John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Lieberman, Senator Thompson, and I be allowed to enter into a colloquy for the exchange of comments to one another.

Mr. McCAIN. I have one additional comment for my friend from Tennessee. One, I believe some of these hearings have to be held in a classified environment. There is just too much raw data out there. I believe the Warren Commission, in their investigations, held closed meetings as well. I also want to say to the Senator from Tennessee, he was an integral part, as all of us know, in probably the most successful and best known investigation in this century. That, of course, was the Watergate committee. There are certain parallels, there are certain nonparallels, obviously, because we are dealing with different issues. But I know the Senator from Tennessee learned a number of lessons from the Watergate hearings. Those that apply to this legislation that he thinks could improve our efforts and get a better product--we now will have that vote on Monday, I understand--I would be eager to work up an amendment or amendments with the help of the Senator from Tennessee to bring this commission to the quality and level which would achieve the goals that we seek. I would like to engage in those discussions, if we could.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, more has changed in the last year than any of us, 1 year ago, would have cared to imagine. It was on a September day not unlike this one that terrorists committed mass murder in America, transforming forever the way we think about our security and our role in the world. One year later, we are in the midst of restricting our entire apparatus of Government to protect against future acts of terror in our homeland. But we have yet to comprehensively assess what went wrong last September 11--how our defenses failed us, why our worldwide intelligence network did not provide us warning of imminent attack, how terrorists operated and trained within our borders, how policy decisions may have made the events more likely, and how various Government agencies failed to analyze information in their possessions that could well have provided us a blueprint of the terrorists' intentions. The anniversary of September 11 is past us, and with it the celebration of heroism and sacrifice that will forever mark that day. Now is the time to take a harder look at the other side of that tragic event: the utter failure of the United States Government to predict and prevent the slaughter of Americans in America's greatest city. The September 11 attacks were incredibly depraved but not, as it turns out unimaginable. As early as 1995, an accomplice of Ramzi Yousef revealed that the mastermind behind the 1993 World Trade Center attack intended to plant bombs on 12 U.S.-bound airliners and crash a light plane packed with explosives into CIA headquarters. The accomplice had trained as a pilot at three separate U.S. flight schools. In 1999 the Library of Congress prepared a report for the National Intelligence Council warning that al-Qaeda suicide bombers ``could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives'' in the Pentagon, the CIA, or the White House. Two months before the September 11 attacks, Kenneth Williams, an FBI field agent in Phoenix, suspected that terrorists had enrolled in an Arizona pilot training school. He urged the FBI to begin investigating whether other U.S. flight schools might be training terrorists to fly. His prophetic warnings went unheeded. Similarly, FBI agent Coleen Rowley, whose efforts to have the FBI and CIA investigate hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui were rebuffed, believes such an investigation could have uncovered the terrorists' plot in the weeks before the attacks. Yesterday, the joint congressional intelligence committee reported that U.S. intelligence received a number of reports indicating that terrorists were plotting to use planes as weapons and planning to attack domestic targets. According to the committee, U.S. intelligence learned in August 1998 that a ``group of unidentified Arabs planned to fly an explosive-laden plane from a foreign country into the World Trade Center.'' This information was given to the FBI and the FAA, which took little action. CIA Director Tenet told the intelligence community in December 1998 that ``We are at war,'' and ``I want no resources or people spared in this effort.'' According to the joint committee, ``Despite the D.C.I.'s declaration of war in 1998, there was no massive shift in budget or reassignment of personnel to counterterrorism until after September 11, 2001.'' The committee's report continues: ``By late 1998, the intelligence community had amassed a growing body of information-- though general in nature, and lacking specific details on time and on place--indicating that bin Laden and the Al Qaeda notework intended to strike within the United States, and concern about bin Laden continued to grow over time and reached peak levels in the spring and summer of 2001, as the intelligence community faced increasing numbers of reports of imminent Al Qaeda attacks against U.S. interests. . . .'' According to the congressional investigators, senior government officials in July 2001 were briefed on the threat in the following language: ``Based on a review of all source reporting over the last five months, we believe that [Osama bin Laden] will launch a significant terrorist attack against U.S. and/or Israeli interests in the coming weeks. The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning.'' National Security Agency intercepts on September 10th warning in Arabic that ``The match is about to begin'' and ``Tomorrow is zero hour'' went untranslated until the attacks, when their meaning became all too apparent. Asking for, urging, and demanding answers for why various agencies of the Federal Government failed to understand the enormity of the danger facing the United States is an obligation shared by all elected Federal officials. As is the responsibility for understanding why and how the previous administration failed to combat the growing menace of international terrorism more effectively. As is responsibility for questioning Congress' inability or unwillingness to exercise more diligently its oversight responsibilities for those agencies. As is the expectation that officials who did not competently discharge their responsibilities be held accountable. Congress is on the verge of creating a Department of Homeland Security that constitutes the largest reorganization of the Federal Government in many of our lifetimes. But there has been no comprehensive diagnosis of the state of our preparedness for terrorism prior to last September, no proper analysis of the security loopholes in our immigration and airline security organization that provided the terrorists with the access they needed to kill Americans; no systematic review of the failure of Government agencies to analyze and share information on the terrorists' planning that coordinated analysis could have revealed prior to the attacks; and no formal assessment of the consequences of policy decisions dating back years that led to a climate in Afghanistan in which a terrorist network could train and flourish, with consequences that need no retelling. We need an honest search for answers, so that we and the people we represent can arrive at fair conclusions about what went wrong and develop ways to repair it. The independent commission we are proposing to look into these and all matters concerning our vulnerability and our initial response to the attacks would provide a blueprint for reform of the way we defend America. The insights of a blue-ribbon panel of experts, removed from the pressures of partisan politics, would add to the reforms we are making with creation of a Homeland Security Department by highlighting additional areas where the way our Government is organized have made us vulnerable. Eleven days after the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt mandated an investigation into how such tragedy could have struck an unknowing America. Ultimately, four different major panels appointed by the President and Congress investigated this ``Day of Infamy.'' Seven days after President Kennedy was murdered, President Johnson appointed a commission of distinguished leaders to investigate the assassination. The independent commission we are proposing would carry on this requirement for answers, which has gone unquestioned and been deemed necessary in previous crises of this magnitude. There is a crisis of confidence in America today. Americans are more proud than ever to be American. But large percentages deeply distrust the institutions that shape our daily lives--the Federal Government, corporate America, the Church. Corporate corruption, the scandals of campaign financing and corruption of the political process have deprived many Americans of the sense that they have a stake in the way they are governed. In the same way, I believe the lack of a fundamental accounting for the greatest tragedy in the Nation's history--one that touched all Americans and permanently altered the way we live and think about ourselves--is another source of alienation and insecurity. I do not believe the administration and the Congress have given the American people reason to be confident that we no longer remain vulnerable to terrorist attack, despite the admirable leadership our President has shown in prosecuting the war on terror, and despite the important work of Congress to create a Department of Homeland Security. The congressional intelligence committees have been conducting a very limited investigation into the intelligence failures related to September 11 and even this narrow inquiry has been sidelined by staff disputes that disrupted its operations and an FBI investigation into leaked material. Strangely, the FBI is now investigating the same people who are investigating the FBI. Indeed, until this week the joint committee has not held any open hearings. Ranking Republican Senator Shelby in particular has been outspoken in criticizing its lack of progress before it goes out of existence when the 107th Congress adjourns. Both Senator Shelby and joint committee co-chairman Senator Bob Graham support the establishment of an independent commission to carry on the work performed by the congressional intelligence investigation they helped to lead. I am pleased that a number of the Senate members of the joint congressional intelligence committee have endorsed our proposal to establish a panel that would build upon their work. The rationale for an independent commission seems indisputable if the very leaders charged with a more narrow inquiry do not believe their own investigation met the necessary standards to authoritatively report on and learn from our past failures. Many in Congress and the administration voiced concern last year that an independent investigation into September 11th's causes and consequences would interfere with Congress' investigation into these matters. With Congress planning to adjourn very soon, the congressional investigation represents only a first step into the intelligence and other failures that gave the terrorists their opening. The independent commission Senator Lieberman and I are proposing would explicitly build on the work of the congressional investigation and would go far beyond it by examining Government practice and policy in a host of other areas, including foreign policy, border control, aviation security, and law enforcement. Americans deserve answers after the events of September. This issue rises above politics, as the families and friends who lost loved ones will attest. Indeed, a commission would remove the issue from the political realm and serve the needs of both the administration and Congress by providing a blueprint for action, above and beyond any conclusions the joint congressional intelligence investigation may draw from its limited review. Leaders of the joint congressional investigation into the intelligence failures of September 11th have said the attacks may well have been preventable, based on everything we have learned since then about what we knew and how it fit together in a way that formed a blueprint for attack. I find it unfathomable, and frankly unacceptable, that we would accept that we could have prevented the attacks, but in the same breath say we should move on. We should move on--after we have answered all the lingering questions about why we were neither prepared nor organized to meet the challenge of terrorism, and after we have made the kind of reforms that only a panel of distinguished experts separated from politics could propose. An independent inquiry will not impose a serious burden on the administration as it prosecutes our just war on terrorism, any more than a similar inquiry after Pearl Harbor impeded Franklin D. Roosevelt's prosecution of World War II. Nor should it prevent members of Congress, the press, or any American citizen from questioning or criticizing the Government's apparent failures over the course of successive administrations. All wars and national security failures have occasioned contemporaneous criticism, and the Republic has managed to thrive. It is irresponsible in a time of war, or any time for that matter, to attack or defend unthinkingly or because partisan identification is one's supreme interest. But it is not responsible or right to shrink from offering thoughtful criticism when and to whom it is due, and when the consequences of incompletely understanding failures of governance are potentially catastrophic. On the contrary, such timidity is indefensibly irresponsible especially in times of war, so irresponsible that it verges on the unpatriotic. Two years before the attacks, the distinguished Hart-Rudman Commission on national security warned that as a result of the threat of catastrophic terrorism, ``Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers.'' Congress and successive administration ignored the commission's recommendations for reform to defend against this threat--many of which are now embodied in the homeland security legislation we are considering this week. We shouldn't wait for the next attack to investigate what more we need to do to protect the American people. Until we have comprehensive assessment of needed reforms across the spectrum of our Government, based on what went wrong last September, we will not be prepared to predict and prevent the next attack. Americans need answers. I urge my colleagues to join us to create a commission that will tell them the truth--and put in place the protections that will prevent future generations from judging us for abdicating our responsibility to that truth.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wish to take this opportunity to recognize Kids Voting USA and its efforts to educate our children about civic participation, democracy, and the electoral process. Kids Voting USA is an organization that began in my State, but now reaches nearly five million students nationwide. What began as a fishing trip to Costa Rica by three Arizona businessmen has blossomed into an organization that involves 9,000 schools, 200,000 teachers, 80,000 volunteers, and countless sponsors and donors. With 38 States and more than 140 communities across the Nation participating, Kids Voting USA teaches students from kindergarten through high school about the importance of civic participation and their rights and responsibilities as citizens. Through an acclaimed, interactive core of service-based curricula, young people gain the knowledge, skills, and motivation for democratic living. Combined with a civics education, students participate in local and national elections in communities across the country. Kids Voting USA enables students to visit official polls on election day, accompanied by a parent or guardian, to cast a ballot that replicates the official ballot. During the last national election, more than 1.5 million students voted as part of the Kids Voting USA program. In last year's local elections students actively participated in over 114 cities, counties, and school districts. This year, National Kids Voting Week is September 11-17, and will coincide with the inauguration of National Civic Participation Week. It will be a week that highlights programs and activities that lead to greater participation in elections and the political process. As we reflect on the events of the last year, National Kids Voting Week will celebrate the vibrant and important Kids Voting program by focusing on the hopes and dreams of young citizens. I would like to recognize Kids Voting USA and all it has done to promote the future of democracy by engaging families, schools, and communities in the election process.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the chairman of the Commerce Committee. When a construction safety team issues its report on the likely technical cause for building failure, along with recommendations under Section 8 of this legislation, it is my understanding that any strongly held minority or dissenting views would also be included in that report. I believe that is the committee's intent.

