John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield to me for one question?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, in response to the Senator from Utah, the argument I made both on my web site and today is that I believe that part of the problem--indeed, a key ingredient of wasteful spending and special interest tax breaks--is the effect of soft money on the legislative process. Not that every bit of pork that Members secure is caused by soft money, but in the aggregate, wasteful spending is caused by, among other things, soft money. Let me offer my colleagues a definition of ``corruption'' from Webster's dictionary. Corruption: The impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle. Note, this definition does not say that corruption occurs only when laws are broken. I have already cited, as has the Senator from Wisconsin, the large amount of soft money given to both parties by various industries and the aggregate amount of tax breaks those industries receive. I believe, even if some of my colleagues do not, that these amounts have impaired our integrity. I believe that as strongly as I believe anything. Unlimited amounts of money given to political campaigns have impaired our integrity as political parties and as a legislative institution. As the Senator from Wisconsin has noted, we are not accusing Members of violating Federal bribery statutes. No, we are here because there no longer is a law controlling the vast amounts of money that I believe are impairing our integrity. In the immortal words of the Vice President: ``There is no controlling legal authority.'' I watched very closely as the 1996 telecommunications deregulation bill became everything but deregulatory and led to far less competition than it was intended to engender and the consequent increase in cable rates, telephone rates, et cetera. I believe soft money played some role in that; again, not in a way that fits within a legal definition of ``bribery,'' but in a way the vast majority of Americans believe is an impairment of our integrity, and I include myself in that indictment. That is the problem I am trying to address in this legislation and no attack, no amount of head-in-the-sand pretense that soft money does not affect legislation will cause me to desist in my efforts. I will close with one observation. If special interests did not believe their millions of dollars in donations buy them special consideration in the legislative process, then those special interests that have a fiduciary responsibility to their stockholders would not give us that money, would they? Those interests enjoy greater influence here than the working men and women who cannot buy our attention but are sometimes affected adversely by the laws we pass. To me that seems to be a good working definition of the impairment of our integrity which, as I noted, is Webster's definition of ``corruption.'' My question to the Senator from Tennessee is, indeed, is there anything that would be a violation of law that we do in any way in our pursuit of money today?

Mr. McCAIN. It should be against the law. The point is, apparently it is not because Mr. Tamraz was not prosecuted, at least under this Justice Department.

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

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will say to my colleague from California I will be very brief on my statement on the amendment. I know she has been waiting a long time and has shown patience. I will be brief on this amendment because I know she wants to speak on this important issue. I will take about 2 minutes to explain the amendment. Mr. President, the amendment is simple. It simply calls for greater disclosure of campaign funds. I begin this discussion by noting this is not an original idea. It is language borrowed directly from legislation offered in the House of Representatives by our colleague, Congressman Doolittle. Specifically, this amendment requires campaign contribution disclosures made by political committees under State or local law to also be submitted to the FEC. Additionally, all campaign contributions made to political committees within 90 days of an election must be reported within 24 hours of receipt and the campaign contribution reports then be made available on the Internet by the FEC. These provisions ensure the public knows who is contributing to campaigns in the closing days of an election and how much is being contributed. These added protections will allow the voting public to decide for themselves whether a campaign or an election is being unduly influenced by special interests. I do not think these disclosure provisions will pose any unnecessary hardship on political parties or committees. This amendment provides simply for additional information about State and local elections to be made available quickly through the Internet and by the FEC. It ensures a common data bank of information about contributions so that interested voters can get updated information in one place and, as an election draws near, with close to realtime disclosures. I firmly believe the public has a right to know, and tighter disclosure requirements will provide important information to the voters which will allow each voter to draw his or her conclusion about whether the effect of the contribution is--dare I say it? --corruption. But unlike the Doolittle bill, I believe these provisions add to the underlying bill and should not be considered a substitute. The amendment makes the bill better, and I hope my colleagues will support it. In summary, the Internet has done enormously beneficial things. As far as the political process is concerned, it has provided a tremendous way for us to receive on-time information. We can, hopefully, utilize this incredible technological marvel to allow Americans who are interested to know literally within 24 hours of a contribution whom it was from and the amount of it. I also believe we can do the same thing at a later time on expenditures as well because the Internet has provided us a great opportunity. Knowledge and information is obviously power and will help our voters understand the issues to make a more informed judgment. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wish to take a minute before my colleague from Wisconsin speaks for the purpose of asking unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the American Bar Association and a letter from the League of Women Voters. I so ask.

