John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. How long has the Senator been involved in budgetary issues?

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on May 22, I was joined by my colleague, Senator Dorgan, in introducing the Professional Boxing Amendments Act of 2002. This legislation would strengthen existing Federal boxing laws by making uniform certain health and safety standards, establish a centralized medical registry to be used by local commissions to protect boxers, reduce arbitrary practices of sanctioning organizations, and provide uniformity in ranking criteria and contractual guidelines. This legislation would also establish a Federal regulatory entity to oversee professional boxing and set uniform standards for certain aspects of the sport. Since 1996, Congress has acted to improve the sport of boxing by passing two laws, the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996, and the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act of 2000. These laws were intended to establish uniform standards to improve the health and safety of boxers, and to better protect them from the sometimes coercive, exploitative, and unethical business practices of promoters, managers, and sanctioning organizations. While the Professional Boxing Safety Act, as amended by the Muhammad Ali Act, has had some positive effects on the sport, I am concerned by the repeated failure of some State and tribal boxing commissions to comply with the law, and the lack of enforcement of the law by both Federal and State law enforcement officials. Corruption remains endemic in professional boxing, and the sport continues to be beset with a variety of problems, some beyond the scope of the current system of local regulation. Therefore, the bill we are introducing today would further strengthen Federal boxing laws, and also create a Federal regulatory entity, the ``United States Boxing Administration'', USBA, to oversee the sport. The USBA would be headed by an Administrator, appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. The primary functions of the USBA would be to protect the health, safety, and general interests of boxers. More specifically, the USBA would, among other things: administer Federal boxing laws and coordinate with other Federal regulatory agencies to ensure that these laws are enforced; oversee all professional boxing matches in the United States; and work with the boxing industry and local commissions to improve the status and standards of the sport. The USBA would license boxers, promoters, managers, and sanctioning organizations, and revoke or suspend such licenses if the USBA believes that such action is in the public interest. No longer would a boxer like Mike Tyson be able to forum-shop for a State with a weak commission if he is undeserving of a license. The fines collected and licensing fees imposed by the USBA would be used to fund a percentage of its activities. The USBA would also maintain a centralized database of medical and statistical information pertaining to boxers in the United States that would be used confidentially by local commissions in making licensing decisions. Let me be clear. The USBA would not be intended to micro-manage boxing by interfering with the daily operations of local boxing commissions. Instead, the USBA would work in consultation with local commissions, and the Administrator would only exercise his/her authority should reasonable grounds exist for intervention. The problems that plague the sport of professional boxing compromise the safety of boxers and undermine the credibility of the sport in the eyes of the public. I believe this bill provides a realistic approach to curbing these problems, and I urge my colleagues to support this proposal.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator for his courtesy in allowing me to question him and for his responses. I am still not quite clear why we would pass an amendment without something to enforce. But I certainly appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from North Dakota, and again I applaud his knowledge of the intricacies of a very complicated process which I have been unable to master in the years I have been in Congress. I thank the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I rise in support of the Gregg-Feingold- Kerry amendment. I believe there is no perfect solution. There is no perfect answer to the problem we face. Perhaps some may argue that the caps for the first year are too high. Perhaps if I had written this amendment I might have made them lower. The fact is, without this amendment, there is no fiscal discipline. There is no fiscal discipline that can be imposed on a process