Mr. McCAIN. I would also like to clarify an issue regarding the composition of a safety team. It seems appropriate to permit employees of Federal agencies to serve as members of construction safety teams. And certainly in the event that a construction safety team investigates the collapse of a Federal building, a representative from the General Services Administration should be included on the team.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Continuing from Admiral Loy's letter to Chairman Hollings: We agree that there are literally dozens of issues that would need to be resolved as part of a program involving lethal weapons. Let me mention a few such issues or questions. The next topic that he brings up is entitled ``Training curricula and program design.'' We estimate that some 85,000 pilots may be eligible for the program authorized by the House. In order to avoid significant safety and security risk, a detailed, effective training program must be designed from scratch and tested. This must include firearms training and safety instruction. It would include classroom training on numerous issues, such as airport security procedures that would be established for airline employees to carry weapons through airports, and the legal liability and responsibilities of employees and airlines when a weapon is carried on duty and off duty. It must include specific training about the circumstances under which the weapon may be used onboard the aircraft and outside the aircraft at airports and within the community at large. It must establish protocols and communications tools to coordinate a pilot's responsibilities with those of Federal Air Marshals and other law enforcement officers authorized to travel armed. It is possible that special training facilities would be needed for high-volume training, so that the program could incorporate at least some practice in a simulated aircraft environment, such as is provided to our Federal Air Marshals. Cockpit modifications. In order to allow ready access to the weapon in the cockpit while securing it appropriately, it would be necessary to install special sleeves for the weapons in each cockpit. Obviously each different aircraft will raise different design and installation considerations. It would be necessary for TSA, the airlines and aircraft manufacturers to assess these issues in more detail. Coordination with other nations and international airlines. There are numerous thorny issues that must be resolved with foreign nations and foreign airlines. For example, pilots flying international routes for a U.S. carrier must comply with gun control laws abroad. In order to avoid conflict, TSA, with the support of other federal agencies, would need to undertake extensive coordination with countries around the globe to clarify rights and responsibilities of airline employees traveling armed. Would we authorize the employees of foreign air carriers to participate in this program? Would we provide reciprocal access to the U.S. if other nations design similar programs to arm pilots? What type of background investigation would be possible and necessary? Who would pay? Complying with state and local gun control laws. We have only begun to assess the issues associated with complying with state and local gun control laws. Our review suggests that some meaningful legal work and coordination would be an early task for the program. Legal liability. There are numerous and complex issues of legal liability that need careful, thorough review. These relate to the pilots, flight crews, other airline employees, the airlines, airports, vendors supporting the program and individuals who provide training to the pilots participating in the program. A large support organization. A worldwide program of this size would require sizable staff and support. Existing TSA headquarters functions would be considerably stretched in order to manage the program, track the inventory of federal weapons and investigate accidental weapon discharges, program operation and public complaints. Cost. Our preliminary estimate is that a program involving all commercial pilots could cost up to $900 million for the start-up and some $250 million annually thereafter. Of course these estimates must be refined to reflect details of an actual program, including the possibility that fewer than all commercial pilots will participate. These estimates do not include any projections for necessary cockpit modifications to accommodate ready access to the firearms. The total program costs may vary widely according to program design decisions, but any program open to all pilots would be very expensive. TSA's current budget does not allow for further work in this area, which raises the question of who will bear the cost of this potentially expensive program. I am convinced that if there is to be responsible legislation establishing a program to allow guns in the cockpit, it must address the numerous safety, security, cost and operational issues raised by TSA's review, and should enable us to implement the program in a methodical, careful, and pragmatic manner. I remain committed to working with the Senate and the House of Representatives on this important issue. I have provided an identical copy of this letter to Senator McCain. Thank you for your interest and leadership in this matter and I look forward to our hearing next Tuesday. Very Respectfully, James M. Loy, Acting Under Secretary. The reason I read this letter is that I think it is important for us to understand there are a lot of complexities involved with implementing a program of this nature. I know there are certain foreign countries where no one is allowed to carry or possess a weapon under any circumstances--certainly not a hand weapon, if it is not for hunting purposes. I know there are different laws in different States as far as weapons control is concerned. I wonder who is going to pay the $900 million for startup and some $250 million annually thereafter. I think that issue should be addressed here. I visited with the CEO of a major airline this morning who made a compelling case that the major airlines in the United States are in deep and serious trouble. One major airline just declared bankruptcy. Others are convinced that another major airline will be declaring bankruptcy soon. Who is going to pay for this program? Are we going to lay it on the airlines, or are we going to lay it on the taxpayers of America? Legal liability is always a question whenever we embark on a program that involves the use of weapons. The support organization at TSA, I think, is a legitimate question. Right now, we are facing a deadline of the end of the year for installation of devices that would check all luggage. We all know that isn't going to happen. We are undergoing the transition from private companies to Federal employees at our airports. So what I am asking is that the sponsors of the legislation, who obviously feel very strongly on this issue, make sure that, as we enact this legislation--and I am convinced there will be a significant vote in support of this amendment--these issues are adequately addressed. I think these issues warrant our concern and our attention. There are very small airplanes--for example, commuter aircraft--that carry a sizable number of passengers. How are we going to put those weapons in those very small cockpits? I am sure there is a way, but I want to impress upon my colleagues that there is a lot of complexity associated with this issue as outlined by Admiral Loy, and there are other concerns that I think we deserve to know at least some of the solutions for as we address this amendment and this issue, which has already been passed by the other body and, I am confident, would be passed by a large vote here. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I have recently--in fact, today-- received a copy of a letter that was addressed to me as well as primarily to Senator Hollings, chairman of the Commerce Committee. I think it is an important letter. The views of the administration should be considered, as is always the case or should always be the case when we are dealing with issues. This one, of course, is very emotional and, frankly, an issue which has been polarizing in some respects. I would like to read this letter that was delivered today. I hope my colleagues will pay attention to some of the concerns raised here and perhaps understand that there are some difficult issues that need to be addressed. Among them are training, cockpit modifications, coordination with other nations and international airlines--for example, landing in a country that has stricter gun control laws--and complying with State and local gun control laws. As we know, there are different laws in different States, the issue of legal liability, support organization, and the cost. So I would like to read this letter that was sent by Admiral Loy to Senator Hollings with a copy to me: Dear Mr. Chairman, This responds to your letter to me of August 1, 2002. I wanted to answer your question on my views about whether and how to arm flight deck crews operating commercial aircraft. The balance of the questions in your letter will be addressed by separate correspondence, which I will send you later this week. This letter is from Admiral Loy, the new acting Under Secretary for the Transportation Security Administration. He goes on to say: After I began work as the Acting Under Secretary at the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and following the vote in July by the House of Representatives supporting a program to arm pilots with lethal weapons, Secretary Mineta asked me to review the range of issues associated with a voluntary deployment of guns in the cockpit. His concern and mine is, above all, to ensure the safety of airline passengers and crew. I have finished my review and wanted to share my conclusions and concerns with you while the discussion continues in the Congress. Our review included significant outreach in which we sought counsel from airlines, pilots, airports, the FAA and numerous federal law enforcement agencies, including the FBI, Secret Service and ATF. The study team evaluated a range of deployment and training options and numerous associated policy and budget issues. The review was intended to reach general conclusions and also to outline the elements of the general protocols to be followed if a decision was made to arm pilots. A core assumption of pending legislation, and also of our review, was that any program would be carried out by volunteer pilots who would receive training consistent with the designation as armed Federal Flight Deck Officers. We concluded that if legislation is passed authorizing a program to arm pilots with lethal weapons, it would be preferable if pilots were individually issued lockboxes that would be used to transport their weapons to and from the aircraft. They would be trained on weapon use and their responsibilities under the program, and subject to periodic evaluation. The pilots would be responsible for maintenance and proper care of the weapon. We determined that the alternative program design--having general use weapons stored aboard an aircraft and maintained by a cadre of airline employees--poses greater security risks, operational complexity and cost. Many of the federal law enforcement experts we consulted continue to have significant concerns about arming pilots with either lethal or non-lethal weapons. The airline industry shares these concerns. The Board of Directors of the Air Transport Association has sent Secretary Mineta a letter signed by twenty-one airline chief executive officers urging a cautious approach to arming pilots and outling their concerns (attached). I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the board of directors of the Air Transport Association, sent to Secretary Mineta, be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I introduce the Consumer Broadband Deregulation Act of 2002. This legislation takes a comprehensive, deregulatory, but measured approach to providing more Americans with more broadband choices. By ensuring that the market, not government, regulates the deployment of broadband services, the legislation will promote investment and innovation in broadband facilities--and consumers will benefit. The bill would create a new title in the Communications Act of 1934 that would ensure that residential broadband services exist in a minimally regulated environment. The new section of the Act would also make certain that providers of broadband services are treated in a similar fashion without regard to the particular mode of providing service. The bill includes provisions that would take the following actions: Deregulate the retail provision of residential broadband services; dictate a hands-off approach to the deployment of new facilities by telephone companies while maintaining competitors' access to legacy systems; resist government- mandated open access while providing a safety net to ensure consumers enjoy a competitive broadband services market; ensure that local and state barriers to broadband deployment are removed; facilitate deployment of broadband services to rural and unserved communities by creating an information clearing house in the federal government; maximize wireless technology as a platform for broadband services; ensure access to broadband services by people with disabilities; enhance the enforcement tools available to the FCC; and put the federal government in the role of stimulator, rather than regulatory, of broadband services. In 1996, Congress passed the first major overhaul of telecommunications policy in 62 years. Supporters