John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to clarify that I firmly support the three proposed tax extensions in the pending budget resolution. I fully expect that when tax legislation is considered by the Chamber in the weeks ahead, it will include extensions of the marriage penalty tax elimination, the $1,000 child tax credit, and expanding the 10 percent income tax bracket as called for in this resolution, and I will support such legislation. This amendment is not an amendment in opposition to those provisions, but rather, an amendment to promote fiscal responsibility and protect us from ourselves. I urges my colleagues to support the amendment. [From the Washington Post, Mar. 10, 2004] Rigging the Budget Rules When it comes to matters of taxes and spending, members of Congress are like would-be dieters who can't stop raiding the refrigerator. Recognizing this weakness, lawmakers have resorted in the past to budget rules that act much like a lock on the fridge. During the 1990s, these rules set ceilings on discretionary spending and required that any tax cuts or spending increases in entitlement programs be matched by offsetting spending cuts or tax increases. As with the dieter who knows where the key is hidden, the rules didn't work perfectly--they could be avoided with a 60-vote majority--but they did help curb lawmakers' natural tendencies. The rules expired at the end of 2002, and everyone from President Bush to Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan to Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin has called for their renewal. ``Perhaps the single most important act Congress and the Administration could take at this point to rein in the budget over the next decade would be to re- establish the budget rules that existed in the 1990s,'' Mr. Rubin wrote in a recent paper co-authored with the Brookings Institution's Peter R. Orszag and Allen Sinai of Decision Economics Inc. But the Bush administration, and some of its allies in Congress, would rig the rules to apply discipline in a dangerously lopsided fashion. The administration proposes strict controls on spending but no restraints at all on cutting taxes, an approach influenced by the administration's inflated view of the beneficial effect of tax cuts. But even for those who fully subscribe to the administration's position on the relative merits of taxes and spending, it's clear that such a rule would simply skew budgetary choices, resulting in spending programs recast in the guise of tax breaks. Mr. Greenspan reiterated last month that the rule ought to apply to both spending increases and tax cuts. Meanwhile, the budget resolution before the Senate would leave in place the sham version of pay-as-you-go adopted last year, in which the rule applies only to tax cuts or spending increases in excess of what the budget resolution provides. This year's model would permit $122 billion more in tax cuts not offset by savings elsewhere. Under this meaningless form of pay-as-you-go, senators promise every year to show spending discipline--the next time around. An effort to add an evenhanded pay-as-you-go rule failed on a party-line vote in the Senate Budget Committee last week. The Senate should fix that omission before it approves another irresponsible budget. And lawmakers should show discipline by requiring themselves to pay for all their tax cuts--not carving our popular middle-class breaks like the child tax credit, and certainly not speeding up repeal of the estate tax, for special budgetary treatment.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I support the amendment by the Senator from Virginia, the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee. He has been a member of the committee for many years. He understands our defense and national security needs. I believe the fundamental message is we are in a war. We are in a war. We are in a war. The fact is this money is needed in order to prosecute the conflicts in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and around the world, as we fight the war on terrorism and attempt to thwart the possibility of a terrorist attack on the United States of America and our citizens. Clearly, we are going through a period of transition in the military, and one that is going to be somewhat expensive, but there is no doubt we have to adjust our military in order to meet the needs of an ever- changing and, in some respects, larger threat to our security than we have faced in the past few years. Also, I have the greatest respect for our colleagues here in the Senate and the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee and the ranking member. But I did note, with some interest, that the chairman of the Budget Committee in the House suggested a moratorium on earmarks for 1 year. Why would he do that? Well, I show my colleagues a very interesting Congressional Research Service chart which shows that in 1994, there were 4,126 earmarks; in 1996, it went down to 3,023 earmarks; and it has gone steadily up geometrically; and in 2004, there were 14,040 earmarks--amounting to a grand total of $47.9 billion--$47.9 billion. Rather than cut $7 billion out of defense, why don't we cut $7 billion out of $47.9 billion of pork-barrel projects, such as the $3 million to study the DNA of bears in Montana, the Cowgirls and Cowboys Hall of Fame, and the elves up in North Pole, AK, that got some more money this time? Why don't we cut $7 billion out of $47.9 billion in earmarked funds? That comes from the Congressional Research Service, up from $23.7 billion in 1996. Why don't we show some courage, make some choices, and cut this, rather than cutting $7 billion out of defense? I would hope my colleagues on the Budget Committee at some point would seriously consider a moratorium on earmarks--just for 1 year. It might be a nice thing to see. Mr. President, I support the amendment from the Senator from Virginia and I hope the choices we make are not to cut into our Nation's security but to cut into the pork-barrel spending which has absolutely run amok in this body. It is a disgrace, and there is no excuse for it. I hope we will start attacking the wasteful and pork-barrel spending rather than the men and women in the military. I support the amendment. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I strongly support the amendment offered by my good friend from Wisconsin. We are facing a dire financial situation. The projected deficit for the current fiscal year is $521 billion--that's over half of a trillion dollars--the largest ever. That is why the Congress and the administration must begin taking action this year, despite the fact that it is an election year, to address this crisis. Our failure to start making some of the tough decisions will land squarely on the backs of our children and grandchildren, and their financial future will be strapped with digging out of the holes that have been created by our actions and inactions. The Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan testified recently before the House Budget Committee about the seriousness of our rising budget deficit and, more specifically, the impact the deficit is going to have on our future economic stability. He very clearly warned about the consequences of a lack of fiscal discipline, and called for new steps to restrain spending. The Chairman firmly supports reinstatement of the pay-go rules as one such step. According to a joint statement issued by the Committee for Economic Development, the Concord Coalition, and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, ``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. Another astonishing part of this report states that, ``after the baby boom generation starts to retire in 2008, the combination of demographic pressures and rising health care costs will result in the costs of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security growing faster than the economy. We project that by the time today's newborns reach 40 years of age, the cost of these three programs as a percentage of the economy will more than double--from 8.5 percent of the GDP to over 17 percent.'' The Congressional Budget Office, CBO, also has issued warnings about the dangers that lie ahead if we continue to spend in this manner. According to a recent CBO report, due to 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 onto say that, ``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. These are alarming figures. It is critical we take action to curtail further deficit spending. In the 1990s, when we faced what we thought to be the worst fiscal situation possible, we passed the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, which instituted a number of statutory deficit control rules, including the pay-as-you-go, pay-go, requirements. The statutory pay-go rules were largely responsible for imposing true financial discipline on the Congress when it came to mandatory spending programs and taxes. Unfortunately, those rules expired in 2002. We have an opportunity today to show the American public that we are serious about digging out of the fiscal hole that faces our country by adopting this amendment to strengthen the Senate pay-go point of order. Although I wish we could reestablish the statutory pay-go rules, we can't do that in the budget resolution since it is not a law. We can, however, tighten up our own Senate rules to make it more difficult to pass legislation that increases the deficit. I would like to bring my colleagues' attention one of today's editorials in the Washington Post, urging reinstatement of the pay-go rules. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the editorial be printed in the Record immediately following my remarks.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I am pleased to join my friend, Senator Feingold in cosponsoring this important and timely legislation. Today, the Senate is deliberating over the nation's budget priorities in the face of our enormous deficit. Historically, Congress has considered water projects, costing many billions of taxpayer dollars, as essential expenditures--regardless of the environmental costs or public benefits. The reforms of the Corps of Engineers' procedures in this bill are designed to achieve more cost- effective expenditures for water projects that will yield more environmental, economic, and social benefits. The need for these changes has been acknowledged by many for some time, but never has the need to spend scarce taxpayer dollars wisely been as crucial as it is now. The Corps procedures for planning and approving projects, as well as the Congressional system for funding projects, are broken, but they can be effectively fixed. In fact, the reforms in this bill are based on thorough program analysis and common sense. I commend Senator Feingold for building on the legislation we introduced with Senator Smith in the last Congress to provide additional improvements. It is surprising that Congress hasn't already put these procedures in place, but there is no time or need like the present. Provisions of the legislation we are introducing today would modify the Corps planning and approval procedures to consider both economic and environmental objectives. Independent review of Corps projects and an increase in the cost-benefit factor would ensure that only beneficial projects are constructed. Effective measures for mitigation of environmental and other damage caused by projects would be required and monitored. The existing $56 billion project backlog is addressed and projects that have been suspended or never started for five years would no longer be considered. Water projects that provide economic and environmental benefits to our state citizens and all federal taxpayers serve the common good and reflect our common interest in fiscal responsibility. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I am pleased to join my friend, Senator Feingold in cosponsoring this important and timely legislation. Today, the Senate is deliberating over the nation's budget priorities in the face of our enormous deficit. Historically, Congress has considered water projects, costing many billions of taxpayer dollars, as essential expenditures--regardless of the environmental costs or public benefits. The reforms of the Corps of Engineers' procedures in this bill are designed to achieve more cost- effective expenditures for water projects that will yield more environmental, economic, and social benefits. The need for these changes has been acknowledged by many for some time, but never has the need to spend scarce taxpayer dollars wisely been as crucial as it is now. The Corps procedures for planning and approving projects, as well as the Congressional system for funding projects, are broken, but they can be effectively fixed. In fact, the reforms in this bill are based on thorough program analysis and common sense. I commend Senator Feingold for building on the legislation we introduced with Senator Smith in the last Congress to provide additional improvements. It is surprising that Congress hasn't already put these procedures in place, but there is no time or need like the present. Provisions of the legislation we are introducing today would modify the Corps planning and approval procedures to consider both economic and environmental objectives. Independent review of Corps projects and an increase in the cost-benefit factor would ensure that only beneficial projects are constructed. Effective measures for mitigation of environmental and other damage caused by projects would be required and monitored. The existing $56 billion project backlog is addressed and projects that have been suspended or never started for five years would no longer be considered. Water projects that provide economic and environmental benefits to our state citizens and all federal taxpayers serve the common good and reflect our common interest in fiscal responsibility. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. The distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, as he mentioned, and I worked hard last year, with the President and Secretary of Defense, to exclude some very onerous ``buy American'' measures. It took an entire year before the authorizing bill was passed, which is always very unfortunate. I want to ask the distinguished chairman about another aspect of this. Last time I checked, we have allied forces in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq from as many as 30 countries who have contributed troops to our efforts in all of those countries, including the fact that a number of those allied countries have sacrificed the lives of their young soldiers in the cause of freedom, particularly in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, first, I would like to begin my remarks with my respect and appreciation for the knowledge and expertise that the Senator from Connecticut has on foreign policy and national security issues. I believe he is unequaled or he has few peers in this body as to his knowledge and experience on foreign policy issues. For many years, the Senator and I have worked together on issues that are of importance to our Nation as far as the conduct of policy and national security is concerned. I have the highest regard and respect for him. I hope I can work with the Senator from Connecticut to remove some unintended consequences of the Dodd amendment; that is, the Dodd amendment as it relates to defense/national security. The Senator from Connecticut knows, as well or better than I do, the interrelationships of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the commonality of equipment, the fact that many times we build an aircraft, the F-16, a country buys it, and a lot of that aircraft is built in the country that purchases it. That is part of the deal that goes on. For example, significant parts of the F-16 aircraft that are bought by European countries are constructed there. That is also true with a broad array of defense equipment. The Senator from Connecticut is also aware there is a huge imbalance as far as the purchasing of military equipment. In other words, our European friends--and I will freely admit, because they do not spend the money on research and development that the United States does, the United States builds superior equipment--buy a tremendous amount--by a factor of 15 or 20 in dollars--of U.S. equipment versus equipment that the United States buys from our European allies. We build the best defense equipment there is. We continue to maintain that lead, and we are all proud of it. What I worry about, in the Dodd amendment, is that this would upset the relationship I just described. Second, there are many times, many occasions when our troops overseas, our ships overseas, our deployments