which has lurched out of control. To state the obvious, we have gone from estimates of $50 or $60 billion surpluses at the beginning of this year, to somewhere around $100 billion, $150 billion deficits, and we have not even passed the first appropriations bill. And if this emergency supplemental, which is $4 billion higher than the President's, is any indicator, we are going to be in a sea of red ink. I think it is a bipartisan effort. It extends discretionary spending caps and the pay-go requirement for entitlement expansions and tax cuts. These mechanisms have helped to impose fiscal discipline since they were first enacted in 1990, but they obviously expire this year. It would be ironic and irresponsible to let the caps and the pay-go expire just when the budget is punching back into deficit. There are a lot of organizations around the country. One that I respect, and I know my colleague from New Hampshire respects, is the Concord Coalition. The Concord Coalition is chaired by former U.S. Senators Warren Rudman and Bob Kerrey. They serve as the Concord Coalition's cochairs. And former Secretary of Commerce Pete Peterson serves as president. They issued some grades. They are a fiscal responsibility organization. And the Concord Coalition just released this report on fiscal responsibility: Overall: Progress toward short, medium, and long-term fiscal responsibility, D; Short-Term: Enacting measures that maintain fiscal responsibility, C-; Medium-Term: Enacting measures that are fiscally responsible over the next 10 years, D-; Long-Term: Enacting measures that deal with the entitlement financing gap and ensure fiscal sustainability, D-. They begin their report by saying: Crocodile tears are flowing over the return of budget deficits--now likely to exceed $100 billion this year and next. Nearly everyone says they want the dip back into red ink to be brief. But almost no one is willing to give up anything to ensure that result. Indeed, the attitude seems to be: if deficits are back, let's make the most of them and blame someone else for the result. They go on to say: The bottom line--obscured but not altered by the events of 2001--is that our nation's greatest fiscal challenge remains the need to finance the huge unfunded retirement benefits and health care costs of a permanently older population. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that this release be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. This amendment by Senator Gregg and Senator Feingold is an effort to at least pose some kind of fiscal brakes, caps, that have worked fairly well in the past--not perfectly. But I also worry that without the enactment of this amendment, we may find ourselves continuing this hemorrhaging of spending, which is really quite almost unprecedented in the time that I have had in Congress. In the name of the war on terrorism, we are now endangering the financial future of this Nation, and every spending issue seems to be somehow related to the war on terrorism. And clearly it is not. I congratulate the sponsors of this amendment. I look forward to voting for it. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator will yield for a further question.

Mr. McCAIN. I do not quite understand. Since there is no number, then enforcement would basically be meaningless because you do not have a number to enforce. Why wouldn't we wait until we had an agreed-upon number and then present the amendment as such? Because it seems to me, if you pass this, it may do more damage than good, because then the conferees, who are appropriators, well known for their sense of fiscal discipline, would be the ones who would decide what the cap is. My question to the Senator from North Dakota is, without an agreement on what the cap would be, we are now putting in rules that are basically unenforceable because there is nothing to enforce. Why wouldn't we wait and see if there was some agreement on the overall budget number instead of proposing that at this time? That is my question.

Mr. McCAIN. I object. I want the amendment read.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator. I don't often like to expose my ignorance of certain issues on the floor of the Senate, but I preface my question with the assumption that I am not an expert on the budget, as is the Senator from North Dakota. I don't know the nuances and the ins and outs of the budget process, nor have I ever quite understood the different categories and what falls in and what falls out of it. Would the Senator explain to me, according to the amendment proposed by the Senator from North Dakota, as I read it, there is no budget number associated with the Senator's amendment; is that correct?

