John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, I report favorably nomination lists which were printed in the Record of the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4444, the U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000. This long-overdue legislation is an essential prerequisite to the advancement of U.S. interests in the Asia Pacific region, and I urge its prompt passage. The preceding two weeks have witnessed considerable debate on the floor of the Senate with respect to U.S.-China relations and the wisdom of granting permanent Normal Trade Relations status to the government in Beijing. Clearly, there are extraordinarily serious issues dividing the United States and China. Issues central to our national security and moral values continue to preclude the development of the kind of relationship many of us would have liked to have enjoyed with the world's most populous country. As long as China continues to engage in such abhorrent practices as forced abortions, the harvesting of human organs, repressive measures against people of faith and pro-democracy movements, and the proliferation of ballistic missiles and technology, there will continue to be considerable tension in our relationship. No one should attempt to minimize the significance of these activities. Their termination must be among our highest foreign policy priorities. Opponents of extending permanent normal trade relations status to China, however, are wrong to suggest that such a policy weakens our ability to address important issues that insult our values as a nation and impose tremendous suffering on many Chinese citizens. On the contrary, the economic relationship between the United States and China is a powerful tool for moving China in the direction we desire. There is considerable room for improvement in the human rights situation in China, and efforts at ending Chinese transfers of ballistic missile technology to other countries have been frustratingly ineffective. Denying permanent normal trade status for China, however, is not the answer. China does in fact represent a case for economic engagement as a mechanism for affecting political change. China's history, which cannot be divorced from discussions of contemporary Chinese developments, is quite illuminating in this respect. One of the world's oldest and proudest civilizations, China has nevertheless never known true democracy. Go back 3,000 years and trace its history to the present. It is only in the last quarter-century that the window has truly opened for those aspiring to a freer China. The economic reforms initiated by the late Premier Deng Xiao-ping began a process that has benefited millions of ordinary Chinese and has held out the greatest hope for prosperity and, ultimately, political freedom that country has ever known. The Chinese government, in fact, is struggling with the dichotomy between economic liberalization and political repression and is discovering to its dismay that it has irreconcilable interests. The United States, by maximizing its presence in China through commercial investment and trade, can be of immeasurable assistance to the Chinese population in ensuring that that conflict between economic growth and political repression is resolved in the direction of liberalization. Objective analysis strongly supports this assertion. Since the beginning of economic reform in 1979, China's economy has emerged as one of the fastest growing in the world. The World Bank calculates that as many as 200 million Chinese have been lifted out of poverty as a result of the government's economic reforms. A recent Congressional Research Service study noted that China will have more than 230 million middle-income consumers by 2005. Clearly, economic reform, fueled in large part by trade, is benefitting the average Chinese citizen. It is important that we enable American businesses to develop a presence in these markets now, so that they can both take advantage of future developments and so that American values and practices can better take hold and flourish. We should not be ashamed of the fact that our economy benefits by trade with China. China's accession to the World Trade Organization, an inevitability given its importance as a market, will allow American companies to sell to Chinese consumers without the current arbitrary regulations. China will be forced to take steps to open its markets to U.S. goods and services that it has been reluctant to take in the past. These steps include major reductions in industrial tariffs from an average of 24 percent to an average of 9.4 percent; reductions in the tariffs on agricultural goods from an average of 31 percent to 14 percent, as well as elimination of non-tariff barriers in agricultural imports; major openings in industries where China has been extremely reluctant to permit foreign investment, including telecommunications and financial services; and unprecedented levels of protection for intellectual property rights. In addition, the United States will be able to use the dispute resolution mechanism of the WTO to force China to meet its obligations and open its markets to American goods. Opponents of engaging China in trade should be aware that membership in the World Trade Organization carries with it responsibilities that are at variance with Communist Party practice. That is why Martin Lee, chairman of the Democratic Party of Hong Kong, noted that China's participation in the WTO would ``bolster those in China who understand that the country must embrace the rule of law.'' Similarly, Wang Shan, a liberal political scientist, stated that ``undoubtedly [the China WTO agreement] will push political reform.'' And the former editor of the democratic journal Fangfa has written that ``if economic monopolies can be broken, controls in other areas can have breakthroughs as well . . . In the minds of ordinary people, it will show that breakthroughs that were impossible in the past are indeed possible.'' Yes, we have serious concerns with Chinese behavior in a number of areas. As General Brent Scowcroft stated in a hearing before the Commerce Committee last April, however, the essential point is what is gained by denying China permanent normal trade relations status. We would not accomplish our foreign policy objectives in the Asia Pacific region, or within the realm of missile proliferation, by impeding trade with China. I supported the measure offered by Senator Thompson intended to address the issue of Chinese missile proliferation because of that issue's importance to our national security, but also because it was not intended as an anti-trade measure, as is the case with the other amendments offered to this bill. It is past time that the Senate passes permanent normal trade relations status for China. It is in America's interest, and in the interest of hundreds of millions of Chinese citizens. It is the right thing to do. I thank the President for this opportunity to address the Senate, and urge passage of the U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the managers of this bill for their hard work in putting forth this legislation which provides federal funding for numerous vital programs in the Treasury Department and the General Government. However, I am sad to say, once again, I find myself in the unpleasant position of speaking before my colleagues about unacceptable levels of parochial projects in another appropriations Conference Report. The amount of pork in this bill is a tremendous burden which is patently unfair to the millions of hard-working American taxpayers, who do not possess the resources to get a ``pet project'' placed in their backyard. The list of projects which received priority billing is quite long and the dollar amounts are staggering. Nevertheless, I will highlight a few of the egregious violations. The conference report contains numerous provisions for millions of dollars to construct new courthouses in specific locations such as Los Angeles, CA, Richmond, VA, and Seattle, WA. Again, why are these particular sites so deserving of funding, that they receive specific earmarks to fund their construction? Unfortunately, this spending frenzy is not limited to courthouses. Somebody in either the other body or the Senate has concluded that the SSA National Computer Center in Woodlawn, MD deserves $4.3 million, and the Richard Bolling Federal Building in Kansas City, MO deserves $26 million are so unique that they should receive specific earmarks. Furthermore, this conference report irresponsibly expands the definition of what constitutes emergency spending to get around the spending caps. For example, this report designates $9 million in funding for repairs to the underground garage in the Cannon House Office Building as emergency spending. I do not think this is what the American taxpayer would envision as a true emergency. This report also spends nearly $7 million more for salaries and expenses for the Treasury Department than was requested by either the House or the Senate. The list of spending excesses goes on. This bill provides a staggering $14.8 million for communications infrastructure, including radios and related equipment, associated with law enforcement responsibilities for the Salt Lake Winter Olympics. This item is but one example of the fiscal abuse surrounding the staging of the Olympic Games in Salt Lake. This past year, Congressman Dingell and I requested the General Accounting Office to conduct an audit into Federal financial support for