John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Does the Senator want an up-or-down vote?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment, for all intents and purposes, will emasculate the bill. It will deny consumers, those least able to pay for attorneys, to hire attorneys to solve any Y2K problems, the average consumer the ability to resolve a problem quickly, within a maximum of 90 days, without litigation. It also allows more of the Tom Johnson-type lawsuits: No requirement that there be an actual injury, no requirement that there be a real problem. This would negate the attempt by S. 96 to limit frivolous lawsuits. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN. I remind my colleagues of a letter that has already been made a part of the Record from the Year 2000 Coalition, which has more organizations and groups in it probably than I have ever seen--the entire high-tech community--addressed to Senator Kerry: ``We urge you to support S. 96 and to not introduce an amendment to it.'' ``[T]he Coalition does not support the amendment . . . that is being circulated in your name.'' Have no doubt about where the high-tech community is on this amendment. I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes for the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. McCAIN. We reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleague from Alaska for offering his amendment. I point out that his amendment does not only protect Alaskans. If a consumer radio fails, it's an inconvenience. If a radio used by the Phoenix police department fails, not only does it put the life of the police officer carrying it in jeopardy, but it also jeopardizes the safety of the public he or she protects. A company should give priority in responding to the Phoenix police station's need for Y2K failure assistance. I am pleased to accept the amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I also want to mention that I think the Senator from Massachusetts wants to discuss this amendment again. We are prepared to enter into a time agreement with the Senator from Massachusetts when he returns to the floor for his further discussion of the amendment. Perhaps we can enter into an agreement at that time. I will also be contacting Members whose amendments are still listed as relevant to reach time agreements with them so that perhaps by the close of business this evening we could have time agreements allocated, if possible. If not, we will just proceed with the amending process tomorrow. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Leahy now be recognized to offer an amendment with debate limited to 30 minutes equally divided, and following that debate the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Leahy amendment with no amendments in order prior to the vote. Before I finish this unanimous consent request, for the benefit of my colleagues, I do not intend to use the full 15 minutes on this side. I think my colleagues can anticipate a time for a pretty rapid vote by the time Senator Leahy is finished. Finally, I ask my colleagues who have amendments on the list of 12 amendments to agree to time agreements, so perhaps we could dispense with this bill tomorrow at an early moment.

Mr. McCAIN. Regarding the Kerry amendment, I want to mention that a company that has made no effort to prevent failure or fix its systems will undoubtedly be found more responsible for a plaintiff's injuries under the terms of S. 96 in liability already proposed, without the hazard of making a company that can't control the entire chain of distribution liable for the entire damage awarded the plaintiff. Our opposition to the pending Kerry amendment is almost that simple. I note that the Senator from California is waiting to speak. I hope by the time the Senator is finished, perhaps we could have some agreement for a vote on this amendment so we could move forward, as well as agreement on the other side for resolving the remaining 12 amendments on both sides. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Colorado. I think it is an important amendment. I appreciate not only his concern for the entire bill but for the State of Colorado, since this obviously would have an effect on the hard work of the State legislature and the Governor. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Governmental Affairs Committee be permitted to meet on Wednesday, June 9, 1999, at 10 a.m. for a hearing on oversight of national security methods and processes relating to the Wen-Ho Lee espionage investigation.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 9, 1999, at 9:30 a.m. to conduct an oversight hearing on internet gaming. The hearing will be held in room 485, Russell Senate Building.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate for a markup on ``S. 918, Military Reservists Small Business Relief Act of 1999.'' The markup will be held on Wednesday, June 9, 1999, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 9, 1999, at 2 p.m. to hold a hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure be granted permission to conduct a second hearing on project delivery and streamlining of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Wednesday, June 9, 9:30 a.m., hearing room SD-406.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the chairman, and I yield the floor. Amendment No. 586 (Purpose: To provide funds for continued research and development in Space Control Technology)

