John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. McCAIN. I object.

Mr. McCAIN. I say to the Senator from North Dakota, it is a frivolous statement. It has no connection to the estimated $1.5 billion. The Senator from North Dakota said that I have been quoting from newspaper articles, et cetera. The Senator from North Dakota usually relies on the GAO. I have heard him quote from the GAO quite often. What the GAO is saying is the sugar program cost domestic sweetener users about $1.5 billion in 1996 and $1.9 billion in 1998. If a foreign government was subsidizing anything--as they are Airbus; and the United States with Boeing--of course, I would take my complaint to the World Trade Organization and we would see about the outcome. I would not build further protectionist barriers for a private manufacturer of any product whether they be tanks or not. The Senator from North Dakota recently espoused fervently that we means test the estate taxes, the so-called death taxes. There was great lamenting on the other side of the aisle about the fact that wealthy people would get off scot-free, and that we should not let them be completely absolved from estate taxes. Will the Senator from North Dakota agree to a means testing on the amount of money so that the Fanjul brothers will not get $65 million a year of Arizona taxpayers' and North Dakota taxpayers' dollars? At least you could agree to a means testing of this, rather than 42 percent of all these subsidies going to 1 percent of the sugar growers in America. So my answer to the question from the Senator from North Dakota: No, I would never agree to what he is saying. I would agree, however, to take the proper measures to remove protectionism on both sides of the Atlantic and all over the world. That is why I am a supporter of free trade.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending Cochran amendment be laid aside.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, at the appropriate time I intend to propose an amendment. I will be glad to discuss it at this time. Perhaps the Senator from Nevada could clarify for me when it might be appropriate.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, is it the desire of the distinguished manager, the Senator from Mississippi, that I go ahead and discuss the amendment or wait until a resolution of the pending Harkin and Cochran amendments?

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I am prepared to enter into a time agreement on this amendment. Whatever is agreeable to the Senator from Mississippi and the Senator from Wisconsin would be fine. I will be proposing an amendment, joined by Senators Gregg and Schumer, that will stop the Federal Government from wasting taxpayers' dollars on an unnecessary and outdated sugar program that costs consumers as much as $2 billion in inflated sugar prices. I ask unanimous consent to have Senator Lugar added as a cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. The amendment is simple. It withholds funding for the costly Federal sugar program for fiscal year 2001. Mr. President, my colleagues and I are here today to say enough is enough. The American taxpayers have subsidized the sugar industry, with price support loans and strict import quotas in various forms, since 1934. Each year American taxpayers pay close to $2 billion in artificially high sugar prices and this year paid an additional $60 million to bail out sugar producers facing massive loan defaults. We're not here today to dispute the choice of sugar as a consumer product. Most Americans buy some type of sugar product on a daily basis--a can of soda or a candy bar--and most Americans buy various types of sugar products every time they shop in a supermarket. What we object to, as consumers purchase these products, is that the federal government is unfairly overcharging them. The sugar program has outlived other agricultural commodity subsidies that have since been phased out through past farm bills. However, the retention of this flawed program has not been dictated by common sense or sound economics, but political influence. Originally, the sugar program was intended to prop up sugar prices to ensure a profit for sugar farmers. Unfortunately, the higher prices result in the usual ``trickle-down'' effect. Food companies have to pay the higher price for sugar, which is then passed on in the form of higher prices for sugar products. The average consumer ends up paying the cost of sugar subsidies in the grocery store. Let me take a few moments to explain why federal assistance for the sugar program should end. First of all, it is unfair to American consumers. A recent GAO report confirms what we have known all along, that American consumers pay close to $2 billion each year in inflated sugar prices. Mandatory price quotas are imposed on American-grown sugar at roughly 22-24 cents a pound compared to 6 cents a pound for sugar grown in other parts of the world. This past year, in 1999, U.S. sugar prices were four times higher than the world price. The benefits of the sugar program are hopelessly lopsided. Approximately 42 percent of all sugar program benefits go to 1 percent of growers. These are not small family farmers, but big sugar tycoons who obtained millions through this federal subsidy. Four sugar cane companies in Florida received more than $20 million. One grower receives close to $65 million annually from this subsidy. About 30 sugar growers were also able to collect one million each from this subsidy. That is not small business; that is not a