John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. As the Senator from New Hampshire stated, the Commerce Committee and the Environment and Public Works Committee have historically shared jurisdiction over the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act. Our two committees have in the past always worked together to reauthorize and amend the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act. I expect that relationship to continue. In order to facilitate the passage of this year's Atlantic Striped Bass reauthorization, Subtitle A of Title III of H.R. 3417, as amended, reauthorizes the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act. Although the Pribilof Islands Transition Act and the other provisions in this legislation are under the sole jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee, I understand that my colleague from New Hampshire has reviewed and approved the language contained in Title III; therefore, the shared jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee and the Environment and Public Works Committee over the conservation of Atlantic Striped bass should not be altered.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, yesterday, the Senate took an important and critical step forward to improve our Nation's motor vehicle safety laws by passing H.R. 5164, the Transportation Recall Enhancement Accountability and Documentation (TREAD) Act. The bill is in response to the more than 100 deaths associated with defective Bridgestone/ Firestone tires. During the debate, I intended to include a letter from Congressman Bliley, chairman of the House Commerce Committee clarifying the intent of a provision of the bill relating to the ability of the Department of Transportation to request material from manufacturers. I ask that the letter be included in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. The letter makes it clear that the provisions would not enable manufacturers to conceal or destroy information requested by the Secretary.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of H.R. 4205, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001. The bill that passed today includes several amendments that significantly improve the lives of active duty and Reserve servicemembers, military retirees, veterans, and their families. I am pleased that the conference agreement includes some key legislative provisions that I had introduced in the Senate during the course of the normal legislative process. Some of these provisions included in the conference report will: remove servicemembers from food stamps; increase pay for mid-grade Petty Officers and Non-Commissioned Officers; assist disabled veterans in claims processing; expand pay benefits to some disabled military retirees; authorize a low cost life insurance plan for spouses and their children; enhance benefits and retirement pay for Reservists and National Guardsmen; authorize back pay for certain World War II Navy and Marine Corps Prisoners of War; and provide for significant acquisition reform by eliminating domestic source restrictions on the procurement of shipyard cranes. One of the areas of greatest concern to me, however, regarding military retirees and their families is the broken promise of lifetime medical care, especially for those over age 65. Last year, the Joint Chiefs proclaimed that this would be the year for major health care reform for our military forces, especially our medicare-eligible military retirees who were promised lifetime military medical care. Despite the assurances of the Joint Chiefs, the President proposed a fiscal year 2001 defense budget without any major medical care reforms, and all but ignored those military retirees who are older and in greatest need of health care. The Republican Congress, however, responded to military retirees' needs and provided several major military health care reforms as well as a plan in this year's bill to provide all Medicare-eligible military retirees, family members, and survivors with lifetime military health care coverage, including full pharmacy benefits in military, retail, and mail order pharmacies. This conference report will establish ``TRICARE-for-life'' as a permanent entitlement that will be funded through a ``Military Retirees Health Care Trust Fund,'' a legislative provision adopted from S.2013, a military health care reform bill that I introduced earlier this year. This new, critical lifetime benefit will mean huge savings for military retirees by eliminating the need for them to buy expensive Medicare supplemental policies. Separately, with severe recruitment and retention problems still looming, we must also better compensate our mid-grade enlisted servicemembers who are critical to leading the junior enlisted force. We have significantly underpaid enlisted servicemembers since the beginning of the All Volunteer Force. The value of the mid-grade NCO pay, compared to that of the most junior enlisted, has dropped 50 percent since the All Volunteer Force was put in place by Congress in 1973. The provision for the mid-grade enlisted ranks, up to $700 per year, plus the food stamp pay provision of up to an additional $500 per month for servicemembers, provides a significant increase in pay for enlisted servicemembers. In addition, the National Guard and Reserves have become a larger percentage of the Total Force and are essential partners in a wide range of military operations. Due to the higher deployment rates of the active duty forces, the Reserve Components are being called upon more frequently and for longer periods of time than ever before. We must stop treating them like a second class force. It is tremendously important that we enact meaningful improvements for both our active duty and Reserve service-members, their families, and their survivors. They risk their lives to protect our freedom and preserve democracy. We