John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I have been urging it, I respond to my colleague. Since the day after we passed it, I have been begging the leadership every day to bring up this bill for consideration. This has been blocked.

Mr. McCAIN. I appreciate the question of the Senator from Wyoming because we have been trying to do everything we can to bring this bill up. That is why--because I have been stymied in these efforts--I had to come to the floor this morning to try to force some action on it since there was no response from our leadership, on this side, because of holds on the bill and objections to it. I again ask unanimous consent that the majority leader, in consultation with the Democratic leader, establish a specific time and date for consideration of S. 3059, and that only relevant amendments to the bill be in order.

Mr. McCAIN. Could I respond quickly to the Senator from Alaska? This is not a House bill; this is a Senate bill I am asking to have considered on the floor of the Senate as we regularly do with legislation in the Senate.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I come back to try to resolve this issue. Before I ask for another unanimous consent agreement with some different language, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the Secretary of Transportation.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it now be in order for the Senate to immediately turn to the consideration of S. 3059, and that only relevant amendments to the bill be in order.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I await the return of the Senator from Alaska, who I believe would like to object to a unanimous consent agreement I may seek. If the Senator from Connecticut is waiting, perhaps we can extend morning business for a few minutes.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, I will want to have 10 minutes following Senator Domenici for the purpose of propounding another unanimous consent request.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, once again, we are witness to the belated if inevitable fall of a tyrannical regime that failed to convince the population under its control that its worst enemy lay outside that nation's borders. As I speak, the Serbian people are storming Yugoslavia's Parliament building and seizing television stations. In the town of Kolubara, coal miners and tens of thousands of supporters have openly and peacefully defied the Milosevic regime's efforts at stemming the tide of history. A regime that stands accused of crimes against humanity is on its deathbed, and the United States must not hesitate to declare its unequivocal support for those brave enough to defy that regime. The people of Yugoslavia have spoken very clearly. They turned out to elect a new President, and Slobodan Milosevic's efforts to manipulate the democratic process has not succeeded. The formidable internal security apparatus that Milosevic and his supporters in the Socialist Party, as well as the Yugoslav United Left, the Communist organization led by his wife Mirjana Markovic, have established cannot save him. The new defense doctrine President Milosevic approved just 2 months ago listed as its highest priority preservation of the regime that today finds itself under the gravest threat to its survival. While the United States must exercise care in how its role in developments in Serbia are perceived, it must not fail to lend its moral support to those fighting for democracy. Since 1992, the Balkans have been the scene of the bloodiest fighting in Europe since World War II. The wars that have ravaged Bosnia- Herzegovina and Kosovo produced a list of war criminals that will take years to try, in the event they are brought to justice. A tremendous amount of the blame for that situation resides in one man--Slobodan Milosevic. He was instrumental in creating the environment in which those atrocities occurred and presided over military campaigns that gave the world a new and onerous phrase: ethnic cleansing. There are those who believe the United States did not have a role to play in supporting democratization in Serbia. Those of us who supported S.720, the Serbia Democratization Act, however, have remained firm in our conviction that U.S. support for democracy in that troubled nation was something to be proud of and could play a positive role in facilitating positive change in Yugoslavia. That S.720 has remained stuck in the House is unfortunate, but the message that it sent merely by its introduction was powerful. We cannot selectively stand for freedom and should not be ashamed that it provides the moral foundation of our foreign policy. Ongoing events in Serbia illustrate vividly the intense desire for democracy in Serbia and the United States should not hesitate to state its strong support for the election of Vojislav Kostunica and for the forces of change in Yugoslavia. The Balkan powderkeg is facing its most promising period of change since the end of the Cold War. We should not be idle witnesses to that change. I urge the House to speak forcefully on this issue by passing the Serbia Democratization Act at once. The symbolism of U.S. support for democratic change will not play into the hands of a discredited regime in its death throes. On the contrary, it will tell the people of Yugoslavia that we stand with them on the verge of a new era. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the bill. I ask unanimous consent that a list of the unauthorized and unrequested earmarks, earmarks added in conference, be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to discuss a subject of great importance to our nation and its economy, that is rail transportation. Earlier today, a few of my colleagues expressed views alleging a failure by this Congress for not passing legislation to regulatorily address rail service and shipper problems. As Chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, I want to set the record straight concerning the work of the Committee to address service and shipper problems. Since becoming Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, the Committee has held no less than six hearings during which rail service and shipper issues were addressed. Three were field hearings, one each in Montana, North Dakota, and Kansas. Three hearings were conducted here in the Senate at which the topic of rail service dominated the testimony and members' questioning. I also have publicly stated a willingness for the Committee to hold even more hearings. Further, Senator Hutchison, the Chairman of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee, and I requested the Surface Transportation Board (STB) to conduct a comprehensive analysis of rail service and competitive issues. The STB is the federal agency which oversees rail service and other matters. The Board's findings are extremely important and they were widely discussed during our Committee hearings last year. In addition, earlier this year the Board announced it would conduct a proceeding to change its merger guidelines in recognition of the drastically changed rail industry dynamic that has transformed since the rail deregulation movement of the late 1970's and the 1980's. The Board announced its new guidelines proposal earlier this week and will be taking comments on the proposal through November 17. Three very diverse bills concerning the STB's authorities have been introduced in the Senate and another bill was submitted in the House. However, to date no consensus on a legislative approach has been achieved. I have had the privilege to serve in Congress nearly twenty years and during that time I have learned that significant legislation is always the product of careful analysis and bipartisan compromise. Pending rail legislation and the STB's future will be no exception. My colleagues from North Dakota and West Virginia referred to a letter with 277 signatures seeking rail regulatory changes. I am in receipt of that letter. But I am also in receipt of literally hundreds of letters--letters from Governors, rail shippers, and others--strongly opposing any rail reregulatory efforts. To allege the Senate Commerce Committee doesn't take the issue of rail service seriously is a gross misstatement. The fact is, and I will repeat it, there is no consensus. A bill supported by only five members is not a solution, but it does allow those sponsors to sound high and mighty about their good intentions. In order to pass a bill and send it to the President, we clearly have a long way to go. But I remain optimistic, and as a deregulator, stand ready to support any proposal that fairly and safely balances the needs of shippers and carriers.