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have 2 amendments to send to the desk. My understanding is, under the unanimous consent agreement, both of these amendments have to be proposed by the time of 2:30, so I send them at this time.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send a second amendment to the desk, and I ask that it be numbered and set aside.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished chairman when he would like me to address the issue of one amendment concerning reallocation of $3.1 billion.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment restores $3.1 billion in operations and maintenance and procurement funding that is cut by section 108 of the bill. It reduces various accounts to eliminate funding for low-priority, unnecessary and wasteful spending by an equal amount. The amendment doesn't change the total amount for defense in this bill. It simply redirects the cuts to eliminate pork barrel spending rather than high-priority readiness and modernization funds. I find it staggering that the committee would cut funding for readiness and modernization by $3.1 billion when this bill contains nearly $5 billion in spending for unrequested, low-priority, unnecessary and wasteful spending programs that have not been scrutinized in the normal merit-based review process. Congress recently passed an emergency spending bill that contained nearly $11 billion in defense spending to pay for the costs of ongoing operations in Kosovo. I believe the administration request was around $5 billion. As the chairman of the committee stated on the floor yesterday, we will very likely need to act later this year on another supplemental bill to pay for continued offensive operations against Serbia or to enforce a peace agreement and protect the Kosovars who return home. Why, then, would we want to cut funding from this bill that would be needed to carry out these operations into the next fiscal year? Why wouldn't we instead cut some of the $5 billion in pork barrel spending that has been put in this bill principally for the benefit of Members and their constituents? Here is the list of unrequested programs included in the bill that I have accumulated. I ask unanimous consent that this list of unrequested and unwanted projects be printed in the Record at this time.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, it totals $5 billion. Self-restraint in fiduciary matters is a virtue, especially for a party that rose to majority status with the promise of reducing this type of practice. But every year it is the same old story: More money for NULKA antiship decoy systems; more money for the plethora of laser projects that have proliferated at every lab in the country; more money for unrequested and unneeded aircraft; more money for automatic grenade launchers--we have got to have a stockpile of these things that will last forever--more money for research into double-hull technology, which shipbuilders are supposed to provide themselves per the requirements of the Oil Pollution Prevention Act. There are millions every year for hyperspectral research that is not requested by the military. Earmarks like the one that requires the Army and Marine Corps to make the Rock Island arsenal the center of all future design, development and production activities related to artillery do not represent good public policy. What is it that forces us to designate Rock Island arsenal as a center for this? That's not public policy. Medical research and environmental matters unrelated to combat ought to be carefully scrutinized when funded in the defense budget. We do just the opposite: we use the defense budget to fund pet projects that should be funded through nondefense agencies in nondefense spending bills. Osteoporosis is a serious problem, but in the defense budget? $3 million to fund phyto-remediation research and arid lands? In the defense budget? How can we take ourselves seriously--how can the public take us seriously, when we demonstrate absolutely no willingness to curtail the very spending practices that put this country so heavily in debt? At the very time a consensus has formed around the proposition that the armed forces are being stretched perilously thin, a situation that will get worse when we send more than a brigade's worth of ground forces into Kosovo, it is incumbent upon those of us elected to represent the interests of the nation that we act with a modicum of self-restraint where the public treasure is concerned. Failing to do so will not only damage the treasure, it will most assuredly cost lives. This is, after all, national defense. Let's review some recent examples of readiness shortcomings, shortcomings that the Joint Chiefs of Staff have repeatedly emphasized pose a serious threat to both near and long-term readiness: The nuclear carrier U.S.S. Enterprise (CVN-65) recently deployed to the Persian Gulf and Kosovo, undermanned by some 800 sailors. We are losing pilots to the commercial airlines faster than we can train them. The Navy has one-half the F/A-18 pilots, one-third of the S-3 pilots, and only one-quarter of the EA-6B pilots it needs. Only 26 percent of the Air Force pilots have committed to stay beyond their current service agreement. The Army says that five of its ten divisions lack enough majors, captains, senior enlisted personnel, tankers and gunners. Again, the world watches as the Air Force's main bomber, the B-52, once again is called to duty to delivery air launched cruise missiles in combat. How many times has the Air Force called upon this 40-year old workhorse to deliver devastating firepower? The B-52 bomber was already old when I saw it fly in Vietnam, and yet the Air Force plan will carry the current bomber fleet through the next 40 years, with a replacement to the B-52 tentatively planned in 2037. The Navy is struggling to maintain a fleet of 300 ships, down from over 500 in the early 1990s. The fiscal year 2000 budget will not support a Navy of even 200 ships. The Marine Corps saves money in spare parts by retreading light trucks and Humvees, so as to afford small arms ammunition for forward deployed Marines. Mr. President, the cumulative effect of these types of readiness problems will most assuredly translate into higher risks for the young men and women we send into harm's way to defend us and our country. Mr. President, I understand what is going on here. We have a problem, and that is the existence of stringent budget caps designed to keep government spending in check. I support those who are resisting the urge to bust the budget by exceeding the spending allowed by the 1997 budget agreement. I also understand that the Appropriations Committee has to balance the interests of those who favor domestic spending over defense spending, and I realize that compromises have to be made. But we shouldn't be stuffing appropriations bills, defense or otherwise, full of pork-barrel spending. And we shouldn't be cutting defense, like