John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleagues, the Democrat leader and Senator Harry Reid, for their comments and their willingness to work together on all issues, including campaign finance reform. I am grateful for their continued cooperation and constructive comments. I send a bill to the desk on behalf of myself, Senator Feingold, Senator Cochran, and others. (The remarks of Mr. McCain, Mr. Feingold, and Mr. Cochran pertaining to the introduction of S. 27 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be left open for further cosponsors throughout the day.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, Senator Feingold and I and others--a bipartisan group of Senators and friends from the House, Congressman Shays and Congressman Meehan--just had a press conference announcing our intentions. I don't intend to make a statement, except to express my deep and sincere appreciation for my partner, Senator Feingold, who someday will be written about in another book called profiles in courage for his willingness to stand up to the special interests at a time when his own candidacy was at risk if he did not do so. I thank Senator Feingold, and I look forward to continuing to work together on this issue. I believe we see a light at the end of the tunnel, which is an old phrase from the Vietnam war, uttered by one of our civilian leaders during that war. I remind Senator Feingold that when told of that, a soldier in the field said, ``Yes, the light at the end of the tunnel is a train.'' We hope that is not the case in this particular scenario.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today Senators Hutchison, Cleland, Murkowski, and I are introducing the United States Cruise Vessel Act. The purpose of this bill is to provide increased domestic cruise opportunities for the American cruising public by temporarily reducing barriers to operation in the domestic cruise market. I want to start by thanking Senators Hutchison, Cleland, and Murkowski for once again joining me in an effort to rebuild our nation's cruise ship industry. While we made great progress in advancing our goals during the last Congress, our efforts were blocked by the special interests of a small group of shipbuilders who prefer the status quo that allows them to dominate the small market for large U.S.-built cruise ships without the fear of competition. The bill that we are introducing today was passed out of the Senate Commerce Committee unanimously during the last Congress. It represents months, if not years, of work by a large cross section of our nation's maritime industry to reach agreement on how best to jump-start our nation's fleet of U.S. flagged cruise vessels and provide them the tools they need to compete in the world market. The measure we are introducing today would allow for the immediate expansion of the domestic fleet by allowing operators to bring existing cruise ships under the U.S. flag as long as they agree to build additional vessels in the United States. The measure would also provide increased opportunities for U.S. mariners to serve at sea. This becomes more critical annually, as we face greater difficulties in meeting our national defense sealift need for qualified merchant mariners. We need to provide more opportunities for U.S. merchant mariners to serve at sea and this measure can lead to those opportunities. Finally, the measure would lead to increased work for our nation's shipyards and build on the limited construction plans for large cruise ships currently underway. I want to highlight some of the major provisions of the bill in order to ensure that the legislation we are introducing today is not confused with previous measures that allowed for the operation of foreign flagged vessels in the U.S. domestic market. The bill we are introducing today provides a two-year window of opportunity to encourage the immediate reflagging of large cruise vessels under the United States flag for operation in the domestic cruise trades. The bill would allow the Secretary of Transportation to issue permits for the limited operation of foreign-built cruise vessels in the domestic trades if applications are received within two years of the date of enactment of this legislation. To be eligible for reflagging and operation in the U.S. domestic cruise trades, a cruise vessel must have been delivered after January 1, 1980, and be at least 20,000 gross registered tons, have no fewer than 800 passenger berths, provide a full range of overnight accommodations, dining, and entertainment services, comply with the Safety of Life at Sea requirements for a fixed smoke detection and sprinkler system in the accommodation areas, and be constructed according to internationally accepted construction standards. This will help ensure that any foreign flag vessels reflagged to take advantage of the bill are modern and safe. To be eligible to enter the domestic market, the vessel must be owned by a citizen of the United States as defined in section 2 of the Shipping Act, 1916 (46 U.S.C. 802) or section 12106(e) of title 46 United States Code. The bill would assist the U.S. ship repair industry and would require foreign built cruise vessels entering the domestic market to have all repair, maintenance, alteration and other work required for operation under the U.S. flag, as well as regular repair and maintenance work, performed in a U.S. shipyard. Prior to allowing a foreign built vessel to be reflagged and utilized in the domestic market, the bill would require the operator of a reflagged vessel to enter into a binding contract with U.S. shipyards for the construction of at least one more vessel than the total number of vessels they will operate in the domestic cruise market. The contract must provide for a total number of passenger berths equal to or greater than the number operated in the domestic market by that operator. Additionally, the replacement vessels must be at least 20,000 gross registered tons and have no fewer than 800 passenger berths. The bill would require the first replacement vessel to be delivered within five years of the date the foreign-built vessel commences operation in the domestic trade and that each additional vessel be delivered within two years of the preceding vessel. Foreign built vessels are required to leave the domestic market two years after the replacement vessel or vessels are delivered. The bill would require the Secretary to Transportation to insure that the coastwise business of a U.S. built vessel operator is not harmed by the operation of a foreign-built vessel in the domestic market. The Secretary, after reviewing the proposed itineraries of foreign-built vessels in the domestic market, as well as taking into consideration public comments, is required to determine if there will be an adverse impact on the operation of a U.S.-built vessel. The Secretary is required to consider the scope of the vessel's itineraries, the duration of the cruise, the size of the vessel and the retail per diem of the vessel. If there is a conflict, the operator of a foreign-built vessel must change the vessel's itinerary in order to remove the conflict to the satisfaction of the Secretary. The slow and limited growth of the U.S. domestic cruise market demands that we put aside special interests and pass this measure at the first available opportunity. I can assure my colleagues that as Chairman, the Senate Committee will continue to work with all members interested in the future of a U.S. flagged cruise fleet to further address any concerns with the bill. But I would also ask all members to compare the limited growth of our domestic fleet to the dynamic growth in the international cruise market in hopes that they will realize that without actions soon, the U.S. fleet will be left behind. The bill we are introducing today will stimulate growth and opportunity within the domestic cruise ship trade with the beneficiaries being U.S. port cities and business, and as I have often said, the millions of American citizens who want to be able to enjoy cruising between U.S. ports. I hope my colleagues will join Senators Hutchison, Cleland, Murkowski, and me to help advance this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, Senator Feingold and I and others--a bipartisan group of Senators and friends from the House, Congressman Shays and Congressman Meehan--just had a press conference announcing our intentions. I don't intend to make a statement, except to express my deep and sincere appreciation for my partner, Senator Feingold, who someday will be written about in another book called profiles in courage for his willingness to stand up to the special interests at a time when his own candidacy was at risk if he did not do so. I thank Senator Feingold, and I look forward to continuing to work together on this issue. I believe we see a light at the end of the tunnel, which is an old phrase from the Vietnam war, uttered by one of our civilian leaders during that war. I remind Senator Feingold that when told of that, a soldier in the field said, ``Yes, the light at the end of the tunnel is a train.'' We hope that is not the case in this particular scenario.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, will the Senator from New Jersey yield to me for a question of him?

Mr. McCAIN. First of all, I thank the Senator from New Jersey for his advocacy and his strong and heartfelt support about the need for a viable railway system in the Northeast and around America. There has been no one in this body who has been more committed to that proposition than the Senator from New Jersey. I congratulate him. As I said before, we will miss him very much in this body. I would like to make one additional comment, if I may, to the Senator from New Jersey. We will go through a regular process next year to bring up an authorization bill for Amtrak which would then be followed by appropriations. I objected to an appropriation this year because it was $10 billion over 10 years stuck into an appropriations bill for which there had never been a hearing. I hope the Senator from New Jersey can understand that. The second point is, I urge the Senator from New Jersey to consider that we have to make a fundamental choice about the national rail system in America--not just an east coast rail system but a national rail system. There are many countries in the world, including European countries, that regularly subsidize their railway systems. I understand that. I don't dispute it. Perhaps that decision has to be made in the United States of America and in the Congress of the United States with the cooperation of the administration. I remind the Senator from New Jersey that a few short years ago the decision was made to make Amtrak completely independent. Maybe that was not a wise decision. Last year, Amtrak lost, I think, 900 million and some dollars, and will lose another $900 million, or so. I think we need to make a fundamental decision: Is it a high enough national priority? I am not prepared to make a decision yet that the taxpayers of America should subsidize a rail system for America. I think the Senator from New Jersey would agree with me that the west coast needs one probably almost as much as the east coast does. We need to make a fundamental decision about what the Government's role will be in a national railway system, and then we need to decide to what degree it is subsidized. I think a strong argument can be made by anyone who has tried to fly to Newark, or to LaGuardia, or Kennedy lately that they recognize the difficulties in relying simply on air transportation. I think an argument can be made. But I think it deserves full debate and discussion. I thank the Senator from New Jersey. I understand his disappointment on this issue. But I would like to make a personal commitment that his spirit will live on, and we will fully examine and fully ventilate this issue and try to come up with a proposal that will satisfy the needs of his constituents and Americans all over this country. Again, I say that with profound admiration and respect for the Senator from New Jersey. Could I make one final comment? I hope to get a recorded vote on this bill. I will be recorded as voting against it for the usual reasons, and will have a statement included in the Record. I thank the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, 70 days and 20 continuing resolutions after what was supposed to be our October 6 adjournment date, the 106th Congress is coming to an end. Let us hope the upcoming New Year brings with it a renewed spirit of bipartisan cooperation. This year, such cooperation took a back seat to partisan bickering and ill-advised parliamentary tactics that had the effect