John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the distinguished manager and I have a couple of amendments, if I could ask the indulgence of the Senator from Texas.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee for the usual cooperation and bipartisanship which he has displayed on many occasions in the past in his duties as chairman of the Commerce Committee. It has also been my pleasure to have had the opportunity to work with him, including on this very important piece of legislation. Perhaps the distinguished chairman and I have not worked on a bill that is more important and significant as this one. This bill would significantly enhance aviation security by making the Federal Government directly responsible and accountable for the screening of airline passengers and their baggage. Although there are many other parts of this bill that are intended to improve security, the shift in responsibility for passenger screening is the most profound. But nothing less is required given that the events of September 11 have forever changed how we view air travel. Unfortunately, we have learned a hard lesson that we face an enemy that is willing to sacrifice itself and thousands of innocents to obtain its ends. Aviation security has now become a critical element of national security, and this requires a fundamental change in our approach. Congress must act to ensure that safety and security remain our foremost concern. To handle and coordinate all aviation security matters for the Federal Government, including the new screening functions, the bill creates a new, high-level position within the Department of Transportation (DOT). Nevertheless, there would be close coordination with other Federal agencies, particularly those involved in law enforcement, intelligence and national security. Cooperation among Federal agencies will be just as important to our effort to safeguard aviation as it will be in our larger battle to root out and destroy terrorist networks. Accountability is also important, and when it comes to aviation security, there will not be one Federal official to serve as the focal point for all our efforts. This bill includes numerous other provisions designed to improve aviation security. For example, the Federal air marshal program is broadly expanded, and airports are required to strengthen control over access points to secure areas. In addition, cockpit doors must be strengthened and flight crews would be given up-to-date training on how to handle hijacking situations. The bill would also take steps to ensure that our Nation's flight schools are not being used by terrorists. For the current fiscal year, airports would be given the flexibility to use Federal airport grants to pay for increased costs associated with new security mandates. I know that some of my colleagues may have concerns about the Federal Government assuming the burden of screening hundreds of millions of airline passengers each year. As a proud fiscal conservative, I do not advocate this move lightly. But the attack last month was an act of war, and we must respond accordingly. As a matter of national security, passenger screening can no longer be left to the private sector. I am one of the most ardent proponents of free enterprise and the entrepreneurial spirit of America. However, this is not an area where decisions should be driven by the bottom line. The Federal Government does not contract out the work of Customs agents, the Border Patrol, the INS, and many other agencies that perform functions similar to the screening that we are dealing with here. We should not contract out the screening of airline passengers. By the way, recently there was a CNN poll taken where people could instantly respond as to whether screening employees should be done by Federal employees or contracted out. Eighty-seven percent of the hundreds of thousands of people who responded to that CNN poll said the Federal Government should assume that responsibility. It is also a question about whether the Department of Justice or Department of Transportation should have the authority in this matter. In all candor, one of the reasons is because of the lack of success in the past of some of the programs and implementation of some of the recommendations that were made by the Department of Transportation Inspector General, the GAO, and others. That will be a subject of debate as we consider this legislation. The present legislation gives DOT the authority to fire or suspend any screener and prohibit him or her from returning to screening duties regardless of any civil service employment laws to the contrary. Furthermore, screeners would also be prohibited from striking. To offset some of the additional costs to government, airlines would be charged a security fee based upon the number of passengers they carry. Because there are many small airports across the country that may not need a full complement of screeners throughout the day, the Department of Transportation would have the option of requiring smaller airports to contract out the screening work to State or local law enforcement officials. This could only be done if the screening services and training of local officers are the same and the Federal Government reimburses the airport. There would also be some flexibility for DOT to adopt different security measures at smaller airports depending upon airport conditions and the level of airline activity. I know that some people may be concerned about the transition period if we do move to full Federal control over the screening process. Some believe that screening services may suffer if current employees and companies know that they will be phased out in the coming months. The bill addresses this concern by giving DOT the flexibility to make whatever arrangements are necessary to ensure security in the interim. For example, DOT could enter into new, short-term contracts with screening companies that provide for upgraded services while at the same time compensating the companies, and perhaps employees, for the temporary nature of the new arrangement. I would also point out that the average turnover, because of the low pay in salary and benefits, at major airports is 125 percent per year. At one airport it is as high as 400 percent per year, but that is because the people who now are employed as screeners can make more money by going down and working at a concession at the same airport. So let's have no doubt about the transience, the documented transience of these people who work there, who are good and decent, fine American citizens, but they are low paid, and they are ill- trained. That is not their fault. I want to make that perfectly clear. The Commerce Committee has held several aviation security hearings over the last few years, including one 3 weeks ago. We have repeatedly been told by the DOT Inspector General, the General Accounting Office, and many others that there are flaws in our aviation security systems, especially in the area of passenger and baggage screening. Although we addressed some of these concerns in legislation enacted last year, we clearly must go much farther now. Anything approaching the status quo is no longer acceptable. It is vital that aviation security be provided by professional individuals who are well paid, well trained, and well motivated. The events of the past few days underscore the need for us take action immediately. Our military strike against terrorist bases increases the risk of another terrorist attack on our own soil. While more than aviation is threatened, we know all too well it is an area that terrorists have targeted before and something they have gone to great lengths to learn about. Aviation is more important than ever to our economic and social well- being. We cannot avoid the tough choices when it comes to security. The traveling public needs to have its confidence restored in the safety of flying. Federal control of the passenger screening process and greater oversight of other aspects of aviation security can get our aviation industries back on track. Anything less than a full Federal effort would be an abrogation of our duties as lawmakers. There was a poll taken yesterday by