small farmer. Mr. President, these sugar growers--and I will be naming them and identifying them--have been incredibly generous politically. They have been heavily involved in contributing to both parties in very large amounts of money. Second, the federal sugar program is anti-free market and anti-free trade. The sugar program severely limits imports of lower-priced foreign sugar into the American market so farmers can make a profit through higher prices. The end result, unfortunately, is that this overpricing has caused an overproduction of sugar. This excess supply of sugar drives prices below the guaranteed price level. This type of policy is absurd and has damaged our credibility in the world market. Large-scale sugar growers in Florida contribute directly to the devastation of the Everglades wetlands through increasing sugar cane production. Again, high sugar prices lead to overproduction of sugar. Florida's sugarcane industry is situated near one of America's most pristine freshwater lakes. The direct conversion of sensitive wetlands to sugarcane production and the accompanying agricultural runoff flowing into the Everglades have a direct impact in the decimation of one of America's most treasured ecosystems. For years, sugar cane producers were able to resist and avoid any responsibility for cleanup. The small portion they are now required to pay for cleanup hardly makes a dent into the billions estimated for restoration of the Everglades. Who makes up the difference in these costs? Again, the taxpayers make up the difference by paying nearly a third of the restoration costs. I have spent a fair amount of time in the State of Florida. There is a growing, deep, and very legitimate concern about the Everglades. There is no doubt that the flow of pesticides into the Everglades is directly related to sugarcane growing and has had a direct impact on the ecology of that very fragile ecosystem which is an American treasure, not just a Florida treasure. We should at best not subsidize people who engage in the growing of sugarcane which causes direct damage to one of the most beautiful spots in all the world. Finally, American taxpayers had to pay for a multi-million bail out for sugar processors who did not meet their loan obligations. Earlier this year, the administration spent $60 million to purchase more than 150,000 tons of surplus sugar to prevent mass forfeitures. Why are taxpayers bearing the brunt of these defaulted loans? Because a fundamental flaw in the federal sugar policy allows sugar producers to forfeit their crops to USDA if the market price falls below the loan rate. Sugar producers turn over excess sugar to USDA, keep their loan money and the federal government has to absorb the loss. In other words, if sugar producers are unable to sell their sugar, the federal government promises to buy all the sugar they produce. Often, forfeited sugar is sold at a substantial loss to the federal government. The federal government has no options under the existing sugar program--if the government does not spend millions buying excess sugar, it loses out anyway as sugar processors default on their loans and are not required to pay back to the federal government. With a surplus of sugar in the world market, the federal government will not be able to sell this excess unwanted sugar. It's a double-whammy. Mr. President, these forfeitures are a direct cost to the American taxpayers. And, even worse, this may be only a foreshadowing of a tidal wave yet to come. The federal government may be forced to spend millions more in purchasing additional sugar if the sugar industry has their way. The big sugar lobby is already pressuring USDA to purchase more sugar at a cost of $100 to $500 million on further sugar bail-outs before the end of this year. How is this absurdity allowed to continue? Mr. President, the answer is clear. The sugar program is alive because of well-financed sugar interests, or the ``Iron Triangle'' of the commodity world. Sugar interest represent one of the highest soft money contributors nationwide. Between 1995 to 1999, the sugar industry contributed more than $7 million in soft-money contributions, more than any other commodity group. In 1999 alone, the sugar industry contributed $1.5 million in soft-money contributions to both sides of the aisle. The famous Fanjul family of Flo-Sun sugar industries, known as the ``First Family of Corporate Welfare,'' are among the most generous benefactors in soft money contributions. Sugar interests are cashing in at the register at the expense of consumers, and turning that profit into political influence to keep their stronghold on this federal subsidy. Before I conclude, I want to highlight several commentaries about the sugar program in a few prominent media programs and articles. Fallacies of the sugar program earned special coverage as part of a ``Fleecing of America'' segment on NBC's ``Nightly News with Tom Brokaw.'' During this segment, Art Jaeger from the Consumer Federation of America claims, ``the program gives too little money to the farmers who need the help, too much money to farmers who don't need the help.'' ABC World News Tonight highlighted sugar subsidies as part of its ``Its Your Money'' segments, telling all Americans that maintaining the sugar program is a way ''to guarantee that even more farmers will take advantage of this sweet deal, producing even more sugar, meaning more taxpayer bailouts.'' The Center for Responsive Politics touts the sugar program as ``white gold'' for sugar producers and characterizes