U.S. cities hosting the Olympics. Specifically, we asked the GAO to answer two questions: (1) the amount of federal funding and support provided to the 1984 and 1996 Summer Olympics, and planned for the 2002 Winter Olympics, and the types of projects and activities that were funded and supported, and; (2) the Federal policies, legislative authorizations, and agency controls in place for providing the Federal funds and support to the Olympic Games. What the GAO discovered is that, ``at least 24 Federal agencies reported providing or planning to provide a combined total of almost $2 billion, in 1999 dollars, for Olympic-related projects and activities for the 1984 and 1996 Summer Olympic Games and the 2002 Winter Olympic Games.'' I say to my friends, the number is staggering, but what is more shocking, but not too surprising once an egregious practice begins and goes unchecked, is the way in which Federal funds flowing to Olympic host cities has accelerated. The GAO found that the American taxpayers provided about $75 million in funding for the 1984 Los Angeles games, by 1996 the bill to the taxpayers had escalated to $609 million, and for the upcoming 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, that bill to American taxpayers is estimated to be $1.3 billion. That is outrageous, Mr. President, and it is a disgrace. It is a disgraceful practice to put these pork-barrel projects on this appropriations bill. I say to the Senator from Utah who is on the floor now, if another pork-barrel project that is not authorized for the Olympic games is put on any appropriations bill, I will filibuster the bill until I fail to do so. I wrote a letter to the Senator from Utah on September 19, 1997. In it I said: I am writing about the recent efforts to add funds-- This is 1997-- to appropriations measures for the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. I went on to say: I recognize that proper preparation for the Olympics is vital. . . . It seems to me, though, the best course of action would be to require the U.S. Olympic Committee, in coordination with the Administration and Congress, to prepare and submit a comprehensive plan detailing, in particular, the funding anticipated to be required from the taxpayers. . . . Please call me so that we can start work immediately to establish some predictability and rationality in the process of preparing for Olympic events in our country. That was 1997. In a rather surprising breach of senatorial courtesy, the Senator from Utah never responded to that letter, so I wrote him another letter a year later asking for the same and never got a response. The GAO now determines that $1.3 billion--and some of those I will read: $974,000 for the Utah State Olympic Public Safety Command; $5 million for the Utah Communications Agency Network; $3 million to Olympic Regional Development Authority, upgrades at Mt. Van Hoevenberg Sports Complex; $2.5 million, Salt Lake City Olympics bus facilities; $2.5 million, Salt Lake City Olympics regional park-and-ride lots; $500,000, Salt Lake City Olympics transit bus loan, and on and on; $925,000 to allow the Utah State Olympic Public Safety Command to continue to develop and support a public safety program for the 2002 Winter Olympics; $1 million for the 2002 Winter Olympics security training; $2.2 million for the Charleston Water Conservancy District, UT, to meet sewer infrastructure needs associated with the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. What the Olympic games supposedly hosted and funded by Salt Lake City, which began in corruption and bribery, has now turned into is an incredible pork-barrel project for Salt Lake City and its environs. Not surprisingly, the GAO found that there was no effective mechanism in place for tracking Federal funding and support to host cities, one thing I tried to do in the letter to the Senator from Utah in 1997. The GAO stated that ``in some cases it was difficult to determine the amount of federal funding and support because federal agencies generally did not track or report their funding and support for the Olympic Games.'' Congress, in some cases, authorized $690 million of the estimated $2 billion, with some $1.3 billion being approved by Federal agencies. However egregious it might be for Congress to approve $690 million in taxpayers funds--most of which was done through objectionable legislative pork barreling--it is astounding that federal bureaucrats, with absolutely no accountability, have ponied up $1.3 billion as a regular course of business. The Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, named after my good friend and colleague from Alaska, sets out the process by which the United States Olympic Committee operates, and how the USOC goes about selecting a U.S. bid city. Embodied in this act is a uniquely American tenet establishing that the United States Olympic movement, including the bid, and host city process, is an entirely independent, private sector entity. However, as this report points out, the American taxpayer has now become, by far, the largest single underwriter of the costs of hosting the Olympics. Mind you, this is not about private, voluntary giving to the Olympic movement. Nor is it about corporate sponsorships. This is about a cocktail of fiscal irresponsibility, made of congressional pork barreling, and unaccountable Federal bureaucrats. As I outlined earlier, taxpayer funding of the Olympics has increased dramatically in recent years, as has the purpose of the funding. In the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles, $75 million in Federal support-- $75 million versus $1.3 billion for the Salt Lake City Olympics--was provided. Most notable about this figure, aside from how low it is relative to Atlanta and Salt Lake, is what the money was used for. Of the $75 million in Los Angeles, $68 million, or 91 percent, was used to help provide safety and security services during the planned staging of the games. Only $7 million was for nonsecurity-related services. Providing safety and security support is a proper role for the Federal Government. No one would dispute that the Federal Government should provide whatever support necessary to ensure that the Games are safe for everyone. However, the American taxpayer should not be burdened with building up the basic infrastructure necessary to a city to be able to pull off hosting the Olympic Games. Clearly, by the time we got to Atlanta, such was not the case. Other classic examples include $331,000 to purchase flowers, shrubs and grass for venues and parks around Atlanta, $3.5 million to do things like installing of solar electrical systems at the Olympic swimming pool. As astounding as the Atlanta numbers are, they absolutely pale in comparison to Salt Lake City. Almost $1.3 billion of Federal funding and support is planned or has already been provided to the city of Salt Lake. And $645 million--51 percent--is for construction of roads and highways; $353 million--28 percent--is for mass transit projects; approximately $107 million for miscellaneous other activities, such as building temporary parking lots and bus rentals; and $161 million on safety and security. As of April 2000, the Federal Government planned to spend some $77 million to provide spectator transportation and venue enhancements for the Salt Lake games. This includes $47 million in congressionally approved taxpayer funding for transportation systems. Among other things, Salt Lake officials plan to ask the Federal Government for $91 million to pay for things such as transporting borrowed buses to and from Salt Lake, additional bus drivers, bus maintenance, and construction and operation of park-and-ride lots. However, as outlined, most of the money taken from taxpayers to pay the bill for the Salt Lake games is going to develop, build, and complete major highway and transit improvement projects, ``especially those critical to the success of the Olympic games.'' This last phrase is vital to understanding the fleece game being played by cities such as Salt Lake City. It works this way. A city decides they want to host an Olympics to generate tourism and put their hometown on the map. In order to successfully manage an Olympics, community leaders know they will have to meet certain infrastructure demands. They develop their plans, and then, of course, the pork barreling starts. The GAO makes several recommendations for congressional consideration, including a potential Federal role in the selection of a bid city, a tracking system for funds appropriated, and more direct oversight. Among other things, the GAO also recommends a larger role for OMB in exercising oversight regarding agency activities. However, I believe there are two fundamental reforms that should take place. The first is budget reform. Appropriations for Olympic activities should occur through the regular budget process, subject to the sunshine of public scrutiny and debate within Congress. Second, the USOC should not consider the bids of cities that do not have in place the basic capacity to host the Olympic games. What has happened here is what happens in Congress. We start out with a little pork barreling; it gets bigger and bigger and bigger. We saw that recently on the Defense appropriations bill--$4 million on the Defense appropriations bill to protect the desert tortoise. I want to repeat, I will filibuster and do everything in my power to delay any more appropriations bills that have this pork-barrel spending for Salt Lake City. There is a