John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will be brief. I am very pleased that the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee is going to raise a point of order, very shortly, on the first amendment, the Harkin amendment. I do not pretend to have the budget knowledge and expertise of the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, but I do know that when he becomes exercised about what is taking place, at an ever-increasing crescendo of additional spending, about which Members really have no information or knowledge, we have to bring this to a halt at some point. I say to my colleagues now, I will make every effort to prevent us from going out of session without the appropriations process being resolved. No more should we all go home while four or five Members of Congress decide on omnibus appropriations bills and then we are called back to vote ``yea'' or ``nay'' on a bill that none of us has had a chance to know or read. Every year, for the last 3 years, we have been assured that this will not happen again. Well, my friends, I will do everything in my power not to have it happen again. But let me point out, the Harkin amendment, which we just saw--this amendment which was about to be adopted by voice vote in the package of amendments totaling $960 million, which none of us had seen--let me just describe it to you. It says: For an additional amount for ``Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations,'' to repair damages to the waterways and watersheds, including the purchase of floodplain easements, resulting from natural disasters, $70,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, That funds shall be used for activities identified by July 18, 2000 . . . . Let me repeat that: . . . That funds shall be used for activities identified by July 18, 2000. . . . That was 2 days ago. What activities? Identified by whom? The Department of Reclamation? The Department of Agriculture? Senator Gramm? Senator Harkin? What activities that were identified by July 18? And where is the record of July 18 of these activities that were identified to spend $70 million on? What is going on? We are going to spend $70 million for ``Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations,'' for ``activities identified by July 18, 2000'? Is there any Member of this body, including the sponsor of the bill, who knows what activities have been identified?

Mr. McCAIN. I will be happy to hear the answer.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Mississippi. That is very illuminating. I guess my next question to the distinguished manager is, we already have $1.1 billion worth of spending designated ``emergency'' in the bill. What occurred in the intervening time that necessitated an additional nearly billion dollars and next week will there be another billion dollars? I believe only a week has elapsed since the bill was brought to the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, can the Senator estimate how much total spending is in those amendments?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the agricultural appropriations bill is very important bill--it provides federal assistance to our nation's farming communities, funds social service programs for women and children, and addresses natural resource management needs across the country. I commend Chairman Cochran and other members of the Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee for their hard work to complete this year's bill. So, it is with regret that I had to vote against passage of this bill. Mr. President, approval of the annual budget is among our most serious responsibilities. We are the trustees of billions of taxpayer dollars, and we should evaluate every spending decision with great deliberation and without prejudice. Unfortunately, each year, we find new ways to violate budget policy. Appropriators have employed every sidestepping method in the book to circumvent Senate rules and common budget principles that are supposed to strictly guide the appropriations process. The excessive fodder and trickery have never been greater, resulting in the shameless waste of millions of taxpayer dollars. Included in this bill is more than $243 million in pork-barrel spending and additional ``emergency spending'' at the cost of $2 billion. Traditional earmarks run rampant in this bill and its accompanying report for unrequested and low-priority spending. Other sly methods are also utilized to secure funding for parochial projects. If a direct amount is not earmarked, then the committee has covertly directed the USDA to grant special consideration to certain projects that would otherwise be subject to a competitive grant review. Appropriations bills are also popular targets to attach policy riders which clearly have no place in budget bills. Another $2 billion in designated ``emergency'' spending was also added to this bill for various crop and disaster related assistance. This ``emergency'' spending is in addition to billions already spent in the past few years for farm relief spending, as well as other supplemental appropriations included in the military conference report for fiscal year 2000, and several billion more included in the recently passed crop insurance reform bill. I rise today to tell my colleagues that I object. I object to the $243 million in directed earmarks for special interest projects in this bill. I object to sidestepping the legislative process by attaching erroneous riders to an appropriations bill. I object to speeding through appropriations bills without adequate review by all members. I object to budget gimmickry practiced by attaching non-germane and non-priority items to appropriations bills and designating them as ``emergencies'' to avoid exceeding budget allocations. It is no surprise that many of these earmarks are included for political glamour rather than practical purposes. Members can go back to their districts to ride in public parades and garner votes at the expense of average citizens who are struggling to maintain minimum wage jobs. Again, some of these items are not particularly objectionable on an individual basis. However, I am merely objecting to the way these projects have been selectively identified and prioritized for earmarks when so many other needs around our country go unaddressed. Other items clearly do not belong in this particular bill and, therefore, could be subject to budget points-of-order. Numerous earmarks are included that are of questionable relation or priority to the purposes of this bill. A few examples are: $20 million for construction of a Los Angeles replacement laboratory and office space project in California; $3.5 million for the Delta Teachers Academy; $5 million for demonstration housing grants for agriculture, aquaculture, and seafood processing works in Mississippi and Alaska; $500,000 for cooperative efforts with the Claude E. Phillips Herbarium in Delaware; $87,000 for North American Studies in Texas; $436,000 for a clean air PM-10 study in Washington; $2,150,000 for a rural health program in Mississippi to train health care workers to serve in rural areas; and, An additional $520,000 for seven additional inspectors at the U.S.- Mexico Border at the San Diego ports of entry. Again, Mr. President, these projects may be meritorious and helpful to the designated communities, but they do not appear appropriate to tag onto this year's agriculture spending bill. This appropriations measure is intended to address farmers, women, children and rural communities with the greatest need. Yet, by diverting millions to non- agricultural needs, we fail in this responsibility, forcing Congress to pass ad-hoc emergency spending bills with billions in farm relief and bail-outs for producers who cannot pay back their federal loans. I hope my colleagues will agree that we have higher spending priorities that are directly related to the purposes of this agriculture bill. Had we more responsibility allocated funding in these appropriations bills, we certainly could have avoided this type of egregious pork-barrel and emergency ad hoc spending which cuts deep into the budget surplus. Mr. President, I have compiled a list of objectionable provisions in this bill and its accompanying report. However, the list is too lengthy to include in the Record, but will be available from my Senate office.