ABC which I would like to refer to, ABC News.com. The question was: Are you worried traveling by airplane because of risk of terrorism? Forty-two percent of the American people today still are worried about traveling by airplane because of risk of terrorism. There was a meeting in New York City the day before yesterday. According to the Wall Street Journal: Lawmakers are eager to resolve the dispute partly because they are being told by business leaders and even Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan that airline security is central to restoring consumer confidence and getting the economy back on track. In a meeting at the New York Stock Exchange yesterday, about 20 executives urged Mr. Hastert and House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt of Missouri to take drastic action quickly. ``The consensus was that the whole system has to be federalized,'' one House aide said. It is very clear that we need to act. I am very disappointed it has taken us a couple weeks before we could get this bill up on the floor of the Senate. Senator Hollings and I would be more than happy to consider amendments, in addition to the present ones. I want to point out that there would be some added expense associated with increasing security, but I would also like to point out that security has obviously become paramount. So, Mr. President, I again thank Senator Hollings, the chairman of the committee. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I do not see any more pending business, so pending the appearance of the majority leader or the whip, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN. I withhold.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Oregon for his kind words about the work we have done together on the Commerce Committee on other issues. It has been a distinct honor for me to have the benefit of the relationship we developed over the years. I am very grateful for his involvement in issues such as Internet tax, aviation, and many others. I believe he is correct in that we have been able to display from time to time the degree of cooperation working together on common goals about which I think the American people are very pleased. If you believe the latest polls, Americans have never been more pleased at the way we have been performing in a bipartisan fashion. I thank the Senator from Oregon for his kind words. I wish to take a couple of minutes to talk about where we are and where we need to go on airport security and airline security. I am sure all of us by now know that a Russian airliner was shot down a few hours ago. They are not exactly sure why. But I think that may, at least in the minds of some of us, emphasize the need for us to proceed with whatever measures we can take to ensure safety but also as importantly to restore confidence in the American people in their ability to utilize air transportation in America in as safe a manner as possible. There is no doubt that there are millions of Americans who are still either concerned about or afraid of flying on commercial airlines. We need to move forward with this legislation. What is hanging it up? One is there is a disagreement between sponsors of the bill, Senator Hollings, myself, Senator Hutchison, Senator Rockefeller, and the administration on the issue of federalization of employees. There are different approaches. But I think we can at least have serious negotiations and come to some agreement. I believe that is not only possible but probable. The second point is the concern about the addition of nongermane amendments to the legislation--whether it be Amtrak, whether it be on the so-called Carnahan amendment which extends unemployment benefits and other benefits to people whose lives were affected by the shutdown of the airlines. I think all of us are in sympathy with those individuals, all of them, particularly those at National Airport, who had a more extended period of unemployment as a direct result of an order of the Federal Government. I am not sure how a conservative or liberal could argue the point that since it was a Government action it would be hard for us to not justify some assistance to those people whose lives were directly affected. As we all know, hundreds of thousands or so of airline employees' lives are affected by layoffs that the major airlines have already announced. So there is a significant problem out there. But I would make a strong case that this is an airline/airport security bill. This is to improve aviation security. It is not a bill for unemployment compensation or any other. This legislation is directly tailored to aviation security and airline safety. Last week, we passed a bill to give financial relief to the airlines. That was what it was about. That is for what it was tailored. We did not add extraneous amendments. So I have to say to my colleagues that I think it is not the time to add that to an aviation security bill, especially in light of the fact that we all know within a week or two we are going to take up a stimulus package. Clearly, that issue would be addressed in some shape or form when the stimulus package is considered. So I intend to oppose any nongermane amendment to this legislation. I believe there are at least 41 of us, if not 51 of us, who would object, so therefore we would not have the bill become bogged down in extended debate. Those who insist on putting a nongermane amendment on an aviation security bill would then be responsible for preventing passage of a bill that has to do with aviation security. So I hope those Members who are concerned and committed to assisting those whose lives have been severely disrupted by the shutdown of the airlines--we are in complete sympathy with them and we intend to act. And we intend to negotiate a reasonable package that would provide some benefits and compensation, depending on how directly their lives were affected, et cetera--something that, by the way, we would have to have a lot of facts and figures about, too. But to put it on this bill would be obfuscation, delay, and prevention of us acting to ensure the safety and security of airlines and airline passengers throughout America. So I want to make that perfectly clear, that we should not have any amendment, no matter how virtuous it may be, on an airport and airline security bill. I hope we can move forward with this bill. There are a lot of Members who want to talk about it. There are not too many amendments. We could get this thing done today if we could move forward on it and have some agreement. I also remind my colleagues that we are in negotiation and will continue to try to work with the administration. We also have to work with the Members of the House on this legislation as well. But for us to delay because we have our own pet agendas, our own specific priorities, and not act as speedily as possible to restore confidence on the part of the American people in their ability to get on an airline is somewhat of an abrogation of our responsibilities. I am pleased that Senator Hollings, the distinguished chairman of the committee, has also pledged to oppose any nongermane amendments as well. So, Mr. President, I really want to emphasize that we need to move forward. I think it would be wrong of us to go into the weekend without doing so, at least making some progress. We are prepared to do so, and I hope we can. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to make some brief remarks about our progress, or lack of progress, on airport security, which is a very important and vital issue. We had a good meeting with the Secretary of Transportation, Norman Mineta, and I think we are defining some of our differences, as well as areas of agreement. I am hopeful that we can negotiate out those differences. We need to move forward with this legislation. It is now 5:25 in the afternoon and we have not had a single amendment debated or proposed. We have not moved to the bill. We need to move to this legislation. Last week, with a degree of bipartisanship that was very gratifying, this body passed legislation to take care of the financial difficulties that airlines are experiencing and have experienced as a result of the terrorist attacks. Now we need to restore the confidence of the American people in their ability to fly from one place to another with a sense of safety and security, which they do not have today. It is inappropriate for us not to act before we go out of session tomorrow. Already, there are only a few amendments that would need to be considered. As I mentioned earlier, Senator Hollings, the chairman, and I have committed to opposing nonrelevant amendments no matter what their virtues may be. So I intend, tomorrow, if we are unable, for whatever reason, to come down and ask unanimous consent that this legislation be the pending business. I think it is very important. I see the Senator from Nevada on the floor. I thank him for his efforts in trying to see this bill brought up and addressed before we go out of session for the week. I don't think we should allow any peripheral issues to prevent us from moving forward. I have had good will statements made from strong supporters of Amtrak that they would not have those provisions on this bill. For those who are worried about the unemployed and others who have suffered because of the airline shutdown, those people have also said we can move forward. There is no reason we should not. I hope we will, and I hope we will not have to employ any parliamentary procedures in order to do what we all know is necessary, which is to protect the flying safety of our air transportation system. By the way, the Air Transport Association is strongly in support of this legislation. I have been visited by airline executives who have urged that we act as quickly as possible to restore the confidence of the American people. I hope we will listen to them as well and not get hung up on some rather unimportant--when you look at the importance of this bill--side issues. So I hope we will act tomorrow, and, if not, I will try to come down to the floor and force action in whatever parliamentary fashion I can. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Lott and Senator Daschle for the efforts they are making to try to bring this measure forward. I especially thank Senator Hollings. He has agreed, along with me, that we would oppose any nonrelevant amendments to this legislation. That is an important commitment on the part of Senator Hollings. I know how he feels about Amtrak and about seaport security and a number of other issues. I thank Senator Hollings for that. Briefly, if we now wait, as Senator Hollings said, until cloture is voted on Friday, and we surely can't act until Monday, and we are not going to be in on Monday, we are well into next week. Last week, we passed legislation to keep the airlines afloat financially. Millions of Americans still will not fly on airliners because they don't believe they are safe. That is a fact. When Americans know that the Congress of the United States has acted in a bipartisan fashion, with the support of the President of the United States, to take measures to ensure their security, that will be the major step in restoring the financial viability not only of the airlines but of America because we are dependent on the air transportation system in order to have an economy that is viable. I am happy to say that the airlines are totally supportive of this legislation. They want it enacted right away. They believe it is vital for their future viability. Finally, the fact that it didn't go through the Commerce Committee, the chairman and I are not too concerned about that. I think we are fairly well known to be conscious of that. As far as the screening issue is concerned, that is why we have debate and amendments. We will let the majority rule. That is relevant to the bill. Again, about provisions being added, I don't think any Member of this body is going to try to add an amendment that would be perceived as blocking airline security, including the Senator from Massachusetts, who is very concerned about the issue of Amtrak. I hope the two leaders will continue working together. We will meet with Secretary Mineta and hear for the first time the views of the administration on this issue. I hope that by the time that meeting is over, we will have an agreement so we can move forward. Lots of Members are involved in this issue. Lots of Members want to talk about it. Lots of Members are involved in it, so we are going to have to have a lot of discussion on this issue. The sooner we move forward, the sooner we are going to get it done. As Senator Hollings said, we can get this bill passed by tomorrow afternoon if we all work at it, but if we wait over the weekend, I do not think it is the right signal to send. I yield the floor. Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I have risen many times in this body over the course of the last decade to affirm my support for moving forward our relationship with Vietnam. We began carefully, over a decade ago, with cooperation in the search for our missing service personnel. That cooperation, along with Vietnam's withdrawal from Cambodia and the end of the cold war, fostered a new spirit in Southeast Asia that allowed us to lift the U.S. trade embargo against Vietnam in 1994 and normalize diplomatic relations in 1995. My friend Pete Peterson was nominated by the President to serve as our ambassador in Hanoi in 1996 and was confirmed by the Senate in 1997. We lifted Jackson-Vanik restrictions on Vietnam in 1998 and have sustained the Jackson-Vanik waiver for that country in subsequent years. In 2000, we signed a bilateral trade agreement with Vietnam--one of the most comprehensive bilateral trade agreements our country has ever negotiated. We stand ready today to approve this agreement and, in doing so, complete the final step in the full normalization of our relations with Vietnam. It need not have come this far, and would not have come this far, were it not for the support of Americans who once served in Vietnam in another time, and for another purpose--to defend freedom. The wounds of war, of lost friends and battles gone wrong, took decades to heal. It took some time for me, as it did for Pete Peterson, John Kerry, Chuck Hagel, and many other veterans, just as it took some time for America, to understand that while some losses in war are never recovered, the enmity and despair that we felt over those losses need not be our permanent condition. I have memories of a place so far removed from the comforts of this blessed country that I have forgotten some of the anguish it once brought me. But that is not to say that my happiness with these last, nearly thirty years, has let me forget the friends who did not come home with me. The memory of them, of what they bore for honor and country, still causes me to look in every prospective conflict for the shadow of Vietnam. But we must not let that shadow hold us in fear from our duty, as we have been given light to see that duty. The people we serve expect us to act in the best interests of this nation. And the nation's best interests are poorly served by perpetuating a conflict that claimed a sad chapter of our history, but ought not hold a permanent claim on our future. I supported normalizing our relations with Vietnam for a number of reasons, not the least of which was that I could no longer see the benefit of fighting about it. America has a long, accomplished, and honorable history. We did not need to let this one mistake, terrible though it was, color our perceptions forever of our national institutions and our nation's purpose in the world. We were a good country before Vietnam, and we are a good country after Vietnam. In all the annals of history, you cannot find a better one. Vietnam did not destroy us or our historical reputation. All these years later, I think the world has come to understanding that as well. It was important to learn the lessons of our mistakes in Vietnam so that we can avoid repeating them. But having learned them, we had to bury our dead and move on. But then Vietnam was not a memory shared by veterans or politicians alone. The legacy of our experiences in Vietnam influenced America profoundly. Our losses there, the loss of so many fine young Americans and the temporary loss of our national sense of purpose--stung all of us so