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. McCAIN. Parliamentary inquiry: Will the Chair illuminate me on whose time is being used at this time and whose time is remaining so I might understand the parliamentary situation?

Mr. McCAIN. The Senator from Washington is speaking.

Mr. McCAIN. I am sorry to interrupt the Senator from Washington, but I don't quite understand.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chair, and I thank the Senator from Washington.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I give due credit to the conferees for their hard work to complete action on the Agriculture Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000 which supports the nation's farming economy and federal programs through the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). This year's agriculture appropriations bill is also intended to provide needed government aid to farmers and their families who have suffered critical losses due to severe drought and difficult market conditions. However, with much regret, I must vote against this legislation. I have several concerns with this final conference agreement. First, it contains $253 million in earmarks and set-asides for towns, universities, research institutes, and a myriad of other entities that were included in this bill without consideration in the normal merit- based review process. This is $82 million more than was included in the Senate version of the bill. Clearly, the House had to get its turn at the trough. For example, $1.75 million is provided for manure handling and distribution in five states, including Mississippi, Iowa, Nebraska, Texas and Arizona. Why these five states have a monopoly on manure problems in our nation is not adequately explained in this report, nor is a rationale provided as to why an earmark of $200,000 is provided for sunflower research in Fargo, North Dakota. Unless weather conditions are anticipated to change dramatically, it is difficult to fathom why spending thousands of dollars on sunflower research in a state known for severe weather conditions is more critical than other farming emergencies. No other clear explanations are provided for earmarking $750,000 for the U.S. Plant Stress & Water Conservation Lab in Lubbock, Texas, as well as $1,000,000 for peanut quality research in Athens, GA; $500,000 for fish diseases in Auburn, AL; and, $64,000 for urban pests in Georgia. These may very well be meritorious projects, but I must question again why these specific projects and localities are singled out for direct earmarked funding rather than undergoing a competitive review. In addition to direct earmarked funding, the conferees have included very blatant directive language which singles out specific projects in various states for special consideration for grant funding, loans or technical assistance from USDA. With these actions, even the limited funding made available to USDA for competitive grant and loan assistance is not fairly distributed since the conferees have included such directives to steer the agency away from considering many other meritorious projects that are equally in need around the country. Another problem with this spending bill is the inclusion of language which provides for an exception for a single producer from the state of Nevada from pending federal milk marketing orders to be implemented by the USDA. This provision will exclude a single dairy producer in Clark County, Nevada from the proposed new Arizona/Las Vegas Marketing area when USDA's rules take effect, thereby preventing this single producer from competing fairly with the rest of the milk industry. As many of my colleagues are aware, there are few issues which cause as much controversy and divisiveness as proposed milk marketing restructuring proposals. Yet, without any debate, language was included in the Senate bill, without notice or debate, to protect this single dairy producer while the rest of the nation will be forced to comply. Retaining this provision in the conference report is a serious infraction of out obligation to treat all interests fairly and to abide by the Senate's rules which preclude legislation on appropriations bills except when approved by a super-majority. Mr. President, finally, I am concerned that this legislation contains $1.2 billion more than the Senate bill in emergency aid for farmers. The House bill contained no such funding at all. Late last year, the Congress provided $5.9 billion in emergency disaster assistance for farmers as part of the FY 1999 Omnibus Appropriations bill. Earlier this year, we provided another $574 million in the emergency supplemental appropriations bill. I opposed both of those bills, in part because the bills contained excessive amounts of pork-barrel spending but also because of the use of the ``emergency'' designation for large amounts of non-emergency purposes, some of which was included in the farmer aid package. While I understand and sympathize with the plight of America's farmers who face economic hardship due to a wide variety of natural disasters, I cannot support the designation of the entire $8.7 billion in assistance to farmers as an emergency. The Congress has certain rules that apply to its budget process. One of those rules states