Canadian government, the States of Missouri and Minnesota, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the EPA, national conservation organizations and environmental groups in North Dakota. Despite this opposition and the complex ecological issues raised by this project, funding has been authorized and standard language requiring the Corps to evaluate the merits of the project has been omitted. The bottom line: If this project was ever assessed on its merits, it would likely never survive. The report language for this bill directs the Agency for International Development to provide at least $2.5 million to the Orangutan Foundation located in Indonesia. The foundation likes to call the orangutan ``the neglected ape.'' Luckily for them, they are not being neglected by the Appropriations Committee. And, the appropriators not only like orangutans, they also are fond of gorillas. The Committee gave $1.5 million to groups like the Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund. Mr. President, why stop at giving special preference to these two primates? What about the other members of the animal kingdom? Which brings us to the lowly catfish and its heretofore unknown relation to the cow. In the emergency disaster relief section of this bill, a provision was included that would qualify catfish farmers for livestock compensation payments. As my colleagues know, the livestock compensation program is a Federal farm program that compensate eligible livestock producers-- such as owners of beef and dairy cattle, sheep, goats, or certain breeds of buffalo--who have suffered losses or damages as a result of a severe drought. While I often take issue with various farm policies that disproportionately benefit large agribusiness of farms at the expense of small farmers and taxpayers, or 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. However, not even hog, poultry, or horse producers are eligible under the livestock compensation program. Why should catfish then get livestock payments? Mr. President, when did a catfish become analogous to a cow? Catfish farmers are hardly left out in it the cold--they are eligible for other types of emergency assistance from USDA. Also, in the recent 2002 farm bill, domestic catfish proponents were successful in banning all catfish imports by requiring that foreign catfish be labeled as something other than catfish. It seems very clear to me that catfish farmers do not want to compete on a fair basis, domestically or abroad, and are willing to double-dip into disaster-relief funding intended for other farmers in need. Mr. President, let's remove this extraneous provision and let livestock be livestock, not catfish. Other interesting earmarks include: $200,000 for the Anchorage People Mover in Alaska; $250,000 for the Mary Baldwin College in Staunton, Virginia for the Center for the Exceptionally Gifted; now they really are exceptionally gifted; $1.5 million for WestStart's Vehicular Flywheel Project in the State of Washington; an extra $1 million for the National Center for the Ecologically-based Noxious Weed Management at Montana State University; $600,000 to treat waste on small swine farms in South Carolina; $1 million for a DNA bear sampling study in Montana; $100,000 for the Alaska Sea Otter Commission; $300,000 to the Southern Regional Research Center at New Orleans, LA, for termite detection systems, evaluation of wood products for protecting building materials, and bait technology; $200,000 to study seafood waste at the University of Alaska; $300,000 for Old Stoney feasibility study in Wyoming; $650,000 for grasshopper and Mormon cricket activities in the State of Utah; I am pleased to see that $1.5 billion was added to this legislation to supplement the $50 million that was originally appropriated to fund the recently-passed ``Help America Vote Act.'' However, I am concerned that this funding has only been added as a common pool and not designated according to the legislation that Congress passed last year. For example, the bill would not explicitly fund the program to improve accessibility for disabled voters at the poling places. I urge my colleagues to address this discrepancy in the House-Senate Conference. I believe it is beneficial that the Senate address physician and hospital fee schedules under Medicare. Recent Medicare physician fee reductions have forced many doctors across the Nation to reduce Medicare patients, leaving seniors without access to the care they need. Similarly, rural hospitals, particularly in my home State of Arizona, have experienced an unfair imbalance in payment schedules compared to their urban counterparts. Although our Nation's health care providers would benefit from provisions under this bill, I do not believe that appropriations bills are the venue for such legislative language. I am also concerned about giving hospitals and doctors well over $1 billion in additional funds from Medicare, without providing seniors with a much needed prescription drug benefit. There are numerous provisions in this bill that circumvent the clear jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee. Perhaps the most egregious example is section 211 of Division B, which would grant new life to an already failed shipbuilding project that has cost the American taxpayer over $185 million, and give it to a foreign-owned corporation. I've already expressed my opposition to this special interest provision. But there are a host of other items that I wish to discuss. Another section of the bill would allow a narrow class of airports to exclude air carriers that may want to provide scheduled air service. It is my understanding that this is so narrowly tailored that it benefits just one airport--Centennial Airport in Colorado. Another provision would allow an airport to give Airport Improvement Program money back to the FAA enabling the agency to hire staff to speed up environmental reviews of that airport's projects. This is an area in which the Commerce Committee took action last year, and we will continue to monitor and pursue further action this year, should it be necessary. Appropriations bills are not the proper nor the traditional vehicles that should be used to address the AIP. This bill also earmarks $1.2 billion for New Starts under the transit program. I find this set of earmarks to be particularly egregious. The earmarks do not just direct the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to spend the appropriated funds on pet projects in certain States, they also actually change the recommendations that FTA has made regarding which projects should be funded and the level of funding each project should receive