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, I report favorably a nomination list which was printed in the Record of the date indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that this nomination lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have come today to express sorrow and deep regret over the loss of a treasured friend and colleague. I have watched many of the tributes that have been made to Paul Coverdell this morning. There is very little I can say to add to some of the wonderful comments that have been made about this truly remarkable American. I want to talk for a minute about my personal relationship with Paul Coverdell. When he was running for the Senate for the first time, he was running against an incumbent Senator who was popular in his State. I came to the State of Georgia and campaigned for him. Before I arrived, I thought I was doing what a lot of us in politics do, and that is doing what is necessary for a losing cause. But after spending a few days with Paul Coverdell, I could see this man was going to win his election because he was a man of integrity; he was a man who knew the issues, a man who was dedicated to the concept and belief of public service, a man who had served his country in other capacities and had prepared himself over many years of public life to serve the Nation as a Senator from the State of Georgia. As we all know, he won a very close race, perhaps one of the closest races in the history of certainly the State of Georgia, if not the entire Senate, which required a runoff election. Then he was reelected rather handily. Again I went down to Georgia to help him in his reelection, and I saw that during his first term, Paul Coverdell had established a unique relationship with his constituents. Everyplace I went with him, they recognized him, they showed their appreciation for him, and whether they were Republican or Democrat, they respected him for his strongly held values and views. As I talked to his citizenry around the State of Georgia, it was clear, whether they were going to support his candidacy for reelection or not, they held him in the highest regard because they knew, as we who have had the privilege and honor of working with him and serving with him in the Senate know, that he was a man who worked incredibly hard, a man of firmly established values and ideals, and one who believed and acted in the public interest. As all of us experience deep emotion and sorrow over the loss of a dear friend, I am sometimes reminded that we should also celebrate the fact that we were blessed to have the opportunity to know and appreciate a man of such enormous and wonderful qualities, and the people of his State and the people of this Nation, including my own State of Arizona, were honored to be in the presence of and have the service of this dedicated, wonderful American. As our best wishes and condolences go out to the Coverdell family and friends, we also offer our hardiest celebration for a life well lived and one which is written in the pages of America's history, in the history of the Senate, bright pages filled with the Coverdell name in the State of Georgia with glory. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, each year I carefully review the annual Interior appropriations bill to analyze how the Federal Government is meeting its fiscal obligations and priorities to protect our nation's resources and provide needed funding for Native American programs. I commend the Interior subcommittee chairman, Senator Gorton, and the ranking member, Senator Byrd, for their hard work in completing this year's funding recommendations that will provide critical funding for National Parks, energy programs, the Indian Health Service, and the other resource management responsibilities within the Department of Interior. Unfortunately, the appropriations committee has also continued the irresponsible practice of loading up an important bill such as this one with unrequested, low-priority earmarks and legislative riders. This Interior appropriations bill has once again become the target for members to tack on parochial spending for their own special interest projects. In this bill, I found nearly $280 million for porkbarrel spending projects, a level that is unacceptably higher than previous years. This type of unnecessary and low-priority spending is particularly egregious since each agency within the Department of Interior is struggling to meet its statutory responsibilities to protect our nation's parks, wildlife refuges and trust obligations to Native Americans. These agencies all report exceptionally large, multimillion backlogs for maintenance and repairs. Yet, instead of directing funding to substantially eradicate these backlogs, the appropriations committee instead chooses to divert federal spending toward locale-specific earmarks that either were not included in the budget request, increase funding above the requested level for other specific projects, or fund unauthorized projects. I recognize that various communities around the country look to the federal government to help protect them against wildfire threats or set aside funding to preserve open space to build parks for their children. Many of the projects in this bill will no doubt address some of these important needs and are deserving of federal investments. However, I fail to understand why it is necessary to load up this bill with erroneous earmarks that appear to pander more to special interests rather than address our highest resource management needs. I believe that we should abide by our established budget procedures by allocating federal assistance to those projects that undergo a normal, merit-based prioritization process that protects the interests of the American taxpayer, and employs the most cost-effective approach. While individually, the amounts earmarked for these projects may not seem substantial, collectively they add up to unmitigated pork. Where does some of this pork go? An increase of $600,000 is included for the Alaska Sealife Center for an eider recovery research program, a center which already received supplemental funding in the recently passed Military Construction conference agreement. Other locale-specific earmarks include $200,000 for a direct pass-through grant to Long Live the Lings to coordinate the various hatchery managers and governmental jurisdictions in Washington state; $500,000 to continue with the retrofit of the research vessel (the R/V) Sturgeon) for use by the Great Lakes Science Center; $5,000,000 for maintenance and snow removal on the Beartooth Highway; and, an increase of $500,000 above the requested level for the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (SAO) to begin construction of a base facility at Hilo, Hawaii in conjunction with the SAO Submillimeter Array initiative. These projects may be important to the local communities for which they are targeted, but are they really the highest national priorities? Are these projects fundamental to carrying out the resource management functions of the Interior Department? Unfortunately, it matters little since I, nor the majority of my colleagues, had any input about whether funding these projects is the wisest and best use of Federal dollars. We further abandon our budget principles by funding projects that have not been authorized by Congress. For example, the proposed Wheeling National Heritage Area in West Virginia has been the recipient of an annual earmark for the past several years, including a recommendation for a $500,000 earmark in this bill. While this does not appear to be problematic, what is not well known is that this particular heritage area has not yet been authorized by Congress. This flies directly in the face of the statement by the Interior appropriations committee which specifically pointed out that it would