Floor Statements

Mr. President, I think this legislation is very timely because if we pass it, Thanksgiving will come early for the Washington special interests. The American public will be presented with an enormous turkey stuffed with their tax dollars. Tell your constituents to save their holiday Turkey carcasses because this farsighted bill even provides subsidies for carcasses used as biomass to generate energy.

We cannot discuss the bill without looking at the fiscal condition of the United States of America today. According to recent reports, Government spending, thanks to the Congress, grew at 12 percent. We are looking at a half a trillion budget deficit next year. We have gone from a $5 trillion surplus over the last few years to a multitrillion- dollar deficit. So what do we do? We are passing a bill that will increase the deficit by at least somewhere around $24 billion.

By the way, I am really sorry we have not gotten the bill. I understand it is 1,200 to 1,600 pages long. Of course, we are considering it without even having a chance to observe it, but it is printed in the Record. I imagine the Record is pretty big.

Adding to this feast, this bill also contains the other white meat. Of course, I am referring to pork. I fear for the passage of a 1,200- page, pork-laden bill. The outbreak of Washington trichinosis will be so severe we will be forced to have a field office for the Centers for Disease Control right next to the Capitol. I am not saying this will not generate some energy, not at all. It will fill the coffers of oil and gas corporations, propel corporate interests, and boost the deficit into the stratosphere.

Indeed, I have stated on several occasions the name of this bill should be the ``Leave No Lobbyist Behind Act of 2003.'' Given the magnitude of the largess offered in this bill, I hardly know where to begin. I feel somewhat like a mosquito in a nudist colony. I hardly know where to begin.

At a time when it is crucial for our national security and economic welfare that we pursue a new course toward energy independence and global environmental protection, the provisions in this bill take exactly the wrong direction: increasing our dependence on conventional fuels; increasing environmental degradation; increasing our energy use; increasing our national debt; and diminishing protection for consumers and public health.

Let's start at the top of the corporate subsidy heap. We have the biggest increase in corn and cash this Congress has ever seen, doubling the national ethanol mandate. A doubling. Gasohol production is the worst subsidy-laden energy use ever perpetrated on the American public, and it starts with sweet corn. Ten percent of the corn grown in this country is used to produce ethanol. Corn producers, like producers of other major crops, receive farm income and price supports.

Let me remind my colleagues in the 107th Congress this body passed a farm bill which appropriated more than $26 billion in direct assistance to corn growers over 6 years. That is an average of $4.3 billion in direct subsidies

each year just to corn growers. But obviously, they have not gotten enough. But add it up, and we are over $3 per gallon of ethanol.

The cost to consumers does not stop with the production of energy. Environmental costs of subsidized corn results in higher prices for meat, milk, and eggs because about 70 percent of corn grain is fed to livestock. A GAO report concluded, ``ethanol tax incentives have not significantly enhanced United States energy security since it reduced United States gasoline consumption by less than 1 percent.'' So if we double it, maybe we will have less than 2 percent. It takes more energy to make ethanol from grain than the combustion ethanol produces. Seventy percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy actually in ethanol. Every time you make 1 gallon of ethanol there is a net energy loss.

The National Academy of Sciences concluded in 2000 that ``the use of commonly available oxygenates in Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) has little impact on improving ozone air quality and has some disadvantages.'' They found that oxygenates can lead to higher nitrous oxide emissions, ``which are more important in determining--ozone levels in some areas.''

Reformulated gasoline, without oxygenates like ethanol, are widely available and are superior to gasohol. California has started a program called the ``Cleaner Burning Gasoline,'' which has better fuel economy and overall efficiency than gasohol.

I believe it was in recognition of this fact that the House and Senate both passed Energy bills that would remove the Clean Air Act requirement to include an oxygenate in reformulated gasoline. But, the overall economic and environmental benefits of no longer requiring an oxygenate is wiped out by the $2 billion ethanol mandate doubling ethanol production in this bill.

Another subsidy for ethanol producers is a partial exemption for the motor fuels excise tax, which is paid to the Highway Trust Fund. Presently, corn-to-gasohol producers take a $.052 per gallon exemption from the $.18 per gallon excise tax fuel producers are required to pay into the Highway Trust Fund.

According to a recent General Accounting Office study, between 1979- 2000, this exemption has cost the Highway Trust Fund between $7.5 and $11.2 billion.

While a tax credit in this bill, called the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit Act of 2003, attempts to change this trend, it merely provides the option for gasohol producers to pay the entire $.18 per gallon excise tax to the Highway Trust Fund, and claim a $.052 per gallon credit on their income tax. The credit would come from general treasury funds, and leave the Highway Trust Fund income in place, most blenders will continue to take the exemption, which is an immediate discount, rather than switching to the credit. This is a useless provision which won't actually bolster the Highway Trust Fund, or the U.S. Treasury. In fact, with doubled ethanol usage, the Federal government stands to lose even more in fuel tax revenue in the upcoming years.

The national ethanol consumption in 2002 was 2.1 billion gallons. Multiply that by 52 cents per gallon, and you see how much revenue the highway trust fund has lost in excise tax in this past year alone. About $1.1 billion. How much more, then, of taxpayer funds, will be given back to the ethanol producers, as ethanol production and consumption doubles? The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the ethanol mandate will cost $2 billion over the next 5 years.

For decades the largest ethanol producer has been Archer Daniels Midland, producer of more than one-third of all ethanol in 2002, and whose nearest competitor has the capacity to produce one-tenth of ADM's capacity.

The excise tax exemption from ethanol has been estimated to account for more than $10 billion in subsidies to ADM--one corporation with $10 billion in subsidies--from 1980 to the late 1990s. In fact, it has been estimated that every dollar in profits earned by Archer Daniels Midland costs the taxpayers $30.

Speaking of highly objectionable fuel additives, I must join my colleagues who have spoken against the MTBE liability waiver.

Mr. President, it is an outrage to see a product liability waiver for producers of MTBE retroactive to September 5, 2003. This nullifies the lawsuits against MTBE producers that were filed after September 5, such as the case last year in the Superior Court in California, where a jury found that MTBE was a defective product and resulted in a settlement in which MTBE producers agreed to pay more than $50 million to clean up MTBE-contaminated water supplies.

Who is going to pay to clean it up now? This provision to shield MTBE producers from product liability could, according to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, cost taxpayers--taxpayers, not industry--$29 billion to clean up contaminated ground and surface water.

In 1998, the U.S. Geological Survey conducted an MTBE survey of water wells in industrial areas, commercial areas, residential areas, and mixed urban areas nationwide, and also estimated that cleaning up the MTBE-contaminated sites in soil and water nationwide is approximately $29 billion.

Just when you believe this bill cannot get any worse, it does.

Mr. President, $800 million--I usually go through these bills, and we find pork in the hundreds of millions, sometimes billions. This exceeds all of my past experiences. Mr. President, $800 million for a loan guarantee to subsidize the creation of a brandnew polluting, coal gasification plant in an economically depressed area of Minnesota. This new company, Excelsior Energy, was formed by lobbyists and executives with ties to a company that filed for bankruptcy after amassing a $9.2 billion debt and being fined $25 million for market manipulation.

This brand new giveaway, which was in neither the House nor Senate- passed Energy bills, is estimated to cost between $2 billion to $3 billion. While this technology turns coal into a synthetic gas that can be combusted more efficiently, coal plants continue to be a leading source of global warming and should not be subsidized with scarce taxpayer dollars. Further, this $800 million loan guarantee does not require Excelsior Energy to meet any concrete job creation goals or standards. In a time of $400 billion annual budget deficits, why should U.S. taxpayers cover the cost of a new plant that will not even guarantee jobs? Minnesota already has a powerplant owned by Exel Energy. Now they need Excelsior Energy, a new plant burning more carbon?