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, first, I congratulate Mr. Fitzgerald, the Senator from Illinois, for his valiant effort to prevent a contract to be let without any competition. I do not understand why contracts that entail expenditure of taxpayers' funds should not be let in a competitive fashion so that the taxpayers can receive the maximum value for their investments in their Government. I congratulate Senator Fitzgerald for his valiant effort. This year's final agreement provides a much-needed infusion of funding for conservation, wildlife management, and Native American programs. However, once again, I express my objections to the amount of excessive pork barrel spending and extraneous legislative riders included in this final agreement. The agreement exceeds its overall budget by $2.5 billion, increasing spending by 25 percent, with funding levels that are close to $4 billion higher than the House bill and $3 billion more than the Senate bill. We are entering a remarkable phase of American political history. The spigot is on, and it is on in a fashion I have not seen in the years I have spent in the Congress. The new conference agreement has taken pork barrel spending to higher proportions by adding more than $120 million more in earmarks that either were not included in the Senate or House bill or added funding for unrequested or unauthorized projects. In addition to higher amounts of pork barrel spending, appropriators conveniently designated billions more in emergency spending, including nearly $30 million in ``emergency funds'' for locale-specific earmarks. As I said, I have a list that was printed in the Record. Several of our favorites: $1.25 million for weed programs at Montana State University and Idaho--weed programs that are specific to two universities; $5.25 million for a new dormitory at the National Constitution Training Center; $20,000 for office renovations at the White Sulfur Springs National Fish Hatchery. Guess where. West Virginia. We have several fish hatcheries in my State of Arizona. I wonder if maybe we could get a little refurbishment for our offices, as well as those in West Virginia. There is $487,000 for a carriage barn in Longfellow National Historic Site in Massachusetts--a carriage barn. Here is one of my favorites. I think we should all be impressed by the pressing need for this: $176,000 for the Reindeer Herders Association. For the Reindeer Herders Association, $176,000 is earmarked. That also happens to be out of the Bureau of Indian Affairs funding. Never mind that we have dilapidated housing, terrible schools, nutrition programs that need to be funded in the Bureau of Indian Affairs, my friends, but we put in $176,000 for that vitally needed Reindeer Herders Association. I am sure Santa Claus is very pleased that these funds will be going to the Reindeer Herders Association. You will find something very interesting, Mr. President, as I go through the list of earmarks and as people read the Record. You will see the names Alaska, West Virginia, Washington State, and Hawaii appear with amazing frequency, which I am sure is pure coincidence. So we have $1 million for a distance learning telemedicine, fiber- optic pilot program in Montana. Here is an important one. Here is a vital item that had to be earmarked: $1.5 million to refurbish the Vulcan Statue in Alabama. I am not familiar with the Vulcan Statue, but I am sure it needed to be refurbished over any other statue in America that may need to be refurbished. Here is one that should interest taxpayers and entertain all of us: $400,000 for the Southside Sportsman Club in New York. Take heart, all Southside sportsmen, help is on the way: $400,000 for your operations. There is $5 million for the Southeast--guess where--Alaska Economic Disaster Fund, which was not included in either the Senate or House proposals, ordered to be used for Craig, AK, to assist with economic development. Times are tough in Craig, my friends. They need $5 million in Craig. I urge those who are interested to find out what the population of Craig, AK, might be. I think that might turn out to be a fair amount of money per capita. There is $500,000 for administrative duties at the Kensington Mine in southeast Alaska--ta-da, Mr. President--for administrative duties at the Kensington Mine in southeast Alaska. We have lots of mines in my State. I hope they will consider helping them with their administrative duties in their mines, as well. Mr. President, the list goes on and on and on. So $2 million for the purchase of Cat Island in Mississippi; $5 million for a land transfer in Kake, AK; $4.6 million for the Wheeling National Heritage Area in West Virginia, which has received earmarks in previous Interior appropriations without any authorization. I should point out that new legislative language was tacked on to this report to finally authorize this project, although it certainly never went through the normal process of approval. I hope the taxpayers will be able to see how we are spending their dollars. It is remarkable. I believe in the debate one of the candidates was saying: You ain't seen nothing yet. Mr. President, you ain't seen nothing yet. Wait until we get to the omnibus bill which very few of us will have ever seen or read when we vote yes or no on it. We will have a remarkable document, one I think historians in the centuries ahead will view with interest and puzzlement. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time. atlantic salmon conservation and restoration

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for S. 2045, the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act. Although it deals ostensibly with the visa cap on foreign-born high-tech workers, its effect would be far more profound--to enhance the dynamism of the American economy at a time when U.S. companies, if given access to the necessary resources, are poised to dominate the Information Age for decades to come. As the representatives of the American people, we in Congress should do all we can to contribute to their potential for success in the global economy. I am convinced that the best thing government can often do to advance the fortunes of the private sector is to stay out of its way. I support this bill because it makes progress toward that end, by improving companies' flexibility to hire the talent they need, while providing for the regulatory framework and new educational opportunities to protect and promote American workers. By raising the arbitrary cap on temporary immigrant visas for skilled foreign workers--a cap set in 1990 and insufficiently increased in 1998--this legislation gets government out of the way of American companies, universities, and research labs which simply cannot hire the skilled professionals they need in the domestic labor market because of an arbitrary, anachronistic cap on H-1B visas that does not reflect the forces of supply and demand in the American economy today. T.J. Rodgers, president and CEO of Cypress Semiconductor Corporation, captures best the logic of the H-1B program when he says, ``It takes two percent of Americans to feed us all, and five percent to make everything we need. Everything else will be service and information technology, and in that world humans and brains will be the key variable. Any country that would limit its brain power to a single select group from that country alone is going to self-destruct.'' The American Competitiveness Act of 1998, which I co-sponsored, raised the annual cap on H-1B visas for skilled professionals from 65,000 in Fiscal Year 1998 to 115,000 in both FY 1999 and FY 2000, and to 107,500 in FY 2001. Nonetheless, even the higher number of H-1B admissions authorized by Congress for FY 1999 was reached only eight months into that fiscal year, and the FY 2000 cap was reached in March 2000, or only six months into the current fiscal year. S. 2045 authorizes an increase in the annual H-1B cap to 195,000 through FY 2002. All evidence indicates an increase is warranted. However, there is little evidence supporting the specific figure of 195,000. In fact, industry estimates of the number of unfilled high- tech jobs range from 300,000-800,000. The original H-1B visa ceiling of 65,000, enacted in 1990, did not adequately foresee American companies' need for high-tech foreign workers. As this year's Judiciary Committee report accompanying S. 2045 states, by 1998 ``access [to skilled foreign personnel] was being curbed by a cap on H-1B visas put in place almost a decade earlier, in 1990, when no one understood the scope of the information revolution that was about to hit.'' Yet, our important 1998 legislation raising the H-1B caps similarly missed the