in fiscal year 2003. Mr. President, when are we going to allow the FTA to do its job? The FTA, not the appropriators, should determine which projects have merit and should be funded. This bill also would limit funding for the number of Coast Guard flag officers to 37. While the Coast Guard is authorized under title 14 to have 48 flag officers, it currently has 37 on active duty. But as the Coast Guard grows in size to meet its new homeland security missions, its authorized flexibility to promote additional flag officers would be severely restrained under this bill. If there is a concern that the Coast Guard has too many flag officers, then that concern should be addressed through the committee of jurisdiction--the Commerce Committee. The bill provides $48.7 million for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for costs related to digital program developed associated with the transition of public broadcasting to digital broadcasting. This is $23.7 million more than the President's request, and it was not considered by the Commerce Committee, which is the authorizing committee. More importantly, I don't believe that Congress is exercising sound fiscal policy when we make a decision to appropriate millions of dollars to publicly funded television stations so that they may purchase the latest in digital technology. Rather the Corporation for Public Broadcasting should come before the authorizing committee to have a discussion with members on how to best achieve the goals of public broadcasters and ensure that taxpayer dollars are being spent wisely. The bill appropriates $100 million for fisheries disaster assistance. Of this, $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 relating to fishing. This money is in addition to the $20 million for developing an Alaskan seafood marketing program. Of the remainder, $35 million is for the shrimp industries of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic, to provide far-reaching assistance to these fisheries. $20 million is provided for voluntary capacity reduction programs in the Northeast and West Coast groundfish fisheries. $5 million is for Hawaiian fishermen affected by fishing area closures. And, 5 million for the blue crab fisheries affected by low harvest. The bill provides these handouts without requiring any accountability on how the money is actually spent. Moreover, the allocations were made without offering any form of justification. How much federal money do these regions really need, if any? If these needs are legitimate, how do they compare to the needs of other regions? We may never know, because these appropriations circumvented every stage of committee review. We have no basis for determining how necessary this is or whether or not this is sound policy. Another provision authorized the Secretary of Commerce to award grants to encourage individuals to travel to the United States and establishes the United States Travel and Tourism Promotion Advisory Board; $50 million is appropriated to implement this section. This is yet another example of inserting authorizing language in an appropriations bill, and providing an enormous amount of money for an initiative that has not yet been fully examined and discussed by the Senate Commerce Committee. The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that the Federal Government had a budget deficit of about $109 billion during the first quarter of fiscal year 2003. That is significantly more than the $35 billion shortfall recorded over the same period last year. And all forecasts project growing deficits for as far as the eye can see. Our current economic situation and our vital national security concerns illustrate that we need more than ever to prioritize our Federal spending. While I commend members of the Appropriations Committee for holding down spending to the level recommended by the President, some of these provisions, as is the case in virtually all appropriations legislation, serve no national priority. My friends on the committee are no doubt tired of hearing me say this, but I am obliged to do so; we can and we must do better.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I voted in support of the Edwards amendment to delay the implementation of the EPA's final rule on New Source Review for six months for the purpose of ascertaining the impact on air quality and human health. There has been significant controversy and uncertainty about the effects of this rule. I believe in this case we need to have an independent assessment in order to assure the public that this regulatory change will not jeopardize existing air quality or human health. Given that the rule represents a significant change in national clean air policy, we should have this essential information in hand at this final phase of the rule-making process. However, we haven't seen any thorough or independent analysis of the pertinent data or a definitive assessment of impacts. I have stated my strong view on the issue of global climate change that we have sufficient information to move forward to define effective measures to address this most serious environmental problem. In order to move forward responsibly with this significant change of air emissions regulation, we apparently need additional scientific information. I am struck by the extent of disagreement over the effects of this change amongst air quality experts, members of the regulated community, air quality regulators on the federal, state, and local levels, and environmental groups. I believe the federal taxpayers who pay for this regulatory program, in terms of both dollars and health impacts, would want Congress to approve the implementation of this new regulatory regime only if we are certain the costs are commensurate with the benefits. At this point, there is significant confusion on this score. The EPA has testified that 50 percent of the facilities that are now subject to the Clean Air Act's technology requirements would fall out of those requirements under the rule changes. A number of reputable studies indicate that emissions will increase as a result. The argument has also been made by the Administration and others that air quality will improve because facilities would be encouraged to install new, more energy-efficient technology. This amendment provides a six month period for an independent panel of scientific experts to give us the information that we need in order to assert that this policy change will benefit the public and the environment, as well as the regulated community. Once we have this information, we should move forward decisively to either put the final rule in place or reject this approach.