John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the amendment that has been offered would remove extraneous items from the supplemental and emergency appropriations bill. In particular, I propose to remove language in the bill that provides $50 million for buildings and facilities construction at the National Animal Disease Laboratory at Ames, IA. Mr. President, $50 million is designated to add new facilities to the National Animal Disease Laboratory currently located in Ames, IA. The current plans by the Agricultural Research Service, an estimated $380 million, will be utilized to construct new buildings and facilities to further animal disease research and related activities. These new facilities are approved and sanctioned by the administration with funding previously allocated in the fiscal year 2002 budget. However, despite this support, the administration has stated its view that additional funding suggested in this supplemental bill is not an essential priority at this time. According to the message sent by the President--to be totally accurate, the Statement of Administration Policy sent by the Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget: Funding provided for the construction and renovation of an Ames, IA, facility is redundant because a total of $90 million has been provided for fiscal year 2002 as part of the ERF and regular appropriations so that additional funding is not needed in fiscal year 2002 and 2003. The study of foreign animal diseases and controlling known and unknown animal diseases are clearly national and public health issues. As part of the Government's efforts to improve its knowledge of disease agents and mechanisms, this institution and other related agencies serve an important purpose. The work is already underway as the administration asserts. Adding an additional $50 million as part of this emergency spending measure is neither required nor necessary. This ongoing project will clearly be subject to additional appropriations in future years during the routine appropriations process. These particular renovations are not scheduled to be completed for another 8 years. The renovations are not scheduled to be completed for another 8 years. I find it difficult to believe that removing this $50 million earmark at a time when it is not needed will jeopardize its continued planning and construction. The report also indicates that this program was asked for and funded long before the events of September 11. I do not dispute the merit of a facility such as this. In 1998, it says both agencies, the National Animal Disease Research Center and the National Veterinary Services Lab, saw an excellent new opportunity to create a single new center encompassing all their work. The joint plan promises to provide many advantages over separate new facilities, including a large cash saving and much shorter completion time. The proposed facility will cost $375 million and an 8- year completion plan beginning in 1999. I am sure the National Animal Disease Center is an important project. I have no doubt in my mind it has merit. I also note that it was in May of 2001, I quote from the committee report, correspondence to this committee, the Secretary of Agriculture noted, that there is an urgent need to renovate and modernize existing facilities in Ames, IA, since the events of September 11, in view of the fact that the primary mission of this facility is research on highly infectious animal diseases such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy, which is mad cow disease, and others which terrorists might use with devastating results to the U.S. economy. The needs outlined by the Secretary have become even more pronounced. I have heard a long catalog of threats. The one at the Smithsonian has risen now to national consciousness, that insects in alcohol are now one of our highest priorities and deemed an emergency, but I did not know the spread of mad cow disease was one of the tools of preference for the terrorists. I understand that mad cow disease is a serious problem. I am fully aware of the events of Europe where thousands of cows had to be killed. But the administration, which is responsible for the construction of these facilities, clearly states in the President's veto threat that this $50 million is not necessary at this time because it is an 8-year project. I am sure the Senators from Iowa will rise, and the Senators from Hawaii will rise, as will the Senators from whatever State that is affected by these projects will rise, and stoutly defend them and make it in the defense of freedom and democracy. The fact is that the name of this bill is to respond to the acts committed on September 11 and how to prepare for further responses to them. I do not believe it is needed in this supplemental appropriations bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Gramm of Texas, and Senator Smith of New Hampshire, which I send to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, before the Senator from Virginia leaves the floor, I say to him that we intend for sure to do one more amendment. I want to discuss with the Senator from Texas if we have to do an additional amendment because it is clear there is about a 30-vote ceiling. The Senator and I have made our point. Also, the Senator from Texas is probably going to at some point make a budget point of order. How that falls into the queue the distinguished managers of the bill will establish. In the interest of full disclosure, I thought the Senator from Virginia should know that perhaps there may not be a second amendment, only the one we are about to offer, and the Senator from Texas is going to make a budget point of order.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I agree with 99 percent of what the Senator from Iowa just said. Let us come back to what the amendment is all about. The amendment is about $90 million that has already been provided for fiscal year 2002. It is part of the regular appropriations. According to the President of the United States--and I assume the Secretary of Agriculture who works for him--if an additional money is needed for fiscal year 2002 or fiscal year 2003, there is additional money for research, inspection, and monitoring activities relating to bioterrorism. This is all the money that anybody believes is necessary for research, inspection, and monitoring activities. Again, I share the view of the Senator from Iowa about the dangers of bioterrorism. The Senator from Kansas, Mr. Roberts, who has been involved in this issue for many years, just approached me. I explained to him that this amendment in no way affects the moneys which are in the bill for research, inspection, and monitoring activities. What it simply does is take away money that is not needed for an 8-year construction project. That is what this money is for--construction which the administration and the President of the United States in his message to Congress say is redundant and because the money is already part of the regular appropriations process. Again, perhaps this will accelerate construction of 8 years down to 7 years. But it has no place on an emergency supplemental appropriations bill. I would like to add that I filed 21 amendments which largely reflected the views put forth in the statement from the administration. I will not take the time of the Senate to read all of those amendments and objections that I have. I still feel very strongly that those amendments filed, along with those of the Senator from Texas, are important amendments and would save tens or hundreds of millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money