mark by understating domestic demand for highly trained professionals. As the 2000 Committee report states, ``In fact, in 1998, the error Congress made was in underestimating the workforce needs of the United States in the year 2000. . . . As a result, the 1998 bill has proven to be insufficient to meet the current demand for skilled professionals.'' While I strongly support passage of this legislation to increase H-1B visa admissions, I also wonder: given Congress' shortsightedness each time we have attempted to forecast the private sector's demand for highly skilled workers, how are we to know this time that we have struck the right balance? To resolve this dilemma, I introduced legislation on October 27, 1999, that would lift the H-1B ceiling while focusing more heavily on the underlying problem resulting in a shortage of skilled American workers. My bill, S. 1804, the 21st Century Technology Resources and Commercial Leadership Act, addresses the need to improve Americans' skills in math, science, engineering, and technology in order to maintain our world leadership in high-tech fields. Several other bills before Congress would raise the H-1B visa cap, but focus less on the long-term goal of educating and training Americans to fill available high-tech jobs. S. 1804 would encourage innovation in improving elementary and secondary education in math, science, and engineering, as well as provide powerful incentives to retrain American workers who lack the skills to compete in the high-tech economy. In the interim, to provide for the requisite number of highly skilled professionals until we have educated and trained a sufficient number of Americans to fill these jobs, the bill would lift the cap on H-1B visas through 2006. All current information indicates that the supply of American professionals in the math, science, engineering, and technology fields will not meet the demand of American industries through at least that date. Specifically, S. 1804 provides for grants to be awarded under the supervision of the Secretary of Commerce in consultation with the Office of Technology Policy and the National Science Foundation, on a competitive basis, for implementing programs that will improve the math, science, engineering, and technology skills of American students and professionals. The types of programs to be awarded grants are not specified so that Congress does not unintentionally foreclose new and more innovative ideas from surfacing. The grants would be funded from current H-1B visa application fees and could be awarded to companies, organizations, schools, school districts, teachers, and institutions of higher learning. My legislation would use H-1B visa fees to encourage innovation in our schools, to teach American students the skills they will need to succeed in the 21st century economy, and in our companies, to train and retain American workers in the high-tech skills American businesses rely upon. The legislation would support corporate partnerships with schools or school districts to improve math and science curricula; scholarships for students willing to study advanced engineering or technology fields, and for those who agree to teach math or science for a period of time after graduating college; and innovative worker training and retraining programs within American companies. It leaves open grant support for any proposal that promises to improve the American talent pool in high-tech fields. Although I regret that the Congress chose not to take this approach in favor of that proposed by S. 2045, I commend the sponsor of the pending legislation for incorporating provisions involving public- private education partnerships in K-12 math, science, and technology through National Science foundation grants, as my legislation originally proposed. Inclusion of these provisions drawn from S. 1804 significantly strengthens the final bill we are voting on today. As originally introduced, S. 2045 did not contain these components, and I am pleased that the sponsors were able to incorporate them. Ultimately, the answer to the shortage of highly skilled workers must be found at home, in the form of a new generation of Americans educated in the skills demanded by our knowledge-based economy in this ear of globalization. In the meantime, raising the H-1B cap is the right thing to do. S. 2045, by increasing high-tech visa admissions while devoting new resources to the education and training of American students and workers, represents the way forward for the United States as we seek to sustain our leadership in the Information Age. I commend its swift passage to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for the Airport Security Improvement Act of 2000, S. 2440. This bill was introduced in April by Senator Hutchison and cosponsored by several other Senators, including myself. In June, the Commerce Committee favorably reported S. 2440, which was crafted to address several serious concerns associated with aviation security in this country. The bill was introduced in the wake of an Aviation Subcommittee hearing chaired by Senator Hutchison on the current state of aviation security. Prior to the hearing, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the General Accounting Office (GAO) conducted a closed briefing with respect to some of the more sensitive information in this area. Given concerns raised by the GAO and the Department of Transportation's Inspector General, a consensus developed that legislation was needed to address some of the more glaring deficiencies in the current system. As reported by the committee, S. 2440 would do the following: require criminal history records checks for all baggage and security checkpoint screeners; expand the list of criminal convictions that disqualify an individual from being employed as a security screener; increase the amount of classroom and on-the-job training required of airline security screeners; require the FAA to work with air carriers and airport operators to strengthen procedures to prevent unauthorized access to aircraft; hold security personnel individually responsible for security lapses through progressive disciplinary measures; require the FAA to improve security at its own air traffic control facilities; and increase random screening of checked bags for explosives. I believe these are all necessary steps for the improvement of aviation security. No system can ever be perfect, but we must continue to strive for an air transportation system that is as secure as reasonably possible. On the whole, security at U.S. airports appears to be good at this time. But, as I have said before, we cannot relax our efforts, especially given the significant growth in air travel. The threats to our nation remain real, and the airline industry unfortunately remains an attractive target. In closing, I commend Senator Hutchison for her hard work on this bill. She has done a fine job of taking the lead on this legislation.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the full Senate will now consider S. 2412, the National Transportation Safety Board Amendments Act of 2000. The National Transportation Safety Board, NTSB, is one of our nation's most critical governmental agencies, charged with determining the probable cause of transportation accidents and promoting transportation safety. Among its many duties, the Board investigates accidents, conducts safety studies, and evaluates the effectiveness of other government agencies' programs for preventing transportation accidents. Since its inception in 1967, the NTSB has investigated more than 110,000 aviation accidents, at least 10,000 other accidents in the surface modes and issued more than 11,000 safety recommendations. The Safety Board is currently experiencing a high level of major accident investigations, many of which are extremely complex. We must act to ensure the Board has the necessary personnel and resources to complete these challenging investigations and carry out its statutory mission. Given the very limited time remaining during this Congress, the Commerce Committee has worked with the House Transportation and Infrastructure, T&I, Committee in an effort to develop legislation that both Chambers could accept without modification. Both of our Committees want to ensure the NTSB's authorizing legislation can be enacted as soon as possible. I want to commend Senator Hollings, the Ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee and House T&I Chairman, Bud Shuster, and Ranking Member, Jim Oberstar for their assistance in developing the package I bring before the Senate today. The accompanying Manager's Amendment is the product of our joint discussions and resolves the differences in the