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time for the vote be set by the majority leader in consultation with the Republican leader.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I find myself in support of the Byrd amendment. The reason I wanted a recorded vote is because we need to send a strong signal to the other body, when this bill goes to conference, that we cannot destroy the Aviation Loan Guarantee Program, which would have been the effect of this legislation. The question, of course, is why would the appropriators again take it upon themselves to make a fundamental policy change, which was recently authorized by a 98-to-0 vote in this body? The arrogance of the Appropriations Committee almost overwhelms me. This legislation was about to be emasculated--the Aviation Loan Guarantee Program--without a hearing before the Appropriations Committee that I know of, without any discussion on the floor of this body; it was going to be destroyed. The reason, obviously, we know--I will state the obvious--the Byrd amendment is now going to pass is because of the incredible outcry all over the country from employees, management, and from those who understand the absolute criticality of the aviation industry in this Nation. So I hope this amendment is passed by 100 to 0. But how they could take it upon themselves to fundamentally alter and micromanage the Aviation Loan Guarantee Program passed just 8 months ago, of course, without any consultation with the committee of jurisdiction over this program and which was responsible for the bill we passed just a few months ago creating the Aviation Loan Guarantee Program. Madam President, let me explain this program. The overarching purpose behind the Air Transportation Safety and Stabilization Act was to address the financial condition of the airline industry. The tragic events that occurred on September 11, 2001, had far-reaching effects on the airline industry. Commercial air carriers were used as weapons of mass destruction with devastating results. The resulting Federal- Government-ordered shutdown of the air transportation system resulted in a total loss of revenue for the airline industry for several days. This loss of revenue, through no fault of the airlines, mandated an appropriate shutdown of the airline industry and the resulting slowdown in air travel and issues regarding potential liability all lead to placing the airline industry in an extremely precarious financial situation. As a result, Congress acted quickly--through the authorizing committee, I might add--to stabilize the airline industry by setting forth assistance on three fronts. It offered a cash infusion to reimburse the airlines for losses ensuing from the Government shutdown of the airways. It offered loan guarantees to allow those carriers that lost the ability to obtain financing due to a more conservative lending market after the terrorist attacks to obtain Government-guaranteed loans. It offered a limitation on liability to address the problem faced by several airlines that were unable to obtain financing due to their perceived potential liability. The action taken by Congress was to ensure that all airlines--I emphasize ``all airlines''--were given an equal opportunity to return to their financial positions prior to September 11, 2001. In the interest of full disclosure, some of the airlines, prior to September 11, 2001, were not in good shape. We all recognize that. But Congress believed it needed to act in an equitable manner to try to prevent the human catastrophe from becoming a severe economic one that could alter the Nation's transportation system, at a minimum. It was never our purpose, and still is not, to provide a taxpayer- funded bailout for airlines that were doomed to fail even before the events of September 11. However, it was also not our intention for the Federal Government to become the architect of a new aviation economy, effectively picking winners and losers and, in doing so, contributing to the further consolidation of the airline industry. Yet here we were with the appropriators attempting to circumvent the work of the authorizing committee and fundamentally altering the act's loan guarantee program because, after all, they know best. Under section 1004 of the supplemental measure, the Aviation Loan Guarantee Program would be limited to $429 million for this fiscal year. Interestingly, the only loan guarantee approved this year was for $429 million. In other words, no further loan guarantees can be issued this year, according to the appropriators' directive. There apparently is some report language that is intended to allow the board to continue to review and approve applications, but it would not be able to issue Federal credit instruments. We are told by the financial markets and the airlines this language may not deal with the appropriate issue. If the loan guarantees cannot actually be issued, then the financial markets may not be willing to extend credit. The bill then reduces the loan program from $10 billion to $4 billion--a whopping 60-percent reduction by a stroke of the appropriators' pen. You might say $4 billion is a lot of money, and it is a lot of money; but my understanding is that there is grave concern in the industry that if the number of carriers that are expected to apply do so, a $4 billion level would not be sufficient and, in turn, there would be significant consequences throughout the airline industry. Let me be very clear. I do not support any particular airline's application under this program. It is the stabilization board's discretion to determine if a particular airline is eligible. But there are numerous applications currently pending, and if their applications are approved, they will need the loan guarantees this year. Let me note that the competition in the aviation industry has always been precarious. Since deregulation, national and regional competitive