John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I thank the committee chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee for their commitment and adherence to the needs of our veterans. I appreciate it very much. I know that all veterans and all Americans do as well. I point out that there was a $132 million addition for the VA, and it was a $211 million addition over the President's budget for community development grants. I listened carefully to the comments by the Senator from Missouri about elected officials being wise enough to determine spending for projects in their own State. I wonder if that wisdom now resides in the Appropriations Committee, where 9 out of 10 of the earmarks came from. I am sorry the rest of us are not as well informed. In fact, I read this: Missouri, 15 projects, the largest number of projects, for $9.150 million. And, of course, we can go down the list of the Appropriations Committee: Maryland, 13 projects, $5.260 million; West Virginia, $8 million; Alaska, $7.490 million. Of course, there is a dramatic demarcation there between these funds and those who are not members of the Appropriations Committee. That may be some coincidence. I believe $5 million is a very modest amount of money. I described the projects that half the money is taken from, and I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, we have a difference of opinion, obviously. Do we want these projects that I described, or do we want to go along with the strong recommendations of our veterans organizations? It really isn't too much more complicated than that. Some of these projects are absolutely ridiculous, but we have seen many other ridiculous projects in this porkbarrel spending which has lurched totally out of control. But the fact is, do we want to have these projects funded--9 out of 10 of them are the Appropriations Committee; things such as desert space stations and orchid greenhouses--or do we want to add $5 million--which we are not destroying; we are only cutting in half--or do we want to take the strong advice and recommendation of every veterans organization in America? It is that simple. I would be willing to vote. I will be glad to be on record siding with the veterans of America, with whom I have had some experience. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to have the support and cosponsorship of this amendment of Senators Kyl, Smith, and Graham of Florida. I am also especially grateful for the key support of organizations such as the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans, AMVETS, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Council for a Livable World, and Citizens Against Government Waste. This amendment provides funding for the Secretary of Veterans Affairs--top priority--by adding $5 million that is desperately needed for veterans claims adjudication and eliminating more than $5 million in nonveteran-related earmarked funds contained in the VA-HUD legislation. I want to get right to it. Currently, it takes an average of 215 days--215 days--at any of the 58 VA regional offices to make a decision on the hundreds of thousands of claims filed annually. There is presently a backlog of over 600,000 claims by our veterans. That is an unacceptable situation. What we are talking about in this amendment is a matter of priorities. The amendment will not exceed the budget resolution caps because it is fully offset by cutting funding for 18 separate earmarks by 50 percent, not totally. I am not eliminating the funding for any program or earmark this year. I am eliminating half of the money. Frankly, $5 million is a small amount as compared with the more than $40 million or $50 million that is needed as stated by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. I repeat, I am only cutting half from these specific earmarks in the community development fund account of title II. For the record, of the 255 total number of earmarked projects in this fund, nearly 9 out of 10 are for States well represented on the Appropriations Committee. The earmarks I propose to cut in half are just a few examples of the pages of earmarks totaling more than $140 million that are funded from the community development fund. Unfortunately, the appropriators have substituted their judgment on how best to spend the funds and have earmarked moneys for programs such as bicentennial celebrations, botanical gardens, art museums, art centers, and heritage trails. I point out the bill language as to what a community development program is all about: The wide range of fiscal, economic, and social development activities are eligible with spending priorities determined at the local level-- Spending priorities determined at the local level-- but the law enumerates general objectives which the block grants are designed to fulfill, including adequate housing, a suitable living environment, and expanded economic opportunities principally for persons of low and moderate income. ``Principally for persons of low and moderate income.'' I am going to point out some things such as the deprived area of Newport, RI, that is supposed to get some of this money, and other deprived areas of the country, as I say 9 out of 10 of which are in the States represented on the Appropriations Committee. I cannot stand here and tell my colleagues that some earmarked projects are not valid and important, but decisions as to whether a project should get taxpayers' funds should not be made by appropriators, bypassing the legitimate funding process. If we earmark funds in this way, I would just as soon transfer some of the funds to help our veterans, unless we are willing to strike all the earmarks so the community development fund can operate as intended. I doubt there will be any takers. Secretary Principi testified before the VA-HUD subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee on May 2, 2001, that his No. 1 priority is to drastically decrease the backlog in claims against the VA. President Bush also recently emphasized this priority and has promised a top-to-bottom review of VA benefits claims process. Currently, it takes an average of 215 days--215 days--at any of the 58 regional VA offices to make a decision on the hundreds of thousands of claims filed annually. Furthermore, the Veterans of Foreign Wars wrote me on July 30, 2001, that an investigation of claims processing delays of their members found ``a lengthy list of hundreds of claims pending over 720 days.'' Balance 720 days for a VA claim with a World War II veteran, one of our greatest generations. We know how old they are. Isn't our obligation to the living as well as to the deceased? Today there are nearly 600,000 outstanding claims awaiting adjudication by the VA, and that number is expected to continue to rise. I imagine the managers of the bill are going to say this $5 million is unnecessary. Let me tell you what the veterans say. Let me tell you what the Veterans of Foreign Wars say: On behalf of the 2.7 million members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, and its Ladies Auxiliary, I would like to take this opportunity to express our support for your amendment to S. 1216 that would increase the amount available for veterans claims adjudication by $10 million. That has been reduced to $5 million. As you know, the Department of Veterans Affairs is not completing quality work on benefits claims in an efficient manner. In fact, an original claims for service connected disability that does not require substantial development is averaging 215 days. . . . Additionally, a recent request by the VA Claims Processing Task Force for a list of original claims pending over 720 days resulted in a lengthy list of hundreds of claims. Your amendment would provide additional dollars crucial to VA's attempt to improve the quality and timeliness of veterans' claims processing. Thank you for all you do for American veterans. From the DAV: On behalf of the more than 1 million members of the Disabled American Veterans (DAV), I am writing to express our support for your proposed amendment to add $10 million for adjudication of veterans' claims to S. 1216, the Fiscal Year 2002 VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Bill. As