House-passed and Commerce Committee-passed versions of the NTSB authorizing legislation. S. 2412 authorizes funding for the Board through fiscal year 2003. The bill also includes a number of provisions requested in the Board's reauthorization submission. These statutory changes include: (1) clarification of NTSB's jurisdiction over accidents on the territorial seas to the twelve-mile limit and its investigative authority over accidents that may have been the subject of intentional acts of destruction; (2) permission to prescribe overtime pay rates for accident investigators; (3) authority to negotiate technical service agreements with foreign safety agencies or foreign governments; (4) authority to collect reasonable fees for the reproduction and distribution of Board products; and (5) permission to withhold voice and video recorder information from public disclosure. In addition to the provisions requested by the Board, the legislation also includes a number of other provisions intended to improve fiscal accountability at the NTSB. For example, the legislation would statutorily establish a position of Chief Financial Officer, CFO, at the Board. The CFO would report directly to the Chairman of the Board on financial management matters and provide guidance on the implementation of asset management systems. It also directs the Board to develop and implement comprehensive internal audit controls for its financial programs to address shortcomings identified recently by the Department of Transportation Inspector General. Further, the legislation includes a provision intended to curb what I and others view as excessive member travel expenditures. According to NTSB travel documents, only 15 percent of Board Member travel has been accident-related in the past five years. Non-accident domestic and foreign travel accounts for 85 percent of the total travel expenditures--with 51 percent for domestic travel and 34 percent for foreign travel. While I recognize a legitimate need may exist to participate in important seminars and to gain greater professional expertise that may necessitate travel, this is simply excessive. Therefore, the bill directs the Chairman of the NTSB to establish annual travel budgets, to be approved by the Board, to govern Board Member non-accident travel. Finally, the bill authorizes the Department of Transportation Inspector General to review the business, financial, and property management of the NTSB. Currently, the Board has no standing Inspector General oversight. The bill ensures that necessary fiscal accountability oversight is provided, while prohibiting the Inspector General from becoming involved in NTSB investigations and investigation procedures. The NTSB's authorization expired September 30, 1999. The NTSB faces budget difficulties as it seeks to cover the costs of major accident investigations. Therefore, I hope we can move this legislation expeditiously from the Floor and on to the House for its swift action, and then to the President's desk for signature. Amendment No. 4288

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this year's energy and water appropriations bill is very critical, particularly at a time when our Nation is facing rising gas and energy prices, national security disasters at federal facilities, and massive backlogs to complete multimillion projects for water infrastructure. That is why I am utterly disappointed that the final agreement for this bill blatantly disregards these national priorities in favor of special interests giveaways. Mr. President, approving the annual budget is among our most serious responsibilities. We are the trustees of billions of taxpayer dollars, and we should evaluate every spending decision with great deliberation and without prejudice. Unfortunately, each year, I am constantly amazed how the appropriators find new ways to violate budget policy. Appropriators have employed every sidestepping method in the book to circumvent Senate rules and common budget principles that are supposed to strictly guide the appropriations process. The excessive fodder and trickery have never been greater, resulting in the shameless waste of millions of taxpayer dollars. This final report is no exception. This year's final agreement for the energy and water appropriations bill is only a minor reflection of the previous Senate-passed bill. A grand total of $1.2 billion is added in pork-barrel spending, a figure that is three times the amount from the Senate-passed bill and about $400 million more than the amount of last year's total. I have twenty-one pages of pork-barrel spending found in this report. An additional $214 million is provided for designated ``emergency'' spending. The latest epidemic here as we approach the appropriations issue, in order to avoid any budget restraints that may be remaining--and there are few--is the designation of ``emergency spending.'' Explicit directives are included for favorable consideration of special interest projects; and more than 30 policy riders are added in to conveniently sidestep a fair and deliberative legislative review. I rise today to tell my colleagues that I object. I object to the $1.2 billion in directed earmarks for special interest projects in this bill. I object to sidestepping the legislative process by attaching erroneous riders to an appropriations bill. I object to speeding through appropriations bills without adequate review by all Members. I object to the callous fashion which we disregard our national interests in favor of pet projects. Some of my colleagues have said that the pork doesn't really matter much in these spending bills because it's not a lot of money. But, Mr. President, adding billions more in pork barrel spending is a lot of money to me and to the millions of American taxpayers who are footing the bill for this spending free-for-all. While America's attention has been focused on the Olympic games in Sydney, Australia, our constituents back home may be interested to know that a gold medal performance is taking place in their own government. If gold medals were awarded for pork-barrel spending, then the budget negotiators would all be gleaming in gold from their award-winning spending spree. However, I doubt many Americans would be appreciative if they knew that this spending spree will be at their expense with money that should be set aside to provide tax relief to American families, shore up Social Security and Medicare, or pay down the federal debt. The figures speak for themselves. Again, this year's grand pork total is close to $400 million more than the amount from last year's bill and more than three times the amount included in the recent Senate passed bill. Unless I am grievously mistaken, I was under the distinct and very clear understanding that the purpose of Senate-House appropriations conferences are to resolve differences only between the two versions and make tough decisions to determine what stays in the final agreement. As a rule, no new spending could be added. The rules are flung out the window once again. The overall total budget for this year's conference agreement has been fattened up by as much as $2 billion more than the House bill, and about a billion more than both the amount included in the Senate-passed bill and the amount requested by the administration. Let me give this to you straight. You have a certain amount passed by the Senate and a certain amount by the House. They are supposed to go to conference and reconcile their differences. Instead of that, we add billions of dollars in conference, and neither Senate nor House Members, nor members of the Appropriations Committee have a voice or a vote. That is disgraceful--disgraceful. Each year, appropriators employ new spending tricks to avoid sticking to allocations in the budget resolution. It has become quite clear that these closed-door conferences, which no other Member can participate in or have any voting privileges, is simply another opportunity for members to take another trip to the trough to add in millions previously unconsidered for individual member projects. What was described earlier in the Senate this year as a ``modest'' bill has now become a largesse take-home prize for many Members. Numerous earmarks are provided for such projects that, while on its own merit may not be objectionable, were not included in the budget request or tacked on without any review by either the Senate or the House. For example, within this final agreement, nearly 250 earmarks are added for individual Army Corps projects which are clearly not included in the budget request, and, more than 150 Army Corps projects were given additional amounts about the budget request. The inconsistency between