John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I yield 30 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, for the information of my colleagues, Senator Chafee will be next for 10 minutes; Senator Inhofe for 30 minutes; Senator Robb for 20 minutes; Senator Leahy for 10 minutes; Senator Bunning for 10 minutes; Senator Domenici for 10 minutes; Senator Landrieu for 5 minutes; Senator Dorgan for 10 minutes; Senator Biden for 30 minutes; Senator Durbin for 10 minutes; Senator Warner for 10 minutes; Senator Nickles for 20 minutes; Senator Kerry of Massachusetts for 30 minutes; and Senator Dodd for 15 minutes. I make one additional comment. This resolution does not call for ground operations. This resolution calls for use of whatever force is necessary to bring this war to a conclusion. Those who portray this as a resolution that calls for ground operations simply mischaracterizes the resolution, and I believe I am owed, along with Senator Biden, the intellectual honesty to at least portray this resolution for what it is, which is a resolution to use whatever force is necessary, which is exactly the same resolution as the Persian Gulf war. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Chafee.

Mr. McCAIN. I yield myself 30 seconds to thank Senator Hutchinson for his principled stand and his articulation on his views. I point out that former Secretary of State Eagleburger, who the Senator talked about in his remarks, has written a letter strongly supporting this resolution and urging the vote on it. I hope that he and other opponents of this resolution recognize that every former Secretary of State, every former Secretary of Defense, every former National Security Adviser, in both parties, support this resolution and support a strong vote on it. I yield to the Senator from Nebraska such time as he may consume.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield such time to the Senator from Arkansas as he may consume.

Mr. McCAIN. May I ask, for planning purposes, how long the Senator from Minnesota plans to speak?

Mr. McCAIN. Thank you. I stand corrected. I appreciate the outstanding work of the Parliamentarian. On behalf of the other side, I ask unanimous consent to allow Senator Byrd to speak for as long as he may deem necessary.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, there is no division of time here. This is a unanimous consent agreement, that time today for consideration of S.J. Res. 20 be for debate only.

Mr. McCAIN. Today, Mr. President, the Senate should begin a constructive, long overdue, and thorough debate on America's war with Serbia. But we will not. We will not because the Senate leadership, both Republican and Democrat, with the passive cooperation of the President of the United States, has determined that we will limit debate on war and peace to a few hours this afternoon. Apparently, the hard facts of war need not inconvenience the Senate at this time, and the solemn duties that war imposes on those of us privileged to lead this nation can be avoided indefinitely. I heard my friend, the Democratic Leader, say the other day that now is not the time for this debate. When is the right time, Mr. President? After the war ends? Shall we wait to declare ourselves until the outcome is known? Shall those who oppose NATO's attack on Serbia wait until NATO's defeat is certain before voting their conscience? Shall those of us who believe American interests and values are now so at risk in the Balkans that they must be protected by all necessary force wait until victory is certain before voting our conscience? I would hope not, Mr. President. For that would mean that we have allowed American pilots and, possibly, American soldiers to risk their lives for a cause that we will not risk our careers for. I think we are better people than that. I think we are a better institution than that. And I think we should use this debate to prove it. All Senators should, for a start, use the opportunity provided by debate on this resolution to declare unequivocally their support or opposition for the war. Having declared their support or opposition, Senators should then endorse that course of action allowed Congress that logically and ethically corresponds to their views on the war. If Senators believe this war is worth fighting, then recognize that the President should exercise the authority vested in his office to use the power of the United States effectively to achieve victory as quickly as possible. If Senators believe that this war is not worth the cost in blood and treasure necessary to win it, then take the only course open to you to prevent further bloodshed. Vote to refuse the funds necessary to prosecute it. Senators cannot say that they oppose the war, but support our pilots, and then allow our pilots to continue fighting a war that they believe cannot justify their loss. If the war is not worth fighting for, then it is not worth letting Americans die for it. Last week, a majority in the other body sent just such a message to our servicemen and women, to the American public and to the world. They voted against the war and against withdrawing our forces. Such a contradictory position does little credit to Congress. Can we in the Senate not see our duty a little clearer? Can we not match our deeds to our words? Should we meet our responsibilities honorably, we will not only have acted more forthrightly than the other body, we will have acted more forthrightly than has the President. The supporters of this resolution find ourselves defending the authority of the Presidency without the support of the President, a curious, but sadly, not unexpected position. Opponents have observed