you are aware, the claims backlog at the Board of Veterans' Appeals is at an unacceptable level of approximately 600,000 cases. These long delays that veterans or claimants must endure for claims benefits decisions are unconscionable. That is what the disabled veterans say. More needs to be done to ensure quality, timely decisions. Employees need to be added to deal with this backlog. This amendment will provide needed funds to assist in this effort. Paralyzed Veterans of America: On behalf of the Paralyzed Veterans of America, I am writing to offer our support for your proposed amendment to S. 216 . . . to provide additional funding for veterans' claims adjudication, would bring this important account closer to the level recommended by the Independent Budget, which is co-authored by the Paralyzed Veterans of America, AMVETS, the Disabled American Veterans and the Veterans of Foreign Wars. The chronic backlog faced by veterans seeking the benefits they have earned is simply unconscionable. We must take action. This additional funding will not solve the problem overnight, but will be an important step forward to ensure that veterans receive timely and accurate claims decisions. We appreciate your commitment to addressing this problem. In another letter: Dear Senator McCain: AMVETS fully supports your amendment. . . . Disabled veterans must now wait months and sometimes years for their benefit claims to be decided. Your amendment will help VA fulfill its mission and improve the overall quality and timeliness of the service provided to veterans and their families. We urge the Senate to approve your amendment. Veterans have earned our respect and gratitude, and we thank you for your good work on behalf of American veterans. Now, the analysis for the Associated Press last year found that the benefits administration takes longer to process claims than it did a decade ago. It took 164 days in 1991 to complete an original claim, compared with currently 215 days, and up to 3 years if appealed. There are more than a few veterans, such as 72-year-old Wayne Young of Cuyahoga Falls, OH, who for more than 44 years has been waiting for final adjudication of his veterans claim benefits by the VA. Secretary Principi directed a 10-person blue ribbon claims processing task force that will review the Department's handling of applications for veterans benefits. This task force will officially report to him this fall. However, preliminary results indicate that the Secretary will need an additional $40 million on top of the additional $132 million provided in the bill to hire additional claims adjudicators to assist already overworked VA employees in reducing the time it takes to process claims. I am sure the managers of the bill will say they put in a sufficient amount of money. I respect that view. I respect more the views of the veterans organizations who are the ones who are the advocates for and defenders of the veterans of this Nation. I appreciate the dedication and efforts on behalf of veterans that the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from Missouri have displayed year after year, time after time. I just believe we need additional money. The additional $5 million in funding that I am proposing in this amendment for claims adjudication matters would allow the Department of Veterans Affairs to hire approximately 100 additional claims adjudication personnel to begin chipping away at this backlog or, at the very least, slowing its growth a bit. The current staff members handling these claims are considerably overworked. For every 10 claims for veterans' disability benefits, 4 are actually decided incorrectly, thereby increasing the number of outstanding claims for veterans awaiting to have their healthcare needs met. This already unacceptable number will continue to increase, unless the Congress appropriately funds the VA for personnel adjudication. In an effort to try and accelerate the claims process and drive down the backlog, claims personnel often ignore the Department's own rules in deciding claims. When the regional offices have rejected a claim, a veteran can appeal to the Board of Veterans Appeals. Last year that panel overturned the regional offices 26 percent of the time, and sent back another 30 percent of cases. The VA special appeals court returned 64 percent of its cases, mostly because of procedural problems. All the while, our veterans continue to wait for us to fulfill our promise to them. Secretary Principi has stated that his ``top priority is to the living veterans, not the decreased. Many veterans die before their claims are handled, we need to do a much better job of processing these claims before these veterans die. Only 5 million of the 16 million World War II vets who saved the world are alive today. Every day, World War II veterans are passing on before their claims are decided, and that's a real tragedy.'' I stand alongside Secretary Principi on this most worthy endeavor to reform this badly broken system. Mr. President, our veterans risked their lives in defense of our nation, whether charging the beaches of Normandy and Inchon, fighting in Vietnam, or putting themselves into harms way in Iraq and Kosovo. Yet these great Americans must now wait and wait and wait just to get an answer from the Veterans Administration. Instead of fulfilling a promise that America would take care of their mental and physical injuries incurred while honorably serving our country, we ``reward'' them with an overworked, inefficient process that results in thousands of veterans everyday being turned away from benefit that were earned, deserved, and promised. This amendment will go a long way to help our veterans. It also recognizes our government's solemn obligation to take care of these veterans' mental and physical health needs that resulted while defending our great nation. In the words of President Abraham Lincoln, given during his second inaugural address on Mary 4, 1865, ``To care for him who shall have borne the battle and his widow and his orphan.'' Secretary Principi is dedicated to carrying out this sacred responsibility, and I have every confidence that properly funded, he and the others in his Department will ensure that we here in Congress fulfill our promise to the Veterans of the United States of America. I urge my colleagues' support for this amendment. Now I will talk about the projects for which the money has been reduced, actually cut in half. One is the desert space station in Nevada, of $100,000. Please remember in the context of what the community development programs are supposed to be for, and that is, of course, including adequate housing, a suitable living environment, and an expanded opportunities prescription appeal for persons of low and moderate income, requiring grant recipients to use 70 percent of the block grant funds for activities that benefit low- and moderate-income persons. I repeat: Grant recipients are required to use at least 70 percent of their block grant funds for activities that benefit low- and moderate- income persons. The title is out of this world. Tourists can look for extraterrestrials in the Nevada desert. Visitors to Las Vegas might find an extraterrestrial or two if they knew where to look. Las Vegas is no stranger to the weird. Many would say the city is a weirdness magnet unless proliferating Elvises, drive-through wedding chapels, and elaborate faux cities make sense. A bird's eye look at the town, however, shows that Las Vegas is simply a small, beautiful cluster of lights sitting within a vast and very dark desert expanse. Some people come to this city looking for something out of the darkness, something extraterrestrial. When it comes to alien mania, Las Vegas is as popular as Roswell, NM. On the lonely roads that cross Nevada, one of the least densely populated States, reports of swirling lights, government coverups, and UFO crashes are not considered odd but commonplace occurrences. When your client is ready for a break from the gaming tables and the glitz of the strip, you can suggest alien hunting as an alternative to Las Vegas' many wonders. Despite the secrecy, this craze won't go away anytime soon. An hour away from the