it as the ``Energizer Bunny of U.S. government policy,'' It keeps going and going with no end in sight. The Center for International Economics stated that the ``U.S. Sugar Program does not sit comfortably as part of U.S. trade policy. High sugar protection harms the credibility of U.S. initiatives for freer trade.'' The World trade Organization has pointed out its inefficiencies. The World Bank has dedicated consideration attention to the high costs of U.S. sugar policies. The National Center for Public Policy Research concluded that the sugar program was ``one of the federal government's most ridiculous programs'' and should be ended. In a recent USA Today editorial, advice was offered to politicians-- ``Repeal this sweetheart deal before another crop of unneeded sugar gets planted.'' The Coalition for Sugar Reform also supports elimination of this costly program. The Coalition represents such groups as Citizens Against Government Waste, Everglades Trust, Consumers for World Trade, and the United States Cane Sugar Refiners' Association. In a letter of support for ending the program, the Coalition states the amendment we are offering today ``will finally compel change in a program that can no longer be sustained or justified.'' What more evidence do we need to end this lop-sided sugar policy? Why should the federal government and American taxpayers be expected to continue support for this program that is running rampantly out of control and clearly violates free market and free trade principles? Mr. President, I want to make clear once again--today's vote is important to protect American consumers and taxpayers. The recent million-dollar sugar bail-out is the final straw that will break the camel's back for this failed program. I would like to quote from the New York Times editorial of July 14, 1997. A combination of import restrictions, guaranteed prices and subsidized loans keeps sugar prices artificially high, roughly twice the level in other countries, and thus transfers about $1.5 billion a year from consumers to a handful of large sugar growers. Almost half of the benefits from the sugar program go to little more than 1 percent of growers. The high prices act like a tax on food, hitting hardest at poor families who typically spend a large fraction of their budget on food and other necessities. If the Schumer-Miller proposal passes, sugar prices could fall 20 cents for a five-pound bag. The sugar growers justify their subsidies as needed to counter foreign-subsidized imports and to protect the jobs of domestic workers. Neither argument withstands scrutiny. There are ample rules to prevent foreign countries from ``dumping'' government-subsidized sugar in United States markets. Also, by propping up raw sugar prices, the program has driven half the United States sugar refiners out of business or out of the country, taking jobs with them. There is a second, powerful reason to eliminate sugar subsidies. They breed excessive production of sugar cane in environmentally sensitive areas. In the Florida Everglades, about a half-million acres of wetlands have been converted to sugar cane production. Excessive sugar cane production has interrupted water flows and contaminated the Everglades with polluted agricultural run-off. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the New York Times editorial and the Wall Street Journal article of April 27, 2000, be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I now quote from the April 27, 2000, article from the Wall Street Journal entitled ``Big Sugar Seeks Bailout.'' Never have old hands at the Agriculture Department seen such a turnout: 11 U.S. senators trooping into Secretary Dan Glickman's office to lobby for a big sugar-industry bailout. ``When you have 11 senators showing up,'' says Florida sugar-company executive Robert Buker, ``that's horsepower''-- enough power, he believes, to push an ambivalent Clinton administration into an unprecedented market intervention to bail out distressed U.S. sugar producers. The producers are floundering beneath a market-depressing glut of sugar. Come October, they face another problem: a tenfold jump in Mexican sugar imports. The federal sugar-loan program, which has cosseted them for nearly two decades, is suddenly in danger of imploding. So, to shore up the domestic market, sugar lobbyists are imploring administration officials to authorize a bold sugar- buying spree. Only by spending $100 million now to buy sugar and boost market prices, they contend, can the government hope to head off a much costlier wave of sugar-loan forfeitures later this summer, in the midst of an election campaign. Mr. President, the article is very revealing in that it describes the top contributors in the year 1999 and the amounts of money that have been distributed. It is quite remarkable in its entirety. I quote from an article in Time magazine, November 1998, entitled: ``Sweet Deal, Why Are These Men Smiling? The Reason is in Your Sugar Bowl.'' Occupying a breathtaking spot on the southeast coast of the Dominican Republic, Casa de Campo is one of the Caribbean's most storied resorts . . . and that's truth in advertising. The place has 14 swimming pools, a world-class shooting ground, PGA-quality golf courses and $1,000-a-night villas. A thousand miles to the northwest, in the Florida Everglades, the vista is much different. Chemical runoff from the corporate cultivation of sugar cane imperils vegetation and wildlife. Polluted water spills out of the glades into Florida Bay, forming a slimy, greenish brown stain