Mr. President, $95 million for a subsidy for a process known as ``thermal depolymerization.'' This is a good one. Now you can get a tax credit if you compress Turkey carcasses into energy. ConAgra Foods and Changing World Technologies, the two companies that would benefit from this giveaway, have built the only commercial ``thermal technology'' plant, which is located in Carthage, MO. The plant would convert poultry waste products from ConAgra's Butterball Turkey plant into energy.

After including their cash cows and all the polluter pork they could find, energy conferees have now moved on to tax breaks for turkey. I encourage my colleagues to save their leftover turkey this year after Thanksgiving dinner. Instead of making sandwiches the next day, how about turning in your poultry for a tax credit?

An amendment was added Monday night--Monday night--to authorize the lignite coal-fired electrical generating plant, which would employ clean coal technology to provide energy for a rapidly growing region. This amendment was not included in either the House or Senate passed energy bills.

Another provision that we understand was inserted at the eleventh hour, and was never reviewed by either the House or the Senate, would suspend important environmental reviews to facilitate the construction of uranium processing facilities in New Mexico by the consortium, Louisiana Energy Services. A Time magazine article that appeared earlier this year raised serious questions about one of the consortium members, which it characterized as ``a European consortium linked to leaks of enrichment technology to, yes, Iran, Iraq, and North Korea--as well as to Pakistan.'' The article in Time magazine quotes a high-level U.S. nuclear security administrator as saying ``to have this company operating in the

U.S. after it was the source of sensitive technology reaching foreign powers does raise serious concerns.''

I want to add, I do not know if that is true or not. I do not know if the Time magazine story is true or not. We do not know because we never had any scrutiny of the amendment. But I think it is a serious issue. I do not know.

In addition to possible security concerns suggested by the time article, this extraordinary rider raises critical environmental concerns.

Even though I understand that both Tennessee and Louisiana have rejected this facility, the Energy bill rider shortcuts the NEPA process and meaningful judicial review of the Environmental Impact Statement, for the construction of this facility in New Mexico. To add insult to injury, the provision further requires the Government to acquire the waste and dispose of it for a price that is possibly significantly less than the cost.

I ask unanimous consent the Time magazine article be printed in the Record.

There are also four proposals known as green bonds that will cost taxpayers $227 million to finance approximately $2 billion in private bonds. One of my favorite green bond proposals is a $150 million riverfront area in Shreveport, LA. This riverwalk has about 50 stores, a movie theater, and a bowling alley. One of the new tenants in this Louisiana riverwalk is a Hooters restaurant. Yes, my friends, an Energy bill subsidizing Hooters and polluters, probably giving new meaning to the phrase ``budget busters.'' Although I am sure there is a great deal of energy expended at Hooters, I have never been present. Perhaps something has been missing in my life.

This bill was developed in a secret, exclusive, partisan process, but it is no secret anymore. In the last few days, editorials have appeared in papers throughout the country. Here are a few choice words from various papers.

One thing that is worthy of note, Mr. President, is that for the first time in my memory, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal both editorialize strongly against this bill. It is on the rarest of occasions that the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times--the Wall Street Journal: ``The Grassley Rain Forest Act,'' which refers to: ``Special applause goes to Senator Chuck Grassley for grabbing millions to build an indoor rain forest and a million-gallon aquarium in lush, tropical Iowa. ''

Of course, the New York Times editorial, titled ``A Shortage of Energy,'' describes how the bill is a very serious one. Today China's message on energy--where it goes into a report from China--is that the Chinese are worried about their increasing reliance on foreign oil. The difference is, the Chinese are ready to do something about it, where Congress is not. Indeed, loopholes in the Energy bill could make American cars less efficient than they are. While the Chinese say their main concern is oil dependency, not global warming, more efficient cars should help on that, too. And where are our American leaders? Feathering nests rather than imposing discipline on the Nation's fuel use.

I will not go through all of the editorials that I have seen, but it is overwhelming. Everybody who has looked at this bill realizes that it is a terrible mistake. It seems to me that this is the result of a broken process, a process that is conducted behind closed doors.

I still do not have the bill in front of me. None of us do. I guess it is printed in the Record. I understand, because it is 1,200 pages long, the Record might be long.

There was very little, if any, consultation with other Members of the Senate. My understanding is the Democratic side was cut out of it completely. And we are given a few short hours to examine a 1,200-page ``Energy bill.''

I want to return to my initial comments. It is serious when we are looking at a $\1/2\ trillion debt next year, when we have growth in the size of Government of 12 percent. What has happened to the Republican Party? What has happened to the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution? What has happened to the lockbox where we were going to take your Social Security money and put it into an account with your name on it? Instead, we have a $20 billion and some energy bill loaded with wasteful porkbarrel projects most of us had not either seen or heard of until the last few hours.

I hope we can muster 40 votes--I hope so--because I think we have to restore some kind of fiscal sanity, some kind of environmental sanity to this Nation. This legislative process needs to be fixed.

I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I want to thank both Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski for their hard work on this important legislation which provides federal funding for the Departments of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies. Unfortunately, I must again speak about the unacceptably high funding levels of parochial projects in this appropriations bill. Overall, this legislation contains approximately $1.2 billion in unrequested spending and locality-specific earmarks.

The Committee provides $29.3 billion in discretionary funding for the VA. That amount is $1.3 billion more than the President's budget request and $2.8 billion above the amount in fiscal year 2003. Some progress has been made to reduce the overall amount of earmarks for the VA in this spending bill.

Among other Senators who have stood on the Senate floor to fight for additional funding for veterans' healthcare, I am concerned that the Committee has directed critical dollars from veterans' healthcare to fund spending projects that have not been properly reviewed. Certain provisions funded under the VA in this legislation illustrate that Congress still does not have its priorities in order.

One especially troubling expense, neither budgeted for nor requested by the Administration over the past twelve years, is a provision that directs the VA to continue the twelve year old demonstration project involving the Clarksburg, WV, Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) and the Ruby Memorial Hospital at West Virginia University. Several years ago, the VA-HUD appropriations bill contained a plus-up of $2 million for the Clarksburg VAMC that ended up on the Administration's line-item veto list and since then the millions keep flowing.

Three years ago, the Committee `recommended' $1 million for the design of a nursing home care unit at the Beckley, WV, VAMC. Two years ago they strengthened their report language urging `the VA to accelerate the design of the nursing home care unit at the Beckley, WV VAMC.'' Last year, they have urged the VA ``to include sufficient funding'' for a new nursing home care unit at the Beckley, WV VAMC. This year, they urge the VA to include sufficient funding in the 2005 budget request.

For St. Louis, MO, the Committee `encouraged' the VA to pursue an innovative approach at a cost of $7 million for leasing parking spaces at the John Cochran Division of the VA Medical Center in St. Louis as a means to address a parking shortfall at the VA hospital.

Additionally, the Committee ``supports continuation'' at the current spending level of the Rural Veterans Health Care Initiative at the White River Junction, VT VAMC. The current level is an astounding $7 million.

