John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, we have been over this many, many times. The annual net savings from previous BRAC rounds will grow from almost $4 billion this year to $5.67 billion per year by 2001. The savings are real. They are coming sooner and are greater than anticipated. GAO recently noted that in most communities where bases were closed incomes are actually rising faster and unemployment rates are lower than the national average. Additionally, a provision in the bill allows for the no-cost transfer of property from the military to the community in areas that are affected by the closures. Our Armed Services are carrying the burden of managing and paying for an estimated 23 percent of excess infrastructure that will cost $3.6 billion this year alone, $3.6 billion that could be spent in efforts to retrain our pilots who are getting out faster than we can train them. It could be spent on recruiting qualified men and women of which there are significant shortfalls, especially in the U.S. Navy. It could be spent on retaining the highly qualified men and women who are leaving the Armed Forces in droves. There are so many things we can do with an additional $3.6 billion. But it will probably not happen. I want to tell my colleagues that occasionally we lose credibility around here because of some of the things we do--the pork barrel spending, for example, that seems to be on the rise rather than decreasing, if you had the chance to examine the supplemental emergency bill we just passed. That, of course, is not pleasant for me to contemplate. But when we are fooling around with national security, when we are fooling around with our Nation's ability to defend our vital national interests in these very unsettling times, then I would argue that we bear a heavy responsibility. This is a simple amendment--one round, year 2001. The Commission is not appointed until May 2001. So this President does not have any hand in the appointment of a base closing commission. We really need two rounds. But this is at the request of the Senator from Michigan. It will only be one round. Savings over the next 4 years are conservatively estimated to reach $25 billion. We probably won't do it. We probably won't do it. We couldn't do it in the Armed Services Committee, the committee that is supposed to have the most knowledgeable people on national defense. Again, there are really some of the most interesting arguments I have ever heard. We save money by not closing bases. That is an interesting argument. Again, I wish we had never closed a base after World War II, using that logic. Or perhaps we should build more bases. The fact is that this causes discomfort to towns, communities, and States around the country when a base closing commission is appointed. I agree with that. I am sorry that happens. I stack that discomfort up against the fact that we still have 11,000 enlisted men and women on food stamps. I hope we will have the American people at least weigh in on this issue, because they understand. They get it. They get what is going on here. They get why we are not having a base closing round when we need it. They know why it is being done. It will not pass but for one simple reason; that is, strictly parochial concerns that somehow there may be some political backlash associated with the closure of a base. I find that disgraceful. I appeal again to the better angels of our nature, and recognize that every military expert within the military establishment, both within the Government and without, says that we need to close bases. We need to have a base closing round, and we do not have to make it political. We have put in every possible constraint to prevent there being so many. We need to do it soon. Otherwise, we will continue to suffer in our capability. We will continue to suffer in our readiness. We will continue to suffer in our modernization. But most of all, these brave young men and women who serve our country will be shortchanged because we will not have adequate funds. I know a lot of these young people do not vote. I know a lot of them don't even get absentee ballots. Many of them are stationed far away. But I think perhaps we ought to have concern about them in how these funds can improve their lives and keep many of them in the military and keep our Nation ready to defend itself. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. There would be no movement.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that we continue this colloquy and maybe, to make the sides even, the Senator from Maine would like to engage us as well.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask my friend----

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Levin, Senator Bryan, Senator Leahy, Senator Kohl, Senator Lieberman, Senator Robb, Senator Kyl, Senator Hagel, and Senator Chafee, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to express my strong support for the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1999. I would like to commend Senator Snowe, the Chair of the Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries, for her leadership on Coast Guard issues. Earlier in the year, Senator Snowe convened a hearing on the Coast Guard's fiscal year 2000 budget request. The Commandant of the Coast Guard testified at the hearing and explained the priorities and challenges that the Coast Guard will face in the coming years and the ways that the agency will handle them. The Coast Guard is a branch of the armed forces and a multi-mission agency. The Coast Guard is responsible for our national defense, search and rescue services on our nation's waterways, maritime law enforcement, including drug interdiction and environmental protection, marine inspection, licensing, port safety and security, aids to navigation, waterways management, and boating safety. This bill will furnish the Coast Guard with funding authority to continue to provide the United States with high quality performance of its diverse duties through fiscal year 2001. I commend the men and women of the Coast Guard who serve their country with honor and distinction. I believe