process. There is a process of authorization for these projects. They are conducted by the authorizing committees. Some of them may be worthwhile and necessary. Some of them may deserve to be authorized. Instead, they are stuck into an appropriations bill without scrutiny or without anyone looking at them. I do not understand how we Republicans call ourselves conservatives and then treat the taxpayers' dollars in this fashion. This is terribly objectionable. It is up to $1.3 billion. We still have another year, at least, to go. This has to stop. I am glad we got the GAO study. It is a classic example of what happens with pork-barrel spending in this body. It directly contributes to the cynicism and alienation of the American voter. These are my taxpayers' dollars, Mr. President, as well as the citizens' tax dollars of Utah. I have an obligation to my constituents in the State of Arizona who pay their taxes that their tax dollars should not be spent on this pork-barrel spending. Therefore, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of objectionable provisions for the legislative branch conference report be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise along with several of my colleagues to introduce legislation to reform the process used by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to investigate and order recalls for safety related defects in motor vehicles. We introduce this legislation today partly in response to the recall of 14.4 million Firestone tires and the 88 deaths and more than 250 injuries associated with those tires. Over the past two weeks in a series of House and Senate hearings, we have begun to learn the details of how the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Ford Motor Company and Bridgestone/Firestone failed to detect and effectively respond to defective tires that were killing or causing serious harm to consumers. Based upon the still mounting evidence, it is increasingly difficult to believe that neither the companies nor NHTSA knew anything of this problem until after this summer. Annual claims reports from Firestone show an increase in claims associated with the tires subject to the recall beginning in 1996 through 1999. Ford also received numerous complaints about Firestone tires on Explorers in overseas markets. These complaints were significant enough to cause Ford to replace tires in 16 foreign countries. NHTSA was notified on at least two occasions by State Farm Insurance Company that there may be a problem with Firestone tires on Ford Explorers. Taken individually each of these incidents may not be cause for alarm. But taken collectively it is difficult to believe that no one realized this was a problem until a month ago. I cite these facts not as evidence of guilt but as an example of the problems with the current system. NHTSA has neither the resources, the statutory authority nor the internal processes to detect and remedy safety related defects in timely fashion. The current system must be changed. When manufacturers fail to tell the truth or purposely neglect to report safety data, and people lose their lives, severe penalties must result. It is my hope that in the remaining days of this Congress we can move from recrimination to reform. Our attention to ensuring the safety of the driving public must not be fleeting. It unfortunately has taken the cumulative tragedy of more than 80 lives to bring our collective attention to the long overdue task of reforming the way we investigate and remedy vehicle defects. The proposal we introduce today attempts to make some basic reforms to ensure that the current situation does not repeat itself. It would authorize the Secretary of Transportation to require manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment to report more information such as claims data, warrant data, and lawsuits. The bill establishes criminal penalties for manufacturers that knowingly sell vehicle with a safety-related defect that causes death or serious injury. The measure will also increase the current cap on civil penalties to from $900,000 to $15 million. It provides the Secretary with authority to seek even greater penalties in the conduct is willful and intentional. I know that some of my colleagues believe this legislation does not go far enough and would like to address other motor vehicles safety issues or require the reporting of other data. While I share their concerns about those important issues, I caution that we must not make the perfect the enemy of the good. I want to state openly that this proposal is no panacea to the problem, and I am perfectly open to making sensible and prudent adjustments. Next week, it is my intention to report this bill from the Senate Commerce Committee. I look forward to working with my colleagues to address their concerns as we move through the process. Mr. President, we have an opportunity before we adjourn to enact some basic reforms to empower the Department of Transportation to respond effectively to safety related defects in the future. I hope we will not waste this time and enact these reforms.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. The committee has worked to ensure all pipelines are covered under the provisions of this legislation, including the more uniquely located pipelines mentioned by my colleagues. The bill requires the agency's technical experts, in conjunction with the industry, to develop specific plans to ensure the integrity of all pipelines. In addition, it requires that operators and inspectors are properly trained to be aware of, and proactively assess, the vulnerabilities of such pipelines in different circumstances, including exposed pipelines.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today the Senate is considering S. 2438, the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2000. This legislation is the product of many months of work by the members of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, as well as other members of the Senate. Sadly, this legislation is in large part in response to two devastating pipeline accidents that have occurred in the States of Washington and New Mexico during the past 15 months. A total of 15 lives have been lost in these most recent accidents. Three young men endured fatal injuries last June 1999 in Bellingham, Washington, when 227,000 gallons of gasoline leaked from an underground pipeline and were accidentally ignited. Last month, twelve members of two families camping in Carlsbad, New Mexico, lost their lives when a natural gas transmission line ruptured. 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 more needless deaths. I ask unanimous consent a recent editorial from the Washington Post calling for Congressional action be printed in the Record immediately following my remarks.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, it is my hope that passage of comprehensive pipeline safety legislation can give the family members associated with these tragedies at least a small bit of comfort that their losses have spurred Congressional action to strengthen pipeline safety laws and help prevent future tragic accidents. I am aware this bill may not go as far as some would like, and also know it goes further than others can support. However, this legislation is a fair and balanced compromise and is a pro-safety measure that will result in pipeline safety improvements. Its enactment is critical to public safety and must be a top priority during the remainder of this Congress. I extend my sincere appreciation to Senator Gorton for his help in developing the bill before us. His tireless efforts to ensuring that the Senate consider and pass comprehensive pipeline safety legislation is commendable. I also want to thank Senators Hollings, Lott, Hutchison, Breaux, and Brownback of the Committee for their strong interest in this legislation. Further, I want to recognize the dedication and hard work of Senator Murray throughout this process. She has been a tenacious advocate for pipeline safety improvements. I also want to recognize Senator Bingaman for his contributions to strengthening the research and development provisions of this legislation, and also Senator Domenici for his work. Finally, the input we received from citizens, State pipeline inspectors, the National Transportation Safety Board, the Department of Transportation and its Inspector General, industry and others interested in promoting pipeline safety has been essential to our efforts to craft comprehensive pipeline safety improvement legislation. Significant attention has been directed toward pipeline safety issues by the Senate during this past year. In March, the Senate Commerce Committee held a field hearing, chaired by Senator Gorton, in Bellingham, Washington, during which 18 witnesses provided information and expressed views on the Bellingham accident. In May, the full committee held a hearing on a broad range of pipeline safety issues, including the three pipeline safety bills that have been introduced in the Senate. We reported out a comprehensive bill in June and since then have developed a manager's amendment to provide further clarification of the bill as well as additional provisions to advance pipeline safety. I will highlight some of the major provisions of the legislation before us. The bill would require the implementation of pipeline safety recommendations recently issued by the DOT-IG to the Research and Special Programs Administration, RSPA. The legislation would statutorily