John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, has the Chair ruled?

Mr. McCAIN. In full accordance with the rules and procedures of the Senate and pursuant to the notice filed yesterday, I move to suspend rule XXII as it applies to the consideration of amendment No. 3711. And, Mr. President, for the information of my colleagues, I want to explain what will occur here and the significance of this vote. By the way, as far as the modification is concerned to amendment No. 3711, since it is agreed on both sides, once we dispense with this parliamentary tactic, then obviously we will be able, by unanimous consent, to modify to satisfy a concern that was not included in the amendment. At some point this morning we will vote to suspend the rules regarding germaneness with respect to the pending amendment. Senator Wyden and I would have offered this amendment earlier, long before cloture was invoked, but we didn't because we were still negotiating language with other Senators--specifically, the Senator from North Dakota and other Senators--who were involved in this very important piece of legislation. We could have offered it and I am sure we could have passed the amendment, but in the environment of trying to reach overall agreement on language of this legislation we did not do it at that time. We did not propose this amendment in order to accommodate other Senators. As we all know, sometimes there are package agreements involving different parts of the legislation. The Democratic manager of the bill, Senator Dorgan, Senator Wyden and myself came to agreement on the language of the amendment. It was at that time, and only at that time, we were notified that a point of order would be raised against the language, even though we have been negotiating with the Senator from Florida and his staff since last August on this package. Doing so obviously is the Senator's right. I don't begrudge any Senator their right to use the rules to his or her advantage. But I do want to make it clear we tried to be fair and accommodate everyone who has left us in this position. Simply, if we don't succeed in suspending the rules and adopting this amendment, Senator Wyden and myself will no longer pursue this legislation. It won't pass. Internet tax freedom, at least for this year, will be dead. Because, Mr. President, failure to adopt this amendment will render this bill impotent. I suspect that may have been the desire of some Members all along, to kill this bill. Let there be no mistake, failure of this bill will hurt the future of electronic commerce and will subject our constituents to new taxes. Yes, a vote against suspending the rules is a vote to kill the bill. Without the language of this amendment being added, the bill is meaningless; it will accomplish nothing. Therefore, we will not pursue the legislation. But this vote means more than killing the Internet Tax Freedom Act. Adopted to this bill was Senator Bryan's Children's Online Privacy Act. That is a very important bill that will protect children who use the Internet. It is bipartisan legislation that was passed out of the Commerce Committee by a unanimous vote. If this bill dies today, Senator Bryan's Children Online Privacy Bill dies today. Adopted to this bill was Senator Coats' Decency Act. That measure was adopted by a vote of 98-1 yesterday. The Coats amendment is exceedingly important to protect our children from pornography that is proliferating on the world wide web. If this bill dies today, Senator Coats' Decency Act dies today. Adopted to this bill was Senator Dodd's amendment regarding filtering. The Dodd amendment would require Internet service providers making filtering software available to families so that they can screen unwanted and harmful material from appearing on their computer. The Dodd amendment has twice been adopted by the Senate. It is important. Adopted to this bill was Senator Abraham's Digital Signature bill. This bill was reported by the Commerce Committee with no opposition. Mr. President, if we cannot suspend the rules and adopt this amendment that is supported by both managers, the Internet tax bill is dead and so is the vital legislation sponsored by our colleagues. Let me briefly explain why this amendment is needed. The amendment does two things. First, it clarifies what is a discriminatory tax. This is necessary because without this definition the moratorium is rendered meaningless. States and localities do not pass new laws every time a new product appears. They simply interpret existing laws to apply to the products. What we are seeking to do here is clarify that the Internet cannot be singled out for the application of a tax in a discriminatory manner. For example, if an entity has a wicket tax, or a cellular phone tax, or a microwave oven tax, it would not be able to apply such tax in a discriminatory manner solely to the Internet and thereby claim the moratorium does not apply. Mr. President, if this definition is not included in the bill, then the moratorium is gutted. The second part of the amendment clarifies that the location of a server or of web pages does not constitute nexus. This is exceedingly important. If an individual in Iowa, sitting at his or her desk is surfing the web and buys a product for his mother in Tennessee from a company in Maine, using a server located in Florida, the fact that the server is located in Florida should not constitute nexus for the purposes of taxation. Neither the purchaser nor the company from which merchandise