the bill that we have introduced today is an important first step in providing authorizing legislation for the Coast Guard for fiscal years 2000-2001. The funding levels are currently based on the Administration's transmitted legislative proposal. However, I am particularly concerned about the Coast Guard's ability to continue to fight the war on drugs. The vast majority of drugs enter our country illegally after being transported over our waterways. As the primary maritime law enforcement agency, the Coast Guard has proven that it can effectively stop drugs from reaching our streets. In fiscal year 1998, the Coast Guard seized 82,623 pounds of cocaine and 31,365 pounds of marijuana. Campaign STEEL WEB, the comprehensive, multi-year strategy to fight the war on drugs deserves full support and funding from both the Administration and the Congress. Before the Commerce Committee concludes its consideration of this bill, I intend to determine whether the Administration's bill will provide an adequate level of funding for the Coast Guard's drug interdiction activities. I will also seek to ensure that funding is spent on the most effective drug interdiction programs. The bill also incorporates several non-controversial provisions included in the Administration's bill which would provide for a variety of improvements for the day-to-day operation of the Coast Guard. I look forward to working with Senator Snowe and other members of the Commerce Committee during the Senate's consideration of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1999.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I think my colleague for his work on this very sensitive but important subject. The senator is absolutely correct. With the passage of this bill, the issue of setting an appropriate signal reception standard and predictive model is more important than ever. Consumers are frustrated today by the current situation with distant network signals because they are being told by local broadcasters they must receive their local signals over-the-air, though in many cases traditional antennas do not provide an adequate picture. If the law tells consumers they must get a local signal but they aren't able to get a decent picture, what alternative does a consumer have? Unfortunately, we are dealing here with an antiquated law that needs updating for the twenty first century.

Mr. McCAIN. I will be happy to accommodate the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. McCAIN. I can assure my colleague from Nevada, we will attempt to address this in conference and rectify a very troubling inconsistency in the law.

Mr. McCAIN. I concur with your concerns over this situation. If we are going to enforce the law and enforce a standard, we need to make sure that consumers can rely on the standard. Today, that is clearly not the case. In addition, since the purpose of the bill before us today is to give satellite television the tools it needs to become more viable competitors to cable, we have to evaluate each of the ways in which cable and satellite are compared. For example, the viewing standard that you discussed is based on three ``grades'' of television picture--``fine,'' ``good,'' and ``acceptable,'' in descending order of quality. Currently, cable viewing standards are based on a ``good'' picture. Satellite's standard is ``acceptable,'' which is a grade below ``good.'' Why wouldn't we want the reception standards between these two competing industries to be equivalent? If we are to provide true competition between cable and satellite, an increase of the standard and a corresponding increase in signal intensity model is necessary.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, thank you. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a statement of mine concerning the objectionable provisions contained in the bill be made part of the Record following my remarks.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as a former Member of Congress once said, ``Every disaster is an opportunity.'' This bill proves that statement remains true today. Scattered throughout this bill, which was supposed to be for emergencies only, is more than $1.2 billion in non-emergency, garden- variety, pork-barrel spending. When the Senate passed this bill just two months ago, I could find only $85 million in low-priority, unnecessary, or wasteful spending. By the time the conferees were done with it, the waste had grown by a factor of 14-14 times more pork- barrel spending was deemed worthy of inclusion in this conference bill. Mr. President, I have compiled a list of the numerous add-ons earmarks, and special exemptions in this bill. Now, I know that some of these programs may well prove meritorious, but there is no way for us to determine their merit because the process for doing so has been circumvented in this bill. For example, the bill contains $1.5 million to purchase water to maintain sufficient water levels for fish and wildlife purposes at San Carlos Lake in Arizona, and an earmark of $750,000 for the Southwest Border anti-drug efforts. I know that these are important programs, but are they the most important programs in my state? The process by which these two earmarks were added in conference on this bill makes it impossible to assess the relative merit of these programs against all other priority needs in Arizona and across the nation. The normal merit-based review process, which requires authorization and appropriation, was not followed, and these programs were simply added to this so-called ``emergency'' bill. The usual ``checks and balances'' were just thrown out the window. Once again, I have to object to including programs in appropriations bills that have not been authorized. The Commerce Committee has jurisdiction over the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Yet, without even seeking, much less obtaining authorization from the Commerce Committee, the appropriations put $38 million in this bill for the CPB to buy a new satellite. I have raised this issue before. There is a good reason for the two-tiered process that requires an authorization before appropriating