strip, in Pahrump, NV, a museum is being built in the shape of a spaceship, to be completed by 2005. It will be the official Area 51 artifact and information center. It will offer a 3-D IMAX center theater, a digistar planetarium, and an Area 51 theme restaurant in the expectation of attracting 374,000 visitors annually. The 95,000-square-foot facility will call itself the Desert Space Station Science Museum. What it is all about is the Area 51. Adventure Las Vegas offers commissionable day tours that take visitors to the perimeter of this top secret installation. Clients stop in Slot Canyon along the way to view ancient Indian petroglyphs that some believe to be drawings of aliens. Then they travel through some remote and very mysterious areas, such as a dry lake bed where UFOs are rumored to have been observed. After observing these strange sightings, they will drop into the Little Ale Inn Cafe. There they will have the chance to view top secret documents taken from Area 51 and possibly have a conversation with Capt. Chuck Clark, and ex-Air Force captain and the author of The Area 51 Manual. The Area 51 Research Center, located at this quirky location, has a large amount of information about this mysterious region on display, as well as for sale. We are asking to take half a million dollars for the Desert Space Station Science Museum and give it to help our veterans have their claims processed. I mentioned earlier about the community development grant programs being for activities that benefit low- and moderate-income persons: $200,000 is for the Newport Air Museum. Welcome to Newport: Rich in history, Newport prides itself on being a vibrant community offering a wide variety of events and activies year-round. Whether you were drawn here to enjoy the music festivals, yachting regattas, mansion tours, professional tennis at the Newport Casino or a day at the beach, Newport offers you a picturesque location to relax and enjoy. This unique island community instantly blends the old and the new--colonial homes stand feet away from modern condominiums and offices. The bustling harbor glistens as elegant yachts, luxury liners and lobster boats compete for space. All of these combined are the charm that is Newport . . . * * * * * However, Newport was rediscovered in the 1800's by the country's wealthy citizens as the ideal location to spend their summers. Suddenly, elaborate mansions and villas sprung up along Bellevue Avenue and Ocean Drive--each more ornate and luxurious than the one next door. These ``summer cottages'' provided the perfect backdrop for ``The 400,'' an elite group of the very rich. This extravagant era officially opened the door to America's first resort. They are going to spend $200,000 on an art museum in Newport, RI. Harbor Gardens Greenhouse Project: When some people think of Pittsburgh, they still envision steel mills and smoky skies. Others identify the city by its sports teams or its three rivers or its colleges and hospitals or Heinz ketchup. But who'd ever think Pittsburgh could become known for producing orchids? Well, Bill Strickland would. The president of the Bidwell Training Center on the North Side is trying to come up with $3 million to create something called Harbor Gardens Greenhouse. It would be a 46,000-square-foot glass facility located at Bidwell offices on Metropolitan Street in Manchester and ``dedicated to producing orchids,'' according to a recent funding request submitted to the city's Urban Redevelopment Authority. Strickland readily admits that growing the delicate, beautiful flowers would be ``untraditional'' for Pittsburgh but insists that untraditional thinking is what may be needed now. I really believe it would be a good idea to grow orchids in Pittsburgh. I also happen to believe our veterans need their claims processed as a greater priority. Here is $1 million for a multi-purpose events center in Utah. I have a copy of the minutes of the Richfield City Council meeting held on Tuesday, September 19, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Richfield City office building located at 75 East Center, Richfield, Utah. Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor David Kay Kimball. Roll Call was answered . . . Ruth Jackson, representing the committee promoting the multi events center gave a presentation to the Council. She explained that they are going throughout the County giving this presentation to educate the voters about the multi events center and the upcoming bond election. They showed a model representing what the building will look like when constructed. It was also explained that there would be an advisory board over the maintenance and operation manager of the building and that some one from the City could sit on this board giving the city some voice in how the building is utilized. One point made is that the community may not need this facility now, but it will within the next five to ten years. There is a beach resort shore trail in Hawaii. There is a bicentennial party, Louisiana Purchase Bicentennial Commission party for $1 million; a river museum in Iowa, a couple of million dollars; Culver City Council Theater. Idaho Virtual Incubator--that is kind of an interesting one. I don't quite understand it--$500,000, the Idaho Virtual Incubator: The Idaho Virtual Incubator prepares businesses for e- commerce, offers students ``hands-on'' experience through virtual internships and fosters partnerships for job creation, expansion and retention. Madam President, I think I have made my point. We have over 60,000 unprocessed claims. The committee very wisely--and I appreciate it--has added funding to help address this issue. We are trying to add more funding. Not just in my view but the view of every veterans organization in America, this money is needed. Because of the rules, obviously, that I would be subject to a budget point of order, I have found projects that I think are of lower priority than that of processing the claims of our veterans. Some of them are interesting, some of them entertaining; some of them are outrageous. But the point is, none of these projects that I have identified could possibly, in the view of any objective observer, have priority over the processing of our veterans' claims. I mentioned earlier, only 5 million of our 16 million World War II veterans survive today. They are leaving us at a rate of 30,000 every single month. It seems to me our first obligation would be to provide, as rapidly as possible, a process where the claims they may have for injuries or disabilities incurred in the service of this country would take priority over desert space stations, or greenhouses, Wildwood vacation resorts, botanical gardens, multi-event systems, multipurpose radio, multipurpose events centers, et cetera, et cetera. I think the choice is clear. I am not saying the earmarks themselves are something that I approve of; I do not. I am not attacking the earmarks. I am not trying to have them removed. I am trying to cut them in half so we can have an extra $5 million, which is not a lot of money when you consider the entire budget of this VA-HUD appropriations bill, so we can begin, at least, working with Secretary Principi, to provide for veterans. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I believe my amendment, which I offered earlier, is the pending business.