that, once a Senate-House conference convenes, negotiations are limited to only the funding and legislative provisions that exist in either bill. Adding funding that is outside the ``scope'' of the conference is not in order, nor is the inclusion of legislative provisions that were not in either the Senate- or House-passed bills. Once again, the appropriators have deviated from the established process in agreeing on the provisions in this conference report by adding another $1.2 billion in emergency funding to the bill--funding that was considered by neither the House nor the Senate--just the appropriators. That $1.2 billion for crop disaster loss payments that was added to the emergency farm aid package may very well be needed by some of our nation's farmers. But its inclusion at the last minute defeats the entire concept of fiscal responsibility, which is premised on the full Congress debating budget priorities, not just the appropriators. There were other last-minute add-ons in the conference which were not included in the Senate or House bill, including: $2 million for water and waste forgiveness loans; $15 million for Norton Sound Fisheries failure in Alaska; $56 million for administrative costs associated with managing emergency asssistance programs; and, an entirely new title to the bill, Title IX, which contains 25 pages of legislation to establish a new mandatory price reporting system for various livestock. While this legislation originated in the Senate, it was never called up for debate or a vote. This last provision was never offered as an amendment on the Senate floor during consideration of the Agriculture Appropriations bill, probably because it would have been ruled out of order since it is legislation that is not supposed to be included on an appropriations bill. Instead, it was simply inserted into the appropriations bill, behind closed doors, without debate. American taxpayers have to give up their hard-earned tax dollars to pay for these last-minute tactics by the Appropriations Committees. Clearly, Congress appears to favor spending that benefits the special interests of a few, rather than spend the taxpayers' dollars responsibly and enact laws and policies that reflect the best interests of all Americans. Let me state again that I support federal assistance for farmers and others in need, but only when decisions to spend tax dollars for such aid are considered fairly and truly help those in need. But when we continue the shameful and provincial practice of padding appropriations bills with excessive amounts of dubious emergency spending and special- interest pork-barrel projects, we are short-changing the taxpayers as well as our agricultural industry. This bill may help some farmers and producers who are truly in dire need of federal assistance, but we are harming those in the agriculture industry who are trying to follow established guidelines to qualify for other types of non-emergency assistance. This bill designates $8.7 billion as emergency spending for FY 2000-- money that can only come from the non-Social Security surplus. The Defense Appropriations bill contains another $7.2 billion in emergency spending, which I will also oppose. Together, we are spending almost $16 billion in emergency spending, but, Mr. President, the non-Social Security surplus is only estimated to be $14 billion. That means, pure and simple, that if we approve these two bills with their emergency funding, we will once again be dipping into the Social Security surplus to pay for the continued operations of the federal government. Already this year, the Senate has approved appropriations bills or conference agreements containing almost $10.5 billion in wasteful and unnecessary spending. Surely, among these billions of dollars, there are at least a few programs that we could all agree are lower priority than desperately needed aid for America's farmers. Surely, in the voluminous lists of billions of dollars of pork projects, there are a few that the Congress would be willing to give up to ensure that we not once again dip into the Social Security Trust Fund--a Fund financed by the payroll taxes of American workers who are counting on their money being available to help them through their retirement years. This bill demonstrates that the Congress cares more about taking care of special interests than it does about American families. It is the taxpayers who have to shoulder the burden to pay for the pork-barrel spending in this appropriations conference report and the others that will follow, and I will not vote to place that burden on American families. The full list I have compiled of the objectionable provisions in this final conference report will be available on my Senate webpage.