John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleague. Nomination of Timothy B. Dyk

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Michigan, Senator Levin, for his leadership on this issue. This has been an excellent debate, probably what we should have a lot more of in this body on a variety of issues that confront the Nation and, therefore, call us to our duties as the Senate and the Congress. I agree with Senator Byrd when he quoted Congress should not remain silent. Unfortunately, we passed a law some years ago called the War Powers Act. That act--and I believe Senator Byrd was here at the time of its passage--has been largely ignored, both by the executive branch and by the legislative branch. On numerous occasions, I have approached leaders on both sides and said we are violating the law called the War Powers Act, and we blithely ignore that law. Yet when we pass laws that affect our fellow citizens, we do not allow them to ignore the laws we pass. It is a bit disgraceful, really, that we have a law on the books which we fail to address, particularly since this law is concerning an issue of no small importance; in fact one can argue, I think persuasively, of the most importance, and that is when and under what circumstances we send young men and women into harm's way. Since we ignore the War Powers Act, the power that the Congress has, which I respect, revere, and believe is entirely appropriate under our constitutional responsibilities, is the ability to cut off funding for any military enterprise in which this Nation enters. I think that is clear. I do not think there is any argument about that. If the Byrd-Warner amendment was about cutting off funds for further deployment of U.S. military forces in Kosovo, I would be much more comfortable about this debate and what it is all about, but what we are doing is very unusual. I have not been here as long as some of the other Members of this body, but I have never seen an issue of this import placed on a military construction appropriations bill which generally is a routine piece of legislation, except for a few of us who come over and complain about the pork-laden aspects of it. But it is a routine piece of legislation. Now it is a vehicle for debate and decision over an issue of grave importance, in the view of certainly General Clark, certainly Secretary Cohen, certainly the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. We are talking about an issue that can impact the issue of war or peace in the center of Europe. And what have we done in the Senate? We have placed it on the military construction appropriations bill. This legislation should have been the subject of hearings in the Foreign Relations Committee and the Armed Services Committee. It should have had a legislative vehicle that proceeded through both committees and then came to the floor of the Senate. In an incredibly bizarre fashion, both committee chairmen and ranking members, in my view, have abrogated their responsibilities as committee chairmen and the oversight of issues of this grave importance. What is more bothersome is the fact that we are conditioning this vote on another vote that will take place sometime--which may be changed by the sponsors of the bill. On what are we voting? We are voting to propose a situation which would then require another vote. As I have said, I have not been here a long time, but I have not seen anything quite like this. Our responsibility is not to have a vote on an issue that at a time certain requires another vote which, if affirmative, would allow the President of the United States to carry out his duties as President of the United States. What this vote should be about is funding, yes or no. Do we want to fund further operations in Kosovo or do we not? We have enough information to make that decision. Members of this body have been informed. When the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, for whom I have the greatest respect and admiration, says Congress should not remain silent, my answer is, Congress should not speak in this fashion. Congress should not be speaking in this fashion. Congress should be speaking, as is its constitutional responsibility, to fund this operation or not to fund it. I am concerned about burden sharing. I have been concerned about it all my days here in the Senate and before that in the other body. I am concerned about what are the rules of engagement. I am concerned about the role of our European allies. All of those things should be taken into a context in which Members should make a decision as to whether we stay or go. With all due respect, we are taking a vote to put off a vote which would have profound consequences. The Congress, in my view, is not fulfilling its responsibilities when it addresses this issue in this fashion. In the 1980s, I was in the minority and my party held the Presidency of the United States. All through the 1980s, there were attempts at micromanagement of U.S. foreign policy, particularly in Central America. Some of the bitterest debates I ever observed in the House of Representatives and here in the Senate concerned our involvement, our support for certain elements, our support for freedom and democracy in Central America. I, as did many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle--who I understand are now supporting this resolution--opposed that very same kind of micromanagement on the part of Congress when the other party was in control of the White House. I am very pleased to see the nominee of my party, Gov. George Bush, with whom I had a very spirited contest over the previous year, step forward forthrightly and say this is an ``overreach of congressional authority.'' Governor Bush has it right. President Clinton has it right. Secretary Cohen has it right. And every objective observer that I know has it right. The Washington Post of May 11, 2000, states: But the Senate measure is the wrong answer to these legitimate concerns. We did not have to get into Kosovo. It was through the ineptitude of this administration where they tried to impose an agreement, called the Rambouillet agreement, which Mr. Milosevic could not accept. Then we carried out, in my view, one of the more immoral military actions in the history of this country. I say that because of the tactical way we conducted it: Flying our airplanes around at such high altitudes that our planes would not be shot down but we needlessly inflicted civilian casualties. That is a shameful kind of operation on the part of the U.S. military. The Washington Post says: But the Senate measure is the wrong answer to these legitimate concerns. By establishing a de facto deadline for a U.S. pullout, it would actually discourage U.S. allies--who are, after all, providing the lion's share of the ground forces already--from seeing the job through as Sen. Warner and others wish. It tells the enemies of a democratic, multiethnic state in Kosovo--Serb and Albanian--that they can wait out the Americans. That is really what the message, if we adopt this resolution over a clear Presidential veto, would be: We can wait you out. We can wait you out, Americans, because we know you're going home. The Secretary General of NATO, a man who is respected by all of us, sent us a letter. I quote from that letter: In my view, while ensuring proper burden-sharing is important, we should not let that issue distract us from our larger policy objectives. The NATO presence in Kosovo needs to be decided on the merits of our being there--the job that we are doing and that we need to finish. That is the key. As critical as the burdensharing issue is, we should be deciding this issue solely on the basis of whether or not it is in the U.S. national security interests to have a military presence in the middle of Europe in Kosovo. Burden sharing is an important issue. We now hear, even from the cosponsor of the legislation, Senator Warner, that he is pleased with the increase in the burdensharing responsibility that has been taken up by our European allies. But this issue should not be based on burden sharing; it should be based on where our national security interests lie. The Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization goes on to say: I believe that we owe it to ourselves, if not the people of that region, to finish the job we began. As Secretary General of NATO, I will pursue that goal with the utmost vigour. I hope I can count on continued U.S. support, even recognizing that the European Allies must continue carrying the largest share of the load at this stage. The Secretary General of NATO does not just speak for himself, and even the NATO alliance, but I think he speaks for all of Europe when he says: ``I hope I can count on continued U.S. support.'' Since 1945, the United States has had a military presence in Europe. Any objective observer will tell you, our victory in the cold war was due to our steadfast presence.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. McCAIN. It is an important debate. It is an important issue. Will the forces of isolationism and withdrawal prevail or will the United States continue to hold its rightful position as the military and economic leader of the world? The language currently in the bill represents not just bad policy, but bad law. Its inclusion in the Military Construction Appropriations Bill is highly inappropriate. The Congressional committees that oversee the Armed Forces and our nation's foreign relations should have the opportunity to review and debate national security matters of such consequence. The Kosovo withdrawal language in the Military Construction Appropriations bill is unprecedented and will certainly prompt a veto by the President. For these reasons, it is imperative that we move to strike Section 2410 by voting in favor of the Levin- McCain amendment. The requirement in the bill for a withdrawal of ground forces unless Congress passes a joint resolution authorizing their continued deployment is precisely the kind of provision that Congress should never impose upon any Chief Executive. Congress has within its constitutional authorities the power of the purse--the legislative means to terminate funding for an ongoing military operation. It is historically reluctant to exercising that authority, even when the majority oppose the operation in question. But we should never impose the kind of statutory burden on any President that this bill seeks to impose. Clearly, this Administration could have--and most definitely should have--dealt more forthrightly with Congress and the American public from the beginning. Had it done so, it likely could have avoided this kind of exercise. As with Bosnia, however, its arrogance and ineptitude left many in Congress with a sense of having to act lest its rightful place in the debate over the U.S. role abroad would be completely ignored. The result is the damaging language currently in the bill. Congress has been down this road many times before. The propensity of the Administration to deploy American military forces with seemingly wanton abandon on ill-defined missions of indeterminate duration is repeatedly met with efforts by Members of Congress to legislate the terms of those deployments. We can, and most assuredly will, revisit the question of separation of powers on national security again and again. The Founding Fathers built into our system of constitutional government certain tensions designed to prevent a potentially dangerous shift in the balance of power between branches of government. We last debated the issue of war powers and the U.S. role in Kosovo in March 1999. The War Powers Resolution, which many view as unconstitutional, ironically proved to be the vehicle by which both Houses of Congress finally consented to debate the issue in its totality, including my failed effort to authorize the use of ground forces in Kosovo during Operation Allied Force. That debate was illuminating for the degree to which it illustrated the depth of opposition on the part of many senators to the military operation. That opposition, of course, is what lies behind the language on Kosovo in the bill before us today. I am fully supportive of measures designed to improve the burden- sharing arrangements under which we operate alongside other nations, especially in contingencies that should never have required U.S. military involvement in the beginning. For this reason, I am not opposed to the burden-sharing language in the bill, although the frequency of the reporting requirements are somewhat excessive. I take issue, however, with the draconian measures the bill mandates should the answers we receive from the President not meet our expectations. And make no mistake. When I refer here to the President, I refer to the Office of the Presidency, for the language in this bill will have far-reaching and damaging consequences for all future occupants of the Oval Office. Funding cutoffs and mandatory troop withdrawals that must occur based on future circumstances absent congressional action, such as are reflected in this legislation, represent Congress at its worst. By requiring enactment of a congressional joint resolution authorizing the continuation of our current role in Kosovo, we are establishing a very dangerous precedent that will seriously weaken this nation's ability to conduct foreign policy long after many of us have left this most august of bodies. I would ask supporters of Section 2410 what they believe would be accomplished by the provisions limiting funding pending presidential certification with regard to allied burden-sharing. Burden-sharing is a legitimate issue for discussion. To threaten funding cut-offs for troops in the field in the middle of an ongoing operation over the issues of equitable distribution of workload and financial commitment, however, is irresponsible in the extreme. The strategic ramifications of Section 2410 should not be underestimated. The United States has important national security and economic interests around the world that are affected by what we do here in Congress. By mandating a troop withdrawal from an ongoing operation, we threaten those interests by emboldening our adversaries. Slobodan Milosevic is a calculating and ruthless individual with a record of responding to outside pressures and inducements, retreating when necessary; conducting brutal campaigns when the