of further polarizing this body. How many mornings did Americans awake to newspaper headlines reporting that Congress and the president still, weeks and months after we were to adjourn, had not finished their work? There are many good provisions in the legislation soon to be sent to the President and I want to thank all those who put in long hours to bring this Congress to a close. I am particularly supportive of the Medicare changes that will strengthen the quality of health care for our seniors. In 1997, Congress made some difficult, but necessary, changes in the financial structure of the Medicare system as part of the Balanced Budget Act. These changes were needed to preserve and protect the system and delay its impending bankruptcy from 2001 until 2015, while also increasing choice and expanding benefits for beneficiaries. Despite the changes, there has been increasing concern that certain reimbursement reductions and caps contained in the Budget Act are resulting in access problems for our seniors. Personally, I have grown concerned about the potentially negative impact on the delivery of health care in our rural communities and for our most frail elderly if we do not make certain adjustments. I am also pleased this legislation addresses many of the concerns raised by my constituents and the Arizona health care community. This proposal improves senior health care by increasing access to critical preventative benefits--including bi-annual pap smear screenings and pelvic exams, glaucoma screenings, colon cancer screening, and medical nutrition therapy for patients with diabetes and renal disease. Rural hospitals are strengthened by updating reimbursement policies and increasing access for seniors to emergency and ambulatory services in rural areas. And this legislation significantly lowers co-payments for out-patient hospital visits. I am also pleased that Native Americans will not be overlooked in this legislative package, but instead will receive an economic boost through equitable treatment of tribal governments for unemployment tax purposes, a change to the tax law that I have been advocating for nearly a decade. An important stimulus to economic development in Indian country is to provide employment tax credits and incentives, including unemployment compensation benefits. This change to the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, FUTA, will correct an uneven interpretation in the tax law by finally including tribal employees in the Nation's comprehensive unemployment benefit system. Unfortunately, I must oppose this legislation for a variety of reason. Once again, I must object to the pork barrel spending in this year-end legislative package and in all of the appropriations bills that have become law. Regrettably, the process that got us to this point led to what a New York Times headline aptly characterized as ``The Politics of the Surplus.'' In other words, we paved our way home by spending billions of taxpayers' dollars on budget items that never went through a merit-based review process. In the run-up to this final agreement, over $24 billion in pork barrel spending (a list of this spending may be found on my Senate Web site) was doled out and that figure will surely climb once we get a good look at the bills before us. Mr. President, our appetite for pork barrel spending was so large this year, in fact, that NBC News highlighted our feast on their Nightly News segment, ``The Fleecing of America.'' Who among us will ever forget the 1.5 million taxpayer dollars we have already approved to restore ``a 56-foot iron rendition of the Roman god of fire and metalworking, Vulcan''? Or the $1.5 million for sunflower research? Or the $400,000 for the Southside Sportsman Club? Or the $250,000 to develop improved varieties of potatoes''? Or the $100,000 for the ``Trees Forever Program"? Or the $176,000 for the Reindeer Herders Association? Or Or the $5 million for insect rearing? But, there is more to come in this year-end budget deal, which has at least $1.9 billion in pork. For instance, in the Conference Report for the Commerce, State, and Justice Appropriations bill, some examples of earmarks having never undergone the appropriate merit-review process include: $3 million for Red Snapper research, $1 million for Hawaiian coral reef monitoring, $500,000 for the California Ozone study, $200,000 for the Kotzebue Sound test fishery for king crab and sea snail, $600,000 for fall chinook rearing for the Columbia River hatcheries program, $750,000 for bottle-nosed dolphins, $3,338,000 for sea turtles, $1 million for winter pollack survey in Alaska, $1 million for the implementation of the National Height Modernization, NHM, system in North Carolina, $300,000 for research on the Charleston bump, and $150,000 for lobster sampling. The pork barrel spending adds up. Look at the numbers. Last spring, Republicans outlined our spending plans calling for about $600 billion in so-called discretionary spending--that is, spending on programs other than Social Security, Medicare, and interest on our $5.7 trillion debt. The President's budget requested about $623 billion in discretionary spending. We'll end up spending in the neighborhood of $650 billion--some $100 billion over the discretionary spending caps set by the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. According to Robert Reischauer, former head of the Congressional Budget Office, this will be the third year in a row in which the budget, excluding Social Security, ``has been in surplus.'' The last time this happened, Reischauer says, was over 70 years ago. This is why I believe, Mr. President, we should take advantage of our robust economy and make significantly paying down our national debt one of our top priorities. I must also once again express my disappointment over the narrow scope of the immigration provisions contained in this bill. I support the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act, LIFA. Negotiations between the White House and the leadership, which endorsed more limited immigration reform, have resulted in a compromise that makes progress but falls far short of the Fairness provisions we never had a chance to vote on. In particular, this bill makes meaningful but insufficient progress on amnesty for those wrongly denied it, and does not address legitimate concerns about Central American refugee parity. Fortunately, negotiators have agreed to temporarily restore Section 245(i), which allows immigrants with family or employer sponsors to adjust their status in the United States, rather than return to their countries of origin and face the threat of 10 years of separation from family and work in the United States before returning. This bill also contains important provisions encouraging family unification through the creation of several new visa categories. That said, it will fall to supporters of the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act in the 107th Congress to advance that bill's intent to allow long-term residents who have developed deep roots in our country and contributed to our economy for many years to remain legally, and to establish parity for Central American and other refugees not afforded the same status as refugees from other, similarly troubled countries. I am sorry we could not have better addressed these concerns in this bill, but I appreciate the progress we are making and hope that we can take up these issues during the 107th Congress. I remain optimistic, Mr. President, that we will be able to work together in the 107th Congress to accomplish great things. We all should be proud of the recent election. Obviously, it wasn't perfect. Democracy never is. Yet, major issues important to all Americans were discussed and debated. In fact, a post-election survey by Pew Charitable Trusts found that a high percentage of voters believed there was ``more discussion of issues than four years ago.'' And 83 percent of voters said they learned enough ``to make an informed choice.'' No doubt voters have different opinions on how we should deal with these issues. But, they did not disagree on which issues need to be tackled by Congress and our President. In national pre-election polls, Americans consistently ranked Social Security, health care, and education among the issues they worry most about. But they also know that little gets done because too much special-interest money is infecting our political process, resulting in the kind of gridlock we have witnessed over the last year. A Newsweek poll found nearly 60 percent of Americans agreeing with the statement that political contributions have ``too much influence on elections and government policy.'' Only ten percent disagreed. The way we do business must change. If we have the will, we can begin to repair Americans' cynical perception of our government by working together, in bipartisan fashion, on campaign finance reform, a real Patient's Bill of Rights, Social Security reform, and badly needed reform of the tax system. We must also do our work in the open with due process and appropriate discussion. This is why, I must also object to a provision inserted by Senator Inouye, who has once again gone to great lengths to provide protectionist legislation to the lone U.S. operator of large cruise ships in Hawaii. In the 106th's closing hours, the Senator has had a legislative provision inserted in the final appropriations measure that will prohibit any cruise ship operator from allowing gaming on board any vessel that departs from and returns to Hawaii. This provides American Classic Voyages with the protection they need to keep other cruise operators who depend on gaming to attract passengers and provide an additional revenue stream from entering the Hawaii market and prohibit other vessels currently departing from other U.S. port cities from sailing among the Hawaiian islands. In the end, the American consumer is the loser. While Hawaii law currently prohibits any gaming within the state, including its waters, U.S., state, and international law allows gaming on vessels more than three miles from shore. I have no argument against Hawaii's gambling prohibition. But the amendment authored by Senator Inouye is aimed at keeping planed operations by international cruise operators out of Hawaii and preserving the monopoly created for American Classic Voyages as part of special interest legislation he sponsored and which became law in 1998. The language will result in fewer large cruise ship operators serving the Hawaiian Islands and drastically restricting consumer choice for cruise vacations in Hawaii. What is most amazing is this measure, like so many others in this bill, was never discussed publicly, with the administration, or with any Committee of jurisdiction in Congress. This type of closed door, special interest legislation should concern every Member. To deny the American public the freedom of choice in cruising vacations and restrict international trade without one moment of debate is very troubling. In light of this and other such inappropriate legislating, we must enact institutional reforms to put an end to the rampant abuse of the budget process. If we are to hold any hope for reforming the budgetary process in this body, fundamental changes to the rules governing the appropriations process must be made. The two Rules of the Senate designed to impose discipline on the appropriations process are Rule 16, and Rule 28. Rule 16 is designed to block legislative riders on appropriations bills coming out of Committee, and Rule 28 is designed to accomplish the same goal on Conference Reports. Unfortunately, due to the fact that Rule 16 points of order only require a simple majority to over-rule the Chair, it has proven ineffective in stripping riders. And, as we all know, Rule 28 is effectively moot at this point. As such, when the Senate reconvenes next year, it is my intention to offer an amendment to the Rules of the Senate designed to toughen Rule 16, and to reaffirm and toughen Rule 28. This amendment would do the following: Rule 16 would be modified to require a three-fifths vote to over-rule a point of order against a legislative item inserted into a general appropriations bill by the appropriations committee. Further, a single point of order may be raised against each legislative item, and each point of order would be debatable and subject to a roll call vote. Rule 28 would be modified, blocking Conferees to a general appropriations bill from inserting in their Report any matter not committed to them by either House, or striking from the bill matter agreed to by both Houses. Conferees to a general appropriations bill would be prohibited from increasing an appropriation for any item committed to them by either House to a level exceeding the highest appropriated level for such item presented to them by either House, and reducing an appropriated level for any item committed to them below the lowest appropriated level for such item committed to them by either House. Further, Conferees to a general appropriations bill would be restricted from modifying any item committed to them by either House where such modification is not germane to the item being modified. In any case, no matter may be inserted into the Report that is not germane to the general appropriations bill committed to the Conferees. The result of these changes would be to impose a strict ``scope of conference'' rule on appropriations Conferees. A point of order may be made by any Senator against any general appropriations bill Conference Report for any violation of the restrictions set forth by this rule. In such cases where a single restriction has been violated more than once within a Conference Report, or where more than one restriction has been violated within a single Conference Report, each violation may be treated individually, and may be subject to a specific point of order. In the event that a single, or multiple points of order, are made against a general appropriations bill Conference Report for reasons set forth under these new restrictions, a three-fifths vote of the Senate is required to over-rule the Chair. Each appeal of the ruling of the Chair of each respective point of order is debatable and must be voted on separately. Mr. President, before I end, I want to wish everyone a happy holiday season and New Year.