should compensate them adequately, improve the benefits to their families and survivors, and enhance the quality of life for the Reserves and National Guard in a manner similar to the active forces. This bill goes far in correcting some of the inconsistencies, with regard to Reserve Component policies, that previously only benefited the active duty components. Additionally, in order to ensure that reservists receive full credit for the time and effort they commit to attending drills, performing annual training, and completing correspondence courses, the conference report increased from 70 to 90 the maximum number of days per year that reservists may accrue as credit towards retirement benefits. Each year the number of disabled veterans appealing their health care cases continues to increase. Furthermore, it takes an average of 275 days to get some sort of reply from the Department of Veterans Affairs' regarding claims filing. Disabled veterans are forced to leave the service because of their disabilities. It is Congress's duty to ensure that the disability claims process is less complex, less burdensome, and much more efficient. I am pleased that the final conference agreement includes legislation necessary to fully restore the Department of Veterans Affairs' duty to ensure efficient and timely veterans claims processing and remove onerous court-imposed procedures. I commend the conference leaders for including some minimal improvements to the egregious regulations that strip retirement pay from military retirees who are also disabled, and cost them any realistic opportunity for post-service earnings. We should do more to restore retirement pay for those military retirees who are disabled. With respect to concurrent receipt, clearly, retirees who have incurred significant disabilities over the course of a military career deserve better than how they are treated currently. Many such servicemembers are compelled to forfeit their full-retired pay under current rules. I have stated before on the Senate floor, and I am compelled to reiterate now, retirement pay and disability pay are two 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--with no recognition at all for their extended, clearly more demanding careers of service to our country. This is patently unfair and even more must be done to correct this problem. I would also like to point out that this year's defense authorization bill contained over $2 billion in unrequested add-ons to the defense budget that will rob our military of vital funding on priority issues. While this year's total is less than in previous years, and is far less than the $7 billion in the defense appropriations bill, it is still $2 billion too much. We need to, and can do, better. I ask that the detailed list of pork on this bill be included in the Congressional Record following my remarks. I have to wonder, Mr. President, about the wisdom of permitting the Navy to potentially violate public law with respect to the status of the last two battleships, the only current means of providing high- volume gunfire support for land forces ashore, while simultaneously continuing to provide millions of dollars from the defense budget for the recovery and preservation of Civil War vessels. Over the past six years, Congress has increased the President's defense budgets by nearly $60 billion in order to address the military services' most important unfunded priorities. Still, it is sufficient to say that the military needs less money spent on pork and more money spent wisely to redress the serious problems caused by a decade of declining defense budgets. Those of us who have been criticized for sounding alarm bells about military readiness now have the empty satisfaction of seeing that there is more to maintaining a strong defense than a politician's history of falsely promising to do so. We also must reform the bureaucracy of the Pentagon. With the exception of minor changes, our defense establishment looks just as it did 50 years ago. We must continue to incorporate practices from the private sector--like restructuring, reforming, and streamlining to eliminate duplication and capitalize on cost savings. More effort must be made to reduce the continuing growth of headquarter staffs and to decentralize the Pentagon's labyrinth of bureaucratic fiefdoms. Although nearly every military analyst shares these views, the conference agreement took great measures to increase the size of headquarter staffs, thereby eliminating any incentive for the Pentagon to change its way of doing business with its bloated staffs and its outdated practices. In addition, more must be done to eliminate unnecessary and duplicative military contracts and military installations. Every U.S. military leader has testified regarding the critical need for further BRAC rounds. We can redirect at least $3 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 can be saved per year by eliminating ``Buy America'' restrictions that only undermine U.S. competitiveness overseas. Despite these compelling facts, the conference agreement did not address any of these critical issues. On the contrary, it includes several provisions that move demonstratively in the opposite direction. Sections designed to preserve Army depots and 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 to the legislating process. Similarly, whether the Centers of Academic Excellence in Information Assurance Education is worthy of the $15 million earmarked in the budget is open to debate. The Defense Appropriations bill, already signed into law, included a provision statutorily renaming National Guard armories as ``Readiness Centers,'' a particularly Orwellian use of language. By statutorily 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 its tax dollars. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate my belief in the importance of enacting meaningful improvements for active duty and Reserve servicemembers. They risk their lives to defend our shores and preserve democracy, and we can not thank them enough for their service. But, we can and should pay them more, improve the benefits for their families, and support the Reserve Components in a manner similar to the active forces. Our servicemembers past, present, and future need these improvements. However, we can not continue with this ``business as usual" mindset. We must reform the Department of Defense and we must not fall prey to the special interest groups that attempt to warp our perspective and misdirect our spending. We owe so much more to our men and women in uniform who defend our country. They are our greatest resource, and I feel they are woefully under-represented. We must continue to do better. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the attached list of items added to the defense authorization bill by Congress be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I concur with the Senator from Missouri that a variety of new technologies are available to improve the design and construction of tires. The improved federal motor vehicle safety standard for tires should take into account all of these new technologies to ensure that consumers are provided with safe tires. Additionally, the Department should implement the rule in light of the changing mix of types of vehicles that consumers are driving.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we are all now aware of a terrible tragedy, an act of despicable terrorism has taken place on the U.S.S. Cole and American lives have been lost. All of us are appalled. On behalf of all of us, our thoughts and prayers go out to the family members of those on the U.S.S. Cole. We hope we can get all the information as quickly as possible. The United States has the ability to find out who perpetrated this outrage. We will find those people. There will be a heavy price to pay. We cannot allow these kinds of acts of terror to take place. I am confident the President of the United States will ascertain who these individuals and organizations are, and the heaviest price must be paid for this outrage. In the meantime, our thoughts, hopes, and prayers go out to those who were injured, those missing in action, and those killed in this tragedy. Terrorism

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Maryland until she completes this business.

Mr. McCAIN. Since the Senator from Maryland had already embarked on this parliamentary movement, I will yield until that is completed and then speak after that.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I 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 (VA) and Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Independent Agencies. Once again, though, I find myself in the unpleasant position of commenting on the process of bringing these spending bills to the Senate floor and on the spending items that have not been appropriately reviewed. This task is even more necessary for this bill because of the truly unique process by which it arrived on the Senate floor--a process that increasingly empowers appropriators while disenfranchising many of my colleagues. Let me comment on the process that has brought us to the point in time where we are about to vote on final passage of this bill. First, let me explain how the appropriations process is supposed to work. In the normal process of passing appropriations bills, an appropriations bill is first passed in the House of Representatives, then the Senate passes its own version. A conference committee is formed to iron out the differences between the two different bills, resulting in a conference report. Then the conference report is passed by both the House and the Senate, and sent to the President for his signature in order to become law. That sounds fairly straightforward. In the case of this bill, we have decided to substitute the normal process of considering appropriations bills for a highly questionable approach to passing legislation. The process we have decided to undertake avoids substantive debate on the merits of this bill and to the larger question of whether we are spending taxpayers' hard-earned money wisely and responsibly. Just because it is late in the game does not give us the right to avoid the normal process of appropriations. The Senate is being asked to pass the bill despite the fact that there was only one copy made available to each side and many Senators did not have adequate time to review its contents. How can we make sound policy and budget decisions with this type of budget steam-rolling? Let me be clear about what is occurring today. This VA-HUD bill that we are voting on is a so-called ``composite compromise,'' cloaking the reality that we would normally be calling a VA-HUD conference report. The Appropriations leadership intends to take up the House-passed version of this year's VA-HUD Appropriations bill, substitute a Senate managers' amendment written by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees which for all practical purposes is a conference agreement-- a conference agreement, not open to public inspection, not done through the normal legislative process, such as appointing conferees or allowing full disclosure of the issues being discussed. This process will allow the Appropriators to simply insert a ``Committee Statement'' into the record outlining certain questionable spending priorities that will ultimately be paid for by the American taxpayer. This ``composite compromise'' will then go to the House so that they can quickly pass the amended bill and then send it to the President for his signature. Is that the way to pass legislation? As legislators, we have been entrusted by the American taxpayers to represent the fiscal interests of them and their nation. The American taxpayer is counting