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I mention to the majority leader it is now nearly 7:25 p.m. and at the request of the majority leader and the Senator from Kentucky, he wants to begin the debate and discussion on this very important issue. The agreement that the majority leader and I have is we will have 5 days of debate and discussion. I certainly hope he doesn't consider starting at 7:25 as a day of the debate and discussion. I ask him that. Second, this is a very important issue. Even the staff is gone. Most Members have gone. The Senate majority leader knows that. Tomorrow we have scheduled a DOD discussion and vote which would be the first interruption--although we have just gotten started--followed by a vote on the Department of Defense appropriations bill. That could have been scheduled tonight and the vote have taken place. I hope the majority leader will understand that I will not make an opening statement tonight. I will wait until tomorrow so I have the attention of my colleagues. If the Senator from Kentucky wants to make his statement, that is fine. I know from discussions with the Senator from Wisconsin he chooses to do the same thing. I don't think an issue such as this should be initiated at 7:30 in the evening. However, I want to assure Senator Lott that, once we have opening statements and once we get into the amending process and votes, I will be glad to stay as late as is necessary every night including all through the weekend, if necessary. I don't think it is appropriate for anyone to say we demand opening statements tonight on the issue, and then tomorrow morning we go back to another bill off of the issue at hand. I hope the majority leader, who has been very cooperative in helping me and has been very cooperative in bringing up this issue, understands my point of view on this particular issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, let me say to the majority leader, I am in deep and sincere appreciation of his efforts to resolve all of these issues and the pending legislation. I remind him, however, that some months ago we did enter into an agreement that we would have 5 days of debate and amending on the bill. I know the majority leader will stick to that agreement. Starting at 7:30 at night is not, obviously, a day of debate and discussion. I understand we may have to be interrupted. However, I also say again we expect to have the agreement adhered to. I am deeply concerned about nuclear waste and religious freedom and all of the other issues, but we did have an agreement on this particular issue. I intend to see that we can do our best to adhere to that agreement.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Mississippi. I am glad to entertain whatever proposal the Senator from Kentucky has at this time. I intend, along with the Senator from Wisconsin, to wait until tomorrow for our opening statements. I know there are a number of other Senators who want to make opening statements on this very important issue. I am sure whatever agreement the Senator from Kentucky and I, along with the Senator from Wisconsin, might want to enter into would clearly take into consideration that there will be a number of opening statements that a number of Senators will have to make. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my very grave concerns over the path down which we are heading. The United States Senate is on the verge of voting down a treaty the intent of which is consistent with U.S. national security objectives, but the letter and timing of which are fraught with serious implications for our security over the next decade. Mr. President, I will vote against ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. This is not a vote I take lightly. I am not ideologically opposed to arms control, having voted to ratify the START Treaty and the Chemical Weapons Convention. But, my concerns about the flaws in this Treaty's drafting and in the administration's plan for maintaining the viability of the stockpile leave me no other choice. On October 5, Henry Kissinger, John Deutch and Brent Scowcroft wrote to the majority and minority leaders stating their serious concerns with the Senate's voting on the treaty so far in advance of our being able to implement its provisions and relying solely on the Stockpile Stewardship Program. They noted that ``. . . few, if any, of the benefits envisaged by the treaty's advocates could be realized by Senate ratification now. At the same time, there could be real costs and risks to a broad range of national security interests--including our nonproliferation objectives--if [the] Senate acts prematurely.'' These are sage words that should not be taken lightly by either party in the debate on ratification. In the post-cold-war era, a strong consensus exists that proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is our single greatest national security concern. Unfortunately, a ban on nuclear testing, especially when verification issues are so poorly addressed, as in this treaty, will not prevent other countries from developing nuclear weapons. A number of countries have made major strides in developing nuclear weapons without testing. South Africa and Pakistan both built nuclear stockpiles without testing; North Korea may very well have one or two crude nuclear weapons sufficient for its purposes; and Iraq was perilously close to becoming a nuclear state at the time it invaded Kuwait. Iran has an active nuclear weapons program, and Brazil and Argentina were far along in their programs before they agreed to terminate them. Testing is not necessary to have very good confidence that a first generation nuclear weapon will work, as the detonation over Hiroshima, utilizing a design that had never been tested, demonstrated more than half-a-century