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, in the weeks since Congress passed H.R. 5164, the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation Act, and it was signed into law by the President, questions have been raised by some of my colleagues about the impact of the bill on small business. I want to make clear my intentions toward small manufacturers in passing this legislation. Obviously, the bill is not intended to result in burdensome and ineffective regulations on small businesses or any size business for that matter. I would expect the Department of Transportation in establishing the regulations under the bill to go through the normal analysis required under existing law to ensure that regulations are not overly burdensome but are effective in advancing the cause of safety. Let me be clear, however, the primary purpose of this bill and the Department of Transportation is to ensure the safety of the traveling public. No priority can or should be higher as the agency crafts these new regulations. I hope this responds to any concerns my colleagues may have about the provisions of the bill.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I oppose H.R. 4986, the FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000. Unfortunately, this legislation is an example of corporate welfare. Further, it does not adequately change the old Foreign Sales Corporation (FSC) program to prevent disputes with the European Union. I am concerned that this legislation is an example of the costly corporate welfare that cripples our ability to respond to truly urgent social needs such as health care, education, and national security. The FSC benefits many major U.S. corporations, including General Electric, Boeing, Motorola, Caterpillar, Allied Signal, and Cisco Systems. In addition, the FSC also helps foreign firms, like Rolls Royce, that have plants located in America. However, few of these benefits actually trickle down to help the American worker. Instead, as the Congressional Budget Office points out, ``many FSCs are largely paper corporations with very few employees.'' On February 24, 2000, the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization upheld a decision that this provision is an export subsidy and violates our WTO obligations. This pending legislation is the third version of an export subsidy that was first introduced as the Domestic International Sales Corporation provision in the Revenue Act of 1971. However, this version of the bill does little to change the effects of the FSC, and actually makes it a bigger corporate giveaway. This legislation technically eliminates the FSC, but then replaces it with a new extraterritorial tax system that essentially maintains the current subsidy. In addition, this new scheme expands the subsidy to include full benefits for defense contractors and extends benefits to agricultural cooperatives. In order to meet WTO concerns, this legislation also allows foreign firms greater ability to utilize the FSC. The total cost of rewriting and expanding the FSC subsidy will cost the American taxpayers $42 billion between 2001 and 2010--all of which will come out of the surplus. There is also extensive evidence that this export subsidy does not work very well. In a recent report, the Congressional Research Service states that the FSC increased the quantity of U.S. exports by a range of two-tenths of one percent to four-tenths of one percent. This report also states that ``traditional economic analysis indicates that FSC reduces overall U.S. economic welfare.'' The CBO agrees that ``export subsidies, such as FSCs, reduce global economic welfare and typically even reduce the welfare of the country granting the subsidy, even though domestic export-producing industries benefit.'' CBO also points out that FSCs increase both imports and exports, due to the effects of export subsidies on foreign exchange rates. This ``beggar-thy- neighbor'' effect will actually cause U.S. domestic companies in import-competing industries to reduce domestic investment and employment. Finally, there is no assurance that this system actually fixes the problem. The European Union has agreed to wait until November, before announcing a $4 billion list of retaliatory tariffs against the FSC subsidy. However, they have not agreed to the actual changes in this legislation. The EU still has concerns about provisions in this legislation that grandfather the FSC, and they intend to have it reviewed by the WTO. It is fair to expect that we will end up debating this issue again within the next two years. It makes more sense for the Senate to eliminate the FSC completely in line with our obligations to the WTO. Mr. President, our country is now in a position where we can begin paying down the national debt. Every American shoulders somewhere in the range of $19,000 in federal debt, because of the fiscal irresponsibility of their elected officials. I would like to make it clear that I remain a staunch supporter of free trade and open markets. However, if we intend to support a free trade regime that helps American consumers and taxpayers, we must not continue our policy of giving large corporations and special interests giant export subsidies. This FSC legislation is simply an unnecessary federal subsidy that does not provide a fair return to the taxpayers who bear the heavy burden of its cost. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation, and instead examine the prospect of completely eliminating the FSC subsidy.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I want to thank the managers of this bill for their hard work in putting forth annual legislation which provides federal funding for numerous vital programs. This bill provides funding for fighting crime, enhancing drug enforcement, and responding to threats of terrorism. It further funds the operation of the District of Columbia, addresses some of the shortcomings of the immigration process, funds the operation of the judicial system, facilitates commerce throughout the United States, and fulfills the needs of the State Department and various other agencies. Unfortunately, for the second time in a month, I must express my dismay over the process whereby the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act (LIFA) has been considered by this Congress. Like many Americans who believe policies that reflect compassion and family values should apply to immigrants and U.S. citizens alike, I welcome inclusion of the Legal Immigration Family Equity (LIFE) Act in this bill. But I had hoped that this legislation would supplement, rather than substitute for, the Fairness bill, which is far broader. I am disappointed that members of my party refused to include LIFA in this bill. As a consequence, hundreds of thousands of hard-working, tax-paying members of our society will be denied the amnesty, parity, and family-unification protections of LIFA. I will continue to work for passage of the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act and trust that, next year, we can pass it on the Senate floor. Regretfully, I must oppose this measure. There are hundreds of millions of dollars in pork-barrel spending and the legislative riders that are riddled throughout this bill. The multitude of unrequested earmarks buried in this measure will undoubtedly further burden the American taxpayers. 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. For example, under funding for the Department of Justice, some examples of earmarks include: $130,000 to Jackson City, Mississippi, for public safety and automated technologies related to law enforcement; $2 million for the Alaska Native Justice Center; $15 million for an education and development initiative to promote criminal justice excellence at Eastern Kentucky University in conjunction with the University of Kentucky; and $4 million for the West Virginia University Forensic Identification program. Under funding for the Department of Commerce, some of the earmarks include: $500,000 for the International Pacific Research Center at the University of Hawaii; $855,000 for weather radio transmitters in Kentucky; $2.5 million for the Center for Spatial Data Research at Jackson State University; $500,000 for the South Carolina Geodetic Survey; and $500,000 for the California Ozone Study. And the list of questionable spending goes on with even more funding for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City, Utah. For example: $3 million for the Utah Olympic Public Safety Command to implement the public safety master plan for the Olympics; $5 million for the Utah Communication Agency Network for enhancements and upgrades of security and communication infrastructure to assist with law enforcement needs of the Olympics; and $590,000 for the NOAA Cooperative Institute for Regional Prediction at the University of Utah to implement data collection and automated weather station installation in preparation for the Olympics. There are many more projects on the list that I have compiled, which will be available on my Senate Website. I also want to address the legislative riders in this bill. In particular, I want to express my disappointment that legislation restricting low-power FM services has been added behind closed doors to this appropriations conference report. The addition of this rider illustrates, once again, how the special interests of a few are allowed to dominate the voices of the many in the back-door dealings of the appropriations process. Low-power FM radio service provides community-based organizations, churches and other non-profit groups with a new, affordable opportunity to reach out to the public, helping to promote a greater awareness within our communities. Low-power FM is supported by the U.S. conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, the Consumers' Union and many religious organizations, including the U.S. Catholic Conference and the United Church of Christ. These institutions support low-power FM because they see what low-power FM's opponents also know to be true--that these stations will make more programming available to the public, and provide outlets for news and perspectives not currently featured on local radio stations. But, the special interests opposed to low-power FM--most notably the National Association of Broadcasters and National Public Radio--have mounted a vigorous behind-the-scenes campaign against this service. Their stated objection to this service is potential interference, of course, not potential competition. They claim that a 10 or 100 watt low power station that can only broadcast a few miles will ``bleed into'' and overpower the signal of nearby 100,000 watt full-power radio stations that broadcast about 70 miles. Interestingly, the FCC, the expert government agency that evaluates such radio interference claims, does not share this claimed concern. To the contrary, after developing an extensive record and evaluating these alleged technical concerns, the FCC proceeded with licensing and established procedures to address any interference issues that actually