require the Secretary of Transportation, the RSPA Administrator and the Director of the Office of Pipeline Safety to respond to NTSB pipeline safety recommendations within 90 days of receipt. The bill would require pipeline operators to submit to the Secretary of Transportation a plan designed to improve the qualifications for pipeline personnel. At a minimum, the qualification plan would have to demonstrate that pipeline employees have the necessary knowledge to safely and properly perform their assigned duties and would require testing and periodic reexamination of the employees' qualifications. The legislation would require DOT to issue regulations mandating pipeline operators to periodically determine the adequacy of their pipelines to safely operate and to adopt and implement integrity management programs to reduce those identified risks. The regulations would, at a minimum, require operators to: base their integrity management plans on risk assessments that they conduct; periodically assess the integrity of their pipelines; and, take steps to prevent and mitigate unintended releases, such as improving leak detection capabilities or installing restrictive flow devices. S. 2438 also would require an operator of a gas transmission or hazardous liquid pipeline facility to carry out a continuing public education program that would include activities to advise municipalities, school districts, businesses, and residents of pipeline facility locations on a variety of pipeline safety-related matters. It would also direct pipeline operators to initiate and maintain communication with State emergency response commissions and local emergency planning committees and to share with these entities information critical to addressing pipeline safety issues, including information on the types of product transported and efforts by the operator to mitigate safety risks. The Secretary would be directed to prescribe regulations to make certain emergency information publicly available as well as direct operators to provide mapping information to municipalities in which the pipeline facility is located. The bill would increase the level of maximum civil penalties for violations as requested in the Administration's submission. It would also provide for an enhanced state oversight role in pipeline safety whereby States that have authority over intrastate lines could enter into agreements with the Secretary to participate in the oversight of interstate lines. The manager's amendment clarifies that the state oversight be consistent with the Secretary's federal safety and inspection policies. The legislation further includes language to ensure that the enhanced agreements will not adversely affect the State's responsibilities over intrastate safety and, in the event there is a negative impact, the Secretary is authorized to cancel the enhanced state agreements. The legislation directs the Secretary to develop and implement a comprehensive plan for the collection and use of pipeline data in a manner that would enable incident trend analysis and evaluations of operator performance. Operators would be required to report incident releases greater than five gallons, compared to the current reporting requirement of 42 gallons. In addition, the Secretary is directed to establish a national depository of data to be administered by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics in cooperation with RSPA. Given the critical importance of technology applications in promoting transportation safety across all modes of transportation, the legislation directs the Secretary to include as part of the Department's research and development (R&D) efforts a focus on technologies to improve pipeline safety, such as through internal inspection devices and leak detection. Further, the accompanying amendment includes provisions from S. 3002, the Pipeline Integrity, Safety and Reliability Research and Development Act of 2000, introduced by Senator Bingaman, myself, and others earlier this week. This provision provides for a collaborative R&D effort directed by the Department of Transportation with the assistance of the Department of Energy and the National Academy of Sciences. In regard to funding for pipeline safety, the bill provides for a three year authorization, authorizing $26 million for FY2001, $30 million for FY2002; and $30 million in FY2003 for federal pipeline safety activities. It would further authorize the pipeline state grant program at the following levels: $17 million for FY2001; $20 million for FY2002; and $20 million for FY2003. Efforts to provide further increases in funding are under discussion and will be given careful consideration as the legislation moves through the legislative process and on to a conference with the House. In an effort to enhance the ability of the NTSB and DOT to complete pipeline accident investigations in a timely and comprehensive manner, the substitute amendment includes a provision requiring operators to make available to the DOT or NTSB all records and information pertaining to the accident, including integrity management plans and test results, and to assist in the investigation to the extent reasonable. Further, the legislation attempts to address the situation when pipeline personnel involved in accidents continue to carry out the same functions as they did prior to an accident even though their job performance may be at question during an investigation. Under the manager's amendment, if the Secretary determines that the actions of an employee may have contributed substantially to the cause of an accident, the Secretary must direct the operator to relieve or reassign the employee, or place the employee on leave until the Secretary determines that the employee's performance did not contribute to the cause of the accident or until the Secretary determines the employee can safely perform his or her duties. To ensure pipeline employees are afforded the same whistle-blower protections as are provided to employees in other modes, the legislation includes whistle-blower protections for pipeline personnel. The provisions are identical to those recently enacted in the Wendell H. Ford Aviation and Investment Reform Act for the 21st Century, P.L. 106-181, with the exception of changing the words air carrier to pipeline. Mr. President, the time has come for the full Senate to take action and pass legislation to strengthen and improve pipeline safety. We simple cannot risk the loss of any more lives by lack of needed attention on our part. I urge my colleagues to support passage of this important safety legislation. Exhibit 1 [From the Washington Post, Sept. 4, 2000] A Blast in the Night Residents of Carlsbad, N.M., are mourning the 11 family members killed when a natural gas pipeline exploded near their campsite in New Mexico, Investigators still are trying to determine exactly what caused the blast. While they work, there is a job to be done here as well: Put more muscle into federal regulation of pipeline safety. Nearly all the nation's natural gas and about 65 percent of crude and refined oil travel through a network of nearly 2.2 million miles of pipes. Although pipelines remain statistically safer--in some cases much safer--than other means of transporting freight, the number of accidents reported has been gradually growing during the past decade, according to a General Accounting Office report prepared this spring. In many places the infrastructure is aging; sprawling development now encroaches on many of the remote rural areas where pipes were installed decades ago. The federal agency charged with policing the pipelines is tiny, underfunded and possessed of a record that is not reassuring. The GAO found that the Office of Pipeline Safety is years behind in implementing some congressional mandates and safety recommendations from the National Transportation Safety Board. Things have improved in the last year but the NTSB, the GAO report says, still is watching to see whether promised actions will be carried out. Bills are now pending in Congress that would address at least some safety issues. Most important, legislation would require periodic pipeline inspections. The NTSB has been asking for that since 1987, and it hasn't happened yet. The bills also would provide more information for the public, would give state inspectors a bigger role in helping monitor interstate pipelines and would require more rigorous reporting of pipeline spills, which could help identify possible trouble spots and help mitigate environmental damage. Congress should pass a strong pipeline-safety bill before this session ends. Along with it should come adequate funding to carry out its mandates. And then members should keep the heat on until it is clear the safety measures have been carried out. There's no need to wait for another blast in the night.