ago. Whenever an arms control agreement is debated, the issue of verification rightly assumes center stage. That is entirely appropriate, as the old adage that arms control works best when it is needed least continues to hold true. That the leaders of Great Britain, France, and Germany support ratification is less important than what is going on inside the heads of the leaders of Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. We don't need arms control agreements with our friends; we pursue arms control as a way of minimizing the threat from those countries that may not have our national interests at heart. Some of the countries with active nuclear weapons programs clearly fall into that category. On that count, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty falls dangerously short. In order to fully comprehend the complexity of the verification issue, it is important to understand the distinction between monitoring and verifying. Monitoring is a technical issue. It is the use of a variety of means of gather information--in other words, detecting that an event took place. Verification, however, is a political process. Even if we assume that compliance with the treaty can be monitored-- and I believe very strongly, based in part on the CIA's recent assessment, that that is not the case--we are left with the age-old question posed most succinctly some 40 years ago by Fred Ikle: After Detection--What? What are we to make of a verification regime that is far from prepared to handle the challenges it will confront. For example, we are potentially years from an agreement among signatories on what technologies will be employed for monitoring purposes. More importantly, the treaty requires 30 disparate countries to agree to a challenge on-site inspection when 19 allies couldn't agree on how to conduct air strikes against Yugoslavia? Furthermore, we are being asked to accept arguments on verification by an administration that swept under the rug one of the most egregious cases of proliferation this decade, the November 1992 Chinese transfer of M-11 missiles to Pakistan, and that continues to cling tenaciously to the ABM Treaty despite the scale of global change that has occurred over the last 10 years. In determining whether to support this treaty at this time, it is essential that we examine the continued importance of nuclear weapons to our national security. Last week's testimony by our nuclear weapons lab directors that the Stockpile Stewardship Program will not be a reliable alternative to nuclear testing for five to 10 years is a clear and unequivocal statement that ratification of this treaty is dangerously premature. General John Vessey noted in his letter to the chairman of the Armed Services Committee that the unique role of the United States in ensuring the ultimate security of our friends and allies, obviating their requirement for nuclear forces in the process, remains dependent upon our maintenance of a modern, safe and reliable nuclear deterrent. As General Vessey pointed out, ``the general knowledge that the United States would do whatever was necessary to maintain that condition certainly reduced the proliferation of nuclear weapons during the period and added immeasurably to the security cooperation with our friends and allies.'' This sentiment was also expressed by former Secretaries of Defense Schlesinger, Cheney, Carlucci, Weinberger, Rumsfeld, and Laird, when they emphasized the importance of the U.S. nuclear umbrella and its deterrent value relative not just to nuclear threats, but to chemical and biological ones as well. The immensely important role that a viable nuclear deterrent continues to play in U.S. national security strategy requires the United States to be able to take measures relative to our nuclear stockpile that are currently precluded by the Test Ban Treaty. Our stockpile is older today than at any previous time and has far fewer types of warheads--a decrease from 30 to nine--than it did 15 years ago. A fault in one will require removing all of that category from the stockpile. The military typically grounds or removes from service all of a specific weapons system or other equipment when a serious problem is detected. Should they act differently with nuclear warheads? Obviously not. Finally, this treaty will actually prevent us from making our nuclear weapons safer. Without testing, we will not be able to make essential safety improvements to our aging stockpile--a stockpile that has already gone seven years without being properly and thoroughly tested. I hope the time does arrive when a comprehensive ban on nuclear testing will be consistent with our national security requirements. We are simply not yet there. I will consider supporting a treaty when alternative means of ensuring safety and reliability are proven, and when a credible verification regime is proposed. Until then, the risks inherent in the administration's program preclude my adopting a more favorable stance. These are the reasons that I must vote against ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty at this time. The viability of our nuclear deterrent is too central to our national security to rush approval of a treaty that cannot be verified and that will facilitate the decline of that