arose. Moreover, competitors' speculations about potential interference from low-power stations were given a fair hearing not only in the FCC, but also in this Congress. Earlier this year, Senator Kerry and I introduced the Low Power FM Radio Act of 2000, which would have struck a fair balance between allowing low-power radio stations to go forward while at the same time protecting existing full-power stations from actual interference. Under our bill, low-power stations causing interference would be required to stop causing interference--or be shut down--but non-interfering low power FM stations would be allowed to operate without further delay. The opponents of low-power FM did not support this bill because they want low-power FM to be dead rather than functional. Congress should not permit the appropriations process to circumvent the normal legislative process. Every time we do this, the American people lose more faith in us. And in this context, they will become even more cynical when they learn that special interests like the NAB were able to use the appropriations process to highjack and overturn the sound technical decisions by the government radio experts that would have authorized new outlets for religious and political speech-- and new outlets for their local churches and community groups. Low-power FM is an opportunity for minorities, churches and others to have a new voice in radio broadcasting. In the Commerce Committee, we constantly lament the fact that minorities, community-based organizations, and religious organizations do not have adequate opportunities to communicate their views. Over the years, I have often heard many members of both the Committee and this Senate lament the enormous consolidation that has occurred in the telecommunications sector as a whole and the radio industry specifically. Here, we had a chance to get out of the way, and allow non-interfering low-power radio stations to go forward to combat these concerns. Instead, we let special interests hide their competitive fears behind the smokescreen of hypothetical interference to severely wound--if not kill--this service in the dead of night. This report also contains legislation establishing a rural loan guarantee program intended to help bring broadcast signals to the most remote areas in this country. While I support this legislation, and I commend my friend, Senator Burns, for his leadership in this area, there is one aspect of this legislation that still causes me concern. This legislation would let incumbent cable monopolies qualify for U.S. taxpayer subsidized loans in the name of ``technology neutrality.'' Unfortunately, this approach will fail to achieve any real ``technology neutrality'' while simultaneously expanding a limited loan guaranty program into an unnecessary corporate welfare program. In a perfect world, a loan guaranty program would be equally available to every competing industry segment because this would ensure that no industry segment would benefit from a government-sanctioned advantage in the marketplace. Unfortunately, telecommunications law has already departed so significantly from principles of ``technology neutrality'' that ``neutrality'' in the narrow field of taxpayer-subsidized loan guaranties will only increase the cost of the program for the benefit of previously favored technologies. Indeed, my experience has shown that in telecommunications technological neutrality has been sacrificed by a misplaced focus on protecting competitors at the expense of competition and the American consumer. For example, the broadcast industry has been given 70 billion dollars of free spectrum, yet the wireless industry must compete for spectrum at auction. And certain industry sectors, such as cable, have been given government-franchised monopolies. In the telecommunications world, some are already more equal than others. It is against this reality that any claims of ``technological neutrality'' must be evaluated. In the real world, cable companies not only have a government-sanctioned advantage--they have a government- franchised monopoly. Monopolists, almost by definition, need no more government protection against competition. Perhaps it is just a coincidence, and not due to a lack of competition, but cable companies have been able to raise their rates approximately three times the rate of inflation (for about a 30 percent total increase) since the 1996 Telecommunications Act. This scenario hardly requires the helping hand of the U.S. taxpayer. ``Technology neutrality'' is a fine phrase, but not if it means that the American taxpayers must further subsidize industries that have already received undue and unnecessary market advantages sanctioned by the government. In closing, I urge my colleagues to curb our habit of directing hard- earned taxpayer dollars to locality-specific special interests and our inclusion of legislative riders which thwart 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. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, there is a great example of the influence of special interests, which I am told has been inserted into the Commerce-State-Justice, the Judiciary, and related agencies appropriations conference report, without a debate on this floor, without a vote on this floor. Mr. President, I understand that legislation restricting low-power FM services has been added behind closed doors to that appropriations bill. The addition of this rider illustrates, once again, how the special interests of a few are allowed to dominate the voices of the many in the backdoor dealings of the appropriations process. Low-power FM radio service provides community-based organizations, churches, and other nonprofit groups with a new, affordable opportunity to reach out to the public, helping to promote a greater awareness within our communities, about our communities. As such, low-power FM is supported by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, Consumers' Union and many religious organizations, including but not limited to, the U.S. Catholic Conference and the United Church of Christ. These institutions support low-power FM because they see what low-power FM's opponents also know to be true--that these stations will make more programming available to the public, and provide outlets for news and perspectives not currently featured on local radio stations. But, the special interests forces opposed to low-power FM--most notably the National Association of Broadcasters and National Public Radio have mounted a vigorous behind-the-scenes campaign against this service. Let me repeat--and my dear friend from Nebraska joined me in this effort. Together, we tried to stop the National Association of Broadcasters and National Public Radio. Simply put, they have won again. I believe the Senator from Nebraska will agree with me there is no way they could have carried that vote on the floor of this Senate. There is no way they could have deprived all of these communities, all of these small business people, all of these religious organizations, all of these minority groups--but they stuck it into an appropriations bill, a piece of legislation that never had a single bit of debate and would never have passed through the Commerce Committee, of which I am the chairman, if it had been put to a vote. Earlier this year, Senator Kerry and I introduced the Low Power FM Radio Act of 2000, which would have struck a fair balance between allowing low-power radio stations to go forward while at the same time protecting existing full-power stations from actual interference. Under our bill, low-power stations causing interference would be required to stop causing interference--or be shut down--but noninterfering low- power FM stations would be allowed to operate without further delay. The opponents of low-power FM did not support this bill because they want low-power FM to be dead rather than functional. Congress should not permit the appropriations process to circumvent the normal legislative process. Mr. President, low-power FM is an opportunity for minorities, churches and others to have a new voice in radio broadcasting. In the Commerce Committee, we constantly lament the fact that minorities, community-based organizations, and religious organizations do not have adequate opportunities to communicate their views. Moreover, over the years, I have often heard many Members of both the Committee and this Senate lament the enormous consolidation that has occurred in the telecommunications sector as a whole and the radio industry specifically. Here, we had a chance to simply get out of the way, and allow noninterfering low-power radio stations to go forward to help combat these concerns. Instead, we allowed special interests to hide their competitive fears behind the smokescreen of hypothetical interference to severely wound--if not kill--this service in the dead of night. Mr. President, speaking for my side of the aisle, we are the party of Abraham Lincoln. We constantly endorse the importance of religious speech to American culture. How can we possibly stifle an opportunity for minority and religious organizations to communicate more effectively with their local communities? By permitting special interests to stifle these voices we are truly compromising the most fundamental principles of our party and our Nation. I stand before these community-based organizations, these religious organizations, these people throughout these small communities all over America and say: I apologize. I apologize to you for this action-- behind closed doors--that we are going to deprive you of a voice, of a very small FM radio station. And I will tell you who did it. The National Public Radio and the National Association of Broadcasters--the same organization that got $70 billion worth of free spectrum of public taxpayer-owned property. And, by the way, they are not giving back their analog spectrum, which is the subject for another speech. I say to the National Association of Broadcasters and the National Public Radio, shame on you. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to read some headlines from newspapers across the United States commenting on our work: ``Congress' Pork Roast'' The News and Observer (Raleigh,

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chair. I will make the rest of my remarks brief. Such pressure for campaign contributions seems to be paying dividends. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, in 1992, soft money accounted for 18 percent of the political parties' overall fundraising. Today, that figure has more than doubled to ``40 percent of everything the parties raise.'' We are going in the wrong direction, and it is undermining our democracy. That is why I pledge to bring campaign finance reform to the Senate floor when the Senate convenes next year. Let me be clear; no matter which party prevails in November, our democracy will be the loser unless we clean up our political process. Without real change in how we conduct our politics, cynicism will prevail and continue to eat away at our public square, fueling even lower voter turnout and turning more and more Americans away from public service. Mr. President, this is too high a price to pay. That is why I am committed to clean up the budget process and the way we fund campaigns. Please join me in this process.