not fund projects unless Congress authorized them. Again, this project itself is not necessarily objectionable to me and may have good reason to be funded. But what is appalling is that these funds are specifically earmarked for a project not yet authorized, thereby clearly sidestepping a process that other heritage area projects are expected to adhere to in order to receive federal assistance. It is also alarming to find, buried in this bill, a specific earmark of two million dollars to the Sealaska Corporation to develop an ethanol manufacturing facility in Alaska, the purpose of which is intended to support a declining timber industry in the Alaska region. To further assist these impacted communities in Alaska, an additional five million earmark is provided for a three year timber supply for the Tongass National Forest, language added securing preferential treatment of Alaska's surplus red cedar for sales abroad, and hundreds of thousands more are directed to other forest management activities to benefit the Alaskan region. I admit that I am not an authority on the matters affecting local communities in Alaska. However, what I take particular exception to is the fact that this earmark benefits the ethanol industry, a fiscal boondoggle industry that already reaps substantial benefits from existing federal subsidies at the expense of taxpayers. It is a blatant insult to taxpayers to ask them to supplement the ethanol industry even more by spending two million to build one ethanol manufacturing facility for a region that is receiving more than adequate fiscal attention. With the many identified priorities stated by the subcommittee members, such as addressing wildfire emergencies and health care for Native Americans, little to no information is provided as to why certain organizations are deserve of direct earmarks, such as $176,000 for the Kawerak Reindeer Herders Association, and one million for the National Conservation Training Center. With no information to explain the national importance of these programs, I find it troubling that the subcommittee tends to specifically favor certain organizations for funding when these organizations should also be subjected to a competitive and merit-review process. As I stated before, there is undoubtably considerable merit to some of the programs for which funding is earmarked in this bill. However, until Congress ends the typical arbitrary spending which violates the integrity of the federal budget process, I have no choice but to highlight the practice of adding and earmarking funds for programs and activities that appear to serve narrowly tailored interests at the expense of the national interest. Even in this time of an unprecedented budget surplus, we have a responsibility to the American public to exercise fiscal responsibility and discretion rather than allowing this type of unchecked spending to continue. It is shameful the way we are squandering the public's trust and money, and it will be the burden of the taxpayers to shell out the $280 million for needless and wasteful spending included in this bill. The list of objectionable provisions in this bill that I compiled is more than 19 pages long and is unfortunately too lengthy to print in the Record. However, the list is available from my Senate office.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, may I ask a brief question. The majority leader discussed with me earlier, off the floor, about the possibility of bringing up the NCAA prohibition of betting on college sports. This bill was passed overwhelmingly through the committee after hearings. Every college coach in America is committed to this proposition that betting on college sports should stop. I would allege there would be a vote of 98-2 in this Senate, if it came to a vote. It is something I think we could get done. I think we could get it done quickly. Every college coach in America, the most respected men and women in America, are saying that these young people are tempted by this gambling and by this betting. It was a unanimous recommendation of the National Gaming Impact Study Commission. I hope that the majority leader and the Senator from South Dakota would enter into a time agreement so we could get this done and stop what every college coach in America is saying is an outstanding evil and temptation that needs to be removed from these young Americans who have been basically put in their charge. I hope the majority leader will consider, in consultation with the Democratic leader, that we bring this bill up, get it passed, and get it on the President's desk.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. In conclusion, I would like to emphasize the importance of enacting meaningful improvements for active duty and Reserve members. They risked their lives to defend our shores and preserve democracy and we can not thank them enough for their service. But we can pay them more, improve the benefits for their families, and support the Reserve Components in a similar manner as the active forces. We must ensure that the critical amendments that I have outlined survive the Conference process and are enacted into law. Our servicemembers past, present, and future need these improvements, and the bill that we passed today is just one step on the road to reform. Exhibit 1

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 2549, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2001. Included in the bill that passed today are several amendments that will significantly improve the lives of active duty members, reservists, military retirees, veterans, and their families. These amendments greatly improved the version of the bill that came out of the Armed Services Committee. I had voted against reporting the bill out of the Committee because it did not include important measures for military personnel and neglected the issue of defense reform. The critical amendments that were included in the legislation that passed today will: remove servicemembers from food stamps; increase pay for mid-grade Petty Officers and Non-Commissioned Officers; assist disabled veterans in claims processing; restore retirement pay for disabled military retirees; provide survivor benefit plan enhancements; authorize a low-cost life insurance plan for spouses and their children; enhance benefits and retirement pay for Reservists and National Guardsmen; authorize back-pay for certain WWII Navy and Marine Corps Prisoners of War; and provide for significant acquisition reform by eliminating domestic source restrictions on the procurement of shipyard cranes. One of the areas of greatest concern among military retirees and their families is the ``broken promise'' of lifetime medical care, especially for those over age 65. While the Committee had included some key health care provisions, it failed to meet the most important requirement, the restoration of this broken promise. With severe recruitment and retention problems still looming, we must better compensate our mid-grade enlisted servicemembers who are critical to leading the junior enlisted force. We have significantly underpaid enlisted servicemembers since the beginning of the All- Volunteer Force. The value of the mid-grade NCO pay, compared to that of the most junior enlisted, has dropped 50% since the All-Volunteer Force was enacted by Congress in 1973. This pay provision for the mid- grade enlisted ranks, up to $700 per year, plus the food stamp pay provision of an additional $180 per month for junior enlisted servicemembers, provides a significant increase in pay for enlisted servicemembers. The National Guard and Reserves have become a larger percentage of the Total Force and are essential partners in a wide range of military operations. Due to the higher deployment rates of the active duty forces, the Reserve Components are being called upon more frequently and for longer periods of time than ever before. We must stop treating them like a ``second-class'' force. I would like to emphasize the importance of enacting meaningful improvements for our servicemembers, their families and their survivors. They risk their lives to protect our freedom and preserve democracy. We should compensate them adequately, improve the benefits to their families and survivors, and enhance the quality of life for the Reserves and National Guard in a similar manner as the active forces. Each year the number of disabled veterans appealing their health care cases continues to increase. It is Congress' duty to ensure that the disability claims process is less complex, less burdensome, and more efficient. Likewise, we should restore retirement pay for disabled military retirees. I would also like to point out that this year's defense authorization bill contained over $1.9 billion in pork-- unrequested add-ons to the defense budget that robs our military of vital funding on priority issues. While this year's total is less than previous years' it is still $1.9 billion too much. We need to, and can do better. I ask that the detailed list of pork on this bill be included in the Congressional Record following my remarks.