John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. I did not think so.

Mr. McCAIN. You do not want to answer a question and have a dialog. You will not do it.

Mr. McCAIN. I object. I reserve the right to object. We have been on this bill now for a long period of time. There are a lot of us who want to talk about the bill, a lot of us who have a lot of amendments. It is time to move forward with the process. I object to going into morning business. I am glad to have discussion of the legislation. I intend to speak on it at some length, and I intend to propose an amendment or amendments and begin their consideration. Those of us who strongly object to this legislation and the porkbarrel spending--it is the most egregious I have ever seen-- should very soon have the right to begin amending to restore some kind of sanity and fiscal discipline to this process. So I object to going into morning business. I will seek recognition both for addressing this legislation and for amendments. I hope there are other colleagues of mine on both sides of the aisle who share this concern.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am sorry to say that whether or not we resolve our differences over spending that exceeds limits set by the Budget Act, the Department of Defense appropriations bill will still fail to meet its most important obligation. In provisions too numerous to mention, this bill time and time again chooses to fund porkbarrel projects with little, if any, relationship to national defense at a time of scarce resources, budget deficits, and underfunded urgent defense priorities. America is at war, a war that has united Americans behind a common goal of defeating international terrorism. Our service men and women are once again separated from their families, risking their lives, working extraordinarily long hours under the most difficult conditions, to accomplish the ambitious but necessary tasks their country has set for them. The weapons we have given them, for all their impressive effects, are in many cases neither in quantity nor quality the best our Government can provide. For instance, stockpiles of the precision guided munitions that we have relied on so heavily to bring air power to bear so effectively on difficult, often moving targets, with the least collateral damage possible, are dangerously depleted after only nine weeks of war in Afghanistan. This is just one area of critical importance to our success in this war that underscores just how carefully we should be allocating scarce resources to our national defense. Yet despite the realities of war and the responsibilities they impose on Congress as much as the President, the Senate Appropriations Committee has not seen fit to change in any degree its usual blatant use of defense dollars for projects that may or may not serve some worthy purpose, but that certainly impair our national defense by depriving legitimate defense needs of adequate funding. Even in the middle of a war, a war of monumental consequences and with no end in sight, the Appropriations Committee, still is intent on using the Department of Defense as an agency for dispensing corporate welfare. It is a terrible shame and derogation of duty that in a time of maximum emergency, the Senate would persist in spending money requested and authorized only for our Armed Forces to satisfy the needs or the desires of interests that are unrelated to defense and even, in truth, uninterested in the needs of our military. In this bill, we find a sweet deal for the Boeing Company that I'm sure is the envy of corporate lobbyists from one end of K Street to the other. Attached is a legislative provision to the fiscal year 2002 Department of Defense appropriations bill that would require the Air Force to lease one hundred 767 aircraft for use as tankers for $20 million apiece each year for the next 10 years. The cost to taxpayers? More than $2 billion per year, with a total price tag of $30 billion over 10 years. This leasing plan is five times more expensive to the taxpayer than an outright purchase, and it represents more than 20 percent of the Air Force's annual cost of its top 60 priorities. But the most amazing fact is that this program is not actually among the Air Force's top 60 priorities nor do new tankers appear in the 6-year defense procurement plan for the Service! That's right, when the Air Force told Congress in clear terms what its top priorities were tankers and medical lift capability aircraft weren't included as critical programs. In fact, within its top 30 programs, the Air Force has asked for several essential items that would directly support our current war effort: wartime munitions, jet fighter engine replacement parts, combat support vehicles, bomber and fighter upgrades and self protection equipment, and combat search and rescue helicopters for downed pilots. This leasing program also will require $1.2 billion in military construction funding to build new hangars, since existing hangars are too small for the new 767 aircraft. The taxpayers also will be on the hook for another $30 million per aircraft on the front end to convert these aircraft from commercial configurations to military; and at the end of the lease, the taxpayers will have to foot the bill for $30 million more, to convert the aircraft back--pushing the total cost of the Boeing sweetheart deal to $30 billion over the ten-year lease. That is a waste that borders on gross negligence. But this is just another example of Congress's political meddling and how outside special interest groups have obstructed the military's ability to channel resources where they are most needed. I will repeat what I've said many, many times before--the military needs less money spent on pork and more spent to redress the serious problems caused by a decade of declining defense