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the energy and water appropriations bill is fundamental to our nation's energy and defense related activities, and takes care of vitally important water resources infrastructure needs. My colleagues are aware that I am a strong defender of our national security which is, in part, funded through this bill. Taking care of our national energy needs is also high in priority to our taxpaying constituents who are concerned about ever-increasing gas and energy prices. That is why I am disappointed to report that this year's bill once again fails to fulfill our responsibility to American taxpayers to expend their tax dollars in a wise and prudent fashion that addresses the nation's most critical needs. Instead, included in this year's bill and its accompanying Senate report is $508 million in unrequested and low-priority earmarks. A number of legislative riders are also added which will effectively prevent a fair and deliberative consideration of certain issues that should be determined in a legislative review through the appropriate Congressional committees. I recognize the hard work that the managers of this bill have put into moving this measure through the Senate. I thank them for their tireless efforts and appreciate that their jobs have not been easy. However, I must repeat a criticism I have made many times during consideration of appropriations bills and will continue to make as long as the practice of earmarking continues--this bill inappropriately singles out projects for funding based on criteria other than need and national priority. This year, earmarks account for more than $508 million in funding for local projects contained in the bill and the committee report. Yet, we have no way of knowing whether, at best, all or part of this $508 million should have been spent on different projects with greater national need or, at worst, should not have been spent at all. Various projects are provided with additional funding at levels higher than requested by the administration. The stated reasons include the desire to finish some projects in a reasonable time-frame. Unfortunately, other projects are put on hold or on a slower track. 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. Many of my objections are based on these types of inconsistencies and nebulous spending practices. Our current system of earmarking in order to fund national projects is fundamentally flawed. I hope that we will soon develop a better system, one which allows the projects with the greatest national needs to be funded first. I remind my colleagues that I object to these earmarks on the basis of their circumvention of our established process, which is to properly consider, authorize and fund projects based on merit and need. Although I was not present to vote on final passage of this bill, I wish to state for the record that I would have voted against this bill because this is not the honorable way to carry out our fiscal responsibilities. I reviewed this bill and report very closely and compiled a list of objectionable provisions in H.R. 4733 and its accompanying Senate report. This list is too lengthy to be included in the Record, but it will be available from my Senate office. renewable energy

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on June 15, 2000, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation reported S. 2440, the Airport Security Improvement Act of 2000. A report on the bill was filed on August 25, 2000. At that time, the committee was unable to provide a cost estimate for the bill from the Congressional Budget Office. On September 1, 2000, the accompanying letter was received from the Congressional Budget Office, and I now make it available to the Senate. I ask unanimous consent that the letter from CBO be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 27, 2000. The purpose of this meeting will be to review the Federal Sugar Program.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation and Recreation of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 27, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing. The subcommittee will receive testimony on S. 1734, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to contribute funds for the establishment of an interpretive center on the life and contributions of President Abraham Lincoln; H.R. 3084, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to contribute funds for the establishment of an interpretive center on the life and contributions of President Abraham Lincoln; S. 2345, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study concerning the preservation and public use of sites associated with Harriet Tubman located in Auburn, New York, and for other purposes; S. 2638, a bill to adjust the boundaries of the Gulf Islands National Seashore to include Cat Island, Mississippi; H.R. 2541, a bill to adjust the boundaries of the Gulf Islands Natonal Seashore to include Cat Island, Mississippi; and S. 2848, a bill to provide for the exchange to benefit the Pecos National Historic Park in New Mexico.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 27, 2000 at 3:30 p.m. to hold a closed confirmation hearing on the nomination of John E. McLaughlin to be Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to hold a markup on pending legislation, and on the nominations of Thomas L. Garthwaite, M.D., to be Under Secretary for Health, Department of Veterans Affairs, and Robert M. Walker to be Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs, Department of Veterans Affairs. The hearing will be held on Thursday, July 27, 2000, at 10 a.m., in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, July 27, 2000, at 10 a.m. The markup will take place in Dirksen Room 226.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 27, 2000, for an Open Executive Session to consider favorably reporting the following nominations: Robert S. LaRussa to be Under Secretary for International Trade, Department of Commerce; Jonathan Talisman, Assistant Secretary (Tax Policy), Department of the Treasury; Ruth M. Thomas to be Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs, Department of the Treasury; and, Lisa G. Ross to be Assistant Secretary for Management and Chief Financial Officer, Department of the Treasury.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 27 at 9:30 a.m. to conduct an oversight hearing. The committee will receive testimony from representatives of the General Accounting Office on the investigation of the Cerro Grande Fire in the State of New Mexico, and from Federal agencies on the Cerro Grande Fire and their fire policies in general.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill with my friend and colleague Senator Kerrey to resolve the controversy that has erupted over the Federal Communications Commission's creation of a new, noncommercial low-power FM radio service. As you undoubtedly know, the FCC's low-power FM rules will allow the creation of thousands of new noncommercial FM radio stations with coverage of about a mile or so. Although these new stations will give churches and community groups new outlets for expression of their views, commercial FM broadcasters as well as National Public Radio oppose the new service. They argue that the FCC ignored studies showing that the new low-power stations would cause harmful interference to the reception of existing full-power FM stations. Mr. President, legislation before the House of Representatives would call a halt to the institution of low-power FM service by requiring further independent study of its potential for causing harmful interference to full-power stations, and Senator Gregg has introduced the same legislation in the Senate. While this would undoubtedly please existing FM radio broadcasters, it understandably angers the many parties who are anxious to apply for the new low-power licenses. Most importantly, it would delay the availability of whatever new programming these new low-power licensees might provide, even where the station would have caused no actual interference at all had it been allowed to operate. With all due respect to Senator Gregg and to the supporters of the House bill, Senator Kerrey and I think we can reach a fairer result, and the bill we are introducing, the Low Power Radio Act of 2000, is intended to do just that. Unlike Senator Gregg's bill, the Low Power Radio Act would allow the FCC to license low-power FM radio stations. The only low-power FM stations that would be affected would be those whose transmissions are actually causing harmful interference to a full-power radio station. The Commission would determine which stations are causing such interference and what the low-power station must do to alleviate it, as the expert agency with the experience and engineering resources required to make such determinations. The Act gives full-power broadcasters the right to file a complaint with the Commission against any low-power FM licensee for causing harmful interference, and stipulates that the costs of the proceeding shall be borne by the losing party. Finally, to make sure that the FCC does not relegate the interests of full-power radio broadcasters to secondary importance in its eagerness to launch the new low-power FM service, the bill requires the FCC to complete all rulemakings necessary to implement full-power stations' transition to digital broadcasting no later than June 1, 2001. Mr. President, this legislation strikes a fair balance by allowing non-interfering low-power FM stations to operate without further delay, while affecting only those low-power stations that the FCC finds to be causing harmful interference in their actual, everyday operations. This is totally consistent with the fact that low-power FM is a secondary service which, by law, must cure any interference caused to any primary, full-power service. This legislation will provide an efficient and effective means to detect and resolve harmful interference. By providing a procedural remedy with costs assigned to the losing party, the bill will discourage the creation of low-power stations most likely to cause harmful interference even as it discourages full-power broadcasters from making unwarranted interference claims. And for these reasons it will provide a more definitive resolution of opposing interference claims than any number of further studies ever could. Mr. President, in the interests of would-be new broadcasters, existing broadcasters, but, most of all, the listening public, I urge the enactment of the Low Power Radio Act of 2000.