John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk again about two nominees, Mr. Emil Frankel, to be Assistant Secretary of Transportation, and Jeffrey Shane, to be Associate Deputy Secretary of Transportation. I, again, urge the holds that are being placed on these nominations to move forward. It is been 3 months since they were reported unanimously out of the Commerce Committee. I know both individuals and they are highly qualified. Both of them are nominated for very important jobs in the Department of Transportation. All of us know, in light of the events of September 11, that these jobs are vital to America's security. I said earlier in my remarks that I had not put a hold on a nominee. What I meant to say--and I would like to correct the record at this time--is that I have put holds on nominees, but I have never done so anonymously. I have stood up and said that I had holds on nominees. On the holds I have put on over the years, I have been here and stated my reasons why. I have not done so anonymously. I hope the unnamed Member or Members who have a hold on Mr. Shane and Mr. Frankel will come forward. So, I hope, again, that the Senate will consider these two highly qualified nominees. If there are areas that are not related to these nominees, as far as transportation is concerned, I will be pleased to work with any Member to try to get those concerns satisfied. Again, I would like to correct the record when I stated earlier that I had never put a hold on a nominee. I have never anonymously put a hold on a nominee. And I have forced votes on other nominees as well. I hope the holds on Mr. Frankel and Mr. Shane will be removed soon. We are in danger of losing those individuals because, understandably, after a period of 3 months, they have to get on with their lives. And that certainly is understandable. So I hope we will move forward with their nominations soon and the holds will be lifted. Again, I stand ready to work with any Member who has a hold on their nominations if there is any way we can resolve any problems that they might have. I also state that I never put a hold on a nominee because there was some unrelated issue. I put holds on nominees in the past because I did not think they were qualified, and I stated so. So I hope that clarifies the record on that. But that does not detract from the fact--whether I ever did or did not--that these are two qualified nominees. It has now been over 3 months since they were reported out of the Commerce Committee and they deserve to have the opportunity to serve. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I thank the majority leader for his steadfastness in this effort. It has been a long odyssey, and as we have reached crucial points he has been extremely helpful in moving this process along. It has been pretty clear in the last few weeks that the opposition has chosen to delay consideration of the bill. So I thank him and look forward to trying to reach an agreement with the opponents of the bill so we are not required to follow the scenario as outlined by the majority leader. I am not sure we can get an agreement without that scenario being presented. So I thank him for that. For the benefit of my colleagues, Senator McConnell approached me a short time ago. He said he wanted to continue negotiations on a so- called package of technical amendments and that he would not insist that a substantive amendment be considered on it. I will be glad to, along with my colleague Senator Feingold, consider any technical changes that are purely technical in nature, but we have found out in the course of this long odyssey we have been involved in that words do have meaning and some people view words that are technical as not technical. We require the agreement of all of our colleagues who have been involved in this issue, including Members of the House, and we have to be sure of a certain methodology that would be taken up in the other body. So we will be glad to continue to negotiate. I hope we can reach agreement, but under no circumstances would our failure to reach an agreement on a technical package of amendments impede the process we are now embarked on of reaching final resolution on Shays-Meehan/ McCain-Feingold before we leave for the next break. I wish to make it clear, I am willing, along with my colleagues, to work on so-called technical amendments, but in no way would they impact the final passage of the bill because they are technical in nature. That is the name of them. So I, again, thank the majority leader. I thank my friend Senator Feingold, and perhaps--and I emphasize ``perhaps''--we can reach some amicable agreements to get this thing done without causing discomfort to the schedules and lives of our colleagues.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I come to the floor to discuss briefly the qualifications of two individuals who have been nominated for essential positions within the Department of Transportation. Mr. Jeffrey Shane has been nominated to be the Associate Deputy Secretary for the Department of Transportation, and Emil Frankel has been nominated to be Assistant Secretary of Transportation Policy. Last December, the Commerce Committee held a hearing to consider both these nominees and reported them out unanimously on December 19, 2001. We are approaching 3 months since they received committee approval. I think it is time for this Chamber to act on these two qualified nominees. These are very important positions. One is Associate Deputy Secretary for the Department of Transportation and the other is the Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy. There is very little doubt, with all of the issues surrounding post- September 11 and our transportation security requirements, the situations at our airports, et cetera, that we should be putting qualified men and women who have been nominated without objection into those offices. They are important positions. The confirmations of Mr. Shane and Mr. Frankel have been placed in limbo due to an unrelated legislative matter. As Associate Deputy Secretary, Mr. Shane would be in charge of the Office of Intermodalism at DOT. Secretary Mineta proposed a reorganization plan concerning DOT's policy functions. It would ultimately broaden Mr. Shane's responsibilities. Under the proposal, the Deputy Secretary