on us to use their hard-earned money wisely and here we are, manipulating the budget process so that we can say we did something and go back home to campaign. Unfortunately, Mr. President, the budget process games began long before this bill. When the conference report on Legislative Branch Appropriations bill first came to the floor for debate and a vote last month, the appropriators decided to insert the Treasury and General Government appropriations bill into it. Rather than having the Treasury and General Government Appropriations bill considered separately as it is usually done, to be debated on its own merits, the appropriators' actions decided to circumvent the normal budget process. This so-called ``minibus'' was soundly defeated and rightly so. When the conference report on the Transportation Appropriations bill was brought to the Senate floor for a vote, the appropriators did not even provide a copy of the report for others to read and examine before voting on the nearly $60 billion bill. The transportation bill itself was only two pages long with the barest of detail--with actual text of the report to come later. And yet, the appropriators were expecting Senators to vote yes on legislation that could not even be read, deciphered, and debated intelligently? How is this type of action accountable to all the hard- working Americans who demand that all their tax dollars are wisely spent? I worry that these budget games we play serve to reinforce their cynicism about politics. Mr. President, the budget process can be summed up simply: no debate, no deliberation, and very few votes. Mr. President, this is no way to run the United States Senate. To date, only two of the thirteen appropriations bills have become law. Of those remaining, three bills--Labor, HHS, Education, VA-HUD, and Treasury-Postal--were never brought to the Senate floor for debate as part of a deliberate strategy to prevent votes on any controversial amendments that my colleagues may have offered. Extraordinary measures are being employed to drive these spending bills through Congress. The only winners in such an arrangement are the appropriators. The rest of us, including our constituents, are, for all intents and purposes, shut-out of the process. Mr. President, by adopting this budget strategy, we do a disservice to our constituents by not squarely facing tough issues, whether it's school choice, gun control, campaign finance, minimum wage, gambling, or HMO reform, and engaging in debate--even in the heat of an election season where both sides of the aisle are maneuvering for maximum political advantage. These are important issues. They deserve to be debated and each deserves an up or down vote. Moreover, we have an obligation to ensure that Congress spends the taxpayer's hard-earned dollars prudently to protect the projected budget surpluses. The American public cannot understand why we engage in a process that continues to spend huge amounts of money without adequately balancing this spending against our nation's most urgent present and future needs. Spending from this budget process has been on automatic pilot. We have already exceeded the budget caps by over $30 billion, consuming, so far, about one-third of the on-budget surplus for FY2001--and we have yet to pass all of the appropriations bills. This byzantine budget process precludes serious discussion about how our projected budget surpluses should be devoted to national priorities such as saving Social Security, providing much needed tax relief, paying down the national debt, or addressing other major priorities. But more is lost beyond the throttling of debate, the profligate spending of taxpayers' dollars, and the broken budget process. Since 1960, the percentage of voters participating in the general presidential election has dropped nearly 15 percent, reaching below the 50 percent mark four years ago. Today, voter apathy, especially among the youth of America, is widespread. Even more disheartening is the fact that too many Americans, when asked to rank the people in the different fields from highest regard to lowest, consistently rank our profession near the bottom. Poll after poll continues to show an undercurrent of cynicism toward our governmental institution. As I previously mentioned, budget games like the one we have witnessed in the last few weeks contribute to this cynicism. We can still seize the reform mantle and learn from this budget morass when the doors of the new Congress open in January. We need new reforms in the way we address the budget process. Perhaps we should even consider the radical step of abolishing the Appropriations Committees. Too many programs are without authorization. We also should study whether the authorizers should also be the appropriators, to build more accountability into the process. There are many other reforms we should consider next Congress if we are to spare Congress' reputation from further damage and begin to repair the people's respect for this Government. The Washington Post yesterday had an article by Dan Morgan, ``As Last Bills Leave Station, Lobbyists Grab Tickets.'' With only a handful of bills remaining to be signed into law before Congress adjourns, well tailored business lobbyists for elite corporations have descended on Capitol Hill to plead for dozens of special provisions in a Washington ritual with billions of dollars at stake. Mr. President, on October 6, the Senate passed the conference report on the bill H.R. 4475, which funds the Department of Transportation and related agencies. At the time, I included for the Record a list of examples of pork barrel spending contained in the Transportation conference report. But because the list of pork barrel was so long and so extensive I was unable to publish the full list in the Congressional Record. For those who wish to view the list in its entirety, please visit my