that the resolution gives the President authority he has not asked for. They are correct. The President has not asked for this resolution. Indeed, it is quite evident that he shares the leadership's preference that the Senate not address this matter. But, in truth, he need not ask for this authority. He possesses it already, whether he wants it or not. I cannot join my Republican friends in the other body by supporting the unconstitutional presumptions of the War Powers Act. Every Congress and every President since the act's inception has ignored it with good reason until now. We should have repealed the Act long ago, but that would have required us to surrender a little of the ambiguity that we find so useful in this city. Only Congress can declare war. But Congress cannot deny the President the ability to use force unless we refuse him the funds to do so. By taking neither aciton, Congress leaves the President free to prosecute this war to whatever extent he deems necessary. Although I can speak only for myself, I believe the sponsors of this resolution offered it to encourage the President to do what almost every experienced statesmen has said he should do--prepare for the use of ground troops in Kosovo if they are necessary to achieve victory. Regrettably, the President owuld rather not be encouraged. But his irresponsibility does not excuse Congress'. I beleive it is now imperative that we pass this resolution to distinguish the powers of the Presidency from the muddled claim made upon them by the House of Representatives. During the Foreign Relations Committee's consideration of this resolution, my friend, the Senator from Missouri, Senator Ashcroft, criticized the wording as too broad a grant of authority to the President, and an infringement of congressional authority. How, Mr. President, can Congress claim authority that it neither possesses constitutionally nor, as we see, cares to exercise even if we did possess it? No, Mr. President, the authority belongs to the President unless we deny it to him by means expressly identified in the Constitution. In short, and I welcome arguments to the contrary, only Congress can declare war but the President can wage one unless we deprive him of the means to do so. Therefore, I feel it is urgent that the Senate contradict the actions of the other body and clarify to the public, and to America's allies and our enemies that the President may, indeed, wage this war. And, with our encouragement, he might wage this war more effectively than he has done thus far. If he does not, the shame is on him and not on us. I regret to say that I have on more than one occasion suspected, as I suspect today, that the President and some of us among the loyal opposition suffer from the same failing. It seems to me that the President, in his poll driven approach to his every responsibility, fails to distinguish the office he holds from himself. And some of us in Congress are so distrustful of the President that we feel obliged to damage the office in order to restrain the current occupant. Both sides have lost the ability to tell the office from the man. Publicly and repeatedly ruling out ground troops may be smart politics according to the President's pollster, but it is inexcusably irresponsible leadership. In this determination to put politics over national security, the President even acquiesced to the other body's attempt to deprive him of his office's authority. He sent a letter promising that he would seek Congress' permission to introduce ground troops in the unlikely event he ever discovers the will to use them. My Republican colleagues in the House, who sought to uphold a law that I doubt any of them believed in before last week, should take greater care with an office that will prove vital to our security in the years ahead. President Clinton will not stand for re-election again. Twenty months from now we will have a new President. And whoever he or she is will need all the powers of the office to begin to repair the terrible damage that this President has done to the national security interests of the United States. It is to avoid further damage to those interests and to the office of the President that I ask my colleagues to consider voting for this resolution. The irony that this resolution is being considered only because of a statute I oppose is not lost on me. But bad laws often produce unexpected irony along with their other, more damaging effects. So we have made what good use of it we can. We are here beginning a debate that many did not want, and few will mind seeing disposed of quickly. In my opening comments, I know I have spoken provocatively. Although I believe my points are correct, I could have been a little more restrained in offering them. I was not because I hope it will encourage, perhaps incite is a better word, greater debate today than is contemplated by our leaders. I meant to offend no one, but if any took offense, I hope they will come to the floor to make their case. Let us have the kind of debate today that the matter we are considering surely deserves. Mr. President, we are debating war. Not Bill Clinton's war. Not Madeleine Albright's war. America's war. It became America's war the moment the first American flew into harm's way to fight it. Nothing anyone can do will change that. If we lose this war, the entire country, and the world will suffer the consequences. Yes, the President would leave office with yet another mark against him. But he will not suffer this indignity alone. We will all be less secure. We will all be dishonored. This is America's war, and we are America's elected leaders. As we speak, tens of thousands of Americans are ready