John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 230 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment restores $165 million, which was the level of funding requested by the President, to the INS for development and implementation of the exit-entry systems to be used at ports of entry across the United States. Before any of my colleagues might have an impression that somehow I am breaking some of my iron rules, the fact is this amount of money was requested by the President in the President's budget, so what Senator Kyl and I are achieving here is the restoration of at least some of those funds for this very important program. This morning, on the front page of the Wall Street Journal: A Ranger's Death Shows New Hazards Of a Venerable Job. Law Enforcement Has Become A Bigger Part of Duties; Some Bridle at the Change. A Gunfight on the Border. Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Ariz. In the ovenlike afternoon heat last Aug. 9, Kris Eggle got a call for help. Mexican police were chasing a truck that was about to cross the poorly marked national border into this desert park. Mr. Eggle, a 28-year-old park ranger, raced to the scene and found the truck stuck in a dust-filled pothole on the U.S. side. Several men spilled out and ran. Mr. Eggle spotted one of them trying to hide behind a bush. He approached the suspect and prepared to arrest him, when the man whipped out an AK-47 automatic rifle and fired. Mr. Eggle, a dedicated member of the U.S. Park Service, was killed in that encounter. He is the fourth park ranger to be killed in recent times as we are experiencing an increasing level of violence on our southern border. We are in a crisis on our southern border--not just Arizona, but Arizona, unfortunately, is experiencing a majority of these problems because there have been crackdowns in California and in Texas, which has then funneled people up through Arizona. This is a tragedy--a tragedy. Last year, 320 illegal immigrants died in the desert of Arizona trying to get across, usually exploited by unscrupulous coyotes, as they are called, who brought them across the border and said, ``Tucson is right over the next hill,'' and left them to die in the desert of Arizona. By the way, the motivation of those who died, I am sure, was simply to get a job so they could feed their families. The ones with the drug smugglers and the coyotes and the bad people, they don't starve in the desert because they know how to survive and they know where to go. Innocent people are dying every day in the deserts of Arizona and across this Nation. These innocent people, very frankly, are coming here because they want a better life in the United States. That is the same reason my ancestors came here and any of us who are not Native Americans. There is a crisis in health care in Arizona. Emergency rooms are being shut down. Over $100 million in medical expenses was incurred by the State of Arizona last year because of medical services paid for by illegal immigrants. Senator Kyl will talk about the fact that it is the INS people who are waving medical emergencies across the border. That is a Federal responsibility. It is not a State responsibility. It is a Federal responsibility. Enforcement of our border is a Federal responsibility. Do you know what else is happening? An interesting and very alarming thing is happening. People, believing--correctly--that the Federal Government won't take care of its responsibilities, are beginning to want to take these responsibilities in their own hands in the form of vigilantism. The Arizona Daily Star, January 3, 2003: Bisbee militia leader Chris Simcox says he is set today to launch the first patrols along the border with members of his Civil Homeland Defense group. Simcox has said he plans to have groups of armed citizens patrolling three areas of the Arizona-Mexico line, though he wouldn't specify the sites. Do you know what vigilantism leads to, Mr. President? There is no doubt what it leads to; that is the death of innocent people. Our border is uncontrolled. If we are going to win a war on terrorism, how do we know who those 1,000 people a day are? A thousand people a day who are coming across the Arizona border into our country are not just people who are seeking a job, not even just drug smugglers, but could be terrorists, as well. This amendment is attacking a small part of a major problem that we have in this Nation. I don't think it is a parochial attitude toward my own State when the facts are that three out of every five illegal aliens who are coming into the United States of America are apprehended in the State of Arizona. There are miles and miles and miles of border. What separates the United States of America from Mexico is seven strands of barbed wire. The latest tactic--I don't mean to take too much of my colleagues' time--is to take an SUV, put something in front of it, and bust right through the barbed-wire fence and bring in the drugs and bring in the illegals and everybody else who wants to get in. Senator Kyl went down and talked to a rancher--11 times in 1 week SUVs have driven right across his property, a couple of them armed. Our citizens deserve better than that; those who live along the border, those who run health care facilities