the administration's request, which is responsible for carrying out these projects, and the views of the appropriators on just how much funding should be dedicated to a project, is troubling. As a result, various other projects that may be equally deserving or higher in priority do not receive an appropriate amount of funding, or none at all. This year's budget for Army Corps has been inflated to $4.5 billion in funding for local projects. Yet, we have no way of knowing whether, at best, all or part of this $4.5 billion should have been spent on different projects with greater national need or, at worst, should not have been spent at all. There's no doubt we should end the practice of earmarking projects for funding based on political clout and focus our resources in a more practical way, instead, on those areas with the greatest need nation-wide. Other earmarks are rampant in this bill that appear that are clearly demonstrative of wasteful spending at the expense of taxpayers: An earmark of $20 million was added in during conference, without previous consideration by either the House or Senate, for an unauthorized project in California, the CALFED Bay-Delta restoration project. Certainly, I have no objections to restoring the ecological health of the Bay Delta area, however, any amount of funding for unauthorized projects flies in the face of comments by the managers who pledged not to fund unauthorized projects. Also, $400,000 is earmarked for aquatic weed control in Lake Champlain, Vermont. This particular earmark has resurfaced in appropriations bills for at least the past three years and it appears a bit preposterous that we continually fund a project such as this on an annual basis which has nebulous impacts on our nation's energy and security needs. An earmark of $800,000 is provided to continue work on ``a detailed project report'' for a project in Buchanan County, Virginia. Government spending is truly getting out of control if nearly a million dollars is necessary simply to compile a report. Another earmark of $250,000 is included for a `study' of drainage problems in the Winchester, Kentucky area. Granted, I do not object to trying to fix any water problems facing any local community, but is a quarter of a million really necessary to only study the problem and not fix it? More padded spending includes $150,000 to determine what the ``federal interest'' is for a project in southeastern Pennsylvania. Why is $150,000 necessary to determine if the federal government should care about a specific project? Dozens of earmarks like this one, in the hundreds of thousands each, are riddled throughout this conference report without any explanation as to why such high amounts of funding are justifiable. Among the worst pork in this bill are earmarks that will benefit the ethanol industry, a fiscal boondoggle industry that already reaps substantial benefits from existing federal subsidies at the expense of taxpayers. It is a blatant insult to taxpayers to ask them to supplement the ethanol industry even more by spending $600,000 for ethanol production at the University of Louisville, and $2,000,000 for the design and construction of a demonstration facility for regional biomass ethanol manufacturing in southeast Alaska. My colleagues will note that each of these earmarks have a specific geographic location or institution associated with them. Is there another organization besides the one proposed in southeast Alaska that could design and construct a demonstration facility for regional biomass ethanol manufacturing? A similar earmark of $2 million is included for this specific Alaskan ethanol manufacturing facility in the Interior appropriations bill this year. So they have $4 million for one specific spot without any authorization and without any discussion. There is $4.5 million for the removal of aquatic growth in Florida, which is about $1.2 million higher than the budget request; An additional $250,000 for the Texas Investigations Program, for which no explanation is provided as to what constitutes an ``investigations'' program; $2,000,000 for the multi-year demonstration of an underground mining locomotive and an earth loader powered by hydrogen in Nevada; And, $3,000,000 to establish a program the University of Nevada-Las Vegas for Department-wide management of electronic records. Get this, all of my colleageus who have a college or university in their State: $3 million at the University of Nevada Las Vegas for department-wide management of electronic records; $2,000,000 for the Discovery Science Center in Orange County, California; $2,000,000 for the Livingston Digital Millennium Center at Tulane University; and $2,000,000 for modernization upgrades at the University of South Carolina. How are any of these earmarks directly related to the national security and energy interests of our nation? Also, the tactic of using the ``emergency funding'' stigma returns strongly in this bill. I am very disappointed to see that the Appalachian Regional Commission will not only be funded again this year, but it is also the recipient of an ``emergency appropriation'' of $11 million. My dear friends, the Appalachian Commission was established as a temporary commission in 1965. Somehow this year it needs to be the recipient of $11 million for ``emergency appropriations.'' My curiosity is aroused as to what the emergency is at the Appalachian Regional Commission. This commission was established as a temporary commission in 1965, but has managed to hook itself into the annual appropriations spending spree to extend its so-called temporary life to 35 years. This program singles out one region for special economic development grants when the rest of the nation has to rely on their share of community development block grant and loans. Certainly, the Appalachian region does not have a monopoly on poor, depressed communities in need of assistance. I know that in my own state, despite the high standard of living enjoyed in many areas, some communities are extremely poor and have long been without running water or sanitation. It would be more cost-beneficial to provide direct assistance to impacted communities, again based on national priority, rather than spending millions each year for a commission which may have outlived its purpose. Again, I remind my colleagues that I do not object to these projects based on their merit nor do I intend to belittle the importance of specific projects to local communities. However, it is no surprise that many of these earmarks are included for political glamour rather than practical purposes. Members can go back to their districts to rally in public parades, trying to win favor by bringing home the bacon. The House of Representatives passed this conference report last Friday by a majority margin, despite the fact that most of the voting Members did not have adequate time, if any at all, to review the contents of this report. This is another appalling demonstration to the American public of the egregious violation of one of our most sacred duties--ensuring the proper use of taxpayer dollars. How can we make sound policy and budget decisions with this type of budget steam- rolling? I know I speak for many hardworking Americans when I express my hope for reform in the way the Congress conducts the business of the people so that we might reclaim the faith and confidence of those we are sworn to serve. Yet, we are mired in another yearly ritual of budget chaos. Sadly, the only message that we send to the American public is that our budgetary process is at an all-time low. Unfortunately, this may be only a foreboding of what is to come at this end of year final budget negotiations. The end-of-year rush to complete the fiscal year 2001 budget is outpaced only by the rush to drain the taxpayers' pockets and deplete the budget surplus. At the end of the day, special interests win and the taxpayers lose. It's a broken record that the American people are tired of listening to. I will vote against this bill and any other appropriations bill that so flagrantly disregards our fiscal responsibility and violates the trust of the American people. Today's Wall Street Journal article by David Rogers is a very enlightening one, in case some of my colleagues and friends have not read it. In the scramble to wrap up budget negotiations, Congress could overshoot the Republicans' spending target for this fiscal year by $35 billion to $45 billion. The willingness to spend reflects a new synergy between President Clinton, eager to cement his legacy, and the GOP leadership, increasingly worried about losing seats in November and more disposed to use government dollars to shore up candidates. While the