budgets. This bill includes many more examples where congressional appropriators show that they have no sense of priority when it comes to spending the taxpayers' money. The insatiable appetite in Congress for wasteful spending grows more and more as the total amount of pork added to appropriations bills this year--an amount totaling nearly $14 billion. And although we are 68 days into the new fiscal year, we still have four appropriations bills left to complete before we adjourn. This defense appropriations bill also includes provisions to mandate domestic source restrictions; these ``Buy America'' provisions directly harm the United States and our allies. ``Buy America'' protectionist procurement policies, enacted by Congress to protect pork barrel projects in each Member's State or district, hurt military readiness, personnel funding, modernization of military equipment, and cost the taxpayer $5.5 billion annually. In many instances, we are driving the military to buy higher-priced, inferior products when we do not allow foreign competition. ``Buy America'' restrictions undermine DoD ability to procure the best systems at the least cost and impede greater interoperability and armaments cooperation with our allies. ``They are not only less cost-effective, they also constitute bad policy, particularly at a time when our allies' support in the war on terrorism is so important. Secretary Rumsfeld and his predecessor, Bill Cohen, oppose this protectionist and costly appropriations' policy. However, the appropriations' staff ignores this expert advice when preparing the legislative draft of the appropriations bill each year. In the defense appropriations bill are several examples of ``Buy America'' pork-- prohibitions on procuring anchor and mooring chain components for Navy warships; main propulsion diesel engines and propellers for a new class of Navy dry-stores and ammunition supply ships; and, other naval auxiliary equipment, including pumps for all shipboard services, propulsion system components such as engines, reduction gears, and propellers, shipboard cranes and spreaders for shipboard cranes. If it was not for the great cost to our military and the taxpayer, drafting ``Buy America'' provisions must be a somewhat amusing project for staff and the Members of the Appropriations Committee. An example of this language follows: None of the funds in this Act may be available for the purchase by the Department of Defense (and its departments and agencies) of welded shipboard anchor and mooring chain 4 inches in diameter and under, unless the anchor and mooring chair are manufactured in the United States from components which are substantially manufactured in the United States: Provided, That for the purpose of this section manufactured will include cutting, heat treating, quality control, testing of chain and welding (including the forging and shot blasting process): Provided further, That for the purpose of this section substantially all of the components of anchor and mooring chain shall be considered to be produced or manufactured in the United States if the aggregate cost of the components produced or manufactured in the United States exceeds the aggregate cost of the components produced or manufactured outside the United States. That has to be entertaining to some government classes around America. Also buried in the smoke and mirrors of the appropriations markup is what appears to be a small provision that has large implications on our warfighting ability in Afghanistan and around the world. Without debate or advice and counsel from the Committee on Armed Services, the appropriators changed the policy on military construction which would prohibit previous authority given to the President of the United States, the Secretary of Defense, and the Service Secretaries to shift military construction money within the MILCON account to more critical military construction projects in time of war or national emergency. The reason for this seemingly small change is to protect added pork in the form of military construction projects in key States, especially if such projects have historically been added by those Members who sit on the Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee at the expense of projects the Commander in Chief believes are most needed to support our military overseas. In the usual fashion, legislative riders that probably would not make it through the normal legislative process are tacked onto this must- pass appropriations bill. For example, a provision was added to this bill to enact legislation to federally recognize native Hawaiians, similar to the status afforded to American Indians and Alaskan Natives. I have no objection to the substance of this legislation on its face. I do object that not a hearing has been held--no consideration, no debate--on an issue that could obligate the Government of the United States to billions and billions of dollars in funding, but also significant obligations as far as land, water, and other vitally needed national resources are concerned. How in the world do you justify, on a Defense Appropriations Committee bill, a change in policy, a far-reaching change in policy regarding our treatment of native Hawaiians? In fact, no one would even know what we are passing into law because only vague references are included. Only careful observers would recognize what these three lines in this appropriations bill actually stand for in a 24-page bill. Does the Appropriations Committee have any respect for the authorizing committees in the Senate? This bill also clearly tramples on the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee by making unauthorized appropriations out of the airport and airways trust fund, particularly for the Airport Improvement Program. There are hundreds of millions of dollars in spending