While I am encouraged by the increase specifically in veterans health care funding over last year's enacted levels, we must do much more. We made a promise to our veterans that we would take care of their mental and physical health needs incurred for their many sacrifices for our nation. The VA currently has an incredible backlog of claims. Currently, four out of every ten claims for veterans' disability benefits are decided incorrectly further contributing to the backlog. The millions in dollars wasted in pork barrel spending would go a long way to decreasing the backlog in veterans claims by funding additional claims adjudicators and training.

I would be remiss if I did not point out the provisions in this legislation related to AmeriCorps. Whether it is tutoring inner-city youth or fighting forest fires in the West, the lives of countless people are touched by AmeriCorps. AmeriCorps' efforts to reach out to those affected by natural disasters are paying serious dividends. Over 246,000 victims of fires, floods and hurricanes have been aided by AmeriCorps volunteers working in conjunction with groups such as the American Red Cross.

Despite AmeriCorps' countless success stories, the appropriators have funded AmeriCorps $93.2 million below

the President's request, while imposing incredibly restrictive report language that could very well fundamentally change the face of a very successful program.

I was heartened when I saw that the President requested funding to expand AmeriCorps to 75,000 volunteers in Fiscal Year 2004. This was an important first step on the road to large scale expansion of AmeriCorps. Despite the President's request, the appropriators took it upon themselves to ensure that we do not provide adequate funding to reach this ambitious level set forth by the President. The Appropriations Committee's counterparts in the House of Representatives funded AmeriCorps with $23.4 million more than the Senate, yet only believe that they can fund 55,000 volunteers.

Everybody is well aware of money management problems that the Corporation for National Service and AmeriCorps have faced over the last few years. I am confident that the change in leadership at the corporation should help minimize the potential for these same problems to repeat themselves. However, if we do not provide the amount of money the corporation says it will need to fully fund 75,000 volunteers, we are inviting a disastrous repeat of history. If we do not want to repeat this summer's battle for supplemental funds for AmeriCorps, we must fully fund AmeriCorps to the level that the Corporation feels is adequate, not the appropriators.

The last authorization for the AmeriCorps program lapsed in 1996. It is time to reauthorize the program. The Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee has oversight responsibility for this program. It is time that we hold hearings to reauthorize this program and markup the Call to Service Act, which I authored with Senator Bayh and Senator Kennedy. If there is a need to impose restrictions on how AmeriCorps chooses its volunteers or how awards are given out, the HELP committee is where that debate needs to take place, not by the appropriators, without so much as a hearing. We have no idea what effect the restrictions in this legislation will have on AmeriCorps. We have not bothered to run them by the Corporation. Mr. President, we are failing in our oversight responsibilities.

The overwhelming support for AmeriCorps among the grassroots groups is clear. Recently, an event called Voices for AmeriCorps was staged. This 100-hour event featured 130 AmeriCorps Alumni and 51 Members of Congress. In all over 700 people, representing 47 states expressed their support for AmeriCorps. During the summer, letters were sent to the President urging him to support an emergency appropriation request for AmeriCorps. These letters were sent by a bipartisan group of 79 Senators, 228 members of the House of Representatives, 44 Governors and 148 Mayors. The list of supporters is not restricted to elected officials. 250 private sector leaders took out a full page ad in The New York Times expressing support. 1100 community organizations have shown their support. The support for AmeriCorps is clear. It is time that we acknowledge their efforts and not only fully fund the President's request but expand AmeriCorps to new levels.

This legislation also contains the funding for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The programs administered by HUD help our nation's families purchase their homes, helps many low-income families obtain affordable housing, combats discrimination in the housing market, assists in rehabilitating neighborhoods and helps our nation's most vulnerable--the elderly, disabled and disadvantaged--have access to safe and affordable housing

Unfortunately, this bill shifts money away from many critical housing and community programs by bypassing the appropriate competitive process and inserting earmarks and set-asides for special projects that received the attention of the Appropriations Committee. This is unfair to the many communities and families who do not have the good fortune of residing in a region of the country represented by a member of the Appropriations Committee.

In the report accompanying this bill, the Appropriators have taken two accounts, originally created as competitive grant programs to be administered by HUD, and earmarked close to 100% of those accounts. This bill funds the Economic Development Initiative at $140 million. However, the report lists 331 earmarks for that program, totaling over $136 million. Similarly, the committee funds the Neighborhood Initiatives program at $21 million, with report language listing 20 earmarks, totaling over $20 million. I am deeply concerned that once competitive programs have become nothing more than slush funds to fulfill influential members' parochial interests.

Some of the earmarks for special projects in this legislation include:

$1,000,000 for the Tongass Coast Aquarium in Ketchikan, AK for improvements;

$400,000 for Love, Inc. in Fairbanks, AK for a social service facility;

$250,000 for the Alaska Aviation Heritage Museum in Anchorage for improvements;

$1,000,000 for Fort Westernaire in Golden, CO for the expansion of the Westernaire museum;

$500,000 for Miami Dade County, FL for the construction of the Miami Dade County Performing Arts Center;

$500,000 for the Hawaii Nature Center in Wailuku, HI for the Maui Renovation Project;

$500,000 for the Field Museum in Chicago, IL;

$100,000 for the Iowa State Fair Board in DesMoines, IA for a statewide awareness and education/exhibit.

$280,000 for the City of Waterloo, IA for the John Deere brownfield and bio-based incubator project;

$500,000 for the B&O Railroad Museum in Baltimore, MD for building renovations;

$187,500 for Heartland Corn Products in Winthrop, MN for construction of a new facility;

$100,000 for the Graveyard of the Atlantic Museum in Hateras, NC to complete construction;

$450,000 for the Johnny Appleseed Heritage Center, Inc. in Ashland County, OH for construction of facilities;

$200,000 for Holt Hotel in Wichita Falls, TX for continued renovations to the Holt Hotel;

$250,000 for the Walter Clore Wine and Culinary Center in Prosser, WA for costs associated with its construction;

$500,000 for Appalachian Bible College in Beckley, WV to complete its library resource center; and

$1,000,000 for the Huntington Area Development Council in Huntington, WV for the construction of a business incubator.

This bill also funds the Environmental Protection Agency which provides resources to help state, local and tribal communities enhance capacity and infrastructure to better address their environmental needs.

Mr. President, the most egregious provision under the EPA section is the language that would significantly change states' authority under the Clean Air Act in order to protect an engine manufacturer in Missouri. This policy change has been advanced to serve the concerns of Briggs and Stratton, although its September 2003 filing to the SEC indicated that there would not be ``a material effect on its financial condition or results of operations'' and it has not been able to substantiate job loss claims. However, what has been substantiated by the many public health, state environmental departments, and environmental groups opposed to this are the detrimental effects it would have on air quality including ozone levels in many states, including my own. On behalf of the health of the citizens of our respective states, every Senator in this chamber should oppose this blatant and unacceptable change in national air pollution control policy which restricts every state's ability to make decisions that best serve the economic and environmental interests of the state.

I support directing more resources to communities that are most in need and facing serious public health and safety threats from environmental problems. Unfortunately, after a review of this year's bill for EPA programs, I do not believe that we are responding to the most urgent environmental needs. Our nation's key environmental laws are an empty promise of protection without adequate enforcement. I am gratified that Senator Lautenberg's amendment was accepted to bring essential enforcement activities at EPA to levels comparable to last year's appropriation. Enforcement actions have been declining significantly in conjunction with the Administration's enforcement budget cuts. We cannot allow this trend to continue and uphold our responsibility to protect human health

and our vital natural resources under existing laws.