largest increases are in areas popular with voters--education, medical and science research, land conservation, veterans' care and the military--the bargaining invites pork-barrel politics on a grand scale, with top Republicans leading the way. Just this weekend, for example, a bidding war escalated over highway and transit projects that are part of the transportation budget to be negotiated this week. House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois opened the door by asking to add legislative language to expedite the distribution of about $850 million for Chicago-area transit projects. While the Hastert amendment wouldn't add directly to next year's costs, it became an excuse for others to pile on. The Virginia delegation jumped in early, winning the promise of $600 million to help pay for a bridge over the Potomac River. By late Friday night, dozens of projects for both political parties were being added. House Transportation Committee Chairman Bud Shuster laid claim to millions for his home state of Pennsylvania. Mississippi, home of Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, is in the running for funds in the range of $100 million. In all, the price tag for the extras tops $1.6 billion. The whole enterprise, which could yet collapse under its own weight, dramatizes a breakdown in discipline in these last weeks before the November elections. In the spring, the GOP set a spending cap of $600 billion for the fiscal year that began yesterday--a number that was never considered realistic politically. After devoting long summer nights to debating cuts from Mr. Clinton's $626 billion budget, Republicans will end up appropriating significantly more than that. If total appropriations rise to between $635 billion and $645 billion or even higher, as the numbers indicate, the ripple effect will pare surplus estimates by hundreds of billions of dollars over the next 10 years. I cannot overemphasize the importance of this. We have the rosy scenario of a multitrillion dollar surplus in the years ahead, and if we keep spending this kind of money, everybody knows that the surplus will disappear. There is an open and honest debate as to whether we should have tax cuts or whether we should save Social Security, Medicare, or pay down the debt. We are not going to be able to do any of it if we are spending this kind of money. I was told by a Member not long ago that if we agree to what is presently the overspending in this budget, it could mean as much as $430 billion out of the surplus in the next few years. Both an $18.9 billion natural-resources bill and a $23.6 billion measure that funds energy and water programs are expected to be sent to the White House, and the transportation bill soon could follow. The Republican leadership believes it has reached a compromise to free up the measure funding the Treasury and the operations of the White House and Capitol. That still leaves the heart of the domestic budget--massive bills funding education, health, housing and environmental programs. Negotiations on those bills are hovering near or even above the president's spending requests. The natural-resources bill agreed to last week illustrates the steady cost escalation: The $18.9 billion price tag is about $4 billion over the bill passed by the House in June. In a landmark commitment to conservation, the legislation would devote as much as $12 billion during the next six years, mainly to buy lands and wildlife habitat threatened by development. As the annual commitment grows from $1.6 billion to $2.4 billion in 2006, more and more dollars would go for sorely needed maintenance work in the nation's parks. Regarding the national parks, that is something with which I don't disagree. I have suggested from time to time when my colleagues say there is nothing we can do because the President has the leverage over us in order to shut down the Government for which we would get the blame, if just once, with one appropriations bill, just one, we could send to the President a bill that doesn't have a single earmark, have a single legislative rider on it, then we would go into negotiations of the issue with the President with clean hands. When we add billions in pork barrel spending on our appropriations bills and then go into negotiations with the President, there is no difference except in priorities. It is wrong. I have been spending a lot of time campaigning around the country for candidates for the House and for the Senate, and for our candidate for President, my party's candidate for President and Vice President of the United States. I can tell my colleagues, clearly the American people have it figured out. They don't like it. They want this practice to stop. They want us to fulfill a promise we made in 1994 when we asked them and they gave us the majorities in both Houses of Congress. Mr. President, this appropriations pork barreling has got to stop. I intend to come to the floor with every bill, and if it keeps on, I will then take additional measures. We all know what is coming up: The train wreck. If it is as much as $45 billion more then our original $600 billion spending cap, I am not sure how such action is justified. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, first I want to discuss an issue that is of sometimes importance, the Motor Vehicle and Motor Vehicle Equipment Defect Notification Improvement Act. Last week, the Commerce Committee reported S. 3059, the Motor Vehicle and Motor Vehicle Equipment Defect Notification Improvement Act. The bill is in response to the systemic failure of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the motor vehicle industry to share information that could have prevented the fatalities that resulted in the recent recall of millions of Bridgestone/Firestone tires. The key provisions of the bill would insure that NHTSA has the information that it needs from manufacturers to make sound decisions, including information about recalls in foreign countries. This legislation would increase penalties to deter manufacturers from withholding valuable information about recalls and establish appropriate penalties for the most egregious actions that place consumers in danger. It would also require NHTSA to upgrade the Federal motor vehicle safety standard for tires, which has not been updated since its adoption more than 30 years ago. It is my understanding that a few Members have placed holds on this bill for various reasons--I think there are two--including opposition to the inclusion of criminal penalties for violating motor vehicle safety standards. Clearly, each member is entitled to place a hold on measures to which they object, but I hope that members can understand the importance of acting on the key provisions of this bill before Congress adjourns. The criminal penalties provision in this bill have been the subject of much discussion. The provision is intended to allow for the assessment of criminal penalties in instances where a manufacturer's conduct is so egregious as to render civil penalties meaningless. An article in this week's Business Week, addresses the application of criminal penalties to such conduct. It reports that ``prosecutors have been waking up to the fact that criminal sanctions may be a more effective deterrent and punishment than the worst civil penalties.'' Furthermore, a criminal penalties provision is not a novel inclusion. Multiple agencies are authorized to assess criminal penalties, including, among others, the Department of Labor, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Already, NHTSA has linked more than 100 deaths to these tire failures. Last week, NHTSA announced that other models of Bridgestone/ Firestone tires may be defective as well. We must act quickly to correct the problems that could lead to further loss of life. As I have repeated throughout the process, I am willing to work with my colleagues to address their concerns so that this vital legislation may be passed prior to the adjournment of this Congress. In summary, more than 100 people have died. It is clear that we need this legislation. It is supported by the administration and by every consumer group in America. It passed through the Commerce Committee unanimously. I intend to come to the floor and ask that we consider this piece of legislation. I expect those who are putting a hold on this bill to come forward and give their reasons for putting a hold on this very important safety bill. We are talking about the lives of our citizens. This is a serious issue. That is why I intend to come to the floor again and ask that we move the bill. I hope those Senators who object will come forward and state their objections or remove their so- called holds on the bill.