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce revised legislation that will make sure that new entrants and small businesses will have the chance to enter and grow in today's megacorporation- dominated telecommunications marketplace. Together with my good friend and colleague, Communications Subcommittee Chairman Conrad Burns, I am pleased to bring forward for the Senate's consideration The Telecommunications Ownership Diversity Act of 2000. Mr. President, no one needs to be told that any small business faces significant barriers in trying to enter the telecommunications industry. These barriers are even more formidable when the entrepreneur happens to be a woman or a member of a minority group, due to their historically more difficult job of obtaining needed financing. Therefore, in this current telecom industry mixer, small businesses, especially those owned by minorities or women, are often left without partners, watching as bigger, more established companies, get to dance. That's not right, but there is an answer. The answer isn't to forbid mergers out-of-hand, or to retain hopelessly outdated FCC ownership restrictions, or to pursue constitutionally or economically doomed set- aside programs. The answer is to give established industry players economic incentives to deal with new entrants and small businesses that counterbalance the incentives they have to deal with larger companies. And that's what this bill does. The Telecommunications Ownership Diversity Act of 2000 will promote entry into the telecommunications industry during this period of unprecedented restructuring by providing carefully-limited changes to the tax law. These changes to the tax law are an indispensable component of the solution. Under current law, smaller companies typically must purchase properties for cash, and cash transactions are fully taxable to the seller. So naturally sellers of telecommunications businesses prefer to sell for stock, which is tax- deferred, and which large companies have to offer. The Act will level the playing field for new entrants and small businesses by giving telecommunications business sellers a tax deferral when the property is bought for cash by a small business telecommunications company. The Act will also encourage the entry of new players and the growth of existing small businesses by enabling the seller of a telecommunications business to claim the tax deferral on capital gains if it invests the proceeds of any sale of its business in purchasing an interest in an eligible small business. In recognition of the convergence of telecommunications services and the growing importance of wireless and other services as an essential component of the telecommunications market, the telecommunications businesses eligible for this capital gains tax deferral are broadly defined to include not only broadcast and cable TV-type businesses, but also wireline and wireless telephone service providers and resellers. To eliminate the potential for abuse, the Act would require the eligible purchaser to hold any property acquired for three years, during which time it could only be sold to an unrelated eligible purchaser. The General Accounting Office is required to thoroughly audit and report on the administration and effect of the Act every two years. Mr. President, this legislation represents a significant step toward helping to ensure that small companies share a portion of the investment benefits our tax laws give to major telecommunications companies. Over the next several months, we look forward to working with interested organizations to further refine this legislation. Specifically, we would welcome comments on how to further refine the concepts of qualified telecommunications business and eligible purchaser so as to ensure that this legislation meets its goals in the most fair and effective manner. Moreover, we note that this legislation contains a ``control'' test that is intended to ensure that this legislation is not subject to abuse--and actually benefits those that it is intended to help. We recognize, however, that this control test may also need to be refined as we go forward. Mr. President, hallmark developments in the telecommunications industry have been made by gifted individuals with small companies and unlimited vision. In this sense the telecommunications industry is a true microcosm of the American free-market system, in which the benefits produced by its entrepreneurs generate benefits that extend to all of us. It is therefore critically important that new entrants and small businesses have a chance to participate across the broad spectrum of industries that will make up the telecommunications industry in the Information Age. The Act will help them do that, and Senator Burns and I are proud to sponsor it and to work for its enactment.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this bill provides for the creation of an international scientific commission to assess changes in global climate patterns and to conduct scientific studies and analysis on behalf of the nations of the world. The Commerce Committee held three hearings on the subject of climate change this year. We heard from several witnesses on the science of global warming, the impacts of climate change on the United States, and solutions to climate change. One of the most salient points of the three hearings was the importance of good science to the policymaking process. Most importantly, any action the United States takes in response to claims of global warming must be based on the best science available and not on rhetoric or political expedience. We must continue to invest in our research capabilities to fully understand the scientific interactions between humans, the land, the ocean, and the atmosphere. Based upon testimonies received by the Commerce Committee, the knowledge base in some countries is far greater than in others. To solve this global problem of climate change, we must rely upon all the resources and knowledge available to us. We must ensure that the United States research program is providing the maximum returns on our investment dollars. It was both surprising and disappointing to see that for a recent assessment of the United States, we had to rely upon two foreign computer models. We must do better. Mr. President, I feel it is of vital importance that we allow scientists the opportunity to pursue knowledge as opposed to being constrained by politics. In introducing this bill entitled, International Climate Change Science Commission Act, it is my hope and intention that the membership of the Commission will be filled by those who are scientists and fully appreciate the pursuit of truth and knowledge. I hope this commission will provide them with an opportunity to freely research, discuss, and document their scientific findings. Mr. President, I realize this bill will not pass this session. However, it is my hope that by introducing this bill a discussion will begin in the scientific community of how to better structure this piece of legislation and to ensure that the best available science is used for policy decisions. After discussions with the scientific community, I intend to re-introduce this bill or a new version of the measure next session and hopefully then move towards its enactment. I also plan to offer other pieces of legislation next year in this area. There are several types of actions that may be taken to address this situation as indicated in the Commerce Committee's hearing, ``Solutions to Climate Change,'' held on September 21, 2000.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this bill provides for the creation of an international scientific commission to assess changes in global climate patterns and to conduct scientific studies and analysis on behalf of the nations of the world. The Commerce Committee held three hearings on the subject of climate change this year. We heard from several witnesses on the science of global warming, the impacts of climate change on the United States, and solutions to climate change. One of the most salient points of the three hearings was the importance of good science to the policymaking process. Most importantly, any action the United States takes in response to claims of global warming must be based on the best science available and not on rhetoric or political expedience. We must continue to invest in our research capabilities to fully understand the scientific interactions between humans, the land, the ocean, and the atmosphere. Based upon testimonies received by the Commerce Committee, the knowledge base in some countries is far greater than in others. To solve this global problem of climate change, we must rely upon all the resources and knowledge available to us. We must ensure that the United States research program is providing the maximum returns on our investment dollars. It was both surprising and disappointing to see that for a recent assessment of the United States, we had to rely upon two foreign computer models. We must do better. Mr. President, I feel it is of vital importance that we allow scientists the opportunity to pursue knowledge as opposed to being constrained by politics. In introducing this bill entitled, International Climate Change Science Commission Act, it is my hope and intention that the membership of the Commission will be filled by those who are scientists and fully appreciate the pursuit of truth and knowledge. I hope this commission will provide them with an opportunity to freely research, discuss, and document their scientific findings. Mr. President, I realize this bill will not pass this session. However, it is my hope that by introducing this bill a discussion will begin in the scientific community of how to better structure this piece of legislation and to ensure that the best available science is used for policy decisions. After discussions with the scientific community, I intend to re-introduce this bill or a new version of the measure next session and hopefully then move towards its enactment. I also plan to offer other pieces of legislation next year in this area. There are several types of actions that may be taken to address this situation as indicated in the Commerce Committee's hearing, ``Solutions to Climate Change,'' held on September 21, 2000.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Conference Report for Foreign Operations Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2001. The bill before us includes much that is good; in fact, it includes much that is important for our national security. For example, with the Middle East experiencing a level of turmoil not witnessed since the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the assistance in this bill for Israel and for other friends and allies in the region constitutes an essential component of our policy there. Vital humanitarian assistance programs are funded, including debt relief for especially poor countries. However, I cannot support this conference report because it raises fiscal year 2001 discretionary spending caps to $637 billion from the $600 billion that was provided for in the budget resolution passed in April. Assuming that will be the new total amount of spending allowed, that would be nearly $40 billion more than the budget resolution, $13 billion more than what the President requested, and $50 billion more than what was spent in fiscal year 2000. In addition, there remains the usual plethora of parochially-driven spending directives. While the bill appears to avoid legally restrictive earmarks, the effect of numerous provisions intended to do precisely that: direct funds where Members of Congress want them to go, usually for parochial reasons. I will be submitting a list of such items for the Record. The decision to vote against this bill, irrespective of the usual pork-barrel provisions, however, was difficult. I recognize the importance of aid to Israel during this crucial period in its history, and I agree with the imperative of relieving the poorest countries of the burden of their international debts. The fiscal irresponsibility of Section 701 of this bill adjusting the spending caps upward to accommodate greater levels of pork barrel spending is too much to ignore. I'm not ignoring it, Mr. President. I oppose passage of this bill because I abhor the continuing disregard for fiscal responsibility it represents. And I abhor the cynicism illuminated by a decision to attach such fiscally irresponsible language to a spending bill so important to our national security. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record earmarks, Member-adds, and directive language.