sharply that the memory of our pain long outlasted the security and political consequences of our defeat. And for too many, for too long, Vietnam was a war that would not end. But it is over now, a fact I believe the other body's overwhelming vote on this bilateral trade agreement, and the surprising lack of controversy it engenders, indicates. America has moved on, as has Vietnam. Our duty and our interests demand that we not allow lingering bitterness to dictate the terms of our relationships with other nations. We have found in the new, post-cold-war era, a place of friendship for an adversary from an earlier time. I am very proud of America, and of the good men and women who serve her, for that accomplishment. We looked back in anger at Vietnam long enough. And we cannot allow any lingering resentments we incurred during our time in Vietnam to prevent us from doing what is so clearly in our duty: to help build from the losses and hopes of our tragic war in Vietnam a better peace for both the American and Vietnamese people. This trade agreement between our nations cements the relationship with Vietnam we have been building all these years, since we decided to put the war behind us. In approving this agreement, Vietnam's leaders have gambled their nation's future on a strong relationship with us, and on freeing their people from the shackles of international isolation and the command economy they once knew. History shows that nations exposed to our values and infused with the day-to-day freedoms of an open economy become more susceptible to the influence of our values, and increasingly expect to enjoy them themselves. In choosing to deepen their nation's relationship with the United States, Vietnam's leaders have made a wise choice that will benefit their people. In choosing to deepen America's relationship with Vietnam, we have thrown our support to the Vietnamese people, and cast our bet that freedom is contagious. We do not reward Hanoi by voting for this trade agreement today. In doing so, we advance our interests in Vietnam even as we expose its people to the forces that will continue to change Vietnam for the better. The change its people have witnessed over the past decade has been dramatic. This trade agreement will accelerate positive change. This is a welcome development for all Vietnamese, and for all Americans. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, four years ago, I rose in this body to encourage my colleagues to confirm the nomination of my friend Pete Peterson to serve as the American ambassador to Vietnam, the first since the end of the Vietnam War. When we confirmed Pete for this important assignment in 1997, many of us could not have foreseen his success in building a normal relationship between our two countries. Indeed, the best measure of Pete's success is the fact that it seems quite normal today for the United States to have an ambassador resident in Hanoi to advance our array of interests in Vietnam, which range from accounting for our missing service personnel to improving human rights to cooperating on drugs and crime to addressing regional challenges together. That normalcy is due largely to the superb job Pete did as our ambassador to Vietnam. As a former fighter pilot shot down and held captive for six and a half years, some would have assumed it was not Pete's destiny to go back to Vietnam to restore a relationship that had been frozen in enmity for decades. Indeed, there was a time in Pete's life when the prospect of voluntarily residing in Hanoi would have been unthinkable. Much time has passed since then. Our relationship with Vietnam has changed in once unthinkable ways. Pete rose to the occasion and helped us to build the new relationship we enjoy today. Pete's willingness, after having already rendered many years of noble service to his country, to answer her call again and serve in a place that did not occasion many happy memories for him, was an act of selfless patriotism beyond conventional measure. I am immensely proud of him. I know of no other American whose combination of subtle intuition and steely determination, whose ability to win over both former Vietnamese adversaries and skeptics of the new relationship here at home, could have matched the success Pete had in transforming our relations. Pete did this in service to America, and as an acknowledgment that the range of our interests in Vietnam, and the values we hope to see take root there, called for such an approach. Our nation is better off for Pete's service. So are the Vietnamese people. So are those Americans who learned the grim but whole truth about the fate of their loved ones who had been missing since the war as a result of Pete's unending commitment to a full and final accounting. After the number of POW/MIA repatriation ceremonies over which he presided--each flag-draped coffin containing the hopes and dreams of a lifetime--Pete can confirm that providing final answers to all POW/MIA families is alone ample reason for our continuing engagement with the Vietnamese. Pete Peterson has built a legacy that serves our nation and honors the values for which young Americans once fought, suffered, and died, in Southeast Asia. I can think of no higher tribute than that.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Senator from Oregon and I, along with the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, and the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, and others have been working for years on the issue of Internet tax. We still have not reached an agreement. The moratorium expires very soon. We will be introducing legislation today for another 2-year extension of the Internet tax moratorium. I hope we can get agreement on that, and in calmer and quieter times, we will be able to address and debate the issue of international taxation, which is a very difficult, very complicated, and an increasingly important issue to Governors, legislators, mayors, and city council members. At this point in our American history, we need an extension of a couple years so in calmer and quieter times we can come to some agreement on this very important issue. That does not mean the Senator from Oregon and I are opposed to Internet taxes per se, but we have a long way to go before we are in agreement, so we will be introducing legislation today. I hope we can get unanimous agreement on it and move forward. I yield to the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. It is sufficient.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will not take more than 1 minute because we need to move forward with this legislation. In fact, we need to move forward with it urgently. I hope there will be time agreements and amendments decided on so we can finish this bill today. We have to move on to airport security and other important issues. (The remarks of Mr. McCain and Mr. Wyden are printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.''

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, in the weeks since September 11, Congress has risen to the occasion and worked in a bipartisan manner to address the many problems caused by the atrocities committed against our country. The American public can be proud of how their elected representatives have responded to this grave national emergency. I am proud of our performance. But I am worried that in a few minutes, the Senate may undo all our good work of the past three weeks, bring an end to the bipartisan cooperation that has distinguished this institution, and give the public a reason to be ashamed of us. Obviously, with America at war, the Defense authorization bill may be the most important legislation we will pass since September 11. Recognizing that importance, Democrats and Republicans on the Armed Services Committee have worked together to resolve differences that might have imperiled the bill's passage and threaten our bipartisan cooperation. The chairman of the committee, Senator Levin, has agreed at the minority's urging to remove a provision in the bill restricting the administration's ability to develop a ballistic missile defense. I commend the Senator for that act of statesmanship, and for keeping his priorities