The funding priorities in this bill seem to be slanted toward satisfying parochial and institutional interests rather than providing for robust implementation of national environmental laws. Many of the earmarks provided for the EPA are targeted for consortiums, universities, or foundations. There are many environmental needs in communities back in my home state of Arizona, but these communities will be denied funding as long as we continue to tolerate earmarking that circumvents a regular merit-review process.

For example, some of the earmarks include:

An increase of $500,000 for the painting and coating assistance initiative through the University of Northern Iowa;

An increase of $500,000 for the Kenai River Center in Kenai, AK;

An increase of $1,000,000 for the University of South Alabama for the Center for Estuarine Research;

An increase of $250,000 for the Midwest Technology Assistance Center at the University of Illinois;

An increase of $400,00 for the County of Hawaii and the Hawaii Island Economic Development Board for community-based waste recycling and reuse system;

An increase of $425,000 for Southeastern Louisiana University for the Turtle Cove research station;

$1 million for the Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County, FL for continued construction of the Tri-County Biosolids Pelletization Facility;

$600,000 for the City of Jackson, TN for the Sandy Creek Sanitary Sewer Overflow Project;

$1 million for Washoe County, NV for the North Lemmon Valley Artificial Recharge Project;

$400,000 for Wright City, MO for the construction of an elevated water storage tank; and

$300,000 to the City of Lancaster to construct an advanced ultrafiltration membrane water treatment system in Lancaster County,

Mr. President, for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senators Allen, Wyden, Hollings, and Stevens in sponsoring this substitute amendment to S. 189, the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act. I commend Senators Allen and Wyden for their leadership on this important legislation, and also thank Senators Stevens, Lott, and Sununu and Chairman Boehlert and Ranking Member Hall of the House Science Committee, for their work on this issue.

Nanotechnology is a truly revolutionary field of science. Scientists have been able to develop materials and systems with dramatic new properties by manipulating structures and systems at the scale of 10-9 meters, or 1/100,000 the width of a human hair. This basic research has the potential to benefit virtually every sector of our economy, including biotechnology, telecommunications, national security, manufacturing, and computers. Some experts have projected that sales of products based on nanotechnology will reach $1 trillion by 2015. Many of our international economic competitors have begun to focus on this field. For example, the European Union budgeted $1.2 billion for nanotechnology research in 2003 and 2004.

This bill is designated to highlight the United States' interest and efforts in this emerging technology. The bill would authorize a coordinated research program across the Federal Government through a National Nanotechnology Program. In addition, it would authorize funding for nanotechnology research at the National Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the Department of Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency from fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2008. I think that this multiyear authorization is important, because it signals to the Federal agencies, the States, and private industry our commitment to this important cutting-edge research.

In addition, it is important to point out that the legislation deals with more than just basic research. The bill includes provisions that will ensure that social, ethical, environmental, educational, legal, and workforce issues will be analyzed, including the creation of a new center on a merit-reviewed, competitive basis to study these issues. The bill also would establish a program at NIST to conduct basic research on metrology and other issues relating to nanotechnology-based manufacturing. In addition, the bill would authorize the Secretary of Commerce, or his designee, to establish a clearinghouse of information for issues relating to nanotechnology commercialization. It is important that the private sector has access to this basic research in nanotechnology, so that United States can attain a competitive edge in this new field.

I thank my colleagues for their support of this important legislation.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, I thank Senator Lott for all the work he did as chairman of the subcommittee on this issue. I know we don't have a great deal of time. Is the Senator aware in this bill we have $14.2 billion for security and safety for AIP, $13 billion to modernize the air traffic control system, $31 billion to operate--the list goes on and on. There are billions of dollars, including drastically needed improvements in security and essential air service.

I note the Senator from West Virginia, as long as I have been on the committee, has sought money for essential air service. We also have environmental provisions. These are all being held up on one issue on which we have tried to reach some kind of compromise.

My question to the Senator from Mississippi is this: Let's suppose we don't achieve cloture and we don't have 60 votes on this bill. What do the opponents gain by that? It seems to me what they gain is sooner or later we are going to extend the existing programs, which allows further privatization of the towers and other aspects of our air traffic control system, which is what they are fighting against. Yet they will lose. Is this some kind of a statement being made or is this reality? Is there anybody who believes we are going to shut down the air traffic control system, shut down aviation in America if we don't pass this bill? Either existing law will be extended or we are going to pass this bill. Is that the Senator's assessment? I think our colleagues ought to know what the consequences of this vote will be if we fail to achieve cloture.

First, when Air Force One takes the President down to his ranch in Texas, guess what. Horrors, the plane lands at an airport with a contract tower. When the Vice President travels to Jackson Hole, WY, his plane lands at an airport with a contract tower. Perhaps the safety concerns that always surrounds a President and Vice President have been waived in this case.

One of the most respected men in Washington is Ken Mead. He is the inspector general of the Department of Transportation. He did a study on the issue of contract towers. I ask unanimous consent that his letter and that of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization be printed in the Record.

He says:

Since 1998, we have conducted audits of various aspects of

the Contract Tower Program and have found consistently that

the program works well. We found that contract towers provide

cost-effective services that are comparable in quality and

safety to FAA-operated towers.

The difference is it saves $170 million a year for the taxpayers. By the way, I hope the Senator from New Jersey can get over the Alaska issue. This is a fairly big bill. In all deep sympathy, I hope he can get over two towers in Alaska as we consider this serious issue.

The process was not perfect. We probably should not have put this provision in in conference. We did so at the urging of the administration because there was the threat of a veto by the administration. Ever since then, we have tried to reach some kind of an agreement. We have agreed to have it language neutral. We have agreed there would be a year-long moratorium while GAO and other studies are conducted.

The Senator from Mississippi and I have spent literally hundreds of hours trying to reach some accommodation to avoid a veto by the President of the United States who flat out said that--guaranteed in writing that we would have a veto--and at the same time try to satisfy the legitimate concerns because of the position of Senator Lautenberg and others who voted for the measure to which Senator Lautenberg referred.

It seems to me we should have been able to come to some kind of an agreement, including the commitment that we got from the administration, or at least we would have held to, for an all-out moratorium.

Now, if the Senator from New Jersey prevails on this vote, we have previous authorization and privatization will go on. So the Senator from New Jersey may feel great about it but the fact is that with the compromises we offered, he would have been far better off. Instead, we worry about two towers in Alaska.

The point is, we have tried. We have tried to address this issue, which is a very small part of very large legislation, that has to do with aviation security; it has to do with airports; it has to do with all kinds of things. It is a massive bill and we are hung up on this one aspect for which there is a refusal to compromise on the part of the Senator from New Jersey, and I regret it. I deeply regret it because we may lose this vote, although I hope Members realize the consequences of the loss of this vote. Believe me, we are not going to shut down aviation in the United States of America over this issue. We are not going to allow that to happen. It is far too important to all of America's citizens.

Again, I hope my colleagues will pay attention to the letter from Ken Mead, the inspector general of the Department of Transportation, that says clearly that the contract-operated towers are safe consistently, they are cost effective, and their quality and safety is comparable to FAA-operated towers.

I reserve the remainder of Senator Lott's time.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I will be brief.

The letter says:

Let me be absolutely clear. The administration has no plans

to privatize the Nation's air traffic control system.

I would resist and join in efforts to prevent that.

It is very interesting: Baggage screeners? Could the Senator from New Jersey be talking about TSA talking about baggage screeners? That is an interesting depiction. They are required to be make sure there is security in our airports, I inform my colleague.