of the Telecommunications Act argued that it would create increased competition, provide consumers with a variety of new and innovative services at lower prices, and reduce the need for regulation. My principal objection to the Act was that it fundamentally regulated, not deregulated, the telecommunications industry and would lead inevitably to prolonged litigation. It has been six years since the passage of the Act, but consumers have yet to benefit. Competition denied by excessive regulation is costly to consumers. The latest legislative debate in the communications industry has focused on the availability of high-speed Internet access services, often called ``broadband.'' Indeed, Federal Communications Commission Chairman, Michael Powell, has called broadband, ``the central communications policy objective in America.'' There is stark disagreement about the state of affairs of broadband services in the United States. Depending on who is speaking, there is a supply problem, a demand problem, a combination of the two, or no problem at all. All parties agree, however, that Americans and our national economy will benefit greatly from the widespread use of broadband services. Accelerated broadband deployment reportedly could benefit our nation's economy by hundreds of billions of dollars. With such tremendous opportunity comes no shortage of ``solutions.'' Many want a national industrial policy to drive broadband deployment-- they suggest multi-billion dollar central planning efforts aimed to deliver services to consumers regardless of whether those consumers want or need such services. Others have focused on narrow issues affecting only a subset of all providers of broadband services. This legislation takes a different approach. It takes a comprehensive look at the proper role of the government with respect to these new services. It reduces government interference with market forces that lead to consumer welfare, and looks for ways that government can facilitate, not dictate or control, the development of broadband technologies. Mr. President, I am a firm believe in free market principles. In 1995, I introduced a series of amendments during the floor debate on the Telecommunications Act that would have made the bill truly deregulatory. As I said at the time, I believe that ``[i]n free markets, less government usually means more innovation, more entrepreneurial opportunities, more competition, and more benefits to consumers.'' Likewise, in 1998, I introduced the Telecommunications Competition Act that would have allowed competition to flourish and brought true deregulation to the telecommunications market. In 1999, I introduced the Internet Regulatory Freedom Act that would have eliminated certain regulation of telephone companies' deployment of broadband facilities. And in 1999 and 2000, I was a leading advocate in the Senate for the Internet Tax Freedom Act ensuring a moratorium on taxation of the Internet. I stand by the legislation and amendments I previously introduced and believe that they represented the right approach at the right time. In fact, if I had it my way, I would throw out the 1996 Act and start from scratch. I am mindful, however, that broadband has been an issue that has polarized policymakers to the point of legislative paralysis. Now is the time for a measured approach that focuses on achieving what can be done to improve the deployment of services to all consumers. I believe that this legislation is such an approach. The bill has multiple components designed to address all aspects of broadband deployment and usage, and also provides adequate safety nets in the event that there proves to be a market failure that is harmful to consumers. Broadband services can be provided over multiple platforms including telephone, cable, wireless, satellite, and perhaps one day soon, power lines, Each of these platforms is regulated differently based on the nature of the service the platform was originally designed to provide. This legislation would move us closer to a harmonization of regulatory ancestry of a particular platform. First, the bill makes clear that the retail provision of high-speed Internet service remains unregulated. The Internet's tremendous growth is a testament to the exercise of regulatory restraint. Some have suggested a need for government regulation of consumer broadband service quality. They allege that service deficiencies inhibit the development of these new offerings. But we must remember that these are new services, and new services will have problems. This legislation allows for these services to mature. If upon maturity, the FCC determines that there is a need to protect consumers from service quality shortcomings related to the technical provision of service. Then the states can enforce uniform requirements. This provides a measured approach to service quality--a safety net without a presumption of regulation. Next, we must clarify that new services offered by varied providers, regardless of mode, will not be subject to the micromanagement of government regulation. Recognizing that upgrading networks requires substantial investment not free of risk, this bill begins this process by relaxing the obligations on telephone companies that invest in facilities that will bring better broadband services to more consumers. Nothing in this legislation, however, will undermine competitors' efforts to provide services using the telephone companies' legacy facilities. This approach strikes a balance between the interests of those who have invested capital on the promise of government-managed competition and those who will invest in the future of broadband facilities on the promise of government restraint and market-driven competition. The bill also grapples with the government-managed wholesale market for consumer broadband services--the so-called ``open access'' debate. Mr. President, there is perhaps no more difficult issue addressed in this bill. The Internet has thrived because it is an open platform. The presence of numerous ISPs in the narrowband market certainly contributed to the vitality of this open network, particularly at the inception of the Internet. Those providers have depended on access to customers guaranteed by FCC rules. As a result, many have suggested the need for government-mandated access to customers served over broadband connections. They raise significant concerns about carriers becoming screeners of content, and anti-competitive threats to web site operators if consumers do not have a choice of ISP or are limited in their ability to access particular web sites. However tempting it may be to believe that government mandates will produce desired policy outcomes, such intervention too often comes at the price of market inefficiencies, stifled innovation, and increased regulatory costs. Moreover, regulators are often slow to respond to dynamic industry changes. The bill would rely on market forces to resolve access issues by establishing the general rule that the FCC may not impose open access requirements on any provider--no matter what platform is used to provide the consumer broadband service. Again, the bill takes a measured approach by creating a safety net for consumers. Today a multitude of ISPs rely on access mandated by the FCC to serve their customers. The bill would allow the FCC to continue to enforce these obligations during a transition period, but would mandate the sunset of such requirements unless the FCC determines their continued enforcement is necessary to preserve competition for consumers. I firmly believe that market forces will guide the development of a wholesale market producing sustainable, not government-managed, competition. The bill is sufficiently flexible to ensure that consumers are protected, whole sending a clear signal to those parties willing to make the significant investment necessary to provide broadband services that the government will not lie in wait only to reward their risk- taking with regulation. I note again, however, that this issue raises challenging and complex policy questions. We should ensure the continued open nature of the Internet. To the extent that market forces prove incapable of preventing restrictions on consumers' use of the Internet or limitations on devices that consumers wish to attach to their Internet connection, we may need to consider a different approach. I look forward to continue debate on these difficult questions. The potential for government interference with market forces is not limited to federal regulation. State and local governments are also capable of obstructing the deployment of broadband. The bill would address this threat by precluding any state or local regulation from prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide consumer broadband service. It would also prevent localities from transforming their legitimate interest in managing their rights of way into an imposition of additional, revenue-generating financial burdens on broadband deployment. Consumer broadband services should be accessible to all people, regardless of where they live, what they do, or how much they earn. We must be realistic, however, about how quickly this can occur. The bill recognizes the important role that government can play as facilitator to accelerate universal deployment by using its resources to allow communities to share information about successful efforts to attract broadband deployment. Government can facilitate broadband deployment and use in other ways as well. Wireless technologies like Wi-Fi and mesh networks hold tremendous promise for the delivery of consumer broadband services. Given its role in the management of spectrum, the government can impact the use of these technologies. The bill would require the FCC to examine the best role for government in fully exploiting wireless technologies as a broadband platform for the benefit of consumers. Although government should limit its role to those circumstances where market failure is demonstrated, Chairman Powell has suggested that the Commission must be prepared to better enforce its existing rules by increasing the Commission's ability to impose penalties on parties that act in a manner that is anticompetitive. This bill would given him the tools to do so. Some claim that there is a demand ``problem'' with broadband that is caused by the dearth of available broadband content. Here, too, government can play an important role. Certainly content is one of the factors that will drive consumers to subscribe to high-speed Internet services. Given the prominent role that the federal government plays in the lives of most Americans, it can be a source of substantial broadband content. The bill would ensure that the federal government is fully exploiting its ability to provide this content. Finally, I recognize that many will look at the bill and ask about broadband services used by businesses. Why treat those services differently? It is a fair question. I have stated previously that most of the advantages of the Telecommunications Act have accrued not to the average consumer who has seen only higher prices for existing services, but to business customers. It is these business customers that many competitors have attempted to serve using the facilities of the incumbent telephone companies. Moreover, whereas the cable platform is the source of robust, facilities-based competition in the consumer market, it has not developed to a similar extent in the market for business customers. Given these factors, and a desire to take a measured approach, I have generally limited the scope of this bill to the consumer broadband services market. This focus does not reflect my lack of support for a similarly deregulatory approach to the business market. Indeed, I strongly encourage Chairman Powell to be aggressive in using the tools at his disposal to remove regulations wherever appropriate in the business broadband services market. Mr. President, technological progress has too often been constrained by government policies that seek to control it and dictate its course. Such policies have often had the perverse effect of slowing technological advancements. The growth of the Internet demonstrates what happens when governments choose to learn from the mistakes of the past in order to build a better and richer future for our citizens. The choice we have made is to adapt our mechanisms for governance to facilitate and encourage technological change--to facilitate rather than to control--to monitor rather than dominate. This bill continues that course. I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this deregulatory legislation to help advance broadband in the United States. Mr. President, I ask that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Hollings, Cantwell, and Biden in introducing the Firefighting Research and Coordination Act. This legislation would provide for the establishment of the scientific basis for new firefighting technology standards; improved coordination between Federal, state, and local fire officials in training and response to a terrorist attack or a national emergency; and authorize the National Fire Academy to offer training to improve the ability of firefighters to respond to events such as the tragedy of September 11, 2001. The purpose of this legislation is to act upon some of the lessons learned from the tragic terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and address other problems faced by the fire services. On September 11, the New York City fire fighters and emergency service personnel acted with great heroism in selflessly rushing to the World Trade Center and saving the lives