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill with my friend and colleague Senator Kerrey to resolve the controversy that has erupted over the Federal Communications Commission's creation of a new, noncommercial low-power FM radio service. As you undoubtedly know, the FCC's low-power FM rules will allow the creation of thousands of new noncommercial FM radio stations with coverage of about a mile or so. Although these new stations will give churches and community groups new outlets for expression of their views, commercial FM broadcasters as well as National Public Radio oppose the new service. They argue that the FCC ignored studies showing that the new low-power stations would cause harmful interference to the reception of existing full-power FM stations. Mr. President, legislation before the House of Representatives would call a halt to the institution of low-power FM service by requiring further independent study of its potential for causing harmful interference to full-power stations, and Senator Gregg has introduced the same legislation in the Senate. While this would undoubtedly please existing FM radio broadcasters, it understandably angers the many parties who are anxious to apply for the new low-power licenses. Most importantly, it would delay the availability of whatever new programming these new low-power licensees might provide, even where the station would have caused no actual interference at all had it been allowed to operate. With all due respect to Senator Gregg and to the supporters of the House bill, Senator Kerrey and I think we can reach a fairer result, and the bill we are introducing, the Low Power Radio Act of 2000, is intended to do just that. Unlike Senator Gregg's bill, the Low Power Radio Act would allow the FCC to license low-power FM radio stations. The only low-power FM stations that would be affected would be those whose transmissions are actually causing harmful interference to a full-power radio station. The Commission would determine which stations are causing such interference and what the low-power station must do to alleviate it, as the expert agency with the experience and engineering resources required to make such determinations. The Act gives full-power broadcasters the right to file a complaint with the Commission against any low-power FM licensee for causing harmful interference, and stipulates that the costs of the proceeding shall be borne by the losing party. Finally, to make sure that the FCC does not relegate the interests of full-power radio broadcasters to secondary importance in its eagerness to launch the new low-power FM service, the bill requires the FCC to complete all rulemakings necessary to implement full-power stations' transition to digital broadcasting no later than June 1, 2001. Mr. President, this legislation strikes a fair balance by allowing non-interfering low-power FM stations to operate without further delay, while affecting only those low-power stations that the FCC finds to be causing harmful interference in their actual, everyday operations. This is totally consistent with the fact that low-power FM is a secondary service which, by law, must cure any interference caused to any primary, full-power service. This legislation will provide an efficient and effective means to detect and resolve harmful interference. By providing a procedural remedy with costs assigned to the losing party, the bill will discourage the creation of low-power stations most likely to cause harmful interference even as it discourages full-power broadcasters from making unwarranted interference claims. And for these reasons it will provide a more definitive resolution of opposing interference claims than any number of further studies ever could. Mr. President, in the interests of would-be new broadcasters, existing broadcasters, but, most of all, the listening public, I urge the enactment of the Low Power Radio Act of 2000.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2000. Charged with maintaining our national defense and the safety of our citizens, the Coast Guard is a multi- mission agency. The Coast Guard is a branch of the U.S. Armed Forces, but it is also responsible for search and rescue services and maritime law enforcement throughout our nation's waters. Daily operations include drug interdiction, environmental protection, marine inspection, licensing, port safety and security, aids to navigation, waterways management, and boating safety. Recently the Coast Guard has been forced to reduce its services and cut its operations as a result of funding shortfalls. Earlier this year, the Coast Guard reduced its non-emergency operations first by 10 percent and subsequently by 25 percent. Mr. President, the Coast Guard deserves better, and the bill before the Senate authorizes funding at levels which would restore the Coast Guard to normal operations levels and prevent reductions in the future. Additionally, the bill provides necessary funding for cutter and aircraft maintenance including the elimination of the existing spare parts shortage. Simply put, S.1089 allows the Coast Guard to continue their critical work on behalf of our country. This bill provides the funding necessary to maintain the level of service and the quality of performance that the United States has come to expect from the Coast Guard. I commend the men and women of the Coast Guard for their honorable and courageous service to this country. The bill authorizes $3.95 billion in FY 2000, $4.75 billion in 2001, and such funds as may be necessary in FY 2002, depending on the administration's request. One critical goal of this bill is to provide parity with the Department of Defense on certain personnel matters. Mr. President, we should ensure that the men and women serving in the Coast Guard are not adversely effected because the Coast Guard does not fall under the DOD umbrella. This bill provides parity with DOD for military pay and housing allowance increases, Coast Guard membership on the USO Board of Governors, and compensation for isolated duty. In today's strong economy, maintaining high level service members is a serious challenge. Additional funding in this bill provides for recruiting and retention initiatives, to ensure that the Coast Guard retains the most qualified young Americans. In addition, it addresses the current shortage of qualified pilots and authorizes the Coast Guard to send more students to flight school. Mr. President, the Coast Guard is the lead federal agency in maritime drug interdiction. Therefore, they are often our nation's first line of defense in the war on drugs. This bill authorizes the Coast Guard to acquire and operate up to seven ex-Navy patrol boats, thereby expanding the Coast Guard's critical presence in the Caribbean, a major drug trafficking area. With the vast majority of the drugs smuggled into the United States on the water, the Coast Guard must remain well equipped to prevent drugs from reaching our schools and streets. Environmental protection, including oil-spill cleanup, is an invaluable service provided by the Coast Guard. Under current law, the Coast Guard has access to a permanent annual appropriation of $50 million, distributed by the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, to carry out emergency oil spill response needs. Over the past few years, the fund has spent an average of $42 to $50 million per year, without the occurrence of a major oil spill. Clearly these funds would not be adequate to respond to a large spill. For instance, a spill the size of the Exxon Valdez could easily deplete the annual appropriated funds in two to three weeks. This bill authorizes the Coast Guard to borrow up to an additional $100 million, per incident, from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, for emergency spill responses. In such cases, it also requires the Coast Guard to notify Congress of amounts borrowed within thirty days and repay such amounts once payment is collected from the responsible party. This bill represents a thorough set of improvements which will make the Coast Guard more effective, improve the quality of life of its personnel, and facilitate their daily operations. I would like to express my gratitude and that of the full Commerce Committee to staff who worked on this bill, including Sloan Rappoport, Stephanie Bailenson, Rob Freeman, Emily Lindow, Brooke Sikora, Margaret Spring, Catherine Wannamaker, Jean Toal, Carl Bentzel, and Rick Kenin, a Coast Guard fellow whose knowledge of the Coast Guard was invaluable to the Committee because he was able to give a first hand account of how this bill will improve the lives of the men and women who so dutifully serve our nation. I would also like to thank Senators Snowe, Hollings, and Kerry for their bipartisan support of and hard work on this bill.