straight in this critical hour. Regrettably, some senators have decided that passing a defense authorization bill should take a backseat to fighting over our differences on energy policy and to denying the President, the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary of Defense the ability to reorganize our military to respond to the new threats that confront this nation. Every civilian and uniformed leader of the United States armed forces has recognized that an additional round of base closings will be necessary to reorganize the military. We cannot, in this national emergency, let our parochial concerns override the needs of the military. Nor should we insist on fighting over our differences on energy policy if the consequence of our insistence is that we fail to provide the military with the resources they need to maintain their readiness as they prepare to wage what the President has correctly called a ``new kind of war.'' There will be time enough for that debate. But not now, not on this bill. I beg my colleagues to continue to distinguish themselves and the Senate by keeping the national interest first, second and last, to work together, as the country expects and needs us to, and to surrender, if only temporarily, the habits of partisanship and parochialism that have no place in this crisis. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that letters from Secretary Rumsfeld and Chairman Shelton to Senators Levin and Warner be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 1438, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002. At the outset, I must commend Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin for agreeing to a compromise to the committee-reported version of the defense authorization bill, by restoring $1.3 billion for the President's missile defense proposal, and removing language that would have harmed timely deployment of a missile defense system for America. I was deeply concerned during committee consideration when the restrictive bill language on missile defense was added and the cut in the missile defense program occurred, causing committee Republicans to vote unanimously against reporting out the bill. In my 18 years in Congress, I had never seen a Defense authorization bill reported out of committee strictly on party lines. I am very proud, however, of the unified efforts and spirit of my colleagues since the tragic attacks on September 11, and I am pleased that we are working together to enhance our national security at this crucial time in our country's history. It is tremendously important to me that the committee included language in the defense authorization bill and report that would authorize payment of retired pay and disability pay for military retirees and other eligible veterans--a practice known as ``concurrent receipt.'' For the past 10 years, I have offered legislation on this issue. This matter is of great significance to many of our country's military retirees, because it would reverse existing, unfair regulations that strip retirement pay from military retirees who are also disabled, and costs them any realistic opportunity for post- service earnings. I am pleased that the committee, for the first time, has included language that describes this offset as unfair to disabled career service members. My friends, we must do more to restore retirement pay for those military retirees who are disabled. I have stated before in this chamber, and I am compelled to reiterate now--retirement pay and disability pay are distinct types of pay. Retirement pay is for service rendered through 20 years of military service. Disability pay is for physical or mental pain or suffering that occurs during and as a result of military service. In this case, members with decades of military service receive the same compensation as similarly disabled members who served only a few years; this practice fails to recognize their extended, clearly more demanding careers of service to our country. This is patently unfair, and I will continue to work diligently to correct this inequity. In the legislation we are considering today, there are several provisions that will significantly improve the lives of active duty members, reservists, military retirees, veterans, and their families. It will come as no surprise, however, that I would like to emphasize that this year's Defense authorization bill contains nearly $1 billion in pork--unrequested add-ons to the defense budget that deprive our military of vital funding for priority issues. While this year's total is far less than in previous years, it is still $1 billion too much. Given the grave circumstances facing our nation today, we need to demonstrate to all Americans that we can do better. Over the past six years, Congress has increased the Presidents' defense budgets by nearly $60 billion in order to address the military services' most important unfunded priorities. Still, I think it is worth repeating, until the message sinks, in, that the military needs less money spent on pork, and more money spent wisely to redress the serious readiness and modernization problems caused by a decade of declining defense budgets. Every year as we work on defense authorization legislation, however, certain items are funded that are not on the Service chiefs' unfunded requirements list and, frankly, whose merits are questionable. For example, I have noticed in the fiscal year 2002 bill a total increase of nearly $55 million for advanced automotive technology and related fuel cell technology research--it sounds like the Motor City will be pleased, but what about the Service Chiefs? The auto industry also must be pleased with funding for the National Automotive Center's SmarTruck Army program. In a Washington Post investigative report last year, it was revealed that the SmarTruck, which was envisioned as a modified Ford F-350 pick up, has developed into a vehicle that looks like it should be in the next James Bond movie--all paid for with American taxpayers' hard-earned money. I am also concerned that despite the President's clear budget request for the procurement of 2 C-130J aircraft for the Air Force, the committee voted by the narrowest margin to add $99 million for an additional, unrequested C-130J for the Little Rock Air Force Base. DoD and GAO have regularly criticized the C-130J program for serious cost overruns and development delays; moreover, there is a significant surplus of this platform in the Air Force inventory--called ``an embarrassment of riches'' by the Air Force Chief of Staff. This continued procurement clearly makes the contractor happy,but what about the Service Chiefs? For the $99 million cost of 1 C-130J, our Navy could have procured 2 additional F/A-18 E/Fs, to respond directly to the critical need of replacing aging Navy aircraft inventory--an inventory whose airplanes average 18 years old. In fact, the CNO, Admiral Vernon E. Clark, USN, testified before the committee this year that he needs to procure 180 jet aircraft per year just to sustain the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review level, considerably more than the 48 F/ A-18 E/Fs provided in our bill. Just as discouraging, given its pork barrel nature, is a provision that would delay the B-1B Lancer bomber force restructuring or downsizing at a cost of $165 million to U.S. taxpayers. This provision has literally made it illegal for the Secretary of Defense to reduce, retire, dismantle, transfer, or reassign the Air National Guard B-1B Lancer bomber force by 33 aircraft until the following reports have been prepared: The National Security Review, the Quadrennial Defense Review, the Revised Nuclear Posture Review, the Secretary of Defense Report on the B-1B Lancer Bomber, the Bomber Force Structure Report, and a Comptroller General Report on the B-1B Lancer Bomber I have never witnessed a more absurd illustration of congressional micro-management, and at such a great cost; the service chiefs will be unable to make wise use of this $165 million in fiscal year 2002 and the taxpayers' money will again be spend imprudently. I would like to mention one further example of wasteful spending. For the last several years, Congress