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Maryland. Again, I express my appreciation for her accommodation. I know it is difficult to accommodate each Senator who has a very busy schedule. I thank the managers for their accommodation to mine. amendment no. 1229 I rise to support my colleague, Senator Kyl, as a cosponsor of his amendment to the VA-HUD appropriations bill. I believe this is a very good amendment, one that is entirely appropriate to this bill as it directly relates to a more fair distribution of Federal dollars for water and wastewater infrastructure needs among the 50 States and territories of our nation. This amendment is simple--it will address a funding inequity in EPA funding by applying the formula under the Safe Drinking Water Act revolving loan fund to the Clean Water Act revolving loan fund for fiscal year 2002. Why is this important? For about 12 years, the EPA has managed a Clean Water State revolving loan fund for capitalization purposes to construct water infrastructure and related projects. The funds are distributed on a State-by-State basis and utilized as seed money for State-administered loans for water infrastructure needs. It operates as an important source of capital with State flexibility to set their own priorities. Back in 1996, the Safe Drinking Water Act was amended to establish a similar State revolving loan fund to address safe drinking water infrastructure needs. While these two operating loan funds are similar in intent, the Clean Water revolving loan fund utilizes outdated information in its allocation distributions. As my colleague, Senator Kyl, has noted, it's very difficult to address the various States' growing needs when the allocation formula is based on information relevant to the 1970's. I would like to describe how my State has changed since the 1970s. We have grown from a very small State in the 1970s with two Members of Congress. As a result of the latest census, we are now a very medium to a large State that will now have eight members of our congressional delegation. Our State has grown, according to the 1990 to the 2000 census, in a 10-year period 40 percent--40-percent growth in a 10-year period. There has been similar growth in other States in the West. New Mexico, Colorado, California, and a number of other States have grown significantly--perhaps not percentage-wise as large as ours but certainly in the case of numbers; Nevada has also experienced dramatic growth. What Senator Kyl and I are arguing here is that there needs to be a reformulation to reflect demographic reality. I want to point out what everyone who lives west of the Mississippi knows. Water is more precious than gold. Water is the limiting factor in the growth of our States in the West. Water is what will be and has been the cause of major disputes throughout the West. I believe Mark Twain said that in the West whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting. Mark Twain had it right because water is the key factor in the ability of our States to sustain the growth and maintain a lifestyle that allows people to choose to move to the West and have the kind of lifestyle that they deserve. The formula has not been updated to consider states with substantial growth or more recent documented needs established by the EPA in its own analyses. In contrast, the similar Safe Drinking Water revolving loan fund has been operating by the designated allocation formula under the 1996 Act that required the EPA to allocate funding according to the agency's Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey. While these two revolving funds are substantially similar, only one uses updated and relevant data. This is an unfortunate discrepancy and it should be fixed. This amendment simply tries to fulfill the intended purpose of the original Clean Water Act by allocating important Federal dollars on a needs-based system that is current and valid to the States' identified priorities. Communities in my home State of Arizona have been frustrated by the formula distribution inequity as their water and wastewater needs continue to be underfunded and ignored. The Arizona State water authority estimates it may have lost out on $250-300 million due to the oversight in establishing a fair and updated formula. However, this is not just about Arizona. It is about a majority of the States funded through the current Clean Water revolving loan fund distribution formula whom are facing the same disparities. Unfortunately, the Clean Water Act has not been amended since 1987. While authorization for the act expired in 1990, the programs under act are continued by annual appropriations while the Congress continues to work toward a comprehensive reauthorization. In the meantime, Congress has circumvented the act by earmarking as much as 30 percent of the general funds available for water and wastewater needs for special interest projects through this appropriations bill. Many of these funded projects are not authorized in the Clean Water Act and do not abide by the funding distributions process identified in the act. This continuing earmarking process is not a practice favored by State water quality officials, State infrastructure financing officials, or by the EPA. Earmarking funds from the overall State revolving fund decreases the amount available to other communities that desperately need assistance. It undermines the intent of the State revolving loan fund; it does not allow States to determine their own priorities; and, it prolongs the wait for States to receive the necessary funds to address their water needs. In my review of the EPA section of this appropriations bill, I found that one-fourth of the earmarks of the 180 earmarks included in the EPA section are not targeted for States--but for consortiums, universities, or foundations. How is this abiding by the intent of the law? While I disagree with the earmarking process and I hope that it changes, I also understand that this amendment does not affect those projects identified for funding in this bill under the current water and wastewater accounts. We did that, with all due respect, because we knew that if we affected any earmarking, we would remove whatever chance we might have of adoption of this amendment. What it will impact is the undesignated amounts of funding for the clean water revolving loan fund to ensure a more fair and equitable distribution for this coming fiscal year. This is particularly important as this VA-HUD appropriations bill proposes to increase overall funding in this account by $500 million, for a total of $1.35 billion. With an estimated $300 billion needed over the next 20 years to fix our existing water systems and build new ones, we simply cannot allow this inequity to continue. EPA's guidelines stipulate that the intent of the revolving loan fund is: To provide a basis for equal consideration of all eligible water quality projects for state revolving fund funding. Let's remedy this problem and fulfill the intent of this important act. Mr. President, I would just like to mention my appreciation for Senator Kyl's efforts on this issue. As many of my colleagues may know, Senator Kyl's background in the legal profession was on issues of water. I would put his credentials against those of anyone in this body on this very important issue. I already described earlier how important water is in the whole future of the western part of the United States, particularly those of us in the Southwest. Barry Goldwater, my predecessor, used to say quite often, only half humorously: ``We have so little water in Arizona, the trees chase the dogs.'' We have not reached that point yet, but the fact is, what we do need, as in every situation where there have been demographic changes--and in the Southwest and in the West there have been profound demographic changes, as we all know, since the 1970s and the 1980s--we just need to upgrade and modernize this formula. We are not asking for a special deal for Arizona. We are not asking for a special deal for any State. We are simply asking--and we are not even affecting the present earmarking process, on which my views are well known in this body--that an update year 2001 formula be implemented so that everyone can receive funding according to the greatest need, again, according to the guidelines that are stipulated, ``to provide a basis for equal consideration of all eligible water quality projects for state revolving fund funding.'' I thank my colleague from Arizona for bringing forward what some view as an esoteric issue in some respects but a vital issue--a vital issue for all of those States that are now not being treated on an equal basis--of our water supplies and projects. So I thank my colleague from Arizona and urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, my understanding of the parliamentary procedure is that at this time I will speak on behalf of the Kyl amendment, propose my amendment, then ask that it be laid aside, and that I would be allowed to speak on my amendment after the two votes at 2 o'clock.