opportunity avails itself. A precipitious withdrawal of U.S. ground forces while Kosovo remains unstable and the potential threat to Montenegro looms over the horizon will undermine our interests in Europe and around the world. That is a path down which we do not want to go. Additionally, the implications for NATO must be considered. The United States has a very definite stake in the evolution of a European Security and Defense Identity, as manifested in the efforts by our allies to establish the so-called Eurocorps. It is not in our interests for such a unit, should it take shape and mature into a viable force, to act independent of U.S. influence--influence that would be severely undermined by a unilateral action of the kind contemplated in this bill. Clearly, the failure of our European allies to deploy the numbers of police officers necessary to accomplish the mission of pacifying the region without the continued use of military personnel untrained in such activities has been very troubling. And I would be hard-pressed to defend the conduct of the operation in light of internal U.S. military disagreements regarding the deployability of U.S. troops from their sector to areas like Mitrovica where tensions and the propensity for violence remain high. This has not been a well-conceived mission. But there are worse alternatives, and the approach represented in this bill is one such example. A far better approach, I would suggest, would dispense with the automatic funding cut-offs currently in the bill. Rather than automatic cut-offs in the event presidential certifications fall short, Congress would still be free to offer legislation terminating the U.S. role in this operation. A vote by Congress to act affirmatively to cut off funding, while I would oppose it, is less damaging to U.S. foreign policy than is a triggering mechanism written into law--the object of the authors of the current language. And we would avoid establishing a very dangerous precedent that I would like to think few among us actually wish to see materialize. Mr. President, you do not have to be a supporter of the manner in which the operation in Kosovo has been conducted in order to have serious problems with this language. It is a peacekeeping operation in a region where the commitment to peace remains tenuous. Many in Congress and the public we represent want out of Kosovo. We should never have had to go there to begin with, but for the unwillingness of our European friends and allies to act swiftly and decisively to prevent a brushfire from becoming a raging inferno. But we should not willingly commit untold damage to our future ability to conduct foreign policy when alternatives may exist. And we should never undercut our forces in the field out of pique that other countries are failing to shoulder their share of the load--especially when the burden-sharing issue has devolved primarily to one centering around the deployment of police officers. We had every right to be angered by what Generals Clark and Reinhardt referred to as the hollowing-out of allied force contingents. The quiet, almost surreptitious withdrawal of soldiers by key allies was not their finest hour. But forceful diplomacy, not congressionally- mandated troop withdrawals, is the answer to such problems. The language in this bill is counterproductive and damaging to U.S. foreign policy. We should not compliment a questionable policy with even worse legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the removal of Section 2410 from the bill and vote yes on the Levin-McCain amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to co-sponsor this important legislation aimed at reducing youth smoking. This legislation addresses the void in federal regulatory authority over tobacco left by the recent Supreme Court ruling that FDA has no current power to regulate tobacco products. Dr. Frist provided excellent guidance and leadership on FDA authority in 1998. In this legislation he is continuing that role by proposing legislation which I believe can gain support of enough of our colleagues to actually make this the law. Right now FDA has no authority whatsoever. While I supported the even more stringent measures proposed in 1998, I concur with Senator Frist that our chief responsibility this year is to pass legislation which will actually result in reductions in the number of kids smoking. We should pass this legislation and see results, not simply talk for several more years about how much more we would like to do. The statistics on youth smoking are clear and alarming: 3000 kids start smoking every day; 1000 of them will die early from smoking related disease; and one of three adolescents is using tobacco by age 18. We're not talking about kids who sneak a cigarette out of their mother's purse. According to a Surgeon General's report 71 percent of youth smokers use tobacco daily, but 90 percent of lifetime smokers take up the habit before the age of 18--the legal age to buy tobacco products in every state in the union--so if we can limit the number of kids smoking, we will eventually decrease the number of adults smoking. Specifically, what the legislation will do is: 1. FDA will oversee ingredients in tobacco products to ensure that they are adulterated with ``putrid'' or ``poisonous substances,'' and may regulate the manufacturing process to require the sanitary conditions one would normally expect in dealing with agricultural products. 2. It includes the very stringent and specific warning labeling requirements from the 1998 legislation. FDA will have the authority to revise and enforce labeling requirements, and to ensure that tobacco products are not misbranded or misrepresented to the public. 3. FDA will serve as the clearinghouse for information about tobacco products, the ingredients used by manufacturers, and will approve new products and formulas to ensure that they protect public health. 4. FDA will have the authority to establish advertising and access limitations designed to ensure that kids are not the target of marketing by tobacco companies, and to prevent kids from easily shoplifting or buying cigarettes. 5. It provides a mechanism for lower risk tobacco products to be tested, reviewed and approved. 6. It allows FDA to regulate tobacco products and nicotine to decrease the harm caused by them as much as feasible. What the legislation does not do is permit FDA to ban tobacco products directly, or indirectly. That authority remains with Congress. There are an estimated 40-50 million smokers in this country, and it is neither practical nor in the public interest to vest that authority with a federal agency which is unaccountable to the public at large. We do not gain by driving current smokers to black markets. It is better to regulate tobacco products to prevent them from becoming worse and to focus on decreasing the number of kids who take up smoking or using chewing tobacco. The legislation also does not raise prices--it does not raise taxes. No new government programs or agencies are created. No liability issues are addressed. This is simple and straightforward legislation to give the FDA authority to regulate tobacco products and to promulgate regulations to prevent advertising, marketing and access for kids. The legislation does not permit a broad ban or control over advertising. Instead, it vests authority with FDA to regulate advertising aimed at kids. This limitation allows FDA sufficient authority to address Joe Camel type advertising, while providing the best opportunity for success against constitutional challenges. While I strongly advocate against kids smoking, I recognize that it is the right of an adult to make a stupid choice--to smoke--knowing of the consequences. This legislation protects that right. It provides a delicate balance between protecting a person from himself, and letting each individual make individual choices, and suffer the consequences of those choices. This legislation will draw attacks from both sides--from those who think the bill is too stringent, and from those who think the legislation does not go far enough. I say to my friends on both sides, this is a reasonable and practical solution to a serious problem. I urge an end to the posturing and a dedication to making sure that we do not leave this session without providing FDA with some authority over tobacco products. I pledge to both sides that I will work with them to refine the language, to address their legitimate concerns. But, we will have gained nothing if we allow this to become the political football that it became two years ago. Make no mistake, this is not perfect legislation. I would like to do more. But I think it is more important to move forward with this very good proposal than to wait for some distant time, if ever, when we can pass a perfect bill. This legislation is a major step in the right direction. I think we can get enough support to pass it. I support its early consideration and action.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to address the Senate once again on the subject of military construction projects added to an appropriations bill that were not requested by the Department of Defense. This bill contains almost $900 million in unrequested military construction projects. What makes this bill even more offensive than most pork-laden military construction bills is the fact that, while the Senate is willing to act swiftly to approve these pork-barrel projects, we have failed to act to end the disgraceful situation of more than 12,000 military families forced to use food stamps to make ends meet. For the second year in a row, Congress is on the verge of spending hundreds of millions of dollars for purely parochial reasons, while rejecting a proposal that would cost just $6 million per year to take care of those military families most in need. I am appalled at the extraordinary and inexplicable resistance I have encountered to enacting legislation to get these brave young men and women and their families off food stamps. I am ashamed that the Senate would put hometown construction projects ahead of desperately needed relief for our most junior enlisted personnel. I appreciate the Senate's unanimous expression of support during consideration of the budget resolution for additional funding for food stamp relief in the defense budget, and I hope my colleagues will reiterate that support when I offer an amendment to the defense authorization bill to end the food stamp Army once and for all. Every year, I come to the Senate floor for the express purpose of highlighting programs and projects added to spending bills for primarily parochial reasons. While I recognize that many of the projects added to this bill may be worthwhile, the process by which they were selected violates at least one, if not several, of the criteria set out several years ago to limit just this sort of wasteful spending. I will address the Kosovo language included in this bill at another time. Suffice to say for now that this language, grounded though it may be in an understandable frustration with the Administration and our allies' handling of that contingency, represents foreign policy making by Congress at its worst. This language, certain to prompt a veto of the bill, constitutes a highly questionable approach to solving the problem of burden-sharing and sets a precedent that will damage our credibility abroad for years to come. Particularly objectionable, apart from the obvious funding issues already alluded to, is the addition to this bill of funding provisions and legislation having nothing to do with military construction and clearly not an emergency requiring immediate redress. In this regard, note must be made of Section 2109, which legislates a funding profile for a ship that has not been requested by the Navy and that cannot be built under the expedited process the ship's congressional sponsor seeks to impose. The $8 million added by the Appropriations Committee for the 2002 Olympics in Salt Lake City, with the proviso that the funds be designated as an ``emergency requirement''--$8 million for the year 2002 Olympics designated as an ``emergency''? It continues to stagger the imagination. It compels a reference to the old Yogi Berra malapropism about experiencing deja vu all over again. I am also at a loss as to the rationale for including in this bill certain site-specific earmarks like the $300,000 to transfer excess housing to Indian tribes of North and South Dakota. And mention should be made of the usual Buy America restrictions included in the bill, with a notable exception when it is in the interest of important Members of Congress. Section 112, for example, prohibits the use of funds in the bill to award contracts worth more than $1 million to foreign contractors, except when a Marshallese contractor is seeking contracts at Kwajalein. The $7 million in the bill ``to ensure the availability of biometrics technologies'' will require more research. It will be very interesting to discover the motivation behind that little phrase. I would like to point out that the report on this bill was filed late, and thus the information available to Senators about specific projects included in this bill is somewhat limited. We get into an interesting habit of taking up legislation around here without a report available for the Members to read. If history is any guide, however, skepticism regarding many items added to this bill is warranted. Enough is known about the process by which appropriations bills are put together to justify continued outrage at abuse of the system to satisfy parochial considerations. Mr. President, the abuse of the Future Years Defense Plan as a criteria for adding projects to military spending bills is seriously out of control. Witness, for example, the number of projects in this bill that are in the fourth or fifth year of the FYDP and that have had no design work done. At least 17 such projects were added to the bill. While they are listed as executable, should we really be advancing unrequested projects by four and five years at the same time we continue to ignore the disgrace of 12,000 military families on food stamps? It was interesting to see, Mr. President, that the authorization bill for military construction includes a provision equating the term ``Readiness Center'' to the term ``Armory.'' We all enjoy semantic