along the border, deserve better than that and certainly the citizens of this country deserve a better enforcement of our national borders than they are receiving today. I say in closing that Senator Kyl and I, along with other border State Senators, intend to make this an issue this year because it has to be addressed. It has to be addressed. If we are going to preserve the security of this Nation, we have to have protection of our borders. It may cost money. It may be a difficult task to achieve. But the consequences of a failure to act are unacceptable. I yield the remainder of my time and again I thank Senator Stevens for helping us with this amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. I have the same concerns as articulated by the chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation of the Commerce Committee, Senator Lott. I know he and I would both be willing to look into this situation. We are in great sympathy for the entire airline industry. United Airlines is in bankruptcy. They have similar problems. As far as this giving any leeway is concerned, it says right here: . . . funding rules [for certain plans] shall apply for any plan year beginning after December 31, 2002, in the case of a defined benefit plan. . . . Then it goes on to describe USAir. Then later on it says: . . . the minimum funding requirements under this paragraph shall be the requirements. . . . This is clearly a mandate. There is no flexibility in this. We all know what ``shalls'' mean in appropriations bills. I am in sympathy for the entire airline industry. That is why the first hearing we had in the Commerce Committee was on the status of the airline industry. CEOs of these industries came before us. They are in bad shape. They are in very bad shape. They are hemorrhaging hundreds of millions of dollars every year. USAir is in bankruptcy. United is in bankruptcy. Others border on bankruptcy. This needs to be viewed in the context of the entire airline industry. As much sympathy as I have for USAir, I don't think we can do something such as this at this particular time on an omnibus appropriations bill. I want to commit to the Senator from Pennsylvania, I appreciate his dedication to the people of Pittsburgh and to the people who are employed by USAir, and I look forward to working with him.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me 2 minutes?

Mr. McCAIN. Ten each.

Mr. McCAIN. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. McCAIN. Could I ask the regular order?

Mr. McCAIN. On behalf of Senator Kennedy, Senator Kyl, Senator Feinstein, and myself, I believe there is an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McCAIN. Senator Kyl and I would both like 15 minutes, if that is agreeable.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I join my friend, Senator Kyl, and thank him, Senator Kennedy, Senator Feinstein, and Senator Feingold. I also thank Senator Stevens for his agreement to this amendment which we think is a very important amendment. I understand that under the previous order, I have 10 minutes and the other Senator from Arizona has 10 minutes.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment would strike section 211 of division B of the resolution. What section 211 of division B does is pretty incredible. It would give the still-to-be created subsidiary of the Malaysian-owned ``Norwegian Cruise Lines,'' owned by Malaysia, the exclusive right to operate foreign-built cruise vessels in the domestic cruise trade. Effectively, the provision would allow Norwegian Cruise Lines, which bought the pieces and parts of two ``Project America'' cruise vessels following the bankruptcy of a company called American Classic Voyages, to incorporate these parts into large cruise vessels that would be constructed in foreign shipyards. Then, notwithstanding the Passenger Vessel Services Act, the provision would allow the Norwegian Cruise Lines to flag these vessels as if they were U.S.-built vessels and operate them in the domestic trade--guess what--requiring service in Hawaii. The provision also allows the Norwegian Cruise Lines to bring over a third foreign-built ship to operate in the United States of America, in direct violation of existing law. As many of my colleagues know, I am no fan of the protectionist laws that require domestic cruise ships to be U.S.-owned, U.S.-built, U.S.- flagged, and U.S.-crewed. However, I strongly object to waiving these laws for only one foreign-owned company. These proposed vessels have a long and sordid history. The pieces and parts that NCL will build into cruise ships have cost the American taxpayers close to $200 million dollars. Again, these parts were bought following American Classic Voyages' bankruptcy, which had begun construction of two vessels in Ingalls Shipyard in Mississippi after securing loan guarantees from the Federal Government through an intensive lobbying effort. Let me provide some history of American Classic Voyages' ``Project America'' for the record: The project, which was to consist of the construction of two large cruise ships in the United States, received considerable political support over the last several years. This political support translated into language being included in the Department of Defense