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Commerce Committee recently approved S. Res. 344, which expresses the Sense of the Senate that a merger of United Airlines and US Airways would hurt consumers' interests. A.G. Newmyer, managing director of U.S. Fiduciary Advisors, similarly addressed the public interest perspective in a guest editorial printed in The Washington Post. I ask unanimous consent that the piece be reprinted in the Record in its entirety.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, last Thursday, the Senate passed S. 2487, the Maritime Administration Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001. Passage of this measure will help to ensure our nation's maritime industry has the support and guidance it needs to continue to compete in the world market. The bill authorizes appropriations for the Maritime Administration [MarAd] for fiscal year 2001. It covers operations and training and the loan guarantee program authorized by title XI of the Merchant Marine Act 1936. The House Committee on Armed Services, which has jurisdiction of maritime matters in that body, has chosen to include provisions relating to these authorizations in the House-passed version of H.R. 4205, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001. Further, the House conferees on that measure have refused to fully accept S. 2487 as the Senate position as part of the on-going House- Senate conference deliberations in part, due to the Senate's slow action on the measure. I hope by passing S. 2487 we will change that course. In addition to the authorizations for operations and training and the loan guarantee program, S. 2487 amends Title IX of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 to provide a wavier to eliminate the three year period that bulk and breakbulk vessels newly registered under the U.S. flag must wait in order to carry government-impelled cargo. The bill also provides a one year window of opportunity for vessels newly registered under the U.S.-flag to enter into the cargo preference trade without waiting the traditional three year period. The bill also would amend the National Maritime Heritage Act of 1994 and allow the Secretary to scrap obsolete vessels in both domestic and international market. It would further convey ownership of the National Defense Reserve Fleet Vessel, Glacier to the Glacier Society for use as museum and require the Maritime Administration to including the source and intended use of all funding in reports to Congress. Finally, it amends Public Law 101-115 to recognize National Maritime Enhancement Institutes as if they were University Transportation Centers for purposes of the award of research funds for maritime and intermodal research and requires the Secretary of Transportation to review the funding of maritime research in relation to other modes of transportation. I want to thank the cosponsors of this measure, Senator Hollings and Senator Inouye for the assistance in moving this measure forward. I hope my colleagues in the House will join us in supporting passage of this legislation so we can move it on to the President for his signature.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, during a statement I made on the Senate floor today regarding various pork-barrel spending in the final conference report for the FY 2001 energy and water appropriations, I incorrectly referred to a $20 million earmark for the CALFED Bay-Delta restoration project. I was informed by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that the conference agreement does not include any funding for this specific California project. I wanted to state for the Record that I will correct my statement that will be included on my Senate web page and remove this reference to the CALFED project.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today the Senate is considering S. 893, the Vessel Worker Tax Fairness Act. The bill will provide men and women working our nation's inland waterways the same treatment with respect to State and local income taxes as other men and women employed in interstate transportation of commerce receive. This measure was passed unanimously out of the Senate Commerce Committee on June 15 of this year. S. 893 declares individuals engaged on a vessel to perform assigned duties in more than one State to be exempt from income taxation laws of States or political subdivisions of which that individual is not a resident. While the Interstate Commerce Act exempts truck drivers, airline pilots, and railroad employees from being taxed by state and local jurisdictions in which they do not reside, it does not recognize merchant mariners who operate vessels in more than one state. It is time we correct this oversight and afford merchant mariners the same tax treatment similar transport operators are provided due to the interstate nature of their business. By passing this measure today, we will be providing much needed relief to merchant mariners. Under existing law, water transportation workers, including marine pilots, tow and tugboat workers and others who work aboard vessels are often subjected to filing and tax requirements by states other than their state of residence leading to possible double taxation. I do not believe that double taxation is what Congress intended for any transportation worker when it crafted the Interstate Commerce Act. By passing S. 893 today, we can make that intent reality. I thank Senator Gorton for his efforts in bringing this bill forward. I hope my colleagues will join us in supporting passage of this legislation so we can move it on to the President for his signature.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1534, the Coastal Zone Management Act of 2000. Originally passed in 1972, the Coastal Zone Management Act, CZMA, was intended to address increased population and development in coastal communities. The programs established under this law were designed to balance responsible development with the preservation of the coastal environment. With over half of the U.S. population living in coastal areas, such balance is more important than ever. This bill reauthorizes the law through fiscal year 2004 and improves the framework of the CZMA--voluntary federal-state matching grant programs. S. 1534 also enhances the ability of coastal zone managers to meet the ever increasing demands of tourism, commercial growth, pollution and environmental protection. In fact, one of the most serious problems facing our coastal environment is the damage caused by polluted runoff, or nonpoint source pollution. Polluted runoff has contributed to human health problems, permanent environmental damage, and beach closures. The legislation before us today will improve the ability of managers to address polluted runoff in a manner specifically tailored to each state's individual needs. The bill clarifies and confirms that matching federal grants may be used to address nonpoint source pollution under the CZMA. In addition, S. 1534 reauthorizes the coastal zone enhancement grant program and provides dedicated funding for the continued implementation of state coastal nonpoint source pollution plans. Previous provisions had limited the program to projects such as wetlands protection and restoration, protection from coastal hazards, and reduction of marine debris along the coast. I urge my colleagues to support S. 1534. It is a strong, pro- environment bill, which will provide a series of improvements to the Coastal Zone Management Act. Most importantly, the bill allows local and state environmental problems to be addressed on a community-by- community basis. This bipartisan bill enjoys the strong support of the Coastal States Organization, which represents the governors of more than 30 states, and a coalition of environmental organizations. I would like to thank Senator Snowe, the sponsor of the legislation, and Senators Kerry and Hollings for their bipartisan support of and hard work on this bill. I would also like to express my gratitude and that of the Commerce Committee to the staff who worked on this bill, including Sloan Rappoport, Stephanie Bailenson, Brooke Sikora, Rick Kenin and Margaret Spring. In particular I would like to thank Emily Lindow, a Sea Grant fellow, whose background and experience in coastal management issues helped produce a strong and reasonable CZMA bill. In addition, the Committee appreciates the efforts of Jena Carter, a former Sea Grant fellow, and Catherine Wannamaker, two former Committee staff who helped develop the legislation. Again I urge the Senate to pass S. 1534, the Coastal Zone Management Act of 2000.