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 2549, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2001. Included in the bill that passed today are several amendments that will significantly improve the lives of active duty members, reservists, military retirees, veterans, and their families. These amendments greatly improved the version of the bill that came out of the Armed Services Committee. I had voted against reporting the bill out of the Committee because it did not include important measures for military personnel and neglected the issue of defense reform. The critical amendments that were included in the legislation that passed today will: remove servicemembers from food stamps; increase pay for mid-grade Petty Officers and Non-Commissioned Officers; assist disabled veterans in claims processing; restore retirement pay for disabled military retirees; provide survivor benefit plan enhancements; authorize a low-cost life insurance plan for spouses and their children; enhance benefits and retirement pay for Reservists and National Guardsmen; authorize back-pay for certain WWII Navy and Marine Corps Prisoners of War; and provide for significant acquisition reform by eliminating domestic source restrictions on the procurement of shipyard cranes. One of the areas of greatest concern among military retirees and their families is the ``broken promise'' of lifetime medical care, especially for those over-age 65. While the Committee had included some key health care provisions, it failed to meet the most important requirement, the restoration of this broken promise. With severe recruitment and retention problems still looming, we must better compensate our mid-grade enlisted servicemembers who are critical to leading the junior enlisted force. We have significantly underpaid enlisted servicemembers since the beginning of the All-Volunteer Force. The value of the mid-grade NCO pay, compared to that of the most junior enlisted, has dropped 50 percent since the All-Volunteer Force was enacted by Congress in 1973. This pay provision for the mid-grade enlisted ranks, up to $700 per year, plus the food stamp pay provision of an additional $180 per month for junior enlisted servicemembers, provides a significant increase in pay for enlisted servicemembers. The National Guard and Reserves have become a larger percentage of the Total Force and are essential partners in a wide range of military operations. Due to the higher deployment rates of the active duty forces, the Reserve Components are being called upon more frequently and for longer periods of time than ever before. We must stop treating them like a ``second-class'' force. I would like to emphasize the importance of enacting meaningful improvements for our servicemembers, their families and their survivors. They risk their lives to protect our freedom and preserve democracy. We should compensate them adequately, improve the benefits to their families and survivors, and enhance the quality of life for the Reserves and National Guard in a similar manner as the active forces. Each year the number of disabled veterans appealing their health care cases continues to increase. It is Congress' duty to ensure that the disability claims process is less complex, less burdensome, and more efficient. Likewise, we should restore retirement pay for disabled military retirees. I would also like to point out that this year's defense authorization bill contained over $1.9 Billion in pork-- unrequested add-ons to the defense budget that robs our military of vital funding on priority issues. While this year's total is less than previous years' it is still $1.9 Billion too much. We need to, and can do better. I ask that the detailed list of Pork on this bill be included in the Congressional Record following my remarks. In conclusion, I would like to emphasize the importance of enacting meaningful improvements for active duty and Reserve members. They risked their lives to defend our shores and preserve democracy and we can not thank them enough for their service. But we can pay them more, improve the benefits for their families, and support the Reserve Components in a similar manner as the active forces. We must ensure that the critical amendments that I have outlined survive the Conference process and are enacted into law. Our servicemembers past, present, and future need these improvements, and the bill that we passed today is just one step on the road to reform.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I object.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to address the Senate once again on the subject of military construction projects added to an appropriations bill that were not requested by the Department of Defense. The bill that passed by voice vote prior to the July 4th recess contains more than $1.5 billion in unrequested military construction projects. More importantly, I would like to spend a few minutes discussing Congress's role in the budget process and its utter lack of fiscal discipline. There is $4.5 billion in pork-barrel spending in this bill, $3.3 billion of that total in the so-called ``emergency supplemental.'' Webster's, Mr. President, defines ``emergency'' as ``a sudden, generally unexpected occurrence or set of circumstances demanding immediate action.'' What we have here is the antithesis of that concept. It is highly questionable whether $20 million for abstinence education should be included in a bill the purpose of which is to provide emergency funding that will not count against budget caps. For months this body made a deliberate decision not to act quickly and deliberately with regard to legitimate spending issues involving military readiness and the crisis in Colombia. The decision was made not to treat these essential and time-sensitive activities as expeditiously as possible. Now, after many months and seemingly endless legislative maneuvering, we were presented with an $11 billion bill replete with earmarks that under no credible criteria should be categorized as ``emergency''--and this is in addition to the over $1.5 billion added to the underlying military construction appropriations bill for strictly parochial reasons. As everyone here is aware, I regularly review spending bills for items that were not requested by the Administration, constitute earmarks designed to benefit specific projects or localities, and did not go through a competitive, merit-based selection process. I submit lists of such items to the Congressional Record, generally prior to final passage of the spending bill in question. In the case of the Military Construction bill for fiscal year 2001, I submitted such a list, along with a statement critical of the process by which that bill was put together, particularly the over $700 million worth of military construction projects added to that bill that were not requested by the Department of Defense--an amount, I reiterate, that was doubled in conference with the other Body. This is an institution that has proven itself incapable of passing legislation on an expedited basis that genuinely warrants the categorization of ``emergency.'' Funding for ongoing military operations that strains readiness accounts is a case in point. The one thing, Mr. President, we can pass without hesitation and consideration is money for pork-barrel projects. Just prior to final passage back in May of the Military Construction appropriations bill, the Appropriations Committee pushed through $460 million for six new C-130J aircraft for the Coast Guard--the very aircraft that we throw money at with wanton abandon as though our very existence as an institution is dependent upon the continued acquisition of that aircraft. That funding and those aircraft are in the bill that emerged from conference with the House. A consensus exists, apparently, that we must have six more C-130Js in addition to the ones added to the defense appropriations bill despite a surplus in the Department of Defense of C-130 airframes that should see us through to the next millennium and beyond. And this, Mr. President, despite the General Accounting Office's finding, based upon the Coast Guard's own study, that the service's existing fleet of HC-130s will not need to be replaced until 2012-2027. And this, Mr. President, despite an ongoing Coast Guard- directed study designed to determine precisely what types and numbers of aircraft and surface vessels it will require in the future. Message to parents saving up for little junior's college education: invest in the stock of the company that makes C-130s; the United States Congress will ensure your offsprinq never need student loans. Compared to the $460 million for the C-130s, it hardly seems worth it to mention the $45 million added to this emergency spending measure for yet another Gulfstream jet, other than to point out that it is manufactured in the same state as the C-130s. The decision to include funding for this jet, intended for the Coast Guard commandant, an emergency spending bill lends further credence to the notion that our interest in the integrity of the budget process is nonexistent. It was reassuring that a compromise was reached on the issue of helicopters for Colombia. It is extremely unfortunate, however, that an issue of life and death for Colombian soldiers being sent into combat to fight well-armed drug traffickers and the 15,000-strong guerrilla army that protects them was predicated upon parochial considerations. Valid operational reasons existed for the decision by the Department of Defense and the Colombian Government to request Blackhawk helicopters, and the Senate's decision to substitute those Blackhawks for Huey IIs was among the more morally questionable actions I have witnessed within the narrow realm of budgetary decision-making by Congress. Specific to the Military Construction Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001, it continues to strain credibility to peruse this legislation and believe that considerations other than pork were at play. How else to explain the millions of dollars added to this bill for National Guard Armories, which, in a typically Orwellian gesture, are now referred to as ``Readiness Centers?'' Whether the $6.4 million added for a new dining facility at Sheppard Air Force Base: the $12 million for a new fitness center at Langley Air Force Base; the $5.8 million for a joint personnel training center at Fairchild Air Force Base, Alaska; the $3.5 million added for an indoor rifle range and $1.8 million for a religious ministry facility at the Naval Reserve Station in Fort Worth, Texas; the $4 million added for the New Hampshire Air National Guard Pease International Trade Port; the $4 million for a Kentucky National Guard parking structure; and the $14 million added for New York National Guard facilities all constitute vital spending initiatives is highly questionable. There are one-and-a-half billion dollars worth of projects added to this bill at member request. Not all of them, in particular family housing projects, warrant criticism or skepticism. There are important quality of life issues involved here. The public should be under no illusions, however, that over a billion dollars was added to this bill solely as a manifestation of Congress' unrestrained pursuit of pork. As mentioned, far more disturbing than the pork added to the military construction bill is the damage done to the integrity of the budget process by the abuse of the concept of emergency spending. Permit me to quote from the opening sentence from the Washington Post of June 29 with regard to this bill: ``Republicans are trying to grease the skids for passage of a large emergency spending bill for Colombia and Kosovo with $200 million of `special projects' for members, and one of the biggest winners is a renegade Democrat being courted by the GOP.'' That, Mr. President, summarizes the process pretty well. Military readiness and the situation in Colombia are not in and of themselves important enough to warrant support for this spending bill. It seems this Senate must have its pork. It must have its $25 million for a Customs Service training facility at Harpers Ferry, West Virginia, a site most certainly chosen for its bucolic charm and operational attributes rather than for parochial reasons. It must have its $225,000 for the Nebraska State Patrol Digital Distance Learning project. It must have over $3 million earmarked for anti-doping activities at the 2002 Olympics, in addition to the $8 million for Defense Department support of these essential national security activities on the ski slopes of Utah. It must have $300,000 for Indian tribes in North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana and Minnesota. The hard-working taxpayers of America deserve better. Those of us who had the misfortune of witnessing one of the most disgraceful and blatant explosions of pork-barrel spending in the annals of modern American parliamentary history, the ISTEA bill of 1998, should be astounded to see the projects funded in this emergency spending bill: $1.2 million for the Paso Del Norte International Bridge in Texas; $9 million for the US 82 Mississippi River Bridge in Mississippi; $2 million for the Union Village/Cambridge Junction bridges in Vermont; $5 million for the Naheola Bridge in Alabama; $3 million for the Hoover Dam Bypass in Arizona and Nevada; $3 million for the Witt-Penn Bridge in New Jersey; and $12 million for the Florida Memorial Bridge in Florida. These, Mr. President, are but the tip of the iceberg--an iceberg that shall not stand in the way of the icebreaker added to this bill, albeit for more credible reasons than the vast majority of member add-ons. As I stated earlier, tracking the process by which the bill came before us was a truly Byzantine experience. The addition of $600,000 for the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System in South Dakota serves as sort of a tribute to the unusual path down which this legislation has traveled. The most skilled legislative adventurers would be hard pressed to follow the trail this bill followed before arriving at its destination here on the floor of the Senate. I cannot emphasize enough the significance of piling billions of dollars in pork and unrequested earmarks into a bill that was categorized for budgetary purposes as ``emergency.'' Consider the distinction between emergency spending essential for the preservation of liberty and to deal with genuine emergencies that cannot wait for the usual annual appropriations process, and the manner in which Congress abuses that concept and undermines the integrity of the budgeting process. When I review an emergency spending measure and read earmarks like $2.2 million for the Anchorage, Alaska Senior Center; $500,000 for the Shedd Aquarium/Brookfield Zoo for science education programs for local school students; $1 million for the Center for Research on Aging at Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center in Chicago; and $8 million for the City of Libby in Montana, plus another $3.5 million for the Saint John's Lutheran Hospital in Libby, I am more than a little perplexed about the propriety of our actions here. Is the American public expected to believe that a