gamesmanship now and again, but if we are going to continue to funnel money back home to National Guard Armories, let's just say so. Let's not exploit the legitimate issue of military readiness that we are finally focused on in order to conduct the same old pork-barrel spending practices that are as much a part of this institution as the collegial colloquialisms that characterize our demeanor on the Senate floor. There are 28 members of the Appropriations Committee. Only two do not have projects added to the appropriations bill. I wonder what happened to the other two. Perhaps the manager of the bill can tell us what occurred there. Those numbers, needless to say, go well beyond the realm of mere coincidence. Of 145 projects added to this bill, 111 are in states represented by Senators on the Appropriations Committee, totaling over $700 million. The $12 million added to the bill for the first phase of an access road in Hawaii, the $25 million added for a Joint Mobility Complex in Alaska, the $4 million added for Army National Guard parking in Kentucky, the $14 million added for a fuel cell maintenance dock in Louisiana, the $4.5 million added for an Army National Guard administration building in Nevada, the $10 million added for an Army National Guard Readiness Center (read: Armory) in North Dakota, the $10 million added for the first phase of a base civil engineer complex in South Dakota, and the $1.4 million for channel dredging in Mississippi, are just a handful of the projects added by members that were not in the budget request. Forts Richardson and Wainwright, both in Alaska, fared particularly well, the latter receiving $300,000 for a trail and $900,000 for a biathlon live fire course--which could only be considered a close cousin to the previously mentioned money for the upcoming Winter Olympics. Yet, many of the Senators whose projects are included in this bill continue to oppose spending just $6 million a year to remove military families from the rolls of those eligible for food stamps. If I sound repetitive, Mr. President, it is out of frustration--frustration at the ability of my colleagues to close their eyes to the disgraceful plight of thousands of our enlisted personnel who don't make enough money to feed themselves and their families. I believe I have made my point. As usual, I labor under no illusions regarding the impact my comments will have on the way we do business here. I have in the past attempted legislative recourse to pork-barrel spending, and I will do so again. But the history of votes on such efforts causes me to exercise that right sparingly. My self-restraint is simply an acknowledgment that I represent a small minority of this body. Wasteful and unnecessary spending continues because most Members of Congress truly believe that it is one of their primary reasons for being here. I submit, Mr. President, that a wide line exists between serving one's constituents in the context of our nation's best interests and simply funneling money back home because that's how we remind our constituents to vote for us again. About 2 weeks ago, there was a study completed concerning the deplorable state of the U.S. Army. More captains are leaving the U.S. Army than at anytime in history. We will shortly have a Senate authorization bill, as well as this and other appropriations bills. They don't address this problem. I can guarantee those captains aren't leaving the Army because they need $12 million for the first phase of an access road in Hawaii, or $25 million for a joint mobility complex in Alaska, or $4 million for Army National Guard parking in Kentucky. If the Republican leadership and the chairmen of these committees continue to spend taxpayers' dollars in this profligate manner, sooner or later the American people will repudiate those actions. I hope it will be sooner rather than later. The thing that is particularly appalling to me is that this appropriations profligate spending of unauthorized, unnecessary, wasteful pork barrel spending continues at a greater rate every year than the previous year. It will stop sooner or later. I believe it will stop sooner because this bill is a classic example of the abrogation of our responsibilities to average taxpayers, those who are not represented here in Washington, DC. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I support passage of H.R. 434, the Trade and Development Act of 2000. This legislation includes the African Growth and Opportunity Act, legislation to grant Caribbean countries tariff parity with the North American Free Trade Agreement, and other legislation that will use trade incentives to promote U.S. global economic interests. I have been a longtime supporter of many components of this legislation, especially the African Growth and Opportunity Act and legislation giving NAFTA parity to our Caribbean allies. This legislation sets an important precedent for future U.S. foreign policy by emphasizing trade incentives over foreign aid. It makes clear that a developing African or Caribbean country must pursue democratic and market-oriented reforms in order to receive benefits. This incentive- based approach will promote democratic government and economic reforms among nations home to more than one billion people. Recent developments in both Zimbabwe and Sierra Leone show that there is much work that still has to be done in Africa to establish stable and effective political and economic institutions. My hope is that this legislation will encourage these developing countries to continue to make progress toward this important goal. This legislation has been improved since it passed the Senate last year. The conference report gives greater incentive to the development of local African and Caribbean industry by allowing conditional duty- free treatment of apparel made from regional fabrics. While I hope that a future Congress will remove the restrictive conditions on this tariff treatment in order to more fully assist the development of regional industry, I believe that this liberalized tariff-rate quota will promote economic growth and stability in the affected regions. This legislation urges the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) and Export-Import Bank to promote investment in Africa. Greater American investment in Africa creates greater exposure to American political, economic, labor and environmental principles. Provisions of this legislation also welcome the people of Albania and Kyrgyzstan into the international economy, which I believe is beneficial to American interests. Finally, I am glad that this legislation includes a provision to prohibit the importation of products made from child labor into the United States. This barbaric practice is a relic of earlier, less enlightened times that should be extinguished. It is unconscionable that the conference dropped a provision that would have made HIV/AIDS medicine more available to the African people. The AIDS epidemic throughout Africa is a crisis, which impedes political reform and economic development in that region. We have a moral obligation to help relieve this health epidemic. I am a strong advocate of free trade and private enterprise. However, as a practical matter, there is little profit to be made or lost in assisting with a health crisis in poor undeveloped countries. Therefore, I believe that we should have included the Senate provision in order to ensure greater distribution of HIV/AIDS drugs to Africa. Since it is no longer included in this legislation, I urge the Congress to enact legislation that will establish a comprehensive solution to the HIV/AIDS problem in Africa that includes the greater distribution of American drugs and medical practices to combat HIV/AIDS. The AIDS crisis in Africa must be solved if we are to achieve any lasting development in the region. I also have concerns that this legislation will establish some poor precedents. It is my understanding that there is not yet a formal estimate by the Congressional Budget Office for this legislation, so we do not know its cost. I am very disturbed that whatever the costs of the legislation, it will be paid for out of the federal budget surplus. This is not wise policy. The Constitution clearly gives the Congress the ``power of the purse'' and we must use this power judiciously. I remain dedicated to the principle that the Senate should only consider legislation that has both a known cost and specific provisions paying for it. The version of this legislation that we considered in the Senate in November included provisions to pay for it. The Congress should close tax shelters and loopholes and cut wasteful government spending in order to pay for new programs. As fiscal conservatives, we know that this surplus exists only because we have made careful choices. We must now use this surplus to shore up Social Security and Medicare, pay down the national debt, and cut taxes--not spend it on more government programs. I am also concerned by some of the provisions in this legislation. While I understand that the current tariff structure puts American suit manufacturers at an unfair advantage, remedying this inequity deserves more study by the Senate. I do not favor the tariff rebate provisions. No compelling argument has been made to support a Wool Research, Development and Promotion Trust Fund that costs $2.25 million each year. I am also concerned by provisions included in the conference report that allow Oregon nuclear power plant workers to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance benefits after their eligibility has expired, and allow a company with operations in Connecticut and Missouri to obtain a refund on duties it paid on imports of nuclear fuel assemblies. In addition, I have reservations about using ``budgetary gimmicks'' to change the schedule of payments of rum excise taxes to Puerto Rico. These revisions are unrelated to trade opportunities for Africa and the Caribbean. All of these measures should be examined in the usual authorization process to ensure that they are considered on merit, and not foisted on the taxpayers by special interests. In conclusion, although I disagree with some of the inadvisable provisions in this bill, I support this legislation. I believe that, on balance, it is an important milestone in American policy with the developing world, which I hope will encourage the spread of American political and economic values. I will not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. However, Congress should ensure that we are more fiscally responsible in funding legislation. It is important that we write responsible legislation that will help promote the American principles of democracy, the rule of law, and a market-oriented economic system.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I join with my friends and colleagues, Senators Bob Kerrey and Pat Moynihan, to introduce a very important bill that will serve as the catalyst for putting aside partisan politics and beginning the process of protecting, preserving and reforming the Social Security system. Our bill establishes principles and a process for Social Security reform. The bill sets forth broadly stated objectives for comprehensive reform of the Social Security system that should be supported by every one of us. It establishes a bipartisan Congressional Commission charged with developing a reform plan consistent with those objectives. The Commission is required to submit a detailed legislative proposal to Congress by September 2001, and the bill includes a process for expedited Congressional action on the Commission's recommendations by the end of next year. Mr. President, for far too long, Social Security has been used by politicians on both sides of the aisle to polarize, manipulate and scare American voters. The mere mention of ``Social Security reform'' has become a lightning rod for the fears of retirees and workers alike about their financial futures. Seniors, particularly low-income seniors, are vulnerable to exaggerations and hyperbolic rhetoric about their retirement benefits. They are often frightened into believing they will be homeless, penniless and starving if Congress reforms Social Security. We all know that is simply not true. The benefits seniors receive today are not the issue--nobody wants to take them away. And it is disgraceful that some would stoop so low as to play on the fears of older Americans. The real issue driving Social Security reform--an issue that is only frightening when left unresolved--is how to strengthen and protect the system so that it is available for future retirees, without putting an unfair financial burden on current and future workers. We have wasted too much time on partisan politics when we should have been working together to find a solution to the financial problems facing our nation's retirement system. We can no longer afford to just spout rhetoric about the need for reform, then deliberately avoid taking any concrete action because of fears about how it may affect us in our next election. Social Security reform is not just a political problem; it is a serious economic problem for millions of Americans who are counting on a retirement system that is in dire financial straits. It's time to step up to our common responsibilities, not as Republicans or Democrats, but as servants of the American people. That is why I have joined with Senator Kerrey and Senator Moynihan to introduce this bill to require the Congress to act, and act soon, on legislation to preserve, protect, and reform Social Security. As my colleagues know, Bob Kerrey and Pat Moynihan have worked tirelessly for many years to highlight the urgent need for reform of the Social Security system, and they have succeeded in making the American people, if not the Congress, recognize that reforming our nation's retirement system must be a national priority. Our bill sets out a timetable for action on Social Security reform by the end of next year--November 2001. First, the bipartisan, bicameral Social Security Protection, Preservation, and Reform Commission must be appointed by February 1, 2001, and begin work within a month. The Commission will be made up of 12 Members of Congress, selected in equal numbers by the Party Leaders in both Houses. In addition, the Commission of Social Security will serve as an ex-officio, non-voting member. The Commission is given a