was purchased, nor the recipient, under this example, lived in Florida. So, again, this language simply clarifies this matter. We do not state that the appearance of a catalog in someone's mailbox constitutes nexus. This provision simply updates that fact in the age of the Internet. As technology bypasses us all and the use of the web becomes more and more ubiquitous and seamless, we will need to protect the technology that is fueling our economy. The issues of Quill and of who should and should not have to pay taxes will and should be settled by the Congress and the States. But regardless of that outcome, this technology should not be harmed by onerous, discriminatory, unfair--and in many cases-- outdated laws. To close, adoption of this amendment is vital to the passage of this legislation. This vote is key to its passage. If we fail to muster the 66 votes necessary, this bill will be dead. And as I have noted, some have wanted to kill it all along. We were forced to file cloture on the motion to proceed. We were forced to file cloture on the bill. We did all we could to accommodate all Senators with interests in this bill. We protected the rights of Senators to offer and debate amendments. We did not have to allow the senior Senator from Arkansas an opportunity to offer non-germane amendments prior to cloture we did. We could have filled the tree or sat in quorum calls awaiting the cloture vote or final vote. But the Senate functions in a spirit of comity. So the Senator from Arkansas had his opportunity and his votes. The bill has been changed and amended. We have accepted language offered by Senator Hutchinson from Arkansas. We accepted language offered by my good friend Senator Enzi. I did not care for those amendments, but I accepted the will of this body and I recognized that we must move forward on this important legislation. Especially on legislation like this, accommodations and concessions have to be made. This bill does contain amendments which I wish were not in there, but there are 100 Members here. I also agreed to go along with the will of the majority, as did the Senator from North Dakota, as did the Senator from Oregon, and many other Senators who had deep and abiding interests in this legislation. Again, this vote is exceedingly important if we are going to pass this bill. If we waive the rules for the purpose of this amendment, we can pass the bill and send it to the House. If we waive the rules, we can protect the Internet from unfair and discriminatory taxation, and more importantly, pass legislation that is vitally important to the country. It is my understanding, and I ask parliamentary clarification, this motion is debatable; is that true?

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 3711 be withdrawn, and I send to the desk amendment No. 3711, with a modification.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, let me say that I intend, after the Senator from Florida and the Senator from Oregon and the Senator from North Dakota and I speak on this, there is no controversy associated with it, that we would ask the amendment be agreed to. I would, at that time, request unanimous consent to withdraw my motion to suspend the rules.

Mr. McCAIN. I make that request at this time. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my motion to suspend the rules.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Florida. This has been a tough battle. It has been a very difficult set of negotiations. We have disagreed on several issues, but we have reached a compromise. I thank him for his willingness to do that. I also thank the good offices of the Senator from North Dakota whose calm demeanor has prevailed throughout this entire process we have been through. This amendment represents a compromise--another compromise-- that has been made in the process of this legislation among ourselves and the Senator from Florida, and I thank him for it. After the Senator from Florida and the Senator from Oregon speak, I hope we can adopt the amendment at that time. Then I hope we can go to final passage of this legislation. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. McCAIN. I yield the Senator from Florida as much time as he may use from my time.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I again thank Senator Wyden, Senator Dorgan, the Senator from Florida, Senator Graham, and all who were involved in this very difficult and very complex issue. I also thank my staff--all of them, including Mark Buse. I also would like to add to the comments of the Senator from Florida, Senator Graham, who said this is how the process should work. It has been very tough, very difficult, very time-consuming, but I think the magnitude of the legislation we are considering probably warranted all of that--and perhaps more. So I thank him very much. And as far as the freshman from Oregon is concerned, he has certainly earned his spurs as a member of the Commerce Committee. By the way, I also thank the Chair for his involvement in this issue. He is probably the most computer literate Member of the U.S. Senate. We obviously value his talent and expertise and look forward to the day when he has his laptop on the floor for its use that so far we have failed to achieve but someday I hope we do. I also mention one other person, Congressman Cox over in the other body, who has also played a key role in the development of their legislation on the other side. He has done a tremendous job, Congressman Cox of California.