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Gramm for his efforts and his discussion of a bill that, obviously, is going to be passed by overwhelming numbers. Again, I point out, this is a Defense appropriations bill--appropriations. It is supposed to be for the money, not for making policy or authorizing. One of the more egregious practices that has crept in lately, that doesn't have a lot to do with money but has a great deal to do with national policy and in the end costs taxpayers enormous amounts of money, is the Buy American provisions. We started out with a couple. Now we have more and more and more. I will mention a couple of them. You have to buy only American products related to welded shipboard anchor and mooring chain. You can only buy American relating to carbon alloy or armor steel plate for use in any Government-owned facility or property under the control of the Department of Defense, specifications to be determined by the American Iron and Steel Institute. There are Buy American restrictions related to the procurement of vessel propellers and ball and roller bearings. I am told that a request for proposal, so-called RFP, to people to bid on vessel propellers that would have been opened to, certainly, our NATO allies was recently published and, strangely enough, this was put in the bill. There is a requirement for the use of U.S. anthracite as the baseload energy for municipal district heat for U.S. military installations in Germany. I have remarked on this before because it has been there a long time. It is the classic example of taking coal to Newcastle. We have to take American coal, put it on a ship, and transport it to Germany to be used in Germany. I have never gotten an estimate as to how many millions that costs Americans. It exempts the construction of public vessels, ball and roller bearings, food, clothing or textile materials from Secretary of Defense waiver authority relating to the Buy American requirements involving countries with which the United States has reciprocal agreements. In other words, the United States has a reciprocal agreement, particularly with some of our NATO allies, and the Secretary of Defense cannot give any waiver for the purchase of clothing or textile materials. This is protectionism at its most egregious. It prohibits the development, lease, or procurement of ADC(X) class ships unless the main propulsion diesel engines and propulsors are manufactured in the United States by a domestically operated entity. It transfers $5 million to the National Park Service for repair improvements at Fort Baker in northern California; $500,000 for Florida Memorial College for the purposes of funding minority aviation training. It is a worthy program. I would support it, if it were not in a Defense appropriations bill. It transfers $34 million to the Department of Justice for the National Drug Intelligence Center. We have an appropriations bill upon which that would have been entirely appropriate. Then they go on to restrict the center's ability to establish its own personnel levels. There are restrictions on the ability of the Department of Defense to contract out any activity currently performed by more than 10 Department of Defense civilian employees. This is an appropriations bill, Mr. President. Now the Department of Defense cannot contract out any activity, no matter how much money it would save the taxpayers, under any circumstances, if there are no more than 10 DOD civilian employees. It doesn't matter if there are a thousand military people. More than 10 Department of Defense civilian employees. That is offensive, to have that kind of language in a DOD appropriations bill. It prohibits reduction to disestablishment of the 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron, Air Force Reserve, Mississippi. We all know we have the capability to monitor weather, thanks to modern technology. It mandates continued availability of funds for the National Science Center for Communications and Electronics in Georgia. It requires the Army to use the former George Air Force Base, California, as the airhead for the National Training Center. We could not let the Army or Department of Defense make that decision. We require the U.S. Army, no matter what it may cost, to use George Air Force Base as the airhead for the National Training Center. It authorizes the Secretary of Defense to waive reimbursement requirements relating to the costs to the Department of Defense associated with the conduct of conferences, seminars, and other educational activities of the Asia-Pacific Center. It is well to note that the Asia-Pacific Center is located in Hawaii. Why don't we waive reimbursement requirements for any center in America or the world? Why just for the Asia-Pacific Center? It transfers $10 million to the Department of Transportation to realign railroad tracks at Elmendorf Air Force Base and Fort Richardson, Alaska. I wonder if there are railroad tracks that need to be realigned at other defense facilities in America. I would imagine so. It mandates that funds used for the procurement of malt beverages and wine for resale on a military installation be used to procure such beverages from within that State. Suppose they could get those beverages at a lower cost from some other State? It earmarks $5 million for the High Desert Partnership in Academic Excellence Foundation, Inc., for the purpose of developing, implementing, and evaluating a standards- and performance-based academic model at schools administered by the Department of Defense Education Activity. What makes the High Desert Partnership the place to get the $5 million? Was there ever a hearing on it? Did the Personnel Subcommittee or Armed Services Committee ever look at it? No. It earmarks $115 million to remain available for transfer to other Federal agencies. That is $115 million; just transfer it to other Federal agencies. Why? It earmarks $1.9 million for San Bernadino County Airports Department for installation of a perimeter security fence at Barstow-Daggett Airport, California. It earmarks $20 million for the National Center for the Preservation of Democracy. It earmarks $7 million for the North Slope Borough. It earmarks $5 million to the Chicago Public Schools for conversion and expansion of the former Eighth Regiment National Guard Armory. I argue, Mr. President, that there are guard armories all over America that could be converted. It earmarks $1 million for the Middle East Regional Security Issues Program. It earmarks $2 million, subject to authorization, for the Bosque Redondo Memorial in New Mexico. It earmarks $300,000 for the Circum-Pacific Council for the Crowding the Rim Summit Initiative. It earmarks $10 million for the City of San Bernadino, contingent on resolution of the case of City of San Bernadino v. United States. Mr. President, it is obvious that this procedure in the Congress of the United States of authorizing and appropriating has lurched completely and entirely out of control. When you are earmarking $2 billion out of an appropriations bill which has neither been examined nor voted on by either body, we have a case that has got to be remedied, and we have obviously wasted billions of dollars of the taxpayers' money. The American people deserve better. I say again to the distinguished members of the Appropriations Committee, with whom I have an excellent and warm personal relationship, this cannot stand. Next year, if this kind of practice continues, then I will have to do everything in my power to stop it, as I said before, not only because of my obligation to the taxpayers, which is significant, but my obligation to the men and women in the military who are being shortchanged by these procedures and, indeed, neglected in many respects. I yield the floor and the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I do not intend to take all of my time. I would like to have Senator Gramm use some of his time. I would like to say I am not proud to be here on the floor. This bill probably ranks up with the two or three of the most outrageous pork- barrel spending bills that I have observed in my years here since 1987. I should have demanded that the bill be read and I should be doing everything I can to block it. I intend to explain why. This bill, I say in all respect--in all respect to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and my good friend from Hawaii--is a disgrace. This bill has had $2 billion added on in conference--added on in conference. Not a single Member of this body who was not part of the conference had anything to say about $2 billion--B, billion--that was added in conference. As I say, I have not seen anything quite this bad--or perhaps I have, but it is very rare. This is a remarkable document. It has millions and millions and millions of dollars devoted to projects that have nothing to do with national defense. Mr. President, there is $4 million--excuse me--$8.5 million for the Gallo Center for Alcoholism Research. What is the Gallo Center for Alcoholism Research? That was added in the conference. It has $4 million for the Gallo Cancer Center, $1.5 million for chronic fatigue syndrome research, $1 million for the Cancer Center of Excellence. What does the Cancer Center of Excellence have to do with national defense? Mr. President, there are $4 million in this bill for the Angel Gate Academy. What is the Angel Gate Academy? There is now an allocation to preserve Civil War-era vessels at the bottom of Lake Champlain, this year in the amount of $15 million; $2 million for the Bosque Redondo Memorial. I am one of the few Members who know what the Bosque Redondo Memorial is. That is when we marched the Navajo Nation to Canyon de Chelle and killed thousands of the Navajo Nation. What does that have to do with defense? Mr. President, $3 million for hyperspectral research; astronomical active optics were deemed worthy of over $3 million in defense funds, as was coal-based advanced thermally stable jet fuel. Coal-based jet fuel? What do we have, a guy in the back of the plane shoveling coal?