reasonable period of time--six months--to conduct hearings, review the myriad of reform proposals already in the public domain, and research new ideas to put together a comprehensive reform plan that meets the objectives set out in this bill. Those broadly stated objectives represent the most basic requirements of meaningful Social Security reform: Guaranteed 75-year solvency of the system; Payment of all benefits to which retirees or workers are entitled; A reasonable rate of return on payroll tax contributions for all generations; An opportunity to participate in private investment accounts; A ``lockbox'' for the Social Security Trust Funds to protect from spending raids; and Use of non-Social Security surplus revenues to shore up the system while implementing reform. The Commission is required to submit its recommendations to Congress in the form of a detailed legislative proposal by September 1, 2001, and the bill's expedited procedures are designed to ensure a final vote on Social Security reform by mid-November 2001. The strict time lines in the bill are designed to ensure that this vitally important issue is dealt with promptly--not pushed aside yet again, to be solved later. Too often, election year politics stand as an obstacle to any meaningful action in Congress. This proposal is carefully crafted to avoid this. The bill is designed to ensure that Congress can complete action on Social Security reform by the end of 2001, before being consumed by the political sparring of an election year. Mr. President, each year that reform of the Social Security system is postponed, restoring solvency to the trust funds becomes more expensive and places a greater financial burden on current and future workers. This ``principles and process'' legislation is, we believe, the only way to force Congress to pass a Social Security reform proposal that will protect and preserve our nation's retirement system and also allow more Americans to share in our nation's prosperity. Mr. President, let me take a moment to comment on the objectives, or principles, included in this bill. The objectives are intended as minimum guidelines for the Commission's work, not as a comprehensive blueprint for Social Security reform. We intentionally stated these objectives as broadly as possible in order to give the Commission the opportunity to develop a comprehensive plan without micro-managing their every decision. I believe very strongly that all promised benefits must be guaranteed under any reform proposal, both for those currently receiving Social Security benefits and those who are working and paying into Social Security today. In addition, I will work to ensure that Social Security reform does not unfairly burden today's workers by increasing payroll taxes from their current levels. And I do not believe it would be fair to further increase the eligibility age for receiving Social Security benefits. I am a strong proponent of allowing workers to invest a portion of their payroll taxes in personal retirement accounts that will provide a much greater return than the current Social Security system. This will afford all Americans the opportunity to have greater personal wealth creation in addition to a minimum Social Security benefit. Mr. President, I was very disappointed that Vice President Gore is continuing to use scare tactics about Social Security reform. Instead of putting the retirement needs of all Americans ahead of politics, the Vice President seems content to exacerbate the financial burden facing our children and grandchildren by ignoring the real structural problems of the program. By using politically intimidating rhetoric, the Vice President is seriously harming bipartisan efforts in Congress to put the needs of working Americans ahead of partisan politics. Let's look at the facts. The savings rate in America today is appallingly low. Many low-income families have no savings at all, and a large number of middle-income Americans have less than $2,000 in the bank. Because of this low savings rate, many Americans rely heavily on Social Security benefits for their retirement income. But economists agree that the rate of return on Social Security payroll tax contributions is abysmal--somewhere between 1 and 2 percent. Most workers today are unaware that the payroll taxes they contribute to Social Security may not provide anywhere near the income they expect when they retire. In fact, if nothing is done to reform the Social Security system, younger workers will receive nothing at all in return for paying more than 6 percent of their earnings every pay day into the Social Security system. Allowing every worker to invest a portion of the payroll taxes they already pay in a higher-yielding private account would make it possible for families on very tight budgets to save more for their futures. Even the most anemic savings account today realizes almost 3 percent, and secure short-term certificates of deposit return almost 6 percent. Over the past 50 years, the stock market has gained an average of more than 6 percent per year, with 20 to 30 percent gains in several recent years. Proposals to allow every American to choose to invest a portion of their Social Security payroll taxes in a low- to moderate-risk private investment account are designed to give even the lowest-income families the opportunity to share in our Nation's economic prosperity and create wealth for themselves and their children. In the long run, diverting a portion of payroll taxes to personal retirement accounts will bring more money into the Social Security system. In the short run, it will cost money. Using a significant portion of the non-Social Security surplus revenues to shore up the Social Security system will ensure that current retirees receive their full benefits while reforms are implemented. At the same time, reducing the financial insolvency of the Social Security system through reform will also reduce our national debt. Mr. President, we all have opinions about how the Social Security program should or could be reformed, and I will have more to say about specific aspects of Social Security reform when I introduce a comprehensive reform bill later this month. Every one of these ideas deserves fair and full consideration as we work together to restore solvency to our Nation's retirement system. It is clear that we need a formal process and effective deadlines to review these ideas and develop and pass a real, meaningful plan to reform Social Security. That is exactly what this bill will achieve. Mr. President, Social Security is a sacred compact with workers and retirees that must be honored. The Congress has an obligation to develop a real, meaningful reform plan that strengthens and protects the Social Security program for our Nation's seniors without placing an unfair burden on America's workers. And we must do it sooner rather than later. I urge my colleagues to put aside partisan politics and work with us to get this process legislation passed and begin the business of reforming Social Security now. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I join with my friends and colleagues, Senators Bob Kerrey and Pat Moynihan, to introduce a very important bill that will serve as the catalyst for putting aside partisan politics and beginning the process of protecting, preserving and reforming the Social Security system. Our bill establishes principles and a process for Social Security reform. The bill sets forth broadly stated objectives for comprehensive reform of the Social Security system that should be supported by every one of us. It establishes a bipartisan Congressional Commission charged with developing a reform plan consistent with those objectives. The Commission is required to submit a detailed legislative proposal to Congress by September 2001, and the bill includes a process for expedited Congressional action on the Commission's recommendations by the end of next year. Mr. President, for far too long, Social Security has been used by politicians on both sides of the aisle to polarize, manipulate and scare American voters. The mere mention of ``Social Security reform'' has become a lightning rod for the fears of retirees and workers alike about their financial futures. Seniors, particularly low-income seniors, are vulnerable to exaggerations and hyperbolic rhetoric about their retirement benefits. They are often frightened into believing they will be homeless, penniless and starving if Congress reforms Social Security. We all know that is simply not true. The benefits seniors receive today are not the issue--nobody wants to take them away. And it is disgraceful that some would stoop so low as to play on the fears of older Americans. The real issue driving Social Security reform--an issue that is only frightening when left unresolved--is how to strengthen and protect the system so that it is available for future retirees, without putting an unfair financial burden on current and future workers. We have wasted too much time on partisan politics when we should have been working together to find a solution to the financial problems facing our nation's retirement system. We can no longer afford to just spout rhetoric about the need for reform, then deliberately avoid taking any concrete action because of fears about how it may affect us in our next election. Social Security reform is not just a political problem; it is a serious economic problem for millions of Americans who are counting on a retirement system that is in dire financial straits. It's time to step up to our common responsibilities, not as Republicans or Democrats, but as servants of the American people. That is why I have joined with Senator Kerrey and Senator Moynihan to introduce this bill to require the Congress to act, and act soon, on legislation to preserve, protect, and reform Social Security. As my colleagues know, Bob Kerrey and Pat Moynihan have worked tirelessly for many years to highlight the urgent need for reform of the Social Security system, and they have succeeded in making the American people, if not the Congress, recognize that reforming our nation's retirement system must be a national priority. Our bill sets out a timetable for action on Social Security reform by the end of next year--November 2001. First, the bipartisan, bicameral Social Security Protection, Preservation, and Reform Commission must be appointed by February 1, 2001, and begin work within a month. The Commission will be made up of 12 Members of Congress, selected in equal numbers by the Party Leaders in both Houses. In addition, the Commission of Social Security will serve as an ex-officio, non-voting member. The Commission is given a reasonable period of time--six months--to conduct hearings, review the myriad of reform proposals already in the public domain, and research new ideas to put together a comprehensive reform plan that meets the objectives set out in this bill. Those broadly stated objectives represent the most basic requirements of meaningful Social Security reform: Guaranteed 75-year solvency of the system; Payment of all benefits to which retirees or workers are entitled; A reasonable rate of return on payroll tax contributions for all generations; An opportunity to participate in private investment accounts; A ``lockbox'' for the Social Security Trust Funds to protect from spending raids; and Use of non-Social Security surplus revenues to shore up the system while implementing reform. The Commission is required to submit its recommendations to Congress in the form of a detailed legislative proposal by September 1, 2001, and the bill's expedited procedures are designed to ensure a final vote on Social Security reform by mid-November 2001. The strict time lines in the bill are designed to ensure that this vitally important issue is dealt with promptly--not pushed aside yet again, to be solved later. Too often, election year politics stand as an obstacle to any meaningful action in Congress. This proposal is carefully crafted to avoid this. The bill is designed to ensure that Congress can complete action on Social Security reform by the end of 2001, before being consumed by the political sparring of an election year. Mr. President, each year that reform of the Social Security system is postponed, restoring solvency to the trust funds becomes more expensive and places a greater financial burden on current and future workers. This ``principles and process'' legislation is, we believe, the only way to force Congress to pass a Social Security reform proposal that will protect and preserve our nation's retirement system and also allow more Americans to share in our nation's prosperity. Mr. President, let me take a moment to comment on the objectives, or principles, included in this bill. The objectives are intended as minimum guidelines for the Commission's work, not as a comprehensive blueprint for Social Security reform. We intentionally stated these objectives as broadly as possible in order to give the Commission the opportunity to develop a comprehensive plan without micro-managing their every decision. I believe very strongly that all promised benefits must be guaranteed under any reform proposal, both for those currently receiving Social Security benefits and those who are working and paying into Social Security today. In addition, I will work to ensure that Social Security reform does not unfairly burden today's workers by increasing payroll taxes from their current levels. And I do not believe it would be fair to further increase the eligibility age for receiving Social Security benefits. I am a strong proponent of allowing workers to invest a portion of their payroll taxes in personal retirement accounts that will provide a much greater return than the current Social Security system. This will afford all Americans the opportunity to have greater personal wealth creation in addition to a minimum Social Security benefit. Mr. President, I was very disappointed that Vice President Gore is continuing to use scare tactics about Social Security reform. Instead of putting the retirement needs of all Americans ahead of politics, the Vice President seems content to exacerbate the financial burden facing our children and grandchildren by ignoring the real structural problems of the program. By using politically intimidating rhetoric, the Vice President is seriously harming