Appropriation Bill for FY 1998 that granted a legal monopoly for its owner, American Classic Voyages, to operate as the only U.S. flagged operator among the Hawaiian islands. In March of 1999, the contract for Project America was signed with great fanfare in the rotunda of this very building. Intense lobbying also created the political pressure that helped secure a $1.1 billion loan guarantee from the U.S. Maritime Administration's (MARAD) Title XI loan guarantee program for the construction of these two vessels--which is, by the way, the maximum allowable amount. Within the first year of construction on the first of these cruise ships, the project was a year to a year and a half behind schedule. Both American Classic Voyages and Northrop Grumman Corporation--Ingalls Shipyard's parent company--were crying foul over construction problems and months of non-binding mediation over contract disputes. On October 19, 2001, American Classic Voyages filed a bankruptcy petition under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The petition listed total assets of $37.4 million and total liabilities of $452.8 million. The cruise line said in its petition that it has more than 1,000 creditors, including the American taxpayers being represented by the Department of Transportation. Had the Project America vessels been completed, they would have been the largest cruise ships ever built in the United States and could have sparked a new phase of commercial shipbuilding in this country. Mr. President, none of that occurred. The failed project is one of the most costly loan guarantees ever granted under the Maritime Loan Guarantee Program. I questioned the merits of the ``Project America'' at the time the special legislation was considered and went so far as to introduce an amendment to the FY 1998 Department of Defense Appropriation Bill to remove the monopoly language. Based on the information available at the time, I believed then that the project was more likely to fail than to succeed. Guess what? The project did fail. Project America resulted in the U.S. Maritime Administration paying out over $187.3 million of the American taxpayers' money to cover the loan default for this project, and recovering only $2 million from the sale of some of the construction materials and parts. But now, the provision in the Omnibus is built around the scraps of that horribly failed pork project, which would now go into the new venture. Like ``Project America,'' the provision in this omnibus bill singles out one company; this time it is Norwegian Cruise Lines, for preferential treatment, and gives that company privileges enjoyed by no other. There has been no analysis, no discussion, no hearing, no debate on the value of granting an exclusive exemption for this one foreign- owned company--exclusive exemption from the Passenger Vessel Services Act. Over the last several years, I have worked with all sectors of the maritime industry to look for solutions that would provide for a healthy U.S.-flagged cruise ship industry calling on ports nationwide. While these efforts have not come to fruition, I am committed to continuing this work. But those efforts will be, and should be, taken in the committee charged with this responsibility, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. The author of this language is a member of the Commerce Committee, and a valued one. I strongly urge him to bring this issue on the agenda of the Commerce Committee and maybe we can work this out, rather than tucking it in as a provision, without any debate, without any discussion, without any authorization at any time, in direct violation of existing law. It is a direct violation, an exemption from existing law, the Passenger Vessel Services Act. Any proposed legislation from the Commerce Committee will be crafted in an open and inclusive manner, not behind closed doors as appears to have occurred with section 211. Aside from the procedural concerns I have, section 211 is fundamentally unfair. I firmly believe what is good for one corporation is good for all. Section 211, however, would create an uneven playing field for cruise operators and, depending on how the language was interpreted, also would create an uneven playing field for States by requiring these vessels to operate only in Hawaii, leaving most coastal States with no regular U.S.-flagged cruise ship service. Following on the heels of the failed attempt by American Classic Voyages to build a large cruise ship in a U.S. shipyard--an effort driven by lobbyists and special interests--I believe further efforts to expand the U.S.