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Kyl, as a co-sponsor to this important legislation, the Arizona Water Settlements Act of 2000, to ratify a negotiated settlement for Central Arizona Project water allocations to municipalities, agricultural districts and Indian tribes in the state of Arizona. This settlement reflects extensive negotiations by state, federal, and tribal parties. Let me begin by commending the extraordinary commitment and diligence by all parties involved in these negotiations to reach this pivotal stage in the settlement process, which as I understand is near conclusion. I also praise my colleague, Senator Jon Kyl, and the Interior Secretary, Bruce Babbitt, for their front-line leadership in facilitating the settlement process. From my previous role in legislating past agreements, I recognize how challenging these negotiations can be, and I appreciate their personal commitment to this settlement process. This legislation is vitally important to Arizona's future because it will finally bring certainty and stability to Arizona's water supply by completing the final adjudication of the Gila River. Repayment obligations of the state of Arizona for construction of the Central Arizona Project (CAP) will be addressed as part of this bill. Pending water rights claims to the Gila River and its tributaries by various Indian tribes and non-Indian users will be permanently settled and allocated. I join Senator Kyl, and the rest of the Arizona delegation, in sponsoring companion bills today to express our strong support for continuation and conclusion of this settlement process. While much of the negotiations have successfully resulted in consensus language among the various parties, it is important to emphasize that this bill does not reflect the final settlement agreement. All parties recognize that the provisions of this bill are likely to change as the negotiations continue and additional parties settle remaining claims. We fully expect that settlement negotiations will continue with a final agreement ratified in the 107th congressional session. Mr. President, my sponsorship of this bill indicates my strong support for the settlement process and I expect that further negotiations will be carried out in good-faith among all parties. However, I want to be clear that my support today is not a full endorsement of all the provisions in this preliminary bill. This is a particularly important point as several provisions in this bill are not typical of language included in past Indian water settlement agreements ratified by the Congress. These noted provisions are intended to prescribe future off-reservation Indian trust land acquisitions for the Gila River Indian Community, one of the primary Indian parties to the settlement. Inclusion of these provisions is intended to address water management concerns of the state in the event that the tribe removes lands from either public or private use to be added into federal Indian trust land status. Mr. President, Indian trust land acquisitions are the subject of much debate nationwide. In fact, the Department of Interior has proposed modifications to its existing regulations to address many of the same concerns raised by the state parties regarding potential impacts to resource management, loss of tax revenues, or other impacts to neighboring communities. These regulations have not been finalized to date. Despite my support for the overall settlement, I believe it unwise to include ad hoc language that applies restrictions to only one particular tribe when overall changes to the underlying federal law governing Indian trust land acquisitions have not been settled. Such modifications to federal Indian trust land policies should also be guided by the review and advice of the congressional committees of jurisdiction. I hope that continuing discussions on this matter will result in a resolution that respects both the rights of the Indian tribes and the state of Arizona, consistent with applicable laws. Mr. President, we introduce this bill today as an expression of our commitment to the various parties to successfully achieve conclusion to this process. The Arizona Water Settlements Act will be a historic accomplishment and one that will ultimately benefit all citizens of Arizona, the tribal communities, and the United States.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to thank both Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski for their hard work on this important legislation which provides federal funding for the Departments of Veterans Affairs, VA, and Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Independent Agencies. Unfortunately, Mr. President, this year-end process to rush spending measures through Congress at the last minute again leaves very little time for members to review in full detail the finalized conference reports, which are all too often bottled up until just before they arrive on the Senate floor. The VA-HUD conference report, regrettably, is no exception. The House of Representatives just passed this report, despite the fact that most of the voting members did not have adequate time to fully review its contents. And now, the Senate is being asked to do the same. How can we make sound policy and budget decisions with this type of budget steam-rolling? This conference report provides $22.4 billion in discretionary funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs. That amount is $17.2 million more than the budget request and $1.5 billion above the fiscal year 2000 budget level. It does appear that some progress has been made to reduce the overall amount of earmarks in this spending bill. The conferees have earmarked approximately $40 million this year; last year, earmarks exceeded $31 million. Certain provisions in the Veterans Affairs section of the bill also illustrate that Congress still does not have its priorities in order. Let me review some examples of items included in the bill. The conferees direct that $250,000 be used by the Department of Veterans Affairs to host The Sixth International Scientific Congress on ``Sport and Human Performance Beyond Disability.'' The conference report continues to express the view that the conferees believe this sporting event is within the mission of the VA. Neither budgeted for nor requested by the Administration over the past nine years is a provision that directs the Department of Veterans Affairs to continue the nine-year-old demonstration project involving the Clarksburg, West Virginia, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, VAMC, and the Ruby Memorial Hospital at West Virginia University. Several years ago, the VA-HUD appropriations bill contained a plus-up of $2 million to the Clarksburg VAMC that ended up on the Administration's line-item veto list. The committee has also added $1 million for the design of a nursing home care unit at the Beckley, West Virginia, VAMC. The VA-HUD funding bill also includes construction projects not originally included in the President's budget request. For example, the VA-HUD appropriations report adds $12 million not previously included in the President's budget for the construction of the Oklahoma National Cemetery. Obviously, the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee felt compelled to include this money since the VA and the Administration chose to ignore the Committee's report language last year. Last year the VA-HUD Senate report directed the VA to award a contract for design, architectural, and engineering services in October 1999 for a new National Cemetery in Lawton (Oklahoma City/Fort Sill), Oklahoma, and also directed the President's fiscal year 2001 budget to include construction funds for a new Oklahoma National Cemetery. Most questionable are several special interest projects not previously included in the House or Senate version of the fiscal year 2001 VA-HUD appropriations bill. Some examples are: $15 million for land acquisition for a national cemetery in South Florida, $5 million for the Joslin Vision Network for telemedicine in Hawaii, and continued funding for the National Technology Transfer Center, NTTC, at Wheeling Jesuit College in Wheeling, West Virginia. None of these programs were in the President's budget request, nor in either House or Senate veterans funding bills. In addition, the bill adds $1 million not previously included in the President's budget for planning and design activities for a new national cemetery in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and $2.5 million for advanced planning and design development for a national cemetery in Atlanta, Georgia. Last year, the Senate provided an additional $500,000 for design efforts for Atlanta, as well as other congressionally- directed locations. Although these areas are likely deserving of veterans cemeteries, I wonder how many other national cemetery projects in other states were bypassed to ensure that these states received the VA's highest priority. This bill also contains the funding for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The programs administered by HUD help our nation's families purchase their homes, helps many low-income families obtain affordable housing, combats discrimination in the housing market, assists in rehabilitating neighborhoods and helps our nation's most vulnerable--the elderly, disabled and disadvantaged--have access to safe and affordable housing. Unfortunately, this bill shifts money away from many critical housing and community programs by bypassing the appropriate competitive process and inserting earmarks and set-asides for special projects that received the attention of the Appropriations Committee. This is unfair to the many communities and families who do not have the fortune of residing in a region of the country represented by a member of the Appropriations Committee. And once again, Utah has managed to receive additional funds set aside for the 2002 winter Olympic games. This bill includes $2 million for the Utah Housing Finance Agency to provide temporary housing during the Olympics. It is certainly a considerate gesture that the housing facilities are expected to be used after the 2002 games for low-income housing needs in Utah. However, I am confident that the many families in Utah and around the country who are facing this winter and next without affordable and safe housing would much rather have this $2 million used for helping them now rather than in two or three years when the Olympics are over. Some of the earmarks for special projects in this bill include: $500,000 for the restoration of a carousel in Cleveland, Ohio; $500,000 for the Chambers County Courthouse Restoration Project in the City of LaFayette, Alabama; $2.6 million for the rehabilitation of the opera house in the City of Meridian, Mississippi; $3 million for restoration of an historic property in Anchorage, Alaska; $2 million for renovation on the Northwest corner of 63rd Street and Prospect Avenue in Kansas City; $500,000 for infrastructure improvements to the W.H. Lyons Fairgrounds in Sioux Falls, South Dakota; and $400,000 for Bethany College in Bethany, West Virginia for continued work on a health and wellness center. This bill also funds the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, which provides resources to help state, local and tribal communities enhance capacity and infrastructure to better address their environmental needs. I support directing more resources to communities that are most in need and facing serious public health and safety threats from environmental problems. Unfortunately, after a cursory review of this year's conference report for EPA programs, I find it difficult to believe that we are responding to the most urgent environmental issues. There are many environmental needs in communities back in my home state of Arizona, but these communities will be denied funding as long as we continue to tolerate earmarking that circumvents a regular merit- review process. For example, some of the earmarks include: $300,000 for the Coalition for Utah's Future; $1 million for the Animal Waste Management Consortium in Missouri; $2 million for the University of Missouri-Rolla for research and development of technologies to mitigate the impacts of livestock operations on the environment; $200,000 to complete the soy smoke initiative through the University of Missouri-Rolla; and $500,000 for the Economic Development Alliance of Hawaii. While these projects may be important, why do they rank higher than other environmental priorities? For independent agencies such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, this bill also includes earmarks of money for locality- specific projects such as: $3.5 million for a center on life in external thermal environments at Montana State University in Bozeman; and $15 million for infrastructure needs of the Life Sciences building at the University of Missouri-Columbia. Let me also read two paragraphs from an article by David Rodgers, to be included for the Record, in today's Wall Street Journal: ``Never before has the appropriations process been such a clearinghouse for literally thousands of individual grants and construction projects coveted as favors for voters. Budget negotiators gave their blessing last night to more than 700 ``earmarks''--listed on 46 double-spaced pages--in a single account for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Environmental Protection Agency budget bulges with about 235 clean-water projects. Hundreds of ``member initiatives'' totaling nearly $1 billion are expected to be spread among the departments of Labor, Education and Health and Human Services. Perhaps the most striking example of earmarks is the so- called economic-development initiative in the HUD budget, for which about $292 million is spread among an estimated 701 projects. The precise language has been closely guarded by the committee, and the clerks deliberately compiled the list in no particular order to make it more difficult to decipher. In closing, I urge my colleagues to develop a better standard to curb our habit of directing hard-earned taxpayer dollars to locality- specific special interests so that, in the future, we can better serve the national interest. Mr. President, I ask that the full text of the attached Wall Street Journal article be printed in the Record immediately following the conclusion of my remarks on the Fiscal Year 2001 VA-HUD Appropriations bill. The article follows. [From Wall Street Journal, Oct. 19, 2000] Spending Bill Is Full of Projects Coveted as Favors for Electorate (By David Rogers) Washington.