bipartisan efforts in Congress to put the needs of working Americans ahead of partisan politics. Let's look at the facts. The savings rate in America today is appallingly low. Many low-income families have no savings at all, and a large number of middle-income Americans have less than $2,000 in the bank. Because of this low savings rate, many Americans rely heavily on Social Security benefits for their retirement income. But economists agree that the rate of return on Social Security payroll tax contributions is abysmal--somewhere between 1 and 2 percent. Most workers today are unaware that the payroll taxes they contribute to Social Security may not provide anywhere near the income they expect when they retire. In fact, if nothing is done to reform the Social Security system, younger workers will receive nothing at all in return for paying more than 6 percent of their earnings every pay day into the Social Security system. Allowing every worker to invest a portion of the payroll taxes they already pay in a higher-yielding private account would make it possible for families on very tight budgets to save more for their futures. Even the most anemic savings account today realizes almost 3 percent, and secure short-term certificates of deposit return almost 6 percent. Over the past 50 years, the stock market has gained an average of more than 6 percent per year, with 20 to 30 percent gains in several recent years. Proposals to allow every American to choose to invest a portion of their Social Security payroll taxes in a low- to moderate-risk private investment account are designed to give even the lowest-income families the opportunity to share in our Nation's economic prosperity and create wealth for themselves and their children. In the long run, diverting a portion of payroll taxes to personal retirement accounts will bring more money into the Social Security system. In the short run, it will cost money. Using a significant portion of the non-Social Security surplus revenues to shore up the Social Security system will ensure that current retirees receive their full benefits while reforms are implemented. At the same time, reducing the financial insolvency of the Social Security system through reform will also reduce our national debt. Mr. President, we all have opinions about how the Social Security program should or could be reformed, and I will have more to say about specific aspects of Social Security reform when I introduce a comprehensive reform bill later this month. Every one of these ideas deserves fair and full consideration as we work together to restore solvency to our Nation's retirement system. It is clear that we need a formal process and effective deadlines to review these ideas and develop and pass a real, meaningful plan to reform Social Security. That is exactly what this bill will achieve. Mr. President, Social Security is a sacred compact with workers and retirees that must be honored. The Congress has an obligation to develop a real, meaningful reform plan that strengthens and protects the Social Security program for our Nation's seniors without placing an unfair burden on America's workers. And we must do it sooner rather than later. I urge my colleagues to put aside partisan politics and work with us to get this process legislation passed and begin the business of reforming Social Security now. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2001 for the Maritime Administration. The introduction of this bill continues the Senate Commerce Committee's commitment to insuring our nations maritime industry can compete in the world market. The bill contains the authorization of appropriations for the Maritime Administration [MarAd] for fiscal year 2001 covering two appropriations accounts: (1) operations and training and (2) the loan guarantee program authorized by title XI of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936. Operations and training activities include the costs incurred by MarAd headquarters and regional staffs in the administration and direction of programs that support the American maritime industry. These funds also cover operations of the United States Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA) and assistance to the six state maritime academies. The title XI loan guarantee program for shipbuilding authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to guarantee private sector financing for the construction or reconstruction of U.S.-flag vessels in U.S. shipyards. Additionally, the bill amends Title IX of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 to provide a waiver 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. Finally, the bill provides the Secretary of Transportation the authority, regardless of any other law, to scrap 39 obsolete vessels in the National Defense Reserve Fleet that pose an immediate hazard to navigation and the environment and to scrap additional vessels if the Secretary determines they pose a hazard. It requires the Secretary to report to Congress within one year of the date of enactment with a plan to dispose of the remaining obsolete vessels and extends the deadline for completing disposal of all obsolete vessels by three years. I look forward to working on this important legislation and hope my colleagues will join me and the other sponsors in expeditiously moving this authorization through the legislative process and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2001 for the Maritime Administration. The introduction of this bill continues the Senate Commerce Committee's commitment to insuring our nations maritime industry can compete in the world market. The bill contains the authorization of appropriations for the Maritime Administration [MarAd] for fiscal year 2001 covering two appropriations accounts: (1) operations and training and (2) the loan guarantee program authorized by title XI of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936. Operations and training activities include the costs incurred by MarAd headquarters and regional staffs in the administration and direction of programs that support the American maritime industry. These funds also cover operations of the United States Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA) and assistance to the six state maritime academies. The title XI loan guarantee program for shipbuilding authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to guarantee private sector financing for the construction or reconstruction of U.S.-flag vessels in U.S. shipyards. Additionally, the bill amends Title IX of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 to provide a waiver 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. Finally, the bill provides the Secretary of Transportation the authority, regardless of any other law, to scrap 39 obsolete vessels in the National Defense Reserve Fleet that pose an immediate hazard to navigation and the environment and to scrap additional vessels if the Secretary determines they pose a hazard. It requires the Secretary to report to Congress within one year of the date of enactment with a plan to dispose of the remaining obsolete vessels and extends the deadline for completing disposal of all obsolete vessels by three years. I look forward to working on this important legislation and hope my colleagues will join me and the other sponsors in expeditiously moving this authorization through the legislative process and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am an original cosponsor of Senator Hutchison's bill to improve aviation security. Our colleague from Texas brings unique expertise to this issue as a former member of the National Transportation Safety Board. I want to thank her for her diligence in this area over the past several years as a member of the Commerce Committee Aviation Subcommittee. Among other things, the Airport Security Improvement Act of 2000 would make pre-employment criminal background checks mandatory for all baggage screeners at airports, not just those who have significant gaps in their employment histories. It would require screeners to undergo extensive training requirements, since U.S. training standards fall far short of European standards. The legislation would also seek tighter enforcement against unauthorized access to airport secure areas. I cannot overemphasize the importance of adequate training and competency checks for the folks who check airline baggage for weapons and bombs. The turnover rate among this workforce is as high as 400 percent at one of the busiest airports in the country! The work is hard, and the pay is low. Obviously, this legislation does not establish minimum pay for security screeners. By asking their employers to invest more substantially in training, however, we hope that they will also work to ensure a more stable and competent workforce. Several aviation security experts appeared before the Aviation Subcommittee at a hearing last week. They raised additional areas of concern that I expect to address as this bill proceeds through the legislative process. For instance, government and industry officials alike agree that the list of ``disqualifying'' crimes that are uncovered in background checks needs to be expanded. Most of us find it surprising that an individual convicted of assault with a deadly weapon, burglary, larceny, or possession of drugs would not be disqualified from employment as an airport baggage screener. Fortunately, this bill is not drafted in response to loss of life resulting from a terrorist incident. Even so, it is clear that even our most elementary security safeguards may be inadequate, as evidenced by the loaded gun that a passenger recently discovered in an airplane lavatory during flight. I look forward to working with Senator Hutchison, as well as experts in both government and industry circles, to make sure that any legislative proposal targets resources in the most effective manner. By and large, security at U.S. airports is good, and airport and airline efforts clearly have a deterrent effect. What is also clear, however, is that we cannot relax our efforts as airline travel grows, and weapons technologies become more sophisticated.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am an original cosponsor of Senator Hutchison's bill to improve aviation security. Our colleague from Texas brings unique expertise to this issue as a former member of the National Transportation Safety Board. I want to thank her for her diligence in this area over the past several years as a member of the Commerce Committee Aviation Subcommittee. Among other things, the Airport Security Improvement Act of 2000 would make pre-employment criminal background checks mandatory for all baggage screeners at airports, not just those who have significant gaps in their employment histories. It would require screeners to undergo extensive training requirements, since U.S. training standards fall far short of European standards. The legislation would also seek tighter enforcement against unauthorized access to airport secure areas. I cannot overemphasize the importance of adequate training and competency checks for the folks who check airline baggage for weapons and bombs. The turnover rate among this workforce is as high as 400 percent at one of the busiest airports in the country! The work is hard, and the pay is low. Obviously, this legislation does not establish minimum pay for security screeners. By asking their employers to invest more substantially in training, however, we hope that they will also work to ensure a more stable and competent workforce. Several aviation security experts appeared before the Aviation Subcommittee at a hearing last week. They raised additional areas of concern that I expect to address as this bill proceeds through the legislative process. For instance, government and industry officials alike agree that the list of ``disqualifying'' crimes that are uncovered in background checks needs to be expanded. Most of us find it surprising that an individual convicted of assault with a deadly weapon, burglary, larceny, or possession of drugs would not be disqualified from employment as an airport baggage screener. Fortunately, this bill is not drafted in response to loss of life resulting from a terrorist incident. Even so, it is clear that even our most elementary security safeguards may be inadequate, as evidenced by the loaded gun that a passenger recently discovered in an airplane lavatory during flight. I look forward to working with Senator Hutchison, as well as experts in both government and industry circles, to make sure that any legislative proposal targets resources in the most effective manner. By and large, security at U.S. airports is good, and airport and airline efforts clearly have a deterrent effect. What is also clear, however, is that we cannot relax our efforts as airline travel grows, and weapons technologies become more sophisticated.