out of the trust fund, perhaps as much as $715 million, that are not explicitly authorized. Furthermore, $306.5 million of the civil aviation spending in this bill was not requested by the President. Of the money that was requested, the President did not ask that it be taken out of the aviation trust fund. Finally, the trust fund is supposed to be devoted to the infrastructure needs of the national aviation system, but this bill uses the trust fund essential air service, which may be a worthy program but is not eligible for these moneys. Earlier this week, the Senate approved the Department of Transportation appropriations bill. That bill was an egregious overreach by the appropriators. In redirecting the programmatic expenditures and directives developed under the law by the authorizing committee, there were more than $4.1 billion in earmarked projects in that bill and a statement of managers redirecting funding that should have gone to the States but instead was used as a slush fund by the appropriators to earmark their home State projects. Here we are, only a few days later, and we are once again facing another appropriations bill that continues the unacceptable overreaching by the appropriators with respect to authorized transportation programs. For example, under division B, chapter 10, the bill provides $100 million for Amtrak for ``emergency expenses to respond to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, for necessary expenses of capital improvement.'' This funding is not authorized, nor has it been requested by the administration. The Senate-Commerce-Committee-reported S. 1550, the Rail Security Act of 2001, would authorize funding for Amtrak safety and security needs, primarily tunnel improvements in New York, Maryland, and DC. Under S. 1550, however, the funding would only be released to Amtrak after Amtrak submits a plan to the Secretary of Transportation for addressing safety and security that is then approved by the Secretary. The accompanying DOD report language states that the funding provided for Amtrak: . . . will be used solely to enhance the safety and security of the aging Amtrak-owned rail tunnels under the East and Hudson Rivers. However, neither the bill nor the report provides any Federal oversight by the Department of Transportation of the additional taxpayer dollars that would be provided to Amtrak. Additionally, the bill provides for $110 million, $10 million of which was requested by the administration in ``miscellaneous appropriations'' to the Federal Highway Administration. By the way, I want to remind my colleagues, this is a Defense Appropriations Committee bill--to the Federal Highway Administration. The accompanying report directs that $100 million of these funds be used for construction of ferries and ferry facilities in New York to cover for the loss of the PATH transit services between New York and New Jersey that have not been requested by the administration. Not only did the administration not request the funding, it is not even clear if the ferry services being sought are the right solution. The goal should be to rebuild the PATH system, not replace it with a less efficient ferry service. While ferry service may be required, it may be a relatively short-term need and is one that can and is being addressed with current assets. Further, the bill provides $100 million for Federal transit administration capital investment grants that were not requested by the administration. The accompanying report then earmarks the entire amount for use by transit authorities most impacted by the September 11 terrorist attack. Under division C, the DOD appropriations bill provides $12 million for shipbuilding loan guarantees under title XI of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936. This is by far the most egregious use of a national emergency designation as an excuse for porkbarrel spending that I have ever seen. The Maritime Administration is today preparing to make one of the largest single default payments in the history of the Shipbuilding Loan Guarantee Program, due to the bankruptcy filing of the American Classic Voyages Company on its loans. MARAD has asked the Treasury for $250 million to pay off loans which have been called under American Classic's guarantees. Further, the Department of Transportation Inspector General is investigating the loan guarantee program as a result of American Classic's default, the default of the SEAREX program earlier this year and problems with several other title XI loan guarantee projects that are having difficulties at this time. Specifically, the inspector general is looking into the title XI procedures for submitting reviewing, approving, and monitoring title XI loan guarantees, and whether merit procedures were adequately effected and implemented in order to protect the interests of the United States. Why would we now have an additional $12 million for new loan guarantees when there are obviously problems with the program, I might add, for a program the administration has recommended not to fund at all. While a report accompanying the bill recommends new funding to be used to cover the loans for port security infrastructure and equipment, that is not allowed under current law. The funding will go into an account that is designated solely for shipbuilding loan guarantees. I note the bill provides $11 million in appropriations to the Maritime Administration for general port security improvements. While I fully support the need for increased security at our Nation's seaports, and I am a cosponsor of legislation that would create a new program to provide port security funding, I cannot support funding for a program in a manner that is not allowed under the law while we are in a period of deficit spending. The President has repeatedly said that he will come back to Congress