low-cost carriers have sprung up and are considered the driving force behind the benefits of airline deregulation. While some have failed, the entry of low fare competition has been shown to reduce fares and enhance service for the flying public. Any attempt by the Federal Government to predetermine which airline should survive and which should not would upset this precarious balance and could result in detrimental results for the traveling public. Effectively halting this program for the year and cutting it by 60 percent is fundamentally wrong and would have had devastating consequences. We would be changing the rules midstream and impacting fundamental business decisions that companies made based on the existing rules. Let me say that this was avoidable. Any amount of due diligence or communication with the authorizing committee, or the stabilization board, would have alerted the appropriators that their actions could significantly alter the playing field in the airline industry. I believe in the free market perhaps even more so than others, but the events of September 11 were not foreseeable. We made a commitment to the airline industry that we would address their needs collectively, not piecemeal. Yet here we are, 8 months later, pulling the rug out from under them, and the financial markets are reacting and pulling back. This provision, I am sure, will be taken out with a vote that will take place this afternoon. But if airlines had gone under and Members lost service or, more importantly, low-cost competition, I do not think we could complain about the lost jobs in the economy or high airline fares because any Members supporting this provision would only have themselves to blame. I want to speak about the bill for the fiscal year 2002. Before the Memorial Day recess, I stated my strong opposition to moving to consideration of this supplemental appropriations bill without first providing sufficient time for a thorough review of its provisions to ensure that we are acting in a responsible manner. The bill before us today contains $31 billion in Federal spending. That is about $1.6 billion more than the House bill and $4.1 billion over the President's budget request. There is at least $3.1 billion in new spending above the President's request that is not paid for and will only add to our mounting deficits. The Government is already running a deficit of $66.5 billion for the first 7 months of the budget year, a reversal from the $165 billion surplus recorded for the same period a year ago. It does not take an economist to conclude that at the rate we are increasing spending, we will not only post a sizable deficit for the entire fiscal year but in the years to follow. The budget shortfall could total $100 billion or more, perhaps even approaching $150 billion. The bulk of this bill does contain provisions that have been designated as emergencies in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, and I fully support them, but the story does not end there. Can anyone say with a straight face that everything in this bill, which is officially titled ``The 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act for Further Recovery From and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States,'' is directly related to this bill's stated purpose? For example, this bill provides $2 million in emergency funding for the planning and design of an alcohol collection storage facility for the Smithsonian; $10 million in emergency assistance for the State of Texas to provide assistance to agricultural producers with farming or ranching operations along the Rio Grande for economic losses; $6.5 million in emergency assistance for flood control of the Mississippi River and tributaries: Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee. Regretfully, nonemergency porkbarrel spending continues unabated. For example, this bill contains $2.5 million provided in one of last year's appropriations bills dedicated for a cooperative agreement with the National Defense Center of Excellence for Research in Ocean Services to conduct coral mapping--coral mapping--in the waters of the Hawaiian Islands and the surrounding exclusive economic zone; $10 million for flood recovery efforts due to flooding in southern West Virginia, eastern Kentucky, and southwestern Virginia; of the $100 million for watershed and flood prevention operations, $73 million is for recovery activities related to disasters occurring during fiscal year 2002, up to and including flooding in Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, Virginia, and West Virginia; and $50 million for building and facilities construction of the National Animal Disease Laboratory at Ames, IA. Let me repeat that one: $50 million for building and facilities construction of the National Animal Disease Laboratory naturally designated at Ames, IA. The surpluses we relied on last year have largely disappeared due to the recession, the war on terrorism, and the tax cuts enacted last year. It is unfortunate that in a time of war, my colleagues cannot curb their appetite for nonemergency, wasteful spending. At this moment, the national interest must prevail over State or local parochial concerns, but as the farm bill attests, this message has not gotten through to Congress. Let there be no doubt that this will be a long war. Therefore, we should not frivolously spend today as if there is no tomorrow. When tomorrow comes, we must have the fiscal resources to fight this war to victory. As a member of an authorizing committee, I have several concerns about this bill. One is the Aviation Loan Guarantee Program, which I have previously discussed. The bill takes $100 million out of the airport and airway trust fund to reimburse airports for costs associated with new security requirements imposed on or after September 11. There was no statutory authorization to use the trust fund for such purposes, and this