website: http://mccain.senate.gov and click the ``pork barreling'' logo at the bottom. We are also legislating on these appropriations bills. Huge and vital interests are being legislated in smoke-filled rooms in the darkest corners of this Capitol. These lobbyists are out there and they are doing damage to the national interest by getting their special interests represented in appropriations bills which have never been debated or discussed on the floor of either House. That is wrong, Mr. President. Nobody knows how much overspending there will be. Some say as much as $45 or $60 billion. There is an article today, I believe in the USA Today, that shows we are spending the surplus. We are all talking about how we will use the surplus. Yet we are spending it now. We are spending the surplus. We are putting into law entitlement programs that will spend even more. There are some very interesting CBO studies and others by outside watchdog organizations that indicate this much ballyhooed and very optimistic view of our budget surplus is being eroded as we speak by this appropriations process. I urge my colleagues to look at these bills, to look at the spending in it, to look at the legislation that is going on. We are abrogating our responsibilities to the taxpayers by voting on bills that we have neither seen nor read. I hope we can make some sense out of this. The train wreck that is about to occur is the worst that I have seen in all the years I have been in the Congress. I don't think it helps us in the eyes of the American citizens, to say the least. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the majority leader, after consultation with the Democratic leader, to proceed to consideration of H.R. 5164 and that it be immediately advanced to third reading and passed, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the majority leader, after consultation with the Democratic leader, to proceed to consideration of H.R. 5164 and that it be immediately advanced to third reading and passed, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. McCAIN. Yes, that is correct.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, in just a few minutes I will propound a unanimous consent request concerning the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation Act. First, I ask unanimous consent that a letter I just received from the Secretary of Transportation be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will quote parts of the letter from Secretary Slater: Dear Mr. Chairman: As you know, the House acted early today to pass H.R. 5164, the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation Act. This is another important step toward resolving issues raised by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's ongoing Firestone tire investigation. We strongly support enactment of H.R. 5164. The bill provides increased penalties for safety defects and noncompliances in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment; lengthens the period for free remedy of defects and noncompliances; enhances the ability of NHTSA to obtain information from foreign as well as domestic sources; and authorizes increased appropriations to enable NHTSA to carry out its additional responsibilities. These provisions were sought by the Administration in its proposed legislation. H.R. 5164 also directs NHTSA to review and report on its procedures for opening defect investigations, a review which the agency has already begun, and directs NHTSA to conduct rulemaking to amend the safety standards on tires, an action which is consistent with the agency's rulemaking plans. I will not read the whole letter, except the last paragraph: In the final days of the 106th Congress, we must not lose the opportunity to save lives and prevent injuries. I urge the full Senate to pass H.R. 5164 before the end of this session. It is critically needed legislation. Save lives and prevent injuries. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a letter that was sent from Ms. Claybrook, president of Public Citizen, and others to the House of Representatives on October 9. That letter says: Dear Representative: We are writing to urge the passage of H.R. 5164, despite its serious deficiencies. It ends up in the last part of the letter: We urge you to vote to send this bill forward, to encourage the House managers to work with the Senate managers to improve the legislation, and to make sure the authority of NHTSA to protect the public safety is not degraded. Even though there may be objections from Ms. Claybrook and some of her colleagues, the fact is she wrote to the House urging a vote for this legislation at this time. I think it should be an important part of the Record. Finally, I do not view this as a panacea. The Presiding Officer has significant concerns. We had entered into a colloquy concerning his concerns. Those concerns are legitimate. I assure the Senator from Ohio that the Senator from South Carolina and I will continue to work on this issue next year. I will tell the Senator from Ohio why: Because there is going to be more people dying before this issue is resolved. Just this last weekend in Louisiana, a young boy, who was in a rollover accident from a tire that shredded, went into a coma. I am pleased and gratified that the Senator from South Carolina, who has some differing views, as I do, on this bill, wants to see it perfected, as does the Senator from Ohio. But I also agree with the Secretary of Transportation who says that this is an enormously important step forward to take. I take this opportunity to thank Senator Hollings for his efforts and the way we worked in a bipartisan fashion to report a bill by a vote of 20-0 out of the Commerce Committee. I will propound two unanimous consent requests, if the first one is objected to. If the first one is objected to, then I will try another unanimous consent request.

