John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I think that clears up the parliamentary situation. So we are now considering the Burns second-degree amendment to the McCain amendment.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Lieberman I propose an amendment that includes a number of the national preparedness provisions recommended by the 9/11 Commission and is similar to the related proposal we introduced as part of S. 2774 on September 7. It does not address the issue of homeland security grants or spectrum allocation, as those issues will be addressed separately. I believe that this amendment will be non-controversial, and I hope that my colleagues will support it. One of the lessons that we learned from the terrorist attacks of September 11 is that not only was our country not prepared to prevent the terrorist attacks, but we were not adequately prepared to immediately respond to the attack. One of the fundamental lessons learned is that we need to do more to prepare our first responders and the general public to respond to a terrorist attack. The stories of the New York City Police Department not being able to communicate with the New York City Fire Department have led serious efforts to increase the amounts of money devoted to increasing interoperability. Lives of the brave men and women of the fire department and the people working at the World Trade Center were lost during the terrorist attacks due, in part, to a lack of communication and the lack of a coordinated strategy to respond to large scale disasters. We must continue to work to ensure that we equip our first responders with the equipment and training necessary to ensure both their safety and their ability to carry out their critical missions. The Commission's report emphasizes the importance of teamwork, collaboration, cooperation, and the involvement of key decisionmakers. Their recommendations build upon these themes. The report recommends that emergency response agencies nationwide should adopt the Incident Command System to ensure that there is a command structure in place when responding to an emergency. This amendment expresses the Sense of Congress that the Secretary for Homeland Security require homeland security grant applicants aggressively implement the ICS and unified command systems. The amendment also would follow the Commission's recommendation to remedy the long-standing liability and indemnification impediments to the provision of mutual aid in the National Capital Region. Consistent with the recommendations, the amendment also would direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to work with the Federal Communications Commission, the Secretary of Defense, and State and local government officials to encourage and support the establishment of consistent and effective communications capabilities in the event of an emergency in a high-risk urban area. The Secretary is also directed to work with the Secretary of Defense to plan for supplying additional back-up communications support in the event of an emergency. As pointed out by the 9/11 Commission, the private sector controls approximately 85 percent of the critical infrastructure in the Nation, and the report therefore places particular emphasis on the importance of private sector preparedness. The Commission report endorses the American National Standards Institute, ANSI, and National Fire Protection Association, NFPA, voluntary Standard on Disaster/Emergency Management and Business Continuity Programs. The amendment would direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish a program to promote private sector preparedness for terrorism and other emergencies, including urging companies to adopt this ANSI/NFPA standard. In striving to protect our Nation from the threat of terrorism, we must continuously analyze our weaknesses and prepare for the threats of the future. This amendment directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to fulfill this important responsibility by reporting to Congress regularly on his work to complete vulnerability and risk assessments, and the adequacy of the government's plans to protect our Nation's critical infrastructure. As our Nation continues to stand vigilant against the threats of future terrorist attacks, this amendment takes on additional meaning. Despite all the work done since September 11, it is likely that we will be struck by terrorists again. We must continue to work to ensure that we are ready to respond to any attack. This amendment strives to get us closer to that goal. Again, I believe that this amendment should be noncontroversial, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Burns amendment be proposed as a second-degree perfecting amendment to the McCain amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will quote from some of the letter. It says: We are writing to express our strong support for your proposed amendment to S. 2805 . . . to establish a firm date to provide additional radio spectrum for our Nation's first responders. What is the situation today? The situation today is that there are television stations that are on frequencies, channels 60 through 69, that will remain there forever under the present situation. In other words, in an appropriations bill--not through the Commerce Committee but in an appropriations bill--language was included that said that the broadcasters do not have to achieve a transition from analog to digital until 85 percent of the viewing audience in America had access to HDTV. In testimony before the committee, Chairman Powell of the Federal Communications Commission said that is never. That is never, he said-- or decades. We have to get this spectrum freed up so we will have it available for all of our first responders so in the case of a disaster or an attack, they will have the ability to communicate with each other. As the letter points out, in 1997, and that was 7 years ago: . . . Congress required that certain television broadcast spectrum be reallocated for public safety use, but limited access to that spectrum until the uncertain end of the digital television transition. The problem is, for 7 years, since we assigned that date, we have not made that transition and, as I stated, if Chairman Powell is correct, we will never make that transition to the point where the analog spectrum would have to be returned. The letter from these public safety and first responders states: We urge the Senate to reject amendments to your proposal that would add uncertainty for public safety spectrum viability. Without a firm date, State and local governments will not be able to proceed to plan, fund or construct new interoperable radio communications systems. That is the heart of it. I repeat that the reason I am proposing this amendment is because the 9/11 Commission stated this as one of their urgent recommendations that needed to be acted upon. I have been made painfully aware over the years of the power and influence of the National Association of Broadcasters. In 1997, they got billions of dollars worth of digital spectrum. They have sat before our committee and promised that by 2003 or 2004 all of it would be returned--all of their analog spectrum would be returned. And, of course, they were able to prevail time after time. I am not going to waste the valuable time of this body describing how they were able to do that. But we are now facing a situation where we have to get this spectrum freed up. We have to do it. Some will argue it is not enough. We have had testimony before our committee that we need more spectrum for public safety; that we need more for first responders. But right now we don't have enough. Right now. We need