funding was not requested by the President. Again, without authorization, we will shift $100 million out of the airport and airway trust fund to reimburse airports for costs associated with new security requirements imposed on or after September 11. The reason there is no statutory authorization for this is that the airports are planning to use this money and have already probably designated a lot of it for airport improvements. The bill also provides $15 million to rehabilitate and extend the service life of the FAA's inventory of certain long-range radars. Although the Appropriations Committee asserts this appropriation is in response to a Department of Defense request, this funding has not been requested by the President and should not be included in this bill. Continued funding for these radars, which were scheduled to be decommissioned this year, is a significant policy change. It should be examined by the agency of jurisdiction and the FAA before funding is allocated. In the aftermath of September 11, Congress made a commitment to the airline industry that we would address their needs collectively, not piecemeal, as I described. This bill includes several other items that are more appropriately within the Senate Commerce Committee's jurisdiction. However, the relationship between funding these items and fighting the war on terrorism is also questionable. Under the Fisheries Finance Program account, this bill provides $5 million for individual quota fishing loans and $19 million for traditional loans under the Direct Loan Program authorized by the Merchant Marine Act of 1926. These authorizations were not even considered by the Commerce Committee. With some limited exceptions, individual quota programs are not allowed under current law. Therefore, this funding will only help fisheries where a quota program already exists, such as a halibut fishery in Alaska. If someone can explain to me how fishing loans have anything to do with responding to the terrorist attacks on our Nation, as this bill suggests, please do so. I eagerly await the explanation. In fact, there is a moratorium on any new quota program being put in place before October 1. So there is not even a need for this authorizing provision. While this was included in the President's request, further investigation has shown that this provision is not needed. This bill also amends the Oceans Act of 2000 to extend the deadline of the ocean commission's report by an additional 11 months. The Oceans Act was drafted by the Commerce Committee, and any amendments to it should have originated there. But, again, the committee was not even consulted. Furthermore, this bill gives $55 million to Amtrak for ``emergency expenses.'' Of that amount, $23 million is earmarked for fleet overhauls and repairs, $20 million is earmarked for repairs of railcars damaged in a series of recent accidents, and $12 million is earmarked to cover security costs incurred by Amtrak since September 11. None of this funding was requested by the administration. Moreover, while the Senate Commerce Committee approved S. 1550, the Rail Security Act of 2001, that measure has yet to be considered by the full Senate. That bill is intended to address Amtrak security and emergency tunnel life safety needs. While funding for legitimate safety and security expenditures is appropriate, funding for fleet overhauls and repairs is not emergency funding. In fact, most of this funding, $43 million of the $55 million, is included in Amtrak's grant request for the next fiscal year, so the funding is obviously not an emergency that should be addressed as part of this bill. Overhauls of passenger equipment are a standard part of Amtrak's maintenance program. In fact, in Amtrak's grant request to Congress for fiscal year 2003, Amtrak describes overhauls as ``a basic level of maintenance to its fleet to ensure that repairs are made for normal wear and tear on nonsafety critical fleet components.'' Amtrak requested these funds for next year. Funds needed in a future year are not an emergency and should not be in this bill. Of the amount for damaged passenger equipment repairs which would cover 51 cars and 5 locomotives, most of the equipment damage was incurred years ago. In one case, it occurred over 10 years ago. How can a train or wreck more than 10 years ago constitute an emergency repair need? In fact, over half the money requested for emergency repairs is for equipment wrecked before 2001. The most egregious fact about this Amtrak funding is that to pay for a portion of it, the appropriators are rescinding $25 million from the State Department's budget for international peacekeeping activities. Get this: We are now taking $25 million from international peacekeeping, at a time when there are enormous problems and challenges throughout the world, to devote that money to routine repairs for Amtrak cars. Remarkable. These funds would otherwise be released with congressional passage of the State Department reauthorization bill to support worldwide peacekeeping activities. I find it impossible to understand how the appropriators can consider nonemergency funding for Amtrak to be a higher priority than funds for international peacekeeping already appropriated in fiscal year 2001. The bill provides $200 million to the Secretary of Transportation to make grants to improve security at our Nation's seaports. This funding would be in addition to the $93.3 million that was already provided in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act 2002 that was enacted last fall. While the Senate has passed S. 1214, the Port and Maritime Security Act, to authorize $80 million annually for port security grants, that legislation has not yet been enacted. This bill provides $27.9 million for the deployment of Operation Safety Commerce, an unauthorized program that is intended to address security vulnerabilities associated with intermodal containers. I