Mr. McCAIN. Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, I thank the managers of this bill for their courtesy. I know they appreciate the fact that we had a markup of some important legislation this morning in the Commerce Committee. I apologize for any delay that may have caused in completing this very important appropriations bill. I thank the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from Missouri for their courtesy in not only allowing me to speak on the amendment of my colleague from Arizona but also for allowing me to propose my amendment. I understand that it is the wish of the managers that it be laid aside after I propose it, and then I would speak on it after 2 o'clock. I ask the Senator from Maryland if that is the case.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to thank both Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski for their hard work on this important legislation which provides federal funding for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies. Unfortunately, I must again speak about the unacceptably high funding levels of parochial projects in this appropriations bill. Although the level of add-ons in some sections of this bill has decreased, this bill still contains approximately $523 million in porkbarrel spending. Overall, this bill spends 7.6 percent higher than the level enacted in fiscal year 2001, which is greater than the 4 percent increase in discretionary spending that the President wanted to adhere to. In real dollars, this is $2.69 billion in additional spending above the amount requested by the President, and $8.015 billion higher than last year. So far this year, with the appropriations bills considered, spending levels have exceeded the President's budget request by nearly $7 billion. A good amount of this increase is in the form of parochial spending for unrequested projects. In this bill, I have identified 492 separate earmarks totaling $523 million, which is greater than the 400 earmarks totaling $472 million, in the legislation passed last year. The committee provides $23.8 billion in discretionary funding for the VA. That amount is $452.7 million more than the President's budget request and $1.5 billion above the amount in fiscal year 2001. Some progress has been made to reduce the overall amount of earmarks for the VA in this spending bill. Chairman Byrd of the Appropriations Committee, and Chairman Mikulski of the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, have held the amount in earmarks to approximately $24 million this year. Nonetheless, it is $24 million that will not be available for higher priorities. Among other Senators who have stood on the Senate floor to fight for additional funding for veterans healthcare, I am concerned that the Committee has directed critical dollars from veterans healthcare to fund spending projects that have not been properly reviewed. Certain provisions funded under the VA in this legislation illustrate that Congress still does not have its priorities in order. One especially troubling expense, neither budgeted for nor requested by the Administration over the past ten years, is a provision that directs the VA to continue the ten year old demonstration project involving the Clarksburg, West Virginia, Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) and the Ruby Memorial Hospital at West Virginia University. Several years ago, the VA-HUD appropriations bill contained a plus-up of $2 million for the Clarksburg VAMC that ended up on the Administration's line-item veto list and since then the millions keep flowing. Last year, the Committee ``recommended'' $1 million for the design of a nursing home care unit at the Beckley, West Virginia, VAMC. This year they strengthened their report language urging ``the VA to accelerate the design of the nursing home care unit at the Beckley, WV VAMC.'' This year, for Martinsburg, West Virginia, the Committee provides $1 million for a feasibility study to establish a Center for Healthcare Information at the Office of Medical Information Security Service at the Martinsburg VAMC to identify solutions to protect the privacy, confidentiality, and integrity of the sensitive medical records of the VA patient population. Alaska also has a number of items that will include funding above the budget request of the President and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. The Committee report directs the VA to start up and operate by 2002 a community-based outpatient clinic (CBOC) on the Matanuska-Susitna Valley, Alaska, costing $1 million. The Committee initially directs the VA only to report by March 30, 2002, on its progress to establish a Matanuska-Susitna Valley CBOC, but then expects the VA to ensure it is operational by 2002. It further recommends that all veterans living farther than a 50-mile radius from Anchorage be authorized to use contract care from local private physicians. For St. Louis, MO, the committee ``encouraged'' the VA to pursue an innovative approach at a cost of $7 million for leasing parking spaces at the John Cochran Division of the VA Medical Center in St. Louis as a means to address a parking shortfall at the VA hospital. The committee also suggests that funds be transferred from the minor construction VA account in order to secure additional private sector investment for this VA Medical Center. The Committee also directs the VA to explore new uses for the Miles City, Montana VA facility and to continue to support the Hawaii VA Pacific Tele- medicine Project. In addition, the Committee directs the VA to conduct a feasibility study on the need for a VA Research Center for the Clarksburg VAMC on the campus of West Virginia University. Additionally, the committee ``expects'' the continuation at the current spending level of the Rural Veterans Health Care Initiative at the White River Junction, VT VAMC. The current level is an astounding $7 million. On a more positive note, one provision directs the VA to submit a report on the number of homeless veterans and the type of homeless veterans services that the VA provides. I am pleased that the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee has focused on the critical plight of our Nation's homeless veterans. I had hoped, however, that they would have prevailed in conference in recent years on a relevant amendment that I had first offered to the VA-HUD appropriations bill in 1999, which was adopted, but later dropped in conference. I hope that the proposed VA report provides the catalyst for legislation next year. I am disappointed that it has already taken this long to address this matter. We owe it to these less fortunate veterans who served their country so well only to find nowhere to call home. Although the Committee report calls for yet another study on the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation (VERA) system, I continue to be pleased by the General Accounting Office and the VA reports, which recommend that veterans health care funding should be shifted from northeastern states to southern and southwestern states. This helps ensure that critical health care funding for veterans follows them to the actual locations where their medical care takes place. While I am encouraged by the increase specifically in veterans health care funding over last year's enacted levels, we must do much more. We made a promise to our veterans that we would take care of their mental and physical health needs incurred for their many sacrifices for our Nation. The VA currently has a backlog of 600,000 claims. Currently, four our of every 10 claims for veterans' disability benefits are decided incorrectly further contributing to the backlog. The millions in dollars wasted in porkbarrel spending would go a long way to decreasing the backlog in veterans claims by funding additional claims adjudicators and training. This bill also contains the funding for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The programs administered by HUD help our Nation's families purchase their homes, helps many low-income families obtain affordable housing, combats discrimination in the housing market, assists in rehabilitating neighborhoods and helps our Nation's most vulnerable the elderly, disabled and disadvantaged have access to safe and affordable housing. Unfortunately, this bill shifts money away from many critical housing and community programs by bypassing the appropriate competitive process and inserting earmarks and set-asides for special projects that received the attention of the Appropriations Committee. This is unfair to the many communities and families who do not have the good fortune of residing in a region of the country represented by a member of the Appropriations Committee. Some of the earmarks for special projects in this bill include: $300,000 for the County of Kauai, Hawaii, for the Heritage Trails project; $750,000 for infrastructure improvements to the School of the Building Arts in Charleston, South Carolina; $100,000 for development assistance for the Desert Space Station in