We are talking about hundreds of thousands of jobs here. We are talking about safety. We are talking about improved security. We know what needs to be done to improve security at our airports. That is in this bill. These come from the recommendations of the TSA and the Department of Homeland Security. They are vital.

If the Senator from New Jersey is interested in safety, then he will support the passage of this bill because it enhances in a broad variety of ways the safety of the airports in America. It is vital we implement these safety procedures.

If they were not interested, Vice President Gore's National Performance Review in 1994, recommendation No. 9 for Department of Transportation, recommended converting 99 FAA staff control towers to contract operations. I wonder if the Vice President had that in mind at the time this process began.

The important point is we tried very hard to come to some agreement.

Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Russ Feingold as a co-sponsor of legislation that will require Senate candidates to file campaign finance reports in electronic form. This bill will finally remove the exemption the Senate has given itself from an important requirement of campaign finance disclosure laws that apply to everyone else, including candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives and Political Action Committees, PACs.

Political committees active in federal elections must submit their quarterly financial reports for disclosure by the Federal Election Commission, FEC. Anyone interested can nearly instantaneously download the reports from the FEC website and conduct computer searches to learn about the contributions and expenditures of individual candidates for the House, non-Senate national party committees and PACs. The current problem is that they cannot do the same for Senate candidates and parties because of the Senate's insistence on paper rather than electronic filing. The FEC must do more processing of Senate paper reports than of House electronic ones. This involves printing or copying the Senate reports, up to 10,000 pages a day at times, hand- coding transactions that cannot be automatically processed, and keypunching the data into the electronic database. House electronic reports do not need the same treatment. The end result is that in contrast to the House, information from the Senate paper reports are often available well after the election has occurred.

Due to this problem, voters are not well-informed about the campaign finance information of their Senators and Senate candidates. For voters who want to consider the nature of the campaign finance support received by a Senate candidate and its relationship to Senate legislative votes as a factor in deciding for whom they will cast a vote, they clearly cannot.

To address this problem, our legislation requires Senate candidates to file their campaign finance reports electronically with the Secretary of the Senate. Within 24 hours of receipt of those reports, the Secretary is required to forward those reports to the FEC. The FEC, in turn is required to make those reports available on the Internet within 24 hours as they do other reports. Therefore, electronic versions of Senate reports will be available to the public within 48 hours of their filing.

Electronic reports are not only transmitted instantly but are more accurate than paper submissions because software can easily correct mistakes. On the other hand, hand entering of data is always prone to error. Furthermore, the data in electronic reports can be rapidly searched via the Internet for answers to specific questions. Voters will no longer have to go through the time consuming process of reading pages and pages filed by Senate candidates or Senate party committees to figure out the major donors and their employers, and the major recipients of campaign spending. Instead, they can download a filed report from the FEC website onto their personal computers and quickly locate the information they need. This creates effective public disclosure.

The Senate's current failure to provide its constituents with electronically disclosed, timely information is unconscionable. Senate filings should follow the same criteria as other campaign finance reports. There must not be a separate standard for the Senate. Ironically, while they do not currently file electronically, Senators and Senate candidates already use electronic software in compiling their paper reports. If Senators and Senate candidates can use technology to run their offices and websites, why can't they use it to better inform their own constituents about how their campaigns are funded? Their constituents have earned a right to that information. The public interest will be better served and voters' faith in their elected leaders will be restored.

Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Russ Feingold as a co-sponsor of legislation that will require Senate candidates to file campaign finance reports in electronic form. This bill will finally remove the exemption the Senate has given itself from an important requirement of campaign finance disclosure laws that apply to everyone else, including candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives and Political Action Committees, PACs.

Political committees active in federal elections must submit their quarterly financial reports for disclosure by the Federal Election Commission, FEC. Anyone interested can nearly instantaneously download the reports from the FEC website and conduct computer searches to learn about the contributions and expenditures of individual candidates for the House, non-Senate national party committees and PACs. The current problem is that they cannot do the same for Senate candidates and parties because of the Senate's insistence on paper rather than electronic filing. The FEC must do more processing of Senate paper reports than of House electronic ones. This involves printing or copying the Senate reports, up to 10,000 pages a day at times, hand- coding transactions that cannot be automatically processed, and keypunching the data into the electronic database. House electronic reports do not need the same treatment. The end result is that in contrast to the House, information from the Senate paper reports are often available well after the election has occurred.

Due to this problem, voters are not well-informed about the campaign finance information of their Senators and Senate candidates. For voters who want to consider the nature of the campaign finance support received by a Senate candidate and its relationship to Senate legislative votes as a factor in deciding for whom they will cast a vote, they clearly cannot.

To address this problem, our legislation requires Senate candidates to file their campaign finance reports electronically with the Secretary of the Senate. Within 24 hours of receipt of those reports, the Secretary is required to forward those reports to the FEC. The FEC, in turn is required to make those reports available on the Internet within 24 hours as they do other reports. Therefore, electronic versions of Senate reports will be available to the public within 48 hours of their filing.

Electronic reports are not only transmitted instantly but are more accurate than paper submissions because software can easily correct mistakes. On the other hand, hand entering of data is always prone to error. Furthermore, the data in electronic reports can be rapidly searched via the Internet for answers to specific questions. Voters will no longer have to go through the time consuming process of reading pages and pages filed by Senate candidates or Senate party committees to figure out the major donors and their employers, and the major recipients of campaign spending. Instead, they can download a filed report from the FEC website onto their personal computers and quickly locate the information they need. This creates effective public disclosure.

The Senate's current failure to provide its constituents with electronically disclosed, timely information is unconscionable. Senate filings should follow the same criteria as other campaign finance reports. There must not be a separate standard for the Senate. Ironically, while they do not currently file electronically, Senators and Senate candidates already use electronic software in compiling their paper reports. If Senators and Senate candidates can use technology to run their offices and websites, why can't they use it to better inform their own constituents about how their campaigns are funded? Their constituents have earned a right to that information. The public interest will be better served and voters' faith in their elected leaders will be restored.

Madam President, I would like to review with my colleagues section 135 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004. Under the leadership of Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Warner, and Ranking Member Levin, Congress recently agreed to modify the manner in which the Air Force may acquire Boeing 767 aerial refueling tankers. This compromise is contained in section 135.

In the words of Chairman Warner on October 23, 2003, this compromise sought to put this program back into the traditional budget, procurement, and authorization process. Section 135 replaces the current authorization for the Air Force to lease 100 aircraft, with an authorization for the Air Force to lease no more than 20 tankers, and to buy no more than 80 aircraft using multiyear procurement authority and incremental funding. The original proposal to lease 100 tankers would have cost taxpayers $6.7 billion more than buying them outright, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

I am grateful to the Senator form Virginia for his leadership on this issue. Three of the four defense committees that were required to approve the original proposal to lease 100 tankers, did so without sufficiently examining the proposal or its effects on taxpayers. It was the Senate Armed Services Committee that put the brakes on that costly and misguided procurement plan.

By buying those tankers that it requires rather than leasing them, the Air Force can realize very significant savings. The Air Force can avoid paying the cost of borrowing the funds from the private market to build and acquire the planes, as originally proposed. The Air Force can also avoid paying the lease-specific costs that were apparently included in the price that it had previously agreed to pay for the tankers. Documents we have reviewed suggest that these lease-specific costs could be as high as $5.5 million per tanker. Arranging for a purchase of the tankers will also allow the Defense Department to question many of the other terms and conditions of the Air Force's original lease proposal, such as the maintenance and training costs, and whether the planes we are buying should be FAA-certified.