spending bill essential for national security should include emergency funding for Dungeness fishing vessel crew members, U.S. fish processors in Alaska, and the Buy N Pack Seafoods processor in Hoonah, Alaska, research and education relating to the North Pacific marine ecosystem, and the lease, operation and upgrading of facilities at the Alaska SeaLife Center, and the $7 million for observer coverage for the Hawaiian long- line fishery and to study interaction with sea turtles in the North Pacific. Finally, and not to belabor the point, is the $1 million for the State of Alaska to develop a cooperative research plan to restore the crab fishery truly a national security imperative? When the bill was on the floor of the Senate, my friend and colleague from Texas, Senator Gramm, referred to the sadly typical smoke and mirrors budgeting gimmickrey pervasive in the legislation. I am always disturbed when such budgeting gimmicks designed to prevent Congress from complying with the revenue and spending levels agreed to in the Budget Resolution are employed. While I am grateful that a deal was struck by which they will be reversed in another bill, the use of such gimmicks is a betrayal of our responsibility to spend the taxpayers' dollars responsibly and enact laws and policies that reflect the best interests of all Americans. It is a betrayal of the public trust that is essential to a working democracy. The bill, as currently written and signed into law, waives the budget caps to allow for more discretionary spending. It also waived the firewall in the budget resolution between defense and nondefense spending on outlays. The end result would be that Congress would have the freedom to move the $2.6 billion the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee did not spend on much-needed readiness into non-defense spending. The recently-passed legislation further changes current law and shifts the payment date for SSI, the Supplemental Security Income program, from October back to September. What that would do is shift money into fiscal year 2000. In the process, it would allow $2.4 billion more be spent in fiscal year 2001 by spending that same amount of money in the previous year. The legislation also includes the gimmick of moving the pay date for veterans' compensation and pensions from fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2000. Both of these provisions are further examples of the irresponsible budget gimmickry that allows the Congress to spend more without any accountability. I am thankful that a commitment was made to reverse these decisions in subsequent legislation; I abhor the fact that they will almost certainly be used again in the future. To conclude, the Military Construction and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill passed prior to recess, and without members of the Senate having a realistic opportunity to review that multibillion dollar commitment, is a travesty, a thorough slap in the face of all Americans concerned about fiscal responsibility, national security, the scourge of drugs on our streets, and the integrity of the representation they send to Congress. We should be ashamed of ourselves for passing this bill. Unfortunately, shame continues to elude us, and the country, and our democracy, is poorer for that flaw in our collective character.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I ask the majority leader to yield to me for a comment.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I say to the majority leader, we are now doing what we usually do when a pork barrel bill is before us; that is, that national defense and national security are at risk; we will have to withdraw from Kosovo; it will be the end of Western civilization as we know it. We already have something from the Pentagon that says we will have to shut down unit training during the month of September, blah, blah, blah. So even though in this bill we have, for example, under Kosovo and other national security, Olympic Games support; and even though in the name of ``emergency'' we have a Coast Guard acquisition of a $45 million Gulfstream for the Commandant of the Coast Guard--and I would be glad to pay for his first-class airfare while he awaits that emergency, to help him ride out the emergency situation, even though we have $10 million for the Bering Sea crab disaster, $10 million for a Northeast fishery, $7 million for a Hawaii fishery, and $5 million for an Alaska Sea Life Center. We have covered a good part of those for senior members of the Appropriations Committee who have a coastline. These are all done in the name of an emergency. I will ask unanimous consent that we take up and pass without objection all of those, including this ``dire emergency'' concerning the Olympic Games support and what is contained in the Kosovo and other national security portions of this bill--I would agree to a unanimous consent agreement that it be taken up and passed, and that the rest of this bill, which is incredibly full of unnecessary, unwanted, unauthorized, unmitigated pork be debated. There are 47 points of order that can be lodged under this appropriations bill. What do we want to do? We want to take a $19 billion appropriations bill and pass it by voice vote just because we want to go home for the Fourth of July. I ask unanimous consent that we take the fiscal year 2000 appropriations title I on Kosovo and other national security defense and pass it, and that we take up the rest of this bill for debate on points of order when we return after the recess.

Mr. McCAIN. Yes, I do.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to address the Senate once again on the subject of military construction projects added to an appropriations bill that were not requested by the Department of Defense. This bill contains more than $1.5 billion in unrequested military construction projects. More importantly, I would like to spend a few minutes discussing the thorough perversion of the budget process by Congress in its relentless pursuit of the other white meat. There is $4.5 billion in pork-barrel spending in this bill, $3.3 billion of that total in the so-called ``emergency supplemental.'' Webster's, Mr. President, defines ``emergency'' as ``a sudden, generally unexpected occurrence or set of circumstances demanding immediate action.'' What we have here is the antithesis of that concept. It is ironic that the emergency spending bill before us today includes $20 million for abstinence education, because the taxpayers are really getting screwed. For months the leadership of this body made a deliberate decision not to act quickly and deliberately with regard to legitimate spending issues involving military readiness and the crisis in Colombia. The decision was made not to treat these essential and time-sensitive activities as expeditiously as possible. Now, after many months and a legislative trail more complicated and illogical than any Rube Goldberg contraption, we are presented with an $11 billion bill replete with earmarks that under no credible criteria should be categorized as ``emergency''--and this is in addition to the over $1.5 billion added to the underlying military construction appropriations bill for strictly parochial reasons. Mr. President, as everyone here is aware, I regularly review spending bills for items that were not requested by the Administration, constitute earmarks designed to benefit specific projects or localities, and did not go through a competitive, merit-based selection process. I submit lists of such items to the Congressional Record, generally prior to final passage of the spending bill in question. In the case of the Military Construction bill for fiscal year 2001, I submitted such a list, along with a statement critical of the process by which that bill was put together, particularly the over $700 million worth of military construction projects added to that bill that were not requested by the Department of Defense--an amount, I reiterate, that was doubled in conference with the rarely fiscally responsible other Body. This is an institution that has proven