have to purchase from the local economy equipment, food, supplies, whatever it is. So I could not certify that it is a national security requirement when the USS Enterprise pulls into a port and has to buy some equipment or machinery from the local economy which is manufactured there but fits their needs because there is a tremendous amount of interoperability amongst ourselves and our European allies. I am sure the Senator from Connecticut is well aware of everything I am saying, and I do not mean to insult his intelligence by saying so. What I am trying to do--look, straight talk. I do not support the amendment offered by the Senator from Connecticut. But what I would hope we could do is work out some language which would ensure, one, that at no time would our military be prevented from purchasing goods, services, or equipment on a needed basis, and, second, to preserve the relationship we have amongst our allies as far as the purchase of defense equipment is concerned, maintaining interoperability, and, very frankly, the jobs which are the object of his amendment, the jobs which are maintained in the United States of America because of the production of a great deal of defense equipment which is bought by other nations. Now, the reason why I say that is important is because, if we do not allow the purchase of foreign-manufactured defense equipment, then sooner or later they will retaliate by not purchasing ours. That could have significant effect. I have a rather interesting letter from Mr. Wynne, who is the Acting Under Secretary of Defense, saying ``this provision''--talking about the Dodd amendment--``would impact our ability to sustain our troops stationed overseas and the refueling and re-stocking of our naval vessels as they carry out their missions. Often times, the support of these activities comes from foreign sources. . . .'' It goes on. I know my friend from Connecticut does not want to impair this. It is clearly not the object of his amendment. So I have an amendment which would make clear that there are exemptions for national security. Perhaps better than forcing a vote on it, perhaps the Senator from Connecticut and I can work out an agreement to amend his amendment or change the language of his amendment so it does meet these concerns, which I know he shares. If not, then I would be proposing an amendment, after the McConnell amendment is disposed of, to try to ensure that. I am talking now about national defense and national security. I have concerns about the impact of the Dodd amendment which has been debated ad nauseam. But I hope we can work out an agreement at least on the national security/national defense side of this issue. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. I have one more question. The Senator and I, both in our declining years, have spent a lot of time traveling around the world. One of the things that took me a long time to appreciate is the effect of what we do in the world. It is astonishing----

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Yes. We have passed sense-of-the-Senate resolutions that neither you nor I have paid any attention to, and all of a sudden it is headlines in the country it has affected. My question to the Senator from Virginia is this: All of those countries that have contributed troops--Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq--they see a headline tomorrow that says the Congress of the United States bars purchase of any military equipment from the manufacturers in these countries. How do you think that affects an already fragile public opinion in these countries?

Mr. McCAIN. In fact, in Afghanistan we have a significantly expanded NATO operation. I say this with the greatest respect to our friend from Connecticut, Senator Dodd. My question is--suppose we tell the government of a tiny country that lost soldiers in Iraq that we want your young men and women there, and we want them to be ready to sacrifice and die but, by the way, we are not going to buy anything from you. If you produce something that is a quality product, we are not going to buy it from you because we are going to protect American jobs in the United States of America. My question to the distinguished chairman is, What effect does that have on their willingness and desire to help us bring peace and freedom to the people of Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, do I have time remaining on my time?

Mr. McCAIN. I remind my colleagues all reference to the Attorney General has been removed from this amendment. There is no Department of Justice oversight of the gun shows in this amendment. Ali Boumelhem, a Lebanese national and a member of the terrorist group Hezbollah, was arrested and convicted for attempting to smuggle firearms he bought from Michigan gun shows to Lebanon. Muhammed Asrar, a Pakistani national, in this country on an expired visa, who admitted to buying and selling firearms at Texas gun shows. Asrar is a suspected al-Qaida member who had obtained a pilot's license, had photos of tall buildings. Connor Claxton, an admitted member of the Irish Republican Army, spent over $100,000 at Florida gun shows and through other private dealers to obtain firearms to smuggle to Ireland. They were arrested. How many were not arrested? This is the most curious logic I have ever heard. They were arrested. Who wasn't arrested? A loophole exists. If we are interested in the security of this Nation, we will close it.