strongly support increased security at our Nation's seaports. This program is duplicative of other efforts currently underway at the Department of Transportation and U.S. Customs. The bill also directs pilot projects to be carried out involving, quote, the three largest container load centers in the United States, which are assumed by the appropriators to be the port centers of Seattle-Tacoma, New York-New Jersey, and Los Angeles-Long Beach. This directive fails to give any consideration to which ports are most vulnerable or pose a risk to national security. The bill provides $20 million for intercity bus security. While legislation has been approved by the Commerce Committee to authorize funding for intercity bus security, it has not been considered by the full Senate. This bill ensures that funding distributed under the highway trust fund for the upcoming fiscal year will be increased by at least $4.4 billion over the President's request for fiscal year 2003. I think we knew this funding would be provided even though the President's budget request actually fulfilled the requirements that so many Members voted for when the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century was passed in 1998. But why does this provision need to be included in this supplemental? A sample of other items under the Commerce Committee's jurisdiction that significantly exceed the President's request include the following: $85 million for emergency expenses resulting from the new homeland security activities and increased security standards at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST. Of that funding, the bill directs $40 million for a cyber-security initiative. The President requested $4 million for NIST; $281.7 million over the President's request for the Coast Guard's acquisition, construction and improvements account, but the appropriators have only provided a meager explanation of this allocation which after review could not total $281.7 million; $300 million over the President's request for transportation security administration; $745 million for emergency expenses for FEMA in response to the September 11 attack. The President requested $327 million, less than half the amount provided. A snapshot of items not requested by the President for the fiscal year 2002 supplemental includes the following: $450 million for election reform grants; $23.4 million to address critical mapping and charting backlog requirements with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA; and $3 million to enhance the National Water Level Observation Network. Even though it falls within the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee, the Commerce Committee was not consulted and the provision's relation to emergency homeland security needs is suspect; $16 million for economic assistance to New England fishermen and fishing communities in response to unforeseen circumstances resulting from a Federal court order which restricts the number of days fishermen can fish; $10 million for NOAA for such things as backup capability of satellite services and a supercomputer backup. The bill changes the Advanced Technology Program which currently imposes a ceiling of $60.7 million on the amount of new grants that can be awarded by the end of the fiscal year to establishing a floor of $60.7 million that can be awarded in any new grants by the end of the fiscal year; $1.725 million for the International Trade Administration. ITA has already received a substantial increase in funding during the last few appropriations cycles. The appropriators' practice of legislating on items within the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee knows no bounds. This bill would prohibit the use of funds to implement, enforce, or otherwise abide by the memorandum of understanding between the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice that was signed March 5, 2002. Again, the test whether we are acting responsibly is simple. Just read the title of the bill. This bill is the ``Further Recovery From and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States.'' Any item that is not for this purpose should not be in this bill. Using the guise of responding to the terrorist acts of September 11 to spend Federal funds on items that obviously have nothing to do with fighting terrorism is war profiteering, pure and simple. Such actions do not help the war effort but only do a disservice to the honorable men and women who are on the front line fighting this war. Again, I am very pleased that one of our first actions is to remove one of the most egregious aspects of this bill, and that is the basic emasculation of the Aviation Loan and Stabilization Program. Why it was ever in the bill, of course, escapes my understanding. Perhaps it was going to be one of those deals that would be done, as is so often on these appropriations bills, in such a way that no one would notice, which is the general way that porkbarrel spending ends up enacted into law. So I am pleased we are going to act on it and, of course, we need to have a recorded vote on it to ensure that the will of the Senate is clearly expressed as this bill would go to conference with the other body. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that the President's statement of administration policy dated 4 June 2002 be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. I wonder why there should be an exception made for a managers' amendment and an amendment by Senator Byrd and an amendment by Senator Stevens. Shouldn't all Members be treated the same in this scenario? Why couldn't it be amended to say that all first-degree amendments be filed by whatever date we agreed to, rather than adding a managers' amendment at any time, when we know the havoc that can wreak, in an amendment by Senator Byrd and Senator Stevens; why not add Senator Gramm, Senator McCain and the other 96 Senators, as well?