where fishing once thrived. Both sites are the by-product of corporate welfare. In this case the beneficiaries are the Fanjul family of Palm Beach, Fla. The name means nothing to most Americans, but the Fanjuls might be considered the First Family of Corporate Welfare. They own Flo-Sun Inc., one of the nation's largest producers of raw sugar. As such, they benefit from federal policies that compel American consumers to pay artificially high prices for sugar. Since the Fanjuls control about one-third of Florida's sugar-cane production, that means they collect at least $60 million a year in subsidies, according to an analysis of General Accounting Office calculations. It's the sweetest of deals, and it's made the family, the proprietors of Casa de Campo, one of America's richest. The subsidy has had one other consequence: it has helped create an environmental catastrophe in the Everglades. Depending on whom you talk to, it will cost anywhere from $3 billion to $8 billion to repair the Everglades by building new dikes, rerouting canals and digging new lakes. Growers are committed to pay up to $240 million over 20 years for the cleanup. Which means the industry that created much of the problem will have to pay only a fraction of the cost to correct it. Government will pay the rest. As for the Fanjuls, a spokesman says they are committed to pay about $4.5 million a year. Do a little arithmetic. We got $60 million in Federal subsidies, of which they will pay $4.5 million for the Everglades. Not a bad deal. How did this disaster happen? With your tax dollars. How will it be fixed? With your tax dollars. It is not news that sugar is richly subsidized, or that the Fanjuls have profited so handsomely. Even as recently as 1995, when Congress passed legislation to phase out price supports for a cornucopia of agricultural products, raw sugar was spared. Through a combination of loan guarantees and tariffs on imported sugar, domestic farmers like the Fanjuls are shielded from real-world prices. So in the U.S., raw sugar sells for about twenty-two cents a pound, more than double the prices most of the world pays. The cost to Americans: at least $1.4 billion in the form of higher prices for candy, soda and other sweet things of life. A GAO study, moreover, has estimated that nearly half the subsidy goes to large sugar producers like the Fanjuls. A spokesman for Flo-Sun, Jorge Dominicis, said the company disagrees with the GAO's estimate on the profits the Fanjuls and other growers derive from the program. ``That is supposed to imply somehow that our companies receive $60 million in guaranteed profits,'' he said, ``and that is flat-out not true. Our companies don't make anywhere near that kind of profit.'' Dominicis, like other proponents of the sugar program, contends that it doesn't cost taxpayers a penny and is not unlike government protection of other American industries. ``If our [sugar policy] is corporate welfare, which I don't believe it is, then all trade policy is corporate welfare,'' he says. Flo-Sun is run by four Fanjul brothers, Alfonso (``Alfie''), Jose (``Pepe''), Andres and Alexander. Their family dominated Cuba's sugar industry for decades, and they came to this country with their parents in 1959, after Fidel Castro seized power. The Fanjuls arrived just as a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers project to control the flow of water in the Florida Everglades made large-scale development possible. The total acreage planted in sugar cane there soared--from 50,000 acres in 1960 to more than 420,000 today. Within that swampy paradise lies yet another subsidy. Each year, according to a 1997 estimate, the Army Corps of Engineers spends $63 million to control water flow in central and south Florida. This enables growers to obtain water when they need it or restrain the flow during heavy rains. Of the $63 million, the Corps estimates $52 million is spent on agriculture, mainly sugar-cane farmers, in the Everglades. The article further states: Though by no means the largest special interest in Washington, the sugar lobby is one of the most well-heeled. And among growers, the Fanjuls are big givers. And among growers, the Fanjuls are big givers. Family members and corporate executives have contributed nearly $1 million so far in this decade, dividing the money fairly evenly between political parties. This knack for covering for political bases carries all the way to the top of the Fanjul empire. Alfonso Fanjul served as co-chairman of Bill Clinton's Florida campaign in 1992. His brother Pepe was national vice chairman of finance for Bob Dole's presidential campaign in 1996 and was host to a $1,000-a-head fund raiser for Dole at his Palm Beach mansion. After Clinton's 1992 victory, Alfie was a member of the select group invited by the Clinton camp to attend the President-elect's ``economic summit'' in Little Rock, Ark. Careful readers of Kenneth Starr's impeachment report to Congress will note that on Feb. 19, 1996. . . . The two spoke for 22 minutes. The topic: a proposed tax on sugar farmers to pay for the Everglades cleanup. Fanjul reportedly told the President he and other growers opposed such a step, since it would cost them millions. Such a tax has never been passed. That is access. I will be glad to continue this debate, and I will be glad to again enter into a time agreement on this amendment when it is appropriate for me to have it considered by the full Senate. I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Brownback and Senator Fitzgerald as cosponsors.

Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. McCAIN. The Senator mentioned a very important marketing assessment, which had been taken out in last year's omnibus bill.

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator allow me to answer his question?

Mr. McCAIN. It is too bad the Senator will not yield.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I see my friend from North Dakota on the floor. Of course our entire relationship is characterized by respect. Obviously he makes a strong case for his point of view. I not only respect but I appreciate and enjoy the verbal exchanges we have from time to time. He is a worthy adversary. I will not take very long. It was alleged that marketing assessments are large amounts of money. That is true. I believe it is $272 million or something such as that. But I think it is appropriate to mention that those marketing assessments in last year's omnibus bill were done away with. The sugar producers do nothing to address the budget deficit. I think an argument can be made that this Senator from Arizona may not be the most expert on agricultural issues. I plead guilty to that. I believe there are other issues in which I am better informed. A cosponsor of this amendment is the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, Senator Lugar. Senator Lugar is in support of this amendment. I am honored that the chairman of the committee is in support of this amendment. I think his viewpoint should also be taken into consideration, particularly with more gravity than mine. There was a study conducted by the Center for International Economics. It was prepared as part of the trade agenda and conference on the 1st and 2nd of October 1999 in Geneva. I will read the beginning of this study: If ever there was a case for multilateral trade liberalisation, and if ever there was a liberalisation from which the global economy stood to gain, it is sugar. The world sugar market contains some of the largest and most blatant forms of trade protection. Many of these have a 300 year history. The worst of the worst are in developed countries. They greatly distort trade and prices. Although the world economy, consumers and efficient sugar producers stand to gain substantially from liberalisation, some producers, especially those in developed countries, stand to lose. And herein lies a political challenge--there are large vested interests that are likely to oppose sugar trade liberalisation. In the Uruguay Round these vested interests won hands down. Should they win again, they are likely to further undermine developed country credibility in the WTO and the WTO itself. Ultimately countries unilaterally liberalise trade. The best that multilateral forums can do is to assist that process. The biggest gains in trade liberalisation come form reducing the biggest distortions first. Giving prominence to sugar and other highly protected products in the WTO millennium round makes economic sense. Such prominence is also needed to help counter the vested interests opposed to reform. They go on to say: This taxation of consumers and protection of producers is highest in Japan, Western Europe and the United States. We are the leading proponent of free and open trade. The United States has an enviable record, whether it be the North American Free Trade Agreement. Whether it be expansion of economic trade relations with China through Democrat and Republican administrations, we have been in pursuit of free trade. Clearly, we lose credibility when we stand as one of the highest protectionists for our sugar industry. I say again with respect to my friend from North Dakota and the opponents of this amendment that I will be glad to work with them at least to means test this subsidy. Why in the world should one family get $65 million in subsidies? That is remarkable when you think about it. Adding to that, they are harming the Everglades. Every objective study indicates that the runoff from pesticides and other pollutants in the Everglades is dramatically damaging the Everglades. Yes. The sugar companies are paying some money, but in comparison to the overall cost, the estimated cost of fixing the Everglades is minuscule. I am not without sympathy for the farmers in North Dakota. I am not without sympathy for the farmers in Montana, Louisiana, and Idaho. But when they are encouraged to grow a crop which they would not grow if it were not for the subsidies, and in addition in some parts of America they are doing damage to our environment, then it is time we said enough. Again, I strongly support a proposal to means test and to phase out these sugar subsidies. We phased out a large number of subsidies when we passed the Freedom to Farm Act. I would agree that the Freedom to Farm Act has had very mixed results. In fact, there are questions raised by many. We eliminated and phased out wool, butter, cheese, powdered milk, and other dairies. We capped cotton and reduced peanuts, wheat, and others. But we retain two quite remarkable products; that is, sugar and tobacco. I promise not to bore my colleagues with a tirade about tobacco. But the fact is that the sugar subsidy is one which needs to be eliminated. I think we all know that. It is my understanding that the Senator from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, after his remarks, will make a motion to table. I am certainly in agreement with that, or if there are other speakers, I would be glad to join into a time agreement, whatever is agreeable, with the Senator from Mississippi and the Senator from Wisconsin. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask the indulgence of my friend for a unanimous consent agreement that has been cleared on both sides.