to clear this up. Let me also point out who is sitting on the spectrum channels 60 to 69. Unfortunately, a lot of it is Hispanic television. Some of it is religious broadcasters, and by moving them off that spectrum it obviously would be somewhat discriminatory. The spectrum is being used, as I mentioned, in television broadcasting. This amendment would authorize auctioning off the analog spectrum that is not used and the proceeds from that would be used to purchase set-top boxes for those individuals or families who are still only receiving over-the-air television. I remind you again why the spectrum is so critical. It is not a new issue. In 1995, the Federal Communications Commission and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration established a Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee to evaluate the needs of Federal, State, and local public safety officials through the year 2010. The committee included distinguished experts from public safety agencies, equipment manufacturers, commercial service providers, and the public at large. This organization filed its report on September 11, 1996, making key recommendations. The first recommendation was stated quite directly: ``More spectrum is required.'' The committee explained, ``In the short term''--talking about 5 years, talking about 1996 when their report was issued--``approximately 25 Megahertz of new Public Safety allocations are needed. The present shortages can be addressed by making part of the spectrum presently used for television broadcast channels 60-69 available as soon as possible.'' That was back in 1996. Among other recommendations, the PSWAC noted, ``Funding limitations will remain a major obstacle in the adoption of needed improvements in Public Safety communications systems. At a time when government budgets are tight, alternative methods of funding future Public Safety communications systems must be identified. Otherwise the substantial benefits afforded by technology will not be realized.'' The recommendations of this distinguished commission are as true today as they were 7 years ago. And yet we have continued to fail to deliver this spectrum to public safety. In 1997, I chaired a hearing examining public safety spectrum issues. My committee heard first-hand accounts of the troubles experienced a the Oklahoma City bombing. We heard chilling testimony from Oklahoma City Council Member Mark Schwartz about the day of the bombing. He said, ``We had our trailer command post, the State, the county, the Feds: We were next door to one another, because we could not communicate in any other way in our crisis.'' He told the story of standing with an FBI agent whose cell phone was not operating. The only way the agent could communicate with Washington was through a friend of Mr. Schwartz in Florida who had two phone lines in his house. The friend used one line to talk to Oklahoma City and the other line to talk to the FBI in Washington. Mr. Schwartz explained, ``You could not use your cell phones, because they were jammed. Southwestern Bell at this time went down. . . . This is why this additional public safety spectrum has to be in place. Because it means saving lives. And I do not care where it is in this country, the public is entitled to it.'' That hearing was 7 years ago. We are no better off today. The 9/11 Commission report made the following observation: ``The inability to communicate was a critical element at the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and Somerset County, crash sites, where multiple agencies and multiple jurisdictions responded. The occurrence of this problem at three very different sites is strong evidence that compatible and adequate communications among public safety organizations at the local, State, and Federal levels remains an important problem.'' Nothing has changed. What happened during those 7 years? Congress got the message, at least partially, following the PSWAC report. In the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Congress allocated 24 megahertz to public safety. Big win for public safety, right? Wrong. The 24 megahertz was just an empty promise. Why? Because broadcasters insisted on an exception to this requirement. That exception continues to exist today with no end in sight. Under current law, public safety will not receive access to the spectrum until completion of the digital television transition. I asked FCC Chairman Powell at a hearing earlier this month, ``if neither the FCC nor Congress took any further action, when do you think the digital television transition would be complete? He replied, ``decades.'' We cannot wait decades. We cannot stand by while another Oklahoma City or Pentagon or New York incident occurs hoping for broadcasters to act in the best interests of the public rather than the best interest of themselves. We must act now. The Wall Street Journal characterized the issue quite well on Monday: ``You would think that these days, Congress would be on a terrorism high alert, paying any price to keep the homeland secure. But there's at least one chink in Washington's antiterror resolve, as was evident in the U.S. Senate last week. It involves the broadcasting lobby and the high-stakes politics associated with the transition to digital TV. Most people have heard about big D.C. lobbies like the ones for tobacco and guns. Compared with the broadcasters, though, they're but a few suburban moms writing letters. Multichannel News, a trade paper, says the broadcast industry is `so potent it's considered immune from the laws of political physics.' '' The article proceeds to describe the SAVE LIVES Act calling it ``an easy and obvious solution.'' But the article aptly describes the fate of the bill last week in the Senate Commerce Committee: ``But the broadcasting lobby liked virtually nothing about the bill, and senators couldn't muscle up the political will to pass it. The Commerce Committee voted 13-9 against the McCain proposal, approving a vastly watered-down alternative. Only four channels would have to be returned by 2008, and even that handover could be delayed indefinitely if broadcasters could persuade the FCC that doing so would cause ``consumer disruption.'' The National Association of Broadcasters, the main lobby group, says it is only concerned about preserving the ability of millions of Americans to watch free broadcast TV; it also says it is moving as quickly as it can toward digital television. Maybe. It's also possible that Congress, in doing the broadcasters' bidding, has managed a striking bifecta: a ridiculous technology policy that leaves it open to the charge of being soft on terrorists. I ask my colleagues: If there is another disaster--and I pray every single night that there never is--whether it be a terrorist attack, whether it be a natural disaster, with which we are now becoming unfortunately more and more familiar, will we be able to tell the first responders that we have taken every possible action to give them the ability to communicate with one another to save lives? I hope I can work out an agreement with my friend from Montana, who has a different philosophical view on this issue, which I respect. I hope I can work out an agreement with him so that we can move forward and close this loophole that has been created, at the same time understanding there are legitimate concerns that broadcasters have in arranging for this transition to take place. But we cannot have it be endless. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to discuss my amendment. We are in some discussions right now with other staffs, and hopefully we may have an agreement that would then allow us to agree by voice vote to this amendment. But I want to talk about it because it is a very important issue. It is important to our first responders. It is important to our broadcasters. It is important to public safety. There is a long history, going back at least to Oklahoma City, that the failure to have the ability to communicate costs the lives of innocent Americans. It really is not any more complicated than that. I ask unanimous consent that a letter to me from the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials- International, the Congressional Fire Services Institute, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, Major Cities Chiefs Association, Major County Sheriffs' Association, and the National Sheriffs' Association be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. McCAIN. I understand, as I said before, that there is controversy associated with this. I will be more than happy to agree to a time agreement, a very reasonable time agreement to debate this issue and vote on this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to use the time between now and the time the vote is ordered to briefly talk about the amendment, but before I do I will say I understand there is controversy associated with this amendment. I do not intend, nor do I believe, that we should hold up the progress of this legislation and I would be more than willing to agree to a time agreement immediately upon completion of the pending votes to give the opponents of this amendment time to consider that. I would also point out to both proponents and opponents of this amendment this issue is very well known. There may be some Members who are not that familiar with this amendment, but it goes all the way back to 1997 when we had hearings before the Commerce Committee on May 15, 1997, where following the Oklahoma bombing there was, in the view of the witnesses, an urgent requirement to get spectrum to the public safety community as quickly as possible. That was 7 years ago. The same arguments are being used today as were used 7 years ago after the Oklahoma tragedy. So I believe this amendment addresses, as Senator Lieberman and I had committed to do to the families and to the members of the 9/11 Commission, the fact that we would act one way or another on all 41 of their recommendations. This addresses the following recommendation made by the 9/11 Commission: Recommendation: Congress should support pending legislation which provides for the expedited and increased assignment of radio spectrum for public safety purposes. Furthermore, high- risk urban areas such as New York City and Washington, D.C., should establish signal corps units to ensure communications connectivity between and among civilian authorities, local first responders, and the National Guard. Federal funding of such units should be given high priority by Congress. What we are talking about is not only addressing the expedited aspect of their recommendation but also increased assignment. That is why, in this legislation, all of those who are presently using analog spectrum would be required by a date certain, December 31, 2008, without exception, without loophole, to move off of the analog to digital spectrum. To take care of those who are still using over-the-air broadcasting, $1 billion would be set aside from the auction of this spectrum in order to provide the provision of set top boxes for those Americans who are still using over-the-air television as their primary way of receiving television signals. This is a small amount compared to the immense value of the spectrum itself. This amendment is supported by the 9/11 Commission. I have a letter from them and statement in support of it. It says: We write in support of your amendment to S. 2845 regarding public safety spectrum. Your amendment provides for the expedited and potentially increased assignment of spectrum for public safety purposes. By creating a funding mechanism to aid first responders in the purchase of new equipment, it also recognizes that spectrum alone is insufficient to address the deficiencies in public safety interoperability. In this way, your amendment squarely addresses the needs of public safety cited in the 9/11 Commission report. We urge your colleagues to support this amendment, because it takes significant steps to addressing the urgent needs of police, fire, emergency medical, and other public safety agencies. By establishing a firm date of December 31, 2007, for the return of spectrum long promised to public safety, your amendment provides much-needed certainty with respect to access to this spectrum. And by establishing a firm date of December 31, 2008, for completion of the digital television transition nationwide, your amendment creates an essential funding mechanism for the purchase of public safety equipment using proceeds from the auction of the broadcast analog spectrum. This latter deadline also ensures that the return of broadcast spectrum for public safety occurs with minimal risk of litigation, minimal impact on consumers, and with maximum flexibility of the Congress to allocate additional spectrum to public safety if it concludes such an allocation is necessary. Finally, we urge the Senate to reject efforts to weaken your amendment by adding loopholes purporting to offer ``flexibility'' to the assignment of spectrum to public safety entities. The need for this spectrum is too great; the stakes are too large; and the time is too pressing to succumb to efforts to delay these critical measures for first responders everywhere. I will talk about the successful efforts orchestrated by the National Association of Broadcasters to delay indefinitely the transition from analog to traditional spectrum. Now that my friend from Montana is in the Chamber, I will quote from a speech he made in 1997, 7 years ago, which basically lays out the same concerns he and the National Association of Broadcasters have today. It is time we acted. It's time we gave these people the spectrum they deserve. We can do that, along with providing those who are now and will only receive over-the-air television a set top box, which will allow them to receive digital television signals. Mr. President, I think we are close to 2:15.

Mr. McCAIN. I also understand that at 2:15 there will be votes as previously ordered.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, throughout our country's history there have been many debates in the Congress over the use, conservation, and protection of our natural resources. These debates have resulted in landmark policies, such as the Louisiana Purchase, the Homestead Act, and the establishment of the world's first national park, Yellowstone, in 1872. Natural resource and environmental issues are inherently complex and often controversial, for they involve tradeoffs in which many diverse interests have a stake. There is one interest that cannot speak for itself and relies upon the vision of others; the interest of future generations. Teddy Roosevelt said it best, it seems to me, in his 1916 book, A Book-Lover's Holidays in the Open, where he castigates those ``short-sighted men who in their greed and selfishness will, if permitted, rob our country of half its charm by their reckless extermination of all useful and beautiful wild things''. He goes on to say, ``Our duty to the whole, including the unborn generations, bids us restrain an unprincipled present-day minority from wasting the heritage of these unborn generations. The movement for the conservation of wild life and the larger movement for the conservation of all our natural resources are essentially democratic in spirit, purpose, and method.'' It is in this spirit of our moral obligation to the future--to