to die if they must to win it. They risk their lives for us, and for the values that define our good Nation. Can we not risk our political fortunes for them? Don't they deserve more than a few hours of perfunctory and sparsely attended debate? They do, Mr. President, they deserve much better than that. We might lose those vote and we might lose it badly. That would be a tragedy. But I would rather fight and lose, than not fight at all. I hope that an extended debate might persuade more Members to support the resolution. The resolution does not instruct the President to begin a ground war in Yugoslavia. Nor does it grant the President authority he does not already possess. Nor does it require the President to pursue additional objectives in the Balkans. But if Members would be more comfortable if those objectives and realities were expressed in the resolution than I am sure the sponsors would welcome amendments to that effect. But even if a majority of Members can never be persuaded to support this resolution, let us all agree that a debate--an honest, extensive, responsible debate--is appropriate in these circumstances. Surely, our consciences are agreed on that. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent the time today for consideration of S.J. Res. 20 be for debate only.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, an entire nation was stunned this past week with the shocking violence that unfolded in Littleton, Colorado. Perhaps, if this had been an isolated incident, we could have written it off as two crazed individuals. However, the tragic reality is that it was not an isolated incident, but another in an increasing pattern of violence in our schools. Even more disturbing is that these schoolyard shootings are occurring against the backdrop of ever- escalating youth violence, and suicide. This is an extraordinarily complex problem, with many contributing factors. However, what this comes down to is responsibility, and the most basic and profound responsibility that our culture--any culture-- has, is raising its children. We are failing that responsibility, and the extent of our failure is being measured in the deaths, and injuries of our kids in the schoolyard and on the streets of our neighborhoods and communities. Primary responsibility lies with families. As a country, we are not parenting our children. We are not adequately involving ourselves in our children's lives, the friends they hang out with, what they do with their time, the problems they are struggling with. This is our job, our paramount responsibility, and most unfortunately, we are failing. We must get our priorities straight, and that means putting our kids first. However, parents need help. They need help because our homes and our families--our children's minds, are being flooded by a tide of violence. This dehumanizing violence pervades our society: our movies depict graphic violence; our children are taught to kill and maim by interactive video games; the Internet, which holds such tremendous potential in so many ways, is tragically used by some to communicate unimaginable hatred, images and descriptions of violence, and ``how- to'' manuals on everything from bomb construction to drugs. Our culture is dominated by media, and our children, more-so than any generation before them, is vulnerable to the images of violence and hate that, unfortunately, are dominant themes in so much of what they see, and hear. Thus, today I rise to introduce, calling upon the Surgeon General to conduct a comprehensive study of media violence, in all its forms, and to issue a report on its effects, and recommendations on how we can turn this tragic tide of youth violence. As I have said, this is a complex challenge. Certainly, working with the media industry, we can come to some consensus on immediate measures that can be taken to curb our children's access to the types of excessive and gratuitous violence that is currently flooding our homes and families. However, the crisis we are currently facing did not occur overnight, and we must take time to achieve a comprehensive understanding of how media violence affects childhood development, and what children are most at risk to its impact. Again, I urge all Americans to get involved in their kids' lives. Ask questions, listen to their fears and concerns, their hopes and their dreams. Children are not simply small adults. Childhood is a time of innocence, a time to teach discipline and values. Our children are our most precious gift, they are full of innocence and hope. We must work together to preserve the sanctity of childhood.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I join Senator Kyl and the other co- sponsors in introducing legislation that I hope will significantly improve the Border Patrol's ability to recruit and retain the talented individuals we need to guard our nation's borders against illegal immigration and illicit drugs. This legislation is timely and important. I hope we can act on it promptly. As my colleagues know, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 mandated the addition of 1,000 new Border Patrol agents annually through 2001 as a means of providing better enforcement against illegal immigration, particularly along the southwest border. Unfortunately, this Administration has seen fit to request full funding for those authorized agents in only one year since we passed that law. Moreover, problems in recruiting and retaining Border Patrol agents have resulted in a net increase of only several hundred new agents annually. Thus, during the current fiscal year, for which we did in fact appropriate funds for 1,000 new agents, the recruiting and