-flagged cruise ship fleet should be accomplished through the normal legislative process after debate and open examination. Any solution should benefit a broad section of the U.S. maritime industry and all of our Nation's ports. In order to spur such a debate, I offered that amendment to simply strike the special interest provisions in the omnibus bill. We can do better than this provision. Let me just give a couple of quotes from the media, this one from the New York Times, June 18, 2002: Critics Christen Ship Project as an Off-Course U.S.S. Pork. Two years ago, with waving flags and hula dancers swaying, the government announced an ambitious program to build two passenger cruise ships--the first in a United States shipyard since the 1950's--and provided more than $1 billion in loan guarantees to get the program going. It did not hurt that the ships were to be built in the Pascagoula, Miss., shipyard where the father of Trent Lott, the Republican Senate minority leader, once worked. As a result, Senator Lott became one of the strongest supporters of the program, which was named Project America. Today, the project is being derided as an example of political pork gone wrong. What remains of Project America is an unfinished hull the size of two football fields and pieces for a second ship lying around. The hull is not floatable; it has neither a completed bow or stern; and its future is in doubt. The price to the government for the failed project is $187 million--money the government is trying to recoup by putting the half-finished hull on the market. By the way, they did put it on the market. They sold it for $24 million, of which the American taxpayer got $2 million--1, 2--$2 million, in return for a $187 million default. How can we come to this body and tell them that we ought to do anything but leave this issue alone for now? Haven't we done enough damage to the American taxpayers? Isn't a $187 million default enough? This dismal reality only confirms the worst fears of the project's critics--and is a far cry from the high hopes of those who backed it. Critics, who call Project America corporate welfare, say it shows the dangers lurking behind the tens of billions in loan guarantees the government has extended to an array of businesses, among them airlines, the housing industry and American exporters. ``This has turned into a corporate welfare debacle.'' * * * * * The Maritime Administration's loan program is intended to support domestic shipyards by guaranteeing the debt issued to finance commercial ship construction. Last year, the agency guaranteed $362 million; in 2000, $885 million. When a project fails--as happened after American Classic's bankruptcy filing--the government steps in to pay off the debtholders. You know, the interesting thing about this, too, this outfit that started this Project America, is there is a billionaire who operates a casino--riverboat. He is a billionaire. He didn't lose any money on this deal. He didn't lose any money. The American taxpayer did, because it was so well crafted, thanks to special interest lobbying, that the only exposure was to the American taxpayer--$187 million worth. It will be argued that September 11 was the cause of the downfall of this magnificent project. Even before Sept. 11, Project America had run into trouble. It had fallen behind schedule and was far over budget. As a result, Northrop Grumman, which owns the shipyard, took a $60 million write-off from it and American Classic lost $100 million. The yard itself will continue to make and repair Navy vessels. ``The project was behind schedule and millions in the hole,'' said John Graykowski, former administrator of the government's shipbuilding program. ``The terrorists' attack masked this reality and perhaps allowed the emperor to maintain his modesty.'' So any argument that it was September 11 that caused this porkbarrel project to fail is simply not in compliance with the facts. There have been a lot of articles written. There probably should have been more because of the incredible loss to the American taxpayer of $187 million--sorry, $185 million; we got $2 million back. So now here we go. We take an omnibus appropriations bill of $400 billion and we stick into it a little amendment that violates existing law, protects a Malaysian--gives a special break to a Malaysian-owned Norwegian Cruise Lines, and we are supposed to sit back and accept that. I don't think so. I don't think so. Didn't we learn a lesson last time, when Congress got involved, when there were a few of us who said: Wait a minute, wait a minute, this is crazy; this is just crazy? How many millions of Americans' taxpayer dollars do we have to spend before we stop this kind of activity? There are a number of other aspects of this issue. The proposed amendment will achieve the completion of Project America. My response to that--when Project America's earmark was pushed through in 1998, the proponents alleged that the goals were to develop a U.S-built, U.S- flagged cruise vessel fleet by authorizing the temporary operation of foreign-built cruise ships in the domestic trade. The provision in today's omnibus appropriations bill totally disregards the prior requirement that a company operating foreign-built U.S.