Nevada; $1 million for the Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism for development activities related to the Louisiana Purchase Bicentennial Celebration; $450,000 for the City of Providence, Rhode Island, for the development of a Botanical Center at Roger Williams Park and Zoo; $200,000 for the Newport Art Museum in Newport, Rhode Island for historical renovation; and $500,000 for the Lewis and Clark State College for the Idaho Virtual Incubator. This bill also funds the Environmental Protection Agency which provides resources to help state, local and tribal communities enhance capacity and infrastructure to better address their environmental needs. I support directing more resources to communities that are most in need and facing serious public health and safety threats from environmental problems. Unfortunately, after a review of this year's bill for EPA programs, I find it difficult to believe that we are fully responding to the most urgent environmental issues. Nearly one-fourth of the 180 earmarks provided for the EPA are targeted for consortiums, universities, or foundations. There are many environmental needs in communities back in my home state of Arizona, but these communities will be denied funding as long as we continue to tolerate earmarking that circumvents a regular merit- review process. For example, some of the earmarks include: $250,000 for the Envision Utah Project; $250,000 for the Central California ozone study; $750,000 for the painting and coating assistance initiative through the University of Northern Iowa; $2.5 million for the National Alternative Fuels Training Consortium in Morgantown, West Virginia; and $3.9 million for the Mine Waster Technology Program at the National Environmental Waste Technology, Testing, and Evaluation Center in Butte, Montana. While these projects may be important, why do they rank higher than other environmental priorities? It is also important to note that none of the 180 earmarks for the EPA were even requested by the President's budget. For independent agencies such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, this bill also includes earmarks of money for locality- specific projects such as: $5 million for the planetarium for the Clay Center of the Arts and Sciences in Charleston, West Virginia; and $2 million for the University of Mississippi Geoinformatics Center. I also want to comment on the many cost overruns and management problems at NASA. Last year, as part of the authorization bill for NASA, Congress established a cost cap on the International Space Station. Before establishing this cost cap, we worked with NASA to ensure that the funding levels of the cap were accurate. NASA indicated that the funding levels were sufficient to complete the Station. Earlier this year, NASA notified the Commerce Committee of $4 billion in cost overruns for the International Space Station. I know that it is difficult, if not impossible, to envision NASA having cost overruns for one year that amount to twice its annual budget. I can only conclude that either NASA did not know about the cost overruns or they knew and did not notify Congress about these problems. In either case, it is a major shortfall in the program's management. However, NASA has attempted to pay for these cost overruns from within existing budgetary limits. NASA has proposed drastic reductions in the station design. Included in these reductions is the crew return vehicle. This cut has reduced the maximum crew for the station to three astronauts. Given the fact that two and a half astronauts are required to operate the facility, only half of an astronaut's time can be devoted to research. A recent NASA and OMB agreement reveals that research time by the permanent crew will be limited to 20 hours per weeks. This amount of time may be further reduced if NASA makes its goal of providing 30 percent of the research time available to the commercial sector. NASA is currently exploring several options of how to increase crew research time. With this limitation on research time, the question for us is whether the Government wants to continue spending on this project which may add up to $100 billion, for only 20 hours of research per week in return. To further add to the cost concerns, NASA announced earlier this year that the X-33 program, a joint program with Lockheed Martin, would be canceled. This cancellation represented another $1 billion investment with no final product. It is our understanding that the Defense Department is reviewing the program to see if they can utilize any of the project. I continue to be concerned about NASA fundamental management approaches. An example of NASA's mismanagement is the ill-fated Propulsion Module that was supposed to provide a U.S. capability for long-term propulsion of the space station. This program was canceled, due to cost growth and poor management. According to the General Accounting Office, NASA began to build the Propulsion Module for the Space Station before it had completed a project plan, a risk management plan, or developed realistic cost and schedule estimates. Further review revealed that the propulsion model design proposed a tunnel diameter that was too small to accommodate crew operations and did not have detailed analyses to even quantify the amount of propulsion capability that would be required. This lack of planning led to a $265 million increase--from $479 to $744 million--and schedule slippage of 2 years. I am greatly concerned that NASA has significant infrastructure problems for the Space Shuttle program looming in the near future. Many of the vital facilities to support the Shuttle program are literally falling apart. The Vehicle Assembly Building at the Kennedy Space Flight Center, built in the early 1960s for assembly of Apollo/Saturn vehicles and currently used to prepare the Space Shuttle launch assembly, has nets inside the building to prevent concrete from falling from the roof onto the workers and equipment below. The sidings on the outside of the building are becoming loose due to time and weather. Addressing the risks associated with a crumpling infrastructure is in of itself a Shuttle upgrade project that has potential to increase the overall safety and reliability of the Shuttle program. These renovations along with many others will be costly. NASA must start making plans today to address these infrastructure problems on an agency-wide basis in order to prevent a crisis. We must get these management problems under control.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Florida. It is appropriate to say, though, when he says the budget was starved, that budget was recommended by NASA. We agreed to administration budget requests, and we were told time after time they could live within those budgets. I do not disagree with the Senator's depiction that the budget was ``starved'' or reduced, but those were the budget requests to which we agreed. Therefore, we have to get much more realistic estimates of the costs so that we can plan on them and also impose fiscal discipline, which I think the Senator from Florida will agree with me is somewhat lacking, at least in comparison to the pledges they make to the Congress of the United States. I thank the Senator from Florida. I look forward to discussing this with him in the committee and also on the floor. It is a very important issue and one to which we have not paid enough attention. Now that the Senator from Florida is here, I think we will be paying a lot more attention. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be laid aside until following the votes that will take place at 1:55.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to quickly respond to the Senator from Washington. The Senator from Texas and I, and others, may not use too many hours on this issue, but I want to assure the Senator from Washington we are not moving on. We are not moving on. We have the opportunity to have three more cloture votes on this issue. We intend to fight every single one of those when we return in September. So to put the mind of the Senator from Washington at ease, we are not moving on. We may have a vote for final passage. We are not moving on. We are not moving on until we have exhausted every last remedy because there is a great deal at stake. There is a huge amount at stake: Not only the fact, according to the Presidents of both nations, that this language represents a violation of a solemn treaty entered into by three nations, but it also sets a terrible precedent. Are we going to have appropriations bills that violate treaties in the view of the executives of both nations? The proponents of this legislation can say it does not violate NAFTA until they are blue in the face. That is fine with me. But none of those Members was elected President of the United States. We have one President. That President and his advisers have said this language is in violation of a solemn treaty entered into by three nations. That treaty is being violated, and he will veto the bill. And I say, with