--As Congress dithers over spending bills, committee clerks are putting the final touches on what may be the most important political business at hand: an unprecedented number of home-state projects attached to the budget this election year. Never before has the appropriations process been such a clearinghouse for literally thousands of individual grants and construction projects coveted as favors for voters. Budget negotiators gave their blessing last night to more than 700 ``earmarks''--listed on 46 doubled-spaced pages--in a single account for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Environmental Protection Agency budget bulges with about 235 clean-water projects. Hundreds of ``member initiatives'' totaling nearly $1 billion are expected to be spread among the departments of Labor, Education and Health and Human Services. Pork-barrel politics are nothing new. The annual $78 billion agriculture budget bill, which cleared Congress last night, has always been a haven for dozens of research projects favored by lawmakers. But this year's surplus- inspired spending breaks new ground. it permeates the labor, health and education accounts, once considered sacrosanct. Moreover, as the number of items has exploded, both parties are openly steering funds to districts to help win seats in November. The tone was set in the free-for-all negotiations on a $58 billion transportation budget. Dozens of highway and bridge projects totaling more than $1.9 billion were added. When Republicans insisted on $102 million to help a hard-pressed Arkansas incumbent, Democrats got an almost equal sum to spread among candidates in tight races in Mississippi, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Kansas. Running for Congress from Utah, Republican Derek Smith isn't even a member of the House yet. But thanks to the intervention of House Majority Leader Dick Armey of Texas, he can already lay claim to two budget earmarks worth $5 million to fund water and lands-related projects in his district. Sen. John McCain, the Arizona maverick and former presidential candidate, took to the Senate floor again yesterday to chastise fellow Republicans. But one of his greatest allies in the House, Rep. Brian Bilbray (R., Calif.), hasn't been shy about claiming credit for Washington money that could help his chances in a tough reelection campaign. ``Bilbray Applauds San Diego Funding'' a press release for the congressman said last Thursday, trumpeting millions of dollars in earmarks attached to a housing, veterans and environmental budget bill pending in the House. ``I will condemn it in his district,'' said Mr. McCain, who is scheduled to campaign for his friend in California next week. ``It is one of those gentleman's disagreements,'' said an aide to Mr. Bilbray. Perhaps the most striking example of earmarks is the so- called economic-development initiative in the HUD budget, for which about $292 million is spread among an estimated 701 projects. The precise language has been closely guarded by the committee, and the clerks deliberately compiled the list in no particular order to make it more difficult to decipher. Most of the grants appear to be less than $2 million, some as small as $21,500. Thanks to the New York delegation, Buffalo would lay claim to two grants of $250,000; one to help renovate a Frank Lloyd Wright-designed home, the other to build a new city boathouse--based on Mr. Wright's blueprints--for the West Side Rowing Club. Meanwhile, in related action: The Senate approved the agriculture budget 86-8. The measure provides increased spending for food safety and rural development while relaxing trade sanctions against Cuba. For the first time in decades, commercially financed, direct U.S. shipments of food to Havana would be permitted. Shipments of medical supplies, which are already sold on a modest basis, may also be increased. Trying to free up a $14.9 billion foreign-aid bill, Republicans are proposing compromise language on the divisive issue of U.S. assistance to population-planning programs overseas. The proposal would continue current restrictions, favored by antiabortion forces, only through March 1, as a transition to the next administration. The initial reaction from Democrats was skeptical, but if the transition period is shortened--and funding increased--it could yet be the framework for a deal. Top House Republicans are pressing for big increases in aid to children's hospitals under a fledgling program to help train pediatric medical residents. Last year, spending was $40 million, but it could grow to $280 million under the proposal, three times the administration's request.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, yesterday, we learned that a memorandum from the Inter-Agency Coordinator for the State Department instructed the Voice of America to refrain from broadcasting an editorial denouncing the terrorist act that took the lives of seventeen American sailors on the U.S.S. Cole and expressing the United States' resolute opposition to all terrorism. Apparently she perceived in the editorial an insensitivity to the fact that ``the seventeen or so dead does not compare to the 100+ Palestinians who have died in recent weeks where we have remained silent.'' Mr. President, I was not aware that the United States had remained silent about the loss of life, both Israeli and Palestinian, in the current conflicts threatening the prospects for peace in the Middle East. Indeed, I believe the President and a good many members of Congress have been quite outspoken on the subject. Moreover, the losses incurred in that conflict and our responsibility to do what we can to help bring violence there to an end, does not preclude the United States from strongly, unequivocally addressing the first responsibility of any U.S. Government: the safety of American lives. I understand that the State Department spokesman has issued a statement calling the official's extraordinarily offensive memorandum ``wrong,'' ``not approved through appropriate channels'' and assuring that it in ``no way reflects the views of the Secretary or the Department.'' Fine, we can let the matter rest there. Let me add a thought, though. It's a free country, but the official in question is not free to represent her own controversial priorities as official U.S. policy. Should she be unable to meet this basic professional and civic responsibility, perhaps she should seek a place of employment that is more compatible with her views.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Congress has not always acted this way. As a matter of fact, in fiscal years 1997 and 1998, when we still had deficits, the Congress spent less money than the actual budget caps allowed. But since the era of surpluses began in 1999, the Congress and the president have taken this to mean they now have a license to spend freely and irresponsibly without any adherence to limits. We have gradually spent in excess of the discretionary spending limits. But now, for the fiscal year 2001, the spending has exploded to at least $33 billion above the spending cap, consuming nearly one-third of fiscal year 2001's projected on-budget surplus, and we still have several appropriations bills yet to go. Our continuing fiscal irresponsibility in threatening to consume a substantial portion of the projected on-budget surpluses before they are actually realized--and, according to a recently released CBO report, even if we are to save all of today's projected surpluses, we still face the possibility of an uncertain long-term fiscal future as adverse demographics and lengthening lifespans lead to surging entitlement costs. CBO projects that the three main entitlement programs--Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--will rise from roughly 7.5 percent of GDP today to 17 percent by 2040 absent programmatic reforms. The CBO also warns that ``Projections of future economic growth and fiscal imbalances are quite sensitive to assumptions about what policymakers will do with the budget surpluses that are projected to arise over the next decade.'' Therefore, it is imperative that not only do we avoid squandering the projected surpluses, but the meaningful reforms of entitlement programs be undertaken not to avoid budget deficits and unsustainable levels of debt in the future. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I regret that I have to come forward once again to oppose another of the annual appropriations bills, particularly one that is vitally important to our nation's farmers and to support social service programs for women and children. However, this bill once again fails to responsibly appropriate funding to the highest agricultural and resource management priorities, and instead doles out $300 million in pork-barrel spending. This amount is close to $70 million more than was included in the Senate-passed bill, and the total overall spending for this bill exceeds the Senate and House passed bills by close to $2.8 billion. Mr. President, there are several problems with this final conference agreement. First, the inclusion of $300 million in special interest earmarks that either have not been properly reviewed or authorized through the legislative process. Much of this spending is earmarked for towns, universities, research institutes and a myriad of other entities that appear only vaguely related, at best, to addressing the dire situation of farmers, women and children. A number of policy riders are also tacked on, without any consideration by either body, that reverse a number of 1996 farm bill reforms and violate trade policies. Let's first take a look at the ``Top Ten Porkbusters'' in this year's agriculture bill: No. 10, An add-on of $300,000 is provided to a laboratory in East Lansing, Michigan to map and identify genes in chickens; No. 9, An amount of $680,000 will be provided to test the ``competitiveness'' of agricultural products solely from the state of Washington; No. 8, Despite millions provided for salmon restoration through other appropriations bills this year, $645,000 is earmarked for research on alternative salmon products in guess where--Alaska; you will find Alaska pops up quite frequently in these pork barrel bills. No. 7, An add-on of $1.05 million will pay for sunflower research in Fargo, North Dakota. Sunflower research, obviously, is unable to be carried out in any other part of America, so we have to add $1 million to pay for sunflower research in Fargo, ND. No. 6, $300,000 is earmarked for the Pineapple Growers Association in Hawaii, whose three members of the Pineapple Growers Association are the impoverished organizations, Dole Food, Del Monte Fresh Produce, and Maui Pineapple Company. These impoverished three corporations are badly in need of $300,000 of the taxpayers' money so they can deliberate as the Pineapple Growers Association of Hawaii. A whopping $5 million is earmarked for an insect rearing facility in Stoneville, MS. That must be an interesting place. No. 4, an add-on of $300,000 will pay for manure management systems in Florence, SC. I have spent a lot of time in South Carolina. I hope this $300,000 will pay for the manure management systems in Florence, SC. No. 3, a $250,000 earmark is included for potato research in Prosser, WA, to develop improved varieties of potatoes. Only in Prosser, WA, do we need to do this kind of research. No. 2, the popular National Center for Peanut Competitiveness in Georgia will receive a healthy endowment of $400,000. That ever popular National Center for Peanut Competitiveness, in Georgia, will receive this $400,000. And No. 1, an earmark of $100,000 is provided for the Trees Forever Program in Illinois, the vitally important purpose of which is to encourage and provide information on the use of trees. Trees Forever in Illinois is to encourage and provide information on the use of trees. In my State of Arizona, except in the northern part of my State, we don't have a lot of trees, but we certainly have a lot of cactus. Perhaps we could have next year an earmark for the ``Cactus Forever Program.'' That might be an enjoyable exercise. I urge my pork barreling friends to consider, next time they have Trees Forever, perhaps ``Cactus Forever.'' Mr. President, this is just a small sample from the 32-page list of earmarks I compiled from