Mr. McCAIN. I send to the desk a modification to amendment No. 3718 and ask unanimous consent that it to be adopted. Mr. President, the situation is that some written language that had been included in that amendment was not legible in the printer, so we had to remodify it.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that no further amendments be in order to S. 442, the Senate proceed immediately to third reading, and final passage then occur, without debate, and I further ask that the final passage vote occur now, and that paragraph 4 of rule XII be waived. And, Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor. Mr. WYDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. McCAIN. Parliamentary inquiry; how much time is remaining to the Senator from Florida?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, my purpose today is to introduce legislation that would increase the authorization level of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The recently passed TEA-21 legislation authorized NHTSA at its requested level, approximately $87.4 million. The Office of Management and Budget recently asked that NHTSA receive $99.9 million in the budget request. Although the Department of Transportation had requested $87.4 million, we are now informed by Secretary Slater that this authorization level will not permit the funding of ``key safety initiatives.'' I know that no one in this body wants a situation where highway safety is degraded in any way. I also know that there is no opportunity that this legislation can be passed yet this Congress. This is an issue that we will address in the next Congress. I look forward to working with my colleagues to address this important issue of highway safety in a manner that provides an appropriate funding level to meet safety needs while also meeting our budget obligations and the consensus of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, my purpose today is to introduce legislation that would increase the authorization level of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The recently passed TEA-21 legislation authorized NHTSA at its requested level, approximately $87.4 million. The Office of Management and Budget recently asked that NHTSA receive $99.9 million in the budget request. Although the Department of Transportation had requested $87.4 million, we are now informed by Secretary Slater that this authorization level will not permit the funding of ``key safety initiatives.'' I know that no one in this body wants a situation where highway safety is degraded in any way. I also know that there is no opportunity that this legislation can be passed yet this Congress. This is an issue that we will address in the next Congress. I look forward to working with my colleagues to address this important issue of highway safety in a manner that provides an appropriate funding level to meet safety needs while also meeting our budget obligations and the consensus of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 8, 1998, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet on Thursday, October 8, 1998, at 3:30 p.m. in open session, to review the recommendation to elevate the position of the Director, Office of Non-Proliferation and National Security of the Department of Energy.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, October 8, 1998, at 9:30 a.m. on the nominations of Ashish Sen to be Director of the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Department of Transportation and Albert S. Jacquez to be Administrator of the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation in room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 8, 1998, at 10:00 a.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, be authorized to hold an executive business meeting during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 8, 1998, at 10:00 a.m. in room SD-226 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Drinking Water, Fisheries, and Wildlife be granted permission to conduct an oversight hearing on scientific and engineering issues relating to Columbia/Snake River system salmon recovery Thursday, October 8, 1998, 9:30 a.m., Hearing Room (SD-406).

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, once again, I find myself in the unpleasant position of speaking before my colleagues about unacceptable levels of parochial projects in the VA/HUD appropriations bill. Although the level of add-ons in some portions of this conference are down, this bill still contains approximately $865 million in wasteful pork barrel spending. This is an unacceptable amount of low priority, unrequested, wasteful spending. The level of add-ons in the Veterans Affairs section of this conference report is down. The total value of specific earmarks in the Veterans Affairs section of this conference report is about $116 million. Let me just review some examples of items included in the bill. The bill directs $1 million for the VA's first-year costs to the Alaska Federal Health Care Partnership's proposal to develop an Alaska-wide telemedicine network to provide access to health services and health education information at VA, IHS, DOD and Coast Guard clinic facilities and linking remote installations and villages with tertiary health facilities in Anchorage and Fairbanks. An especially troublesome expense, neither budgeted for nor requested by the Administration for the past seven years, is a provision that directs the Department of Veterans Affairs to continue the seven-year- old demonstration project involving the Clarksburg, West Virginia VAMC and the Ruby Memorial Hospital at West Virginia University. Last year, the appropriations bill contained a plus-up of $2 million to the Clarksburg VAMC that ended up on the Administration's line-item veto list and that the Administration had concluded was truly wasteful. The VA provides first-rate research in many areas such as prosthetics. However, some of my colleagues still prefer to direct the VA to ignore their priority research programs and instead provide critical veterans health care dollars for parochial or special interest projects. For example, this bill earmarks $3 million for the Center of Excellence at the Truman Memorial VA Medical Center in Missouri for studies on hypertension, surfactants, and lupus erythematosus, and provides $6 million in the medical and prosthetic research appropriation for Musculoskeletal Disease research in Long Beach, California. It is difficult to argue against