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, $7 million--of course Alaska is here, of course Hawaii is here. There is $5 million for the Hawaii Federal Health Care Network. I say to the Senator, my dearest friend, what in the world is the Pacific Island Health Care Referral Program? The Hawaiian Islands Federal Health Care Network? Alaska Federal Health Care Network? $1.5 million for AlaskAlert, $7 million for equipment at Fort Wainwright, $7.5 million for the C-130 simulator. There is a gift for CINCPAC, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Forces in the Pacific. Perhaps he needs a new $60 million airplane. Perhaps he needs it, I don't know. We will never know because it was not in the House bill, it was not in the Senate bill, and it was put in in conference, $60 million. This is a remarkable document. I have submitted for the Record a four-page document. Many pages show: Budget, zero; House, zero; Senate, zero; Conference--a Capital Purchase Plan at Pearl Harbor: Budget, zero; House, zero; Senate, zero; Conference, $5 million. What is that all about? What is that all about? Was it ever discussed on the floor of the Senate? Was it ever discussed at a hearing? Was it ever, dare I say, discussed in the Senate Armed Services Committee, which is the authorizing committee for these projects? Was it ever? No. This is quite remarkable. Air Force Center of Acquisition Reengineering: Budget, zero; House, zero; Senate, zero; Conference, $2 million. There is a Handheld Holographic Radar Gun--I repeat that--a Handheld Holographic Radar Gun: Budget, zero; House, zero; Senate, zero; Conference, $1 million. Is there anyone in this body besides the appropriators, besides the appropriators in this body, who is going to vote $1 million of the taxpayers' money who knows what in the world a Handheld Holographic Radar gun is? Perhaps the Presiding Officer knows. He is a very smart guy. Perhaps Senator Gramm--he is an economist; he is a former college professor--perhaps he knows. Here is one. Information Networking Systems: Budget, zero; House, zero; Senate, zero; Conference, $12.5 million. What does that mean? Intelligent Power Control Vehicle Systems: House, zero; Senate, zero; Budget, zero; Conference, $4.1 million. What does that mean? One of my annual favorites--here is one that really is puzzling. Air Vehicle Dem/Val Bridge Contracts: Budget, zero; House, zero; Senate, zero; Conference, $88,984,000. My friends, you are going to vote to appropriate $88,984,000 of taxpayers' dollars for an Air Vehicle Dem/Val Bridge Contract. Here is another one, Advanced Food Service Technology: Budget, zero; House, zero; Senate, zero; $2.5 million for Advanced Food Service Technology. Mr. President, Advanced Food Service Technology? Again, what is that all about? Was it ever requested by the administration? The answer is no. Compass Call--I will not go into the Compass Call. NTW missile defense radar competition. That may be very important. Budget, zero; House, zero; Senate, zero; conference, $80 million. I say to my friends, $80 million will be spent on NTW missile defense radar competition which, again, never had a hearing in the Senate Armed Services Committee, was never discussed on the floor of the Senate, never discussed on the floor of the House, and 80 million of taxpayers' dollars. Here is another one. Information Technology Center. Budget, zero. For the uninitiated, ``budget'' means requested by the administration. The administration requested no money for it. The House put in no money for it in their Defense appropriations bill. The Senate put zero dollars in their bill. Yet it emerged from conference: Information Technology Center, $20 million; $20 million is now being spent on the Information Technology Center which none of us knows what in the world it is, except for a chosen few. What is happening here is that Members of the Senate and House who are not members of the Appropriations Committee are being deprived of their rights to knowledge and voting and discussing, debating, and making judgment on programs. And we are talking about big money here. We are talking about $2 billion--B, billion--that have been added in conference which neither House ever debated, discussed, nor amended. I think it is wrong, and I will return to something I said several times, both publicly and privately. It is time we made some tough decisions around here: Abolish the authorizing committees or abolish the appropriations committees. I am told by the distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee that $600 million was transferred out of Navy accounts into Army accounts--$600 million--by the Appropriations Committee. We all know how the system is supposed to work. The authorizing committees authorize, and then the Appropriations Committee allows certain amounts of money which, in their best judgment, is needed. Now we are shifting hundreds of millions of dollars and adding $2 billion. We are inaugurating programs that have no relation--no relation whatsoever--to national defense. What in the world does a Gallo Research Center have to do with anything that is regarded defense? Mr. President, $7 million for the Magdalena Ridge Observatory in New Mexico--what does the Magdalena Ridge Observatory in New Mexico have to do with national defense?--combined with the aforementioned adds for Astronomical Active Optics and the Maui Space Surveillance System. Some months ago, I completed a failed Presidential campaign. I learned a lot of things in that campaign, but I also found that many Americans who did not vote in the 1998 election--in fact, we had the lowest voter turnout in history of the 18-to-26-year-old voter in the 1998 election, and all of the predictions now are that we will have an even lower voter turnout in the year 2000 Presidential campaign. They said, particularly young people: You don't represent me anymore; you don't respond to my hopes, dreams, and aspirations. I think these young people have another complaint: You don't have anything to do with the expenditure of my tax dollars. It is controlled by a few and, in many cases, those few are controlled by special interests. Recently, there was a fundraiser conducted by the Democratic Party where one could pay $500,000 and buy a ticket. When I first came to the House in 1983, if someone had told me that, I would have said: You're crazy. Here we are in a process where I am not able to represent the people of my State, much less the other young Americans who thought that I was a decent public servant. How can I represent the taxpayers of my State when $2 billion is put in, in a conference about which I have no input? How can we call ourselves their representatives when they add money into an appropriations bill in a conference? Most Americans think $2 billion is a lot of money. I will tell my colleagues this right now: We are not taking care of the men and women in the military. We have pilots leaving at the highest rate. We cannot retain them. We have young men and women leaving in the highest numbers we have ever experienced since the 1970s. We are not meeting our recruiting goals. Yet we can spend $7 million for the Magdalena Ridge Observatory; we can spend money for the LHD amphibious assault ship in Mississippi; C-130s and passenger jets are routinely added. The list goes on and on. I will have more to say because I have asked for the time, but it is not fair to the people of this country. I tell my appropriator friends now: You risk losing the confidence of the American people when you carry out these kinds of procedures. You risk and deserve the condemnation and criticism of average citizens when you use their taxpayer dollars in such fashion in a bill that says ``Defense appropriations bill'' and we give money to some Gallo outfit. It may be a good and worthy cause, but so much of this has nothing to do with national defense, and the procedure that is being used is not acceptable. I tell the appropriators now, and I want to make them very well aware, if next year this kind of behavior and these kinds of parliamentary procedures are pursued, I will do whatever one Senator can do to block passage of this bill. I say that not only because of my offense at this kind of procedure that has taken place, but I say that on behalf of the men and women who serve in the military today who are not having their basic needs met. We still have thousands of young men and women on food stamps. We still have marines recapping tires so they can buy additional ammunition with which to practice. We still have men and women in the military living in barracks that were built in World War II, and we will spend $2 billion that has nothing to do with their health, welfare, and benefit. I have that obligation, and that obligation clearly supersedes that of my obligation to my dear friends in the Senate. It has to stop. I was discussing this with my friend--and he is my dear friend--the Senator from Alaska. I said: This is terrible, all the things that have been put in. He said: You should have seen what they tried to put in. In all due respect to the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, it is not good enough. I see the Senator from Texas has more to say. I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.