positions would be retitled ``Undersecretary of Policy'' and would manage all aspects of transportation policy development within the Department of Transportation. In addition, the Office of Intermodalism, the Office of Aviation and International Affairs, and the Office of Transportation Policy would report to the Under Secretary under this reorganization. While this reorganization plan must be considered separately from the nomination, at this point it is important that Mr. Shane be permitted to carry out his duties as soon as possible. He has extensive experience and expertise that would be invaluable to the Department. He has also served in several prominent positions at DOT and the State Department and has been confirmed on several occasions by the Senate. I believe Mr. Shane is one of the most widely respected individuals in the transportation community, particularly with respect to aviation issues. I have not always agreed with Mr. Shane in the past, but I have always respected his capability and his judgment. We should consider ourselves fortunate that such a qualified and distinguished individual wants to return to public service when he could continue a much more financially rewarding life in the private sector. It is inexcusable that his and Mr. Frankel's nominations have languished for nearly 3 months. As Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, Mr. Frankel would be the chief domestic policy officer at the Department of Transportation. In that position, he would be responsible for the analysis, development, communication, and review of policies and plans for domestic transportation issues. If there is anyone in this body who has not been to an airport recently, I have to tell them, we certainly need all the help we can get right now. On my last trip back from Phoenix, I spent an hour and a half standing in line in order to get through security, which is warranted, certainly, in these times. But we also need to modernize that system as soon as possible. Since September 11, the Department of Transportation has been under tremendous strain dealing with critical aspects of interstate transportation as it relates to national security. The Department needs all the help it can get as it struggles with the new wartime reality. It is our obligation to give the Department of Transportation every reasonable resource at this time. I am dismayed we continue to deny the Department the benefit of these nominees' public service. Our inaction sets a miserable example for others who might consider devoting part of their lives to public service. If someone has a substantive problem with either of these nominees, I want to hear about it. But as far as I am aware, their nominations are not controversial in any substantive way. I am unaware of any legitimate reason for not acting on these nominations today. I am informed that at least one Member of this body is holding these nominees because that Member believes he can best advance the cause of one mode of transportation security--in this case, Amtrak--by holding up their confirmations. I believe this is most unfortunate and, in fact, a big mistake. I support Senate passage of rail security legislation. In fact, I introduced the first rail security measure last year that would help address Amtrak safety and security funding needs. On October 10, I introduced S. 1528, the Rail Transportation Safety and Security Act, along with Senator Gordon Smith. I am also lead cosponsor of S. 1550, the Rail Security Act of 2001, introduced by Senator Hollings and myself on October 15, 2001. S. 1550 would authorize $515 million for security and $989 million for addressing the tunnel life safety needs in the Northeast. It was reported unanimously by the Commerce Committee on October 17 and is awaiting full action by the Senate. I urge the majority leader to schedule floor time for us to consider S. 1550. I understand a number of Members are interested in offering additional security-related amendments to that measure. I would also support allowing it to pass by unanimous consent if such agreement could be reached. It is an important bill not just for Amtrak but for addressing all rail security, both passenger and freight. But to hold these two nominees hostage to somehow better position the passage of Amtrak security legislation is not the best approach. After all, these positions are largely about security. We are holding up nominees who are good and qualified people because they are being held hostage to some other piece of legislation. That is wrong. What is going to happen if we do not move with these nominees? They will withdraw their candidacy. And this also sends a very disturbing message to others who are willing to serve this country. Usually when we find people who are willing to serve in positions of responsibility, they make a financial sacrifice. It is just because we do not compete salary-wise with the private sector. And that is entirely appropriate. But if these men and women are presented with situations like this, where two perfectly qualified nominees are prevented from being confirmed by the Senate and have to wait months after being unanimously reported out by the committee of oversight, and not even given a hearing on the floor of the Senate on their nomination, then, obviously, we are going to have more and more difficulty in getting qualified men and women to serve. I have been around here since 1987. I have never put a hold on a nomination. I have opposed nominees, and I have opposed them on the floor and forced votes on their nomination, but it is not correct to hold these two good and decent Americans hostage for some other agenda item. So, Madam President, I intend to come back to the floor later this afternoon, since there are those who have put a hold on it, and ask unanimous consent that these nominees be confirmed or, if need be, have a rollcall vote. I think it is time we move forward with these nominations, as I have discussed at some length. Let's not do this to these people. They are not responsible for any failure or perceived lack of consideration of any Senator. They are not even in the job. Let's give them a chance to serve the country. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Finally, I ask the Senator from Massachusetts if he will yield for another question.