worthy research projects such as these, but they are not a priority for the Department of Veterans Affairs. Like transportation and military construction bills, the VA appropriations funding bill is no exception for construction project additions to the President's budget request. For example, the bill adds $7.5 million in funding for the Jefferson Barracks National Cemetery in Missouri for gravesite development which will provide 13,200 grave sites for full casket interments. Although this is a worthy cause, I wonder how many other national cemetery projects in other States were leapfrogged to ensure that Missouri's cemetery received in the VA's highest priority. In the area of critical VA, medical facility funding, again, certain projects in key members' states received priority billing, including $20.8 million add for the Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center ambulatory care renovation project in Ohio, a $9.5 million add for the Lebanon, Pennsylvania VAMC for nursing unit renovations, including providing patients with increased privacy, a $25.2 million add for construction of an ambulatory care addition at the Tucson VA Medical Center in Arizona, and provides $125,000 for renovation of the Pershing Hall building in Paris, France for memorial and private purposes. Mr. President, we are charged with the important responsibility of dedicating funding toward the highest priorities to safeguard our environment. Yet, I am troubled that this conference report is loaded with directed earmarks toward specific projects without adequate explanation of why these projects are higher in priority than national environmental problems and needs. I continue to hear about the number of Superfund sites that are in critical need of remediation actions or leaking background storage tanks that continue to endanger lives. Yet, the picture that I am putting together from this report is a prioritization of member interest projects. EPA's overall budget contains approximately $484,325,000 in earmarks that are directed to specific states and to national organizations. Rather than dedicating funding toward our most pressing environmental concerns, the priorities of the conferees are earmarking spending of $125,000 for the establishment of a regional environmental finance center in Kentucky and $225,000 for a demonstration project in Maryland to determine the feasibility of using poultry litter as a fuel to general electric power. I commend the efforts of my colleagues who worked tirelessly to rectify differences between the two chambers and present us with this conference report. Each of them have worked diligently to ensure that important housing programs and initiatives are adequately funded in a fair and objective manner. Contained in this bill is funding for many programs vital in meeting the housing needs of our nation and for the revitalization and development of our communities. Many of the programs administered by HUD help our nation's families purchase their homes, assists low-income families obtain affordable housing, combats discrimination in the housing market, assists in rehabilitating neighborhoods and helps our nation's most vulernable--the elderly, disabled and disadvantaged have access to safe and affordable housing. In July, I came to the Senate floor and highlighted the numerous earmarks and set asides contained in the Senate version of this bill. At that time, the egregious violations of the appropriate budgetary process in the HUD section amounted to $270.25 million dollars. Unfortunately, I find myself coming to the floor today to again highlight the numerous earmarks and budgetary violations which remain in the conference report of this bill. In the HUD section alone there is $265.1 million in set asides or earmarks. While this amount is slightly lower than when the Senate first considered this bill it is still too great a burden for the American taxpayers. The list of projects which received priority billing is quite long but I will highlight a few of the more egregious violations. There is $1.25 million set aside for the City of Charlotte, NC to conduct economic development in the Wilkinson Boulevard corridor, $1 million for the Audubon Institute Living Sciences Museum in New Orleans and $2 million for the Hawaii Housing Authority to construct a community resource center at Kuhio Homes/Kuhio Park Terrace in Honolulu, Hawaii. It is difficult to believe many credible and viable community development proposals may be excluded from access to federal housing funds because such a large amount of funds have been unfairly set aside for specific projects fortunate enough to have advocates on the appropriating committee. Finally, I would like to comment on the public housing reform bill which is now included in this funding bill. In the limited period of time I was afforded to examine this provision, I have learned that it includes several initiatives intended to enhance the quality of life for many individuals while promoting self sufficiency and personal responsibility in our communities. While I applaud these goals and will not object to this bill based on the inclusion of this section I am gravely concerned about the process used to pass this reform bill. It concerns me that this complex measure was inserted at the last moment during conference which precluded the Senate from having sufficient time to thoroughly examine its contents and fully evaluate its objectives. This is a very serious matter which directly impacts the lives of thousands of American families and our local communities. Certainly, this issue deserves thoughtful deliberation and careful review through the established legislative process and should not be attached at the last moment to a funding conference report. This is not the manner in which we should be implementing meaningful reform intended to benefit the citizens of our nation. Mr. President, I have touched on only the tip if the iceberg. There is more I could point to, were time available. I continue to look forward to the day when my trips to the floor to highlight member interest spending are no longer necessary.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 7, 1998 at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing on H.R. 1833, to amend the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act to provide for further Self-Governance for Indian tribes. The hearing will be held in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the unanimous consent agreement.