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I regret that the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act, which I enthusiastically support, has fallen victim to political currents in the Senate that do a disservice to the many Latino and other immigrants who rightly deserve the status this legislation would afford them. I strongly support the H-1B visa bill but, like my colleagues, recognize that attaching the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act to it would likely prevent the high-tech worker legislation's passage in the 106th Congress. Indeed, the House leadership has indicated that it will not bring the H-1B visa bill to the floor with the Fairness provisions attached--a position I strongly disagree with. Senators who support passage of both the H-1B bill and the Fairness Act thus find themselves in the position of being forced to vote against a procedural motion to allow consideration of the Fairness provisions to keep alive our hope of raising visa caps for the high- tech workers our companies so desperately need. I hope the Senate will have the opportunity to vote on passage of the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act before the 106th Congress adjourns. It is the right thing to do, and our leaders on both sides of the aisle should find a way to bring it to a vote. Throughout my political career, I have been deeply honored by the support of Latinos and other immigrants in my home state of Arizona. Our compassion and advocacy of family values for all members of our society, including hard-working, tax-paying Latinos who have resided in this nation for many years, require us to take a closer look at the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act than has been afforded us during the H-1B visa debate. I look forward to an up-or-down vote on this legislation and will support its passage.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, before she leaves the floor, I thank Senator Murray. Without her unrelenting efforts and that of her colleague, Senator Gorton, I know we would not have passed the legislation through the Senate, and I know it would not have been as comprehensive nor as carefully done. I thank the Senator from Washington for her outstanding work, including that on behalf of the families who suffered in this terrible tragedy in her home State. I come to the floor today to once again bring to the attention of my colleagues the urgency of passing and sending to the President pipeline safety improvement legislation. While the Senate acted two weeks ago and passed S. 2438, the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2000, the House has yet to take action on pipeline safety legislation. Despite the efforts of Mr. Franks, chairman of the House Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, Hazardous Materials and Pipeline Transportation, who has introduced pipeline safety legislation that is almost identical to S. 2438, the full House has not advanced a pipeline safety bill. Time is running out. I thank our colleague from Louisiana, Senator Breaux, for his active participation. His knowledge and expertise on this issue has been essential. Mr. President, each day that passes without enactment of comprehensive pipeline safety legislation like that approved unanimously by the Senate places public safety at risk. As my colleagues may recall, just prior to Senate passage of the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act, a 12-inch propane pipeline exploded in Abilene Texas, after being ruptured by a bulldozer. That accident resulted in the fatality of a police officer. Sadly, that accident brings the total lives that have been lost in recent accidents to 16. In Abilene, the victim was a 42-year-old police detective who just happened to pass by in his car as the propane exploded across State Highway 36. Just last month, 12 individuals lost their lives near Carlsbad, New Mexico, after the rupture of a natural gas transmission line. And we cannot forget about last year's tragic accident in Bellingham, Washington, that claimed the lives of three young men. I repeat what I said two weeks ago during the Senate's consideration of the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act: we simply must act now to remedy identified safety problems and improve pipeline safety. To do less is a risk to public safety and will perhaps result in even more needless deaths. It is my hope that I will not have to come to this floor again to implore our colleagues in the House to take action. It is not typical for me to urge the other body to take up a Senate bill without modification, but time is running out. I also point out the strong support of our legislation by the administration. I will quote from Secretary Slater's press release issued after Senate passage of S. 2438: I commend the U.S. Senate for taking swift and decisive action in passing the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2000. This legislation is critical to make much-needed improvements to the pipeline safety program. It provides for stronger enforcement, mandatory testing of all pipelines, community right-to-know information, and additional resources. I further want to point out my disappointment that some in the other body are willing to put safety at risk for what appears to be pure political gain. I am aware of a series of ``Dear Colleagues'' transmitted by some in the House harshly criticizing the Senate bill. This same bill, unanimously approved by the Senate, is strongly supported by Secretary Slater for being a strong bill to advance safety. Therefore, I find the criticism by a handful of House Members quite revealing when one of those harshest critics only last year voted in support of moving a clean 2-year reauthorization of the Pipeline Safety Act out of the House Commerce Committee and the other critic has not taken any action that I have seen to advance pipeline safety during this session. They just don't want a bill because they are betting on being in charge next year. That is the kind of leadership the American people would reject. I do not consider enacting S. 2438 to be the end of our work in this area. Indeed, I commit to our colleagues to continue our efforts to advance pipeline safety during the next Congress. I am willing for the committee to continue to hold hearings on pipeline safety and will work to advance additional proposals that my colleagues submit to promote it. But little more can be done in the time remaining in the session. I don't see how it could be possible to move any other pipeline safety bill prior to adjournment. Therefore, it is urgent for the House to act now. The time is long overdue for Congress and the President to take action to strengthen and improve pipeline safety. We simply cannot risk the loss of any more lives by lack of needed attention on our part. Therefore, I urge my colleagues in the House to join ranks and support passage of pipeline safety reform legislation immediately so we can send the bill on to the President for his signature. Lives are at risk if we don't act now. I thank my colleagues, and I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to recognize Kids Voting USA and its efforts to educate our children about civic democracy and the importance of being an informed voter. The program began in 1988 with three Arizona businessmen on a fishing trip to Costa Rica. They learned that voter turnout in that country was routinely about 80 percent. This high turnout was attributed to a tradition of children accompanying their parents to the polls. The men observed first-hand the success Costa Rica had achieved by instilling in children at an early age the importance of active participation and voting. The three Arizona businessmen took this idea back to the United States and founded Kids Voting USA. Today, this nonprofit, nonpartisan organization reaches 5 million students in 39 states, and includes 200,000 teachers, and 20,000 voter precincts. With voter turnout declining each year, Kids Voting USA recognizes the need to educate our youth and instill in them the responsibility to be active, informed citizens and voters. Kids Voting USA enables students to visit official polls on election day, accompanied by a parent or guardian, to cast a ballot that replicates the official ballot. Although not part of the official results, the students' votes are registered at schools and by the media. This year, National Kids Voting Week is September 25-29. It is a week when Kids Voting communities across the country celebrate this vibrant and important program. I would like to recognize Kids Voting USA and all it has done to promote the future of democracy by engaging families, schools and communities in the election process.