Mr. McCAIN. I wonder if the Senator from Massachusetts would support a proposal that would force any American family to give up a sport utility vehicle. I would wonder--in fact, I am the proud owner of sport utility vehicles. I wonder if the Senator from Massachusetts would not join all of us in seeking Ford Motor Company to live up to their advertising in developing a 40-mile-per-gallon sport utility vehicle, which I would be one of the first to buy. Wouldn't we reduce some of this rhetoric that has been going on since the 1970s on the part of the automobile manufacturers? And if my memory serves me correctly, every single step of the way--from CAFE standards, to airbags, to seatbelts--the automobile manufacturers have said they were unable to comply, at least initially, whether it be in safety or whether it be in CAFE standards or any other improvement. So would the Senator agree with me that if there were any prospect of reducing the options of the American people, if there were any prospect that we were doing anything other than encouraging what is mostly existing technology to be implemented by the automobile manufacturers of America, we would not be proposing this legislation? The fact is that for every single improvement the automobile industry has made in America, they have been dragged, kicking and screaming, every step of the way. And we have just been over some of those quotes over a period of many years. So I wonder if the Senator from Massachusetts would respond, again, to the really almost irresponsible charges that have been made, particularly by the manufacturers, about the catastrophic events that might take place, when the fact is, we support strongly the ability of Americans to have a wide choice in their use of conveyance, particularly those of us in the West who travel long distances with our families.

Mr. McCAIN. To respond to my friend from Massachusetts, indeed they did. I also believe that since the Senator from Massachusetts and I can count votes pretty well, the opponents of what we are trying to do-- let's face it, the Levin-Bond amendment basically does nothing to improve fuel efficiency, and that is a fact. Sooner or later, we will see more and more pictures such as we have seen here in this editorial, which says: ``Valley's Brown Cloud nearly obscures downtown Phoenix from atop South Mountain.'' You will see that in Albuquerque. We already see it in Detroit. We see it in Boston. We see more and more studies of the health risks that air pollution causes to young and old Americans. I believe that sooner or later our constituents will demand that we rise up and repudiate and rebuke the automobile manufacturers of America, that refuse to be concerned about the health of Americans, much less the problems with our dependency on foreign oil. And, yes, every objective observer, every environmental group in America, believes we need to do a lot more than anything that is embodied in the Levin-Bond amendment. I thank my colleague for his question.

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. McCAIN. Is it true, in the view of the Senator from Massachusetts, that various claims have been made over the past several years, particularly back in the 1970s, the last time CAFE standards were increased, in fact, these comments were tantamount to the end of Western civilization as we know it? Is there a strange similarity between those comments made in the 1970s and those made today? Has the Senator noticed that? Let me give an example, Daimler-Benz senior vice president, from the New York Times: We are facing a radical and unrealistic proposal. The proponents are being dishonest. You cannot get 35 miles per gallon and still have sport utility vehicles and minivans. Bill Burke, the No. 3 man at Ford, in June 1976: In a year to 18 months, I see a rising demand at the small end. It will be pretty hard for any but pint-size cars to get that kind of mileage. Mr. Morrison, GM spokesman, said it would be virtually impossible to meet standards resembling that. We will have to tear our product line up. In 1974, a Ford representative said before the Senate Commerce Committee, on which Senator Kerry and I serve, that CAFE will require the Ford product to consist of either all sub-Pinto-sized vehicles or some types of vehicles ranging from a subcompact to perhaps a Maverick. The spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers said that if these proposals pass, the only place you will see a light truck is in a museum. Is there a haunting similarity between those comments made back in the 1970s and today that the Senator from Massachusetts may have detected at the same time the Ford Motor Company advertises a 40-mile- per-gallon SUV by the year 2003? Does the Senator find a certain irony in these historical perspectives on this issue?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for another question? One of the aspects of this issue that has to some degree been ignored in our desire for comfort and convenience for the American people is the issue of health aspects. I wonder if the Senator from Massachusetts is familiar with the problem that we have in my home State of Arizona, particularly in the valley where 3 million people reside in the sixth largest city in America. The Arizona Republic, a few days ago on March 9, had an editorial entitled ``Legislature Must Attack Brown Clouds.'' It said: We've always known the Valley's Brown Cloud is ugly and unhealthy. Now we know it can be deadly. A new study indicates that years of breathing that haze of particulate pollution will significantly raise a person's risk of dying of lung cancer and heart attack. For lung cancer,the risk is the same as living with a cigarette smoker, according to a report published this week in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The study, funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, is compelling because of its breadth: Researchers followed half a million people across the country