itself incapable of passing legislation on an expedited basis that genuinely warrants the categorization of ``emergency.'' Funding for ongoing military operations that strains readiness accounts is a case in point. The one thing, Mr. President, we can pass without hesitation and consideration is money for pork-barrel projects. Just prior to final passage back in May of the Military Construction appropriations bill, the Appropriations Committee pushed through $460 million for six new C-130J aircraft for the Coast Guard--the very aircraft that we throw money at with wanton abandon as though our very existence as an institution is dependent upon the continued acquisition of that aircraft. That funding and those aircraft are in the bill that emerged from conference with the House. A consensus exists, apparently, that we must have six more C-l3OJs in addition to the ones added to the defense appropriations bill despite a surplus in the Department of Defense of C-130 airframes that should see us through to the next millennium and beyond. Message to parents saving up for little junior's college education: invest in the stock of the company that makes C-130s; the United States Congress will ensure your offsprinq never need student loans. Compared to the $460 million for the C-130s, it hardly seems worth it to mention the $25 million added to this emergency spending measure for yet another Gulfstream jet, other than to point out that it is manufactured in the same state as the C-130s. It was reassuring that a compromise was reached on the issue of helicopters for Colombia. It is extremely unfortunate, however, that an issue of life and death for Colombian soldiers being sent into combat to fight well-armed drug traffickers and the 15,000-strong guerrilla army that protects them was predicated upon parochial considerations. Valid operational reasons existed for the decision by the Department of Defense and the Colombian Government to request Blackhawk helicopters, and the Senate's decision to substitute those Blackhawks for Huey IIs was among the more morally reprehensible actions I have witnessed within the narrow realm of budgetary decision-making by Congress. Specific to the Military Construction Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001, it continues to strain credibility to peruse this legislation and believe that considerations other than pork were at play. How else to explain the millions of dollars added to this bill for National Guard Armories, which, in a typically Orwellian gesture, are now referred to as ``Readiness Centers?'' Whether the $6.4 million added for a new dining facility at Sheppard Air Force Base: the $12 million for a new fitness center at Langley Air Force Base; the $5.8 million for a joint personnel training center at Fairchild Air Force Base, Alaska; the $3.5 million added for an indoor rifle range and $1.8 million for a religious ministry facility at the Naval Reserve Station in Fort Worth, Texas; the $4 million added for the New Hampshire Air National Guard Pease International Trade Port; the $4 million for a Kentucky National Guard parking structure; and the $14 million added for New York National Guard facilities all constitute vital spending initiatives is highly questionable. Mr. President, there are one-and-a-half billion dollars worth of projects added to this bill at member request. Not all of them, in particular family housing projects warrant criticism or skepticism. There are important quality of life issues involved here. The public should be under no illusions, however, that over a billion dollars was added to this bill solely as a manifestation of Congress' naked pursuit of pork. As mentioned, far more disturbing than the pork added to the military construction bill is the damage done to the integrity of the budget process by the abuse of the concept of emergency spending. Permit me to quote from the opening sentence from the Washington Post of June 29 with regard to this bill: ``Republicans are trying to grease the skids for passage of a large emergency spending bill for Colombia and Kosovo with $200 million of 'special projects' for members, and one of the biggest winners is a renegade Democrat being courted by the GOP.'' That, Mr. President, summarizes the process pretty well. Military readiness and the situation in Colombia are not in and of themselves important enough to warrant support for this spending bill; we must have our pork. We must have our $25 million for a Customs Service training facility at Harpers Ferry, West Virginia, a site most certainly chosen for its bucolic charm and operational attributes rather than for parochial reasons. We must have our $225,000 for the Nebraska State Patrol Digital Distance Learning project. We must have over $3 million earmarked for anti-doping activities at the 2002 Olympics, in addition to the $8 million for Defense Department support of these essential national security activities on the ski slopes of Utah. We must have $300,000 for Indian tribes in North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana and Minnesota. Those of us who had the misfortune of witnessing one of the most disgraceful and blatant explosions of pork-barrel spending in the annals of modern American parliamentary history, the ISTEA bill of 1998, should be astounded to see the projects funded in this emergency spending bill: $1.2 million for the Paso Del Norte International Bridge in Texas; $9 million for the US 82 Mississippi River Bridge in Mississippi; $2 million for the Union Village/Cambridge Junction bridges in Vermont; $5 million for the Naheola Bridge in Alabama; $3 million for the Hoover Dam Bypass in Arizona and Nevada; $3 million for the Witt-Penn Bridge in New Jersey; and $12 million for the Florida Memorial Bridge in Florida. These, Mr. President, are but a tip of the iceberg--an iceberg that shall not stand in the way of the icebreaker added to this bill, albeit for more credible reasons than the vast majority of member-adds. As I stated earlier, tracking the process by which this bill comes before us today has been a truly Byzantine experience. The addition of $600,000 for the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System in South Dakota serves as sort of a tribute to the unusual path down which this legislation has traveled. The most skilled legislative adventurers would be hard pressed to follow the trail this bill followed before arriving at its destination here today. I cannot emphasize the significance of piling billions of dollars in pork and unrequested earmarks into a bill that we have categorized for budgetary purposes as ``emergency.'' Consider the distinction between emergency spending essential for the preservation of liberty and to deal with genuine emergencies that cannot wait for the usual annual appropriations process, and the manner in which Congress abuses that concept and undermines the integrity of the budgeting process. When I review an emergency spending measure and read earmarks like $2.2 million for the Anchorage, Alaska Senior Center; $500,000 for the Shedd Aquarium/Brookfield Zoo for science education programs for local school students; $1 million for the North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System in Long Island, New York; $1 million for the Center for Research on Aging at Rush-Presbyterian--St. Luke's Medical Center in Chicago; and $8 million for the City of Libby in Montana, plus another $3.5 million for the Saint John's Lutheran Hospital in Libby, I am more than a little perplexed about the propriety of our actions here. Is the American public expected to believe that what the chairman of the Appropriations Committee calls a ``must-pass bill'' essential for national security should include emergency funding for Dungeness fishing vessel crew members, U.S. fish processors in Alaska, and the Buy N Pack Seafoods--how do you, Mr. President, even write that bill language with a straight face--processor in Hoonah, Alaska, research and education relating to the North Pacific marine ecosystem, and the lease, operation and upgrading of facilities at the Alaska SeaLife