retention problems are such that the Border Patrol will see a net increase in its ranks of only several hundred agents. Indeed, Border Patrol Chief Gus de la Vina testified before the Senate Immigration Subcommittee only yesterday that, despite the Congressional mandate to add 1,000 new agents this year, the Border Patrol only anticipates hiring between 200 and 400 agents. Arizona, which had anticipated receiving about 400 of the 1,000 new agents slated for FY 1999, will now receive fewer than 150. We can and must do better than that. The Border Patrol's Tucson sector last month recorded a record 60,537 illegal immigrant detentions, raising this year's total to more than 200,000. And the Tucson sector does not even cover the entire Arizona border with Mexico. The immigration problem in my state is getting worse, not better, as the President's decision to request funding for no new agents in FY 2000 implies. The Border Patrol's inability to hire the required number of new agents even as towns like Douglas, Arizona face a rising tide of illegal immigrants does not inspire confidence in its ability to properly carry out its mission. Our legislation would promote all Border Patrol agents who have completed at least one year at the GS-9 level, and who are rated as fully successful or higher, to the GS-11 rank, placing them on a professional level commensurate with their peers in other Federal law enforcement agencies. Our bill would also create an Office of Border Patrol Recruitment and Retention to develop outreach programs for prospective Border Patrol agents, develop programs to provide retention incentives, and make recommendations about Border Patrol salaries and benefits. It is our hope that this legislation will help reverse the outflow of skilled agents from the Border Patrol, as well as make such service more appealing to the talented men and women it relies on. America's Border Patrol agents perform critical work but have been underappreciated for years. It's time we changed that. The premise of our legislation is the Border Patrol agents, whose duties involve considerable risks and require unique abilities, perform work as important as many of our other Federal law enforcement agents and should be compensated accordingly. Similarly, the Border Patrol should develop personnel policies to attract more of our best and brightest. At a time when we are having trouble hiring and retaining new agents, and as pressure from illegal immigration intensifies in some areas, especially southern Arizona, we cannot afford not to take better care of the men and women of the U.S. Border Patrol. Our legislation makes meaningful progress toward that end.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, an entire nation was stunned this past week with the shocking violence that unfolded in Littleton, Colorado. Perhaps, if this had been an isolated incident, we could have written it off as two crazed individuals. However, the tragic reality is that it was not an isolated incident, but another in an increasing pattern of violence in our schools. Even more disturbing is that these schoolyard shootings are occurring against the backdrop of ever- escalating youth violence, and suicide. This is an extraordinarily complex problem, with many contributing factors. However, what this comes down to is responsibility, and the most basic and profound responsibility that our culture--any culture-- has, is raising its children. We are failing that responsibility, and the extent of our failure is being measured in the deaths, and injuries of our kids in the schoolyard and on the streets of our neighborhoods and communities. Primary responsibility lies with families. As a country, we are not parenting our children. We are not adequately involving ourselves in our children's lives, the friends they hang out with, what they do with their time, the problems they are struggling with. This is our job, our paramount responsibility, and most unfortunately, we are failing. We must get our priorities straight, and that means putting our kids first. However, parents need help. They need help because our homes and our families--our children's minds, are being flooded by a tide of violence. This dehumanizing violence pervades our society: our movies depict graphic violence; our children are taught to kill and maim by interactive video games; the Internet, which holds such tremendous potential in so many ways, is tragically used by some to communicate unimaginable hatred, images and descriptions of violence, and ``how- to'' manuals on everything from bomb construction to drugs. Our culture is dominated by media, and our children, more-so than any generation before them, is vulnerable to the images of violence and hate that, unfortunately, are dominant themes in so much of what they see, and hear. Thus, today I rise to introduce, calling upon the Surgeon General to conduct a comprehensive study of media violence, in all its forms, and to issue a report on its effects, and recommendations on how we can turn this tragic tide of youth violence. As I have said, this is a complex challenge. Certainly, working with the media industry, we can come to some consensus on immediate measures that can be taken to curb our children's access to the types of excessive and gratuitous violence that is currently flooding our homes and families. However, the crisis we are currently facing did not occur overnight, and we must take time to achieve a comprehensive understanding of how media violence affects childhood development, and what children are most at risk to its impact. Again, I urge all Americans to get involved in their kids' lives. Ask questions, listen to their fears and concerns, their hopes and their dreams. Children are not simply small adults. Childhood is a time of innocence, a time to teach discipline and values. Our children are our most precious gift, they are full of innocence and hope. We must work together to preserve the sanctity of childhood.