over two decades. While the Valley has made strides in reducing carbon monoxide and ozone pollution, we've had trouble getting a handle on pollution from airborne particles. No, it's not just desert dust. The most dangerous particles are much smaller, 2.5 microns or less, so tiny that it takes at least 28 to equal the diameter of a human hair. These ultra-small particles, which wreak havoc by penetrating deep into the lungs, come from combustion. In the East and Midwest, the biggest culprits for such particulate pollution are coal-burning power plants. So it's worrisome that the Bush administration is considering changes in the rules for power plant expansion that could bring increased emissions. Here in the Valley, as elsewhere in the West, a big part of our particulate pollution spews out of tailpipes. I am not sure. I wonder if the Senator from Massachusetts thinks it is fair for us to address this issue of emission standards without discussing at length the abundance of information concerning health risks to the American people. I have a chart here on sources of carbon monoxide. In Phoenix, AZ, on the road, Mobile, it is 64 percent. There is another article that I have here of February 1, 2002: Study Links Smog To Rise in Asthma Cases of Children Who Play Outside. Guess what States, according to this study, generally speaking, have the highest chronic pollution level in the United States. They are Arizona, California, Georgia, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee. I wonder if the Senators from Michigan and Missouri are concerned about the fact they are on the top 10 list of pollution problems which cause health problems and difficulties to their citizens. I wonder if the Senator from Massachusetts agrees that there are compelling health issues here that have to be addressed as a result of the fact that we failed to enact simple, fairly easy changes in our emission standards which would, perhaps, in the case of one study, save between 650 and 1,000 lives just in Phoenix, AZ, alone. I am curious if the Senator from Massachusetts believes that perhaps we might be neglecting an important factor in the pollution of places such as my home State of Arizona where people were once sent because they had respiratory problems. Now we have pollution problems that are causing risks to people's health. A lot of that pollution is directly related to that, as the Arizona Republic says, ``spewing out of tailpipes.''

Mr. McCAIN. Do you know there is going to be a response from the proponents of the legislation which has already provided some very interesting rhetoric? I would like to ask the Senator from Massachusetts if he is aware of an article in the Washington Post on Sunday, March 10, entitled ``Debate On Fuel Economy Turns Emotional.'' It starts out by saying: With a hardy shove from Detroit, Senate opponents of a bill to raise automotive fuel economy standards--part of broader energy legislation now on the Senate floor--are painting the measure in apocalyptic terms, sketching dire consequences for the Nation's armada of SUVs and minivans. It goes on to quote some of our colleagues, quotes such as ``nanny government''; higher fuel standards will force such drastic reductions in vehicle size and weight that traffic fatalities will increase ``by the thousands.'' Then the article goes on to say--I wonder if the Senator has seen it-- As is often the case when Washington debates policy, however, emotions and symbols are getting more attention than substance. Although any increase in gas mileage inevitably will come at a cost, the notion that the bill would rid American highways of SUVs and pickup trucks--as some auto industry ads explicitly claim--is false. ``The fact of the matter is, you might have to use some of this improved fuel efficiency to improve economy rather than increasing performance, but certainly it doesn't mean that you couldn't have an SUV,'' Adrian Lund, chief operating officer of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and a member of a blue-ribbon panel that studied the issue for the National Academy of Sciences last year. I wonder if the Senator realizes how important that statement is from a chief operating officer of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a member of a blue-ribbon panel that studied the issue for the National Academy of Sciences. Continuing from the article: Paul Portney, chairman of the panel and president of think tank Resources for the Future, called the legislation ``somewhat aggressive.'' But he said it was ``roughly consistent with what the academy identified as being technologically possible, economically affordable and consistent with the desire of consumers for passenger safety.'' He added, ``There are technologies out there that would make it possible, if given enough time, like 10 to 15 years, for [manufacturers] to meet these standards without decreasing the size of the cars or increasing the price too much.'' All of us are entitled to our opinion. Everybody is entitled to the rhetoric. That is one of the entertaining things about the floor of the Senate. But when you call in the experts, usually their opinions have some significant weight. Those on the other side of the debate, of course, have also been known to gloss over inconvenient data. As the legislation is structured, for example, manufacturers could choose to improve fuel economy not only by technology but also by cutting weight. I hope when Senators decide on this issue, they will listen to the results of scientific studies, listen to the experts who have been involved years and years, as opposed to the rhetoric we see coming out of Detroit, MI, from an organization whose credibility over the years has been sadly strained. I wonder if the Senator from Massachusetts is aware of these individuals and these findings by a blue-ribbon panel that studied the issue for the National Academy of Sciences as short a time ago as last year. I thank my colleague for responding.