those who, in Teddy Roosevelt's memorable phrase, are ``within the womb of time''--that I wish to salute the 40th anniversary of the Wilderness Act of 1964. I am pleased to lend my support to this bipartisan resolution honoring the milestone legislation preserving our Nation's rare and spectacular wild places. Arizona has the good fortune to have numerous preserved wilderness areas, thanks to this law. In fact, more than 4,500,000 acres have been preserved in 90 wilderness areas. These range from the Cabeza Prieta Wilderness of more than 800,000 acres, to the 2,040 acre Baboquivari Peak Wilderness, an extraordinary area designated in 1990. From our desert expanses to the heights of 12,643-foot Humphrey's Peak, the highest point in Arizona, protected within the Kachina Peaks Wilderness, Arizona is not only one of America's fastest-growing states, but also a state in which we preserve and treasure our wilderness heritage. In 1936, the great forester and wilderness champion, Bob Marshall, spoke of the luxury--a privilege--we Americans have. He commented that Americans can enjoy ``a twofold civilization--the mechanized, comfortable, easy civilization of twentieth-century modernity, and the peaceful timelessness of the wilderness where vast forests germinate and flourish and die and rot and grow again without any relationship to the ambitions and interferences of man.'' In spite of the environmental challenges that face our country and the world today, I am very grateful for the vision of past leaders that enacted this law to ensure that those who inhabit our nation many generations into the future will be able to experience wilderness in their lives, as we do today. As we celebrate the protection of existing and additional wilderness areas under this historic law, we follow our most noble and nonpartisan traditions of national resource conservation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the following statement of Stewart Udall, one of our Nation's conservation leaders and the Secretary of the Interior in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, presented at an event on September 19, 2004, commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Wilderness Act.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas. She has been on this issue for at least 3 years that I know of. We passed this bill twice through the Senate. Under the chairmanship of Senator Hutchison, we had extensive hearings on this issue in the Commerce Committee. I believe this is a very important issue. Senator Hutchison has many important aviation assets in her State, including major airports that are not only for passengers but for ports of entry as well. I say to Senator Hutchison, thank you, because I think this is a very important bill. I tell my colleagues, it has been passed twice through the Senate. It is unfortunate that we have to go back and revisit it. Finally, we made a commitment that we would try to address all 41 of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, not always in a positive fashion but at least have them addressed. This is one of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. I thank Senator Hutchison, and I urge my colleagues to support this very important amendment. Air cargo, according to many experts, is a subject that certainly needs increased security and increased attention. I think this amendment does that. I thank my colleague from Texas, Senator Hutchison. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment is designed to address transportation security-related recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. The amendment is almost identical to Title VII of S. 2774, the 9/11 Commission Report Implementation Act of 2004, which Senator Lieberman and I introduced earlier this month. The amendment implements the Commission's recommendations on transportation security in the following three ways: One, establishing a national strategy for transportation security; two, assigning responsibility for the ``no-fly list'' to the Transportation Security Administration; and, three, enhancing passenger and cargo screening. This amendment is the next step in fulfilling the mandate of the 9/11 Commission recommendations and ensuring we move forward in addressing the vulnerabilities in our transportation systems. These provisions should not be controversial, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, this amendment is designed to address the transportation security-related recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. The amendment is almost identical to title VII of S. 2774, the 9/11 Commission Report Implementation Act of 2004, which Senator Lieberman and I introduced earlier this month. It is important that during this debate we acknowledge the progress that has already been made since September 11 in improving transportation security, especially for aviation. However, as the Commission points out, significant challenges remain. For example, the computer systems and protocols used to vet passengers before they board a plane are not substantially different than the systems that failed to prevent the terrorists from boarding the planes on September 11. The Commerce Committee held a hearing on August 16, 2004, to examine these recommendations and heard testimony from the Commission and the Department of Homeland Security. This amendment reflects both the Commission's recommendations and that testimony. The amendment implements the Commission's recommendations on transportation security in the following three ways: One, establishing a national strategy for transportation security; two, assigning responsibility for the no-fly list to the Transportation Security Administration; and three, enhancing passenger and cargo screening. I will briefly discuss each of these recommendations. The Commission found that TSA had no comprehensive strategic plan for the transportation sector or plans for the various transportation modes--air, sea, and ground--and, therefore, called for such a plan to be developed. This amendment would require the Department of Homeland Security to develop a strategy that includes identification and evaluation of homeland transportation assets susceptible to attack; analysis of methods and technologies associated with transportation security methods; the development of risk-based priorities and deadlines; a plan that assigns roles to the Federal Government, State government, local governments, and public utilities while encouraging public sector cooperation and participation; an outline of response and recovery responsibilities; prioritization of research and development objectives; and recommendations for a budget and appropriate levels of funding. The amendment also requires the strategy to be developed and transmitted to Congress no later than April 1, 2005, and subsequent submissions would be required not less frequently than April 1 of each even-numbered year. We must indeed make sure our skies are safe. But we cannot focus only on the so-called last war. Recent events around the world have shown that other modes of transportation are vulnerable to terrorist attacks. We must ensure that we are aware of threats aimed at any and all modes of transportation as we determine how best to manage our resources to defend our homeland. This comprehensive plan, calling for specific criteria to be considered, will be a strong step in that direction. Understandably, aviation was the subject of our immediate reaction to 9/11. I think it is clear events such as the Madrid rail bombing and other events throughout the world indicate that we must be equally attentive and equally committed to addressing those threats as well. The 9/11 