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Hutchison, Chairman of the Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee in introducing this bill. The Federal Maritime Commission has done a commendable job in its implementation of the Ocean Shipping Reform Act that takes effect on May 1, 1999. This measure will insure that the Commission can complete their implementation efforts and continue their other duties, administering the Shipping Act of 1984 and enforcing the Foreign Shipping Practices Act and Section 19 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920. I am pleased that the subcommittee is taking this action today and will join Senator Hutchison and the other sponsors in expeditiously moving this authorization through the legislative process.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, could I first say, before Senator Daschle leaves the floor, that having been in the minority for the first 7 years or 8 years I was here, I certainly have sympathy with his frustration. The great strength of the Senate is that not only does every Senator have the right to be heard but the minority does also. But I also think Senator Daschle realizes that if we allow any amendment on any subject with extended debate, then the body does not move forward. I have not seen a better relationship than the one that exists between Senator Daschle and Senator Lott. It is one of friendship and it is one of cooperation. I think the legislative accomplishments which have been achieved during Senator Lott's and Senator Daschle's stewardship have been incredibly impressive, really. I think perhaps it would be best for us to recognize that there is virtue on both sides of the argument, especially in light of, for example, yes, the tree is filled, but I did state, and the majority leader stated, we would be glad to vitiate one of those parts of the tree so that we could take up relevant amendments. I think that was made clear. So with the tree filled, there was the opportunity to debate relevant amendments. I also comment that, as Senator Daschle pointed out, it is not really best to have all of this progress done off the floor in negotiations. I can't express a deep enough appreciation to Senator Dodd, Senator Wyden, Senator Feinstein, Senator Hatch, and Senator Bennett for their efforts, and others, and those of Senator Kerry of Massachusetts. From a personal standpoint, I express my sympathy for Senator Daschle's frustration. But at the same time, I do believe we could have moved forward with debate and votes on this issue. I really appreciate his comments about his commitment to seeing this bill pass, because we really do have to pass this legislation. We will engage in further negotiations. But between now and early next week, what I would sincerely hope is that all of us--the majority leader and Senator Daschle would urge all of our colleagues to get together, come up with a set of amendments, as we usually do when this process comes to an end, come up with a set of relevant amendments, a time period associated with it, and get this thing done so we do not have to have another cloture vote and not have this very vital issue addressed. Again, I also say that these amendments are important. I know the Senator from South Carolina feels very strongly about many of them. But it is time, really, that we started going through that process, even though we are bringing the bill down today. Again, I express my appreciation to Senator Feinstein, Senator Wyden, and Senator Dodd on this very important issue. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Hutchison, Chairman of the Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee in introducing this bill. The Federal Maritime Commission has done a commendable job in its implementation of the Ocean Shipping Reform Act that takes effect on May 1, 1999. This measure will insure that the Commission can complete their implementation efforts and continue their other duties, administering the Shipping Act of 1984 and enforcing the Foreign Shipping Practices Act and Section 19 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920. I am pleased that the subcommittee is taking this action today and will join Senator Hutchison and the other sponsors in expeditiously moving this authorization through the legislative process.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I would object to going to morning business at this time. The Senator from South Carolina has 22 minutes left, and I am glad to listen on that time, but it is getting time for us to vote on cloture.