Center, and the $7 million for observer coverage for the Hawaiian long- line fishery and to study interaction with sea turtles in the North Pacific. Finally, and not to belabor the point, is the $1 million for the State of Alaska to develop a cooperative research plan to restore the crab fishery truly a national security imperative? My friend and colleague from Texas, Senator Gramm, has referred to the sadly typical smoke and mirrors budgeting gimmickrey pervasive in this bill. I am disturbed by these budgeting gimmicks designed to prevent Congress from complying with the revenue and spending levels agreed to in the Budget Resolution. This bill is a betrayal of our responsibility to spend the taxpayers' dollars responsibly and enact laws and policies that reflect the best interests of all Americans. For example, this bill waives the budget caps to allow for more discretionary spending. This bill also waived the firewall in the budget resolution between defense and nondefense spending on outlays. The end result is that this gives the Senate Appropriations Committee the freedom to move the $2.6 billion the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee did not spend on much-needed readiness into non-defense spending. This bill further changes current law and shifts the payment date for SSI, the Supplemental Security Income program, from October back to September. What that does is shift money into fiscal year 2000. In the process, it allows $2.4 billion more be spent in fiscal year 2001 by spending that same amount of money in the previous year. This bill also uses the gimmick of moving the pay date for veterans' compensation and pensions from fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2000. Both of these provisions are further examples of the irresponsible budget gimmickry that allows the Congress to spend more without any accountability. Mr. President, to conclude, this bill is a travesty, a thorough slap in the face of all Americans concerned about fiscal responsibility, national security, the scourge of drugs on our streets, and the integrity of the representation they send to Congress. We should be ashamed of ourselves for passing this bill--a bill that members of the Senate had no time to review despite misleading statements to the contrary voiced on the floor of the Senate. Unfortunately, shame continues to elude us, and the country is poorer for that flaw in our collective character. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the list of unrequested items.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska. I obviously am disturbed about much that was put into this legislation. But I see a $6 billion savings here. So I think it is a reasonable compromise. I intend to put in the Record as well as on my web site and many other places some of the really egregious projects that are in this bill. At the same time, this significant savings I think is a very important move. I will not object.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this appropriation bill contains funding for many critical and quite frankly, essential programs benefitting many segments of our society. This appropriation vehicle supplies important funding directly benefiting American families and senior citizens while also providing important assistance to our most important resource, our children. This appropriation bill provides funding for helping states and local communities educate our children. Additionally, it provides the necessary funds for supporting our scientists dedicated to finding treatments, if not cures, for many of the illnesses which plague our nation. This bill also provides funds for ensuring our nation's most vulnerable--our children, seniors and disabled have access to quality health care. In addition, it provides the monetary support for important programs assisting working families needing assistance with child care, adult day care for elderly seniors and Meals on Wheels. These are many important programs funded through this bill that help so many vulnerable citizens that I am even more frustrated to find this bill laden with directives and accounting gimmicks. I am particularly disappointed that this bill redirects $1.9 billion from the State Children's Health Insurance Program, S-CHIP, to assist in funding other programs and projects. This is simply wrong and is nothing more than an accounting gimmick at the expense of the health of America's children. In addition, I am concerned about the significant reduction in Social Services Block Grant, SSBG. I applaud the committee for including very few specific funding earmarks but am distressed about the extensive list of directives that have been included. It is apparent that the plethora of directives and strong committee language are intended to camouflage the number of specific projects that are being provided special consideration and bypassing the appropriate competitive funding process. The list of set asides contained in this bill are so extensive that I will not burden the chamber with listening to me list each one individually. Instead, I will highlight just a few of the violations of the appropriate budgetary review process. These include: Language encouraging consideration of efforts by the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Health System, UPMC-HS, to implement a state- of-the-art Health System wide project to electronically store and provide all clinical and administrative information in a secure and automated manner. Language encouraging additional funds for the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in the southwestern corner of South Dakota which has a high incidence of alcohol addition. Language encouraging consideration of a program at the Center Point, Inc. which provides low-cost, comprehensive drug and alcohol services to high risk families and individuals in the San Francisco Bay area. Language directing consideration of sufficient funds to continue West Virginia's Injury Control Training and Demonstration Center at the same level as last year. Language directing consideration of the Lewis and Clark College's Life of the Mind Education initiative that develop an educational programming celebrating the 200th anniversary of the Lewis and Clark expedition and the Louisiana purchase. The Committee is aware of the following projects that it encourages the Department of Labor to consider supporting: Workforce Training and Retraining for dislocated and incumbent workers in real manufacturing environment--University of Albany, NY. Workforce Development project to retain older incumbent workers for Montana workforce--Montana State University, Billings. University of Alaska/Ketchikan Shipyards training program for shipyard workers. State of New Mexico--telecommunications job training for dislocated workers. Clemson University, retraining of tobacco farmers. While each of these programs may be just and deserving of funding it is appalable that these funds are specifically earmarked and not subject to the appropriate competitive grant process. I am confident that there are many facilities, health organizations, and educational sites around the nation needing financial assistance for their particular programs who are not fortunate enough to have an advocate in the Appropriation process to ensure that their funding is earmarked in this funding bill. This is wrong and does a disservice to all Americans. Mr. President, so many important programs including those impacting the health and education of our nation depends on the support provided through this bill and yet, we have diluted the positive impact of these programs by siphoning away funds for specific projects or communities which are fortunate enough to have representation on the Appropriation committee. We must find the courage to discard the spending gimmicks and earmarks contained in this bill during conference and provide the much needed financial support for education, work training, children, health care, research and senior programs.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded so that I may speak as in morning business.