John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I am always happy to yield to the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am against what is going on here. In a time of war, some have called it ``war profiteering.'' I think it is wrong. We are abrogating our responsibilities to the American people. I also think it is time the administration step in and the President veto some of these bills with these outrageous spending projects in them. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Since I see the Senator from North Dakota here, I suggest that perhaps we could make our opening statements as part of the 60 minutes of debate on the Dorgan-Enzi amendment. If that is agreeable, I would be glad to do that. I move to modify the agreement that we move immediately to the Enzi-Dorgan amendment with the 60 minutes of debate equally divided.

Mr. McCAIN. I withdraw that. I will proceed with my statement. I was trying to save the Senate some time. Obviously, we will take more time in discussing whether I was saving the Senate time or not. First, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a Statement of Administration Policy concerning H.R. 1552, the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act, from the President of the United States.

Mr. McCAIN. May I ask the parliamentary situation?

Mr. McCAIN. In other words, there is no time available under the unanimous consent agreement, so we would have to move to the amendment in order for other Members to speak; is that correct?

Mr. McCAIN. On the amendment. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry. I suppose the next speaker will then be taking time on the amendment.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I, along with Senators Allard, Lieberman, Snowe, Levin, Murkowski, Cleland, Inhofe, Landrieu, Burns, Durbin, Sessions and DeWine are proud to sponsor this bill to allow members of the Uniformed and Foreign Services, who are deployed or are away on extended active duty, to qualify for the same tax relief on the profit generated when they sell their main residence as other Americans. I am pleased to announce that the Secretary of State greatly appreciates this legislation and the strong support of this measure by the senior uniformed military leadership, the 31-member associations of The Military Coalition, the American Foreign Service Association, and the American Bar Association. Despite such considerable support, I have heard that there are some lower ranking officials from the Office of Management and Budget that may have some minor concerns with this legislation but they have not conveyed their concerns to me or my staff directly. This bill will not create a new tax benefit. Let me say that again: this bill will not create a new tax benefit, it merely modifies current law to include the time members of the Uniformed and Foreign Services are away from home on active duty when calculating the number of years the homeowner has lived in their primary residence. In short, this bill is narrowly tailored to remedy a specific dilemma, it treats service members and foreign service officers fairly, by treating them like all other Americans. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 delivered sweeping tax relief to millions of Americans through a wide variety of important tax changes that affect individuals, families, investors, and businesses. It was also one of the most complex tax laws enacted in recent history. As with any complex legislation, there are winners and losers. But in this instance, there are unintended losers: service members and Foreign Service Officers. The 1997 act gives taxpayers who sell their principal residence a much-needed tax break. Prior to the 1997 act, taxpayers received a one- time exclusion on the profit they made when they sold their principal residence, but the taxpayer had to be at least 55 years old and live in the residence for 2 of the 5 years preceding the sale. This provision primarily benefitted elderly taxpayers, while not providing any relief to younger taxpayers and their families. Fortunately, the 1997 act addressed this issue. Under this law, taxpayers who sell their principal residence on or after May 7, 1997, are not taxed on the first $250,000 of profit from the sale; joint filers are not taxed on the first $500,000 of profit they make from selling their principal residence. The taxpayer must meet two requirements to qualify for this tax relief. The taxpayer must: one, own the home for at least 2 of the 5 years preceding the sale; and two, live in the home as their main home for at least 2 years of the last 5 years. I applaud the bi-partisan cooperation that resulted in this much- needed form of tax relief. The home sales provision sounds great and it is. Unfortunately, the second part of this eligibility test unintentionally and unfairly prohibits many of our men and women in the Armed Forces and Foreign services from qualifying for this beneficial tax relief. Constant travel across the U.S. and abroad is inherent in the military and Foreign Services. Nonetheless, some service members and Foreign Service Officers choose to purchase a home in a certain locale, even though they will not live there much of the time. Under the new law, if a service man does not have a spouse who resides in the house during his absence or the spouse is also in the military and also must travel, that service member will not qualify for the full benefit of the new home sales provision, because no one ``lives'' in the home for the required period of time. The law is prejudiced against dual- military couples who are often away on active duty, because they would not qualify for the home sales exclusion because neither spouse ``lives'' in the house for enough time to qualify for the exclusion. This bill simply remedies an inequality in the 1997 law. The bill amends the Internal Revenue Code so that service members and Foreign Service Officers will be considered to be using their house as their main residence for any period that they are away on extended active duty. In short, active and reserve service members will be deemed to be using their house as their main home, even if they are stationed in Bosnia, the Persian Gulf, in the ``no man's land,'' commonly called the DMZ between North and South Korea, or anywhere else on active duty orders. In 1998 alone, the United States had approximately 37,000 men and women deployed to the Persian Gulf region, preparing to go into combat, if so ordered. There were also 8,000 American troops deployed in Bosnia, and another 70,000 U.S. military personnel deployed in support of other commitments worldwide. That is a total of 108,000 men and women deployed outside of the United States, away from their primary home, protecting and furthering the freedoms we Americans hold so dear. Today since the September 11 attacks on the United States we've asked over 100,000 service members to deploy abroad to seek out and destroy the terrorists and their supporting organizations responsible for this incomprehensible deed. The average American participates in our Nation's growth through home ownership. Appreciation in the value of a home because of our country's overall economic growth allows everyday Americans to participate in our country's prosperity. Fortunately, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 recognized this and provided this break to lessen the amount of tax most Americans will pay on the profit they make when they sell their homes. The 1997 home sale provision unintentionally discourages home ownership among members of the Uniformed and Foreign Services, which is bad fiscal policy. Home ownership has numerous benefits for communities and individual homeowners. Owning a home provides Americans with a sense of community and adds stability to our Nation's neighborhoods. Home ownership also generates valuable property taxes for our nation's communities. We also cannot afford to discourage military service by penalizing military personnel with higher taxes merely because they are doing their job. Military and Foreign service entails sacrifice, such as long periods of time away from friends and family and the constant threat of mobilization into hostile territory. We must not use the tax code to heap additional burdens upon our men and women in uniform. In my view, the way to decrease the likelihood of further inequities in the tax code, intentional or otherwise, is to adopt a fairer, flatter tax system that is far less complicated than our current system. But, in the meantime, we must insure that the tax code is as fair and equitable as possible. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 was designed to provide sweeping tax relief to all Americans, including our men and women in uniform. It is true that there are winners and losers in any tax code, but this inequity was unintended. Enacting this narrowly-tailored remedy to grant equal tax relief to the members of our Uniformed Services restores fairness and consistency to our increasingly complex tax code. I request unanimous consent that my statement and the letters of support be printed in the Record and that the full text of the legislation that I have introduced be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I, along with Senators Allard, Lieberman, Snowe, Levin, Murkowski, Cleland, Inhofe, Landrieu, Burns, Durbin, Sessions and DeWine are proud to sponsor this bill to allow members of the Uniformed and Foreign Services, who are deployed or are away on extended active duty, to qualify for the same tax relief on the profit generated when they sell their main residence as other Americans. I am pleased to announce that the Secretary of State greatly appreciates this legislation and the strong support of this measure by the senior uniformed military leadership, the 31-member associations of The Military Coalition, the American Foreign Service Association, and the American Bar Association. Despite such considerable support, I have heard that there are some lower ranking officials from the Office of Management and Budget that may have some minor concerns with this legislation but they have not conveyed their concerns to me or my staff directly. This bill will not create a new tax benefit. Let me say that again: this bill will not create a new tax benefit, it merely modifies current law to include the time members of the Uniformed and Foreign Services are away from home on active duty when calculating the number of years the homeowner has lived in their primary residence. In short, this bill is narrowly tailored to remedy a specific dilemma, it treats service members and foreign service officers fairly, by treating them like all other Americans. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 delivered sweeping tax relief to millions of Americans through a wide variety of important tax changes that affect individuals, families, investors, and businesses. It was also one of the most complex tax laws enacted in recent history. As with any complex legislation, there are winners and losers. But in this instance, there are unintended losers: service members and Foreign Service Officers. The 1997 act gives taxpayers who sell their principal residence a much-needed tax break. Prior to the 1997 act, taxpayers received a one- time exclusion on the profit they made when they sold their principal residence, but the taxpayer had to be at least 55 years old and live in the residence for 2 of the 5 years preceding the sale. This provision primarily benefitted elderly taxpayers, while not providing any relief to younger taxpayers and their families. Fortunately, the 1997 act addressed this issue. Under this law, taxpayers who sell their principal residence on or after May 7, 1997, are not taxed on the first $250,000 of profit from the sale; joint filers are not taxed on the first $500,000 of profit they make from selling their principal residence. The taxpayer must meet two requirements to qualify for this tax relief. The taxpayer must: one, own the home for at least 2 of the 5 years preceding the sale; and two, live in the home as their main home for at least 2 years of the last 5 years. I applaud the bi-partisan cooperation that resulted in this much- needed form of tax relief. The home sales provision sounds great and it is. Unfortunately, the second part of this eligibility test unintentionally and unfairly prohibits many of our men and women in the Armed Forces and Foreign services from qualifying for this beneficial tax relief. Constant travel across the U.S. and abroad is inherent in the military and Foreign Services. Nonetheless, some service members and Foreign Service Officers choose to purchase a home in a certain locale, even though they will not live there much of the time. Under the new law, if a service man does not have a spouse who resides in the house during his absence or the spouse is also in the military and also must travel, that service member will not qualify for the full benefit of the new home sales provision, because no one ``lives'' in the home for the required period of time. The law is prejudiced against dual- military couples who are often away on active duty, because they would not qualify for the home sales exclusion because neither spouse ``lives'' in the house for enough time to qualify for the exclusion. This bill simply remedies an inequality in the 1997 law. The bill amends the Internal Revenue Code so that service members and Foreign Service Officers will be considered to be using their house as their main residence for any period that they are away on extended active duty. In short, active and reserve service members will be deemed to be using their house as their main home, even if they are stationed in Bosnia, the Persian Gulf, in the ``no man's land,'' commonly called the DMZ between North and South Korea, or anywhere else on active duty orders. In 1998 alone, the United States had approximately 37,000 men and women deployed to the Persian Gulf region, preparing to go into combat, if so ordered. There were also 8,000 American troops deployed in Bosnia, and another 70,000 U.S. military personnel deployed in support of other commitments worldwide. That is a total of 108,000 men and women deployed outside of the United States, away from their primary home, protecting and furthering the freedoms we Americans hold so dear. Today since the September 11 attacks on the United States we've asked over 100,000 service members to deploy abroad to seek out and destroy the terrorists and their supporting organizations responsible for this incomprehensible deed. The average American participates in our Nation's growth through home ownership. Appreciation in the value of a home because of our country's overall economic growth allows everyday Americans to participate in our country's prosperity. Fortunately, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 recognized this and provided this break to lessen the amount of tax most Americans will pay on the profit they make when they sell their homes. The 1997 home sale provision unintentionally discourages home ownership among members of the Uniformed and Foreign Services, which is bad fiscal policy. Home ownership has numerous benefits for communities and individual homeowners. Owning a home provides Americans with a sense of community and adds stability to our Nation's neighborhoods. Home ownership also generates valuable property taxes for our nation's communities. We also cannot afford to discourage military service by penalizing military personnel with higher taxes merely because they are doing their job. Military and Foreign service entails sacrifice, such as long periods of time away from friends and family and the constant threat of mobilization into hostile territory. We must not use the tax code to heap additional burdens upon our men and women in uniform. In my view, the way to decrease the likelihood of further inequities in the tax code, intentional or otherwise, is to adopt a fairer, flatter tax system that is far less complicated than our current system. But, in the meantime, we must insure that the tax code is as fair and equitable as possible. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 was designed to provide sweeping tax relief to all Americans, including our men and women in uniform. It is true that there are winners and losers in any tax code, but this inequity was unintended. Enacting this narrowly-tailored remedy to grant equal tax relief to the members of our Uniformed Services restores fairness and consistency to our increasingly complex tax code. I request unanimous consent that my statement and the letters of support be printed in the Record and that the full text of the legislation that I have introduced be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the conferees of this bill for their hard work in completing this conference report for this legislation. The report provides critical Federal funding for the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies. The conference report spends at a level of 4.1 percent higher than the level enacted in fiscal year 2001. In real dollars, this is $2.1 billion in additional spending above the amount requested by the President, and a $4.4 billion increase in spending from last year. Once again I find myself in the unpleasant position of speaking before my colleagues about parochial projects in yet another conference report. I have identified over $1 billion in earmarks, which is greater than the cost of the earmarks in the conference report passed last year. Last year, it was $970 million. So far this year, the total of appropriations pork-barrel spending has already hit a staggering $9 billion. Before I go into some specifics--and it will not be many on this bill--I would like to quote from an article by Deroy Murdoch of the Scripps Howard News Service that was published on October 14, 2001. He says: Each dollar spent on pork-barrel projects is one less dollar that can be devoted to the War on Terror. This inescapable fact somehow has escaped members of Congress. While senators and representatives swiftly and wisely approved $40 billion in recovery and defense funds after the Sept. 11 massacre, they quickly relapsed into old habits. Congress again is spending money as recklessly and foolishly as it did on Sept. 10. Even as U.S. warships steam toward the Persian Gulf, Citizens Against Government Waste, a Washington-based fiscal watchdog group, has calculated in military terms the opportunity cost of business as usual. Sidewinder missiles sell for $41,300 each. . . . Tomahawk Cruise missiles are $1 million apiece while one F-15 fighter jet costs $15 million. Pork projects chew right through cash that could purchase these and other weapons the Pentagon will need to crush the international terror network and its state sponsors. For instance, on Sept. 13, the Senate adopted the fiscal 2002 Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary Appropriations Bill. Consider just several items the Senate approved while the Pentagon and Ground Zero still smoldered: --$2 million for the Oregon Groundfish Outreach Program and $850,000 for Chesapeake Bay Oyster Research. Cost: 69 sidewinders. --$6 million for the National Infrastructure Institute in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Cost: Six cruise missiles. --$204 million for the Advanced Technology Program, a quintessential corporate welfare boondoggle, for which the Bush administration requested only $13 million. Cost: Thirteen F-15 fighters. Even more maddening is a brand-new bill to expand farm subsidies one year before the existing spending plan expires. The Farm Security Act would increase agricultural pork by $73.1 billion over the next 10 years. Added to the $96.9 billion budget baseline, Uncle Sam would plow $170 billion into the ground through the year 2011. This bill authorizes $101 million for honey producers. The once-terminated wool and mohair program rises again, $202 million strong. Peanut farmers can expect $3.48 billion. This bill would also revive a $37.1 billion in ``counter-cyclical assistance'' which was scrapped in 1996. I talked about this at another time. The U.S. Agriculture Department released a study last month that describes these subsidies as spectacularly wasteful and fundamentally unfair. Forty-seven percent of agricultural payments go to commercial farms with average household incomes of $135,397, more than 2\1/2\ times the average American household's $51,855 in earnings. According to the Associated Press, just 10 percent of farm owners shared 63 percent of last year's $27 billion in federal agriculture payments. Media tycoon Ted Turner received farm aid, as did Portland Trail Blazer Scottie Pippen. Modestly paid waitresses and school bus drivers pay twice for largesse--first through taxes, then again as agricultural price supports hike their grocery bills. . . . These legislative hijinks are bad enough in peacetime. America is at war. Soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines are kissing their loved ones goodbye and shipping out to face a vicious and bloodthirsty enemy lurking in foreign shadows. Right now, Congress should grow up and stop treating the domestic budget as a political Toys R Us. Americans already are making huge sacrifices. Weak tourist revenues have lowered the curtains on five Broadway shows. Hotel beds have gone empty as conferences have been canceled, and weddings have been scaled back or postponed. Major U.S. airlines have fired 87,000 employees since terror struck. Amid such national belt-tightening, it is beyond ugly to watch public servants loosen their belts as their pork-laden bellies swell. If the American people must live with less, so must their representatives. I would like to read the words of OMB Director Mitch Daniels who said that in time of war: Everything ought to be held up to scrutiny. . . . Situations like this can have a clarifying benefit. People who could not identify a low priority or lousy program before may now see the need. Mr. President, we obviously have not seen the need in this conference report, and I intend to clarify some items stuffed in the bill. Let us take a look at this year's porkbarrel spending projects in the VA-HUD conference report before us. No. 10: $1 million for Spring Hill College in Mobile, AL, for construction of the Regional Library Resource Center; No. 9: $175,000 for the Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco, CA, for construction needs of the M.H. de Young Memorial Museum; No. 8: $1 million for Dubuque, IA, for the development of an American River Museum; No. 7: $300,000 for the Central Missouri Lake of the Ozarks Convention and Visitor Bureau Community Center; No. 6: $750,000 for the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State University; No. 5: $1 million for the Mid-Atlantic Aerospace Complex in West Virginia. You will notice, Mr. President, each one of those is earmarked to a specific location. For example, in my State of Arizona, we just voted a bond issue to expand our convention facilities. They are not going to have to do that in the Central Missouri Lake of the Ozarks because they are going to build a convention center, and we are going to give them $300,000 to do so. Again, No. 5, $1 million for the State of West Virginia, which seems to pop up quite a bit. There is an additional $250,000 to Maui for the control of nuisance seaweed accumulations on the beaches of Kihei, Maui, HI; $100,000 for the Memphis Zoo in Memphis, TN, for the Northwest Passage Campaign; $140,000 for the city of El Reno, OK, for development of a trolley system; And $190,000 for the city of Spartanburg, SC, for the Motor Racing Museum of the South. Mr. President, we are in a war. Isn't this really unconscionable? Isn't it really unacceptable? Isn't it really quite a commentary that the earmarks in this year's bill are higher than last year's bill? Isn't it interesting that each one of these is earmarked for a specific place? Perhaps the Presiding Officer's home State would like to compete for money for a Motor Racing Museum of the Midwest since we are giving money to Spartanburg, SC, for the Motor Racing Museum of the South. We are now about to have a big fight with the President and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle about increased spending. How can my colleagues on this side of the aisle go into that battle with clean hands when we continue to add porkbarrel project after porkbarrel project--$9 billion so far of unrequested, unauthorized items that are specifically earmarked for certain powerful members of the Appropriations Committee. That is not right, Mr. President. Sooner or later, we are going to educate the American people about this, and it is going to come to a halt. I am afraid it may be later rather than sooner. It continues to lurch out of control, and no one believes we have enough money for defense spending. No one believes that. That is why we are spending extra money on defense, and yet these projects continue to be added both in conference as well as in the bills themselves, and it is not acceptable. It is not acceptable. If the average American knew more about this, they would reject it. I intend to do as I have done in the past to make sure as many Americans understand where their tax dollars are spent. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I have no objection.

Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I have a question for the majority whip. I was told that it might be the intention to take up the Internet tax issue; is that correct or incorrect?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I am pleased to join Chairman Hollings in introducing the Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety reauthorization Act of 2001 at the request of the Administration. This measure is a good start toward improving and strengthening the safe and secure transport of our nation's hazardous materials. In addition to authorizing funding for hazardous materials transportation safety programs, this legislation addresses concerns arising since the attacks of September 11. Among other things, this bill would strengthen the authority of Department of Transportation (DOT) inspectors to inspect packages being transported, and provide those inspectors with the authority to stop unsafe transportation. This measure would also increase the maximum civil penalty for violations of hazardous materials regulations from $27,500 to $100,000. It would expand the requirements for training persons involved in the transportation of hazardous materials and strengthen the enforcement authority of State enforcement officials. The hazardous materials transportation safety program reauthorization is long overdue. The most recent authorization expired September 30, 1998. Since then, attempts at reauthorization have failed due to objections within Congress and an inability to reach an agreement on certain proposals with the former administration. Now, however, it is appropriate to attempt to move forward and address identified safety problems and improve safety for all Americans. I am hopeful that the Senate will act quickly to take the necessary action to improve hazardous materials transportation safety before we are forced to respond to another attack making use of our nation's transportation system. Annually, more than four billion tons of hazardous materials--about 800,000 shipments daily--are transported by land, sea, and air in the United States. Among these materials are flammable liquids, combustible solids, gases, and corrosive materials. Despite the wide variety and amount of shipments, the hazardous materials transportation industry has a notable safety record, due in large part to the safety efforts of the individuals and companies involved in transporting these materials. In 1999, for instance, there were five hazardous materials related fatalities, down from thirteen in 1998 and twelve in 1997. However, in light of the attacks of September 11, it is more important than ever to reauthorize this important program. Reauthorization should include new authority for enforcement officials and clarify existing authority for the federal agencies that administer the programs responsible for hazardous materials transportation safety. The Federal Government has four roles related to hazardous materials transportation: regulation, enforcement, emergency response, and data collection and analysis. The DOT performs the largest role of establishing and enforcing Hazmat regulations, while the Research and Special Program Administration (RSPA), and to a lesser extent other agencies within the Department, are charged with more specific roles. RSPA is responsible for the regulation and identification of hazardous materials including hazardous materials handling and shipments, the development of container standards and testing procedures, the inspection and enforcement of multimodal shippers and container manufacturers, and for data collection. This legislation would provide authority to RSPA to continue its hazardous materials safety activities. In addition, the measure would grant the United States Postal Service (USPS) similar authority to DOT and its agencies to collect civil penalties and recover costs and damages for violations of its hazardous materials regulations. With this bill, jurisdiction between the DOT and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) would be clarified as it pertains to hazardous materials transportation. Dual jurisdiction over handling criteria registration, and motor carrier safety would be eliminated, leaving DOT with sole jurisdiction over these programs. Hazardous materials transportation employee training and occupational safety and health protection of employees responding to a release of hazardous materials would remain under the jurisdiction of both DOT and OSHA. I hope this Congress will act expeditiously to approve comprehensive hazardous materials transportation safety legislation. We simply cannot afford another missed opportunity to address transportation safety shortcomings. We must do all we can to ensure the safe transport of these materials, including providing the needed resources to the agencies charged with oversight of this industry. The Administration is correct in asking Congress to address hazardous materials transportation reauthorization. I will be working with Chairman Hollings and look forward to hearings in the near future to address this important reauthorization proposal.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to thank both Senator Specter and Senator Harkin for their hard work on this important legislation which provides federal funding for the Departments of Labor, DOL, and Health and Human Services, HHS, and related agencies. Many of these programs are even more important as our war on terrorism is placing this Nation at great risk, particularly on the homefront. To protect our survival, we must also ensure that adequate support and resources are provided to protect our citizens at home as well as adequately funding our defense programs necessary for engaging in this war. I am pleased to see increased funding for many programs, many that are of an increased importance in light of our Nation's war on terrorism. This includes an increase in funding for bioterrorism activities and ensuring that our nation's public health infrastructure is given the highest priority and strengthened considerably. This funding is critical for our States, localities and our nation as a whole, to ensure that substantial investments and improvements are made in our public health infrastructure so we can readily respond to our current situation and potentially future threats as well. There is funding to ensure our Nation's food supply remains safe and resources for helping meet the health care needs of the uninsured--many who may now be unemployed due to the horrific events of September 11th. In this time of war, we must ensure that adequate resources are available for treating and preventing potential health threats. In addition to funding key public health programs, this bill provides funds for helping States and local communities educate our children. Furthermore, it provides the necessary funds for supporting our scientists dedicated to finding treatments, if not cures, for many illnesses, including Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and ALS. This bill even provides funds for ensuring our nation's most vulnerable--children, senior citizens and the disabled--have access to quality health care. Funds are also provided for important programs that assist working families needing child care, adult daycare for elderly seniors, and Meals on Wheels. I applaud the appropriators for including very few specific funding earmarks, but I am distressed about the extensive list of directives that have been included. It is apparent that the many directives and recommendation language camouflages the number of specific projects that are given special consideration and bypassing the appropriate competitive funding process. Examples of this language include: Language supporting the Wheeling Jesuit University NASA Center for Educational Technologies to provide technology training to all elementary and secondary West Virginia mathematics and science teachers; Language supporting the Missoula Family YMCA in Missoula, MT, to develop the ``Give Me Five'' after school program; Language supporting the Ellijay Wildlife Rehabilitation Sanctuary to expand its ecological science education programs to make them available to more students in Georgia; Language supporting Fresno At-Risk Youth Services in California to attack the problem of at-risk youths by coordinating the city's efforts through an education program coordinator; Language supporting the Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory at Brown University to run a Website called Knowledge Loom; and Language supporting the Flint Area Chamber of Commerce in Michigan to establish an ``e-mentoring'' program designed to create a partnership between employers and students. The bill also includes recommendation language that encourages the Department of Labor to consider supporting certain projects or institutions. Examples include: Good Faith Fund of the Arkansas Enterprise Group in Arkadelphia, AR; Las Vegas Culinary Training Center; Western Alaska workforce training initiative; Oregon Institute of Technology; and UNLV Center for Workforce Development and Occupational Research. While each of these programs may deserve funding, it is disturbing that these funds are specifically earmarked and not subject to the competitive grant process. But there are other job training facilities, health organizations, and educational sites in America that need financial aid for their particular programs and are not fortunate enough to have an advocate in the appropriations process to ensure that their funding is earmarked in this bill. There are many important programs impacting the labor force, health and education of our nation that depend on the support in this bill. However, we have diluted the positive impact of these programs by siphoning away funds for specific projects or communities that have ardent advocates in members on the appropriations committee. In closing, I urge my colleagues to curb our habit of directing hard- earned taxpayer dollars to locality-specific special interests which thwarts the very process that is needed to ensure our laws address the concerns and interests of all Americans, not just a few who seek special protection or advantage. Mr. President, thank you and I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I will read a portion. More recently there have been a number of requests made to FDA to allow the term ``catfish'' for these species. Species are members of the family-- Et cetera, saying there is no difference between the catfish that are raised in Vietnam and the catfish that the agribusinesses have. The agribusinesses, however, have advertised, ``Never trust a catfish with a foreign accent.''