that were taken directly out of the Social Security trust fund. It is now increasing the debt by leaps and bounds, but there is no point in taking up the time of the Senate by having votes that--as the last two did and I imagine this one would-- get 30 or 31 Senators in support. But I do think it is important that we are on record on this issue. I will not waste the time of the Senate, but the American people deserve to know when the time comes--we are $100 billion in debt this year, and the previous estimates were that we would have a surplus--that all of this money is not being spent in the name of the war on terrorism. There is no more need to add to unneeded moneys for the construction of these facilities anymore than there is an emergency in needing to chart the coral reefs off the State of Hawaii--nor is there needed a waiver of the cost-sharing requirement for the biomass project; nor is there needed $2 million to begin construction of an alcohol storage; nor is there a need for additional money for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. We are going to give millions of dollars to Amtrak to repair cars that were damaged more than 10 years ago in the name of an emergency supplemental. We are going to dig wells in the State of New Mexico--just in a certain place in the State of New Mexico--when wells are running dry all over the Southwest, including my State. But we picked out a couple in the State of New Mexico that we are going to spend $3 million on in the name of combating terrorism and the results of the attacks of 9-11. The list goes on. Professional training of Middle East journalists may be important, but I would argue that it is probably not necessary on this bill. We are going to have acceleration of advanced technology program awards; economic assistance for fishermen in the Northeast; the National Water Level Observation Network. The list goes on and on. It is very unfortunate. As I say, sooner or later, the American people, when they see this burgeoning deficit that looms ahead of us now in monumental proportions, which was not in any way contemplated 6 months ago, are going to want to know where the money went. They are going to want to know where the money went. When they find out where the money went, whether it be for Amtrak, or construction of apartments in Baltimore-- whatever they are--then I don't think they are going to be very happy with our performance. I have only been in Congress now for about 20 years. That is a short time compared to a number of others in this body. But I have to tell you, I have never seen spending like this going on, nor have other observers observed this kind of incredible spending. The President of the United States mentioned in his statement that Congress has already provided $40 billion since September 11. Half of that money has been spent. The President requested an additional $27.1 billion. But that wasn't enough. We had to exceed that by some $4 billion--not to mention, as the Senator from Texas pointed out, that much of the moneys requested were not granted and some $10 billion to $15 billion was used for purposes other than that requested by the President. I also hope this bill will be repaired in conference. I don't have very much confidence in conferences. I think if you reviewed the record of what conferences do, they usually come out in the appropriations with higher numbers of spending. I hope that this will be an exception to that general rule. I think, because of our inability to enact even the smallest cuts and the smallest reductions, the President of the United States said he will veto the bill. That will hold up the whole process of these much needed funds to fight the war on terrorism. I understand that the Senator from Iowa will move to table the amendment. I will be glad to get that done so we can move on to other issues. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this is not a very big or important amendment, but I think it has some symbolism associated with it. The amendment concerns striking $2 million for the Smithsonian to begin design of an alcohol storage facility for animal specimens away from The Mall. In the Statement of Administration Policy that was sent up on June 4, the President states his strong objections to the increases in spending over what the President had requested, and it also states if the supplemental appropriations bill were presented to the President in its current form, he would veto the bill. This is just $2 million of a several-billion-dollar increase over what the President requested. But in the Statement of Administration Policy, the Office of Management and Budget goes on to specify certain expenditures that are, in their view, either unnecessary--it says the Senate bill includes scores--quoting from the message--``includes scores of unneeded items that total in the billions of dollars, all classified as an emergency.'' The bill adds unrequested funds for numerous programs and projects throughout nearly all of the Federal agencies. Some of these items relate to homeland security--many do not--including $11 million to the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration for economic assistance to New England fishermen and fishing communities; $26.8 million for the U.S. Geological Survey for urban mapping activities; $2 million for the Smithsonian to begin design of an alcohol storage facility for specimens away from The Mall. They go on to add that the President's fiscal year 2003 budget already includes funding for this project in fiscal year 2003. So, basically, what we are talking about is a project that already is included in the President's budget for next year. Apparently, the people at the Smithsonian are seeking to accelerate that, which I can certainly understand because then they will have some millions of dollars--$2 million extra--to spend on other projects at the Smithsonian, a wonderful and venerable institution. But to no objective observer could this be viewed as a response to, as the title of the legislation is: Making supplemental appropriations for further recovery from a response to terrorist attacks on the United States. This is clearly not it. To make a long story short--I do not intend to spend too much time on it--the President believes it is unnecessary, I believe it is unnecessary, and I believe it needs to be taken out and the money spent at the normal time in fiscal year 2003, which is in the President's budget. I am sure they will receive those. Someone who supports this will say this is a serious situation, that the temperature control is an important aspect, alcohol is flammable, and we should be as careful as possible, et cetera. I agree with all of those arguments, but I also would argue that other measures can be taken and this project can be moved forward at the appropriate time. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Is the Senator aware that the money is going to the National Defense Center of Excellence for Research in Ocean Studies, which is a Hawaiian State government agency, but that Hawaiian State government agency is solely federally funded? We are proving that money is fungible. They give it to an outfit called the National Defense Center of Excellence for Research in Ocean Studies which happens to be a State government organization, but that State government organization is fully federally funded. This is a remarkable movement of money and, frankly, the $29 million which is added for new money for NOAA is something that was not requested by the administration either. Is the Senator aware of that?