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, let me just for a minute put a practical face on the issue we are talking about this morning. These are just a few examples of the criminals who are exploiting this loophole. Ali Boumelhem, a Lebanese national, member of the terrorist group Hezbollah, arrested and convicted for attempting to smuggle firearms bought from Michigan gun shows to Lebanon; Muhammad Asrar, a Pakistani national in this country on an expired visa who admitted to buying and selling firearms at Texas gun shows. Asrar is a suspected al-Qaida member who obtained a pilot's license and had photos of tall buildings in American cities and, though seemingly impoverished, purchased a time-share for a Lear jet. And Conor Claxton, an admitted member of the Irish Republican Army, spent over $100,000 at Florida gun shows and through other private dealers to obtain firearms to smuggle into Ireland. We are talking about the ability of terrorists--the proven record of terrorists exploiting the gun show loophole for the purpose of obtaining weapons that could be used against the United States of America. This is a serious amendment and a serious issue. I want my colleagues to understand when voting on this amendment that there have already been cases where members of known terrorist organizations have exploited the gun show loophole and purchased weapons with which to eventually commit acts of terror against the United States of America. This is not an issue that should be in any way dismissed. There are many others. Mr. Thomas Timms was arrested October 2003 with 147 guns and 66,000 rounds.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk. I ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as a strong defender of law-abiding Americans' second amendments rights, today I join my colleagues, Senators Reed, DeWine, Lieberman, Chafee, and Dodd to offer a bipartisan compromise amendment to address what has become known as the gun show loophole. Currently an individual can walk into a gun show and purchase a firearm from either a federally licensed dealer or an unlicensed dealer. A background check is only performed on that individual if he or she buys a gun from a licensed dealer. There is no requirement--I repeat, no requirement--for a background check of any kind when purchasing a firearm from an unlicensed dealer. This is a very dangerous loophole in the law and we are doing a disservice to the American people if we allow it to remain open. This amendment would close this dangerous loophole in our gun safety laws in a way that is respectful of the rights of gunshop operators, gun show vendors, and gun show enthusiasts. It defines gun shows in a reasonable manner to cover only public events where at least 75 firearms are offered for sale. It specifically exempts from regulation any private sale from the home, such as yard sales or estate sales. Additionally, it exempts sales between members of hunt clubs, an exception that I know is important to a number of our colleagues who represent hunting and sporting clubs that occasionally sell, trade, or raffle firearms between club members. The amendment would also create a new category of licensees who can become deputized to perform background checks for unlicensed sellers at gun shows. This licensee, who could even be a gun show employee, would enable any unlicensed vendor to conveniently have an instant background check performed when selling a firearm. In addition, this amendment would allow States to graduate to an even faster instant check once they have sufficiently automated the records necessary to ensure that a faster check does not sacrifice accuracy. Why do we need this amendment? Some might point to tragedies such as Columbine, but as horrific as the massacre at Columbine was, where 11 young people needlessly lost their lives, that is not what drives the need to close the gun show loophole. We need this amendment because criminals and terrorists have exploited and are exploiting this very obvious loophole in our gun safety laws. We need this amendment because our second amendment rights do not extend to criminals who violate our laws and terrorists who hate this country. We need this amendment because, according to the NRA, ``hundreds of thousands'' of unlicensed firearms sales occur at gun shows each year. We need this amendment because ATF has identified gun shows as the second leading source of firearms recovered from illegal gun trafficking investigations. We also need this amendment because my law-abiding constituents who attend gun shows in Arizona should not have to rub shoulders with the scum of the Earth who use this loophole to evade background checks to buy firearms to peddle to God knows who. We need this because every one of the 15 leading gun trafficking States in America has not taken action to close the gun show loophole. Conversely, 11 of the 15 States with the lowest level of interstate gun trafficking have taken action to close the gun show loophole. When discussing the topic of gun safety, I often hear my colleagues say things such as, let's enforce existing law before we make new ones. I completely agree and that is exactly what we are seeking to do today. We are seeking to strengthen existing laws by closing an enormous, dangerous loophole. I offer this amendment as one who counts himself as a strong supporter of the underlying legislation to protect the gun industry from frivolous lawsuits. I plan to vote for the underlying bill because it is fundamentally unfair to blame a firearms manufacturer when a criminal misuses a gun. But it is also unfair to the American people to knowingly leave open a gaping hole in our gun safety laws that criminals and terrorists can and do