in the spring with a request for additional funding as needed, and if legislation to change the law with respect to port security funding is successful, the funding could be provided at that time. But for now, providing $12 million for shipbuilding loan guarantees at a time when the program's current and future operations are under review would be a serious breach of our responsibilities to the American taxpayer. Under division E, the so-called technical corrections division, the appropriators do what they do best, redirect current laws developed by the authorizers. Amazingly, the appropriators are already seeking to ``correct'' the Transportation appropriations bill approved by the Senate earlier this week, and it hasn't even been signed into law. For example, under Section 109, the appropriators take an additional $29.5 million from the State's funding that was to be distributed according to the Transportation Equity Act, TEA-21, the multiyear highway funding legislation of 1998, and to be effective through 2002, and transfer that $29.5 million to the Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project to restore the project's funding that will be reduced as a result of the enactment of the Transportation appropriations bill. This provision would now bring the total loss for the State allocation to over $450 million. The Department of Transportation appropriations bill already has reduced the State's funding by $423 million, but this bill will ensure the Wilson Bridge Project is held harmless with respect to the appropriators' earlier funding redirectives. Section 111 also amends TEA-21 just as it did so many times in the Transportation appropriations bill and, in this case, adds additional directives for the benefit of Alaska. Specifically, Section 111 would amend the list of high priority project designations by adding to item 1497, which states, ``construct new access route to Ship Creek access in Anchorage'' and words ``construct capital improvements to intermodal marine freight and passenger facilities and access thereto.'' Under section 112 it would amend the Department of Transportation appropriations bill which, as I just mentioned, hasn't even been signed into law. First, it would add yet another earmark in the Transportation Community System Preservation Program, a program the appropriators funded at more than 10 times the authorized level, and earmarked every cent, and directed $300,000 for the US-61 Woodville widening project in Mississippi. It then directs $5 million of the Interstate Maintenance Program for the City of Trenton/Port Quendall, WA, Project. Haven't these States had enough earmarks already? I note the bill would direct that $3,170,000 of the funding provided for the Research and Special Programs Administration be used for research in special programs, and $226,000 of funds provided for the pipeline safety program shall remain available until September 30, 2004. Since when do we appropriate money beyond the fiscal calendar year? The $273 million for the Coast Guard in the $20 billion supplemental is a plus-up of $70 million over the $203 million requested by the Administration. The Administration's request would fund the personnel costs for reserve personnel brought on active duty, purchase small boats for port security, and prevent several cutters and aircraft from being decommissioned. The additional $70 million not requested by the administration would fund $50 million for entitlements authorized by the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), but not provided in the Transportation appropriations act and $20 million for additional domestic port security teams. The $12 million for the Coast Guard in the Byrd homeland defense supplemental would provide additional funding not requested by the Administration for the Coast Guard to provide enhanced port security operations and conduct port vulnerability assessments. The Department of Transportation currently has a Maritime Direct Action Group that is studying port security requirements. The administration plans to base future port security funding requests on this group's recommendations. This legislation includes language that recommends $8.25 million for emergency grants to assist public broadcasters in restoring broadcasting facilities that were destroyed in the collapse of the World Trade Center. This provision allows public broadcasters to receive 100 percent of the total amount for cost recovery of their facilities. Other public broadcasters seeking funding for the construction of similar facilities will only receive 75 percent of the total amount, as set forth in section 392(b) of the Communications Act of 1934. This provision is inconsistent with the act and is selectively unfair to those who are seeking similar funding. I look forward to the day when my appearance on the Senate floor for this purpose are no longer necessary. There is over $2.2 billion in unrequested defense programs in the defense appropriations bill and another $2 billion for additional supplemental appropriations not directly related to defense that have been added by the chairman of the committee. Consider what that $4.2 billion when added to the savings gained through additional base closings and more cost-effective business practices could be used for. The problems of our armed forces, whether in terms of force structure or modernization, could be more assuredly addressed and our warfighting ability greatly enhanced. The public expects more of us. But for now, unfortunately, they must witness us, blind to our responsibilities in war, going about our business as usual. I ask unanimous consent that a list of Appropriations Committee earmarks be made a part of the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent to be recognized. I had time remaining on the time previously granted.