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I will be very brief. I look forward to a vote. The Senator from Texas and I will have several votes, not an unending stream of votes because we will know after three or four votes whether there is going to be any imposition of fiscal discipline or is this just a spigot that is going to be turned on. It is not the amount of money that is symbolic about this vote. It is whether, as the Senator from Alaska said, we will rely on the judgment of the Appropriations Committee, as he just stated, or we will rely on the judgment of the Commander in Chief, the President of the United States, who specifically in his veto threat objected to this provision in the appropriations bill. It is really that simple. So it is not $2 million. It is, whose judgment are we going to trust? Are we going to--as with other amendments, as I say, we will establish a precedent for it--be able to trust the judgment of the President of the United States or the judgment of the Appropriations Committee? So I look forward to a quick vote. I say to the Senator from Alaska we have no further debate on this issue.

Mr. McCAIN. I am glad to wait.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have a number of amendments. I will be ready to propose them. There is no sense in reviewing how quickly we got to this point. In my memory there has not been a cloture motion filed on the first day a bill is considered. All that aside, we are where we are. I respect and appreciate the motivation of the Senator from Nevada for getting this done as quickly as possible, perhaps tonight or tomorrow. Therefore, I believe I ought to tell the Senator from Nevada that in order to expedite that, there should be no managers' amendment package because I will, because of the egregious aspects of managers' amendments in the past, packages which none of us have seen and all too often have been agreed to because it is late at night, unless we agree--first of all, there should not be a managers' package of amendments. We should debate and vote on all amendments. But if I am not in agreement with them and others are not in agreement, we will have recorded votes on those amendments, I tell the Senator from Nevada. We will not have one of these deals that we have seen in the past so many times where at the very end--maybe at 10 or 11 o'clock at night-- there is a unanimous consent agreement that a managers' package be accepted. We are not going to do that. So if the Senator from Nevada wants to get it done tonight, I recommend that he play some role in making sure we don't either have a managers' package or the contents of it are well known to all Members of the Senate and not discovered by reading the newspaper in the following days. I tell the Senator from Nevada, I will be ready with the first amendment that we have very shortly. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, this has to do with the $2.5 million that is earmarked for the mapping of the coral reefs in Hawaii. The bill directs $.5 million under the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill for 2002 to be dedicated to conducting coral mapping in the waters of the Hawaiian Islands and the surrounding Exclusive Economic Zone. I remind my colleagues at the outset, again, the title of the legislation we are considering is: Making supplemental appropriations for further recovery from and response to terrorist attacks on the United States for the fiscal year 2002. I knew of many devastating effects of the attacks on our homeland. I did not know of any disruption of the coral reefs in Hawaii associated with the terrorist attacks on the United States of America. The administration did not request this redirection of previously appropriated funding for coral reef mapping for the benefit of Hawaii. This is no surprise, since there is not an emergency need for coral reef mapping in Hawaii. It is even more of a reach to suggest that a coral reef mapping provision has a role on the war on terrorism. This is an attempt to preclude a competitive contracting process to benefit one State. A recent report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration stated that the coral reefs in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands are some of the most pristine in the world and that the coral reefs in the Atlantic, which includes Florida, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean, are some of the most in distress. Why should a relatively healthy reef system receive extra attention and funding at the expense of those in most need? I might add, the Federal Government has already been very generous with respect to Hawaiian coral reefs for fiscal year 2002. In fact, during this fiscal year, NOAA is scheduled