of many Americans. Tragically, 343 firefighters and EMS technicians paid the ultimate price in the service of their country. While we strive to prevent any future attack in the United States, it is our duty to ensure that we are adequately prepared for any future catastrophic act of terrorism. In addition, we must recognize that many of the preparations we make to improve the response to national emergencies will also prepare our firefighters for their everyday role in protecting our families and homes. Today's firefighters use a variety of technologies including thermal imaging equipment, devices for locating firefighters and victims, and state-of-the-art protective suits to fight fires, clean up chemical or hazardous waste spills, and contend with potential terrorist devices. The Federal government's Firefighter Investment and Response Enhancement, FIRE, program is authorized for $900 million this year to assist local fire departments in purchasing this high-tech equipment. It is important that the American taxpayers' money is used for effective new equipment that will protect our local communities. Unfortunately, there are no uniform technical standards for this new equipment for combating fires. Without such standards, local fire companies may purchase equipment that does not satisfy their needs, or even purchase faulty equipment. For example, Montgomery County, MD, spent $40,000 on ``Level B'' protective suits that they cannot use, because these suits have ``booties'' that are not compatible with the firefighter's boots. Currently, local fire departments also have problems using each other's fire hoses and air bottles for self- contained breathing apparatuses because of inconsistent equipment standards. It is important that new equipment performs properly and is compatible with older equipment. This bill seeks to address the need for new equipment standards by establishing a scientific basis for voluntary consensus standards. It would authorize the U.S. Fire Administrator to work with the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Inter-Agency Board for Equipment Standardization and Inter-Operability, and other interested parties to establish measurement techniques and testing methodologies for new firefighting equipment. These new techniques and methodologies will act as a scientific basis for the development of voluntary consensus standards. This bill would allow the Federal government to cooperate with the private sector in developing the basic uniform performance criteria and technical standards to ensure that effectiveness and compatibility of these new technologies. Many issues regarding coordination surfaced on September 11. Titan Systems Corporation recently issued an after-action report, on behalf of the fire department of Arlington County, VA, which highlighted problems between the coordination of Washington D.C., and Arlington County fire departments. The report also cited the confusion caused by a large influx of self-dispatched volunteers, and increased risk faced by the ``bonafide responders.'' These conclusions are consistent with an article by the current U.S. Fire Administrator, R. David Paulison, in the June 1993 issue of Fire Chief magazine, where he described being overwhelmed by the number of uncoordinated volunteer efforts that poured into Florida after Hurricane Andrew. Additionally, many fire officials and the General Accounting Office have highlighted the duplicative nature of many Federal programs and the need for better coordination between federal, state, and local officials. The bill also seeks to address these problems by directing the U.S. Fire Administrator to work with state and local fire service officials to establish nationwide and state mutual aid systems for responding to national emergencies. These mutual aid plans would include collection of accurate asset and resource information to ensure that local fire services could work together to deploy equipment and personnel effectively during an emergency. This legislation would also establish the U.S. Fire Administrator as the primary point of contact within the Federal government for state and local firefighting units, in order to ensure greater Federal coordination and interface with state and local officials in preparing and responding to terrorist attacks, hurricanes, earthquakes, or other national emergencies. In addition, the bill would direct the U.S. Fire Administrator to report on the need for a strategy for deploying volunteers, including the use of a national credentialing system. Currently, there is a system for credentialing volunteers to fight wildfires that has proven effective, and the development of a similar system may prevent some of the confusion that occurred at the World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11. Finally, the bill would improve the training of state and local firefighters. The bill would authorize the National Fire Academy to offer courses in building collapse rescue; the use of technology in response to fires caused by terrorist attacks and other national emergencies; leadership and strategic skills including integrated management systems operations; deployment of new technology for fighting forest and wild fires; fighting fires at ports; and other courses related to tactics and strategies for responding to terrorist incidents and other fire services' needs. This bill would also direct the U.S. Fire Administrator to coordinate the National Fire Academy's training programs with the Attorney General, Secretary of Health and Human Services and other Federal agencies to prevent the duplication in training programs that has been identified by the General Accounting Office. I am pleased to announce that this legislation is supported by the National Volunteer Fire Council; the Congressional Fire Services Institute; the National Fire Protection Association; the International Association of Fire Chiefs; the International Association of Fire Fighters; the International Association of Arson Investigators; and the International Fire Service Training Association. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure passage of this legislation. I am aware that some issues, including funding of this legislation, need to be addressed. Last year, we were caught unprepared and paid a terrible price as a result. We must ensure that future firefighters are adequately equipped and trained, and are working in coordination to respond to any future national emergencies. Every day firefighters rush into burning buildings to save the lives of their fellow Americans. It is our duty to adequately equip and protect them.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Hollings, Cantwell, and Biden in introducing the Firefighting Research and Coordination Act. This legislation would provide for the establishment of the scientific basis for new firefighting technology standards; improved coordination between Federal, state, and local fire officials in training and response to a terrorist attack or a national emergency; and authorize the National Fire Academy to offer training to improve the ability of firefighters to respond to events such as the tragedy of September 11, 2001. The purpose of this legislation is to act upon some of the lessons learned from the tragic terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and address other problems faced by the fire services. On September 11, the New York City fire fighters and emergency service personnel acted with great heroism in selflessly rushing to the World Trade Center and saving the lives of many Americans. Tragically, 343 firefighters and EMS technicians paid the ultimate price in the service of their country. While we strive to prevent any future attack in the United States, it is our duty to ensure that we are adequately prepared for any future catastrophic act of terrorism. In addition, we must recognize that many of the preparations we make to improve the response to national emergencies will also prepare our firefighters for their everyday role in protecting our families and homes. Today's firefighters use a variety of technologies including thermal imaging equipment, devices for locating firefighters and victims, and state-of-the-art protective suits to fight fires, clean up chemical or hazardous waste spills, and contend with potential terrorist devices. The Federal government's Firefighter Investment and Response Enhancement, FIRE, program is authorized for $900 million this year to assist local fire departments in purchasing this high-tech equipment. It is important that the American taxpayers' money is used for effective new equipment that will protect our local communities. Unfortunately, there are no uniform technical standards for this new equipment for combating fires. Without such standards, local fire companies may purchase equipment that does not satisfy their needs, or even purchase faulty equipment. For example, Montgomery County, MD, spent $40,000 on ``Level B'' protective suits that they cannot use, because these suits have ``booties'' that are not compatible with the firefighter's boots. Currently, local fire departments also have problems using each other's fire hoses and air bottles for self- contained breathing apparatuses because of inconsistent equipment standards. It is important that new equipment performs properly and is compatible with older equipment. This bill seeks to address the need for new equipment standards by establishing a scientific basis for voluntary consensus standards. It would authorize the U.S. Fire Administrator to work with the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Inter-Agency Board for Equipment Standardization and Inter-Operability, and other interested parties to establish measurement techniques and testing methodologies for new firefighting equipment. These new techniques and methodologies will act as a scientific basis for the development of voluntary consensus standards. This bill would allow the Federal government to cooperate with the private sector in developing the basic uniform performance criteria and technical standards to ensure that effectiveness and compatibility of these new technologies. Many issues regarding coordination surfaced on September 11. Titan Systems Corporation recently issued an after-action report, on behalf of the fire department of Arlington County, VA, which highlighted problems between the coordination of Washington D.C., and Arlington County fire departments. The report also cited the confusion caused by a large influx of self-dispatched volunteers, and increased risk faced by the ``bonafide responders.'' These conclusions are consistent with an article by the current U.S. Fire Administrator, R. David Paulison, in the June 1993 issue of Fire Chief magazine, where he described being overwhelmed by the number of uncoordinated volunteer efforts that poured into Florida after Hurricane Andrew. Additionally, many fire officials and the General Accounting Office have highlighted the duplicative nature of many Federal programs and the need for better coordination between federal, state, and local officials. The bill also seeks to address these problems by directing the U.S. Fire Administrator to work with state and local fire service officials to establish nationwide and state mutual aid systems for responding to national emergencies. These mutual aid plans would include collection of accurate asset and resource information to ensure that local fire services could work together to deploy equipment and personnel effectively during an emergency. This legislation would also establish the U.S. Fire Administrator as the primary point of contact within the Federal government for state and local firefighting units, in order to ensure greater Federal coordination and interface with state and local officials in preparing and responding to terrorist attacks, hurricanes, earthquakes, or other national emergencies. In addition, the bill would direct the U.S. Fire Administrator to report on the need for a strategy for deploying volunteers, including the use of a national credentialing system. Currently, there is a system for credentialing volunteers to fight wildfires that has proven effective, and the development of a similar system may prevent some of the confusion that occurred at the World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11. Finally, the bill would improve the training of state and local firefighters. The bill would authorize the National Fire Academy to offer courses in building collapse rescue; the use of technology in response to fires caused by terrorist attacks and other national emergencies; leadership and strategic skills including integrated management systems operations; deployment of new technology for fighting forest and wild fires; fighting fires at ports; and other courses related to tactics and strategies for responding to terrorist incidents and other fire services' needs. This bill would also direct the U.S. Fire Administrator to coordinate the National Fire Academy's training programs with the Attorney General, Secretary of Health and Human Services and other Federal agencies to prevent the duplication in training programs that has been identified by the General Accounting Office. I am pleased to announce that this legislation is supported by the National Volunteer Fire Council; the Congressional Fire Services Institute; the National Fire Protection Association; the International Association of Fire Chiefs; the International Association of Fire Fighters; the International Association of Arson Investigators; and the International Fire Service Training Association. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure passage of this legislation. I am aware that some issues, including funding of this legislation, need to be addressed. Last year, we were caught unprepared and paid a terrible price as a result. We must ensure that future firefighters are adequately equipped and trained, and are working in coordination to respond to any future national emergencies. Every day firefighters rush into burning buildings to save the lives of their fellow Americans. It is our duty to adequately equip and protect them.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I introduce the Consumer Broadband Deregulation Act of 2002. This legislation takes a comprehensive, deregulatory, but measured approach to providing more Americans with more broadband choices. By ensuring that the market, not government, regulates the deployment of broadband services, the legislation will promote investment and innovation in broadband facilities--and consumers will benefit. The bill would create a new title in the Communications Act of 1934 that would ensure that residential broadband services exist in a minimally regulated environment. The new section of the Act would also make certain that providers of broadband services are treated in a similar fashion without regard to the particular mode of providing service. The bill includes provisions that would take the following actions: Deregulate the retail provision of residential broadband services; dictate a hands-off approach to the deployment of new facilities by telephone companies while maintaining competitors' access to legacy systems; resist government- mandated open access while providing a safety net to ensure consumers enjoy a competitive broadband services market; ensure that local and state barriers to broadband deployment are removed; facilitate deployment of broadband services to rural and unserved communities by creating an information clearing house in the federal government; maximize wireless technology as a platform for broadband services; ensure access to broadband services by people with disabilities; enhance the enforcement tools available to the FCC; and put the federal government in the role of stimulator, rather than regulatory, of broadband services. In 1996, Congress passed the first major overhaul of telecommunications policy in 62 years. Supporters of the Telecommunications Act argued that it would create increased competition, provide consumers with a variety of new and innovative services at lower prices, and reduce the need for regulation. My principal objection to the Act was that it fundamentally regulated, not deregulated, the telecommunications industry and would lead inevitably to prolonged litigation. It has been six years since the passage of the Act, but consumers have yet to benefit. Competition denied by excessive regulation is costly to consumers. The latest legislative debate in the communications industry has focused on the availability of high-speed Internet access services, often called ``broadband.'' Indeed, Federal Communications Commission Chairman, Michael Powell, has called broadband, ``the central communications policy objective in America.'' There is stark disagreement about the state of affairs of broadband services in the United States. Depending on who is speaking, there is a supply problem, a demand problem, a combination of the two, or no problem at all. All parties agree, however, that Americans and our national economy will benefit greatly from the widespread use of broadband services. Accelerated broadband deployment reportedly could benefit our nation's economy by hundreds of billions of dollars. With such tremendous opportunity comes no shortage of ``solutions.'' Many want a national industrial policy to drive broadband deployment-- they suggest multi-billion dollar central planning efforts aimed to deliver services to consumers regardless of whether those consumers want or need such services. Others have focused on narrow issues affecting only a subset of all providers of broadband services. This legislation takes a different approach. It takes a comprehensive look at the proper role of the government with respect to these new services. It reduces government interference with market forces that lead to consumer welfare, and looks for ways that government can facilitate, not dictate or control, the development of broadband technologies. Mr. President, I am a firm believe in free market principles. In 1995, I introduced a series of amendments during the floor debate on the Telecommunications Act that would have made the bill truly deregulatory. As I said at the time, I believe that ``[i]n free markets, less government usually means more innovation, more entrepreneurial opportunities, more competition, and more benefits to consumers.'' Likewise, in 1998, I introduced the Telecommunications Competition Act that would have allowed competition to flourish and brought true deregulation to the telecommunications market. In 1999, I introduced the Internet Regulatory Freedom Act that would have eliminated certain regulation of telephone companies' deployment of broadband facilities. And in 1999 and 2000, I was a leading advocate in the Senate for the Internet Tax Freedom Act ensuring a moratorium on taxation of the Internet. I stand by the legislation and amendments I previously introduced and believe that they represented the right approach at the right time. In fact, if I had it my way, I would throw out the 1996 Act and start from scratch. I am mindful, however, that broadband has been an issue that has polarized policymakers to the point of legislative paralysis. Now is the time for a measured approach that focuses on achieving what can be done to improve the deployment of services to all consumers. I believe that this legislation is such an approach. The bill has multiple components designed to address all aspects of broadband deployment and usage, and also provides adequate safety nets in the event that there proves to be a market failure that is harmful to consumers. Broadband services can be provided over multiple platforms including telephone, cable, wireless, satellite, and perhaps one day soon, power lines, Each of these platforms is regulated differently based on the nature of the service the platform was originally designed to provide. This legislation would move us closer to a harmonization of regulatory ancestry of a particular platform. First, the bill makes clear that the retail provision of high-speed Internet service remains unregulated. The Internet's tremendous growth is a testament to the exercise of regulatory restraint. Some have suggested a need for government regulation of consumer broadband service quality. They allege that service deficiencies inhibit the development of these new offerings. But we must remember that these are new services, and new services will have problems. This legislation allows for these services to mature. If upon maturity, the FCC determines that there is a need to protect consumers from service quality shortcomings related to the technical provision of service. Then the states can enforce uniform requirements. This provides a measured approach to service quality--a safety net without a presumption of regulation. Next, we must clarify that new services offered by varied providers, regardless of mode, will not be subject to the micromanagement of government regulation. Recognizing that upgrading networks requires substantial investment not free of risk, this bill begins this process by relaxing the obligations on telephone companies that invest in facilities that will bring better broadband services to more consumers. Nothing in this legislation, however, will undermine competitors' efforts to provide services using the telephone companies' legacy facilities. This approach strikes a balance between the interests of those who have invested capital on the promise of government-managed competition and those who will invest in the future of broadband facilities on the promise of government restraint and market-driven competition. The bill also grapples with the government-managed wholesale market for consumer broadband services--the so-called ``open access'' debate. Mr. President, there is perhaps no more difficult issue addressed in this bill. The Internet has thrived because it is an open platform. The presence of numerous ISPs in the narrowband market certainly contributed to the vitality of this open network, particularly at the inception of the Internet. Those providers have depended on access to customers guaranteed by FCC rules. As a result, many have suggested the need for government-mandated access to customers served over broadband connections. They raise significant concerns about carriers becoming screeners of content, and anti-competitive threats to web site operators if consumers do not have a choice of ISP or are limited in their ability to access particular web sites. However tempting it may be to believe that government mandates will produce desired policy outcomes, such intervention too often comes at the price of market inefficiencies, stifled innovation, and increased regulatory costs. Moreover, regulators are often slow to respond to dynamic industry changes. The bill would rely on market forces to resolve access issues by establishing the general rule that the FCC may not impose open access requirements on any provider--no matter what platform is used to provide the consumer broadband service. Again, the bill takes a measured approach by creating a safety net for consumers. Today a multitude of ISPs rely on access mandated by the FCC to serve their customers. The bill would allow the FCC to continue to enforce these obligations during a transition period, but would mandate the sunset of such requirements unless the FCC determines their continued enforcement is necessary to preserve competition for consumers. I firmly believe that market forces will guide the development of a wholesale market producing sustainable, not government-managed, competition. The bill is sufficiently flexible to ensure that consumers are protected, whole sending a clear signal to those parties willing to make the significant investment necessary to provide broadband services that the government will not lie in wait only to reward their risk- taking with regulation. I note again, however, that this issue raises challenging and complex policy questions. We should ensure the continued open nature of the Internet. To the extent that market forces prove incapable of preventing restrictions on consumers' use of the Internet or limitations on devices that consumers wish to attach to their Internet connection, we may need to consider a different approach. I look forward to continue debate on these difficult questions. The potential for government interference with market forces is not limited to federal regulation. State and local governments are also capable of obstructing the deployment of broadband. The bill would address this threat by precluding any state or local regulation from prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide consumer broadband service. It would also prevent localities from transforming their legitimate interest in managing their rights of way into an imposition of additional, revenue-generating financial burdens on broadband deployment. Consumer broadband services should be accessible to all people, regardless of where they live, what they do, or how much they earn. We must be realistic, however, about how quickly this can occur. The bill recognizes the important role that government can play as facilitator to accelerate universal deployment by using its resources to allow communities to share information about successful efforts to attract broadband deployment. Government can facilitate broadband deployment and use in other ways as well. Wireless technologies like Wi-Fi and mesh networks hold tremendous promise for the delivery of consumer broadband services. Given its role in the management of spectrum, the government can impact the use of these technologies. The bill would require the FCC to examine the best role for government in fully exploiting wireless technologies as a broadband platform for the benefit of consumers. Although government should limit its role to those circumstances where market failure is demonstrated, Chairman Powell has suggested that the Commission must be prepared to better enforce its existing rules by increasing the Commission's ability to impose penalties on parties that act in a manner that is anticompetitive. This bill would given him the tools to do so. Some claim that there is a demand ``problem'' with broadband that is caused by the dearth of available broadband content. Here, too, government can play an important role. Certainly content is one of the factors that will drive consumers to subscribe to high-speed Internet services. Given the prominent role that the federal government plays in the lives of most Americans, it can be a source of substantial broadband content. The bill would ensure that the federal government is fully exploiting its ability to provide this content. Finally, I recognize that many will look at the bill and ask about broadband services used by businesses. Why treat those services differently? It is a fair question. I have stated previously that most of the advantages of the Telecommunications Act have accrued not to the average consumer who has seen only higher prices for existing services, but to business customers. It is these business customers that many competitors have attempted to serve using the facilities of the incumbent telephone companies. Moreover, whereas the cable