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the King and Tsiorvas Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2000. This bill proposes to reauthorize the Pipeline Safety Act, which expires at the end of this fiscal year (FY), through fiscal year 2003. It is intended to strengthen and improve both federal and state pipeline safety efforts and heighten public awareness of pipeline safety. I am pleased to be joined in sponsoring this bill by Senator Murray and Senator Gorton. Many of these issues came to the forefront as a result of a tragic accident that occurred in Bellingham, Washington, last June 10, 1999. An underground hazardous liquid pipeline ruptured and 277,000 gallons of gasoline leaked into a creek. Two 10-year-old boys, Wade King and Stephen Tsiorvas, had been playing by the creek into which the gasoline flowed. The gasoline was accidently ignited and a massive fire ensued. Both boys died as a result of their injuries. Another young man, Liam Wood, was fishing at the creek the same day. He was overcome by the gasoline fumes, slipped into unconsciousness, and subsequently drowned. Mr. President, in addition to these needless deaths, the pipeline accident caused destructive fires and environmental damage for miles. Since the June accident, many concerned individuals have come forward and dedicated themselves to finding ways to improve and strengthen the Department of Transportation pipeline safety program. The Senators from Washington State have introduced one bill. Other pipeline safety measures have been introduced in the House. Yesterday, the Administration submitted its own pipeline safety reauthorization proposal. These bills contain many provisions I believe merit Congressional consideration and some of those provisions are included in the legislation I am introducing today. It is my intention, as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to chair a full Committee hearing on Pipeline Safety in the near future. I hope to report a reauthorization measure to the full Senate before the Memorial Day Recess. In that effort, I will be seeking input from public safety advocates, the National Transportation Safety Board, the DOT-Inspector General, the Department of Transportation, industry and others interested in promoting pipeline safety. Mr. President, currently the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) within the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) oversees the transportation of about 65 percent of the petroleum and most of the natural gas transported in the United States. OPS regulates the day-to- day safety of 2,000 gas pipeline operators with more than 1.9 million miles of pipeline, as well as more than 200 hazardous liquid operators and 165,000 miles of pipelines. Given the immense array of pipelines that traverse our nation, reauthorization of the pipeline safety program is, quite simply, critical to public safety. The safety record of pipeline transportation is generally quite good. However, accidents do occur and when they occur, they can be devastating, as was the case last June. Last month, the Senate Commerce Committee held a field hearing on this accident in Bellingham, Washington, and the Committee, as I mentioned, is committed to moving a reauthorization bill through the legislative process as soon as possible. We must act to help improve pipeline safety and prevent tragedies like that which occurred in Bellingham. The bill I am introducing includes a number of provisions intended to strengthen and improve pipeline safety. It also is designed to increase State oversight authority and facilitate greater public information sharing at the local community level. Two areas that warrant DOT's immediate attention, in my view, concern safety recommendations that have already been issued by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the Inspector General (IG). The Department's responsiveness to NTSB pipeline safety recommendations for years has been poor at best. While current law requires the Secretary to respond to NTSB recommendations within 90 days from receipt, there are no similar requirements at RSPA. The problem is serious, Mr. President. I am aware of one case in particular where a NTSB recommendation sat at DOT's pipeline office for more than 900 days before even a letter so much as acknowledging receipt was sent. Such blatant disregard for the important work of the NTSB is intolerable. Therefore, this legislation statutorily requires RSPA and OPS to respond to each pipeline safety recommendation it receives from the NTSB and to provide a detailed report on what action it plans to initiate to adopt the recommendation. In addition, the bill would require the Department to implement the recommendations made last month by the IG to further improve pipeline safety. The DOT IG found several glaring safety gaps at OPS and it is incumbent upon us all to do all we can to insure that the Department affirmatively acts on these critical problems. The bill would also address the issue of training of pipeline operators. A number of safety interests, including the NTSB, have long emphasized the need to improve operator training. In recognition that a one-size-fits-all approach on this issue is not feasible due to the far different operating and maintenance requirements governing pipeline operations, this bill would require each operator to submit a training plan to the Secretary keyed to his or her particular operation. The Secretary would be expected to review the plans and work with operators to ensure a consistent safety level is maintained. The bill also directs the Secretary to issue regulations to ensure periodic inspections of pipelines and provides authority to the Secretary to shut down operations which are determined to pose an imminent hazard. Another critical component of this reauthorization bill focuses on increased public education efforts, enhanced emergency response preparedness, and community right to know. It also includes provisions to increase state oversight of pipeline safety concerns. While some may prefer to reduce the federal role over pipeline safety and substantially increase the authority of State regulation, I believe such an approach would be short-sighted. While the concept of preemption by states may seem an attractive solution for some pipeline safety concerns, it is not the best approach. After all, pipelines play a vital role in both interstate and international commerce. A mishmash of state laws regarding the construction, maintenance, training, and operation of pipelines would certainly hamper commerce and would likely not improve safety. In fact, accident records show that more than 70 percent of pipeline transportation injuries and fatalities have occurred on intrastate lines, pipelines under the direct responsibility of the States. Recently, the U.S. Courts have upheld the need for consistent standards in interstate and international commerce. However, in the Courts ruling, they did not restrict the right of the states to take action altogether. In fact, states already have considerable power to regulate pipelines and promote safety through the Federal/State Partnership program. Additionally, the states ability to promulgate laws regarding ``one call'' can do more to prevent accidents than any other action. States already play an important role and my bill would build on that role and permit the states to join the Secretary in efforts to oversee interstate pipeline transportation and promote emergency preparedness and accident prevention. The bill also addresses the need to improve data collection and analysis. For more than 25 years, the NTSB has identified major deficiencies and recommended changes to RSPA's pipeline accident data collection process. This bill would ensure RSPA take the action necessary to address these identified problems and improve its data collection and use. In addition, the bill calls attention to the critical role of innovative technology in promoting safety. Specifically, the bill directs the Secretary to focus the department's research and development programs to address technology that can detect pipe material defects and alternative pipeline inspection and monitory technologies that cannot accommodate current technologies. Finally, the bill would increase funding to carry out pipeline safety and state grant programs through fiscal year 2003. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues attention to this important safety issue and look forward to bringing a reauthorization bill to the full Senate for consideration in the near future.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the King and Tsiorvas Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2000. This bill proposes to reauthorize the Pipeline Safety Act, which expires at the end of this fiscal year (FY), through fiscal year 2003. It is intended to strengthen and improve both federal and state pipeline safety efforts and heighten public awareness of pipeline safety. I am pleased to be joined in sponsoring this bill by Senator Murray and Senator Gorton. Many of these issues came to the forefront as a result of a tragic accident that occurred in Bellingham, Washington, last June 10, 1999. An underground hazardous liquid pipeline ruptured and 277,000 gallons of gasoline leaked into a creek. Two 10-year-old boys, Wade King and Stephen Tsiorvas, had been playing by the creek into which the gasoline flowed. The gasoline was accidently ignited and a massive fire ensued. Both boys died as a result of their injuries. Another young man, Liam Wood, was fishing at the creek the same day. He was overcome by the gasoline fumes, slipped into unconsciousness, and subsequently drowned. Mr. President, in addition to these needless deaths, the pipeline accident caused destructive fires and environmental damage for miles. Since the June accident, many concerned individuals have come forward and dedicated themselves to finding ways to improve and strengthen the Department of Transportation pipeline safety program. The Senators from Washington State have introduced one bill. Other pipeline safety measures have been introduced in the House. Yesterday, the Administration submitted its own pipeline safety reauthorization proposal. These bills contain many provisions I believe merit Congressional consideration and some of those provisions are included in the legislation I am introducing today. It is my intention, as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to chair a full Committee hearing on Pipeline Safety in the near future. I hope to report a reauthorization measure to the full Senate before the Memorial Day Recess. In that effort, I will be seeking input from public safety advocates, the National Transportation Safety Board, the DOT-Inspector General, the Department of Transportation, industry and others interested in promoting pipeline safety. Mr. President, currently the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) within the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) oversees the transportation of about 65 percent of the petroleum and most of the natural gas transported in the United States. OPS regulates the day-to- day safety of 2,000 gas pipeline operators with more than 1.9 million miles of pipeline, as well as more than 200 hazardous liquid operators and 165,000 miles of pipelines. Given the immense array of pipelines that traverse our nation, reauthorization of the pipeline safety program is, quite simply, critical to public safety. The safety record of pipeline transportation is generally quite good. However, accidents do occur and when they occur, they can be devastating, as was the case last June. Last month, the Senate Commerce Committee held a field hearing on this accident in Bellingham, Washington, and the Committee, as I mentioned, is committed to moving a reauthorization bill through the legislative process as soon as possible. We must act to help improve pipeline safety and prevent tragedies like that which occurred in Bellingham. The bill I am introducing includes a number of provisions intended to strengthen and improve pipeline safety. It also is designed to increase State oversight authority and facilitate greater public information sharing at the local community level. Two areas that warrant DOT's immediate attention, in my view, concern safety recommendations that have already been issued by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the Inspector General (IG). The Department's responsiveness to NTSB pipeline safety recommendations for years has been poor at best. While current law requires the Secretary to respond to NTSB recommendations within 90 days from receipt, there are no similar requirements at RSPA. The problem is serious, Mr. President. I am aware of one case in particular where a NTSB recommendation sat at DOT's pipeline office for more than 900 days before even a letter so much as acknowledging receipt was sent. Such blatant disregard for the important work of the NTSB is intolerable. Therefore, this legislation statutorily requires RSPA and OPS to respond to each pipeline safety recommendation it receives from the NTSB and to provide a detailed report on what action it plans to initiate to adopt the recommendation. In addition, the bill would require the Department to implement the recommendations made last month by the IG to further improve pipeline safety. The DOT IG found several glaring safety gaps at OPS and it is incumbent upon us all to do all we can to insure that the Department affirmatively acts on these critical problems. The bill would also address the issue of training of pipeline operators. A number of safety interests, including the NTSB, have long emphasized the need to improve operator training. In recognition that a one-size-fits-all approach on this issue is not feasible due to the far different operating and maintenance requirements governing pipeline operations, this bill would require each operator to submit a training plan to the Secretary keyed to his or her particular operation. The Secretary would be expected to review the plans and work with operators to ensure a consistent safety level is maintained. The bill also directs the Secretary to issue regulations to ensure periodic inspections of pipelines and provides authority to the Secretary to shut down operations which are determined to pose an imminent hazard. Another critical component of this reauthorization bill focuses on increased public education efforts, enhanced emergency response preparedness, and community right to know. It also includes provisions to increase state oversight of pipeline safety concerns. While some may prefer to reduce the federal role over pipeline safety and substantially increase the authority of State regulation, I believe such an approach would be short-sighted. While the concept of preemption by states may seem an attractive solution for some pipeline safety concerns, it is not the best approach. After all, pipelines play a vital role in both interstate and international commerce. A mishmash of state laws regarding the construction, maintenance, training, and operation of pipelines would certainly hamper commerce and would likely not improve safety. In fact, accident records show that more than 70 percent of pipeline transportation injuries and fatalities have occurred on intrastate lines, pipelines under the direct responsibility of the States. Recently, the U.S. Courts have upheld the need for consistent standards in interstate and international commerce. However, in the Courts ruling, they did not restrict the right of the states to take action altogether. In fact, states already have considerable power to regulate pipelines and promote safety through the Federal/State Partnership program. Additionally, the states ability to promulgate laws regarding ``one call'' can do more to prevent accidents than any other action. States already play an important role and my bill would build on that role and permit the states to join the Secretary in efforts to oversee interstate pipeline transportation and promote emergency preparedness and accident prevention. The bill also addresses the need to improve data collection and analysis. For more than 25 years, the NTSB has identified major deficiencies and recommended changes to RSPA's pipeline accident data collection process. This bill would ensure RSPA take the action necessary to address these identified problems and improve its data collection and use. In addition, the bill calls attention to the critical role of innovative technology in promoting safety. Specifically, the bill directs the Secretary to focus the department's research and development programs to address technology that can detect pipe material defects and alternative pipeline inspection and monitory technologies that cannot accommodate current technologies. Finally, the bill would increase funding to carry out pipeline safety and state grant programs through fiscal year 2003. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues attention to this important safety issue and look forward to bringing a reauthorization bill to the full Senate for consideration in the near future.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, I report favorably nomination lists which were printed in the Records 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. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Coast Guard nominations beginning Jay F. Dell and ending Denis J. Fassero, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on November 19, 1999. Coast Guard nominations beginning Michael H. Graner and ending Michael R. Seward, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on February 7, 2000. Coast Guard nominations beginning Douglas N. Eames and ending Timothy A. Aines, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on February 7, 2000. Coast Guard nominations beginning Jennifer L. Adams and ending Gregory D. Zike, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on April 7, 2000.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will reluctantly vote against the Conference Report on the Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2001. Although the budget resolution includes most of the mechanisms approved by the Senate to ensure better budgetary discipline, the resolution fails to address the pressing issues of the impending financial insolvency of Social Security and Medicare, and the massive burden of debt that will be passed along to our children and grandchildren. Mr. President, for the first time in history, economic projections show a surplus of nearly $1.9 trillion over the next ten years, exclusive of the surplus in the Social Security Trust Funds. At the same time, we know that the Social Security system is projected to be bankrupt by 2037 and Medicare will be broke in 2023, leaving millions of elderly Americans without the promised benefits they need to live comfortably in their retirement years. Yet, this budget resolution uses none of the surplus to shore up either Social Security or Medicare. Nor does it apply any significant portion of the surplus to reducing the burden on future generations of our $5.7 trillion national debt. In fact, debt will actually continue to accumulate because the resolution allows most of the non-Social Security surplus to be spent on more big government programs. Mr. President, as I traveled around the country over the past several months, I listened to the American people. Everywhere I went, they told me that they wanted us to protect and preserve Social Security and Medicare. They said they wanted to pay down the debt. I proposed a plan to use the bulk of the non-Social Security surplus to do what the people told me they wanted to do, and still provide much-needed tax relief to those who need it most--lower- and middle-income families. Unfortunately, this budget spends too much and saves too little for the future, and I cannot support it. Mr. President, there are some very good provisions in the budget resolution. I support the increase of $4.5 billion in defense spending over the President's budget request, which represents real growth in the defense budget for the first time in many years. I am pleased that the conference includes the $25 million added to the defense budget to get 12,000 enlisted families off of food stamps and end the disgrace of the food stamp Army once and for all. For too many years, the Clinton Administration has neglected the people who volunteer for military service. With this increase, and money freed up from eliminating waste and inefficiency in the defense budget, we can make progress toward restoring the morale and readiness of our Armed Forces. The addition of $1.9 billion to the budget request for veterans health care is the amount identified in the Independent Budget of the veterans groups as the minimum necessary to provide appropriate care for our veterans. I hope the Congress sees fit this year to restore the ``broken promise'' of free lifetime medical care that was made to our nation's oldest veterans, and I intend to work with my colleagues to ensure all of our military personnel have access to the quality, affordable health care they deserve. Many of the specific funding assumptions in the resolution are laudable, but I disagree with funding most of these increases from the surplus. I have identified billions of dollars of pork-barrel spending in annual appropriations bills over the past several years--programs that are wasteful, inefficient, or low-priority. Because of the compelling need to deal with the problems in Social Security and Medicare, we should look within the budget to ferret out waste in order to fund higher priority requirements, rather than spend the entire surplus on more government. Some of the objectionable provisions in this resolution are earmarks that would qualify as pork-barrel spending if they were included in an appropriations bill. For example, the resolution identifies $700 million to construct, or site and design, more than ten new courthouses in 2001. It assumes $25 million will be set aside for the construction of a Metro station on New York Avenue in the District of Columbia. And it earmarks $510 million for NOAA's Pacific coastal salmon recovery program. As I have always said, I am not making a judgment on the merits of these programs, but their mention in this resolution leads me to assume that they will show up as earmarks in the appropriations process --a process not noted for its reliance on merit over politics. I also note the significant cut in the International Affairs budget in the resolution, which is $2.7 billion less than the President's request and $2.2 billion below last year's level. I am concerned that, as in past years, the foreign affairs budget is seen as an easy target for cuts to offset spending in other areas. Clearly, the United States is and must remain a global power with global interests, both related to our security and that of our allies, as well as our economic health. Our continued international involvement requires not just a strong military, but a robust diplomacy. I will be looking carefully at the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill to ensure that the programs that are cut to meet this budget target are appropriate and do not in any way hinder our ability to influence world affairs to our advantage. Mr. President, I am pleased to note that the resolution includes several Senate-passed provisions to ensure Congress complies with the revenue and spending levels in the resolution to limit the amount of emergency spending and budgetary gimmicks, including: A Social Security ``lockbox'' point of order which can be raised against any budget resolution that dips into the Social Security Trust Funds. A permanent 60-vote point of order in the Senate challenging any ``emergency'' in any spending or revenue bill, to ensure that emergency spending is truly used for emergencies and not simply to avoid accounting for routine spending. A restored firewall between defense and non-defense spending for FY 2001, with any funds unused in either account to be used for debt reduction. Two new 60-vote points of order to prevent the use of advanced appropriations and delayed obligations to circumvent spending limits. Mr. President, there are many good provisions in the budget resolution, and I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Budget Committee for taking on some very tough fights. The fact is that we simply have different opinions about budget priorities. I cannot support this resolution because it spends the surplus on more government, without guaranteeing funding for Social Security or Medicare reform or significantly reducing the debt, and I will vote against the resolution.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the National Transportation Safety Board Amendments Act of 2000. This bill proposes to reauthorize the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) through fiscal year 2003. The NTSB is an independent agency 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. In my view, the NTSB is one of our nation's most critical governmental agencies and I want to commend its excellent work. 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 Board's commitment to accident investigation and the development of safety recommendations to prevent accidents from recurring is indeed admirable. The NTSB staff works tirelessly, and in many cases, under the least desirable circumstances. The NTSB's authorization expired last September. The Board has submitted a reauthorization proposal and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation held a hearing last year to review the Board's request. The reauthorization legislation I am introducing is intended to provide the Board with the resources necessary to carry out its important safety investigatory duties and provide further assistance to the Board in its efforts to fulfill its mission. The legislation would authorize the Board for Fiscal years 2000-2003. As the Board requested, the bill would provide significant funding increases over the level currently authorized. The Chairman of the Board has testified that these funds are necessary in order to insure that the NTSB continues to make timely and accurate determinations of the probable causes of accidents, formulate realistic and feasible safety recommendations, and respond to the families of victims of transportation disasters in a professional and compassionate manner following those tragedies. The legislation also would raise the Board's emergency fund to the level commensurate to that which has been appropriated in recent years. The bill includes language requested by the Safety Board to require the withholding from public disclosure of voice and video recorder information for all modes of transportation comparable to the protections already statutorily provided for cockpit voice recorders (CVRs). This provision would be an important step in ensuring that railroad, maritime, and motor vehicle recorders are properly protected from unwarranted disclosure or alternative use. The bill provides the Board with authority to establish reasonable rates of overtime pay for its employees directly involved in accident- related work both on-scene and investigative. This authority was requested in acknowledgment of the extensive time spent by NTSB staff in carrying out their duties and the Board's inability under current law to more fairly compensate these employees. I want to remind my colleagues that the Federal Aviation Administration and the Coast Guard already have been provided authority by Congress to administer similar personnel payment matters. The Board's budget has dramatically increased over the years and this measure includes a number of financial accountability provisions. Currently, the NTSB is one of the few agencies of the Federal Government not required to have a Chief Financial Office (CFO). While the Board on its own initiative does have a CFO, this bill would make that position permanent. The legislation also statutorily authorizes the Chairman to establish annual travel budgets to govern Board Member non-accident travel. After concerns were raised last year over excessive Board Member travel by myself and others, the Chairman established annual budgets and procedures governing non-accident- related travel. His actions were an important step in addressing fiscal accountability at the Board and I believe they should be continued in the future. Further, the bill would give the Inspector General of the Department of Transportation the authority to review the financial management and business operations of the Board to determine compliance with applicable Federal laws, rules, and regulations. I have only taken time today to highlight a few sections of the bill. But I assure my colleagues that there are other provisions in the legislation designed to give the Safety Board the necessary tools to continue to fulfill its critical safety mission. Mr. President. I urge my colleagues' support of this measure and look forward to bringing it to the full Senate for consideration in the near future.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the National Transportation Safety Board Amendments Act of 2000. This bill proposes to reauthorize the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) through fiscal year 2003. The NTSB is an independent agency 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. In my view, the NTSB is one of our nation's most critical governmental agencies and I want to commend its excellent work. 