any money for a program--to eliminate unnecessary or low-priority spending of taxpayer dollars. That process clearly was circumvented in this bill. This bill contains the usual earmarks for specific amounts of money of special-interest projects, such as: An emergency earmark of $26 million to compensate Dungeness crab fisherman, fish processors, fishing crew members, communities and others negatively affected by restrictions on fishing in Glacier Bay National Park in Alaska. Emergency earmarks of $3.7 million for a House page dorm and $1.8 million for renovations in the O'Neill House Office Building, which were added in conference. $3 million earmarked for water infrastructure needs at Grand Isle, Louisiana, again added in conference. An emergency infusion of $70 million into the livestock assistance program, which is redefined to include reindeer. Mr. President, I am sure that Santa Clause is happy today although even he would blush not only at the process but the amount of money that is included in this legislation. Then there are the many objectionable provisions that have no direct monetary effect on the bill, but you can be sure there is a financial benefit to someone back home. For example: Apparently, last year when we added millions of dollars to help maple producers replace taps damaged in ice storms in the Northeast, we added a bit too much money. This bill directs that leftover money be used for restoration of stream banks and maybe repairing fire damage in Nebraska. The media has reported extensively on a provision (which was added in conference) allowing the Crown Jewel mine project in Washington State to deposit mining waste on more than the five acres surrounding the mine than is currently permitted. What hasn't been reported is that this language also reverses for several months any earlier permit denials for any other mining operations that were denied based on the five-acre millsite limit. The bill contains language making permanent the prohibition on new fishing vessels participating in herring and mackerel fishing in the Atlantic--a protectionist policy that was slipped in last year's bill and is now, apparently, going to become permanent. The bill contains another provision that provides a special, lifetime exemption from vessel length limitations for a fishing vessel that is currently operating in the Gulf of Mexico or along the south Atlantic Coast fishing for menhaden--an issue that should be dealt with by the authorizing committee, the Commerce Committee. The report directs that three facilities be built to house non- returnable criminal aliens in the custody of the INS--facilities which are much-needed--but then the conferees decided to go one step further and direct that one facility had to be built in the mid-Atlantic region. Last year's 1999 Transportation appropriations bill earmarked funding for a feasibility study for commuter rail service in the Cleveland- Akron-Canton area, and the conference report expands on the use of those funds to allow purchase of rights-of-way for a rail project before the feasibility of the project has even been determined. There are many more low-priority, wasteful, and unnecessary projects on the 5-page list I have compiled, and is included in the Record. Most of these add-ons are listed as ``emergencies'' in this bill. Do these programs really sound like emergencies to you? A small number are offset by cuts in other spending, but that doesn't make it right to include them in a non-amendable bill that circumvents the appropriate merit-based selection process of selecting the highest priority projects. Some of these programs, like the page dorm, were not even in the bills that passed the Senate and House. They were simply thrown into this bill in conference, at the last minute, in a bill that cannot be amended or modified in any way. For the Coast Guard, this bill presented the opportunity to pick up another $200 million for operating expenses and readiness. This, too, was a last-minute add in conference of ``emergency'' funding--again, an issue for the Commerce Committee to consider. I also want to note with interest the apparent prescience of the appropriators in including an additional $528 million in unrequested emergency funding, for ``any disaster events which occur in the remaining months of the fiscal year.'' Apparently, the appropriators have some inkling that bad things are going to happen in the next five months. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues understand that designating spending as an ``emergency'' doesn't make it free. It still has to be paid for. The fact is that most of the pork-barrel spending in this bill comes straight out of the Social Security Trust Fund. At a time when the American people are worried about the fiscal health of Social Security, worried about whether Social Security will be there when they retire, it defies logic that we are taking money out of the Trust Fund for these projects. The Trust Fund is estimated to be bankrupt by the year 2032, and taking another billion dollars out of it clearly accelerates that fiscal crisis. That is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing, which is taking the Trust Fund off-budget and putting more money into it to ensure benefits will be paid, as promised, to all Americans who have worked and paid into the Social Security system. Mr. President, disasters should not be opportunities. It seems the Congress may still be suffering from ``surplus fever,'' a giddy lack of fiscal discipline because of projected budget surpluses into the foreseeable future. Last year, we spent $20 billion of the Social Security surplus for wasteful spending in the omnibus appropriations bill. I voted against the omnibus bill last year, and I will vote against this bill. 