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will vote for the economic stimulus package in the interest of providing temporary assistance for unemployed Americans and their families. We cannot ignore the plight of millions of Americans, who were laid off and want to get back to work. My vote for this legislation should not be interpreted as a total endorsement of all of its provisions. Indeed, I have some serious reservations about extending tax benefits given to the oil and gas industry and the industry in the business of converting poultry waste into electricity. Again, my concern is that the special interests continue to benefit at the expense of hard-working Americans everywhere. However, overall, this bill will give unemployment relief for those families who need it the most and will help stimulate our economy to help America get moving again.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. I understand the Senator's concern but also know that if we lower the intent standard in Section 60123(b) of title 49, we want to ensure that a person cannot be held criminally liable for negligence.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2979 which is at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, over a year ago the Senate passed S. 235, the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act. That bill was approved by a vote of 98-0 on February 8, 2001, and is designed to promote both public and environmental safety by reauthorizing and strengthening our Federal pipeline safety programs which expired in September 2000. While the Senate has now passed pipeline safety legislation in both the 106th and the 107th Congresses, the other body has yet to take meaningful action to address pipeline safety. Despite efforts to encourage the other body to approve pipeline safety legislation and help prevent not only needless deaths and injuries but also environmental and economic disasters, there has been little movement by the House on this important issue. Therefore, the Senate must take whatever action we can to advance pipeline safety legislation. Today I offer the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act as an amendment to the pending energy bill. I believe it is appropriate to consider this issue in the context of energy legislation. I believe it is appropriate to consider this issue in the context of the post-September 11 environment. I think it is appropriate to consider this issue in the context that it is an issue which really needs to be addressed. The Senator from Alaska, it is my understanding, will be proposing an amendment that has to do with the damage to the Alaskan pipeline, which is probably an important amendment. When one looks at this chart of the natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines of the United States, the first conclusion one draws is that there is a need for pipeline safety and security. I don't need to draw scenarios as to what could happen in the event of the disruption or destruction of one of these pipelines, many of which carry material which is highly toxic and hazardous. I am pleased to be joined in this bipartisan effort by Senators Hollings, Murray, Bingaman, Breaux, Smith, Domenici, Hutchison, Wyden, and Torricelli. Our goal is to enact comprehensive legislation for pipeline safety for the public, the environment, and the economy. The Office of Pipeline Safety, within the Department of Transportation Research and Special Programs Administration, oversees the transportation of about 65 percent of the petroleum and most of the natural gas transported in the United States. The Office of Pipeline Safety regulates the day-to-day safety of 3,000 pipeline operators with more than 1.6 million miles of pipeline. I repeat, 1.6 million miles of pipeline. It also regulates more than 200 hazardous liquid operators with 155,000 miles of pipelines, as depicted on this chart. This chart shows the red lines as the liquid pipelines and the dark-colored lines as natural gas pipelines. Given the immense array of pipelines that traverse our Nation, reauthorization of our pipeline safety programs is critical to the safety and security of thousands of communities and millions of Americans nationwide. That is why it is appropriate to include pipeline safety provisions as a key component of any comprehensive energy legislation under consideration. The amendment being offered today is the product of many months of hearings, bipartisan compromise, and cooperation that began during the 106th Congress. During the past 2 years, my colleagues and I have made repeated statements discussing the critical need to enact pipeline safety improvement legislation. That necessity has been demonstrated by a number of tragic accidents in recent years. For example, In June 1999, a fatal pipeline accident occurred in Bellingham, WA, when gasoline leaked from an underground pipeline and was subsequently ignited. That accident resulted in the deaths of two boys and a young man, in addition to a number of injuries and severe environmental damage to the area. Other tragedies have occurred. On August 19, 2000, a natural gas transmission line ruptured in Carlsbad, NM, killing 12 members of two families. On September 7, 2000, a bulldozer in Lubbock, TX, ruptured a propane pipeline, resulting in the death of a police office. In total, 71 fatalities have occurred as a result of pipeline accidents over the past 3 years. I think that number is worth repeating: 71 fatalities over the last 3 years have occurred. Meanwhile, Congress has not acted to enact legislation which, in the view of many experts, possibly could have prevented these fatalities. That is a pretty onerous burden, it seems to me, that is placed on us as legislators in our failure to act. I regret to report that just yesterday, there was a pipeline explosion near Jeffersonville, KY. Thankfully, no fatalities have been reported, but I am informed it caused a fire so intense that it was picked up on a Federal Government satellite. Clearly, the amendment we are proposing today is not only timely but urgent. As