supreme confidence, that we can muster 34 votes to sustain a Presidential veto. The Senator from Washington and the proponents of this bill should understand that because the President has made it perfectly clear that he will veto this bill, the responsibility then for the veto will rest with the proponents of this bill who refuse to seriously negotiate on this bill. They have refused to sit down and have meaningful negotiations. They have said it, and they have alleged it, but they have not done it. I have not been around here as long as the Senator from Texas or other Senators, but I have been around here long enough to know serious negotiations when I see them, and unserious negotiations when I see them. Negotiations have not been serious. As I have said before, I have negotiated a whole lot of very difficult issues, ranging from a line- item veto, to a Patients' Bill of Rights, to campaign finance reform, with people who were serious about negotiating. I know serious negotiations when I see them. They are not present on this issue. So without serious negotiations, without removing the unacceptable provisions of this legislation, the President of the United States will veto the bill. The responsibility will be for those who have refused to reach an accommodation not with just the Senator from Texas and me but with the administration. I might add, those who say they are voting for this bill to move it along, even though they agree with our opposition, well, thanks, but, in all candor, the way you stop legislation around here is by voting against it. So, Mr. President, this is a serious issue. I have never, since I entered this body in 1987, impeded the legislative process. I have certainly voted against and spoken against a lot of the measures with which I disagreed. I have never used parliamentary procedures to hold up legislation, and I hope I never will again, because I think it is an extreme measure to do so. I know we have important issues to address. But when we are talking about legislation on an appropriations bill, with never a hearing, never a markup in the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation--oh, there were hearings; there was a hearing on Mexican trucks. We could mark up a bill in the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee tomorrow--tomorrow--and bring it to the floor of this Senate. Then it would be done in the appropriate fashion. I do not know if the chairman of the Commerce Committee was consulted on this particular language in the appropriations bill; I know I was not; and I know no Member on my side of the aisle was consulted when this language was inserted by people who have not given a proper airing of this issue and have clearly not taken into consideration the views of the President of Mexico and the President of the United States. So I repeat, we will not move on. We intend to do whatever is necessary to try to bring about a set of negotiations in which we know the administration would be eager to join, so that we could reach removal of basically four issues that remain that are of difference. There are only four issues, but they are significant differences. We have received clear written notification from the administration that if either the provisions of this bill or the House-passed measure regarding cross-border trucking are sent to the President, we can expect the bill to be vetoed. I quote from the Statement of Administrative Policy transmitted to the Senate on July 19: The Senate committee has adopted provisions that could cause the United States to violate our commitments under NAFTA. Unless changes are made to the Senate bill, the President's senior advisors will recommend that the President veto the bill. There have been some beneficial effects of Senator Gramm's and my activities on this issue because it has gotten the attention of editorial writers around the country. I would like to quote from some of those editorial writers from different newspapers around the country for the benefit of the President. I quote from an editorial in the Atlanta Constitution, a July 31 editorial, headlined ``Open U.S. Roads to Mexican Trucks.'' Can you imagine a world in which Mexican 18-wheelers were allowed to roam freely across U.S. highways--maybe properly inspected, maybe not, with drivers maybe properly trained and licensed, maybe not? A lot of folks seem unable to grasp what they believe would be a frightening vision, but they really don't have to look very far to get a reliable glimpse of what it would be like. All they have to do is look less than 20 years into the past, when Mexican trucks were permitted free access to America's roads as a matter of course. That practice ended only when Ronald Reagan changed the policy in a dispute over access for U.S. trucks to Mexico's roads. The old right of access was supposed to have been restored as part of the North American Free Trade Agreement, and President Bush has been pushing to do just that. But now he's having to fight the Teamsters' Union, the Democrats in Congress who habitually do labor's bidding, and even a few members of his own party who don't seem to have bothered to examine the issue. The truckers' union, of course, is interested only in job protectionism. Under current rules, Mexican trucks can carry goods into border states, but only for a maximum of 20 miles; then, cargo must be loaded onto American trucks, driven by American drivers, most of whom--what a coincidence--happen to be members of the Teamsters. They have disguised their self- interest, however, in a provocative pitch for public safety, painting a picture of U.S. highways plagued by decrepit, faulty vehicles driven by unskilled and careless Mexican cowboys. There is probably as much prejudice as protectionism in this image; actual statistics do show that Mexican trucks crossing the border fail inspections at higher rates than American vehicles, but the difference has been steadily narrowing. In 1995, 54 percent of the Mexican trucks failed, but that figure has fallen to 36 percent; besides, the Teamster-driven vehicles are no paragons--the failure rate for U.S. trucks is a surprising 24 percent. (Canadian trucks fail at a rate of only 17 percent; maybe we should ban U.S. trucks and only allow those from north of the border.) It should be noted that the Mexican trucks failing the tests are untypical of that country's fleet. Border crossings can take hours, so companies use older, less tidy vehicles for the short runs for cargo transfers. Trucks that would be used for long-distance hauling within the United States are much newer, some more modern than those used by American firms. (Authorities sometimes catch Mexican trucks that went illegally outside the 20-mile border area; of those, just 19 percent failed inspections, which is a better record than U.S. trucks can boast.) Continuing to restrict access is a mistake, especially because it would be a continuing violation of U.S. obligations under NAFTA, a trade agreement that has brought unparalleled economic benefits to all three of its member countries. The Bush administration plans to spend $144 million for new state and federal inspection stations and personnel, and for checking the safety records and practices of Mexican carriers. That should be enough to allay the concerns of anyone who is truly concerned about safety on the highways--especially since it will create a much more dependable system than the one that existed for all the decades when Mexican trucks did roam freely on our roads. Republicans in Congress should do a little more homework, and the Democrats should start trying to be something other than toadys for labor unions. This is a battle for self- interest, not for safety, and it's time for it to be over. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Washington Post editorials and a San Diego Union-Tribune editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, presently negotiations are going on to try to get a unanimous consent agreement to resolve this issue, and to move on to other issues. Among those negotiations is the subject of nominations. I hope that is part of any agreement that may be made. (The further remarks of Mr. McCain are printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the papers I am quoting from--the New York Times, Washington Post, Atlanta Constitution, Cleveland Plain Dealer-- are not renowned rightwing conservative periodicals. This is from the Cleveland Plain Dealer of July 30, 2001: The Democrat-controlled Senate, with the help of enough Republicans to block a filibuster, decided last week that equal protection under the law doesn't apply to Mexico under