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, rather than the special interests of a few. I cannot support a bill that makes a mockery of the Congress' power of the purse and contributes to Americans' growing lack of faith in their Government. Finally, I was very pleased to see the other Senators come to the floor. We cannot continue this practice of adding appropriations in conference. We cannot continue to circumvent the authorization process. I identified some 30 instances in last year's bill. It will stop, sooner or later. We promised the American people when we regained the majority we would not do this kind of thing, this kind of money, in this kind of unauthorized authorizations that circumvent the committee process. I find it offensive as a committee chairman. Most of all, I find it offensive as an American citizen who also pays his taxes. I assure Members and my friends on the Appropriations Committee, we intend to take additional measures in the appropriations process. If appropriations bills come to this floor without proper authorization of expenditures of money or authorizations that are not agreed to by the committee chairmen who are authorizers, there are going to be a lot of problems around here. Last fall, when we added $21 billion in unnecessary spending, some 30-odd reauthorizations, I said at that time in a letter to the distinguished chairman and my friend on the Appropriations Committee that I will not stand for it any further. I believe there are a whole lot of Senators on both sides of the aisle who are tired of this process. I say that with all due respect for the dedication, the difficulties and the obstacles that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and other appropriators have as they go through a very difficult process, but it must stop. I yield back the remainder of my time. Exhibit 1 Objectionable Provisions Contained in H.R. 1141, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions for Recovery From Natural Disasters and Foreign Assistance for Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 1999 Bill language Bill language directing that funds made last year for maple producers be made available for stream bank restorations. Report language later states that the conferees are aware of a recent fire in Nebraska which these funds may be used. (Emergency) Language directing the Secretary of the Interior to provide $26,000,000 to compensate Dungeness crab fishermen, and U.S. fish processors, fishing crew members, communities, and others negatively affected by restrictions on fishing in Glacier Bay National Park, in Alaska. (Emergency) A $900,000,000 earmark for ``Disaster Relief'' for tornado- related damage in Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas, and Tennessee. This earmark is a $528,000,000 increase over the Administration's request and is earmarked for ``any disaster events which occur in the remaining months of the fiscal year.'' (Emergency) Report language providing FEMA with essentially unbridled flexibility to spend $230,000,000 in New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine, to address damage resulting from the 1998 Northeast ice storm. Of this amount, there is report language acknowledging the damage, and the $66,000,000 for buy-outs, resuting from damage, caused by Hurricane George to Mississippi, and report language strongly urging FEMA to provide sufficient funds for an estimated $20,000,000 for buy-out assistance and appropriate compensation for home owners and businesses in Butler, Cowley, and Sedgwick counties in Kansas resulting from the 1998 Halloween flood. (Unrequested) $1,500,000 to purchase water from the Central Arizona project to maintain an appropriate pool of stored water for fish and wildlife purposes at the San Carlos Lake in Arizona. (Added in Conference) An earmark of an unspecified amount for Forest Service construction of a new forestry research facility at Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama. (Unrequested) Language directing that the $1,000,000 provided in FY 99 for construction of the Pike's Peak Summit House in Alaska be paid in a lump sum immediately. (Unrequested) Language directing that the $2,000,000 provided in FY 99 for the Borough of Ketchikan to participate in a study of the feasibility and dynamics of manufacturing veneer products in Southeast Alaska be immediately paid in a lump sum. (Unrequested) Language directing the Department of Interior and the Department of Agriculture to remove restrictions on the number or acreage of millsites with respect to the Crown Jewel Project, Okanogan County, Washington for any fiscal year. (Added in Conference) Language which prohibits the Departments of Interior and Agriculture from denying mining patent applications or plans on the basis of using too much federal land to dispose of millings, or mine waste, based on restrictions outlined in the opinion of the Solicitor of the Department of Interior dated November 7, 1997. The limitation on the Solicitor's opinion is extended until September 30, 1999. (Added in Conference) Specific bill language providing $239,000 to the White River School District #47-1, White River, South Dakota, to be used to repair damage caused by water infiltration at the White River High School. (Unrequested) A $3,760,000 earmark for a House Page Dormitory. (Added in Conference) A $1,800,000 earmark for life safety renovations to the O'Neill House Office Building. (Added in Conference) An earmark of $25,000,000 to provide for the construction and renovation of family housing units at Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico. (Unrequested) Bill language, added by the conferees, directing that $2,300,000 be made available only for costs associated with rental of facilities in Calverton, NY, for the TWA 800 wreckage. (Added in Conference) $750,000 to expand the Southwest Border High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area for the state of New Mexico to include Rio Arriba County, Santa Fe County, and San Juan County. (Unrequested) Bill language directing $750,000 to be used for the Southwest Border High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area for the state of Arizona to fund the U.S. Border Patrol anti-drug assistance to border communities in Cochise County, AZ. (Added in Conference) A $500,000 earmark for the Baltimore-Washington High Intensity Drug Trafficing Area to support the Cross-Border Initiative. (Added in Conference) Earmarks $250,000 in