Mr. McCAIN. I will be glad to yield to the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Carolina. I understand his concerns. Let me quote from a letter from the Secretary of Transportation: The early warning section of H.R. 5164, enables NHTSA to obtain information about potential defects earlier than under current law. The agency will use the information in deciding whether to open an investigation and will be able to release information in the context of its investigation, as it does today. Information that is not made a part of an investigation could be released if NHTSA determines it would assist in carrying out the agency's investigative responsibilities. The bill contains a new section 30170 that augments the penalties under section 1001 of title 18, United States Code, if a person intentionally misleads the Secretary concerning a safety defect that results in death or serious injury. A ``Safe Harbor'' provision would excuse the person from the augmented penalties, but would not excuse the person from other penalties under section 1001. The Department of Justice will communicate separately its views on the criminal provisions. I point out again, this is not a perfect bill. I want exactly what came out of the Senate. The House passed, unanimously, by a voice vote, H.R. 5164. The Secretary of Transportation says: ``We strongly support enactment.'' He finishes up by saying--and I hope my colleagues understand this-- In the final days of the 106th Congress, we must not lose the opportunity to save lives and prevent injuries. This is not a perfect piece of legislation but an awesome responsibility, at least in the view of the Secretary of Transportation. An opportunity to save lives and prevent injuries is occurring here. I do not think we can let that pass by. If there is objection, I will, again, ask that the Senator who objects appear on the floor to object. We are not talking about a policy decision here; we are talking about the fact that over 100 lives have been taken on America's highways over a defect that, in the view of every expert, we are making significant progress in addressing. So, Mr. President, I will begin with my first unanimous consent request, and I will follow it with a second unanimous consent request if it is objected to. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate receives H.R. 5164 from the House, it be held at the desk. I ask further that it be in order for the majority leader, after consultation with the Democratic leader, to proceed to consideration of the bill, and that only relevant amendments be in order to the bill, and that the bill then, as amended, if amended, be advanced to third reading and passed.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I object.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we went through a great deal of work in order to have the legislation passed concerning Bridgestone/Firestone. I thank the administration and Secretary Slater for all of his efforts. I thank Senator Hollings, who had strongly held views on this issue and yet came together with me and others. I thank the Consumers Union for what they did. They are an advocacy group that, again, didn't see a perfect piece of legislation but supported this legislation. Mr. Kimmelman is a man of remarkable talents. I thank him. I also want to thank Congressman Upton and Congressman Tauzin, who were able to get that legislation through the House of Representatives in this late period by a voice vote and thereby made it possible for this legislation to be passed. They are both remarkable legislators. I appreciate very much all they did. I say to my colleagues again that this issue isn't over. Tragically, I am in fear that there will be more deaths and injuries on America's highways before we finally make it much safer for Americans to be on America's highways. I think we have taken a major step forward, and one that hopefully will save lives and prevent injuries. If that is the case, as I think most experts view this legislation, then I think we will have done something good today. I thank you, Mr. President, for your patience.