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to address two issues tonight. One is the last-minute amendments that were made to the Agriculture appropriations bill last week, and a statement concerning the conference report for the fiscal year 2002 energy and water appropriations. I do not intend to spend too much time because I know my colleagues are inconvenienced. But one of the reasons I am having to give this statement now is because last Thursday night we sat around. All the Senators were sitting around and when I asked what we were waiting for they said: The managers' package of amendments. Finally the managers' package showed up. Everyone was in line to vote so we could get out of here. Guess what. They asked unanimous consent for the adoption of the management package--the manager of the bill, the Senator from Wisconsin. I said: Reserving the right to object, what is in it? Does anybody know what is in it? Of course that was met with a resounding silence. So I informed my colleague at that time I was very worried about a managers' package that none of us had seen, and I was worried that there might be provisions in it that I and others might find objectionable. Then I was told there were 35 amendments included in the managers' package. Let's remember that a managers' package is supposed to be technical corrections to the overall bill. I want to tell my colleagues what went on last Thursday night and the reason this system has lurched out of control. It is a disgrace, I say to my colleagues; it is a disgrace. To reiterate, at the tail end of last week's proceedings, the managers for the agriculture appropriations bill ``cleared'' a package of 35 amendments to be included in the final Senate bill. Again, these are 35 amendments that none of the other Senators voting on the bill had received any information about, nor had any opportunity to review. While I did not object at the time to approving these amendments by unanimous consent, I was very concerned about the nature of these amendments. As it turns out, I had good reason to be concerned. Of these 35 amendments, about 15 of these amendments included direct earmarked spending or objectionable legislative riders. These additional earmarks amount to an extra $8 million in porkbarrel spending--on top of the $372 million already included by the appropriators in the Senate bill. Mr. President, I understand that the managers for a bill have the privilege to add and remove certain provisions to a bill in order to move it along the process, or agree to clarifying technical amendments. I am not singling out the managers for the agriculture appropriations bill because the negotiation process is a part of any bill under consideration. However, this particular situation involves a direct spending measure and should require higher scrutiny in approving federal funds, which are normally considered in the committee process to ensure that projects are authorized and approved by the Congress. This should be true of any of the appropriations or budget bills we consider. Unfortunately, there is no way for us to tell if these last-minute earmarks were included because of their national priority or merit. They are simply added on, either in attempts to gain support to move the bill or tack on earmarks that might not pass legislative review. Some of my colleagues may be interested to know what amendments were included in the last-minute roundup in the manager's package. Let me give you a sample: Relief for sugar growers from paying a required marketing assessment; Special consideration provided to the State of Alaska--that should surprise a lot of my colleagues--for income qualifications for housing for individuals under 18; There is another surprise: an increase in the earmark for West Virginia State College by more than $500,000, and including additional language for preferential consideration to this same college by designating it as an 1890 institution; Expansion of subsidies for sweet potato producers and horse-breeder loans; Earmark of $230,000 to purchase conservation easements in Kentucky and $230,000 earmark to the University of Kentucky. There may be a little bell rung here. A little trip down memory lane. These states, just by pure coincidence, are the states which the appropriators represents; Funding for repairs caused by an avalanche in Valdez, Alaska; Directive language to give special consideration to the Tanana River in Alaska; Earmark of $500,000 for Oklahoma State University; Language limiting the import of fish and fish products. I am greatly concerned about this process. I tell the appropriators now I will not allow a vote until I have seen the managers' package of amendment. If they don't like it, look at what we adopted last night. I am gravely troubled by the managers' insertion into this bill the latter provision that would effectively ban all imports of Vietnamese catfish to the United States. Vietnamese catfish constitute an important part of our catfish consumption in the United States. Americans like to eat them. Moreover, the guiding principle of the recently ratified, and historic, United States-Vietnam Bilateral Trade Agreement was to open our markets to each other's products. To my deep dismay, a midnight amendment inserted by the managers on behalf of several Senators with wealthy catfish growers in their states violates our solemn trade agreement with Vietnam. With a clever trick of Latin phraseology and without any mention of Vietnam, these southern Senators single-handedly undercut American trade policy in a troubling example of the very parochialism we have urged the Vietnamese Government to abandon by ratifying the bilateral trade agreement. Vietnamese catfish are no different than American catfish by nutritional and safety standards--but they are different in the eyes of the large, wealthy agribusinesses on whose behalf this provision was slipped into the agriculture appropriations bill. After preaching for years to the Vietnamese about the need to get government out of micromanaging the economy, we have sadly implicated ourselves in the very sin our trade policy ostensibly rejects. Sweet potatoes, sugar, catfish, horse-breeders, and dozens of amendments passed without seeing the light of day. Mr. President, I ask this memo from the Department of Health and Human Services be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. If there is one on every appropriations bill, I want to see it. Last Thursday night, in case the Senator from New Mexico missed it, he voted for a package of amendments, also for $35 million, without seeing it.