Commission also recommended that the process of screening passengers against the no-fly list be performed by TSA and should utilize the larger set of watch lists maintained by the Federal Government. It further suggested that air carriers should be required to supply the information needed to test and implement this new system. Based on the Commission's recommendations, this amendment directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to implement a procedure under which the TSA compares information about passengers aboard all passenger aircraft with a database containing known or suspected terrorists and associates, commonly known as a no-fly list. This procedure is currently performed by individual air carriers, meaning each air carrier has its own separate no-fly process. By placing the burden squarely on the TSA, we will ensure there is a single database used to check the names of passengers against. I might add that I hope the TSA moves forward with its assessment on how best to develop a prescreening program that will assess the risk of passengers even if they do not appear on the no-fly list. The Commission also concluded that further improvements are needed in passenger and cargo screening. For example, currently there is no widespread use of technology to screen the actual passengers for explosives at passenger checkpoints, but only for screening passengers' checked luggage and carry-on luggage. Based on the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission, this amendment directs the Secretary to take action in improving passenger screening checkpoints to detect explosives. Within 90 days after the implementation of this act, the amendment would call for the Secretary to transmit a report and schedule to the Senate and the House of Representatives on how to achieve the objectives previously mentioned in this section. This amendment also directs the Secretary to take action to help improve the job performance of airport screening personnel, as well as to conduct a human factors study to better understand problems with performance. The Secretary is further directed to expedite the installation and use of baggage-screening equipment and to ensure that the TSA increases and improves its efforts to screen cargo. The amendment also would direct the Secretary to initiate a pilot program for air carriers to deploy hardened cargo containers on passenger aircraft that also carry cargo. This requirement is modified from the one we introduced on September 7, which would have required a hardened container on every passenger aircraft. Upon further review, it is apparent there are certain technical and implementation issues that have to be addressed before the use of these containers can be universal. Therefore, I have modified this proposal to require TSA to initiate a pilot program to further explore the feasibility of this technology. Madam President, this amendment is the next step in fulfilling the mandate of the 9/11 Commission recommendations and ensuring that we move forward in addressing the vulnerabilities in our transportation systems. These provisions should not be controversial, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I would also like to add there will be further amendments that will come before the body, particularly on rail as well as port security. I remind my colleagues that some of those may be very expensive and have a very high price tag associated with them. I hope, while supporting efforts to improve rail and port security, we would also be cognizant of the fact that we cannot do all things to all means of transportation at all times. However, this is a great opportunity for all of us to improve all of our security, whether it be aviation, port, rail, bus, or other areas of vulnerability, and I urge my colleagues to bring forward those amendments as quickly as possible so we can dispose of them and, perhaps this week, bring forth a product all of us can support. Madam President, I again express my appreciation to Senators Collins and Lieberman for the incredible amount of work that they, their staffs, and other members of the committee have performed, which has resulted in an incredibly laudable product, supported by every member of the committee. I hope we will proceed in that same spirit as was exhibited in the Governmental Affairs Committee on both sides of the aisle so we can make sure we debate thoroughly and address the further challenges that we face, including addressing in one way or another all 41 recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I thank the distinguished chairman, Senator Collins. I would like to have a rollcall vote on this, but that rollcall vote would be held at the discretion of the majority and the Democratic leaders. I ask for the yeas and nays, and I ask unanimous consent for the yeas and nays at a time agreed to by the majority and Democratic leaders.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I begin by commending the leadership from both sides of the aisle for working together to allow critical debate to begin today on legislation to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations. In my view, this debate is perhaps one of the most important that will be held during the 108th Congress. I acknowledge the great leadership of the bill managers, Senators Collins and Lieberman, for their bipartisan work in reporting the pending legislation, reform legislation to the Senate. It is my understanding the bill was reported out by unanimous vote through the Governmental Affairs Committee, which is a significant accomplishment. They have developed sound legislation following the numerous hearings they held during the last 2 months. I commend them for their dedication to this very important legislation. Also, I point out that Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman, their staff, and members of the committee gave up a significant part of their August recess in order to hold a sufficient number of hearings in order to be able to frame this legislation. We have come a long way since 2001 in enhancing this country's ability to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks, but, as the 9/11 Commission said in its final report, we are not yet safe. Increasing our safety against terrorist attack requires new strategies, new ways of thinking, and new ways of organizing our Government. That is what this legislative debate will be all about. The 9/11 Commission's underlying goal was to determine where we went wrong and what we can learn from identified failures, weaknesses, and vulnerabilities in order to make necessary systematic corrections to better protect our Nation. I firmly believe the Commission accomplished its enormous assignment. It carried out a far-ranging and candid assessment in order to account for the failures of vision, threat assessment, and policy actions that preceded the attacks. I again thank Governor Kean and Congressman Hamilton for their commendable leadership of the Commission and the other Commissioners and their staff as well. They performed a tremendous service for our country while leaving politics at the door. Now it is the turn of the Congress to act on the Commission's report. Earlier this month, I joined with Senator Lieberman and others in introducing comprehensive legislation to implement all of the 9/11 Commission recommendations. The bill before the Senate, developed by the Governmental Affairs Committee, S. 2845, the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004, addresses the Commission's recommendations regarding intelligence reform, information sharing, and civil liberties. It is Senator Lieberman's and my intent to ensure the Commission's