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, last week I was blocked in my efforts to gain unanimous consent for the Senate to schedule a time for consideration of S. 3059, the Motor Vehicle and Motor Vehicle Equipment Defect Notification Act. As you know, the Act is in response to the recent Ford/Firestone recall of 6.5 million tires and the more than 100 deaths associated with these tires. Today, we are in the midst of what may likely be the last week of this legislative session. The remaining days to enact legislation to remedy indisputable flaws in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Act are dwindling to a precious few. When we began this process more than six weeks ago, I made a commitment to seek the enactment of legislation this year to remedy this problem. I also stated that we would not make the perfect the enemy of the good. Last night, the House passed by voice vote H.R. 5164, the Transportation Recall Enhancement Accountability and Documentation (TREAD) Act. The legislation is similar to S. 3059 and has the support of both Republicans and Democrats in the House. While the House bill does not go as far as the Senate bill in some respects, it will nevertheless advance the cause of safety. It will ensure that the Department of Transportation will receive the information it needs to detect defects, including information about foreign recalls. It will increase penalties for manufacturers that fail to comply with the statute and its regulations. The maximum civil penalty under the current statute is $980,000. The House bill will increase that amount to $15 million. It will also direct the Secretary to develop a program to conduct dynamic rollover tests of motor vehicles and make that information available to consumers. It will direct NHTSA to upgrade the current tire standard for the first time in 30 years. Finally, the House bill incorporates a measure sponsored by Senator Fitzgerald and recently reported by the Senate Commerce Committee, which will improve the design of child safety seats. Many of the provisions in the House bill are an improvement upon current law. The House bill is supported by the Secretary of Transportation. Nevertheless, let me be clear, I would prefer to have the Senate complete action on the bill reported by the Senate Commerce Committee with unanimous support. But holds and stalling tactics used by some members of this body will prevent us from even considering the Senate measure. The reality we face in the remaining days of Congress because of these tactics is that we pass the House bill or we pass nothing. Left with that decision, I would prefer we move forward with the House bill. Some people have raised concerns that the House bill would weaken current law in several respects and it would be better to do nothing. Specifically, concerns have been raised that the bill would inhibit the release of information collected by Department of Transportation to the public, that manufacturers could destroy information to avoid the reporting requirements, and that the safe harbor provisions for the enhanced penalties could apply to existing penalties. I strongly disagree with these assertions. More importantly, the supporters of the House bill both Democratic and Republicans disagree with those assertions as does the Department of Transportation which will be charged with carrying out the provisions of the Act. House supporters of the bill such as Congressmen Markey and Tauzin addressed some of these concerns in a colloquy upon final passage of the House bill last night. I ask unanimous consent that the entire colloquy from the House bill be included in the Record following my remarks. Two portions of the colloquy refute these assertions. First, Mr. Markey asks if the ``special disclosure provision for new early stage information is not intended to protect from disclosure [information] that is currently disclosed under existing law such as information about actual defects or recalls?'' Congressman Tauzin responds by saying, ``the gentleman is correct.'' Second, Congressman Markey asks if it is in the ``Secretary's discretion to require a manufacturer to maintain records that are in fact in the manufacturer's possession and that it would be a violation of such a requirement to destroy such a record?'' Again, Congressman Tauzin responds ``the gentleman is correct.'' Congressman Tauzin wrote to me today to further clarify that this provision would not enable manufacturers to destroy or conceal information. In explaining the safe harbor provision under the enhanced penalty section, the intent of the House sponsors is not necessary because it is clear on the face of the language that it would not apply to an underlying violation of existing criminal law. The language of Section 4(b)(2) clearly states that the safe harbor only applies to criminal penalties ``under this subsection.'' I am not a supporter of the safe harbor provisions under this bill. I believe that they create a loophole rendering the enhanced penalties meaningless, but it is clear that they do not weaken existing law. As I said earlier, NHTSA has linked more than 100 deaths to the failure of Bridgestone/Firestone tires that are