The Senator is correct.

The Senator is correct. The intent was to maximize savings to taxpayers. If the Defense Department, in the words of Senator Warner, puts this program in the traditional budget, procurement, and authorization process, the taxpayer will see significant savings.

Yes. On the other hand, if the Air Force executes under a single contract--presumably under the current proposed contract--and pays at delivery, taxpayers will see savings cut nearly in half, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates. Unfortunately, I have every reason to believe that the Air Force will proceed in this manner, which fundamentally belies the compromise proposal. By proceeding accordingly, the Air Force succeeds in deferring having to make hard budget decisions to acquire tankers it says it ``urgently'' needs, Boeing locks the Air Force into a contract to acquire 100 tankers, and the investment bank gets its cut for setting up any financing and providing other financial services associated with the deal. All of this is done at an unnecessarily high cost to taxpayers-- just as under the original proposal.

I thank the Senator for his continuing, active concern on this most important issue.

The anticipated savings under the compromise as described in Section 135 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 are very significant. The original proposal to lease 100 tankers was extraordinarily costly, and the compromise allows us to avoid those costs. For example, the original proposal would have had us pay $7.4 million per plane in private construction financing costs. The compromise provides for the Air Force to make progress payments to build the planes, and in so doing, to avoid this significant and unnecessary cost.

One of the reasons that the compromise authorizes the Air Force Secretary to use incremental funding to buy no more than 80 tankers is to allow the Air Force to get the tankers it needs in a manageable way that protects taxpayers.

Senator Warner has said that, contrary to the statements of our House colleagues, the compromise does not codify or endorse the tanker acquisition plan that Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz described in his November 5, 2003, letter. The reason the compromise does not codify this approach is because paying for the tankers on delivery as the Deputy Secretary proposes could be very costly and could dramatically slash the savings that this compromise intends to provide--an outcome that is unacceptable.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay my respects to my fellow veterans. It is only through the leadership, dedication and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform, that we are able to enjoy the freedoms that being an American entails.

No matter what your views on the war on terror or the war in Iraq, all Americans can unite behind our brave men and women in uniform. These fine Americans have truly answered our Nation's highest calling and we are better off for it. Today is a day to give thanks to these heroes.

On Veterans Day, I like to share the story of one of my heroes during my service, Mike Christian. I have shared his story before and it has become familiar to many, yet it bears repeating. This year, as Americans serve across the globe in important battles against error and tyranny, Mike Christian's story takes on even more meaning. In the same manner as service in Vietnam, a new generation of heroes is emerging in Iraq.

In the early years of our imprisonment in Hanoi, the North Vietnamese kept us in solitary confinement, or if we were fortunate, two or three to a cell. In 1971, the North Vietnamese moved us from these conditions of isolation into large cells with as many as 30 to 40 men to a room. This was, as you can imagine, a wonderful chance. And was a direct result of the efforts of millions of Americans, led by people like Nancy and Ronald Reagan, on behalf of a few hundreds POWs, 20,000 miles from home.

One of the men who moved into my cell was Mike Christian. Mike came from a small town near Selma, AL. He didn't wear a pair of shoes until he was 13 years old. At 17, he enlisted in the U.S. Navy. He later earned a commission. He became a naval aviator, was shot down and captured in 1967. Mike had a keen and deep appreciation for the opportunities this county--and our military--provide for people who want to work and want to succeed.

The uniforms we wore in prison consisted of a blue short-sleeved shirt, trousers that looked like pajama trousers and rubber sandals that were made out of automobile tires. I recommend them highly; one pair lasted my entire stay.

As part of the change in treatment, the Vietnamese allowed some prisoners to receive packages from home. In some of these packages were handkerchiefs, scarves, and other items of clothing. Mike got himself a piece of white cloth and a piece of red cloth and fashioned himself a bamboo needle. Over a period of a couple, of months, he sewed the American flag on the inside of his shirt.

Every afternoon, before we had a bowl of soup, we would hang Mike's shirt on the wall or our cell, and say the Pledge of Allegiance. I know that saying the Pledge of Allegiance may not seem the most important or meaningful part of our day now, but I can assure you that--for those men in the stark prison cell--it was indeed the most important and meaningful event of our day.

Our day, the Vietnamese searched our cell and discovered Mike's shirt with the flag sewn inside, and removed it. That evening they returned, opened the door of the cell, called for Mike Christian to come out, closed the door of the cell, and for the benefit of all of us, beat Mike Christian severely for the next couple of hours.

Then they opened the door of the cell and threw him back inside. He was not in good shape. We tried to comfort and take care of him as well as we could. The cell in which we lived had a concrete slab in the middle on which we slept. Four naked light bulbs in each corner of the room.

After things quieted down, I went to lie down to go to sleep. As I did, I happened to look in the corner of the room. Sitting there beneath that dim light bulb, with a piece of white cloth, a piece of red cloth, another shirt and his bamboo needle, was my friend, Mike Christian. Sitting there, with his eyes almost shut from his beating, making another American Flag. He was not making the flag because it made Mike Christian feel better. He was making the flag because he knew how important it was for us to be able to pledge our allegiance to our flag and country.

Duty, Honor, Country. We must never forget the millions of Americans who, with their courage, with their sacrifice, and with their lives, made those words live for all of us.

This year, as we pause to remember those men and women currently serving their country, as well as our family and friends who serve before us, we need to remember the sacrifices of people like Mike Christian who made this Nation what it is today.

Mr. President, I rise to pay my respects to my fellow veterans. It is only through the leadership, dedication, and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform that we are able to enjoy the freedoms that we value so much as Americans. We cheer our veterans at homecomings and parades, and we grieve for them when they do not come home. At critical times in U.S. history, as we are facing now, we unfortunately find ourselves grieving more for our military service members, than celebrating and honoring their service. Veterans Day gives us a chance to honor and thank all of these heroes.

On this Veterans Day, I would like to share the story of one such hero who touched many American lives--Commander Willie McCool. Commander McCool was killed earlier this year as he was piloting the Columbia Space Shuttle towards home. Recently, Commander McCool's family, Naval Academy classmates, and former cross-country and track teammates participated in a ceremony at the location where a memorial will be placed in his honor. The essence of what that memorial will stand for was captured perfectly in a recent Washington Post article by William Gildea, dated October 30, 2003.

On October 2, 1982, as captain of the Naval Academy's men's cross country squad, McCool led the midshipmen to a victory over Georgetown and Syracuse Universities, while setting a personal record for the 5- mile race of 24:27. On February 1, 2003, Commander McCool and the members of his crew perished when Columbia came apart over Texas, only 15 minutes from landing.

The location of the planned memorial for Commander McCool will be 15 minutes from the finish line on the day he set his best time. The spot was chosen to commemorate Commander McCool's life and acknowledge his contributions to the country, the Navy, and the Naval Academy's cross- country program, as well as to recognize the positive impact that being a Navy runner had on his life.

Before inviting his cross-country coach Al Cantello to the Space Shuttle Columbia launch, Commander McCool sent a portrait of himself to Cantello with the following inscription: ``Your coaching laid a foundation of discipline, drive and passion that has carried me across the many milestones of my life. With boundless appreciation, Willie.'' From that foundation, Commander McCool developed into a top-notch Naval Officer and served our country in an exemplary manner. On this Veterans Day, I humbly thank Commander McCool, and his family, for his selfless service and sacrifice for our country.