this agriculture appropriations conference report. Many are recurring earmarks, year after year, for projects that appear to be either duplicative or, as GAO had found when reviewing agricultural spending, pay for projects not related to basic research or high-priority areas, or which already receive substantial private sector investments. Mr. President, I am sure that many of these objects may be meritorious and helpful to the designated communities. What I object to is the way these projects have been selectively identified and prioritized for earmarks, mostly for purely political interest, rather than for the national interest. This agriculture appropriations measure is intended to provide assistance to farmers, women, children and rural communities with the greatest need. Yet, by diverting millions for parochial spending, we fail in this responsibility, forcing Congress to once again attach ad- hoc emergency spending, adding up so far to $23 billion over the past three years, for farm relief and other disaster assistance. This time around, about $3.6 billion is designated as emergency spending for farmers and communities who have suffered critical losses due to severe drought and difficult market conditions. I realize that many of America's family farms are in crisis, and some form of assistance is needed to responsibly address real economic hardship faced by many of our nation's farmers and their families. However, it is quite interesting to note that among those that the budget negotiators consider the most in need are the tobacco, sugar and honey industries. For example, a last minute provision was added to reverse the limited reforms to the federal sugar program. Behind closed doors, powerful sugar interests have been able to chip away at the few reforms required by them by the 1996 Freedom to Farm bill. First, through last year's omnibus appropriations bill, a provision was tacked on in conference to remove the responsibility of sugar producers to pay small marketing assessments on sugar to help pay down the federal debt. By the way, a large family of sugar growers is one of the major reasons why we are having to pay billions of dollars to clean up the Everglades. Earlier this year, sugar interests pressured the Agriculture Secretary to spend more than $60 million to purchase more than 150,000 tons of surplus sugar to prevent mass forfeitures, paid for by the taxpayers once again. An additional 934,000 short tons of sugar was forfeited once again this month, thereby eliminating the responsibility for sugar growers to pay back $352 million in loans. Many of these sugar growers are capable of making enormous political contributions in soft money to both parties. And, now, sugar interests have adeptly worked behind the scenes to add another never-before-seen provision, not previously included in the Senate or House bill, to overturn federal sugar policy. This change will reverse the recourse loan provision in the 1996 farm bill that obligates full repayment of the loan in cash. Despite loopholes already existing in current law to allow sugar producers to sidestep loan repayments, this new conference provision directs that all federal price support loans be made permanently ``non-recourse'' loans, which is a fancy way of saying the loans will not have to be repaid. Another provision added in conference allows burley tobacco producers to forfeit their crops, much in the same manner that sugar producers are allowed to do. Not only are we letting sugar and tobacco growers off the hook for repayment of Federal loans, the Federal Government will be responsible for selling off tobacco crops that are forfeited to the Federal Government. Such a movement may encourage the overproduction of tobacco, at a time when, thank God, the tobacco demand is lessening and the American people are urging more responsible federal policies toward tobacco because of its impacts on our children and public health. However, once again, special interests win, and the taxpayers will foot the bill, at a cost of $50 million. Other egregious last-minute provisions added in conference include: A new provision that reinstates the federal subsidy for honey producers, previously repealed by the 1996 farm bill. The cost? $20 million. The controversial dairy price support program will be extended, while also delaying implementation of the dairy recourse loan program that requires full repayment of federal loans. $500,000 is earmarked solely for the State of California for crop insurance, despite the $8 billion crop insurance reform bill passed earlier this year. $2.5 million is directed to capitalize the South Carolina Grain Dealers Guaranty Fund, under the guise of emergency spending; and, $7.2 million in emergency funds will pay for sugar transportation costs for the State of Hawaii. Other provisions are tacked onto this report that clearly do not belong in this particular bill and, therefore, could be subject to budget points-of-order. A provision, which the Wall Street Journal called a ``unique steel- friendly provision,'' was inserted into this conference report that diverts antidumping and countervailing duties from the Treasury to affected domestic industries. This provision is an almost one-half billion dollar giveaway to U.S. corporations that had not been considered previously by the Senate. As our nation begins to pay down our $5 trillion debt, we should consider the effect of this provision very carefully. Instead, we will not consider it at all. No member, except those among the negotiators, will have any say about the effects of this policy. Another equally troubling provision in this report once again concerns legislation that has not been considered by the House or Senate. This provision sets up a Hass Avocado Board for avocado research and promotion. While on its face, it may not sound objectionable, such a provision may unfairly give domestic producers more representation than U.S. importers, thereby violating our WTO obligations by not granting national treatment to avocado imports and acting as an export subsidy. In addition, this provision currently forces an assessment of avocados at a rate of $.025 per pound. This rate must be paid by exporters at the time of entry into the United States. However, U.S. domestic producers will not have to pay these taxes until 60 days after the last day of the month that the sale is made. In addition, no tax is collected on Hass avocados that are exported. Again, these two provisions clearly violate our WTO obligations, and I believe we should study this issue more before passing it into law. I am concerned that this provision will give 85 percent of the fees collected from a state back to the state avocado board. This seems like unnecessary pork for state avocado boards. However, once again, we will not be able to vote up or down on this provision. The Congress has certain rules that apply to its budget process. One of those rules states that, once a Senate-House conference convenes, negotiations are limited to only the funding and provisions that exist in either bill. Adding funding that is outside the scope of the conference is not in order, nor is the inclusion of legislative provisions that were not in the preexisting bills. The final agreement clearly violates our established rules over and over again. Yet, no one pays attention to these violations because Congress appears to favor spending that benefits the special interests of a few, rather than spend the taxpayers' dollars responsibly and enact laws and policies that reflect the best interests of all Americans. It is all taxpayers who have to shoulder the burden to pay for the pork-barrel spending in this appropriations conference report and the others that will follow, and I will not vote to place that burden on American families. Mr. President, in conclusion I want to refer to a column by David Broder in this morning's Washington Post. The title of it is, ``So Long, Surplus.'' That is what I have to say this morning and what I have been saying for several weeks now: So long, surplus. I notice a lot of the Presidential debate is devoted to what we will do with the surplus, whether we cut taxes; whether we pay down the debt; whether we save Social Security; whether we save Medicare. It is not going to be there. We are spending it at an incredibly huge rate. As a result, said Congressional Quarterly, the nonpartisan, private news service, spending for fiscal 2001, which began on Oct. 1, is likely to be $100 billion more than allowed by the supposedly ironclad budget agreement of 1997. More important, the accelerated pace of spending is such that the Concord Coalition, a bipartisan budget-watchdog group, estimates that the $2.2 trillion non-Social Security surplus projected for the next decade is likely to shrink by two-thirds to about $712 billion. Let me repeat. The Concord Coalition, which is a bipartisan organization, predicts that the surplus is not going to be $2.2 trillion in the next decade; it is going to be about $712 billion. And that is with the rosiest of scenarios. What are we doing here? What are we doing here? We are spending the surplus; we are earmarking, pork barrel spending; we are calling things emergencies that are not. We are frivolously and irresponsibly spending this surplus which is so vital to our ability to meet our entitlement obligations in this century, obligations to Social Security and to Medicare and other entitlement programs. I quote from David Broder again, from this morning. To grasp what is happening--those now in office grabbing the goodies before those seeking office have a chance--you have to examine the last-minute rush of bills moving through Congress as it tries to wrap up its work and get out of town. I ask unanimous consent the article by David Broder of this morning be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1482, the National Marine Sanctuaries Amendments Act of 2000. The National Marine Sanctuary System recognizes the ecological and cultural importance of our nation's marine resources. By setting aside these areas for protection above and beyond what is already encompassed in other state and federal programs, we are ensuring that the public will benefit from them well into the future. The existing 13 sanctuaries provide more then just protection for the marine resources they encompass. They also provide recreational and educational opportunities that might not otherwise exist. For example, in the USS Monitor Sanctuary, a sunken Civil War vessel lies off the coast of North Carolina and preserves a piece of our collective history. And, in the 5,300 square miles of the Monterey Bay Sanctuary, the program protects important kelp forests and one of the deepest underwater canyons on the west coast. This emphasis on complementary uses and management is the strength of the sanctuary program. There is much we can do to build upon the successes the sanctuaries have already achieved. By prioritizing our actions over the next few years on making the existing sanctuaries fully operational with education and research programs, a full complement of staff, active public outreach programs, and enforcement we will strengthen the system and help it to reach its full potential. At the same time, we are increasing the funding to the system to ensure that these goals can be reached. Authorization levels begin at $32 million for fiscal year 2001 with levels increasing by $2 million a year until fiscal year 2005. Additionally, $6 million per year is authorized for construction projects at the sanctuaries. This bill also includes a new initiative to help secure the future of marine resource conservation through the creation of the Dr. Nancy Foster Scholarship Program. These graduate scholarships will be funded by setting aside 1 percent of the National Marine Sanctuary Program's annual appropriated funds in memory of Dr. Nancy Foster, a 23-year NOAA employee who was serving as the Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management at the time of her death in June. I would like to thank Senator Snowe, the sponsor of the legislation, and Senators Kerry, Inouye, and Hollings for their bipartisan support of and hard work on this bill. I would also like to express my gratitude and that of the Commerce Committee to the staff who worked on this bill, including Sloan Rappoport, Stephanie Bailenson, Brooke Sikora, Rick Kenin and Margaret Spring. In particular I would like to thank Emily Lindow, a Sea Grant fellow, whose background and experience in coastal management issues helped produce a strong and balanced marine sanctuaries bill. Mr. President, again I urge the Senate to pass S. 1482, the National Marine Sanctuaries Amendments Act of 2000.