Mr. McCAIN. Good. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, the energy and water development appropriations bill is important to the nation's energy resources, improving water infrastructure, and ensuring our national security interests. This conference report finalizes funding recommendations for critical cleanup activities at various sites across the country and continues ongoing water infrastructure projects managed by the Army Corp of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation. The bill also increases resources for renewable energy research and nuclear energy programs that are critical to ensuring a diverse energy supply for this nation. These are all laudable and important activities, particularly given the need for heightened security around the nation. Such Federal facilities, including Federal weapons infrastructure, deserve the most vigilant protection. Unfortunately, my colleagues have determined that their ability to increase energy spending is just another opportunity to increase porkbarrel spending. Millions of dollars are diverted away from national security interests and doled out to parochial projects. In this conference report, a total of 796 earmarks are included which adds up to $1.2 billion in porkbarrel spending. These are earmarks for locale-specific projects that are either unrequested or unauthorized, and that have not been considered in the appropriate merit-based review process. The $1.2 billion in porkbarrel spending in this bill is nearly $500 million and 441 earmarks more than the amount in the Senate-passed bill, and $266 million more than last year's bill. We have increased unauthorized spending by $266 million more than last year's bill. In total, nearly $9 billion in taxpayer dollars will pay for porkbarrel spending in appropriations bill passed so far this year. I'm sure that many of my colleagues will assert the need to use these Federal dollars for their hometown Army Corps projects or to fund development of biomass or ethanol projects in their respective states. If these projects had been approved through a competitive, merit-based prioritization process or if the American public had a greater voice in determining if these projects are indeed the wisest and best use of their tax dollars, then I would not object. The reality is that very few people know how billions of dollars are spent in the routine cycle of the appropriations process. No doubt, the general public would be appalled that many of the funded projects are, at best, questionable--or worse, unauthorized, or singled out for special treatment. Let me share a few examples of what the appropriators are earmarking this year: An earmark of $300,000 for the removal of aquatic weeds in the Lavaca and Navidad Rivers in Texas. I am sure there are no other rivers that are beset by aquatic weeds. So we have earmarked $300,000 for removal of the aquatic weeds in those two rivers. There is an additional $8 million for the Denali Commission, a regional commission serving only the needs of Alaska. That is a surprise. There is $200,000 to study individual ditch systems in the State of Hawaii. I would like to have someone come and study the ditch systems in my State. We have a few. But we are going to spend $200,000 to study individual ditch systems in the State of Hawaii. Three hundred thousand dollars for Aunt Lydia's Cove in Massachusetts. I don't know what the problem is up in Aunt Lydia's Cove, but I am sure it is revered, and it certainly deserves a $300,000 earmark. I am sure that Aunt Lydia--wherever she is--is very pleased to know that $300,000 is going to her cove; An additional $1 million for the Banta-Carbona Irrigation District's fish screen project--$1 million, my friends, which we have not scrutinized. I tell my colleagues, I do not know where Banta-Carbona Irrigation District is. But we are going to give them $1 million of taxpayers' money. Does anyone know anything about it? No, I don't think so. Three million dollars for a South Dakota integrated ethanol complex. I was under the impression for a long time that ethanol was developed by private enterprise. I didn't know we needed to contribute $3 million to develop an ethanol project in South Dakota. Two million dollars for the Seaalaska ethanol project. So far we have $5 million earmarked for specific ethanol projects. Two separate earmarks totaling $4.5 million for gasification of Iowa Switch Grass. I am sure we could have a lot of fun with that one--$4.5 million for gasification of Iowa Switch Grass. What could be the problem? An earmark of $1.65 million for a new library center at Spring Hill College. I again plead ignorance. I do not know where Spring Hill College is. But they certainly deserve a new library center. Unlike other colleges, they don't have to get the money from their alumni, or from other sources, as colleges in my State have to do. One million dollars to install exhibits at the Atomic Testing History Institute. I think I know where the Atomic Testing History Institute is. And $500,000 for the Rural Montana Project, and $8 million for the Rural Nevada Project. I respect the work of my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee. I do not believe Congress should have absolute discretion to tell the Army Corps or the Bureau of Reclamation how best to spend millions of taxpayer dollars for purely parochial projects. At this critical time in our history, we should be doing everything we can to instill the confidence of the American people in the Federal Government. Unfortunately, this increasing dilemma of flagrant porkbarrel spending is indefensible. I point out that in every single appropriations bill there has been an increase in unauthorized projects--many of them put in at the last minute. I just discussed how 15 amendments were stuffed into a so- called managers' amendment which none of us except perhaps the two managers of the bill had ever seen. This process has to come to a halt at some time. It is out of control. It has to be stopped. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Yes.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will move on to the conference report for the fiscal year 2002 energy and water appropriations. Now that one of the Members, anyway, of the appropriations bill is here, the Senator from New Mexico, I hope he will note, I will not approve moving forward until I have seen the managers' amendment on this bill.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the conferees of this bill for their hard work in completing the conference report for this legislation. The report provides Federal funding for numerous vital programs in the Treasury Department and the General Government. However, once again, I find myself in the unpleasant position of speaking before my colleagues about parochial projects in another conference report. This conference report spends at a level 6.3 percent higher than the level enacted in fiscal year 2001. In real dollars, this is $458 million in additional spending above the amount requested by the President, and a $1.9 billion increase in spending from last year. I must remind my colleagues that the Administration has urged us to maintain our fiscal discipline to ensure that we will continue to have adequate funds to prosecute our war against terrorism, to aid those in need, and to cover other related costs. In this bill, I have identified $217 million in earmarks, which is less than the cost of the earmarks in the bill passed last year, which totaled $356 million. Therefore, I applaud the efforts of the conferees in keeping parochial spending to a minimum in this bill but more must be done. While the amounts associated with each individual earmark may not seem extravagant, taken together, they represent a serious diversion of taxpayers' hard-earned dollars at the expense of numerous