At this time, I ask unanimous consent that the October 30, 2003, Washington Post article regarding Commander Willie McCool be printed in the Record.

Will the Senator from Kentucky yield?

Mr. President, my colleagues may be wondering what happened on the Internet tax moratorium bill. I wish to make a couple of comments. There was significant disagreement over a variety of issues on both sides of the aisle concerning various provisions of S. 150, the Internet tax moratorium bill. It is now narrowed down to one final difference--the rest are negotiable or have been negotiated--and that is the definition of ``Internet access.'' It sounds pretty technical and a bit arcane, but it is really the vital aspect of this issue.

I think both opponents and supporters of the Internet tax moratorium will agree to some kind of moratorium, but the question of the definition of Internet access, particularly as it has been affected by the development of new technologies that now apply to the Internet, has complicated the issue. Intense negotiations are going on, on both sides. I think there is a recognition on both sides that we need to act on the issue of the Internet tax moratorium. I will be actively engaged in those negotiations, and I hope that absolutely before we leave for the Christmas break, we will have this issue resolved and voted on by the Senate.

I thank my friend from Kentucky.

Will the majority leader yield?

Mr. President, I point out that we went on to the Internet tax moratorium bill last night with the anticipation of amendments being proposed and votes starting this morning--stacked votes. That is what we usually do on a Thursday evening. Whether that is a good idea or a bad one, it is a very common practice. We had anticipated at least three amendments and then stacked votes this morning and moving forward with the bill.

Then, I was told later in the evening there would be one amendment that would be proposed and we would stack it for this morning; and not too late last night, the sponsors of the amendment said they were going to file the amendment and debate it this morning.

With all due respect, that is not the way we usually do business here. We tell people what we are going to do and go with their word and move forward. I think we need to get this done because the Internet tax moratorium has expired. If we don't want the Internet tax moratorium to prevail, that is a decision to be made by the body. We should make the decision. I hope the majority leader will stick with his comments. There are not that many items of dispute on the Internet tax moratorium. It has been debated on several occasions in past years. So I hope relevant amendments--and I don't think there are more than two or three, to be honest--are offered and we can move forward with those with a reasonable debate time and dispose of this today, understanding that all Members have the problem of scheduling and want to leave.

So I urge the cooperation of all Members so we can dispose of important amendments and move forward. I see my colleague from North Dakota who is ready to speak. I wish he had been here last night to speak. We could have done an amendment and debated it. Instead, we put it off for this morning, which I hope will make comments more abbreviated so we can move to the substance of the amendment and passage of the bill.

I thank the leader and I appreciate his commitment to try to get this done today.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry: Wouldn't rule XVIIII 1(b) begin to apply concerning proceedings while legislation is before the Senate?

Mr. President, I believe the Senators from Tennessee and Delaware have an amendment filed. We are ready to consider that amendment or other amendments, if Senators have amendments that they would bring them to the floor so we can move forward with legislation.

I mention to my friend from North Dakota, who is an articulate and passionate defender of his point of view on the Internet tax issue, the reason why I mentioned his absence last night was I meant he would have contributed a good deal to the debate and discussion given his many years of involvement in this issue, which I have always enjoyed, not only on that issue but on numerous others.

So I would ask if our colleagues would file their amendments, bring them forward, as well as amendments that may be applicable.

I yield the floor.

Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. President, shortly the sponsors will be proposing an

amendment. In the meantime, I ask to speak as in morning business for 4 minutes.

Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.

I am sorry to say the Senate is still not in order.

Will my friend from Nevada yield for another parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada, who understands parliamentary procedures as well as anyone.

There are some discussions going on about some agreement that might be reached on this issue with some of my colleagues. I hope we can make progress on that.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield so I can make an announcement?

Madam President, for the benefit of my colleagues, we have been in some intense negotiations on the Internet tax issue. We have made significant progress. We still have one significant hurdle remaining where we can perhaps get all sides together. There is about a 50-50 chance. But we should know in about 20 minutes as to whether we will reach this very important agreement which would basically eliminate any major issues associated with the Internet tax issue.

I thank my colleague from Illinois for yielding. I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I ask my friend from North Dakota--this is on the Stabenow amendment--we would like to have a couple-word change. If he would look at the amendment where it says, in the last paragraph, ``The White House and all Executive Branch agencies should respond promptly and completely to all requests by Members of Congress,'' that between ``all'' and ``requests,'' if we could add the two words ``constitutionally appropriate.'' Would that be agreeable to him, so it would read: ``completely to all constitutionally appropriate requests by Members of Congress''?

I assume that most Members of Congress would not make unconstitutionally appropriate requests, but that seems to be perfecting language that some of my friends would like to have added.

Madam President, do I still have the floor?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to ask a question of the Senator from Michigan.

Madam President, I ask the Senator from Michigan if she would be agreeable to a two-word addition in the last paragraph, that between the words ``all'' and ``requests'' the words ``constitutionally appropriate'' be added. I wonder if that would be agreeable to her. If it is not agreeable to her, I will not propose the amendment.

I thank the Senator and yield the floor.

Mr. President, if my colleague would allow me to speak for 5 minutes in morning business about an important issue to me.

Mr. President, I would like to address an article that appeared on the front page of Roll Call on Thursday, November 8. The title of the article was ``McCain Breaks Own Pork Rule,'' and it addressed my efforts, as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, to secure authorized funding--I emphasize authorized--for land acquisition at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona. Sadly, the headline was misleading and the article itself was simply inaccurate.

As my colleagues know--and I see my colleague from West Virginia in the Chamber--for many years I have made it a point to carefully scrutinize the annual appropriations bills which are, in my view, wasteful porkbarrel spending. I have specific criteria for identifying these projects which are very clear. Simply put: If an item is requested by the administration or properly authorized, I do not object to it and I do not consider it a porkbarrel project. Having said that, let me address the situation discussed in the Roll Call article.

The authorization for funds for the land acquisition at Luke Air Force Base was included in both the House Armed Services Committee markup of the fiscal year 2003 Defense authorization bill and the fiscal year 2003 authorization conference report, and in the Senate Armed Services Committee markup of the fiscal year 2004 authorization bill. As a member of the authorizing committee, I readily admit I worked hard to procure the authorized funds necessary for the land acquisition. As all of my colleagues are aware, authorizing the expenditure of Federal funds before appropriating them is the proper process. It is the way we are supposed to do things in this body.

As no one disputes, the authorization bill includes a provision for the Luke land acquisition. It will be adopted by both Chambers and signed into law by the President. I cannot recall a Defense appropriations or Military Construction appropriations markup occurring after the Defense authorization bill conference report was signed into law. As my colleagues know, appropriators have only the Senate-passed authorization bill to use in determining whether projects proposed for inclusion in their markup are authorized.

Simple fact and not my opinion--I emphasize, it is a fact, not my opinion--rule XVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate expressly acknowledges that Senate bills that were previously passed in the current session authorize appropriations. The rule states in part that:

The term unauthorized appropriation means an appropriation

(i) not specifically authorized by law or Treaty stipulation

unless the appropriation has been specifically authorized by

an Act or resolution previously passed by the Senate during

the same session. . . .

That is exactly what happened with the authorization bill. Therefore, the Senate considers it authorized when the authorization bill passes the Senate, not when the conference report is signed into law. Again, this is a standing rule of the Senate, not an arbitrary decree of my own. I have never objected to an appropriation on the grounds that while it was authorized in the Senate-passed bill and was accepted by House and Senate conferees, the conference had yet to finish its work. I consider such an appropriation to be authorized while consistent with Senate rules and the fact that the report had yet to be voted only a technical formality.