other recommendations--those not already addressed in the underlying bill--are fully debated; therefore, we will be offering amendments we hope will be adopted in order for the Senate to send to conference a comprehensive bill addressing the full range of the Commission's recommendations. Amendment No. 3702 (Purpose: To add title VII of S. 2774, related to transportation security) I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today we will be voting on a conference report to extend several very important middle class tax provisions through 2010. Throughout the Senate's budget debates this year, I have consistently supported the extension of the marriage penalty relief and the child tax credit, and expansion of the 10 percent income tax bracket. The conference report before us extends these family tax relief provisions through 2010, and I will vote to support its passage. But I cannot cast this vote without also expressing my grave concerns over the very serious financial situation facing our country. We have got to start making some tough choices around here. The cost of the measure before us today is estimated to be $146 billion and it is not offset. Again, I support extending this tax relief to American families, but we have got to wake up and take a long hard look at how we are going to pay for all of this. As the saying goes, the future is now. We face a $422 billion deficit, yet we continue to approve legislation containing billions and billions of dollars in unrequested and unauthorized pork barrel projects. In fact, according to the Congressional Research Service, the number of congressional earmarks found in the 13 annual appropriations bills only continue to grow. In 1994, the year the Republicans gained control of Congress, there were 4,126 earmarks. In 2004, there were 14,040! How can we defend that track record to the taxpayer? It is unfortunate, although not surprising, that this conference report includes a number of special interest tax provisions. We would be doing a far better service to the American taxpayers if we were simply acting on the three family tax provisions I mentioned earlier. Let me briefly discuss just one of these ad-ons. Nestled within this conference report is a provision to continue one of the most ironic and bizarre U.S. policies to be considered, not to mention enacted. Under the false guise of exploring environmentally-friendly alternative energy sources, this conference report extends a subsidy offered to facilities that burn animal droppings--or as it is coined in this report, ``poultry litter.'' We have all heard of ``litter bugs'' and now we have ``litter chickens.'' I raised similar objections to a related provision when it was included in the FSC/ETC bill debated earlier this year. I don't want to go into the poultry manure and by-product of droppings, but the fact is that no less green an organization than ``Friends of the Earth'' opposes burning these droppings as an energy source because the process, and I quote, ``cause[s] serious environmental and community health problems.'' Moreover, EPA studies have suggested that these facilities have the potential to cause more air pollution than a coal plant. On top of all this, these facilities drive up prices on natural fertilizers used on American farms, actually detracting from an environmentally-friendly farming process that requires no government subsidy. Why on earth are we wasting valuable money on such a subsidy, especially when such dire financial and energy needs are facing this country today? We have limited resources to devote to serious renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, geothermal, and sound biomass renewables. Subsidizing the burning of animal droppings does a disservice to worthy renewable energy programs. Again, we must not continue to view spending in a vacuum or as piecemeal. The effects of our spending are cumulative, and the day is fast approaching when we will be forced to reap what we have sown. Earlier this year, we passed a so-called jobs bill estimated to cost $180 billion, chock full of billions of dollars in tax breaks for wealthy oil and gas companies and other special interests. On top of all this, last year we expanded Medicare, an already ailing entitlement program, by adding a costly prescription drug benefit. At the time, I spoke at length about my concerns that such an expansion would be detrimental to the future solvency of our Nation and leave future generations with a reckless and unjust financial burden. Sure enough, that law's price tag grew from an estimated $400 billion when it was passed by Congress to $534 billion just 3 months later. Not surprisingly, this past Sunday, the Washington Post reported that the program is estimated to cost an additional $42 billion, bringing it to a total of $576 billion. I wonder what the next estimate will bring. The prescription drug benefit represented the single largest expansion of Medicare since its creation, offering enormous profits and protections for a few of the country's most powerful interest groups: the pharmaceutical companies. That is who made out on this bill, Mr. President, not our seniors who do not understand it and do not get it. But the pharmaceutical companies did just fine. When will we begin to make wiser and more fiscally responsible policy decisions? What is the result of all this? Everything has consequences. In March, it was reported that Medicare will face insolvency by 2019-- by 2019. Because of the swelling cost of the program associated with the prescription drug benefit, Medicare will become insolvent 7 years sooner than previous estimates. An August 17 editorial in the Washington Post stated that ``in 2004, the combined cost of Medicare and the Federal portion of Medicaid comes to 3.8 percent of GDP; by 2040, it will be 10.1 percent . . . the projected increase in health spending is nearly three times bigger than the projected increase in Social Security costs.'' What will it take to give Congress the wakeup call it needs? Again, we have to start addressing the serious fiscal realities of our future. We have to make some tough decisions. Let's not forget we are at war. To date, we spent over $100 billion for our operations in Iraq alone. That cost will escalate. I know--I don't guess--I know we are going to be in Iraq for a long time, and it is going to be very expensive. I will continue to support whatever is necessary to ensure that our brave men and women defending freedom around the world have everything they need to succeed and to come home safely. It appears that our commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan will last well into the future. While doing these things, we need to be thinking about the future of America and the future generations that are going to be paying the tab for our outrageous, continued spending. It is not fiscally responsible for us to continue to spend and spend and spend without cutting spending elsewhere. We have had ample opportunities to tighten our belts in this town in recent years, and we have taken a pass each and every time. According to the GAO, the unfunded Federal financial burden, such as public debt, future Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid payments, totals more than $40 trillion, or $140,000 per man, woman, and child. To put this in perspective, the average mortgage, which is often a family's largest liability, is only $124,000. In a joint statement, the Committee for Economic Development, the Concord Coalition, and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities stated: Without a change in current (fiscal) policies, the Federal Government can expect to run a cumulative deficit