to spend $8.215 million of its $28.25 million Coral Reef Conservation Program budget on programs specifically targeted toward the northwest Hawaiian Islands; that is more than a quarter of the program budget. These funds include $762,000 for mapping, $893,000 for monitoring, $1.25 million for the Hawaii Coral Reef Initiative, $3.25 million on northwest Hawaiian Island Reserve operations and sanctuary development, $210,000 for fisheries management, and $3.1 million for marine debris removal. So the State of Hawaii has already gotten $8.215 million. Now they are asking for $2.5 million more. Moreover, this does not include funding for NOAA'S overall program that is being spent across all of our Nation's coral reef, of which Hawaii also benefits. Now the managers of the bill want to carve out another $2.5 million for Hawaiian coral reefs. As I said before, what this bill does is earmark $2.5 million of that funding for a specific project in the waters of the Hawaiian Islands and to a specific organization. Are there other organizations that do mapping? I do not know. But why is it earmarked for a specific corporation to do this work? I believe that it is part governmental and part private, as I understand it. This specific earmark would purposefully preclude the issuance of a competitive contract for this work. Congress should not be taking such action and should allow a competitive contracting process to go forward for any Federal funding involved. I do not believe we should be providing special treatment to one part of the country when other parts also have a great need. If the Hawaiian reefs deserve this already appropriated funding, they should be able to secure it based on merit review through a competitive process at NOAA. Therefore, this amendment would strike the directive provided in the bill and allow the competitive process to go forward. Madam President, under no stretch of the imagination can this provision providing this money for a specific project in the State of Hawaii be deemed as a response to the attacks on the United States of America that took place on September 11. The administration opposes this legislation. And it has no relation to the war on terrorism or homeland security in the view of the President of the United States. So I have gotten, from the last vote, a pretty good idea how these votes are going to turn out. But there is going to come a time, Madam President--there is going to come a time--when our deficits have ballooned well into $150 billion, $200 billion, from the surplus that we had and people will say: What happened to all that money? What happened to our money for Social Security? What happened to our money for Medicare? What happened to the surpluses that we were so confident of, that were going to be $4- or $5- or $6 trillion over the next 10 years? We are going to look back, and we are going to point at votes such as these, where, in the name of fighting the war on terror, we will earmark millions of dollars for a project to map coral reefs. I think the American people will not be satisfied with that result or that decision made by the Congress of the United States. As the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee from Alaska just said: We just made a judgement. Do you want to trust the judgment of the Appropriations Committee or the President of the United States? We will probably again vote to trust the judgment of the Appropriations Committee, in the name of fighting the war on terror, of mapping coral reefs in Hawaii. I would assume there will be a tabling motion made, and at that time I will ask for the yeas and nays. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Can he give an example, to those of us who are not experts on the budgetary process, of what the President might not decide to spend and then would be forced to spend?

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. McCAIN. Is it your decision to make whether I can respond to statements made about me?

Mr. McCAIN. I ask the Senator from Nevada if I can have a point of personal privilege to respond to my name being used?

Mr. McCAIN. I object.

Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, the amendment is clearly not germane. I don't know what kind of deals were made among the members of the Appropriations Committee. I object.

Mr. McCAIN. I don't like to drag out the debate, but I ask the Senator this. This seems to me like it is almost a constitutional issue.

Mr. McCAIN. With this new wrinkle, or new provision, in the appropriations bill, that really does give all power to the Appropriations Committee, even overriding any authority that the President might have, doesn't it?

Mr. McCAIN. As the Senator knows, we will not have a budget this year.