deterrent. Preferably, this vote would be delayed until a more appropriate time, but, barring that, I cannot support ratification right now. The operative phrase, though, is ``right now.'' The concept of a global ban on testing has considerable merit. Defeating the treaty would not only imperil our prospects of attaining that objective at some future point, it would in all likelihood send a green light to precisely those nations we least want to see test that it is now okay to do so. Such a development, I think we can all agree, is manifestly not in our national interest. In articulating his reasons for continuing to conduct nuclear tests, then-President Kennedy stated that, ``If our weapons are to be more secure, more flexible in their use and more selective in their impact-- if we are to be alert to new breakthroughs, to experiment with new designs--if we are to maintain our scientific momentum and leadership-- then our weapons progress must not be limited to theory or to the confines of laboratories and caves.'' This is not an obsolete sentiment. It rings as true today as when President Kennedy uttered those words 37 years ago. I thank the Chair.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I supported passage of the Conference Report on H.R.2606, the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2000. Foreign aid programs, which constitute a mere one percent of federal spending, are an important and underappreciated component of United States foreign and national security policy. Passage of the annual appropriations bill for foreign operations is, consequently, an imperative. It is for this reason that I voted for its passage, and anticipate its being signed into law by the President. Despite my support for passage of the Conference Report, this legislation is not without its flaws. While it includes essential economic and military assistance for Israel and Egypt, it contains none of the funding associated with implementation of the Wye River accords involving Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority. It is anticipated that such funding will be included in a supplemental appropriations bill at some point in the not-too-distant future, but I question the fiscal and political wisdom of budgeting in this manner. Smoke and mirrors rarely provide for sound budgeting practices or a coherent foreign policy. I am also concerned about the continued inclusion in this legislation of unrequested earmarks and adds. While the Conference Report represents a vast improvement over the bill passed by the Senate in June, it still represents the legislature's continued refusal to desist from earmarking in spending bills. Such earmarks in the bill include $500,000 for what by any other name remains the Mitch McConnell Conservation Fund, $15 million for American universities in Lebanon, and a requirement to establish a $200 million maritime fund using United States commercial maritime expertise. The bill essentially mandates the establishment of an International Law Enforcement Academy in Roswell, New Mexico, thereby demonstrating yet again that fiscal prudence and operational necessity remain alien concepts to members of this body. There are more examples, but I think I have made my point. As I have stated in the past, there is undoubtedly considerable merit to some of the programs for which funding is earmarked at the request of members of Congress. My concern is for the integrity of the process by which the federal budget is put together. Merit-based competitive processes ensure that the interests of the American taxpayer are protected, and that the most cost-effective approach is employed. Absent such procedures, I will continue to have no choice but to highlight the practice of adding and earmarking funds for programs and activities not requested by the respective federal agencies. Finally, I must register my strong opposition to language in the bill prohibiting any direct assistance to Cambodia and requiring U.S. opposition to loans from international lending institutions for that impoverished country. Cambodia's election was not perfect; in fact, the months leading up to the vote were characterized by numerous efforts on the part of the Cambodian People's Party to intimidate its political opposition. Cambodia, however, is experiencing its first period of relative peace and stability in many years, and it is regrettable that some in the Senate remain committed to isolating the government in Phnom Penh during a time when we should be working within that country to strengthen democratic institutions while facilitating economic growth. Section 573 of the Conference Report, consequently, represents a significant impediment to our ability to help Cambodia move forward from an enormously painful past. Despite these flaws, Mr. President, I reiterate my support for passage of the bill and request the accompanying list, be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would have voted against the Nickles amendment because I could not endorse a plan to bust the budget caps, spend every dime of the non-Social Security surplus, and then use budget gimmicks to keep ourselves from dipping into the Social Security surplus. The Congress has the power of the purse, and that power carries with it the