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Finally, Madam President, we really need to have the United States represented at the United Nations. This has been a long process for Mr. Negroponte. I know my good friend and chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Joe Biden, shares my concern about the United Nations. He is a committed believer in the United Nations and the importance of its functions. I hope we will move forward as quickly as possible with Mr. Negroponte's nomination to represent the United States at the United Nations.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I will speak for a few minutes about a problem that is hamstringing American foreign policy today, and that is the stalled nomination of John Negroponte to be the American Ambassador to the United Nations. Even the critics of American foreign policy would agree that America, and the world, are best served by having an outstanding, experienced, professional diplomat at our U.N. mission in New York. Indeed, such a personal representative of the President would provide enlightened perspective to our friends and allies on occasions when we cannot support particular U.N. initiatives. He would also symbolize America's robust commitment to international engagement, and work with like- minded nations whenever possible to advance our mutual interests and values, in the spirit of cooperation the United Nations was created to foster. Regrettably, the Senate has stalled ambassador Negroponte's nomination process. The President announced his intention to nominate this 37-year veteran of the Foreign Service in March and sent his nomination to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in May. But his nomination has been held up due to concerns about human rights abuses in Honduras during his tenure as Ambassador there. It is worth pointing out that Ambassador Negroponte has been confirmed by the Senate five times--as recently as 1993, well after his assignment to Honduras, as President Clinton's Ambassador to the Philippines. He did not then undergo anything like the ordeal he has been subjected to this year. In the midst of the debate over Ambassador Negroponte's qualifications for the U.N. assignment, the United States got booted off the U.N. Human Rights Commission for the first time in its history--a defeat that raises credible doubts about the integrity of that institution and its commitment to the very values it exists to promote. Sudan, Libya, Syria, Cuba, and China are now members of this body, forged by the vision of Eleanor Roosevelt in the early post-World War II era--and we are not. Victims of persecution around the world, and advocates for their cause in our country, shall long rue the day the Commission was tarnished by this unfortunate vote. Many professionals agree that had we had an ambassador in place early in this administration, we would now be a member in good standing of the Human Rights Commission. We also recently lost our seat on the International Narcotics Control Board, another avoidable consequence of our vacant U.N. ambassadorship. Ambassador Negroponte has the strong support of Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, his predecessor at the United Nations. Upon hearing the first reports of the President's intent to nominate Ambassador Negroponte, Ambassador Holbrooke said: The United States is lucky, the U.N. is lucky. . . . He is a real professional. . . . I would be thrilled. Secretary of State Colin Powell recently called John Negroponte: one of the most distinguished foreign service officers and American public servants I have ever known. The U.N. General Assembly convenes in mind-September for its annual session. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee should immediately schedule a confirmation hearing for Ambassador Negroponte, to take place in early September when the Senate reconvenes, in order to have him confirmed and in place to represent our Nation in New York this fall. Ambassador Negroponte has served Democratic and Republican Presidents with distinction over the course of his diplomatic career. In the spirit of bipartisanship and the proud tradition of American internationalism at the United Nations, I urge my colleagues to move quickly to allow this good man to serve our country once again. Madam President, I have had the opportunity of knowing Ambassador Negroponte when he was Ambassador to Mexico, Ambassador to Honduras, and Ambassador to the Philippines. The nomination is now stuck. Unfortunately, we need to act as quickly as possible. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have a letter from Mr. George Shultz, former Secretary of State, printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to turn to the nomination of John Walters, the President's choice for drug czar, who also deserves a confirmation hearing so he can offer his views on how to reduce drug abuse in our nation. With all the damage drugs are doing to our children and to adult Americans, why in the world is the Senate dragging its feet on even having a confirmation hearing for our nation's highest ranking drug policy official? John is uniquely qualified for the job of drug czar. He distinguished himself during the first Bush administration as Deputy Director for Supply Reduction, Chief of Staff and National Security Director, and Acting Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. During the administration of President Reagan, John served as Chief of Staff and Counselor to the Secretary of Education, as well as Assistant to the Secretary, the Secretary's Representative to the National Drug Policy Board, and the Secretary's Representative to the Domestic Policy Council's Health Policy Working Group. John is currently serving as president of the Philanthropy Roundtable, a national association of charitable donors who are doing great work in our communities. He was previously president of the New Citizenship Project, an organization created to promote greater civic participation in our national life. John also served on the Council on Crime in America, a bipartisan commission on violent crime co-chaired by Bill Bennett and President Carter's Attorney General Griffin Bell. And, in 1988, John created the Madison Center, a nonprofit organization dedicated to early childhood education and drug abuse prevention. Mr. President, John Walters has now waited almost 2 months for a confirmation hearing. I urge my colleagues to move forward on his nomination. nomination of josefina carbonell to be assistant secretary for aging

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my legislative fellow, Navy Lieutenant Commander Dell Bull, be granted floor privileges during consideration of the VA-HUD Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2002.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I extend my appreciation to the majority leader and to the Republican leader for negotiating this issue out so that we could move forward. I did not enjoy this exercise. As I mentioned before, I have never--and I have been in the Senate since 1987--engaged in parliamentary maneuvering in order to block consideration of a bill. And I would not have--and I hope I never have to again--if it were not for the fact that it is a solemn treaty. So I thank the majority leader for his assistance in working this out, as well as Senator Lott. During the upcoming recess, we are going to meet with the Department of Transportation administration officials to find out exactly what language it is that they need in order to satisfy the concerns we all have about the present language in the bill, which they view and the Mexicans view as a violation of NAFTA. I hope we can come back, at the end of the recess, and we can agree on that language. Then we can move forward. However, I remind my colleagues that there are three more--three more--cloture votes that may be required which will all involve, of course, extended debate. I do not want to do that. But, if necessary, we will continue through until finality because we really are concerned about language on an appropriations bill affecting a solemn treaty made between three nations. So again, I thank the majority leader for working this out and giving us the courtesy he has extended. I apologize to him for impeding the important work of the Senate. I hope he understands why we had to do this. I am hopeful this will all be worked out over the recess so that we can come to an agreement on language which will achieve the goal we seek, which is to make sure that every vehicle that enters the United States is safe and inspected and every driver is licensed and qualified. So I hope we can get this issue resolved. I hope the administration will be able to work with us and the other side and develop the necessary language. I hope we do not have to continue this parliamentary maneuvering, but we will, if necessary. I hope all understand that this is the importance of this issue. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, I reserve 2 minutes after the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that on the vote regarding the nomination of Asa Hutchinson to be the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Agency, that if I were present, I be recorded as having voted ``yea.''

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Very good.

Mr. McCAIN. I will read it myself. I am more eloquent than the staff anyway.