previously appropriated funds for the Los Angeles Civic Center Public Partnership. (Unrequested) Earmarks $100,000 in previously appropriated funds for the Southeast Rio Vista Family YMCA, for the development of a child care center in the city of Huntington Park, California. (Unrequested) Earmarks $1,000,000 in previously appropriated funds for the Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development for work associated with the building of Caritas House and for expansion of the St. Ann Adult Medical Day Care Center. (Added in Conference) Bill language permitting the Township of North Union, Fayette County, Pennsylvania to retain any land disposition proceeds or urban renewal grant funds remaining from Industrial Park Number 1 Renewal Project. (Added in Conference) $2,200,000 earmark from previously appropriated funds to meet sewer infrastructure needs associated with the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Wasatch County, UT, for both water and sewer. (Unrequested) $3,045,000 earmarked for water infrastructure needs for Grand Isle, Louisiana. (Added in Conference) The conference report language includes a provision which makes permanent the moratorium on the new entry of factory trawlers into the Atlantic herring and mackerel fishery until certain actions are taken by the appropriate fishery management councils. (Added in Conference) Additional bill language indicating that the above- mentioned limitation on registered length shall not apply to a vessel used solely in any menhaden fishery which is located in the Gulf of Mexico or along the Atlantic coast south of the area under the authority of the New England Fishery Management Council for so long as such vessel is used in such fishery. (Added in Conference) Bill language directing Administrator of General Services to utilize resources in the Federal Building Fund to purchase, at fair market value, not to exceed $700,000, the United States Post Office and Federal Courthouse Building located on Mill Street in Fergus Falls, Minnesota. (Added in Conference) Report language A $28,000,000 earmark in FY 99, and a $35,000,000 earmark in fiscal year 2000 to the Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out the Conservation Reserve Program and the Wetlands Reserve Program. (Emergency) The conference agreement provides $70,000,000 for the livestock assistance program as proposed by the Senate, and adds language providing that the definition of livestock shall include reindeer. (Emergency) $12,612,000 for funds for emergency repairs associated with disasters in the Pacific Northwest and for the full cost of emergency replacement of generating equipment at Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge. (Emergency) Report language acknowledging the damage caused by Hurricane George to Kansas. (Unrequested) Report language urging FEMA to respond promptly to the appropriate disaster needs of the City of Kelso, Washington. (Unrequested) Language where the Conferees support the use of the emergency supplemental funds to assist organizations such as the National Technology Alliance for on-site computer network development, hardware and software integration, and to assess the urgent on-site computer needs of organizations assisting refugees. (Unrequested) $200,000,000 earmarked for the Coast Guard's ``Operating Expenses'' to address ongoing readiness requirements. (Emergency) Report language detailing partial site and planning for three facilities, one which shall be located in the mid- Atlantic region, to house non-returnable criminal aliens being transferred from the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). (Unrequested) A $1,300,000 earmark, for the cost of the World Trade Organization Ministerial Meeting to be held in Seattle, WA. (Added in Conference) $1,000,000 earmarked for the management of lands and resources for the processing of permits in the Powder River Basin for coalbed methane activities. (Unrequested) $1,136,000 earmarked for spruce bark beetle control in Washington State. (Unrequested) A $1,500,000 earmark to fund the University of the District of Columbia. (Added in Conference) $6,400,000 earmarked for the Army National Guard, in Jackson, Tennessee, for storm related damage to facilities and family housing improvements. (Unrequested) A $1,300,000 earmark of funds appropriated under P.L. 105- 276 under the EPA's Programs and Management for Project SEARCH water and wastewater infrastructure needs in the State of Idaho. (Unrequested) Report language clarifying that funds appropriated under P.L. 105-276 under the EPA's Programs and Management for Project SEARCH water and wastewater infrastructure needs for Grand Isle, Louisiana, may also be used for drinking water supply needs. (Added in Conference) Report language which authorizes the use of funds received pursuant to housing claims for construction of an access road and for real property maintenance projects at Ellsworth Air Force Base. (Unrequested) The conference agreement includes language proposed by the Senate directing a statutory reprogramming of $800,000 for preliminary work associated with a transfer of Federal lands to certain tribes and the State of South Dakota and for cultural resource protection activities. (Unrequested) The conference agreement includes a provision proposed by the Senate that clarifies the scope of certain bus and bus facilities projects contained in the Federal Transit Administration's capital investment grants program in fiscal year 1999. The conferees direct that funds provided for the Canton-Akron-Cleveland commuter rail project in the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1999 shall be available for the purchase of rights-of-way in addition to conducting a major investment study to examine the feasibility of establishing commuter rail service. (Unrequested)