-flag vessels in Hawaii trade build the U.S. vessels in the United States. Now they will be built overseas. Instead, 211 will allow the construction of two vessels, using some parts of the failed Project America project, but it would not accomplish the objectives of promoting U.S. shipbuilding, as was one of the alleged benefits under the original project. When the Project America earmark was pushed through in 1998, it was limited to one company and two vessels. When Project America encountered financial problems and then bankruptcy, all of the alleged benefits to the country were lost and cost the taxpayers nearly $200 million. If the sponsors are now seeking to achieve a new objective--the operation of U.S-flagged cruise vessels regardless of where they are built--then the amendment should be expanded to allow foreign-built cruise vessels to operate under the U.S. flag in all the domestic cruise ship markets in order to increase the alleged economic benefits that would result from U.S-flagged cruise vessels. As far as military preparedness goes, we don't need to even bother to discuss that. The proposed amendment will benefit the U.S. economy. It has really benefited the U.S. economy a great deal so far. The proposed amendment does not perpetuate the Project America monopoly. As drafted, the provision creates a de facto monopoly for one company in the Hawaii cruise trade, arguably in the U.S. coastal cruise market. No other company under this proposal, under this legislation, can operate foreign-built, U.S.-flagged--can, under this proposal, operate U.S.-flagged, foreign-built cruise vessels in the Hawaiian market or any other market. It is totally unrealistic to believe another company will be able to secure financing to build a vessel in the United States for operation in the Hawaii cruise trade in direct competition with the foreign-built, U.S.-flagged cruise vessels that would be authorized to operate under this provision with far less capital investment. I will be glad to engage in more debate on this issue. This was a terrible thing we did to the U.S. taxpayers back in 1998 under a process that I have vehemently and strongly resisted because of these very circumstances. Provisions are inserted in appropriations bills without hearing, without authorization, without scrutiny. Then some of us have to come to the floor and object to them without full and certain knowledge of the issue. I promise you that if I had known for sure we were going to lose $187 million of the taxpayers' money, I would have filibustered. I knew it was wrong and seriously flawed. I knew that some billionaire who operates riverboats probably isn't very good in the business of building massive cruise ships. But we cannot continue this kind of activity. Just suppose that this is a good idea, that it is a great idea. Why are we putting it into an omnibus appropriations bill that is supposed to fund the functions of Government and not authorize in direct violation of existing law? How do we justify that? I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. While I am waiting for the clerk, I mention that I was told by the distinguished manager of the bill after the last vote that I would be recognized for the next amendment. That did not happen. In the aspect of senatorial courtesy, I believe I have been given assurances that I would propose the next amendment. It is clear we are on Friday at 12:30, and we have additional amendments, some 40 or 50 amendments, that will require recorded votes. I think it is important at this time we move forward. I intend to be brief in my description of this amendment and ask for the yeas and nays at the appropriate time. I have an amendment at the desk and ask for its reading.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, again I ask for a ruling of the Chair. The remarks the Senator from West Virginia is making are in a manager's amendment and not included in the present bill.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I raise the point of order that the debate is not germane at this time during the first 3 hours of the debate.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask for a ruling from the Chair raising a point of order that during the first 3 hours of legislation it has to be germane to the pending legislation.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the debate has to be germane during the first 3 hours of the consideration of the bill under the so-called Pastore rule and that that be enforced.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. During this era of economic slowdown and global threat, it is imperative that our Nation's institutions of higher education are prepared to produce a technologically advanced workforce. Rita Colwell, Director of the National Science Foundation, NSF, stated in a recent letter to new Members of Congress that ``. . . American science and technology is failing to tap a vast pool of talent among our women and ethnic minorities.'' As the demographics of the Nation become more and more diverse, minority institutions of higher education take on an even greater importance. It is estimated that in 10 years, minorities will comprise 40 percent of the college-age Americans, the pool from which the Nation's future engineers and scientists will emerge. Therefore, to tap this underutilized pool of future engineers and scientists, it is essential to provide assistance to these minority institutions. The hundreds of minority-serving institutions, MSI, which include Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU), Hispanic-serving institutions, and tribal colleges and universities, should be provided with the resources to ensure that we are indeed utilizing their large student populations. I am pleased to join Senator Allen and the other sponsors in introducing the Digital and Wireless Network Technology Act of 2003. This legislation would create an office at the NSF to draw upon its resources to