Mr. McCAIN. This allows the Commerce Committee to meet off the floor for the purposes of approving the nomination of Mr. Norman Mineta to be the Secretary of Commerce.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask consent, notwithstanding any rule or other order, it be in order for the Commerce Committee to meet in executive session for the purpose only of reporting nominations to the Executive Calendar. Among those nominations is that of Mr. Norman Mineta, former Congressman and nominee to be Secretary of Commerce, immediately following the next rollcall vote.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in objection to the amendment. Bismarck said there are two things you never want to see made, and that is laws and sausages. This really is another one of these wonderful sausages. If a government student from a college or high school or university from around the country came here and was sitting in the galleries observing this, and someone told them we are now addressing the agricultural appropriations bill, one would then assume that it has to do with agriculture and farmers, the agricultural section of this country, and that it would probably have some very worthy aspects of it. Then this student observes the Senator from Pennsylvania stand up and say: We are going to get the GSA to lease automobiles for Amtrak. Excuse me? That is a railroad. For the benefit of those students who observe these things, I would like to tell you how we got here. Amtrak first came to my committee--which happens to be, although it is routinely ignored lately, the authorizing committee particularly as we go through the appropriations process. They came to the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee and said: We would like to have this done--although interestingly stated by the Senator from Pennsylvania--because basically they do not want to have to pay to lease automobiles to have their operations go forward. They wanted us to put it in as part of the National Transportation Safety Board reauthorization. After examining their proposal, and knowing that the whole object of the reform of Amtrak was to make them independent of the Federal Government, and now they want to take advantage of a situation that only governmental organizations can take care of --that is, General Services Administration leasing--we said no. They have some pretty highly paid lobbyists around town. They are pretty influential. They went to the government oversight committee, to Senator Thompson, and to his staff. They tried to float it by them because Senator Thompson's Committee on Governmental Affairs has oversight of the General Services Administration. Senator Thompson, his staff, and his committee rejected it out of hand--again because a nongovernment organization should not have access to the facilities and capabilities that a governmental organization does. That was rejected. The Amtrak lobbyists were flailing around town. Senator Thompson honored me with a phone call. He said: How do you explain the fact that the whole effort of the Amtrak Reform Accountability Act, Public Law 104- 34, was intended to make Amtrak independent of the Federal Government-- which, by the way, is not too important, to revisit history. In 1971, Amtrak was formed for only 2 years, I say to my colleagues, and then to be completely independent. Of course, after being at the Government trough since 1971, we finally decided that they had just about enough when we enacted the Amtrak Reform Accountability Act. They finally found a willing servant and messenger in the Senator from Pennsylvania, and I congratulate him. So here we are with an amendment on the Agriculture appropriations bill that has to do with Amtrak, which, as the Senator from Pennsylvania alluded to, he rides regularly. I am sure he is an avid supporter of it. But this is $15 million. Actually, they came to us the first time and said it was a $4 million deal. It has increased somehow magically in the last 6 weeks or so to $15 million. I guess that dramatized the gravity of their situation. I say to my government student who is observing this, I can tell you that the way we ended up with this particular sausage is that the Amtrak lobbyists with all of their influence could not get what they wanted through the committee of oversight. They couldn't get what we wanted through another committee of oversight; staff and those who had jurisdiction rejected this idiotic proposal out of hand. So now we have an amendment on the Agriculture appropriations bill. The supporters of this amendment allege its purpose is to correct an unintended--in the words of the Senator from Pennsylvania, unintended and unintentional--consequence of legislation enacted in 1997, the Amtrak Reform Accountability Act. Not so. Not so. The whole purpose of the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997, of which I was a part, was to divorce Amtrak from the Federal Government and the largess and the perks and other good deals that can be had being a part of the Federal Government. Have no doubt, my friends, coming from a Senator who was intimately involved in the act, there was no unintended consequence. There was no inadvertency associated with it. This is simply an attempt on the part of Amtrak to save themselves $4 million, or $15 million, whatever it is. One of the main purposes of the act is to direct Amtrak to run more as a real for-profit business. There are other organizations, such as Fannie Mae, that are in exactly the same status as Amtrak. Fannie Mae doesn't get GSA leasing of their cars. Freddie Mac doesn't get GSA