Mr. McCAIN. Including the managers' amendment?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am always intrigued by a managers' amendment. Some of the greatest damage done around here is a ``managers' amendment.'' The rest of the Members around here are supposed to file our amendments but not managers' amendments. I will not agree to any unanimous consent agreement at any time unless a managers' amendment is filed at the same time as everyone else's amendment. The worst damage, the worst pork-barreling, the egregious stuff done around here is in managers' amendments. The Senator from Texas and I spent several hours late at night last year going through stacks of ``managers' amendments'' that amounted to billions of dollars in porkbarrel spending. I obviously disagree with that, as well. Managers' amendments should be filed at the same time that all other amendments should be filed. Finally, I don't know how the amendment process is going to go, but we are going to go after this porkbarrel spending and we are going to go after it and after it and after it because there is going to be plenty of votes and we may want additional amendments presented in different packages before we agree to any unanimous consent agreement.

Mr. McCAIN. I am happy to yield.

Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, I will be objecting for several reasons. One is that just today we received from the administration a statement of administration policy. I will read from it: If the supplemental appropriations bill were presented to the President in its current form, the senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill. In this message, there are a number of specific items that the President mentions in his message. We will--at least I and the Senator from Texas and others will--try to come forward with a package of amendments that comports with the President's statements. There are a number of specifics in there, many of which we already discovered, some we haven't.

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as we prepare to vote on this historic 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 short- sighted, 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, TPA, 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. As the rest of the world negotiates free trade agreements without our participation, the citizens of this country are losing out. Free trade stimulates economic growth, creates higher paying jobs, reduces the cost of goods and services, and promotes stability in regions of strategic interest to the United States. Somehow, we seem to have lost sight of these overarching goals. The Doha round of World Trade Organization, WTO, negotiations provide an opportunity for the United States to demonstrate to the countries of the world our dedication to reducing barriers to trade on a global scale. Passage of this bill will enable the Administration to negotiate the best possible agreements for America. Beyond the WTO, I look forward to the completion of bilateral trade agreements with Singapore and Chile, the opening of formal negotiations on new trade agreements with nations like Australia, regional accords with the nations of Central America, and ultimately, a Free Trade Agreement of the Americas--a goal articulated by President George H.W. Bush fully a decade ago, and one which we must recommit ourselves and our Latin friends to achieving. One of the most critical and time-sensitive components of this trade package is the extension and expansion of the Andean Trade Preference Act, ATPA. In 1991, ATPA was created to expand the economies of the drug-plagued nations of the Andean region. By granting duty-free and reduced-rate treatment to various products from Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru, we hoped to strengthen the fragile economies of the region, expand their export bases, and provide Andean farmers and workers with legitimate employment outside of the drug trade. The Andean Trade Preference Act has worked. It has created new industries in the Andean region, and with them hundreds of thousands of jobs outside the drug trade. As the region's leaders will attest, it is a success story. Regrettably, ATPA expired on December 4, inflicting immediate harm on the region, because Congress had not taken timely action on legislation to prevent its expiration. The House of Representatives passed an extension and expansion of ATPA over six months ago. On February 15 the President, citing national security concerns, took the unprecedented step of extending a 90-day duty deferral of products under ATPA, giving Congress time to pass an extension. That 90-day deferral expired last week while the trade bill remained mired in partisan debate before the Senate. Our delay in extending and expanding ATPA impacts our national security, stability in the hemisphere, and economic growth in Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. These nations are on the front lines of the war on drugs, their democracies threatened by criminals and terrorists, their people suffering from economic deprivation. It is time we realized the impact our actions and inactions have, not just on the United States, but on the rest of the world as well. Our delayed action has sent the very dangerous message that the United States is no