has added money for cultural and historic preservation activities, which is funded through a program called the Legacy Resource Management Program, fancy terminology for pork. The fiscal year 2002 defense authorization bill will add $8 million to this program, principally for recovery and preservation of the C.S.C. Virginia, which ran aground near Craney Island near the James and Elizabeth Rivers and was set on fire after being abandoned in May 1862. Now, my friends, can't we agree that there are much more pressing needs, such as improving military readiness and providing quality-of-life benefits to our service men and women, than raising this Civil War ironclad? I also hope that we can re-focus our attention on reforming the bureaucracy of the Pentagon. With the exception of minor changes, our defense establishment looks just as if did 50 years ago. We must continue to incorporate practices from the private sector, like restructuring, reforming, creating efficiencies, and streamlining to eliminate duplication and capitalize on cost savings. More effort must be made to reduce the growth trend of headquarters' staff and to decentralize the Pentagon's morass of bureaucratic fiefdoms. Although nearly every military analyst shares these views, this bill instead moves significantly in the direction of increasing the size of headquarters staff, thereby eliminating any incentive for the Pentagon to change its way of doing business with its bloated organization and outdated practices. In addition, I appreciate that the Administration and the majority of my colleagues supported one round of Base Realignment and Closure in 2003, but more must be done to eliminate unnecessary and duplicative military contracts and military installations. Every U.S. military leader, civilian and uniformed, has testified about the critical need for further BRAC rounds. We can redirect at least $6 billion per year by eliminating excess defense infrastructure. There is another $2 billion per year that we can put to better purposes by privatizing or consolidating support and maintenance functions, and an additional $5 billion that can be saved each year by eliminating ``Buy America'' restrictions that undermine U.S. competitiveness overseas. Despite these compelling facts, the defense bill did not address many of these critical issues. And, unfortunately, it includes several provisions that move expressly in the opposite direction. Again, I am pleased that many of my colleagues voted to support Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and General Henry H. Shelton, USA, and approve another round of BRAC by a 53 to 47 rollcall vote. In addition, sections in this bill designed to preserve depots, and to funnel work in their direction irrespective of cost, are examples of the old philosophy of protecting home-town jobs at the expense of greater efficiencies. And calling plants and depots ``Centers of Excellence'' does not, Mr. President, constitute an appropriate approach to depot maintenance and manufacturing activities. Consequently, neither the Center of Industrial and Technical Excellence nor the Center of Excellence in Service Contracting provide adequate cloaks for the kind of protectionist and parochial budgeting endemic in the legislating process. Similarly, whether the Center of Academic Excellence in Information Assurance Education through the information assurance scholarship program is worthy of the $5 million earmarked in the budget is certainly not academic, but clearly debatable. Last year the Defense appropriations bill included a provision statutorily renaming National Guard armories as ``Readiness Centers,'' a particularly Orwellian use of language. By legally relabeling ``depot-level activities'' as ``operations at Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence,'' we further institutionalize this dubious practice, the implications of which are to deny the American public the most cost-effective use of their tax dollars. When will it end? In closing, I would like to reiterate my strong commitment to continuing to work for enactment of meaningful improvements for active duty and Reserve service members. They risk their lives to defend our shores and preserve democracy, and we can not thank them enough for their service. But, we can pay them more, improve the benefits for their families, and support the Reserve Components in a similar manner as the active forces. Our service members past, present, and future need these improvements. We owe so much more to the honorable men and women in uniform who defend our country. They are our greatest resource, and I feel they are woefully under-represented. At this time of national sorrow, resoluteness, when we in Congress have witnessed so many moving demonstrations of American patriotism, is there any greater duty facing us than to work in unity in full support of our service men and women? We must pledge to do our best on their behalf. Mr. President, I request unanimous consent that a list of items added to the Defense authorization bill by Congress be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. President, I would like to very briefly address some of the arguments that have been made. One is that the economy is too soft right now to consider further base closings and couldn't absorb the loss of jobs. The fact is that the provision gives the President the authority to consider a base closure in 2003, not 2001. If our economy is still bad in the year 2003, we will have other problems besides a base-closing commission. Taxpayers for Common Sense and the Center for Defense Information prepared an independent report that they released in September 2001. Some of this data may surprise some of my colleagues who are citing economic concerns as to why they oppose further base-closing rounds. This objective study studied 97 bases closed in four base-closing rounds. Eighty-eight percent of the bases closed experienced per capita personal income growth, as high as 36 percent, and averaging nearly 10 percent. Seventy-five percent of the bases closed experienced gains in average earnings per job. Eighty-seven percent of the bases closed had positive employment rates. Sixty-eight percent beat the national average. The average job replacement rate of all these bases closed-- all bases is 102 percent. By the beginning of 2001, only 3 of the 97 counties had higher unemployment rates than the BRAC announcement year; and 53 percent had unemployment rates lower than the national average. I will be glad to share this information with my colleagues. Everything has changed with regard to BRAC. The argument is, and as my friend from North Dakota has said, everything is changed now as of September 11. That may be the view of some, but it is not the view of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense. In fact, in their view, the opposite is the case--the opposite--that we need now to provide the Secretary of Defense with more flexibility because we may be called upon to do things very differently. The argument is made that we do not know what the force structure will be absent the QDR--the Quadrennial Defense Review--so how can we vote on further base closure rounds? Maybe we ought to remember that this issue has been around since 1970. In 1983, the Grace Commission made recommendations for base closures. In 1997, the QDR recommended that after four closure rounds we must shed excess infrastructure. The 1997 Defense Reform Initiative and National Defense Panel strongly urged Congress and the Department of Defense to move quickly the base realignment, and BRAC has been recommended--basic realignment--by Presidents Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and now President George W. Bush. Finally, Mr. President--and I think this is important--this is a time we should place trust in the judgment of the Commander in Chief and the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. If we adopt the Bunning amendment, we will be acting in direct contradiction to their views. I think it is important that there is not a single military expert in this country of any credibility who doesn't believe that we need a base-closing round. I ask my colleagues to consult anyone--Gen. Schwarzkopf--retired or active. Who does not believe we need another base closing round? I hope we will vote down the Bunning amendment. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining and how is it divided?