Mr. McCAIN. Further reserving the right to object, does the Senator then plan on voting on that amendment?

Mr. McCAIN. I am sure we could get a few of them right away. I have to tell the Senator from Texas, I do not think I have ever seen anything quite like this before. When we are talking about $20 billion, that, even in these days, is not chump change.

Mr. McCAIN. Well, is it true that there was a list of proposed airports and airport expansion that had been formulated by the Department of Transportation, and then this proposed Peotone Airport disappeared from that list? Is that correct? Can you illuminate us on what happened there?

Mr. McCAIN. I reserve the right to object. I do believe we have an agreement on a proposal by Senator Gramm. I would like to dispense with that if the Senator from Alaska is ready and the Senator from West Virginia is ready to do that.

Mr. McCAIN. I remove my objection.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the amendment as written speaks for itself. I thank the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from West Virginia for agreeing to it. This resolves a great concern that many Members had concerning the issue of the tanker aircraft. I thank the Senator from Alaska.

Mr. McCAIN. I object.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like the Record to note that on a recorded vote I would have voted against this bill.

Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, I don't understand.

Mr. McCAIN. May I ask, just since the Senator is well versed on this issue, was there a debate on this during the course of his campaign for the Senate?

Mr. McCAIN. In 1992. Was that when the Senator was a member of the State legislature?

Mr. McCAIN. How long has the Senator from Illinois been involved in this particular issue?

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

Mr. McCAIN. If I might ask the distinguished Senator from Nevada, does this mean amendments will be offered at this time with votes?

Mr. McCAIN. Does the Senator from Nevada anticipate the amendments and bill will be voted on today?

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield?

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I, rise to introduce the Emission Reductions Incentive Act of 2001. I thank Senator Brownback for his co- sponsorship and his cooperation in drafting this bill, along with his commitment to addressing this growing problem. Earlier this year, I announced intentions to consider the establishment of a ``cap and trade'' system for carbon dioxide emissions. I am continuing to work with Senator Lieberman on this effort. However, the bill which I am introducing today is not in lieu of that commitment, but rather in support of it. The bill proposes the establishment of a national voluntary registry for entities to register carbon emissions reductions. The registry would support current voluntary trading practices in private industry and other non-governmental organizations. Over the past years, the Commerce Committee has heard testimony from several organizations on their efforts conduct trading programs internally or across a small segment of industry. This registry bill will aid those efforts greatly by establishing a national system whereby these companies may be able to participate and be assured that a ton of carbon purchased is indeed a ton of carbon. Establishment of the registry would also require the development of certain standards for measuring, verifying and reporting emission reductions to the registry. I believe that with these procedures in place, the registry would be able to withstand any future requirements imposed by a mandatory ``cap and trade'' system. The bill would also provide for consideration of credits realized under this program against any future mandatory system. The bill also proposed changes to the US Global Climate Change Program, USGCRP. It requires a new strategic plan for the next 10 years. The bill would provide for dedicated management to support the interagency USGCRP and have this office report to the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. We feel this will provide a needed channel to the White House for the Federal scientific community to be heard. We have also asked the office to work with the agencies' development activities. The bill proposed additional changes to the Partnership for New Generation Vehicles, PHGV, program and provides additional incentives for the licensing of technologies. I hope that we can increase the deployment of technologies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by providing further incentives to Federal employees, those who are ultimately responsible for the transfer of the research results. The National Research Council recently made recommendations on the PNGV program, a cooperative research and development program between the Federal Government and the US Council for Automotive Research. The bill requires the Department of Commerce to implement many of those recommendations. As we all know, more than 160 countries recently reached an agreement on the Kyoto Protocol, which would require industrialized nations to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. There are many US companies that operate facilities in other countries. These facilities will have to meet local emissions requirements. The bill requires the Secretary of Commerce to study the effects that a ratified treaty will have on the US industry and its ability to compete globally. Again, I thank Senator Brownback for help on this piece of legislation. I understand that other members of the Commerce Committee have recently introduced legislation in this area and look forward to working with them on a comprehensive package.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I want to congratulate John Walters, the new Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, on his confirmation by the Senate last night. I have no doubt that the hard work and experience he brings to the Office will greatly benefit our efforts to reduce drug abuse in our nation. I do wish he could have been confirmed much earlier, considering the challenges we face at home and overseas. In the last eight years alone, teenage drug use has almost doubled and, as I speak, terrorists, including those we are fighting in Afghanistan and across the globe, are using the drug trade to help finance their operations. President Bush nominated John Walters in early June, but he was not granted a hearing until October 10. Finally, on November 8 and five months after his nomination, John Walters was favorably voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 14 to 5, with five Democrats joining all the Republicans in support of his confirmation. Seven months to be confirmed is not a credit to the workings of the Senate. It was disappointing that, of the small number of activists opposed to the nomination of John Walters, a few carried on a campaign to distort his public policy positions. Americans would not have known if they just listened to these activists that John Walters believes that many first-time, non-violent offenders ought to be diverted into treatment. In fact, when he was deputy drug czar in the first Bush Administration under William Bennett, he helped secure increases in the drug treatment budget in four years that were double what the previous administration managed in eight. And it's also noteworthy that the previous administration enforced the very same anti-drug laws that some of John Walters' opponents today criticize, and the same administration made no effort to change them. I look forward to working with John Walters and hope his needlessly protracted nomination process will not discourage other outstanding Americans from considering public service to our Nation.