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to express my strong support for the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1999. I would like to commend Senator Snowe, the Chair of the Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries, for her leadership on Coast Guard issues. Earlier in the year, Senator Snowe convened a hearing on the Coast Guard's fiscal year 2000 budget request. The Commandant of the Coast Guard testified at the hearing and explained the priorities and challenges that the Coast Guard will face in the coming years and the ways that the agency will handle them. The Coast Guard is a branch of the armed forces and a multi-mission agency. The Coast Guard is responsible for our national defense, search and rescue services on our nation's waterways, maritime law enforcement, including drug interdiction and environmental protection, marine inspection, licensing, port safety and security, aids to navigation, waterways management, and boating safety. This bill will furnish the Coast Guard with funding authority to continue to provide the United States with high quality performance of its diverse duties through fiscal year 2001. I commend the men and women of the Coast Guard who serve their country with honor and distinction. I believe the bill that we have introduced today is an important first step in providing authorizing legislation for the Coast Guard for fiscal years 2000-2001. The funding levels are currently based on the Administration's transmitted legislative proposal. However, I am particularly concerned about the Coast Guard's ability to continue to fight the war on drugs. The vast majority of drugs enter our country illegally after being transported over our waterways. As the primary maritime law enforcement agency, the Coast Guard has proven that it can effectively stop drugs from reaching our streets. In fiscal year 1998, the Coast Guard seized 82,623 pounds of cocaine and 31,365 pounds of marijuana. Campaign STEEL WEB, the comprehensive, multi-year strategy to fight the war on drugs deserves full support and funding from both the Administration and the Congress. Before the Commerce Committee concludes its consideration of this bill, I intend to determine whether the Administration's bill will provide an adequate level of funding for the Coast Guard's drug interdiction activities. I will also seek to ensure that funding is spent on the most effective drug interdiction programs. The bill also incorporates several non-controversial provisions included in the Administration's bill which would provide for a variety of improvements for the day-to-day operation of the Coast Guard. I look forward to working with Senator Snowe and other members of the Commerce Committee during the Senate's consideration of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1999.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, cosponsored by Senators Bryan and Snowe, designed to stop the widespread anticonsumer telemarketing abuse known as ``slamming.'' Since virtually every consumer has either been ``slammed'' or knows someone who has, it's probably unnecessary to add that ``slamming'' is the practice whereby a consumer's chosen long-distance telephone company is changed without the consumer's knowledge or consent. Given the pervasiveness of this unscrupulous practice, it comes as no surprise that slamming has been the number one consumer complaint for the last several years. This marks the third time I have introduced antislamming legislation. Last year a similar antislamming bill failed to become law when the legislative clock ran out before the House of Representatives acted, despite the fact that the bill incorporated a number of provisions that the House had insisted upon, and which the Senate believed weren't tough enough on slammers. The reason I return today with a slamming bill is that, in the absence of legislation, the Federal Communications Commission adopted a set of antislamming rules that a reviewing court has now stayed. As a result, consumers are once again without the immediate prospect of any effective antislamming laws. This legislation is intended to provide some. But there is also another reason for reintroducing antislamming legislation. The main reason the court stayed the FCC's antislamming rules is that the long-distance companies--the very companies who are responsible for slamming in the first place--asked the court to do so because of an alternative antislamming scheme these companies dreamed up and now want the FCC to implement. Pursuant to the long-distance companies' plan, the long-distance companies--they're the slammers, remember--would hire a supposedly independent ``third-party administrator'' who would handle enforcement of the antislamming rules instead of the FCC. Given the fact that virtually everyone other than the long-distance companies, including state enforcement authorities, are foursquare against this proposal, the long-distance companies' court strategy ups the ante on the FCC to cave in and adopt this obviously self-serving plan. Not since the fox volunteered to watch the henhouse have we seen such a demonstration of solicitude for the well-being of the vulnerable. There are many instances in which industry comes up with creative ways for government to deal with industry problems. This isn't one of them. Let's call it what it is. This scheme is the latest manifestation of an ongoing effort by the long-distance companies to avoid having to face up to real penalties if they can't make their telemarketers stop slamming people. Their rhetoric deplores slamming, but their machinations before Congress and the FCC show otherwise. And if the FCC--the supposedly pro-consumer FCC--were to even flirt with the notion of embracing the long-distance industry's scheme, it would show, when push comes to shove, whose interests would really matter to this agency. In a published court opinion, Judge Lawrence Silberman of the D.C. Court of Appeals referred to something else the FCC once did as being ``not just stupid--criminally stupid.'' Mr. President, it would be either criminal stupidity, or duplicity of the highest order, for the FCC to ignore the views of everyone except the big long-distance companies and adopt their blatantly anticonsumer plan. As I said when I introduced the similar legislation last October, this bill isn't perfect--it contains provisions generated by the House of Representatives, that I consider much too slammer-friendly. But it's still a lot better than the industry-promoted alternative. And so I offer to better protect consumers and to send the FCC the message that it's their duty to do the same. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, cosponsored by Senators Bryan and Snowe, designed to stop the widespread anticonsumer telemarketing abuse known as ``slamming.'' Since virtually every consumer has either been ``slammed'' or knows someone who has, it's probably unnecessary to add that ``slamming'' is the practice whereby a consumer's chosen long-distance telephone company is changed without the consumer's knowledge or consent. Given the pervasiveness of this unscrupulous practice, it comes as no surprise that slamming has been the number one consumer complaint for the last several years. This marks the third time I have introduced antislamming legislation. Last year a similar antislamming bill failed to become law when the legislative clock ran out before the House of Representatives acted, despite the fact that the bill incorporated a number of provisions that the House had insisted upon, and which the Senate believed weren't tough enough on slammers. The reason I return today with a slamming bill is that, in the absence of legislation, the Federal Communications Commission adopted a set of antislamming rules that a reviewing court has now stayed. As a result, consumers are once again without the immediate prospect of any effective antislamming laws. This legislation is intended to provide some. But there is also another reason for reintroducing antislamming legislation. The main reason the court stayed the FCC's antislamming rules is that the long-distance companies--the very companies who are responsible for slamming in the first place--asked the court to do so because of an alternative antislamming scheme these companies dreamed up and now want the FCC to implement. Pursuant to the long-distance companies' plan, the long-distance companies--they're the slammers, remember--would hire a supposedly independent ``third-party administrator'' who would handle enforcement of the antislamming rules instead of the FCC. Given the fact that virtually everyone other than the long-distance companies, including state enforcement authorities, are foursquare against this proposal, the long-distance companies' court strategy ups the ante on the FCC to cave in and adopt this obviously self-serving plan. Not since the fox volunteered to watch the henhouse have we seen such a demonstration of solicitude for the well-being of the vulnerable. There are many instances in which industry comes up with creative ways for government to deal with industry problems. This isn't one of them. Let's call it what it is. This scheme is the latest manifestation of an ongoing effort by the long-distance companies to avoid having to face up to real penalties if they can't make their telemarketers stop slamming people. Their rhetoric deplores slamming, but their machinations before Congress and the FCC show otherwise. And if the FCC--the supposedly pro-consumer FCC--were to even flirt with the notion of embracing the long-distance industry's scheme, it would show, when push comes to shove, whose interests would really matter to this agency. In a published court opinion, Judge Lawrence Silberman of the D.C. Court of Appeals referred to something else the FCC once did as being ``not just stupid--criminally stupid.'' Mr. President, it would be either criminal stupidity, or duplicity of the highest order, for the FCC to ignore the views of everyone except the big long-distance companies and adopt their blatantly anticonsumer plan. As I said when I introduced the similar legislation last October, this bill isn't perfect--it contains provisions generated by the House of Representatives, that I consider much too slammer-friendly. But it's still a lot better than the industry-promoted alternative. And so I offer to better protect consumers and to send the FCC the message that it's their duty to do the same. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will have more to say after the vote.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am amused and entertained by the remarks of the Democrat leader. All he has to do is agree to a time and date when the final passage of the juvenile justice bill would be voted on. He knows it. I know it. We know it. He is using the same excuse he used last time--almost exactly--that he would move forward with the bill and we would have final passage. I congratulate him on his rhetoric.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chair. In about 10 minutes, we are going to have another vote on cloture so that we can proceed to the very important Y2K liability bill, S. 96. The word is out that the Democrats will now again refuse to move forward with passage of this legislation. Last time, the excuse was, as I understand it from the Democrat leader's remarks, that they were not allowed to propose amendments to the pending legislation so this was some form of protest. Now I am told the excuse will be--and we will find out--because the juvenile justice bill has not been completed. The entertaining aspect of that rationale is that while complaining about not being able to move forward on the juvenile justice bill, they still won't agree to amendments and time agreements so we could dispose of the juvenile justice bill. What this is really all about is that there is a strong aversion on the part of the American Trial Lawyers Association to this legislation. That aversion is manifesting itself by preventing us from moving forward with this very important legislation. Small, medium, and large businesses in America, high-tech firms all over America, have written or contacted us as to the importance of this legislation. I recently received a letter signed by some 130 high-tech companies in America. I would like to read it. This is from the Year 2000 Coalition. Actually, this letter was addressed to Senator Kerry, not to me. It says: The Year 2000 Coalition, a broad-based multi-industry business group, is committed to working