subject to the current recall. Each day it becomes more apparent that these deaths may have been avoided had the Department of Transportation possessed vital safety-related information that the law does not currently require manufacturers to report. The House bill falls short of the Senate bill, but it will improve the Department of Transportation's ability to detect defects earlier. As Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, I commit to revisiting this issue next Congress and resolve the issues left in the House bill. But it would be a serious mistake to prevent even this modest reform to go forward. I ask my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 5164. The bill (H.R. 5164) was passed.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend from Nevada. I should not be speaking off the top of my head, but perhaps a hearing out in the city of Las Vegas, where really 90 percent of the major boxing is conducted in America, might be something he and I could do together in the next couple of months to get the ball rolling. I thank my friend from Nevada.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend from Nevada. May I just say that one thing I have learned about my friend from Nevada is that when he gives his word on an issue, he pursues that in a sincere and dedicated fashion. When he gives his word that he is going to oppose, as he has on several occasions, he is a formidable opponent. I thank the Senator from Nevada for working on this. He could have easily held this over until tomorrow and we could have gotten caught up, perhaps, in other issues. Instead, the Senator from Nevada said he would be working on this issue. He did that, and we have it resolved. I express my deep and sincere thanks to him. I look forward to next year when we again have our differences on the issue of college gambling being ventilated and work together on that issue as well.

Mr. McCAIN. Yes.

Mr. McCAIN. That the Senate proceed to H.R. 5164.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements regarding the bill be printed at this point in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of H.R. 5164, which is at the desk.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on September 19, I submitted for the Record, a list of objectionable provisions in the FY 2001 Legislative Branch Appropriations bill. Mr. President, these line items do not violate any of the five objective criteria I use for identifying spending that was not reviewed in the appropriate merit-based prioritization process, and I regret they were included on my list. They are as follows: $472,176,000 for construction projects at the following locations: California, Los Angeles, U.S. Courthouse; District of Columbia, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Headquarters; Florida, Saint Petersburg, Combined Law Enforcement Facility; Maryland, Montgomery County, Food and Drug; Administration Consolidation; Michigan, Sault St. Marie, Border Station; Mississippi, Biloxi-Gulfport, U.S. Courthouse; Montana, Eureka/Roosville, Border Station; Virginia, Richmond, U.S. Courthouse; Washington, Seattle, U.S. Courthouse. Repairs and alterations: Arizona: Phoenix, Federal Building Courthouse, $26,962,000; California: Santa Ana, Federal Building, $27,864,000; District of Columbia: Internal Revenue Service Headquarters; (Phase 1), $31,780,000, Main State Building (Phase 3), $28,775,000; Maryland: Woodlawn, SSA National Computer Center, $4,285,000; Michigan: Detroit, McNamara Federal Building, $26,999,000; Missouri: Kansas City, Richard Bolling Federal Building, $25,882,000; Kansas City, Federal Building, 8930 Ward Parkway, $8,964,000; Nebraska: Omaha, Zorinsky Federal Building, $45,960,000; New York: New York City, 40 Foley Square, $5,037,000; Ohio: Cincinnati, Potter Stewart U.S. Courthouse, $18,434,000; Pennsylvania: Pittsburgh, U.S. Post Office-Courthouse, $54,144,000; Utah: Salt Lake City, Bennett Federal Building, $21,199,000; Virginia: Reston, J.W. Powell Federal Building (Phase 2), $22,993,000. Nationwide: Design Program, $21,915,000; Energy Program, $5,000,000; Glass Fragment Retention Program, $5,000,000. $276,400,000 for the following construction projects: District of Columbia, U.S. Courthouse Annex; Florida, Miami, U.S. Courthouse; Massachusetts, Springfield, U.S. Courthouse; New York, Buffalo, U.S. Courthouse. Mr. President, the criteria I use when reviewing our annual appropriations bills are not intended to reflect a judgment on the merits of an item. They are designed to identify projects that have not been properly reviewed. Unfortunately, on occasion, items are inadvertently included that should not be.