of $5 trillion over the next 10 years. These figures are shameful and frightening. We are supposed to be helping out middle-income and low-income people with this tax cut today. Who suffers the most when interest rates go up and inflation goes up? People on fixed income and middle-income Americans. We are mortgaging our children's and our grandchildren's futures. Did anybody have an idea that maybe we could cut some spending somewhere to maybe make up for a little bit of this generous tax cut? I never saw it proposed. The Congressional Budget Office has issued warnings about the dangers that lie ahead if we continue to spend in this manner. In a report issued at the beginning of the year, CBO stated that because of rising health care costs and an aging population, ``spending on entitlement programs--especially Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security--will claim a sharply increasing share of the Nation's economic output over the coming decades.'' The report went on to say: Unless taxation reaches levels that are unprecedented in the United States, current spending policies will probably be financially unsustainable over the next 50 years. An ever- growing burden of Federal debt held by the public would have a corrosive effect on the economy. Additionally, CBO has projected a 10-year deficit of $4.4 trillion. Who are we hurting here by this continued spending that is going on? We are hurting our kids and our grandkids. I will probably be OK. We have a very generous retirement plan for Members of Congress, probably the most generous in the world. I would like to know what we are expecting to do for our kids and grandkids every time we add several billions of dollars. One additional point, Mr. President. We added $2.9 billion for drought conditions to a hurricane disaster bill. I see the Senator from South Dakota on the floor. I supported it. Did we try to offset it with any cut in spending anywhere? Maybe the chicken litter program, maybe the $2 million we are spending this year to study the DNA of bears in Montana? No, we do not do any of that. Our earmarks have gone up to 14,000 earmarks in the last 10 years, from 4,000. We are doing bad things, and we better stop doing it. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I honor an exceptional leader and true patriot. After a lifetime of service to our Nation, Jerome L. Johnson is retiring from his current position as chairman of the Military Officers Association of America, effective October 14, 2004. On this occasion, it is fitting to also recognize his 38 years of commissioned service as a naval officer and exemplary leadership as president and chief operating officer of the Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society. Admiral Johnson's career illustrates a lifelong commitment to service with honor and dedication to causes than his own self-interest. A native Texan, he graduated from Texas A&M University, completed the Naval Aviation Cadet Program, and was commissioned as an ensign in the U.S. Navy in 1956. As a naval aviator, he served with distinction in a wide range of combat, command, and staff assignments. Admiral Johnson's distinguished naval career culminated with tours of duty as commander Second Fleet, commander of NATO's Striking Fleet Atlantic, and finally as the vice chief of Naval Operations. He retired from military service in 1994 as the senior naval aviator on active duty, receiving the prestigious honorary title of the Navy's ``Gray Eagle.'' Admiral Johnson's selfless devotion to service and quest for excellence continued long after he left active duty. For 10 years, he served as president and chief executive officer of the Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society, which provides financial, educational, and other assistance to active-duty and retired sailors, marines, and their family members. He also was elected to the board of directors of the Retired Officers Association in 1998, became the chairman of the board, and oversaw the organization's successful transformation into the Military Officers Association of America. Through his responsible stewardship, MOAA continues to support Congress by advocating legislative initiatives that improve readiness and quality of life for all current and retired members of our services, as well as their families. We are grateful to Admiral Johnson for his outstanding leadership in uniform and in private life by supporting members of the Armed Forces, the military coalition, and all veterans. We offer Admiral Johnson a sharp salute, and wish him ``fair winds and following seas.''

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I support passage of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2005. This important legislation funds the international development and assistance portion of our national budget. By passing this bill, we acknowledge the importance of these programs on a global scale. Supporting foreign aid, military assistance, development funds, democracy programs and other programs should be a matter of course--something that America does as part of its responsibilities as the global superpower. I commend Senator McConnell, Chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, and Senator Leahy, ranking member of the subcommittee, on developing an appropriations measure that is generally free of earmarks. This year's bill provides $1.96 billion to carry out our many foreign operations programs. I note, however, that the bill falls nearly $2 billion short of the administration's budget request. In these difficult times, we cannot afford to shortchange programs or misdirect resources that comprise a critical instrument of America's international influence. In addition, of the total appropriated in this bill, $64.1 million can be identified as unrequested or unauthorized spending. Let me be clear. Many of the earmarks in this legislation may be worthy projects in and themselves, but they have not gone through the proper legislative process which should be followed if they are to receive U.S. taxpayer funding. In addition, while I may agree with many of the policy positions included in the bill, they should instead be included in authorizing legislation. Policy changes simply do not belong in appropriations legislation, and such inclusions usurp the jurisdiction of the authorizors. I note with regret that, once again, the Senate has failed to pass an authorization bill prior to considering this legislation. Again, the responsibilities of authorizors and appropriators are expected to be distinct. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has the responsibility for laying out a blueprint for the policies and funding levels of USAID and the Department of State and their programs. But because that committee has not been able to move its bill on the Senate floor, we do not have the benefit of its recommendations, which is unfortunate. The Senate as a whole must place as much emphasis on passing authorization bills and conducting proper oversight as it does on passing appropriations measures. Until we do so, we will continue to fund authorized programs and marginalize many of our committees. With this said, I must once again convey my gratitude to the members of the subcommittee. Their attention and commitment to supporting vital programs has provided a sound bill with which to fund our foreign operations for the coming fiscal year.