Mr. McCAIN. I would like to request that Senator Levin have 2 additional minutes at the expiration of the 5 minutes I have. I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes for Senator Levin and 2 additional minutes for the Senator from Kentucky, if he wishes.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Florida. He is a man who has served his country in a variety of capacities and understands the military, the men and women in the military, and the need for this provision. None of us who have a significant number of bases--such as is the case in the State of Florida, as is the case in the State of Arizona-- that are very important to the economy of our States enjoy this exercise. I respect the views of those who are supporters of the amendment, including the sponsor himself, who is an experienced individual having served in the House and now in the Senate and has been involved in these issues of national security. We have an honest difference of opinion. I believe this is a good debate to have. I respect--I repeat, I respect--the views articulated by those who are supporters of the amendment. But I do think, as I said before, this will be a defining vote. The President of the United States has clearly asked for the authority to close unnecessary bases. The Secretary of Defense has spoken in the strongest terms. Our civilian and military leaders of the services have spoken in the strongest terms. Every objective observer recognizes that we need to have a base closing process. There are several arguments that are being made in behalf of the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky. One is we need more studies before we act. Here are some things we already know. We know we have excess infrastructure. An April 1998 report from the Department of Defense on base closure required by the Congress found that the Department still maintains excess capacity that should be eliminated. We know having more facilities to run costs more money, and having fewer facilities to run costs less. Excess infrastructure is a drain on resources and the military services are struggling. I quoted earlier from testimony given to the House Armed Services Committee by the people who are responsible for these installations. Some of the conditions at these bases are deplorable. None of us would want to live and work under the conditions which they presently have, and this does have an effect on morale, which then does have an effect on retention of good men and women in the military. God knows, we need them now more than any time perhaps since December 7, 1941. We know the Base Closure Commission used to reduce that excess in an impartial way not only works well but is considered a model for others to follow. Many times I hear we ought to have a commission on Social Security along the lines of the Base Closure Commission so Congress can vote up or down. It has been a model. We know the military has unmet needs that have higher priority than preserving our current base structure. The fact is DOD has excess facilities; that closing bases saves money; that the military has other pressing needs for those savings, and BRAC is the fairest way we know to reduce the excess. I point out, I do not think it is totally fair. As long as you have human beings making these decisions, it will not be a totally fair process. There will be some subjectivity, but for me, someone has to come up with a more objective way. The only way I know is crank all the information into a computer, and I do not think we are quite ready for that process. People keep saying: We don't know if closing bases really saves money. The Defense Department says they will have achieved a net savings of $15 billion by the end of this fiscal year from the previous base closure rounds, with another $6 billion in savings each and every year thereafter. One of the things that costs money that was not anticipated was the environmental cleanup costs. We found out that on these bases, particularly those that were built during World War II and before, in some cases there were enormous environmental problems. Those were additional costs associated with closing those facilities. My response to that is, no, we did not anticipate that, but should we have left these environmental problems alone? Shouldn't we have cleaned them up anyway? Were we asking our active duty military men and women to work in places that were environmental hazards, perhaps even to their health? These measures should have been taken while the bases were still open. We do know it saves money. We do know there are environmental costs, but I would argue those environmental steps should be taken on every base in America whether they are open or closed. Why should we expect a military base to put up with an environmental situation which is not acceptable off the military base? Some people say DOD has not proved that is the right number. This is because the BRAC savings costs you avoid does not mean the savings are not real. The more bases you have, the more you have to spend. We know that. We have to wait for Secretary Rumsfeld to finish all his strategy reviews before we authorize any new base closures. The fact is, we are now undertaking several strategy reviews that may revise DOD's force structure plans and their estimates of what facilities are in excess. Authorizing new base closure rounds now does not preempt these reviews. Just the opposite: It will allow Congress to act on them. We are in the process right now and already have spent more money on defense. There will be additional costs for defense because, as the President so eloquently stated to Congress and the American people, we are in a long twilight struggle. But I know of no one who believes we will have to expand the size of the military establishment to fit in these excess costs. I think all of us envision a military that is not necessarily expanded in size but restructured; something we should have done beginning in 1991 at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union. This military structure will not necessarily be a larger one. This military structure will be one that is equipped to respond to emergencies throughout the world, deploy in force, be on the battlefield, effect the outcome, and leave. That is basically the kind of military we need to meet the challenges and win the first war of the 21st century. So, yes, there is restructure in the military; yes, we need more high-tech equipment; yes, we need more of some kinds of equipment. We need less of others. But no one believes we will go back to a military of the size that would require the use of the number of bases we have today. I do not believe the Secretary of Defense would have written the letter he did yesterday that says I want to underscore the importance we place on the Senate's approval of authority for a single round of base closures and alignments. Indeed, in the wake of the terrible events of September 11, the imperative to convert excess capacity and warfighting ability is enhanced, not diminished. I repeat, the imperative to convert excess capacity into warfighting ability is enhanced, not diminished. I want to talk about another issue that is kind of important, although perhaps from a national security standpoint it is not too important, but that is the economic impact it has on the local communities. There is the belief it devastates the local community. If a base is closed, it can go well, and it can go badly. There are many cases where the local communities put together a good reuse plan and they are as well off or even better off after the closure of an installation. The Congress and the Defense Department have taken steps, since the last base closure round, to speed up the disposal of property for any future rounds. In the majority of bases that were closed, there has been an increase both of employment as well as revenues into the local communities. Why is that? One reason is that in