easily exploit. The last time the Senate considered similar legislation was in 1999, following the school shootings at Columbine High School. Two amendments were proposed to close the gun show loophole. One amendment received 51 votes with then-Vice President Gore casting his deciding vote. I opposed that amendment because, frankly, I thought it defined gun shows too broadly, covering certain private sales from the home, at yard sales, estate sales, and between members of private hunt clubs, places that obviously are not gun shows. The second amendment which I supported also passed the Senate. Unfortunately, opponents of that amendment said it weakened the Brady law for licensed dealers and created new loopholes. Today we offer a compromise proposal that is a reasonable, responsible consensus. I urge this body not to let this opportunity slip by. Opponents of today's amendment will make several arguments. I would like to take a few moments to address them head on. It is important to point out that this amendment is a modification of the legislation we introduced last fall. This amendment contains none of the vendor notification requirements contained in that bill. The vender notification requirements in this amendment are the same as those that passed the Senate in 1999. Let me state that again for clarity. This amendment does not contain the vendor notification provisions contained in S. 1807. They are gone. We still hear that criminals don't obtain guns from gun shows and we will hear about a survey of State and Federal inmates conducted by the Justice Department showing that about 3 percent of prisoners obtained their guns from gun shows. Let me make a couple of points. First, the survey was conducted in 1997. The gun show loophole didn't exist until December of 1993, so any criminal in prison for more than 3 years or any criminal who had a firearm for at least 3 years would not have had a reason to exploit this loophole. Second, let's be clear to quote ATF field agent Jeff Fulton: ``Crime guns do originate at gun shows. That's been documented.'' In fact, the ATF says gun shows are the second leading source of guns recovered in illegal trafficking investigations. Some opponents of this amendment will say that background checks take too long for weekend gun shows. That may have been the case in 1999, but today, thanks to the diligence of the Department of Justice, 91 percent of criminal background checks are completed within several minutes and over 95 percent of background checks are completed within 2 hours. For 19 out of 20 background checks, instant check has lived up to its name. For the 1 out of 20 checks that take more than 2 hours, these applicants are 20 times more likely to be unlawful than the rest of the applicants. Additionally, this amendment encourages States to improve their records, making them eligible for even faster background checks. I point out again that 91 percent of criminal background checks are completed within several minutes; 95 percent, within 2 hours. Opponents say the background check requirements would put gun shows out of business. That is not true. According to the Krause Gun/Knife Show Calendar, the definitive source of gun show information in the Nation, in 2003, the 17 States that have closed the gun show loophole have hosted, on average, more gun shows than the 33 States that have not closed the loophole. I repeat, the 17 States that have taken action to close the gun show loophole hosted, on average, 45 gun shows in 2003. The other 33 States, on average, 41 gun shows. I am a gun show supporter. Arizona is a big gun show State. This amendment will have zero effect on legitimate gun show businesses. This amendment has been endorsed by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Major Cities Chiefs of Police, the Conference Of Mayors--the list goes on and on with those who have to deal with the results of guns obtained illegally. Let me say that the administration has said they want a ``clean bill.'' The administration has supported closing the gun show loophole but now they want a ``clean bill.'' Wink-wink, nod-nod. It is remarkable. It is remarkable. This loophole needs to be closed. The administration has had the position that it needs to be closed. We all know it needs to be closed. There were two State referendums in the 2002 election, in Colorado, not notoriously a liberal State, and Oregon, not notoriously a conservative State. Both of those ballot initiatives carried overwhelmingly when taken to the people instead of the incredible influence of the NRA over this process. I hope my friends will stand with the police chiefs and mayors and those who are required to enforce the law and vote for this amendment. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I do not object.