with the Senate to enact meaningful Y2K liability legislation. We fully support S. 96 sponsored by Senator McCain, with amendments and revisions agreed to by Senators Wyden, Dodd, Hatch, Feinstein and Bennett, as the most reasonable approach to curtail unwarranted and frivolous litigation that might occur as a result of the century date change. While we appreciate any effort that further demonstrates the bipartisan recognition of the need for legislation, the Coalition does not support the Y2K bill that is being circulated in your name and believes it detracts from the sponsors of S. 96 effort to build support for their bill. We urge you to support S. 96 that is now pending before the Senate. Your vote in favor of cloture is important to bring the bill to the floor and allow the Senate to address the challenge of Y2K confronting all Americans. A vote in favor of S. 96 is a vote in favor of Y2K remediation instead of litigation. A very impressive list of, I believe, 130 companies and corporations around America, a pretty impressive group of corporations that, I would say, represents a substantial portion of America's economy, that is concerned about this issue and wants us to move forward. I had honestly believed that after the demonstration of solidarity last week on this issue on the part of my friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle--I took the Democrat leader at his word. He said we will move forward; we will have a bill; we want to work together on this. Apparently, that is not going to be the case this morning. If it is not the case, then, obviously, I will do whatever the majority leader dictates as to what the Senate calendar will be.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the letter to Senator Kerry from the Year 2000 Coalition and the letter to me be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank my dear friend from North Carolina for the love and friendship he bestowed on Bud Nance for many, many years. It is a rare thing--the relationship that existed between my dear friend from North Carolina and Adm. Bud Nance. It was a relationship characterized by mutual respect, political courage, and love and affection, which is, as the previous speaker mentioned, somewhat rare in this town--although not as rare as some would think. Bud Nance was not only a friend of my father's, he also served under my grandfather in World War II. Mr. President, there is a book that has been No. 1 on the best seller list for a long time. The title of that book is ``The Greatest Generation,'' written by Tom Brokaw, a man known to all of us. It is one of the more moving books I have read in a long time. It chronicles the personal experiences of those of the generation that fought and won World War II and, indeed, did make the world safe for democracy. It contains very moving stories. The impact of those stories gives us a renewed and indeed, perhaps, an unappreciated recognition of the service and sacrifice of that generation, what they went through, what they achieved, and the reality that they really did make not only the world safe for democracy, but make it possible for future generations to live much better lives in a broad variety of ways. Bud Nance was of the greatest generation and he was one of the greatest Americans to serve in the greatest generation. In fact, his service spanned three wars, and in all of them he served with distinction and courage. I believe that Bud Nance epitomized in the Senate all the best we see in people who serve the Nation. Unfailingly courteous, always considerate to others, he took into consideration with equal weight and gravity the views of those on the other side of the aisle. And although perhaps in disagreement, he always treated those views with the respect and consideration they deserved. Obviously, as has been mentioned, the relationship between the two men was remarkable and unusual. But it was also remarkable and unusual that, in all the years that I saw Bud Nance here, never once did I see him lose patience with anyone. His courtesy was unfailing, and, frankly, he represented what we know of as the greatest generation in more ways than just having served in combat and risked his life for his country in three wars. Mr. President, when I think of Bud Nance, as I always have, as we not only mourn his passing but celebrate his life, I could not help but be reminded of what is one of my favorite poems, written by Robert Louis Stevenson, who also had an incredibly unusual life of adventure, with great and vast experiences and great contributions. Robert Louis Stevenson wrote a poem that he wrote for his own epitaph called ``Requiem,'' which I believe also fits our dear friend, Bud Nance. The poem is a very simple one: Under the wide and starry sky. Dig the grave and let me lie. Glad did I live and gladly die. And I laid me down with a will. This be the verse you gave for me: Here he lies where he longed to be; Home is a sailor, home from the sea. And the hunter home from the hill. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this morning the Senate will resume debate on the motion to proceed to the Y2K legislation. At 9:45 this morning the Senate will proceed to a rollcall vote on invoking cloture on the motion to proceed to that bill. If cloture is invoked, debate will continue on the motion to proceed. If cloture is not invoked, the Senate will begin a period of morning business for 1 hour under the control of Senator Helms to commemorate the life of Admiral Bud Nance. Attempts to come to a reasonable time agreement to finish the juvenile justice bill will be made during today's session of the Senate. However, until such an agreement is made, the Senate will resume debate on the motion to proceed to the Y2K bill. As a reminder, the Senate will recess for the weekly party caucus luncheons from 12:30 to 2:15. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Isn't it also true----

Mr. McCAIN. I withdraw my unanimous consent.

Mr. McCAIN. Isn't it true that it has been brought to the attention of all that there is a loophole that needs to be closed and this is a good-faith effort to do that?