The article also suggested that I requested from the Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee an unauthorized earmark for Luke Air Force Base. That suggestion is simply not true. I categorically deny ever approaching any member of the Appropriations Committee in order to request funding for this project, or any other project for that matter. It just simply didn't happen.

If there is any member of the Appropriations Committee who will come forward and say that I did, I would be very interested, because it didn't happen.

The fact is, when I was approached by the chairman of the Senate Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee, who informed me that if I wanted the money authorized for Luke included in her subcommittee's markup, I would have to send her a letter requesting it, I firmly refused to do so, noting only in conversation with the chairman that the money had been authorized and that the appropriators should follow that instruction.

I believe strongly, as every Member of the Senate knows, that appropriators should follow the instructions of the authorizing committees. And no one should have to write a letter requesting it. I never have.

It has come to my attention that three different members of the Appropriations Committee told the Roll Call reporter responsible for this article that I approached them and requested this funding. Again, this is not true. I challenge any member of the House or Senate Appropriations Committee to come forward and prove I made any such request.

I have with me a letter to the editor of Roll Call from Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste. As my colleagues know, Citizens Against Government Waste is a very well respected and nonpartisan government watchdog organization. I have worked with them for many years, and I am proud of our joint efforts to combat wasteful spending. In the letter Mr. Schatz says:

Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) is concerned about

the accuracy of the article, ``McCain Breaks Own Pork Rule,''

that Roll Call published on November 6. [Citizens Against

Government Waste] is dedicated to hunting down pork-barrel

projects in every appropriations bill. In fact, CAGW's fiscal

Congressional Pig Book contained 9,362 pork-barrel projects.

Senator John McCain has been the leading voice in the Senate

trying to stop this egregious practice. As for the $14.3

million for Luke Air Force Base mentioned in your article,

Sen. McCain has assured us he did not request any

unauthorized fund from any member of the appropriations

committee.

We have worked closely for many years with Senator McCain

in our joint effort to combat wasteful government spending.

He believes that spending provisions, particularly defense-

related projects, be contained in the Department of Defense

authorization bill. Senator McCain serves on the Senate Armed

Services Committee, and he readily admits that he worked hard

to ensure that funding for Luke AFB was included in the

Senate DOD authorization bill. The timing of the

authorization versus appropriations bills is a red herring in

this story, designed to make it appear that Senator McCain

has violated his own rules on pork barrel spending.

Sincerely,

Tom Schatz, President, Citizens Against Government Waste.

Mr. President, I regret I had to take the time of the Senate to address this issue. I feel it is important for my colleagues to know the truth. I know very well if I violated my own rules, it would get a lot of publicity and longevity. I have not done that in 17 years, and I will not. That is why I come to the floor today to correct what was written in that article.

I have been very diligent in ensuring my office never violates the same standards for appropriations to which I have long insisted my colleagues adhere. I did not do so in this case and I will not do so in the future. I appreciate the indulgence of my colleague from North Dakota.

I yield the floor.

Tankers

Mr. President, I commend the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the senior Senator from Virginia, Senator John Warner for putting the Committee on Armed Services back on the map of relevancy and like any sea captain with a steady hand decisively changing the course of the committee from just a debating society. I believe that the Appropriations Committee will think twice before they try to pull this off again. This began in September 2001 when Secretary Roche, the Boeing Company and the Appropriations Committee decided to lease 100 Boeing 767 tankers and go around the traditional budget process at the Pentagon, go around the Secretary of Defense, go around the Office of Management and Budget, go around the authorizing committee--(SASC)--and insert a $30 billion new start lease of 100 Boeing 767 aerial refueling tankers into the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002--without a single hearing, debate, or vote.

However, late yesterday afternoon Secretary Wolfowitz sent a letter to the defense committees which would enable the SECAF to sign a contract for the requisition of 100 tankers now, and to buy 80 of them on delivery.

This language has negative financial and budgetary implications. Importantly, it will provide that lease-unique disbursements, such as construction financing--$7.5 million per plane--lease administration costs--costing up to $5.5 million per plane; FAA certification--which would be considerable and yet unnecessary when the Air Force owns the planes; and other costs such as operating expenses for any special- purpose entity extend to the order of 80 tankers--which the SECAF will buy.

In addition, the USAF will not be required to set aside money now for the purchase of these tankers. So, when the tankers are built, the USAF will have to come up with the cash to pay for them. But, at that point, the temptation will be simply to extend the lease and not convert to a buy when the time comes to do so. So, this proposal puts no pressure on the USAF to make choices before starting to build planes number 21-100. Instead, it will have Congress over a barrel to pay for planes already built under the tanker lease regime. Thus, as is the case under

the original lease proposal, the USAF will get its tankers in a way that defers the payment burden to someone else at some unspecified point in the future.

This is what we were trying to originally avoid.

The language we agreed to late last night is clear and would unequivocally prevent the USAF from leasing more than the 20 tankers.

And more importantly will prevent ``costs that are unique to this lease arrangement . . . costs for issuing the bonds required to finance the lease or the construction of the tankers, operating expenses for the special-purpose entity, lease administration fees, FAA certification costs, etc.'' apply to the subsequent 80 aircraft.

The Air Force will be forced to, just like the other military services do, obtain budget authority before placing an order for the purchase of tankers or before Boeing spends any money for the construction of those planes. Because this will require the USAF to pay at the time of order, make progress payments and acquire the tankers under two separate contracts, as it should, potential savings could be as much as $5.2 billion according to unofficial CBO estimates.

Remarkably, the key threshold issue of corrosion remains an open issue. CRS still believes that, to date, the DOD has not provided a thorough corrosion assessment as the SASC asked for. And, the two reports that Secretary Roche cited as updating the Economic Service Life Study, ESLS, which concluded that the current fleet is viable to 2040, are in no way comparable in sophistication, depth or scope. So, to date, the DOD has produced, despite numerous requests, any data or analysis that invalidates the conclusions of the ESLS.

The November 5, 2003, letter from the Deputy Secretary of Defense to Chairman Warner is disturbing. In this letter, the DOD describes how it intends to proceed acquiring tankers under the legislative language agreed upon by the conferees 2 days ago. In particular, it indicates that the DOD intends to sign the current contract for the acquisition of all the tankers now and not obtain requisite budget authority until the out-years to fund the purchase of the tankers.

According to the letter, the DOD will fund its purchase of the 80 tankers by adding $3.8 billion in the out-years to ``achieve[ ] an immediate start to the program and allow [for the] purchase [of] the last 80 aircraft at time of delivery.''

There are several problems with this:

It seems inconsistent with the plain language of the bill that the conference has agreed upon--that the USAF buy up to 80 aircraft under a multi-year procurement/incremental funding methodology.

It will likely result in the proposals being scored as a $18 billion ``direct purchase.''

It suggests that taxpayers will be stuck with unnecessarily having to pay for construction financing costs at a premium open-market rate and other lease-unique disbursements.

It is unabashedly similar to what the USAF intended to do under the original contract to lease 100 tankers, and I appreciate that we now have a commitment, as Senator Warner said on the floor of the Senate, that would put this program back into the traditional procurement process, this program back into the traditional budget process, and this program back into the traditional authorization process.

I yield.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Joint Economic Committee be authorized to conduct a hearing in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Friday, November 7, 2003, from 9:30 a.m. to 1 p.m.