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my good friend and colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, and our good friends who lead the campaign finance reform fight in the House, Representatives Shays and Meehan, in introducing a bill to end the illegal practice of 527 groups spending soft money on ads and other activities to influence Federal elections. As my colleagues know, a number of 527 groups have been raising and spending substantial amounts of soft money in a blatant effort to influence the outcome of this year's Presidential election. These activities are illegal under existing laws, and yet once again, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has failed to do its job and has refused to do anything to stop these illegal activities. Therefore, we must pursue all possible steps to overturn the FEC's misinterpretation of the campaign finance laws, which is improperly allowing 527 groups whose purpose is to influence Federal elections to spend soft money on these efforts. Last week, we filed a lawsuit to overturn the FEC's failure to issue regulations to stop these illegal practices by 527 groups. President Bush and his campaign filed a similar lawsuit against the FEC last week as well, and I also appreciate President Bush's support for the legislative effort we begin today on 527s. We are introducing legislation that will accomplish the same result. We are going to follow every possible avenue to stop 527 groups from effectively breaking the law, and doing what they are already prohibited from doing by longstanding laws. The bill we introduce today is simply. It would require that all 527s register as political committees and comply with Federal campaign finance laws, including Federal limits on the contributions they receive, unless the money they raise and spend is only in connection with non-Federal candidate elections, State or local ballot initiatives, or the nomination or confirmation of individuals to non- elected offices. Additionally, this legislation would set new rules for Federal political committees that spend funds on voter mobilization efforts effecting both federal and local races and, therefore, use both a federal and a non-Federal account under FEC regulations. The new rules would prevent unlimited soft money from being channeled into Federal election activities by these Federal political committees. Under the new rules, at least half of the funds spent on these voter mobilization activities by Federal political committees would have to be hard money from their Federal account. More importantly, the funds raised for their non-federal account would have to come from individuals and would be limited to no more than $25,000 per year per donor. Corporations and labor unions could not contribute to these non- federal accounts. To put it in simple terms, a George Soros could give $25,000 per year as opposed to $10 million to finance these activities. Let me be perfectly clear on one point here. Our proposal will not shut down 527s, it will simply require them to abide by the same Federal regulations every other Federal political committee must abide by in spending money to influence Federal elections. It is unfortunate that we even need to be here introducing this bill today. This legislation would not be necessary if it weren't for the abject failure of the FEC to enforce existing laws. As my colleagues well know, some organizations, registered under section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code, have had a major impact on this year's presidential election by raising and spending illegal soft money to run ads attacking both President Bush and Senator Kerry. The use of soft money to finance these activities is clearly illegal under current statute, and the fact that they have been allowed to continue unchecked is unconscionable. The blame for this lack of enforcement does not lie with the Congress, nor with the Administration. The blame for this continuing illegal activity lies squarely with the FEC. This agency has a duty to issue regulations to properly implement and enforce the nation's campaign laws--and the FEC has failed, and it has failed miserably to carry out that responsibility. The Supreme Court found that to be the case in its McConnell decision and Judge Kollar-Kotelly found that to be the case in her recent decision overturning 15 regulations incorrectly adopted by the FEC to implement the new BCRA law. That is why a Los Angeles Times editorial today stated that, ``her decision would make a fitting obituary for an agency that deserves to die.'' It should be clear by now why we have introduced legislation to abolish the FEC and replace it with a new enforcement agency. And we will be conducting a major effort starting at the beginning of next year to enact our bill to get a new, true enforcement agency and to pass the 527 reform act we are introducing today. We are not going to allow the destructive FEC to continue to undermine the nation's campaign finance laws as it has been consistently doing for the past two decades. In the mean time, given the unmitigated failure of this agency, I believe that its Chair, Bradley Smith and its Vice Chair, Ellen Weintraub, should resign and recognize that they have failed to carry out their responsibilities as public officials. Opponents of campaign reform like to point out that the activities of these 527s serve as proof that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) has failed in its stated purpose to eliminate the corrupting influence of soft money in our political campaigns. Let me be perfectly clear on this. The 527 issue has nothing to do with BCRA, it has everything to do with the 194 law and the failure of the FEC to do its job and properly regulate the activities of these groups. As further evidence of the FEC's lack of capability, let me quote from a couple of recent court decisions which highlight this agency's shortcomings. First, in its decision upholding the constitutionality of BCRA in McConnell v. FEC, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the FEC had ``subverted'' the law, issued regulations that ``permitted more than Congress had ever intended,'' and ``invited widespread circumvention'' of FECA's limited on contributions. Additionally, just this past Saturday, a federal district court judge threw out 15 of the FEC's regulations implementing BCRA. Among the reasons for her actions were that one provision ``severely undermines FECA'' and would ``foster corruption'', another ``runs completely afoul'' of current law, another would ``render the statute largely meaningless'' and, finally, that another had ``no rational basis.'' The track record of the FEC is clear, and by their continued stonewalling, the Commission has proven itself to be nothing more than a bureaucratic nightmare, and the time has come to put an end to its destructive tactics. The FEC has had ample, and well documented, opportunities to address the issue of the 527s illegal activities, and each time they have taken a pass, choosing instead to delay, postpone, and refuse to act. Enough is enough. It is time to stop wasting taxpayer's dollars on an agency that runs roughshod over the will of the Congress, the Supreme Court, the American people, and the Constitution. We've fought too long and too hard to sit back and allow this worthless agency to undermine the law. So, here is the bottom line: if the FEC won't do its job, and its commissioners have proven time and time again that they won't, then we'll do it for them. The bill Senator Feingold and I introduce today will put an end to the abusive, illegal practices of these 527s. And we will fight beginning next year to replace this rogue agency with a real enforcement agency. I urge my colleagues to support swift passage of these bills and put an end to this problem once and for all. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. 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.