this bill does, to set aside money to cover the excess pork-barrel spending that will inevitably show up in other domestic appropriations bills later in the process. And I would just like to make the point that the money that was taken from this bill for later pork-barrel spending could just as easily be reallocated back into this bill, when this amendment is adopted. We shouldn't be jeopardizing the readiness of our Armed Forces by cutting high-priority funding just to stay within the budget caps. We should do the right thing, and cut the pork instead of potentially putting our men and women in harm's way without the training and tools they need to defend themselves and our nation. I was going through this list here. Some of them are interesting and some are amusing: Under Defense Health Program is $1.4 billion for the Alaska Federal Health Care Partnership; Tri-Service Nursing Research Program, $6 million--remember, this is out of Defense. I don't even know where the Tri-Service Nursing Research Program is. Then there is Pacific Island Health Care, $5 million; brown tree snakes--the perennial tree snakes-- is only a million dollars this year. I would have thought that with all the millions and millions we have spent on brown tree snakes over the past years, we would have at least been able to defend a nation from them. Unfortunately, the spending for brown tree snakes continues, and probably will for a long time--at least in my lifetime. Outcome Driven Health Care and Info Systems, $6 million; Breast Cancer Research Program, $175 million; Prostate Cancer Research Program, $75 million; Acute lung injury, advanced soft tissue modeling, et cetera, et cetera, $50 million. Then, of course, we have the usual protections in this legislation that requires us to ``buy American'' anchor chains, carbon, alloy, or armor steel plate, and ball and roller bearings. We have to buy American for computers this time. That is interesting. We have to buy American coal for municipal district heat in Germany. Talk about the old line about bringing coal to New Castle. Then, of course, we have to buy American food, specialty metals, hand tools, measuring tools, clothing and fabrics. Then we have Ship Depot Operation Support at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, $23 million. I am very curious about that expenditure up in Philadelphia, which was supposed to be opened and going to be in private hands. Barrow landfill, $3 million; Professional Development/ Education Asia Pacific Center, $1.7 million. I wonder whose profession is being developed there. Let's see. The list goes on. I think I have made my point, as usual. Here is Counternarcotics Center at Hammer. Since I don't know where Hammer is, I probably should not comment on it. The list goes on. Here is one the military didn't request: A smart truck initiative. Perhaps we will have trucks that gas themselves, because $3.5 million is a pretty hefty sum to spend on smart trucks. Here is Plasma Energy Pyrolysis system and Phyto-remediation in Arid Lands. Not to mention one of our important defense items, Texas Regional Institute for Environmental Studies. Then there is the University Partnering for Operations Support and Cold Regions R&D. The list goes on. The point is that we now have 11,000 enlisted families that are on food stamps. We now have a shortage of air launch cruise missiles, which everybody knows about. We now have an incredible increase in the wear and tear of our equipment because of the dramatically increased operations regarding Kosovo. What do we do? We think that we spend the money the military needs for modernization and operations and maintenance? No, Mr. President. We spend $5 billion in unnecessary and unwanted things, which is up, by the way, from the supplemental. I think I only identified a little over $2 billion that was in the ``emergency'' supplemental, such as Dungeness crab fishermen, reindeer, and other ``vital emergencies'' that required our immediate attention. So, I have very little confidence that this amendment will carry. I think it is important, however, that the American people know where their tax dollars are going, and sooner or later--perhaps later--they will demand that we stop doing this with their hard-earned tax dollars. It may be later, as I say. But I also have to say to my dear friends on the Appropriations Committee, I see increases in this kind of wasteful and unnecessary spending, not decreases. There is going to have to come a point where we are going to have to start having recorded votes on all this stuff. I am worried about brown tree snakes like everybody else, but I am much more worried about the men and women in the military who happen to be subsisting on food stamps today. I think a lot of Americans are growing rather weary of this procedure. Mr. President, I will be glad to have a tabling motion vote or an up- or-down vote on this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the chairman and ranking member spoke eloquently about the merits of several projects in this bill that affect their States. As I have said before, I don't pretend to judge the merit of each and every project on the list of objectionable materials. I do, however, object to the process by which these projects were added to this bill, the process that circumvented the normal and appropriate merit-based review for determining the highest priority not only in defense but across all appropriations bills. I want to clarify something the chairman said: In this list, it does not--repeat, does not--include funding for the SBIRS program on the Israeli arrow missile defense program. There is no reduction in funding for those programs. Finally, my colleagues know the military service chiefs testified to Congress earlier this year that they need more than $17 billion every year in order to redress several readiness shortfalls. This bill falls about $6 billion short of that goal. This amendment would restore $13 billion in high-priority readiness and modernization funds to help meet the services' needs, offsetting every time with low-priority spending cuts. I emphasize they came over and said they needed $17 billion. We are not meeting that minimal request. I yield the floor.