leasing of their cars. But we are going to do it for Amtrak. I guarantee you, my friends, we are going to have a hearing in September, I say to my colleagues, on this great reform, and all of this success which the Senator from Pennsylvania just trumpeted, you are going to find out it is not true. As far as I know, Amtrak is going to be feeding from the public trough for as long as any Member of this body is alive. We just had a Member of the advisory committee resign in disgust and anger over what has transpired since this act was passed in 1997. I don't expect to win. I don't expect to win this amendment. But I am going to make the American people aware of this bizarre situation where we have a railroad formed in 1971, and the commitment at that time was that railroad would be Government supported for 2 years. Count them: One, two. Since 1971, in the intervening 29 years, the billions and billions and billions of taxpayer dollars that have been expended on Amtrak stagger the imagination. Someday, somebody will write a very interesting treatise. In fact, several have already been written. In regard to the arguments of ``unintended consequences,'' let me assure my colleagues we have experienced a slew of unintended consequences since the reform law was enacted--a slew of unintended consequences. Let me mention a couple. When we all agreed to remove the former board of directors so Amtrak would have a clean slate with new leadership and fresh ideas, we never thought the board members serving at the time of enactment would then be appointed to the new reform board. But that is what happened. When we called for the creation of an 11-member Amtrak reform council and were specific about membership criteria and eligibility, we never expected the one representative of the rail industry to be a sitting mayor not affiliated with the industry at all. But that is what occurred, my friends--laws and sausages. When we authorized substantial capital and operating funds for the duration of the 5-year bill, we never expected the administration to request only about half of the authorized funding. But that is what occurred, despite the nonstop rhetoric about the administration's support for Amtrak. When we were all convinced that Amtrak would utilize the $2.2 billion ``tax refund''--one of the more interesting sausages that were fashioned here in the Senate; there was a $2.2 billion tax refund on taxes that was never paid, one of the more interesting ones I have seen here--we were all convinced that Amtrak would utilize the $2.2 billion ``tax refund'' released by enactment of the reform legislation for high return capital investments--the commitment of the $2.2 billion for high return capital investments. We didn't expect Amtrak to use that money to pay for gym membership, movie tickets, and for some of its labor force. But that is what occurred. I can understand Amtrak's desire to undo parts of the 1997 law it no longer likes. I am certain a number of Members would like to change certain things about the law here and there, particularly as we are getting closer to the operational self-sufficiency deadline in 2 years. By the way, there is no outside expert who believes we will reach that operational self-sufficiency deadline, which we will carefully examine as the committee of oversight, as the committee that is responsible for the authorizing--not the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee. We will examine it. But I believe an agreement is an agreement. And this bill was adopted unanimously. I think Amtrak should be relieved we are not instead requiring it to repay the Treasury for the money it saved by participating illegally in the program for nearly 3 years. Amtrak has been participating in this program, as judged by outside observers, illegally. It should have been halted. It is true not all Members share the same perspective concerning the obligation imposed upon the American taxpayers to fund Amtrak for its 29 years of subsidization, even though Amtrak was to have been free of all Federal assistance 2 years after it was established in 1971. However, we did work together and support enactment of reform legislation with the intent to give Amtrak the tools it said it needed to become operationally self-sufficient. I have not acted to alter the agreement reached as part of the reform legislation, and I find it a breech of that agreement that Amtrak and others are routinely seeking changes through the appropriations process to allow it to do things not approved by the authorizing committee of jurisdiction. Be assured, I say to my colleagues now, we have a little dust up here. But when Amtrak tries to obtain a $10 billion funding scheme, there is going to be a big fight about that one, my friends. I know it is coming. It hasn't fulfilled the first and quite substantial statutory obligation to operate free of taxpayer expense. Amtrak asked for legislation that allowed it to operate more as a private business, and we enacted such legislation. As other former Government-controlled agencies have moved toward privatization, they didn't enjoy the freedom to pick and choose what governmental support programs they could use to their advantage. When Congress set up other corporations such as Freddie Mac, COMSAT, and Fannie Mae, they did not and do not participate in GSA leasing. The fact is, nongovernmental entities do not participate in the GSA vehicle leasing program. Amtrak can't have it both ways, although they probably will. Finally, I find it very strange that since this issue was brought to my attention in March, Amtrak has said the