longer engaged in the region. Our hemisphere is in serous trouble. Democracy and free markets are tested by social instability, lack of economic opportunity, and the violence wrought by drug traffickers and terrorist groups. From the FARC and the ELN in Colombia to Hezbollah in Ecuador and elsewhere in our hemisphere, terrorists take advantage of state failure and economic underdevelopment to operate freely, and at grave risk to American interests and those of our allies. The Andean trade act is part of our active engagement in the region, a gateway to economic opportunity and a symbol of America's commitment to the democratic stability and security of our Andean partners. The elected leaders of Ecuador, Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru know that delivering economic opportunity to their people is the best means of protecting democratic institutions and defeating terrorism and the drug trade. They ask not for substantial American assistance, but for access to the American market through free and open trade. This serves not only their interests but our own. Unlike other efforts which provide direct grants, loans, or military assistance, ATPA costs the U.S. nothing. In fact, American workers and consumers benefit from it through reduced prices on goods and services. The U.S. International Trade Commission, ITC, has estimated that U.S. consumers annually save over $20 million due to the benefits of ATPA. In addition to cost savings, the Act also enhances American security. By creating legitimate jobs outside the drug trade, bolstering state institutions, and expanding national economies, terrorists and drug traffickers will no longer find such easy refuge in the Andean region. I regret that we had to consider three very important, and very different, pieces of trade legislation in one package; I believe the end product suffered as a result. Passing these bills in this manner prevented us from adequately debating complicated and questionable provisions. Indeed, this bill is far from perfect. I know that I am not alone in expressing my concern over some of the provisions now contained within this trade package, particularly those which are clearly antithetical to the spirit of free trade. The conferees certainly have their work cut out for them. Although recent actions indicate that we may be taking steps backwards in certain areas, it is incumbent upon the conferees to reaffirm the principles of free trade, and to receive the strongest support from the Administration for their efforts. We must all ensure that we do not sacrifice free trade principles for a bill that is called ``free trade,'' but does something else entirely. Even before Senate passage, efforts in the other body are underway to weaken provisions contained within this package. I hope that these efforts do not succeed. That said, I believe this bill represents an opportunity to end America's dispiriting slide backwards into protectionism. Passage of this imperfect but important trade bill is a good start. It is time for America to again lead the world on trade.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I want to mention just an example of why we need to go through this legislation. It has just been pointed out to me, here is $2 million in this bill, which is entitled ``Supplemental Appropriation Act for Further Recovery from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States''--that is the title of this legislation---- Other related agencies, Smithsonian Institution construction, $2 million: the committee recommends an amount of $2 million within construction to initiate the planning and design of an alcohol collection storage facility. The Smithsonian holds the largest collection of this kind in the world, and at present a large portion of it is stored in the National Museum of Natural History. The Smithsonian has requested this amount and the fiscal year 2003 budget estimate indicates it is a most important safety and security project. Given this information, the committee has advanced the appropriation of funds required in planning and design in order to accelerate the project. All of those bugs that are stored in alcohol in the Smithsonian--when we are trying to recover from and respond to the terrorist attacks on the United States by moving some alcohol encased bugs from one facility to another--this is another example of why in the world we need to examine this legislation. The Senator from Pennsylvania is going to be recognized. There is a provision in this bill that is far more serious than moving bugs stored in alcohol for $2 million. That has to do with the aviation program. The legislation was passed by this body overwhelmingly because of the danger of airlines going bankrupt, and now one major airline at least will not be eligible for loans because there is not enough money there and we are going to see major airlines in America go bankrupt if we don't avoid that. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Isn't it the Senator's recollection that when this side of the aisle was in the majority, the other side always insisted that the appropriations bills come over from the House before the Senate would be allowed to act? Is that not the recollection of the Senator?

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question on that?