I mentioned, the Senate has worked to improve pipeline safety and reduce the risk of future accidents. During the last Congress, with the assistance of a bipartisan group of Senators, including Senators Slade Gorton and Patty Murray, the Senate passed the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2000. Unfortunately, the House failed to approve pipeline safety legislation so we were never able to send a measure to the President. When the 107th Congress convened, one of the first legislative actions taken by the Senate was to consider and pass S. 235, the pipeline safety Improvement Act of 2001, a measure nearly identical to what we passed in the prior Congress. Early attention by the Senate demonstrated our firm commitment to improving pipeline safety. Once again, my colleagues and I are seeking to advance pipeline safety legislation by offering this amendment. I would be remiss if I didn't point out that despite the tragic accidents I highlighted earlier, the pipeline industry generally has a good safety record relative to other forms of transportation. According to the Department of Transportation, pipeline related incidents dropped nearly 80 percent between 1973 and 1998, and the loss of product due to accidental ruptures has been cut in half. From 1989 through 1998, pipeline accidents resulted in about 22 fatalities per year--far fewer than the number of fatal accidents experienced among other modes of transportation. But this record should not be used as an excuse for inaction on legislation to strengthen pipeline safety. The pipeline safety program expired nearly 18 months ago. Congress as a whole must address this critical public and environmental safety issue. We need to reauthorize the pipeline safety programs. We need to provide additional funding for safety enforcement and research and development efforts, as well as provide for increased State oversight authority and facilitate greater public information sharing at the local community level. Let me describe the major provisions of the amendment which is nearly identical to S. 235: First, it would require the implementation of pipeline safety recommendations issued in March 2000 by the Department of Transportation Inspector General to RSPA. The Inspector General found several glaring safety gaps at Office of Pipeline Safety and it is incumbent upon us all to do all we can to ensure that the Department affirmatively acts on these critical problems. The amendment would also require the Secretary of Transportation, the RSPA Administrator, and the Director of the Office of Pipeline Safety to respond to all NTSB pipeline safety recommendations within 90 days of receipt. The Department's responsiveness to the National Transportation Safety Board pipeline safety recommendations has been poor at best. while current law requires the Secretary to respond to the NTSB no later than 90 days after receiving a safety recommendation, there are no similar requirements at RSPA. Therefore, this legislation statutorily require RSPA and Office of Pipeline Safety to respond to each and every pipeline safety recommendation it receives from the NTSB and to provide a detailed report on what action is plans to initiate in response to the recommenation. The amendment would require pipeline operators to submit to the Secretary of Transportation a plan designed to improve the qualificaitons for pipeline personnel. At a minimum, the qualificaiton plan would have to demonstrate that pipeline employees have the necessary knowledge to safely and properly perform their assigned duties and would require testing and periodic reexamination of the employees' qualifications. It would also require the Department of Transportation to issue regulations mandating pipeline operators to periodically determine the adequacy of this pipeline to safely operate and to implement integrity management programs to reduce identified risks. The regulations would require operators to base their integrity management plans on risk assessment to periodically assess the integrity of their pipeline and to take steps to prevent and mitigate unintended releases, such as improving leak detection capabilities or installing restrictive flow devices. The integrity management provisions will not only be critical to advancing pipeline safety, but also to addressing potential security concerns, which is a shared goal among all the sponsors of this amendment. The amendment also would require pipeline operators to carry out a continuing public education program to advise municipalities, school districts, businesses, and residents about a variety of pipeline safety-related matters, including pipeline locations. It would also direct pipeline operators to initiate and maintain communication with State emergency response commissions and local emergency planning committees and to share with these entities information critical to addressing pipeline safety and mitigating risks. The amendment further directs the Secretary to develop and implement a comprehensive plan for the collection and use of pipeline-related data in a manner that would enable DOT to conduct incident trend analyses and evaluations of operator performance. Operation would be required to report incident releases greater than 5 gallons, compared to the current reporting requirement of 50 barrels. In addition, the Secretary would be directed to establish a national depository of data to be administered by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics in cooperation with RSPA. In recognition of the critical importance of technology applications in promoting transportation safety across all modes of transportation, the legislation directs the Secretary to focus on technologies to improve pipeline safety as part of the Department's research and development efforts. Further, the amendment includes provisions advanced by Senator Bingaman, myself, and others, to provide for a collaborative R&D effort directed by the Department of Transportation with the assistance of the Department of Energy and the National Academy of Sciences. The amendment