a lot of cases you have a nice runway, and an air facility is readily available then for usage; in the case of Williams Air Force Base, in the case of many others. Another reason is, you have recreational facilities, such as a golf course. You have buildings. You have an infrastructure there that businesses, education, and others have chosen to move into. There is another argument that it is not fair to put every community with a base through all the anxiety of BRAC when we only need to close some of them, so we ought to change the process and take some bases we know we will not want to close off the list, certain bases that will not be closed under any circumstances. On the surface it sounds like a good idea. I think anybody could name 20 bases we would not want to see closed. But who decides which 20 bases cannot even be looked at, what criteria would be used, and how do you put 20 bases on the list and say no to the 21st or the 40th or the 100th? I have every confidence the Norfolk naval base will not be closed. I do not see how the Navy could exist without it. Could Luke Air Force Base be closed? It is the only place where F-16 pilots are trained today. I am not so sure. Should Luke Air Force Base be in the top 20? I hope so. But maybe not. Maybe this BRAC could figure they could consolidate F-16 and F-15 training together in one base. So that is not, I believe, a procedure that could lead us to any meaningful result. There is another issue that is important: Closing bases will deprive military retirees of access to health care, and that happens. Not only health care but commissary facilities and others. That is one of the reasons we induce people to join the military--because they will receive benefits and have access to military bases after they are retired. They have reduced retiree health care options, but the TRICARE For Life Program enacted in the fiscal year 2001 Defense authorization bill addresses this issue by providing a quality benefit package that allows military retirees to get care from civilian doctors. This was a big step forward. It also allows the services in the Base Closure Commission to focus fully on the military value of each base. I know if Luke Air Force Base were closed, a lot of retirees who use the commissary, use the other facilities, would be deprived. I feel very bad about that, but at least we have taken care, to some degree, of their most important needs, and that is health care they would otherwise get at these installations. So we have been through this debate for years. We have been through this debate since I came to the Congress in 1983. We had a series of base closures, and unneeded and unwanted and unnecessary bases were closed. If we had not gone through that process and left a number of bases open that had been closed through previous BRAC processes, I cannot imagine the costs that would be entailed today. I note with some interest the Secretary of Defense is asking for one more round. Perhaps we are getting close to the point where we will not need any more rounds of base closings, but every study, every objective observer, every person I know of--and there may be some who do not, but I do not know of any who are military experts who are admired and respected by the people of this country who think we need another round of BRAC. Again, I want to point out--and this is a very important point--it is very difficult for us to recruit and maintain a quality military force if they are living and working in facilities that are inadequate and sometimes unsatisfactory. I mentioned the issue of environmental cleanup. It is obvious now, because of the base closure process, that many of the men and women in the military were working and living in areas that were environmentally unsafe, if not hazardous. So the quality of life does have a significant impact on the efficiency of our military. We will be asking men and women in the military to go out and fight and perhaps sacrifice their lives. It seems to me the least we can do is make sure their quality of life, both at home and overseas, is at a level we would want for all of us, our families and our friends and particularly those brave young Americans whom we are going to ask to serve and sacrifice in the future. Is this a life-or-death issue? No, it is not a life-or-death issue. We will muddle through if the Bunning amendment is passed. As I said earlier, I think this sends a signal that could be very wrong, and that is that on a major issue, according to the Secretary of Defense and our uniformed and civilian leaders, we do need a base closing commission, we are not prepared to do that. I think that would be a very serious error on our part. So I hope we will defeat the Bunning amendment. I want to thank Senator Levin, the distinguished chairman of the committee, for his unstinting and unrelenting support of this issue. He and I have tried to get this done for a number of years now, and our track record, like mine on several other issues, has not been exemplary, but I think we now have an opportunity. I thank Senator Levin again for his leadership and his willingness to be involved in this issue. I am aware in the State of Michigan there are bases that could be closed, as there are in any State. I thank all of those who support this amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the privilege of the floor be granted to Kimberly Connor of Senator Bond's staff, as well as LCDR Dell Bull, during consideration of S. 1438.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to support passage of S. 643, the U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Area Implementation Act. Two weeks ago, a proud symbol of global free trade was destroyed by terrorists in New York City. The terrorists who struck the World Trade Center meant harm not only to the United States, but to the entire civilized world. In this new era, our attention turns increasingly to defending against this catastrophic threat, and to pursuing policies that advance our interests overseas and reflect the values of our people. Strengthening our strategic relations with our friends in the Middle East has become an urgent priority of American policy. This free trade agreement marks an important benchmark in U.S. relations with Jordan, an island of moderation and stability in a volatile region. U.S.- Jordanian intelligence cooperation will be helpful to our efforts to crack down on terrorism at its source. That Congress has made ratification of this bilateral trade agreement a priority as we wind down the current session while sorting through the pressing obligations ahead reflects its meaning to our people, and our mutual interests. The U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Area represents the first free trade agreement the United States has negotiated with an Arab nation. Liberalized trade with Jordan will benefit both our economies. Although various Jordanian and American goods already enjoy duty-free status or low tariff rates, this free trade area will ensure that Jordanian and American consumers enjoy an expansion of commercial choice and value. Both nations will also benefit from greater foreign direct investment and trade-related job creation. I remain concerned about the hostility this Congress has shown towards free trade. Many important new trade bills enabling the expansion of bilateral and multilateral trade have not moved through the legislative process this year. Existing laws, such as the Andean Trade Preference Act and the Generalized System of Preferences, are set to expire shortly but have received little if any attention from Congress. This summer, we struggled as a body to determine whether or not we would honor our Nation's solemn commitments to NAFTA, an invaluable trade agreement with our neighbors and largest trading partners. Indeed, it has seemed as though free trade is no longer a priority of this body. In addition to the strategic significance of this legislation to U.S.-Jordanian relations, it is my hope that passage of this bill represents a change in the direction this Congress will take toward a policy of free trade that has upheld our prosperity and advanced our values around the world.