GSA leasing eligibility saves $4 million annually--probably a lot of money to a company that lost more than $900 million last year; $900 million was all they lost last year. Yet now that an amendment is being offered on the floor, Amtrak has raised the bar and this week Amtrak is telling me the provision would save some $15 million annually. Which of Amtrak's numbers should we believe? At a minimum, the authorizing committee should have an opportunity to explore this new figure before we are asked to adopt any changes in existing law. As I said, we will be having a hearing on Amtrak, as is our responsibility as the authorizing committee, in early September to carefully explore this and many other critical issues. Until this issue has been looked at by the committee of jurisdiction, I urge my colleagues to defeat the amendment. We find ourselves, a week before leaving, with an amendment that was first sought to be addressed by the committee of authorization, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. We refused to do so because it was clearly not in keeping with the law. Then they went to another committee of authorization. They wouldn't do it. So now what does the Senator from Pennsylvania do? Something to do with Amtrak, a train, is on the Agriculture appropriations bill. Another example of laws and sausages. To all those students of government who may be watching and observing this bizarre process, my friends, it is an argument for reform of the way we do business in this body. The authorizing committees are becoming more and more irrelevant as each legislative day goes by. I am close to the point where we either do away with the Appropriations Committee or we do away with the authorizing committees. To come on this floor and have a clear legislative change, even though it may not meet the exact parameters of germaneness in rule XVI, and make a clear elective change on a bill that has nothing to do, first of all as an appropriations bill, and second of all has no relation to Amtrak, I find offensive. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, if there has been any offense taken by the Senator from Pennsylvania, it was not intended, and I would hope he would accept my apologies if he took offense. I think this amendment is wrong. It is inappropriate, and it is dead wrong, and the facts, as I stated as to how this amendment got on an Agriculture appropriations bill, are accurate. It first went to the Commerce Committee where they tried to get us to do it, and we would not because we do not believe it is in keeping with the law. Then they went to the Governmental Affairs Committee and now it has ended up being put as an amendment on the Agriculture appropriations bill. That is wrong. I did not challenge the parliamentary right of the Senator from Pennsylvania to do so. We had the same parliamentary reading that the Senator from Pennsylvania did. I think this amendment is a violation of the agreement that was made in 1997 in the form of the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act, P.L. 105-134. Again, if the Senator from Pennsylvania took offense at something I said personally, then he has my apologies. That does not change the fact that this amendment is the wrong thing to do. I strongly oppose it, and I believe if we continue, as I said in the conclusion of my remarks previously, if we continue to authorize and legislate on appropriations bills, this practice will continue the breakdown of the procedures that are intended and established by the Senate. I stand by those words, and I again say, even though it may not be in violation of the strict parliamentary rules, it is wrong to put an amendment concerning Amtrak on Agriculture appropriations bills. I believe I have that right to believe that is an inappropriate way, and the Commerce Committee or the Governmental Affairs Committee should have reviewed this and did review it and should be allowed the jurisdiction. Nor did I at any time tell the Senator, or in my remarks to the body, that every Senator does not have their right to a proposed amendment on whatever issue they wish. That is why we have a Parliamentarian. Never at any time--certainly not this Senator--would I say that an individual Senator should be deprived of his or her rights since I exercise those with some frequency. I hope that clarifies the intent of my remarks which are that this amendment is not in keeping with the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act, and I do not believe--and as a Senator I have the right to the view--that it is not appropriate to be placed on an Agriculture appropriations bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. I object.

Mr. McCAIN. I object.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for that information. The Senator from Mississippi has added a great deal to the store of knowledge of this body. I think it is very helpful. I still don't quite understand why at the end of an appropriations bill there should be, en bloc, 15 or whatever it is amendments worth over $900 million, which we didn't even get a copy of until we demanded it at the time, after the amendments were proposed. I don't think that is the way we should do business around here, particularly when we are talking about hundreds and millions and billions of dollars. I think it would have been appropriate--although I won't continue with the floor--as to what happened to the $8 billion or so that we already spent. What about those emergencies and what happened to that money? I thank the Senator from Mississippi for his information and yield the floor.