would provide for a 3-year authorization, with increased funding for Federal pipeline safety activities, the State grant program, and research and development efforts. Additionally, the amendment requires operators, in the event of an accident, to make available to the DOT or NTSB all records and information pertaining to the accident and to assist in the investigation to the extent reasonable. It also includes provisions concerning serious accidents that provide for a review to ensure the operator's employees can safely perform their duties. In addition, pipeline employees would be afforded the same whistle-blower protections as are provided to employees in other modes of transportation. These protections are nearly identical to the protections aviation-related employees were granted in the Wendell H. Ford Aviation and Investment Reform Act for the 21st Century, P.L. 106- 181. I want to point out this amendment includes a few minor modifications to the Senate-passed version of S. 235. It extends the authorization period for an additional fiscal year which is necessary to reflect the fact that a year has passed since we considered S. 235. The amendment would fund pipeline safety programs for fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005 at $64 million annually. The amendment also includes two new provisions intended to address pipeline security concerns heightened in the wake of the September 11 attacks. While the pipeline safety provisions were not originally developed as security legislation, I believe it is our duty to address identified security concerns and will certainly consider any security- related proposals brought to our attention in the future by the administration and other interested parties. In the meantime, the amendment seeks to strike a balance between public access to pipeline information and the need to restrict security sensitive information. It would tie the new information disclosure requirements of the legislation to the existing Freedom of Information Act standards that restrict the release of certain information based on national security and national defense concerns. Again, it would apply current FOIA exemption standards to the public disclosure provisions to protect information critical to national security and defense. As this and other security-related measures continue through the legislative process, I plan to work with my colleagues to ensure the proper handling of security sensitive data within the Federal Government. Security sensitive information must not be released into the wrong hands. This amendment should afford useful protection in the near term. Finally, the amendment would authorize the Secretary to provide technical assistance to pipeline operators and state and local officials to ensure that they are adequately prepared to respond to terrorist attacks or threats that could impact pipelines. We must ensure that the Department has the tools it needs to carry out its critical pipeline safety responsibilities, to advance research and development efforts, and to protect pipeline security sensitive data. I urge my colleagues to join with me in demonstrating their strong support for improving pipeline safety by voting for this amendment. I remain hopeful that the Congress will approve pipeline safety legislation before we receive another call to action by another tragic accident. We have not reauthorized pipeline safety. It is important that we do so. It has lapsed. We can see by this chart the miles and miles of pipeline that cross America. Many of them are perfectly safe. There are others that clearly need renewed attention and renewed regulations as embodied in this bill. There are 3,000 gas pipeline operators with more than 1.6 million miles of pipeline and 200 hazardous liquid operators with 155,000 miles of pipeline. I don't like to refer to nor discuss various scenarios for acts of terror, but I think this chart in itself depicts the urgent need for reauthorization of this legislation. Also, it is of interest and value to put a human face on some of these issues and the importance of them. As I mentioned in my remarks earlier, there was a tragic accident in Bellingham, WA. Two young boys were killed. I will not describe the circumstances of their deaths. It aroused the entire community. With the assistance of Senator Murray and Senator Gorton, hearings were held in Bellingham on this issue, its cause, and what needed to be done. The people, the families, and the mayor of Bellingham came to Washington, DC, to testify before the Commerce Committee. Senator Murray, other Senators, and I made a commitment to the people of that community who were directly impacted by the tragic deaths of these children and to the people of this Nation that we would do everything we could to enact legislation--to act as is our responsibility--to see that there wouldn't be a recurrence of the tragedy and that no other family in America would undergo the agony and pain of the families of Bellingham, WA. We passed that bill on February 8, 2001. Yet the other body has not acted. I think that is very unfortunate. That is why I feel compelled to come today with this amendment on the energy bill in hopes that it will now either be part of this bill or the other body will act on this very important legislation which not only has to do with spillage of toxic waste, or hazardous materials, or fires, such as just happened yesterday, but which in some cases tragically endangers the lives of our citizens. I know of no greater responsibility than to try to do everything in our power to prevent a recurrence. I thank the managers of the bill for their consideration of this legislation. I again applaud Senator Murray for her tremendous efforts and dedication on this issue--not only the issue but for her sympathy and the concern she showed to the families and the people in that community who were deeply impacted by the accident. I hope we can do this to fulfill our responsibilities. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. I would be happy to work with the Senator on the issue.

Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator will yield, I am told it is the preference of the majority leader that a vote would be set for sometime tomorrow morning.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Alaska has a second-degree amendment to the pending amendment. I know the Senator from Alaska is very busy. I have a statement which is probably about 10 or 15 minutes long, but if the Senator from Alaska wishes to propose his second-degree amendment, I am willing to delay in my statement.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent an analysis of changes proposed by Senator McConnell be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the majority leader for propounding this unanimous consent agreement, and I thank my colleague from Kentucky for entering into good-faith discussions on this issue. We have had important discussions, and I think they have been something that Senator McConnell deserves to have had, given the long involvement we have had in this issue. I must tell my colleagues, we are at an impasse. We are at a situation where we need to move the process forward because the seven areas of ``disagreement'' that we have are substantive in nature, could never be viewed by me and Senator Feingold, with whom I have consulted constantly during this issue, my partner--could not be construed as anything but substantive amendments. That is why I requested that the Senator from Kentucky bring up these 7 amendments, we vote them up or down, 51 votes carries, and we agree to move to final passage on the bill. I cannot continue to discuss the amendments on the bill when we cannot agree to process on the bill. My position--and it remains my position, as propounded by the majority leader--is that we move to the bill with a consent the amendments the Senator from Kentucky or others may have be voted up or down, with an agreement on those amendments, with final passage. As to the technical amendments, many of which are still up for discussion and would have to also be agreed to by our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol, those we would agree to by unanimous consent agreement, as far as the Senate is concerned, and if we, the majority leader, the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, Senator Dodd, Senator McCain, and Senator Feingold are in agreement, we would take up and pass those technical amendments to the bill. I think that is a fair disposition of this legislation. As Senator McConnell is going to distribute his proposals, I will also distribute our responses. To any objective observer, a majority of those are not technical in nature, they are controversial. They need to be debated and voted on within a reasonable length of time. Finally, I appreciate the patience of the majority leader. He is committed to the energy bill. I understand that commitment. But I also appreciate the fact that the majority leader wants this issue dispensed with. It was March a year ago that we passed this legislation. It went over to the other body with assurance of a fair rule. It was an unfair rule. They had to get 218 votes. They passed this legislation with 10 amendments. We had 3 weeks of debate--3 weeks with amendment after amendment. This issue has been ventilated. It is time to move forward. I say with great respect and appreciation for this honorable opponent, it is time we move forward. If we have to, the majority leader needs to go through the cloture motion process. I regret that, but we cannot discuss further technical amendments that are not technical amendments unless there is an agreement on the process, and that process has to be consideration of amendments and agreement of final passage, or anticipation of a filibuster, to which one of our colleagues has already committed, no matter what. One of our colleagues is already committed to filibuster, I say to my colleagues, no matter what happens in the discussions that Senator McConnell and I may have. It is time we plan for that and move forward with cloture motions. If the Senate decides not to get 60 votes, then we will wait until the next scandal. We will wait until the next scandal, I say to the Senator from Kentucky. I don't know if it is Buddhist Temple fundraising, I don't know if it is Enron, I don't know who it is, but this system awash in money creates scandals because it makes good people do bad things. It is time we fixed it.

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a great American patriot, Hank Barrows. Hank passed away unexpectedly on Monday, February 11 at his home in Washington, DC. My deepest sympathies go out to his wife, Suzanne, and his sons, Geoffrey and Brian. Born in Bremerhaven, Germany on September 9, 1946, Hank emigrated with his family to the United States in 1960, settling in Westfield, NJ. Following his graduation from Westfields High School, Hank was accepted by Rutgers University, where he graduated in 1964 with a bachelors of arts degree in German. Trained as a navigator following his graduation from Air Force Officers Candidate School, OCS, in 1969, Hank served two tours in Vietnam. In his first tour, Hank served as a EWO on a C-130 gunship and the second as a B-52 EWO during the Linebacker II Operations over North Vietnam. It was on December 19, 1972, during one of the Linebacker missions, that Hank was shot down and taken prisoner by the North Vietnamese. Hank was held prisoner in the infamous ``Hanoi Hilton'' until his release on March 29, 1973. After being released by the Vietnamese, he was assigned to the 343rd Strategic Reconnaissance Squadron at Offutt Air Force Base as an Electronic Intelligence intercept officer on the RC-135s. His next assignment was to the 7575 Operations Group Operating Location A Support Squadron stationed at Rhein Main Air Force Base, Frankfurt, Germany flying in and out of Berlin as part of the freedom of the corridors mission. In recognition of his superior performance and expertise, Hank was reassigned in 1979 to United States Air Force- Europe, USAFE, headquarters in the office that managed airborne operations. Hank returned to the U.S. in 1982 working in the Air Staff Intelligence Directorate in the Pentagon. He spent the last seven years of his distinguished Air Force career in the Defense Support Project Office. He finished that assignment as the Deputy Director for Airborne Reconnaissance. Upon his retirement in 1992, Hank joined MRJ as a key member of the Mariner Support team. As a result of his superior performance on that team, he became the program manager for the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office, DARO, support contract. Having successfully managed that contract, Hank was promoted to the position of Division Manager. After the reorganization of MRJ, Hank was put in charge of the Development Systems Division, which later became the Development Systems Group when Veridian acquired MRJ. Hank's group consistently exceed their business goals each year. In 2000, Hank received the Veridian Leadership Award. In nominating Hank for this award, he was cited for ``. . . accepting and tackling difficult and challenging business opportunities, his unique talent, his contagious enthusiasm and a belief that winning is for those willing to give their best.'' He was also cited for his ``. . . knack of finding and recruiting the best-qualified people for the planned growth of his division.'' In addition, he was recognized for ensuring that his team was kept well-informed, equipped with the right tools to do their jobs, and encouraging each individual to inject initiative and promote professional growth while increasing customer support. Hank will be remembered in many ways by those who came to know him. We will remember Hank as an exemplary role model with vision, passion, and loyalty.