strengthen the ability of MSIs to provide instructions in digital and wireless network technologies. The legislation is not the result of any special interest groups or highly financial lobbying efforts. It is based upon data provided by 80 of the 118 HBCUs in a study, entitled ``HBCU Technology Assessment Study,'' funded by the U.S. Department of Commerce and conducted by a national black college association and minority business. The study assessed the computing resources, networking, and connectivity of HBCUs and other institutions that provide educational services to predominately African-American populations. The study concluded that ``during this era of continuous innovation and change, continual upgrading of networking and connectivity systems is critical if HBCUs are to continue to cross the digital divide and not fall victim to it. Failure to do this may result in what is a manageable digital divide today, evolving into an unmanageable digital gulf tomorrow.'' I believe there is reason to conclude that the findings from the study also would apply to Hispanic-serving institutions, and tribal colleges and universities. This bill would build upon the work of Senator Cleland and many others during the last Congress. In testimony before the Commerce Committee last year, the president of the United Negro College Fund, Congressman William Gray, stated that we can ill afford to promote college graduates who enter the workforce without mastering the basic computer skills and understanding how information technology applies to their work or profession. I feel it is imperative that we do all we can to improve the quality of education for students at our minority serving institutions. These institutions will continue to play an important role in providing the Nation with a well-educated and talented workforce. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. During this era of economic slowdown and global threat, it is imperative that our Nation's institutions of higher education are prepared to produce a technologically advanced workforce. Rita Colwell, Director of the National Science Foundation, NSF, stated in a recent letter to new Members of Congress that ``. . . American science and technology is failing to tap a vast pool of talent among our women and ethnic minorities.'' As the demographics of the Nation become more and more diverse, minority institutions of higher education take on an even greater importance. It is estimated that in 10 years, minorities will comprise 40 percent of the college-age Americans, the pool from which the Nation's future engineers and scientists will emerge. Therefore, to tap this underutilized pool of future engineers and scientists, it is essential to provide assistance to these minority institutions. The hundreds of minority-serving institutions, MSI, which include Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU), Hispanic-serving institutions, and tribal colleges and universities, should be provided with the resources to ensure that we are indeed utilizing their large student populations. I am pleased to join Senator Allen and the other sponsors in introducing the Digital and Wireless Network Technology Act of 2003. This legislation would create an office at the NSF to draw upon its resources to strengthen the ability of MSIs to provide instructions in digital and wireless network technologies. The legislation is not the result of any special interest groups or highly financial lobbying efforts. It is based upon data provided by 80 of the 118 HBCUs in a study, entitled ``HBCU Technology Assessment Study,'' funded by the U.S. Department of Commerce and conducted by a national black college association and minority business. The study assessed the computing resources, networking, and connectivity of HBCUs and other institutions that provide educational services to predominately African-American populations. The study concluded that ``during this era of continuous innovation and change, continual upgrading of networking and connectivity systems is critical if HBCUs are to continue to cross the digital divide and not fall victim to it. Failure to do this may result in what is a manageable digital divide today, evolving into an unmanageable digital gulf tomorrow.'' I believe there is reason to conclude that the findings from the study also would apply to Hispanic-serving institutions, and tribal colleges and universities. This bill would build upon the work of Senator Cleland and many others during the last Congress. In testimony before the Commerce Committee last year, the president of the United Negro College Fund, Congressman William Gray, stated that we can ill afford to promote college graduates who enter the workforce without mastering the basic computer skills and understanding how information technology applies to their work or profession. I feel it is imperative that we do all we can to improve the quality of education for students at our minority serving institutions. These institutions will continue to play an important role in providing the Nation with a well-educated and talented workforce. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I yield back my time.

Mr. McCAIN. I yield to the Senator from Hawaii for his 1 minute, and I will take 1 minute.