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 Board's commitment to accident investigation and the development of safety recommendations to prevent accidents from recurring is indeed admirable. The NTSB staff works tirelessly, and in many cases, under the least desirable circumstances. The NTSB's authorization expired last September. The Board has submitted a reauthorization proposal and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation held a hearing last year to review the Board's request. The reauthorization legislation I am introducing is intended to provide the Board with the resources necessary to carry out its important safety investigatory duties and provide further assistance to the Board in its efforts to fulfill its mission. The legislation would authorize the Board for Fiscal years 2000-2003. As the Board requested, the bill would provide significant funding increases over the level currently authorized. The Chairman of the Board has testified that these funds are necessary in order to insure that the NTSB continues to make timely and accurate determinations of the probable causes of accidents, formulate realistic and feasible safety recommendations, and respond to the families of victims of transportation disasters in a professional and compassionate manner following those tragedies. The legislation also would raise the Board's emergency fund to the level commensurate to that which has been appropriated in recent years. The bill includes language requested by the Safety Board to require the withholding from public disclosure of voice and video recorder information for all modes of transportation comparable to the protections already statutorily provided for cockpit voice recorders (CVRs). This provision would be an important step in ensuring that railroad, maritime, and motor vehicle recorders are properly protected from unwarranted disclosure or alternative use. The bill provides the Board with authority to establish reasonable rates of overtime pay for its employees directly involved in accident- related work both on-scene and investigative. This authority was requested in acknowledgment of the extensive time spent by NTSB staff in carrying out their duties and the Board's inability under current law to more fairly compensate these employees. I want to remind my colleagues that the Federal Aviation Administration and the Coast Guard already have been provided authority by Congress to administer similar personnel payment matters. The Board's budget has dramatically increased over the years and this measure includes a number of financial accountability provisions. Currently, the NTSB is one of the few agencies of the Federal Government not required to have a Chief Financial Office (CFO). While the Board on its own initiative does have a CFO, this bill would make that position permanent. The legislation also statutorily authorizes the Chairman to establish annual travel budgets to govern Board Member non-accident travel. After concerns were raised last year over excessive Board Member travel by myself and others, the Chairman established annual budgets and procedures governing non-accident- related travel. His actions were an important step in addressing fiscal accountability at the Board and I believe they should be continued in the future. Further, the bill would give the Inspector General of the Department of Transportation the authority to review the financial management and business operations of the Board to determine compliance with applicable Federal laws, rules, and regulations. I have only taken time today to highlight a few sections of the bill. But I assure my colleagues that there are other provisions in the legislation designed to give the Safety Board the necessary tools to continue to fulfill its critical safety mission. Mr. President. I urge my colleagues' support of this measure and look forward to bringing it to the full Senate for consideration in the near future.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am an original cosponsor of Senator Hutchison's bill to improve aviation security. Our colleague from Texas brings unique expertise to this issue as a former member of the National Transportation Safety Board. I want to thank her for her diligence in this area over the past several years as a member of the Commerce Committee Aviation Subcommittee. Among other things, Senator Hutchison's bill would make pre- employment criminal background checks mandatory for all baggage screeners at airports, not just those who have significant gaps in their employment histories. It would require screeners to undergo extensive training requirements, since U.S. training standards fall far short of European standards. The legislation would also seek tighter enforcement against unauthorized access to airport secure areas. I cannot overemphasize the importance of adequate training and competency checks for the folks who check airline baggage for weapons and bombs. The turnover rate among this workforce is as high as 400 percent at one of the busiest airports in the country. The work is hard, and the pay is low. Obviously, this legislation does not establish minimum pay for security screeners. By asking their employers to invest more substantially in training, however, we hope that they will also work to ensure a more stable and competent workforce. Several aviation security experts appeared before the Aviation Subcommittee at a hearing last week. They raised additional areas of concern that I expect to address as this bill proceeds through the legislative process. For instance, government and industry officials alike agree that the list of ``disqualifying'' crimes that are uncovered in background checks needs to be expanded. Most of us find it surprising that an individual convicted of assault with a deadly weapon, burglary, larceny, or possession of drugs would not be disqualified from employment as an airport baggage screener. Fortunately, this bill is not drafted in response to loss of life resulting from a terrorist incident. Even so, it is clear that even our most elementary security safeguards may be inadequate, as evidenced by the loaded gun that a passenger recently discovered in an airplane lavatory during flight. I look forward to working with Senator Hutchison, as well as experts in both government and industry circles, to make sure that any legislative proposal targets resources in the most effective manner. By and large, security at U.S. airports is good, and airport and airline efforts clearly have a deterrent effect. What is also clear, however, is that we cannot relax our efforts as airline travel grows, and weapons technologies become more sophisticated.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to once again remind my colleagues of the very precarious financial condition of the entire Social Security system and the urgent need for a serious, bipartisan effort to reform and revitalize this cornerstone of many Americans' retirement planning. The only way to achieve real reform of the Social Security system is to work together in a bipartisan manner. It's time to abandon the irresponsible game of playing partisan politics with Social Security. Democrats will have to stop using the issue to scare seniors into voting against Republicans. Republicans will have to resist using Social Security revenues to finance tax cuts. And both parties must stop raiding the Trust Funds to waste retirement dollars on more government spending. We must face up to our responsibilities, not as Republicans or Democrats, but as elected representatives of the American people with a common obligation to protect their interests. We have an obligation to ensure that Social Security benefits are paid as promised, without putting an unfair burden on today's workers. We also have an obligation to talk straight with working Americans about the true financial status of the Social Security program. This means providing each worker with honest information about the financial status of the Social Security program including the real value of their personal retirement benefits. Under the current system, hard working Americans--young and old--are not receiving straight, honest information regarding the actual financial status of the Social Security program including how much it is receiving in payroll taxes and how much is needed to give promised benefits to seniors. This includes clearly telling Americans exactly when the program will no longer have sufficient funds for paying full benefits. Furthermore, we must begin providing working Americans with accurate, easy to understand information regarding the average rate of return they can expect to receive from Social Security as compared to the amount of taxes an individual pays into the program. It is only fair to be straight with everyone and let them know the true facts about how much they will pay in payroll taxes and what the limited return will be on their contributions. It is time for us to talk straight to Americans about Social Security and begin working together in a bipartisan fashion to make the necessary changes to strengthen and save the nation's retirement program for the seniors of today and tomorrow.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Domenici and Senator Reid for allowing me to propose this amendment. I don't intend to take a very long time. I know there are many other pending amendments. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an amendment to the Congressional budget resolution for fiscal years 2001 through 2005 that would provide the funding necessary to end the ``food stamp army'' once and for all. This amendment increases the defense budget by $28 million over five years--an average of less than $6 million per year--to pay for an additional allowance of $180 a month to military families who are eligible for food stamps. Additionally, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the amendment would save millions of dollars in the food stamp program by removing servicemembers from the food stamp rolls for good. Last week, I introduced S. 2322, the ``Remove Servicemembers from Food Stamps Act of 2000'', that will provide junior enlisted servicemembers who are eligible for food stamps in the paygrade E-1 through E-5 an additional subsistence allowance of $180 a month. A not- yet-published Department of Defense report estimates that approximately 6,300 servicemembers receive food stamps, while the General Accounting Office and Congressional Research Service place this number at around 13,500. Regardless of this disparity, the fact that just one servicemember is on food stamps is a national disgrace, and this situation cries out for repair. In recent years, annual military pay increases have barely kept pace with inflation--lagging at least 8 percent behind the pay increases in the private sector during the same period. To put the impact of such trends in plain dollar amounts, the lowest enlisted rank, an E-1, currently earns as little as $12,067 per year, plus $2,766 in allowances, which is well below the poverty level for a family of four. In fact, the number of men and women in the military earning less than $20,000 per year constitutes 45 percent of the Army, 46 percent of the Marine Corps, 26 percent of the Navy, and 18 percent of the Air Force. Of these servicemembers, 111,600 have families and 6,515 are single parents. Because of this serious disparity in military versus civilian pay, the Congress took action last year to significantly increase military pay across the board. The Senate-passed military pay bill, S. 4, included the same food stamp relief plan in S. 2322, and it was also approved by the Senate as part of the National Defense Authorization bill. However, I was greatly disappointed when the Senate-approved food stamp relief provision was rejected by conferees from the House of Representatives despite the strong support of Admiral Jay Johnson, the Chief of Naval Operations, and General Jim Jones, the Commandant of the Marine Corps. With thousands of military families on food stamps, and possibly thousands more eligible for the program, I cannot understand the Congress' refusal to rectify this problem in last year's National Defense Authorization Act. It is outrageous that Admirals and Generals received a 17 percent pay raise last year, while enlisted families continue to line up for free food and furniture. Last year, we poured hundreds of millions of dollars into programs the military did not request and that were not identified by the Joint Chiefs as a priority item. It is difficult to reconcile how Congress could waste $7.4 billion on pork-barrel spending in the defense budget last year alone, yet refuse to provide a few million dollars to get military families off food stamps. It is unconscionable that the men and women who are willing to sacrifice their lives for their country have to rely on food stamps to make ends meet, and it is an abrogation of our responsibility as Senators to let this disgrace go on. Sadly, politics, not military necessity, remains the rule, not the exception. I will not stand by and watch as our military is permitted to erode to the breaking point due to the President's lack of foresight and the Congress' lack of compassion. These military men and women on food stamps--our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines--are the very same Americans that the President and Congress have sent into harm's way in recent years in Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo, and East Timor. They deserve our continuing respect, our unwavering support, and a living wage. S. 2322 is supported by The American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the National Association for Uniformed Services, the Disabled American Veterans, The Retired Officer's Association and every enlisted association or organization that specifically supports enlisted servicemember issues in the Military Coalition and in the National Military/Veterans Alliance. Associations include the Non Commissioned Officers Association, the Retired Enlisted Association, the Fleet Reserve Association, the Air Force Sergeants Association, the U.S. Coast Guard Chief Petty Officers Association, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the U.S., and the Naval Enlisted Reserve Association. I ask unanimous consent to include their letters of support in the Record following my remarks. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to the budget resolution that provides the funding for the food stamp relief in S. 2322. It is a step in the right direction toward meeting our responsibilities to our servicemembers and their families. Mr. President, we must end the days of a ``food stamp Army'' once and for all. Our military personnel and their families deserve better. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters from various service organizations in support of this amendment be printed in the Record.