obligation to spend the taxpayer dollars responsibly. Just because we have a surplus of tax dollars in the Treasury, that doesn't mean we should spend it. In fact, when we passed a tax relief bill this summer, we made it clear that the surplus--the portion that does not come from Social Security payroll taxes--should be given back to the taxpayers, not spent on big government. That bill was vetoed, as expected, and the Congressional leadership and the Administration have given up on providing meaningful tax relief to American families this year. But now we are apparently planning to use this year's surplus--the surplus that we were going to give back to the people--for more government spending. The Nickles amendment does seek to protect the Social Security surplus, and I applaud him for that effort. I have consistently supported a lockbox to keep Congress' hands off these retirement funds. However, I oppose the Nickles amendment because it contemplates spending the $572 billion allowed under the budget caps, as well as the $14 billion in non-Social Security surplus funds, and even billions of dollars more--and then indiscriminately cut every program across-the-board by whatever percentage amount is needed to keep us from dipping into Social Security. This ludicrous plan demonstrates just how badly the Congress is addicted to pork-barrel spending. Why not just cut out the pork? I have identified over $10 billion in wasteful, unnecessary, and low- priority spending in the appropriations bills that have passed the Senate this year. Last year, when all was said and done, Congress spent over $30 billion on pork, some of it disguised as emergency spending, but most of it everyday, garden-variety pork. If we cut out every one of these pork-barrel spending projects-- projects added by Members of Congress for their special interest supporters and parochial concerns--we wouldn't have to resort to budget gimmicks like creating a thirteenth month in the next fiscal year, or delaying payments to our neediest families, or resorting to a Congressional sequester. I have published on my Senate website voluminous lists that include every earmark and set-aside added by Congress this year and for the previous two years. I urge my colleagues to look over these lists. Surely, these pork-barrel projects aren't as deserving of taxpayer funding as, say, funding for our children's education, veterans health care programs, getting our military personnel and their families off food stamps, and the many other national priorities that would be cut in an across-the-board sequester gimmick. Mr. President, I also want to make the point that voluntarily returning to the indiscriminate sequestration process of Gramm-Rudman- Hollings--a process that was instituted as a last-ditch effort to rein in enormous annual deficits--is not responsible budgetary stewardship. It is an admission of defeat, an admission that the Congress cannot control its appetite for pork-barrel spending. Regarding the Lautenberg amendment, I voted to table that amendment for two reasons. First, by its silence on the issue, the amendment implicitly endorses spending the $14 billion non-Social Security surplus in the appropriations process. Second, the amendment contemplates closing special interest tax loopholes, which I fully endorse, but for the purposes of raising more money to spend on more government. I believe any revenues raised by making our tax code fairer and less skewed toward special interests should be used to provide tax relief for American families. I agree that we must not dip into the Social Security Trust Funds; that would merely exacerbate the impending insolvency of the system. But I cannot support a plan to use the non-Social Security surplus for anything other than shoring up Social Security and saving Medicare, paying down the $5.6 trillion national debt, and providing tax relief to lower- and middle-income Americans. Neither the Nickles or Lautenberg amendments protect the entire surplus from the greedy hands of government. Mr. President, we have a budget process and we have spending caps to make sure we keep the budget balanced. We should ensure that appropriations stay within the caps. We should cut out the wasteful and unnecessary spending. And we should make sure that America's priorities are funded, not the priorities of the special interests. Order of Business

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, although I have serious reservations with respect to one or two provisions, I rise in support of the amendment by Senators Gorton and Rockefeller to replace the slot-related provisions in the bill. It won't surprise anyone to hear that my reservations primarily concern Reagan National. It is deeply regrettable that the amendment takes a step backward in terms of competitive access to Reagan National. The Commerce Committee overwhelmingly approved providing 48 slot exemptions for more service. This amendment will cut that number in half. I understand that this bill may not have come to the floor if this compromise had not been made, but I certainly am not happy about it. Nevertheless, some additional access is better than none at all. The most frustrating aspect of this compromise is that the continued existence of slot and perimeter