platform is the source of robust, facilities-based competition in the consumer market, it has not developed to a similar extent in the market for business customers. Given these factors, and a desire to take a measured approach, I have generally limited the scope of this bill to the consumer broadband services market. This focus does not reflect my lack of support for a similarly deregulatory approach to the business market. Indeed, I strongly encourage Chairman Powell to be aggressive in using the tools at his disposal to remove regulations wherever appropriate in the business broadband services market. Mr. President, technological progress has too often been constrained by government policies that seek to control it and dictate its course. Such policies have often had the perverse effect of slowing technological advancements. The growth of the Internet demonstrates what happens when governments choose to learn from the mistakes of the past in order to build a better and richer future for our citizens. The choice we have made is to adapt our mechanisms for governance to facilitate and encourage technological change--to facilitate rather than to control--to monitor rather than dominate. This bill continues that course. I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this deregulatory legislation to help advance broadband in the United States. Mr. President, I ask that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Texas, who understands the issues of economics and leasing and the machinations of various budget activities far better than I. I appreciate his support. I remind my colleagues that the amendment I have withdrawn would have just simply required the authorization of appropriations of $30.6 million--I repeat, $30.6 million--for the four Boeing 737 congressional/executive VIP aircraft. That is all it did. The language in the amendment is identical to language requiring authorization of appropriations for 100 Boeing 767 tanker aircraft that is included in the fiscal year 2003 Defense authorization bill. Whether that lasts through conference will be very questionable, given the enormous impact of the lobbying by Boeing Aircraft. Last year, during conference negotiations on the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2002, the Senate Appropriations Committee inserted into the bill unprecedented language to allow the U.S. Air Force to lease 100 Boeing 767 commercial aircraft and convert them to tankers, and to lease four Boeing 737 commercial aircraft for VIP airlift to be used by congressional and executive branch officials. My colleagues will recall that Congress did not authorize these leasing provisions in the fiscal year 2002 National Defense Authorization Act, and in fact the Senate Armed Services Committee was not advised of this effort by the U.S. Air Force during consideration of that authorization measure. Again, this year, without benefit of authorization, committee debate, or input, the Senate Appropriations Committee has added funding in the fiscal year 2003 Department of Defense appropriations bill for $30.6 million to cover initial leasing costs for the four Boeing 737 congressional/executive VIP transport aircraft. I am concerned that the impact of this 737 leasing provision has not been adequately scrutinized and the full cost to taxpayers has not been sufficiently considered. In fact, after review of the Air Force's proposed lease for the four 737s, and its comparison of leasing and purchase options for these aircraft, it appears that certain leasing costs are being hidden to make the leasing option appear more cost effective. In addition, recent CBO and GAO analysis of the Air Force's 737 leasing proposal suggests that the lease could cost the Government, and ultimately the U.S. taxpayers, from $13.5 million to $20 million more than to purchase these aircraft. These CBO and GAO reports, it seems to me, lend credence to the view that additional scrutiny of the leasing proposal would be beneficial--and such scrutiny generally occurs during the congressional authorization process. I repeat, my amendment only said that this insertion in the appropriations bill would have required authorization. It would not have stopped it. This is the same kind of egregious behavior we often rail against here on the Senate floor when it comes to corporate scandals. What is at risk in this series of unfolding circumstances is the trust Americans have in our Congress and in Government. I am aware that the chairman of the Armed Services Committee has just a short time ago received a letter from OMB Director Mitch Daniels stating the administration's support for the lease of these four aircraft. I know also that our committee has received a reprogramming request for the funds necessary to begin this lease. This reprogramming request, evidently, has addressed any concerns, my friends, the chairman and ranking member, might have had about the Appropriations Committee. Accordingly, Senators Levine and Warner would have opposed my amendment insisting that our committee need not authorize these leases. I understood the reality and withdrew the amendment. However, I want to make a couple of observations. I guess I don't know for certain why OMB has decided to support this lease--which will cost American taxpayers just about as much to rent four aircraft as it would to own them. I assume it is because the real need for these aircraft is negligible compared to our many other defense priorities, and to find the money to support a luxury in a time of enormous budget deficits it becomes necessary to engage in budgetary shell games and appropriations parlor tricks. But the American people should know and their elected officials should understand that the accounting tricks that we decry in the corporate world and that have so distressed our financial markets should not be any more acceptable in government spending decisions. Lastly, I say to my friends, the chairman and ranking member of my committee, for whom I have great affection and respect--and I mean that: I remember a time when the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee considered their authorizing responsibilities to be considerably more onerous than simply receiving and acquiescing in the occasional reprogramming request for an unneeded, unaffordable, luxury acquired by resorting to spending gimmickry rather than insisting that the scarce resources available for our armed services--in an age of serious and multiple threats to our freedom--ought to be spent on our security and our security alone and not on the convenience of travelling members of Congress and the executive branch. I yield the balance of my time.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, could the Senator from Texas be allowed to be recognized first on this, and I then be recognized for my 8 minutes?

Mr. McCAIN. I am requesting unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment but be allowed to speak for up to 8 minutes on the amendment and the Senator from Texas be allowed 5 minutes to speak on the amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment and, along with that unanimous consent agreement, that I be allowed 8 minutes and the Senator from Texas be allowed 5 minutes to speak on the amendment.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, could the Chair inform me as to the parliamentary situation as it exists?

Mr. McCAIN. I understand. Madam President, I do not intend to take very long. I do want to speak for a relatively brief period of time on the importance of the Andean Trade Preference Act. I think it is very important we recognize that in our hemisphere today we have a number of very serious situations--the possibility of a breakdown of democracy. Institutions which were regarded as relatively strong and stable a short time ago, in many of the countries throughout our hemisphere, are in danger or in some cases near a crisis situation. That is why I think the Andean Trade Preference Act, although maybe not of major impact, is certainly one that is important and an important signal to send to these countries in the region. That, coupled with our overall approval of trade authority for the President of the United States, I hope will be an encouragement to nations in our hemisphere that are now in varying degrees of duress. Argentina is in a serious financial crisis. A country that was once the fifth most wealthy nation in the world is now in such a period of financial difficulty that their economy could be close to collapse. Venezuela is a country whose democracy is under severe strain. Hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans took to the streets recently to demonstrate against their elected President, and, as we all know, there was an attempted, briefly successful, coup which was antidemocratic in nature. In Bolivia, one of the countries that is directly affected by the Andean Trade Preference Act, there is now a candidate for President of that country who is running on one of his commitments to the people of Bolivia, which is that they will resume the growth of coca--a remarkable turnaround, particularly given that Bolivia had an incredibly successful cocaine eradication program. Peru is in such difficulties that the President, President Toledo, has gotten rid of the reform economists in his Cabinet and his popularity and approval have plummeted to almost historic lows. As we prepare to vote on this trade package, our country is precariously positioned in the international trade arena. Many of our friends and allies no longer see the United States as a nation that champions global free trade but, rather, as a nation that increasingly fears foreign competition and seeks to erect barriers to trade in order to protect domestic industries and advance narrow political agendas. A series of shortsighted protectionist actions in recent years has jeopardized our relationships with our most important trading partners. Given our recent double standards on trade, it is not surprising that the United States is quickly losing its credibility and leadership in championing free trade principles around the world. Our staunchest allies and most important trading partners are now doubting our dedication to the free trade principles we have long championed. Many of the nations that engage in the free exchange of commerce are also our staunchest allies in the war on terrorism. Over the past eight months, those countries have joined in our worthy cause, some making substantial sacrifices to advance our shared values. During that time, even as our allies have deployed their forces to stand alongside our own in Central Asia, we have pursued protectionist policies on steel and lumber, and passed into law a regressive, trade-distorting farm bill. We are already fighting one war on a global scale. We cannot simultaneously fight a trade war. The United States simply cannot afford to follow the dangerous path of protectionism. I hope that the passage of trade promotion authority and the Andean Trade Preference Expansion Act, both of which are included in this package, will represent a turning point. Now is our chance to put a stop to our short-sighted protectionism and recognize that such behavior has consequences. Mr. President, this package of trade bills, including the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act, trade promotion authority, and trade adjustment assistance (TAA), demonstrates what I hope is the beginning of a renewed commitment to negotiating and expediting strong trade agreements. Enactment of this legislation will go a long way toward re-establishing faith and trust in the United States as a trading partner. The Andean Trade Preferences Act, a measure that would be expanded by this bill, is a trade-related success story that has not only strengthened our economy, but our national security as well. ATPA was designed to reduce the Andean region's drug trade and spur economic development. That Act has proven effective, and benefitted not only Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru, but also the United States. Its extension is long past due. Originally enacted in 1991, entire export industries have been created through ATPA. The cut flowers industry alone has created more than 80,000 new jobs in Ecuador, and over 150,000 new jobs in Colombia. In Peru, the benefits of the Andean trade act encouraged farmers to cultivate asparagus, making it that country's largest export crop to the United States, creating 50,000 new jobs in the process. No longer are people in these countries confined to producing the raw materials that go into the production of cocaine; They have the ever increasing options afforded them under ATPA. Unlike other forms of assistance, ATPA costs the U.S. nothing. In fact, American workers and consumers benefit through reduced prices on goods and services. Despite such success, it has taken Congress well over a year to extend this non-controversial measure. Legislation was introduced in the Senate in March 2001 to extend and expand ATPA, which was set to expire December 2001. Along with this history, a long delay in the appointment of conferees and partisan disagreements, all unrelated to ATPA, prevented final Congressional action on this critical legislation until now. Fast-track authority for the President expired 8 years ago. By empowering the President to negotiate bilateral and multilateral trade agreements, TPA will enable the President to eliminate trade barriers, reduce tariffs, and open foreign markets to American goods and services. American workers, farmers, businessmen, and consumers will benefit from the regional free trade areas such