programs that have undergone the appropriate merit-based selection process. It is my view that the people who run these programs should be the ones who decide how best to spend the appropriated funds. After all, they know what their most pressing needs are. For example, under funding for the Department of Treasury, some examples of earmarks include: $2,000,000 as a grant to Florida International University for transfer pricing research; $3,500,000 for retrofitting and upgrades of the National Center Tracing Center Facility in Martinsburg, West Virginia; and $750,000 for the Center for Agriculture Policy and Trade Studies located at North Dakota State University. Under funding for the General Government, some of the earmarks include: $1,000,000 for the Native American Digital Telehealth Project and the Upper Great Plains Native American Telehealth Program at the University of North Dakota; $3,000,000 to help purchase land and facilitate the moving of the Odd Fellows Hall to provide for construction of a new courthouse in Salt Lake City, Utah; and $1,700,000 for a grant to the Oklahoma Centennial Commission. There are more projects on the list that I have compiled, which will be available on my Senate Website. In closing, I urge my colleagues to curb our habit of directing hard- earned taxpayer dollars to locality-specific special interests.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to discuss for a few moments the fundamental problem with this appropriations bill and then talk a little bit about the pork that is again prevalent and on the increase in this appropriations bill. First of all, I want to talk about Federal subsidies, where they go, who should be receiving them, the largess of the Federal Government taxpayers' money under the present setup, how we are going to work subsidies, and how the money is distributed. Earlier this year, the General Accounting Office released a report that details some very critical information on the disturbing trends of federal farm assistance. The GAO reports that over 80 percent of farm payments have been made to large- and medium-sized farms, while small farms have received less than 20 percent of the payments. In 1999, large farms, which represent about 7 percent of all farms nationwide with gross agricultural sales of $250,000, received about 45 percent of federal payments. These payments average about $64,737. Seventeen percent of farms that are medium-sized with gross sales between $50,000 and $250,000, received 45 percent of all payments. Payments average $21,943. Let me repeat that. Seven percent of all the farms are now getting 45 percent of all the payments. Seventeen percent of farms that are medium sized and with gross sales between $50,000 and $250,000 receive 45 percent of all payments. Payments average $21,943. What does this mean? Generally, small farms--with gross sales under $50,000--received only 14 percent of the payments, despite the fact that small farms make up about 76 percent of the farms nationwide. Most of these payments average about $4,141. That is about 6 percent of the total amount made available to large farms. There is something wrong here. Seventy-six percent of all the farms get 14 percent of the payments. Seven percent of the farms receive 45 percent of the payments. Where is the rhetoric about the small and family farmer? The GAO also concluded that: The percentage of payments received by the large, very large, and nonfamily farm types increased from 1993 and decreased for other farm types. These farms also experienced substantial increases in the average payment that they received in 1999. Large and very large farms received about 22 percent of the payments in 1999, with average payments ranging from $51,000 to $85,000. If we take a look at what has happened with the Freedom to Farm bill and with the substantial amount of emergency and supplemental payments Congress has delivered since 1998, the trend seems to indicate that small farmers are receiving less and less federal assistance. In 1995, small farms received 29 percent of payments. By 1999, small farms received 14 percent. Thus far, between 1999 and 2001 alone, Congress has designated more than $30 billion in emergency or supplemental spending for farm relief. While the 1996 farm bill was intended to reduce reliance on the Federal Government, payments to farmers have increased by 400 percent, from $7 billion in 1996 to $32 billion in 2001. I think we should all be concerned about where this money is really being spent. By some reports, even the likes of Ted Turner and pro basketball star, Scottie Pippen, have been recipients of Federal subsidies. At least 20 Fortune 500 companies and more than 1,200 universities and Government farms, including State prisons, received Government checks. Such corporate giants as Riceland Foods, Inc., based in Stuttgart, Arkansas, took in a mammoth $32 million in Federal subsidies and a large conglomerate farm, Missouri Delta Farms received $7 million. Who pays the tab for these payments? The American taxpayers. I don't know how you justify a $32 million subsidy to one organization, one corporation, and call it assistance to the farmer. Let's call it assistance to major corporations. Let's call it for what it is. What I think we ought to do is support the hard-hit family farm operations. Any entity that earned more than $1 million in annual revenues does not justify the expenditure of taxpayer dollars. I remind my colleagues the American public is very much aware of the actions we are taking when asking the taxpayers to subsidize farmers. Many others among the American public have expressed similar concerns. Let me point out a few statements: Representative Ron Kind, Wisconsin in the St. Paul Pioneer Press, July 2001: Why are we throwing these billions of dollars at these few farmers, which is only leading to an increase in production, and an oversupply, and commodity prices plummeting? 90% of the current farm funding is going to less than one-third of the producers in this country, who are located in 15 states. You can imagine that those 15 states are represented on the Agriculture Committees, where there is a prevailing attitude to keep the status quo. Mark Edelman, Iowa State University Extension to Communities, October 1999: While targeting federal assistance to medium and small farmers and those that are financially vulnerable is often discussed during the outbreak of a farm crisis, the bulk of the emergency payments are not distributed according to those criteria. Up to this point, Congress and farm interests have not been willing to target the bulk of the farm program payments in ways that exclude or penalize larger farmers, or that arbitrarily reward medium, small or financially vulnerable farmers. Elizabeth Becker, New York Times, May 2001: Supporters of farm subsidies, which were enacted in the Depression, argue that they needed to save the family farm. But government documents indicate that the prime beneficiaries hardly fit the image of small, hardscrabble farmers. Because eligibility is based on acreage planted with subsidized crops in the past, the farmers who have the biggest spreads benefit the most. Chuck Hassebrook, Center for Rural Affairs, Nebraska, July 2001: The single most effective step Congress could take to strengthen family farms would be to stop subsidizing large farms to drive their neighbors out of business. In a recent Wall Street Journal article (October 3, 2001), called ``Nuts to You,'' a story outlines the federal government's continuing love affair with federal subsidies. In short, at a time when voters want Congress to be serious, we're seeing Washington at its worst. Once upon a time, it was possible to argue that farm supports kept small- time growers on the land. But nowadays they are little more than huge wealth transfers from average taxpayers