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, in regards to the issue which has been holding up the proceedings of the Senate, that is the extension of the highway bill and the issue tied to it, which is the charter of the 9/11 Commission chaired by Governor Keane and former Congressman Lee Hamilton, we have been in extensive discussions all day long. I would like to begin by thanking the majority leader as well as the Senator from Nevada for their patience, but also their involvement in trying to help bring about a resolution to this issue. They have certainly done everything in their power. The upshot of it is that the Senator from Connecticut and I have been in conversations with former Congressman Hamilton and Governor Keane. As we understand from our conversations with them, they are scheduled to meet with the Speaker on Tuesday, this coming Tuesday, and that their chief of staff, the general counsel of the Commission, has been assured by the chief of staff of the Speaker that at that time the Speaker will agree to an additional 30 days in addition to the 60 days that the Commission will need to operate, and will be then given an additional 30 days in which to wrap up their report. That is satisfactory to Congressman Hamilton and Governor Keane. Both of them have personally assured me that is satisfactory to them. They will be proceeding on the assumption that they will receive an additional 30 days, as well as the 60-day extension. I hope, as a result of this, that the House will take up and pass the bill reported out of the Senate Intelligence Committee which the Senate majority leader had approved by a voice vote earlier today. It seems to me that is the most reasonable resolution. I thank the majority leader again for his patience and hard work in this effort, including visits over on the other side of the Capitol. He certainly performed above and beyond. May I finally say I believe that the Commission will now receive an additional 60 days of work plus 30 days to wrap up, and hopefully this issue will be resolved. I thank my friend from Connecticut who has always done such great work. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. first of all, I don't object to taking up the highway extension bill under the normal Senate procedures, which is that the bill is an amendable vehicle. That is the normal parliamentary procedure we abide by as we address legislation, so I don't object to taking up the highway extension bill under the normal Senate procedures, which makes the bill amendable. I would obviously have an amendment to the bill. I object to the unanimous consent request that it be taken up and passed without debate or amendment. Second of all, we have to make some choices here. The choice is whether we will have a short-term disruption--and I might point out no existing projects now underway would be cut off--of the highway programs, or we renege on our commitment to the families who lost their loved ones, brave firefighters and members of law enforcement agencies, on September 11, 2001. Senator Lieberman and I introduced legislation that created a commission to study the causes of the tragedy of September 11, 2001, and also an effort to prevent a recurrence of that terrible tragedy. We have a choice here between a temporary disruption--I might say a minor one, although it will be described, as it is whenever a government agency might be disrupted, as ``Apocalypse Now''--or telling the families of those who died on September 11 the Commission will not be able to complete its work and part of the reason for it, as described by Commission members, is because of failure to cooperate on the part of the administration. We are faced with a choice. If there is another amendable vehicle that would have an amendment on it that must pass by the House, I would be glad to agree to passage of this extension. If there is any way we could get the other body to agree with what the President has asked for--not Senators McCain and Lieberman, but what the President asked for--and that is an extension of 2 months of the 9/11 Commission, which was reported out of the Intelligence Committee unanimously yesterday, then I would be glad to withdraw my objection. The majority leader just pointed out, this is the end of civilization as we know it if these highway employees are deprived of some hours. I might point out we knew when this bill was going to expire. Why is it we do business in such a way that we are faced with a shutdown unless we give an extension, knowing when the bill was going to expire? Most importantly, we all have a choice to make here, including the majority leader and the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from Nevada. We have a choice. Are we going to face a disruption in some highway projects which, although important, can be fixed and repaired over time or are we going to abandon the families of 9/11 who demanded and received the appointment of a commission that would thoroughly and completely investigate the events that led up to one of the greatest tragedies in American history? That is our choice. I intend to again object to this unanimous consent agreement. I will agree to taking up the highway extension bill and to not blocking it if I am allowed to amend it. I cannot dictate the schedule of the other body. But I do know the President of the United States, the majority leader, a majority of the Senate, the members of the 9/11 Commission, and the families of those who died want this Commission to be able to complete its work and, by God, we should honor that commitment to them. I object.

Mr. McCAIN. Could I respond by again repeating what was in last week's Washington Post: The independent Commission will have to consider scaling back the scope of its inquiry, limiting public hearings, unless the Congress agrees by next week--that is this week-- to give the panel more time. They may not have to shut down but certainly their ability to conduct their investigation, according to the chairman of the Commission, Mr. Keane, former Governor of New Jersey, a Republican, says would be impaired. Every week that goes by makes the extension less valuable, and when they have to work toward the earlier deadline they have to start cancelling things and cannot go over things quite as clearly as they might like. There is a certain urgency, obviously, to Governor Keane's plea that we act this week.