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, before the Senator from Connecticut leaves the floor, I thank him for all of his efforts. We have engaged in intensive and sometimes emotional negotiation, and we have had a long relationship for many years. His contribution, no matter how this cloture vote comes out today, has been critical in moving this process forward. It has given me optimism that we will be able to resolve this issue. Without his involvement, we would not have the opportunities that I believe we will have in the future. In my prepared statement, which I will make in just a minute, this issue is too important to just go away. I think the Senator from Connecticut knows that and the Senator from Oregon, who has played such a critical role, along with Senator Feinstein, Senator Hatch, and others on this issue, know that. It is not going to go away. What the Senator from Connecticut has done and the Senator from Oregon has done is move this process forward to where I believe we will be able to get it done, because it is too important for us to just say we cannot agree on it. I thank both my colleagues for all their efforts. Mr. President, we are now at a critical time if we are to pass this bill. We have been attempting to debate and act on this matter for a week. We are about to have our second cloture vote as we crawl through the morass of Senate procedure. We have endured hours of quorum calls waiting for substantive discussion. We have heard at length the views of the ranking member, Senator Hollings, in opposition to this bill. We have detoured from the bill to hear the minority's complaints about scheduling unrelated matters of interest to them. But now, Mr. President, we are about to have a critical vote. This is a vote to allow us to complete action on this critical bill. This is a vote to cast aside the partisan procedural games and get on with the business of the nation. Important business, as the thousands of CEO's and business people from all segments of industry: high tech, accounting, insurance, retail, wholesale, large and small, who are actively supporting this bill will attest. The Y2K problem is not going away, nor is it going to be postponed by petty, partisan procedural wrangling. The cost of solving the Y2K problem is staggering. Experts have estimated that the businesses in the United States alone will spend $50 billion in fixing affected computers, products and systems. But experts have also predicted that the potential litigation costs could reach $1 trillion--more than the legal costs associated with asbestos, breast implants, tobacco, and Superfund litigation combined--more than three times the total annual estimated cost of all civil litigation in the United States. This is not just my opinion, but are facts supported by a panel of experts on an American Bar Association panel last August. These costs represent resources and energy that will not be directed toward innovation, new technology, or new productivity for our nation's economy. This litigation could overwhelm and paralyze the industries driving the best economy in our history. The Y2K phenomenon, while anticipated for years, presents nevertheless, a one-time, unique problem. Our legal system is neither designed, nor adequately equipped, to handle the flood of litigation which we can expect when law firms across the country are laying in wait, in eager anticipation of a golden opportunity. More to the point, the vast majority of our Nation's citizens do not want to sue. They want their computers, their equipment, their systems to work. They want solutions to problems, and a healthy economy, not a trial lawyers' full employment act. S. 96 presents a solution, a reasonable practical, balanced, and most important, bi-partisan solution. Since it passed out of committee, with the help of my colleagues especially Senator Wyden, Senator Dodd, Senator Feinstein, and others it has been improved, narrowed, and more carefully crafted to ensure a fair and practical result to the Y2K situation. The Public Policy Institute of the Democratic Leadership Council published a Y2K background paper in March which has been widely circulated and quoted on the Senate floor in the past several days. The authors state: In order to diminish the threat of burdensome and unwarranted litigation, it is essential that any legislation addressing Y2K liability: Encourage remediation over litigation and the assignment of blame; Enact fair rules that reassure businesses that honest efforts at remediation will be rewarded by limiting liability, while enforcing contracts and punishing negligence; Promote Alternative Dispute Resolution; and Discourage frivolous lawsuits while protecting avenues of redress for parties that suffer real injuries. S. 96 does all of those things. It provides time for plaintiffs and defendants to resolve Y2K problems without litigation; It reiterates the plaintiff's duty to mitigate damages, and highlights the defendant's opportunity to assist plaintiffs in doing that by providing information and resources; It provides for proportional liability in most cases, with exceptions for fraudulent or intentional conduct, or where the plaintiff has limited assets; It protects governmental entities including municipalities, school, fire, water and sanitation districts from punitive damages; It eliminates punitive damage limits for egregious conduct, while providing some protection against runaway punitive damage awards; and It provides protection for those not directly involved in a Y2K failure; It is a temporary measure. It sunsets January 1, 2003; And it does not deny the right of anyone to redress their legitimate grievances in court. I have spent hours working with several of my colleagues, including the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, to resolve specific concerns. We have arrived at an agreement to further modify the substitute amendment my friend Mr. Wyden and I earlier agreed upon. There may still be others, such as Mr. Kerry of Massachusetts, with ideas, suggestions, or a different perspective on solving the problem. I welcome hearing other ideas. My colleagues may want to offer amendments. I am willing to enter into consent agreements to allow the opportunity for debate on other ideas. We can then vote and the best idea will win. That is the way of the Senate. But, that cannot take place unless we vote yes now on cloture. The clock is ticking. Mr. President, 246 days plus a few hours remain until January 