to well-to- do farmers, many of whom work the land only part-time. Based on the amount of a crop produced, these subsidies go to big landholders who collect the cash and then buy up the land around them to collect still more. According to one recent study, only 10 percent of all farmers get 61 percent of all of the federal subsidies. Florida's Fanjul family has made a killing in sugar, another crop vital to the war effort. Even my colleague and distinguished chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Senator Harkin, criticized current farm policies for sending a greater share of Government subsidies to large farms instead of the more vulnerable smaller farms and for making it more difficult for young people to go into farming by driving up land values. In reviewing the General Accounting Office report, Senator Harkin was quoted in the Des Moines Register, July 2001, as saying that the GAO report ``proves that we can and should be doing more to ensure that these payments are distributed fairly.'' And Senator Harkin further was quoted as saying, ``[T]he bottom line is we must have a fairer system for providing support to farmers in the next farm bill.'' More recently, the administration stepped into the debate to urge the Congress to curb its appetite for Federal subsidies and extend more benefits to smaller farming entities. The administration's report makes several important points to the Congress, including this particular comment: Even the most carefully designed government intervention distorts markets and resource allocation, produces unintended consequences, and spreads benefits unevenly. We cannot afford to keep relearning the lessons of the past. However, we are not reauthorizing the farm bill today. The Senate will consider legislation to reauthorize the Freedom to Farm bill in the coming year. However, what we are considering today is equally important, the approval of annual spending for USDA to support farming entities. When considering any spending measure, we are obligated to ensure the fair and appropriate spending of billions of taxpayer dollars. If we do nothing to ensure equity today in this agriculture appropriations bill, the ultimate outcome is that half of this money will go to the large and very large farming operations, many of them agribusinesses, with little left for small to medium farmers that might demonstrate a greater need. It is time to change this alarming trend. Mr. President, I am, once again, greatly disappointed to report the amount of flagrant porkbarrel spending in this bill. This year's Agriculture spending bill includes $372 million in questionable earmarks, exceeding last year's level by $136 million. Unfortunately, it appears that the porkbarrel ``business as usual'' attitude reigns once again. Few of the annual appropriations bills are more loaded with unrequested, low-priority earmarks than this one. Despite the urging from the administration to eliminate the excessive special interest earmarks in the Agriculture appropriations bill, the appropriators tacked on 395 of the usual garden-variety, special interest earmarks. I, obviously, will not go through all 395, but let's take a look at the top 10 porkbarrel projects in this year's Agriculture appropriations bill. My colleagues will note that all of these earmarks are specifically designated to a specific State or a specific entity: No. 10, $150,000 for potato breeding research at Aberdeen, ID; No. 9, $250,000 for a beaver control program in Louisiana; No. 8, $50,000 specifically for the Oregon Garden; No. 7, $300,000 to the Tick Research Unit at Kerrville, TX; No. 6, $500,000 for the Honey Bee Laboratory in Baton Rouge, LA; No. 5, $300,000 for a coyote control program in West Virginia. That one particularly interests me since in my home State we have a lot of coyotes. I do not see any money in there for the control of coyotes in the great State of Arizona or in any place else in the Southwest, but perhaps, as in most cases, with a lot of appropriations bills, there is a unique problem in the State of West Virginia. No. 4, $750,000 to Western Kentucky University to examine the use of chicken litter as a fertilizer or nutrient source. I hope there is a careful division between those two choices. It could have serious consequences. But I am sure the folks at Western Kentucky University are well equipped to make sure there is no overlap between using chicken litter as a fertilizer or as a nutrient source. No. 3, $435,000 for weed control in North Dakota. They must have a terrific problem out there in North Dakota because year after year we find this weed control money going to the great State of North Dakota. I hope they get it under control soon. Of course, no other States, obviously, in the view of the appropriators, have a weed problem-- except in the great State of North Dakota. No. 2, $90,000 to study the use of acoustics in aquaculture research at the National Center for Physical Acoustics; and then, No. 1, $500,000 for the Montana Sheep Institute--$500,000 for that institute of higher learning in Montana, which obviously is very badly needed up there. Even the reliable earmarks for the National Center for Peanut Competitiveness and shrimp aquaculture are included. I believe that the National Center for Peanut Competitiveness is doing very well because we continue, every year, to make sure that peanut competitiveness is one of our highest priority projects. I will supply for the Record the many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars that have been devoted to peanut competitiveness. Funding has never been requested for the National Center for Peanut Competitiveness, yet it has been funded by the appropriators for 5 years. And shrimp aquaculture in Arizona and other States has been a consistent beneficiary of taxpayer dollars for 9 years. Unfortunately, there is little explanation included to justify why targeted Federal dollars for earmarked projects are more important than other programs to protect food safety or more directly support farm programs in the bill. This is a spending spree. So far this year more than $8.5 billion of pork has been included in 10 appropriations bills, including this Agriculture spending bill. We are at war. We must do better and heed the words of the Office of Management and Budget Director Mitch Daniels, who said: Everything ought to be held up to scrutiny. . . . Situations like this can have clarifying benefit. People who could not identify a low priority or lousy program before may now see the need. Apparently, we are not heeding Mr. Daniel's words. And I do not believe that anyone can say there are no low-priority items in this bill before us. I urge my colleagues to work harder to curb our habit of funneling resources to provincial ventures. Serving the public good should continue to be our mandate, and we can only live up to that charge by keeping the process free of unfair and unnecessary spending that unduly burdens the American taxpayer. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, but we should not be proud of this way of doing business, my friends. Thirty-five amendments that nobody has seen, except the two managers, that I know of; maybe someone else has, but I seriously doubt it. Thirty-five amendments. No Member has seen them. They may be technical in nature; they may be very substantive in nature. I tell my colleagues, I will not agree to this again. We have several more appropriations bills. I will not agree to this again without at least knowing what the amendments are. I remove my objection.

Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, does anybody here know what is in the managers' amendment? Could we have at least a brief summary from the managers as to what is in the managers' amendment? How many amendments are there? How many?

Mr. McCAIN. How many are there?