as the Free Trade Area of the Americas, and bilateral trade agreements such as those currently being negotiated with Singapore and Chile. I repeat, a man is running for President of this country of Bolivia. One of his most popular themes is to reinitiate the cultivation and growth of coca. If that man wins--and I do not question the will of the people of Bolivia, but it is clear that it would be a dramatic setback to our efforts to eradicate the growth of coca in that country. In Peru, there are civil disturbances and the President of Peru, who is a good and decent man from all I can tell, is suffering enormously in popularity in polls. Colombia is a nation with its very existence at risk due to civil war, a lot of that fueled by the cocaine trafficking, the growth of which begins in the country of Colombia. Ecuador, next to Colombia, has felt many very devastating side effects of the war in Colombia and the effects on its own economy. I mentioned Argentina, Venezuela, Guatemala are having difficulties; Honduras, Nicaragua; and even Mexico is having some difficulties because of the failure, in the view of many of the Mexican people, of President Fox in delivering on many promises he made when he ran for President of Mexico. I cannot believe all of the troubles in our hemisphere, which in my view are more serious than they have been since the 1980s, on the absence of trade and the absence of renewal of the Andean Trade Preference Act. But in the words of the Presidents of these countries who visited my office, they said one thing: We do not want aid; we want trade. We want trade. Now, I have heard many of the arguments about how the lumber industry or the steel industry or the textile industry, or any other, is being harmed because some of the imports are lower priced goods. Well, I am not a trained economist, but I know these cut flowers are less expensive. I know it costs less to build a house for the average citizens when the lumber is cheaper. It is easier to clothe people when the apparel is cheaper. This protectionism which has characterized many of the actions of this body and the other body, and of the President of the United States, is harmful to average American citizens, many of whom do not make large campaign contributions, many of whom do not make huge contributions to the fundraisers. But they will pay more for the price of a house if we continue to protect lumber. They will pay more for an automobile if we continue to protect steel. They will pay more for clothes if we continue to protect the textile industry. Are there people who are hurt by this free and open trade? Absolutely. That is why I have steadfastly supported insurance, job training, and outright assistance to any dislocated worker if the case can be made that that worker was dislocated or removed from their job because of a direct impact of trade. I am worried about our hemisphere. There was a front page story in the New York Times a couple weeks ago about the failure of free market economies in our hemisphere and how average citizens of these poor countries have enjoyed the benefits of the increased economic benefits of free trade and a great discontent and unrest that exists in these nations. We should pay attention to the difficulties in our own hemisphere. There is no stronger supporter of the war on terror than this Senator and all of the American people. We are going to have great difficulties because of one thing we have learned from the 1980s: That if governments are unable to satisfy the people, the people turn to other means to satisfy their legitimate yearnings and desires. We saw that manifested in guerilla movements and armed insurrections in Central America and in Latin America in the 1980s, movements such as the Shining Path, the Sandinistas, and others. And the United States then expended a great deal of American treasure to try to prevent these movements from overthrowing legitimately elected governments. I rise in strong support today of the Andean Trade Preference Act. I want to make it very clear that along with my support for free trade, I also am strongly supportive of and will continue to commit to any worker and his or her family who are dislocated by free trade. But to argue that we should not have free trade as a result of this is ignoring the larger picture, and that is goods and services ranging from flowers to apparel to many other products are less expensive for average American citizens, thereby allowing American citizens to enjoy many of the things wealthier Americans are able to enjoy. I want to warn my colleagues. We have a serious situation in our hemisphere. Enactment of trade authority for the President in the Andean Trade Preference Act will not turn that around immediately. But there is no doubt in my mind that we are on a path in our hemisphere that could lead to enormous challenges and difficulties in the months and years ahead. By passing the Andean Trade Preference Act and giving the President trade authority, I think we can at least start on a path to reversing some of the terrible misfortunes that have beset so many innocent people in our own hemisphere. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kennedy and Senator Edwards for the over-a-year-long effort we have been involved in attempting to reach agreement on S. 1052, the bipartisan Patient Protection Act. It has been over a year since the Senate passed it. It has been just under a year since another version was passed by the House of Representatives. The White House was instrumental in crafting the House-passed version. So since last year Senator Kennedy, Senator Edwards, and I have worked with the White House in the hopes of reconciling the Senate and the House bills. Much progress has been made as a result of these negotiations. But, regrettably, a resolution eludes us, and I think it is time to appoint conferees. America has been patiently waiting for Congress to pass a Patients' Bill of Rights. It will grant American families enrolled in health maintenance organizations the protections they deserve. For too long this vital reform has been frustrated by political gridlock, principally by trial lawyers who insist on the ability to sue everyone for everything and by the insurance companies that want to protect their bottom line at the expense of fairness. Caught in the middle are average citizens who are members of HMOs. Americans want and deserve quick enactment of this legislation. Several years ago I began working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address the problems in HMO's provisions in health care and to craft a bipartisan bill that truly protects the rights of patients in our Nation's health care system. The Senate passage of the bipartisan Patient Protection Act furthered the effort to restore critical rights to HMO patients and doctors. I, again, express my appreciation to the Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Edwards, for his incredibly fine work. Both the Senate- and the House-passed versions contain important patient protections for the American people. I am confident that with perseverance we can resolve the few differences that remain. If we do not continue to work toward a resolution on this issue, we will be turning our backs on strong patient protections included in both bills. This is really the shame of our failure so far because included in both bills are external and internal review, direct access to an OB-GYN for women, direct access to pediatricians for children, access to clinical trials for cancer patients, access to emergency room care, access to specialty care, and access to nonformulary prescription drugs. If we do not negotiate, and if we do not reach a successful conclusion, these important commonalities and progress will be lost. I believe a conference report represents one final opportunity to work out the differences between the House and Senate efforts to enact meaningful HMO reform. I remain committed to working with Members of both bodies, and with the President, to make sure we will enact into law these important protections for which too many Americans have waited far too long. I look forward to working with my colleagues in conference to bridge the differences between the House and the Senate bills and provide patients with the protection they deserve. The problem, as I see it, is that we have very small differences, and during the course of our negotiations there will be different versions about how close we came and what our differences were. But I believe they were very narrow differences, and I am very disappointed that they were unable to work out. And I got to spend a lot more time than my colleagues wanted--Senator Kennedy and Senator Edwards and I together-- but I believe there was a good-faith effort made. I believe we are going to lose so many important advances on behalf of patients because of a small difference that really has to do with cases that will be adjudicated in court. And that is a very small number of these cases because with internal and external review, and other safeguards in the bill, there would be a minuscule number of cases that actually would end up in court. And that is the aspect of this agreement on which we were unable to reach agreement with the White House. And I regret it very much. So as Senator Kennedy just stated, I believe we will prevail over time, just as we have prevailed on other issues over time, because this is something the American people need and deserve. There are too many compelling cases out there of people who have been deprived of fundamental care which has inflicted incredible damage, hardship, and sorrow on so many Americans because they have been deprived of simple rights, such as a woman to see an OB-GYN, such as the right of a child to see a pediatrician, such as a doctor making a decision rather than a bureaucrat. This is what it is all about: Who makes the decisions on patients' care? Should it be someone who is wearing a green eyeshade who can count up how much the costs are or should it be a doctor, a qualified physician, who makes the decision? That is really what this reform is all about. Unfortunately, it has gotten hung up over court proceedings and who should go to court and whether there should be caps on economic and punitive damages, and other aspects of the minuscule number that would ever be required to do so. So I hope we can all step back and look at this situation. In the context of how far we have gone, we have gone 99 percent of the way in doing what my colleagues and I set out to do a long time ago; and that was to provide members of health maintenance organizations with fundamental protections which they need and deserve. So, again, I conclude by thanking Senator Kennedy and Senator Edwards for their hard work and for their dedication to the resolution of this issue. I thank the White House for their efforts as well. In the little interest of straight talk, I think from time to time they were constrained by the other body in the latitude as to the agreements they could make, but I also understand that is how the system works. But I believe that while we are gone in August, back with our friends and neighbors and fellow citizens, our friends and neighbors are going to come to us and say: Look, we deserve this legislation--the millions and millions of Americans who are members of HMOs--we deserve that we get certain basic protections. I hope that will reinvigorate us, upon our return, to enact final legislation and resolve the few remaining differences in this bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask the managers of the bill if there are any further amendments that will be included in the managers' package.

Mr. McCAIN. I understand there may be further amendments brought up for a vote. I was speaking directly concerning the managers' package of amendments which, as we know, sometimes are not voted on individually and included in the package. I am very interested in seeing the managers' package of amendments. I thank the managers so far that they have been very helpful in sharing these amendments with me. I would like to see the final package of managers' amendments before it is agreed to. This amendment is a pretty straightforward amendment. It requires authorization of appropriations for the leasing of any transport/VIP aircraft. It would ensure that the Senate Armed Services Committee maintained its relevance by requiring Senate Armed Services Committee approval and authorization of any tanker lease. The amendment basically would instruct the Secretary of the Air Force that he could not enter into a lease for transport/VIP aircraft for any period that includes any part of fiscal year 2003 until he submits a report and there is a law enacted that authorizes the funds necessary to enter into the lease. This is a very expensive acquisition on the part of the United States Air Force. I believe it should be authorized before this transaction is entered into. It is basically a matter of whether the Senate Armed Services Committee will maintain its relevance over the acquisition of very expensive pieces of equipment. It would be appropriate for the Armed Services Committee to approve of it. That is the way we have traditionally done business around here, particularly on issues of major consequences--although it has fallen into neglect in years past. I do not think I need to elaborate further on the amendment except I believe it should be authorized before appropriated. I see the distinguished manager of the bill on the floor. If he would like to respond before I give my statement on the overall Defense appropriations bill, I am happy to yield.