1. This bill cannot wait. Its purpose is to provide incentives for proaction--to encourage remediation and solution and to prevent Y2K problems from occurring. It will not serve its purpose unless it passes now. This vote is a simple vote. It is a critical vote. This is a vote as to whether we want to solve and prevent the Y2K litigation problem, which has already begun, or whether we will let partisan ``politics as usual'' be an obstacle to our nation's well-being. It is a vote to either help the American economy or to show your willingness to do the bidding of the Trial Lawyers Association. Make no mistake, I hope companies across America are paying attention. Senators will vote to help protect small and large business, the high tech industry, and others, or they will choose to protect the trial lawyers' stream of income. That is the choice. I ask my colleagues to consider carefully the message they send with their vote today. Are you part of the solution? Or part of the problem? Mr. President, I believe it is time for the vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for an additional 7 minutes.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I join Senator Kyl and the other co- sponsors in introducing legislation that I hope will significantly improve the Border Patrol's ability to recruit and retain the talented individuals we need to guard our nation's borders against illegal immigration and illicit drugs. This legislation is timely and important. I hope we can act on it promptly. As my colleagues know, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 mandated the addition of 1,000 new Border Patrol agents annually through 2001 as a means of providing better enforcement against illegal immigration, particularly along the southwest border. Unfortunately, this Administration has seen fit to request full funding for those authorized agents in only one year since we passed that law. Moreover, problems in recruiting and retaining Border Patrol agents have resulted in a net increase of only several hundred new agents annually. Thus, during the current fiscal year, for which we did in fact appropriate funds for 1,000 new agents, the recruiting and retention problems are such that the Border Patrol will see a net increase in its ranks of only several hundred agents. Indeed, Border Patrol Chief Gus de la Vina testified before the Senate Immigration Subcommittee only yesterday that, despite the Congressional mandate to add 1,000 new agents this year, the Border Patrol only anticipates hiring between 200 and 400 agents. Arizona, which had anticipated receiving about 400 of the 1,000 new agents slated for FY 1999, will now receive fewer than 150. We can and must do better than that. The Border Patrol's Tucson sector last month recorded a record 60,537 illegal immigrant detentions, raising this year's total to more than 200,000. And the Tucson sector does not even cover the entire Arizona border with Mexico. The immigration problem in my state is getting worse, not better, as the President's decision to request funding for no new agents in FY 2000 implies. The Border Patrol's inability to hire the required number of new agents even as towns like Douglas, Arizona face a rising tide of illegal immigrants does not inspire confidence in its ability to properly carry out its mission. Our legislation would promote all Border Patrol agents who have completed at least one year at the GS-9 level, and who are rated as fully successful or higher, to the GS-11 rank, placing them on a professional level commensurate with their peers in other Federal law enforcement agencies. Our bill would also create an Office of Border Patrol Recruitment and Retention to develop outreach programs for prospective Border Patrol agents, develop programs to provide retention incentives, and make recommendations about Border Patrol salaries and benefits. It is our hope that this legislation will help reverse the outflow of skilled agents from the Border Patrol, as well as make such service more appealing to the talented men and women it relies on. America's Border Patrol agents perform critical work but have been underappreciated for years. It's time we changed that. The premise of our legislation is the Border Patrol agents, whose duties involve considerable risks and require unique abilities, perform work as important as many of our other Federal law enforcement agents and should be compensated accordingly. Similarly, the Border Patrol should develop personnel policies to attract more of our best and brightest. At a time when we are having trouble hiring and retaining new agents, and as pressure from illegal immigration intensifies in some areas, especially southern Arizona, we cannot afford not to take better care of the men and women of the U.S. Border Patrol. Our legislation makes meaningful progress toward that end.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Members have until 10 a.m. on Thursday in order to file second-degree amendments to the substitute amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will convene at 9:30 a.m. and immediately begin 1 hour of debate relating to the cloture motion to the McCain amendment to the Y2K legislation. At approximately 10:30 a.m., following that debate, the Senate will proceed to a cloture vote on the pending McCain amendment to S. 96. As a reminder, under rule XXII, all second-degree amendments to the McCain amendment must be filed 1 hour prior to the vote. Order for Filing Second-Degree Amendments

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 88, submitted earlier by Senators Hagel and Kerrey.

Mr. McCAIN

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