restrictions at Reagan National flies in the face of every independent analysis of the situation. To support my position, I can quote at length from reports by the General Accounting Office (GAO), the National Research Council, and others, all of which conclude that slots and perimeter rules are anticompetitive, unfair, unneeded, and harmful to consumers. Despite the voluminous support for the fact that these restrictions are bad public policy, we allow them to continue. Reagan National should not receive special treatment just because it is located inside the Beltway. This amendment will already lead to the eventual elimination of the high density rule at O'Hare, Kennedy, and LaGuardia. If we believe it is good policy at those airports, why is it not the same for Reagan National? Arguments that opening up the airport to more service and competition will harm safety, exceed capacity, or adversely affect other airports in the region are without merit. The GAO recently concluded that the proposals in the committee-reported bill are well within capacity limits and would not significantly impact nearby airports. In addition, the DOT believes that increased flights would not be a safety risk. With any luck, the wisdom and benefits of increasing airline competition will eventually win out over narrow parochial interests. It saddens me to say that it will not happen today. Another opportunity to do the right thing by the traveling public is being missed. But my concerns about the Reagan National provisions do not in any way diminish my enthusiastic support for the other competition enhancing provisions in the bill. Eliminating the slot controls at the other restricted airports is a remarkable win for the principle of competition and for consumers. As GAO and others have repeatedly found, more competition leads to lower fares and better service. And in the interim, new entrants and small communities will benefit from enhanced access, which is more good news. I want to make our intent clear with respect to the provisions that govern the time period before the slot restrictions are lifted. We are providing additional access for new service to small communities and for new entrants and limited incumbent airlines. Because these airports are already dominated by the major airlines, which jealously hold on to slots to keep competitors out, we intentionally limited their ability to take advantage of the new opportunities. The amendment directs that Secretary of Transportation to treat commuter affiliates of the major airlines the same, for purposes of applying for slot exemptions and for gaining interim access to O'Hare. Let me be perfectly clear about what this provision means. It means the Secretary should consider commuter affiliates as new entrants or limited incumbents for purposes of applying for slot exemptions and interim access to O'Hare. A major airline should not be allowed to game the system and add to its hundreds of daily slots through its commuter affiliates and codeshare partners. Genuine new entrants and limited incumbents are startup airlines that cannot get competitive access to the high density markets. Many provisions in this amendment are just as that Senate approved them in last year's bill, so I will forgo a discussion of the various studies and other requirements that ensure people residing around these airports have their concerns addressed. Suffice it to say that the FAA and DOT will be very busy monitoring conditions in and around the four affected airports over the next few years. If these provisions begin having seriously adverse impacts, which I do not anticipate, we will certainly know about them. The benefits of airline deregulation have been proven time and again in study after study. But the job that Congress started 20 years ago is incomplete. We still retain outdated controls over the market. Even worse, these controls work to the benefit of entrenched interests and to the detriment of consumers and competition. The sooner the Federal Government stops playing favorites in the industry the better off air travelers will be. The majority of provisions in this bill will get us closer to the goal of completing deregulation. I urge my colleagues to support the Gorton amendment and vote against any second degree amendment that might weaken its move toward a truly deregulated aviation system.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg, has inserted--

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Senator from New Jersey has insisted on his rights, which he has as a Senator, to propose an amendment, for which he seeks half an hour of discussion, followed by a vote on his amendment. He has another amendment which he has agreed to include in the managers' package, which is agreeable to both sides. I ask unanimous consent that the Lautenberg amendment No. 1921 concerning pets be included in the managers' package and that the package be accepted at this time.

Mr. McCAIN. I add to that unanimous consent request that immediately following that, the Senator from New Jersey be recognized for half an hour, and following this half hour we will vote on his second amendment, and that be immediately followed by final passage.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from New Jersey.