Mr. McCAIN. Yes, there is further debate.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise again to address the issue of wasteful spending in appropriations measures, in this case, in the bill to fund the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2003. This legislation would provide $355.5 billion to the Department of Defense. Each year, in provisions too numerous to mention in great detail, this bill funds pork barrel projects with questionable relationship to national defense at a time of scarce resources, budget deficits, and underfunded, urgent defense priorities. This year's measure continues this alarming tradition, by adding 581 programs not requested by the President, at a further cost of $5.2 billion. America remains at war, a war that continues to unite Americans in pursuit of a common goal to defeat international terrorism. All Americans have made sacrifices for this war, and many have been deeply affected by it and at times harmed by difficult, related economic circumstances. Our servicemen and women in particular are truly on the front lines in this war, and are separated from their families, risking their lives, and working extraordinarily long hours under the most difficult conditions to accomplish the ambitious but necessary task their country has set for them. The weapons we have given them, for all their impressive effects, are, in many cases, neither in quantity nor quality, the best that our government can provide. For instance, stockpiles of the precision-guided munitions that we relied on so heavily to bring air power to bear very effectively on difficult, often moving targets in Afghanistan, with the least collateral damage possible, are dangerously depleted. This is just one area of critical importance to our success in this war that underscores just how carefully we should be allocating scarce resources to our national defense. Despite the realities of war, and the serious responsibilities the situation imposes on Congress and the President, the Senate Appropriations Committee has not seen fit to change in any degree its blatant use of defense dollars for projects that may or may not serve some worthy purpose, but that clearly impair our national defense by depriving legitimate defense needs of adequate funding. Mr. President, even in the middle of a war against terrorism, a war of monumental consequences that is expected to last for some time, the Senate Appropriations Committee remains intent on ensuring that part of the Department of Defense's mission is to dispense corporate welfare. It is a shame that at such a critical time, the United States Senate persists in spending money requested and authorized only for our Armed Forces to satisfy the needs or the desires of interests that are unrelated to defense and even, in truth, unconcerned about the true needs of our military. An Investor's Business Daily article published late last year entitled At the Trough: Welfare Checks to Big Business Make No Sense, stated, ``[a]mong the least justified outlays [in the federal budget] is corporate welfare. Budget analyst Stephen Slivinski estimates that business subsidies will run $87 billion [in 2001], up a third since 1997. Although President Bush proposed $12 billion in cuts to corporate welfare [in 2001], Congress has proved resistant. Indeed many post- September 11 bailouts have gone to big business. Boeing is one of the biggest beneficiaries. . . . While corporate America gets the profits, taxpayers get the losses. . . . The Constitution authorizes a Congress to promote the general welfare, not enrich Boeing and other corporate behemoths. There is no warrant to take from Peter so Paul can pay higher dividends. In the aftermath of September 11, the American people can ill afford budget profligacy in Washington. If Congress is not willing to cut corporate welfare at a time of national crisis, what is it will to cut?'' Yet, Congress didn't get the message this year. In the FY03 defense appropriations bill we are considering today, the Senate Appropriations Committee added nearly $1.3 billion to Boeing's programs, constituting more than 20 percent of the total plus-ups in the bill. As Defense Week noted unequivocally on July 22, ``in this bill, Boeing made out like a bandit.'' Mr. President, you will recall that last year, during conference negotiations on the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2002, the Senate Appropriations Committee inserted into the bill unprecedented language to allow the U.S. Air Force to lease 100 Boeing 767 commercial aircraft and convert them to tankers, and to lease four Boeing 737 commercial aircraft for passenger airlift to be used by congressional and Executive Branch officials. Congress did not authorize these leasing provisions in the fiscal year 2002 National Defense Authorization Act, and in fact, the Senate Armed Services Committee was not advised of this effort by the U.S. Air Force during consideration of that authorization measure. Again this year--without benefit of authorization committee debate or input--the Senate Appropriations Committee has added funding in the FY03 Department of Defense Appropriations bill for $30.6 million to cover initial leasing costs for the four Boeing 737 VIP transport aircraft noted above. Furthermore, additional language in the bill modifies a provision that had been carefully negotiated by OMB with appropriators last year, and may now permit the Air Force to circumvent standard leasing arrangements and, with respect to the 100 Boeing 767s, may allow the Air Force to extend the termination liability costs over the full term of the lease. Mr. President, I am concerned that the impact of these provisions has not been adequately scrutinized, and the full cost to taxpayers has not been sufficiently considered. In fact, after review of the Air Force's proposed lease for the four 737s and its comparison of leasing and purchase options for these aircraft, it appears that certain leasing costs are being hidden to make the leasing option appear more cost- effective. For example, although the Department of Defense self-insures its equipment and would not take out an insurance policy if it purchased these 737s, the Air Force's comparison of the leasing and purchase options assesses at least $17 million in insurance costs to the purchase option, thereby inflating the estimated purchase price significantly. In addition, the proposed leasing arrangement includes provisions requiring the Air Force to pay to insure the four 737 VIP aircraft and, in the event of loss or destruction of an aircraft, requiring the Air Force to pay a lease cancellation charge equal to one-year's worth of lease payments, or $10 million. These provisions add not only the cost of insurance, but also another $10 million to the leasing costs that would not be incurred under a traditional purchase arrangement and have not been disclosed up-front in discussions with OMB or Congress. These examples of hidden costs illustrate the lack of transparency of this transaction and strongly suggest that the Air Force's analysis of the $3.9 million advantage to leasing over purchase is illusory. But you do not have to take my word for it. Rather, in a July 23 letter to Representative Curt Weldon on this matter, Congressional Budget Office Director Dan Crippen advised that the Air Force's estimated purchase price of the four 737s may be too high and that: Small adjustments in the assumed purchase price, residual value, or insurance cost would reduce the projected savings from leasing the aircraft or make the purchase alternative the less expensive option. In its analysis, CBO notes that the cost of the purchase option is estimated and not based on any negotiation between the Air Force and Boeing. Significantly, CBO states, Just as Boeing and the Air Force negotiated a lower lease- price from Boeing's initial offer, CBO believes it might also be possible for the Air Force and Boeing to negotiate a lower purchase price for the aircraft, if the Air Force were a willing buyer. CBO estimates that the Air Force would only need to negotiate a purchase price about $1 million less per plane than Boeing's initial estimate in order for the cost of the purchase option to be equal to the cost of the lease option, in net present value terms. . . . Using Air Force data and a model for calculating commercial lease payments, we estimate that a purchase price of $249 million (rather than the $269 million price used in the Air Force's analysis) would be consistent with the lease terms. . . . We estimate that, if a purchase price for the four aircraft could be negotiated for $249 million or $5 million less per aircraft, then the purchase alternative would save about $15 million compared to the lease. GAO and CBO report that it would cost the government and ultimately the taxpayers between $13.5 to $20 million less to purchase the Boeing 737 VIP aircraft than to lease them--but they report it could be more. In addition, it is not clear that the Air Force has negotiated a fair lease price for these VIP aircraft. Financing experts advise that to evaluate whether leasing is the preferable option, as compared to purchase of aircraft, one month's lease payment should be equal to approximately 1 percent of the total cost of the aircraft. In GAO's current analysis of the proposed Air Force lease, on which I have been briefed, GAO contends that the Air Force's proposed lease with Boeing for four 737 VIP aircraft is $32 million more than the norm that I have just stated. I am concerned that the Air Force appears to be going against the advice of financial experts not only by choosing to lease instead of purchase these aircraft, but also by not getting a good deal on the lease price. American taxpayers should be concerned by this behavior. I would like to note that OMB Director Mitch Daniels has often indicated his preference to maintain scrutiny of Government leasing practices out of regard for U.S. taxpayers. Just last year, in a letter from the OMB Director to Senator Kent Conrad, OMB cautioned against eliminating rules intended to reduce leasing abuses. OMB's letter emphasized that the Budget Enforcement Act--BEA--scoring rules: . . . were specifically designed to encourage the use of financing mechanisms that minimize taxpayers' costs by eliminating the unfair advantage provided to lease-purchases by the previous scoring rules. Prior to the BEA, agencies only needed budget authority for the first year's lease payment, even though the agreement was a legally enforceable commitment to fully pay for the asset over time. OMB's letter continued by explaining that this loophole had permitted the General Services Administration to agree to 11 lease-purchase agreements with a total, full-term cost of $1.7 billion, but to budget only the first year of lease payments. OMB's letter stated: [t]he scoring hid the fact that these agreements had a higher economic cost than traditional direct purchases and in some cases allowed projects to go forward despite significant cost overruns. . . . In my view, this leasing proposal for Boeing 737 VIP aircraft also puts the Air Force at risk of being unable to procure higher priority items needed to fight the war on terrorism. On March 1, 2002, the Air Force presented Congress with a list of its top priorities encompassing 38 items totaling $3.8 billion. Within its top 10 programs, the Air Force asked for several essential items that would directly support our current war effort: wartime munitions, aircraft engine replacement parts, night vision goggles, anti-terrorism/force protection efforts, bomber and fighter upgrades and self protection equipment, and combat search and rescue helicopters for downed pilots; yet, the list also includes these four VIP aircraft. In reviewing these Air Force priorities, I don't know what to be more critical about regarding the Air Force Secretary's effort on these VIP aircraft--that he's pushing in this time of war for this deal with Boeing for VIP aircraft or that his 13th priority of the top 38 in this time of war is for VIP aircraft for Executive Branch and congressional officials. Is it lost on the Air Force Secretary that we are at war? I have asked OMB Director Daniels to continue his strong oversight of Government leasing practices, and I ask the Senate today to closely scrutinize this unprecedented, costly leasing deal for Boeing 737 VIP transport aircraft. But, this Boeing deal is just another example of Congress's political meddling and how outside special interest groups have obstructed the military's ability to channel resources where they are most needed. I will repeat what I've said many, many times before-- the military needs less money spent on pork and more spent to redress the serious problems caused by a decade of declining defense budgets. This bill includes many more examples where congressional appropriators show that they have no sense of priority when it comes to spending the taxpayers' money. The insatiable appetite in Congress for wasteful spending grows more and more as the total amount of pork added to appropriations bills considered in the Senate so far this year--an amount totaling nearly $7 billion. Mr. President, I look forward to the day when my appearances on the Senate floor for this purpose are no longer necessary. I reiterate-- over $5.2 billion in unrequested defense programs in the defense appropriations bill have been added by the Committee. Consider how that $5.2 billion, when added to the savings gained through additional base closings and more cost-effective business practices, could be used so much more effectively. The problems of our armed forces, whether in terms of force structure or modernization, could be more assuredly addressed and our warfighting ability greatly enhanced. The American taxpayers expect more of us, as do our brave service men and women who are, without question, fighting this war on global terrorism on our behalf. But for now, unfortunately, they must witness us, seemingly blind to our responsibilities at this time of war, going about our business as usual. Mr. President, I may be wrong. I may be wrong in all of the information I just provided to the Senate. There is legitimate room for legitimate debate. I believe OMB and GAO have clearly stated that we could save money by not leasing this aircraft. Certainly we could save money through competition and certainly we could save money to the taxpayers by negotiating a better deal with the Boeing Aircraft Company--which, by the way, although President Bush proposed $12 billion in cuts to corporate welfare, Boeing is one of the biggest beneficiaries. In other words, Boeing as the Defense Weekly noted unequivocally on July 22, in reference to the Defense Appropriations Committee bill that we are considering today, Defense Weekly noted unequivocally on July 22, ``In this bill, Boeing made out like a bandit.'' I think they did. I think they did. The managers of the bill and I could debate what is right and what is wrong as far as these numbers are concerned. I think I have compelling numbers on my side that would indicate we could either lease or purchase at a much less cost than the appropriators put in the bill. But the point here is that it should be authorized. It should not be done by the Appropriations Committee without authorization. This is what we come back to time after time after time on the floor of this Senate. Where is the role of the Senate Armed Services Committee to authorize the purchase of aircraft worth many tens of millions of dollars? They have been bypassed. I hope the majority of my colleagues would recognize that an issue of this magnitude deserves the hearings and scrutiny that can be conducted by the Senate Armed Services Committee. The job of the Appropriations Committee is to appropriate funds that have been previously authorized. I hope my colleagues will agree with that. I ask unanimous consent a list of Appropriations Committee earmarks be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that prior to any vote tomorrow, at a time set by the majority, I be allowed 5 minutes and the managers of the bill be allowed whatever time they request.

Mr. McCAIN. Before the vote.